T2102 The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Vol. II

Letter Given to Meditation Master [Huiyi] to Discuss the Manner of Eating while Squatting with Raised Heels

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II and [Zhong]hua (i.e., Shun) [Buddhism] was still not clear, and [this teaching] was not apparent in the time of King Wen and King Xuan [of the Zhou dynasty]. It is not the case that [Confucianism and Buddhism] take different paths because their purposes are separate from each other. Presumably their doctrines are equal, yet both were frustrated.

Who can make a forced interpretation of your deep and profound thought through a range of careless words? [Probably] I have absurdly made an erroneous statement because I am careless, ambitious, and too hasty. Letter Given to Meditation Master [Huiyi]

to Discuss the Manner of Eating

while Squatting with Raised Heels

by Zheng Daozi

Sages' instructions are [intended] to cultivate the basis and remove nonessentials. They establish teachings in accordance with people's minds and fit [the teachings] for practical use on the basis of actualities. There has not been [a teaching] that greatly edifies the people while opposing human nature and disregarding the human body.

Even though [śramaṇas] appear different from secular people and their task keeps aloof from the world, regarding the rule of paying respect and the courtesy of yielding politely, bowing with one's hands folded in front: these [actions] come from one's most sincere heart and there is no difference between Buddhist clergy and laypeople [in this regard]. Therefore, when [Buddhist monks] perform purification and give a series of lectures, they prepare the Dharma robe. There is an order in worship and a system in sequence. When respect fills one's mind a person pays respects outwardly. [The Chinese manner of] bowing with one's head to the ground [is approved of, while] the [Buddhist] manner of squatting with raised heels is not. The [Chinese] manner of pulling the lapels of the garments together, respectfully saluting, and bowing ten times is not something with which the easy, informal sitting style practiced by Buddhists is concerned. [Śramaṇas,] however, consider the manner of eating while squatting with raised heels to be [advantageous] for mental function, and that abandoning [Chinese] deportment is [advisable] for teaching and leading ordinary people of the secular 180

Fascicle Twelve

world. Here, facts and reason go against each other. I do not see a common aspect in them.

In the teachings of phenomena, each [teaching] has significance. With regard to the Banzhou [sanmei] (Skt. Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi), the body is tormented in order to maintain the [Buddhist] Way. [A practitioner] dear to the [Buddhist] Way neglects his body. There is a reason for practicing in this way and a basis for employing [this practice]. In the instruction on the manner of eating while squatting with raised heels, there is nothing to propagate in reason. Even if we employ [this manner] it is not [a practice] to torment the body. If we [practice] passively we pass on contempt to the later world. One who sees the manner but does not reach its essence loses his feeling to pay respect and expresses surprise and disdain. Is this the principle that sages establish teachings on the basis of actualities, and that the ceremonial caps [of the Yin dynasty] were not suitable for the Yue region [where the people cut their hair and tattooed their bodies, and therefore they had no use for a cap]?

When we examine from what [these teachings] arise we find that some derive from the characteristics of foreign lands. Some come from remediation and indicate that there is something from which one is rescued. This is just as when one suddenly falls ill and takes medication as an emergency measure, but [the emergency medicine is] not intended to be used for a long time. [In Buddhism] the form and the teaching fit each other and the actualities and principles are systematic. [Buddhists] have already set up the system of the three robes and perform worship. They discipline themselves with the Dharma drum and line up in accordance with their rank. When they squat with raised heels in such an environment, how could this be seen as the systematic [manner] and rudeness going against each other? In the past it was proper and appropriate for the situation. At most it is just a one-day-only engagement; it cannot be an instruction for a long time. Reason is understandable. Therefore, many people ask about perfect virtue, which is the foundation to return to propriety.

287 Today [śramaṇas] meditate and reform their minds

but they adhere to this custom and never depart from it. This is already insignificant in reason and poor in function as well. Truly there is something I have not understood, but I dare not [sufficiently] display what I have in my mind. I, Zheng Jun, bow with my head to the ground.

