集沙門不應拜俗等事 5.8

5.8

I venture to consider: When the purple vapour soared with the Real, the influence of the Mysterious Female spread west; when the white rainbow sank in transformation, the treasury of nirvāṇa flowed east. Reining in feathers and soaring upon clouds, their reflections rested on the Jade Capital, condensing manifold wonders; ferrying with compassion and illuminating quiescence, they opened the Golden Park, harmonizing with the supreme Way. Their doctrines surpass emptiness and existence; their principles penetrate the subtle and silent. They deliver and dispel the benighted dust of ignorance, perfuming and purifying karmic encumbrances. That the spiritual Way aids secular teaching is verified here; clear tracks have already been followed, yet degenerating abuses inherently demand restraint and reform. (Critique: Maintaining the Dharma with detachment is termed a 'degenerating abuse', while violating the scriptures to bow to laypeople is called 'restraint and reform'. When the practical matter itself is intolerable, how can the principle stand?)

Now, as for reverence towards the Three, the six lines of the hexagram elevate the emblems of superior and inferior; as the root of the hundred conducts, the Four Beginnings signal discourse on boundless affection. Only when the root is established does the Way arise; when reverence takes form, rites become solemn. This is truly the beginning of royal transformation, the constant warp of Heaven and Earth. The Buddha takes the Dharma as his master; the sovereign takes Heaven as his standard. Within the realm there are four great things, and the king occupies one of them. Since the kingly way matches them in balance, the heavenly law is fundamentally unified with them. The body is a Dharma vessel, and the Dharma is the root of the Way. Yellow-crowned Daoists admire the Way, and black-robed monks revere the Buddha. In paying reverence to sovereign and father, they profoundly accord with the dark waves of truth. (Critique: The Buddha-Dharma is the most venerable beyond the realm, while the sovereign and Heaven are the greatest within the realm. When the teaching persists yet monks are made to bend their unbridled stance and return to the ranks of registered commoners, this dams the waters of the Dharma so they cannot flow; how could it 'profoundly accord with dark waves'?)

Furthermore, even when someone is only slightly higher in ordination records, one exhausts solemnity in prostrating to him; how much more so when the noble and base are far apart—should one abruptly neglect respect in bending the knee? (Critique: Wang Mi said: 'The reason śramaṇas pay mutual respect between superior and inferior yet stand as equals in etiquette before the imperial residence is truly because, their religious aims being identical, an order between senior and junior is formed; whereas there is a gulf between the mundane and spiritual paths, so in principle there is no bowing down.' True indeed are these words; they may serve as a mirror.)

If one must roam alone through mountain forests, forgetting both self and other, conflating intimate and distant, treating praise and disgrace alike, then when benefit comes to me I would not deem it right, and when loss harms oneself, how could one call it wrong? Naturally, one ought to be obliterated of passions and constantly tranquil in quiescence; why rely on facing toward Kapilavastu to touch one's brow to the ground, or looking upon the Heavenly Worthy to make graceful bows? If one's dusty appearance does not differ from the secular, paying reverence does not contravene the Real. (Critique: Śramaṇas cast aside colored dress and wear black, creating a vast gulf between the sacred and the secular. Bowing violates the Buddha's teaching, as is fully revealed in the scriptural texts. Yet you claim that 'reverence does not contravene the Real' and 'appearance does not differ from the secular'—this is pointing south and calling it north, turning white into black.)

Moreover, Boyang left his instruction on 'softening one's glare', and Sadāparibhūta preached the teaching through constant bowing; these wondrously accord with the virtue of humbling the honored and remotely tally with the rule of illuminating neighbours. (Critique: Boyang was born in the Ji clan of Zhou and served as Clerk of the Pillars. As an official, he held a post in the royal court; as for his words on the Way, they were of a school kindred to the Confucians. Bowing down to sovereign and parents was certainly appropriate for him. As for Sadāparibhūta paying homage to the fourfold assembly, he enacted it based on principle. Principle makes no distinction between enemies and loved ones; he paid homage universally to noble and base alike. The imperial edict, however, restricts it to the supreme authorities and does not decree bowing to the humble and lowly. The Jing and Wei rivers are entirely distinct; they must not be conflated.)

Furthermore, among the Three Extremes, the teacher occupies the lowest place. If reverence is still shown to the branch, why should there be any doubt concerning the root? (Critique: The reason the disciples of the Śākya clan show mutual respect between teacher and student is precisely because their doctrinal principles are not distinct. It is not spoken of in terms of root and branch. How could you be so reckless?)

If one considers that the kāṣāya differs from dragon-embroidered robes, and the gauze kerchief is distinct from the pheasant cap, since the attire is already foreign, why must the bow be Chinese? Let each follow their own origin without violating the standard model. As for those whose pure conduct is one of upright retirement, whose pure rules inspire the secular, whose spiritual transformation echoes far, whose precepts and practice are diligent, whose literary elegance blooms like phoenixes in wutong trees, whose Sanskrit chanting is pure like cranes in the clouds, who summon wild beasts with brocade banners, or control spirits with jade tallies—for those of outstanding virtue and advanced age, exempt them from the bowing ritual. As for the rest, the beginners and junior students whose worldly fame is silent and scarce, order all of them to exhaust reverence toward sovereign and father, and we request that this be promptly codified into permanent statutes. (Critique: If not bowing is wrong, why should those of outstanding virtue and advanced age be exempted? If not bowing is right, junior students and beginners should not be ordered to bow. Moving back and forth, you contradict yourself, and your acceptance and rejection clash with each other. Requesting that this be promptly codified into permanent statutes—how short-sighted is your view!)

In this way, as they advance their virtue and cultivate their vocation, the path of transcending the dust will be all the more elevated; and as they dwell in austerity on their altars, their resolve to enter the Way will be even more spurred. The mysterious influence will thus reach far, and the state's statutes will be harmoniously woven together. We hope this will clearly demonstrate luminous standards and quiet and unify false abuses. (Critique: Taking deviation from the tradition as a luminous standard, and calling the observance of the Dharma a false abuse—judging by this, what in the rest of it is worth looking at?)

Why be constrained by the old when establishing our own precedent? To mirror an extraordinary principle, one must rely on extraordinary illumination. The heavenly mirror and profound perception embody sagacity and discern the subtle, exploring the legacy of principles beyond forms and exhausting the hidden import within the realm. Though this might temporarily startle ordinary ears, it will ultimately harmonize with the Great Way. Respectfully deliberated.