集沙門不應拜俗等事 1.45

1.45

Third Challenge: Recently I received your letter, as well as the treatises of others, none of which has succeeded in resolving my doubts. Approaching them with challenges, they only drift away. Now I restate my previous meaning with detailed care, which I trust will suffice to rein in the galloping horse of debate and show that the regulations are grounded in principle. What the Buddhist teaching values takes spirit alone as most noble. For this reason, master and disciple venerate each other without peer. In general, the brightness or dimness of spirit each has its inherent endowment; what the endowment receives is rooted in its origin. The master's merit lies merely in awakening it, like polishing an uncarved jade from Jing. If the substance is not fine jade, what is the benefit of grinding and polishing? Thus excellence and defect reside in nature; profound virtue lies in the original endowment, whereas the work of polishing is truly secondary. Having embraced the jade within and having been shaped into a vessel by the artisan, without the way of the ruler there would be no means to bring this life to fruition and to realize the Way. Thus among the 'Three Reverences,' the master is the least. Why is this? The way of the ruler encompasses the master, but the master does not encompass the ruler. Teaching to broaden them, law to regulate them—such is the way of the ruler. Is it not so? How could one, based on what is lesser in principle, usurp the reverence due to the honored? Pondering this principle repeatedly, my doubts and astonishment only grow. The intention behind the institutions lies there and not here; applying them erroneously will only cause greater harm. I trust you will grasp the spirit and forget the details, finding insight by the River Hao.