181

Letter Given to Minister of Education andCultural Affairs Wang [Hong] and AllOthers in Order to Discuss BuddhistMonks’ Manner of Eating WhileSquatting with Raised Heelsby Fan Bolun

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II 77c

Letter Given to Minister of Education and

Cultural Affairs Wang [Hong] and All

Others in Order to Discuss Buddhist

Monks' Manner of Eating While

Squatting with Raised Heels

by Fan Bolun

I, Fan Tai (i.e., Fan Bolun [355-428]), respectfully address the high-ranking officials and many wise people.

Śramaṇas of today have two different sitting styles, [formal and informal]. 288 It seems that this was not so at Qiyuan Temple in the past. Even today foreign languages differ from our language and [the standard] by which we adapt or reject something differs from theirs, too. Sages establish laws complying with secular customs and propagate teachings according to each region. We have not yet changed our language. Why is it necessary to take the trouble to make our system the same as theirs? Nevertheless, a state should not have two rulers. How can there be lack of uniformity in one hall? At the present time, however, each person believes in biased views and thinks that he himself is correct and [all] others are wrong. No one examines the [original] intention of making, they only consider that echoing another's views is good. There is no master to control this. Consequently, the situation has led to the present state. One who has no intention to disinterestedly receive others' [opinions] employs his mind to adhere to [biased views]. He does not seek the reality of the fish and the rabbit and vies with others in attacking the insignificance of [using] stakes [to catch fish] and snares [to catch rabbits]. If this trend is not reformed it will be difficult to attain the Way. The king of the [bodhi] tree, [Śākyamuni,] attained right, perfect enlightenment in the sixth year [of his cultivation]. For the first time he clarified the profound teaching and personally expounded it while sitting on a raised seat. All those in the audience sat with crossed legs; they did not adopt the informal style of squatting with raised heels. Meditation aims at stabilizing [the mind] and its meaning is not to squat with raised heels and wait for someone to come. The good point of eating while squatting with raised heels lies in eating not in order to be sated. This is entirely the easy, informal method of one country and not the common system of the world. 182

Fascicle Twelve

In addition, there is no decorum for wearing clothes made of hemp rags in cold rural areas, and there is no rule [that stipulates] wearing a [heavy] felt garment in sunny southern regions. Based on this, considering the early time when Great King Yu took off his clothes [to enter the country of the naked people], we cannot say that they had no [decorum of wearing] ceremonial caps. I beg each of you to give up [your own views] altogether and entrust the issue to gentlemen who have compromised their views. I, Fan Tai, am an insignificant person. I positively hope [that the manner shown] in today's dinner gathering is equal. I am uncertain of anything before and after this. Harmony is valued in [practicing the rules of] propriety. 289The

rules for Buddhist monks esteem equality.

Presently we ascend to the refectory (zhaitang) and face the sacred images, as if spirits exist in them. As for the eight sages of the four stages of sainthood [of Hinayana Buddhism], we have no different statement in principle. We would rather temporarily try to leave behind our ego than be self-conceited. When Eminent Shi [Daoan] resided in Xiangyang the easy, informal squatting style had already been introduced [into China], but he did not think to change [the traditional Chinese way]. He must have had his intention for this. Accordingly, he abandoned his walking stick and rode on the Imperial carriage.

290 The meaning for this lies in that [Daoan acted] in the same way as did secular people. Recently, in Meditation Master [Buddhabhadra's] grand assembly at the [Jiankang] seminary, [Buddhist monks] adopted the formal sitting posture. Isn't this because major points are kept and minor points are omitted, and it is not necessary in reason that [two different ways] be practiced concurrently?

The formal sitting posture is taken regardless of time but the easy, informal squatting posture is done at fixed times. If one adopts the formal sitting posture it is difficult to continually adjust to a different way, but it is easy to keep the same way when one experiences an unsual event. Moreover, regarding the issue that a host humbles himself and pays respects to his guest, there is a reason for this. I have inquired of Eminent [Hui]yi about this but I have not yet been rewarded with any answer from him at all. Therefore I respectfully address you, the people who agree with my opinion, and seek a common opinion. I pray that you will kindly give me a surplus of coughs and sneezes to cover my weak and cowardly mind. 183

78a

Shi Huiyi’s Letter in Response to Fan Bolun

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II Shi Huiyi's Letter in Response

to Fan Bolun

Fifty [monks], including Shi Huiyi of Qiyuan Temple, respectfully address all our donors.

In the conventional way of śramaṇas we should precisely abide by the sutras and Vinaya texts sincerely, and consider faith and obedience [to the Buddhist teaching] as the foundation. If a śramaṇaintends to act contrary to sutras and violate Vinaya [texts] and considers his own mind as his teacher and that he himself is right, such a case is serious trouble for the great Dharma and the worst in defiling the [Buddhist] Way.

In the precepts established by the Tathāgata there are [actions that are] approved and [actions that are] prohibited. The approved [actions] are namely those one carries out with no doubt, and the prohibited [actions] are those one does not venture to violate. [For instance,] a precept prevents śramaṇas from touching females with their hands and bodies and from being close to them. [This led to the case that] when all those who observe the precepts met with an accident in which their own mothers were cast adrift and about to drown in deep waters, even if they could see [the danger of the women dying] no one ventured to rescue them [because of the precept against touching females]. Thereupon people of the world said,

"Śramaṇas have no mercy. In such a situation, where is the [Buddhist] Way?" So the Tathāgata, [in order to remove] the ridicule and suspicion of people of the world, initiated a precept to counter balance this, which allowed [śramaṇas] to rescue [women] from difficulties [even if it means that they have to have contact with a female body]. The precepts established by the Tathāgata are in a uniform system and we should positively follow them with faith and carry them out. How could it be allowed that we arbitrarily revise [the precepts] from our own will? Even scholars of shallow learning esteem to follow faithfully the expression "the fifth, summer (xia wu)" [found in Zuozhuan], and they dare not add the Chinese character "month" (yue) to it.

291This is intended to seriously prevent

people from offering far-fetched explanations and to eradicate those who are fond of new things and pleased with peculiar things. Moreover, the precepts were instituted by the one who possesses the three transcendental knowledges (the Buddha). How could we venture to recklessly adjust them [for our convenience]? 184

Fascicle Twelve

You, our donor Fan, intend to cause these monks to change from the easy, informal [squatting] style to the formal sitting style, in order to seek harmony without difference. Even if you wish for the beauty of harmony, if you do not use the [Buddhist] Way to create harmony, this means to exactly seek unity, not harmony.

From the time monks came to reside at Qiyuan Temple up to the Dharma assembly [at this time], there have been two groups: those who adopt the formal sitting style and those who take the easy, informal [squatting] style. Since there is no testimony in sutras and Vinaya texts [about this matter], it is no trivial matter if you suddenly intend to change the Buddhist Dharma. Truly we dare not agree with you.

It has been a long time since the time this temple received the Mahā sāṃghika-vinaya(Mohe sengqi lü). Furthermore in this Vinaya [text] there are clear descriptions altogether in eight items that stipulate the method of eating while [squatting] in the easy, informal style. If there was originally no establishment of eating while squatting in the easy, informal style, then the full set of two hundred fifty [precepts for bhikṣus] would not exist. The descriptions include "Food cannot be placed on a bed [that is also used as a meditation seat],

" and "Food you wish to discard should be placed beside your right foot.

" It also says "You cannot squat with your knees apart and put one calf over the other.

" Aren't these clear testimonies for eating while

squatting in the easy, informal style? Buddhist precepts (Skt. śīla) and the Vinaya are [the mystical lore of the] śramaṇas. No one except the king can participate in hearing them.

Today you, our donors, all have doubts about the two sitting styles, the formal and the informal, and you wish to make [the formal style] flourish and reject [the informal style]. It is impossible for me to not weigh the significance [of these two sitting styles]. I have briefly given several articles in order to show their basis. I will accept the burden of the sin of announcing our precepts publicly.

The rise and fall of the Buddhist Dharma depend on all our donors. When the Buddhist Dharma flourishes we mutually attain the great achievement of protecting the Dharma, but when it declines we all certainly incur the sin of the destruction of the Dharma. I pray that you will think of this thrice and not cause yourselves to have regret in the other world as well as in this world. 185

78b

[Fan Bolun’s] Response to Eminent [Hui]yi

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II [Fan Bolun's] Response to

Eminent [Hui]yi

I reply to you.

My previous discussion already included all the statements I will make here. You, Holy Priest, have a strong will and a brave spirit. [Consequently] you simply did not seek [to understand my intention].

Precepts are for the prevention of evils. If there is no evil, why would precepts be necessary? Thus I, an ignorant person, am confused about this. The precepts alter rules in accordance with customs. In China originally the informal sitting style, squatting with raised heels, was not practiced. We follow the rules against collecting the remains and crossing one's legs. Therefore, [the informal sitting style] can be omitted. As for the precept regarding eating with the hands, there is no written instruction for the use of a spoon and chopsticks. Why do you value the precept for the easy, informal sitting style and slight the precept for eating with the hands? According to the precepts [monks] cannot bring their hands close to females, yet subsequently it is allowable for [monks] to rescue their mothers from drowning [which requires them to touch their mother's bodies]. This is a case that causes ordinary people to have doubt. As a matter of fact, this was sufficient cause to revise the precepts established by the Sage. Increasingly we know that the two hundred and fifty [precepts] are not spontaneous, permanent laws. If this is the case, firmly observing [the precepts] does not mean to completely attain all [rules] and it is unworthy to be very surprised if one takes his own mind as his teacher.

It is not doubtful for us to adhere to the rule for the omission in the phrase "the fifth, summer.

" If clear and prudent views are understandable, how can you be unsettled in minding other people's opinions? As for the significance of squatting with raised heels, the intention lies in this posture being suitable to move forward, but if one wants to act quickly [usually] things cannot be carried out well. When one [who is familiar with squatting with raised heels] formally sits up straight, he is uneasy in that posture. Sometimes there is a haughty person, but this is originally not what decorum allows. Regarding the two different sitting styles in the same temple hall, your party is confused and no one seizes the drift [of the questions]. My party is 186

Fascicle Twelve

me alone, without companions. Why do I venture to deal with the great lines of fifty [monks]? Here I will employ the strategy of "being afraid of an enemy and keeping silence.

" I hope this is the best relief.

Fan Bolun's Letter Given to

the Two Dharma Teachers

[Zhu Dao]sheng and

[Hui]guan

Foreign customs naturally differ from ours. When Saṃghadeva first came [to China], monks such as [Hui]yi and [Hui]guan all received his favor and admired him with praise. [What Saṃghadeva brought] was, however, merely the Hinayana teaching. [Monks] thought that this teaching was the ultimate doctrine and said that all Mahayana scriptures of nonarising were the writings of demons. The last time Saṃghadeva expounded Buddhist scriptures he did not ascend to a raised seat.

Faxian later returned to [China] and the Nirvana Sutrawas chanted for the first time. [Monks] then thought that [this scripture] consists of words of eternality and the best of various doctrines, and that the ultimate fundamentals of the transcendental wisdom entirely derive from this. Inferring from this, [monks] have no subjectivity within themselves and when they hear [something new] they always change [their thinking]. If we compare this to shooting [in competition], the shooter who shot last was defeated and divests the shooter who shot first of the point. So we see that foreign precepts are not fixed laws.

[Monks of] the school that adopts the informal sitting style have no time to sit in the formal style. When they expound the Dharma on a raised seat they sit in the style of squatting with raised heels. The hands are mostly used in the foreign manner of eating. In the precepts there is no mention of using a spoon and chopsticks. Huiyi's group of monks is aware of this but they have never converted [to the practice of using their hands to eat]. Regarding the informal sitting style, [however,] they have practiced this style for a long time and feel no shame in being in conformity with it. They contradict themselves. Who can understand this [contradiction]? I, your disciple, always think that making a mistake along with others is wiser than being proud of my own [view]. To infer my mind and be delighted 78c

187

Petitions Presented to the Throne to Discuss the Manner of Eating while Squatting with Raised Heels by Fan Bolun

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II with aligning myself with others is not to venture to allow myself to seek straightness. Today's laypeople who revere the Dharma should never wear foreign clothes. Why do śramaṇas seem to have a hard time in keeping the rule of the informal sitting style?

Petitions Presented to the Throne to

Discuss the Manner of Eating while

Squatting with Raised Heels

by Fan Bolun

[First Petition]

I, your subject, speak.

Your Majesty (i.e., Emperor Wen, r. 424-453) acquires mastery of the Buddhist doctrines and you are about to attain its highest perfection. With your lofty aspiration you anticipate what is far-reaching. You examine the essentials and go into details. I, however, regret that you do not enlighten me as much as you did in former days, and it is not easy for me to respond to you and enhance [Buddhism].

I have had faith in the great Dharma since the time I was young. I have accumulated the practices for wholesome nature. I often hear additional discussions [of Buddhism] and somewhat understand the profound foundation of the teaching. I formerly attended near the Imperial Throne and received unmerited favor and guidance from you. My thoughts are vulgar and I am slow of speech. So I could not help you understand issues that I tried to convey. My regret for this will not come to an end in my lifetime. I recently criticized Huiyi's assertion of eating while squatting with raised heels. This is because of my trivial thought to keep in perfect step [with others]; it is not because I dare seek to be better than others. I strained my ears in a lower seat and heard that [my criticism about eating while squatting with raised heels] had already reached your ears.

I ask you to understand that this matter is a local manner of one country, and not a universal, eternal system. Foreign customs are not the same as ours and [foreign] languages differ from ours as well. Sages do not change their language. Why must only [Chinese monks] trouble themselves to change their actions? Language is a means to express one's thoughts. When a thought has been conveyed the language [used to express it] is forgotten. Deportment is a 188

Fascicle Twelve

means to keep respect. Once respect has been established, the form [of one's deportment] is discontinued. Therefore, sages establish the precepts in light of actualities and change laws in accordance with customs. When one reaches the Way it can be all right if he follows no regulation. I think that if preventive measures become more numerous, to decide what to adopt and what to reject depends on the current of the times, and to judge what to continue and what to stop is simply up to reason. Isn't it despicable [to stick to a fixed idea, just like] gluing the bridges [on a Chinese large harp], or waiting by a stump [hoping that other hares will come by that spot because a hare was once caught there]?

Śramaṇas of today guide people skillfully but they do not have a vital point to their way. Each of them believes in his own views. Few monks can accept another's views without bias. Consequently, they vie with their fellow monks from the same temple hall in asserting peculiar views and they do not harmonize with the peaceful world. I personally feel ashamed of this; how much more so do your other subjects who are more talented than I am? Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs [Wang Hong (379-432)], who is knowledgeable and whose realization is justified, does not consider my assertion wrong. The celebrated people of the present day do not have much sincere faith in the [Buddhist] Way. They have decided nothing beforehand in their intentions. So they consider following both styles [of sitting] to be good and remaining unsettled to be great. If we set up the system according to this, would [the muddy water of] the Yellow River become clear? Huiyan and Daosheng (355-434) originally did not squat with raised heels. Huiguan appears to regret his initial standpoint [on this]. I humbly think that you, Your Majesty, have already made up your mind. At present I do not hope that you will issue an Imperial decree alone. However, if you give the gist of the Imperial decree to a prime minister, the people below him will see this and be educated. Who can say that he will not consent to this? The august virtue of Your Majesty is about to reach remote areas. Writing systems and the width of cart axles will be standardized. No matter how trivial such minor differences may seem, they should not be allowed to continually increase. If we do not cut the fresh green plants now, we will have to look for an ax later. Therefore it is proper to cause no one, from the people close to you to those who are far from you, to think of disobeying you. 189

[Imperial Decree in Response to Fan Bolun]

79a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II When [the Jin dynasty] was restored in the Jiangzuo area (i.e., Jiangsu province), [Śrīmitra, the Buddhist monk who expounded while sitting on] a raised seat, came [to the capital]. He loved China and enjoyed his stay. He did not say anything about this system (i.e., eating while squatting with raised heels). Eminent Shi [Daoan] had the most sincere faith in Buddhism; he did not suffer from the restriction [of eating while squatting with raised heels]. He knew of this style of eating yet he did not adopt it. It seems that he had a reason for this. Kumārajīva was excellent, unrestricted, and immeasurably [great]. He took the tonsure, but neither did he sit in the easy, informal style nor eat while squatting with raised heels. Facts like these should also be taken into account. When Meditation Master [Buddhabhadra] came to [Chang'an] for the first time, he visited the imperial palace and asked for an audience with the emperor. He wanted to go into [the palace] with his meditation couch and squat with raised heels. This was unacceptable in principle. Consequently, he was not permitted to visit [the imperial palace]. Later, when monks gathered at Dong'an Temple they surely did not eat while sitting in the informal style. These are past events of former dynasties that I personally observed. Humbly, yours.

[Second Petition]

I, your subject, speak.

Your Majesty, you recently made an Imperial visit to Qiyuan Temple, where I insistently begged you for a eulogy to be inscribed on a monument. I recall that it seemed to me that you had approved this. So soon after the Imperial carriage returned [to the palace], paying reverence to you I precisely engraved the three Chinese characters huang, di,and zan(i.e., the emperor's eulogy) on the monument. I will submissively accept a demerit for my arbitrary action. As for registering merit in the other world, I do not know how to cultivate for salvation. If you bestow on me your writing of several Chinese characters, I will die but my body will suffer no decay. With [your eulogy], social mores will be greatly encouraged. There will be benefits and no loss. If you do not have time to do this because of your heavy workload, please let your intention be known to your subjects who can assist you with this. How could your vassal, the Left Scribe or the Imperial Guard, not have the utmost sincerity to render service? Why then are the cases of Pi Chen, [who 190

Fascicle Twleve

made the rough draught of governmental notifications,] and Shi Shu, [who examined and discussed its contents,] examples of remote ages?292We should not trouble your mind. This is also the intention of high ministers who wear the ceremonial cap.

I left the service a long time ago and my days are drawing to a close. My only petty concerns are in regard to my next existence. I receive deep and significant favor from you, as well as a generous salary. When I think of myself, I have in the end no requital of your kindness to the world over which you rule. I bow with my head to the ground, and with sincerity [equal to that of the spirit of the person who] tied grass [in order to help Wei Ke in repayment of his kindness],

293 I pray that Your Majesty will take pity on me and will not blame me for my statement.

[Imperial Decree in Response

to Fan Bolun]

The Imperial decree is here given.

I know that you have debated with Huiyi regarding the manner of eating while squatting with raised heels. Recently I further heard a rough outline of your opinion, which does not differ from the purpose of your report. I, however, have not read Buddhist scriptures. There is simply no way to manage this issue with my views. I have no idea what Huiyan thinks. Daosheng is far apart from agreeing with [Huiyi]. Huiguan appears unwilling to repent of his original standpoint [and amend his ways]. Can you yourself seek a point of agreement with all Buddhist monks these days? As for the eulogy for the monument at Qiyuan Temple, I do not recall giving you permission. Since [making eulogies] is not something I have learned and, in addition I have no time to do so, I am unable to grant your request. I am terribly sorry about this.

[Third Petition]

I, your subject, speak.

I received with respect the brilliant Imperial decree, for which I am very much obliged to you. It is unworthy to relate my narrow and biased view, but since it has already reached you I would rather not keep silent. In the Imperial decree of today you order me to further seek a point of agreement 191

Report to the Throne Regarding the Issue that Śramaṇas Should Not Bow [tothe King] by Director of the Imperial Secretariat He Chong

79b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II [with all monks]. Here, following my wild impulse, I will explicate a longcherished thought. I think that wherever principles exist it is fortunately possible to not harm an intention by a composition. None of the Five Thearchs followed the ceremonies of his predecessor, and none of the Three Kings adopted the music of his predecessor. 294 In

reforming the world with the mandate of Heaven and following the current of the times, the significance is completely great. Zhuangzi compared ancient times and the present time to a boat and a carriage.

295 Mencius thought that

it would be better to be without books than to believe in them exclusively. 296

Therefore, [the son who] testified [that his father had stolen] a sheep is not upright.

297I have heard that employing these two ways causes the Great Way to be pursued and the whole world to become one family. My case is a trifling matter, simply the unification of the system in one temple hall. Moreover, [eating while squatting with raised heels] is a foreign custom and a local system; it is originally not a reasonable teaching. [Hui]yi, [Dao]sheng, and [Hui]guan attained favor and broadly make contact with the Imperial will. If they have questions to ask me, I hope that I will respond to them through relying on principles. [I also wish that] they dare not advance themselves by trusting merely in numbers in order to outdo the other party. The answers Huiguan gave me all lack a reasonable basis. He only praised me excessively and disparaged me as having a thousand faults. Inferring from this, I doubt if he is truly remorseful. He has not yet returned to wholesomeness and expressed words of submission. Your vassal, [Wang] Hong, also says that my assertion is correct. The lines of Huiyi's great troops have already collapsed and the paths to flee in retreat and hide are closed. He relies on this [monk] (i.e., Huiguan) to rescue them but it is difficult for him to escape from there. Moreover, the virtuous person who is in charge of the tallies is above them.

298 Even if he explains everything away, he will know

that he has gotten into a scrape. I recently criticized Huiguan. I then submitted a petition to the Throne again and gave evidence [for my assertion]. I am silly and petty. Though I have tried to be intelligent I have reached an extremely old age [without achieving this]. Not only are my words unsuitable but I fear deeply that I am not aware of my own confusion. The Imperial Guard retainers are really in high repute of the day, but they will not be able 192

Fascicle Twelve

to sympathize with my inclination and admonish my incompetent points, either. These are all my faults that I invited onto myself. I humbly pray that Your Majesty will accept my earnest sincerity and not consider my poor knowledge to be a fault and become disgusted by my rudeness. I personally rely on my old age which, as the classic states, is not subject to punishment.

299

Report to the Throne Regarding the

Issue that Śramaṇas Should Not Bow [to

the King] by Director of the Imperial

Secretariat He Chong

[Preface]

In the sixth year of Xiankang of the Jin dynasty (340), Emperor Cheng (321-342) was still young and Yu Bing assisted him in political affairs. [Yu Bing] said that śramaṇas should bow to the king. Officials such as Director of the Imperial Secretariat He Chong said that śramaṇas do not have to do so, and ordered the officials of the Chamberlain for Ceremonials to debate [the subject] at length. The opinion of the Erudite [of the Chamberlain for Ceremonials] was the same as [He] Chong's, but the Chancellery supported [Yu] Bing and refuted [He Chong's view]. [Therefore,] officials such as Director of the Imperial Secretariat He Chong, Chief Administrators Chu She and Zhuge Hui,

300and Feng Huai and Xie Guang of the Imperial Secretary made a report [to the Throne] that śramaṇas do not have to bow [to the king]. [Report to the Throne]

We, [He] Chong (292-346), Director of the Imperial Secretariat, Army Commander, General of the Pacification Army, and Chief Township Marquis; [Chu] She, Cavalier Attendant-in-Ordinary, Left Supervisor, and Count of Changping; [Zhuge] Hui, Cavalier Attendant-in-Ordinary, Right Supervisor, and Count of Jian'an; [Feng] Huai, Imperial Secretary and Marquis of Guanzhong; and [Xie] Guang, Probationary, Imperial Secretary, and Viscount of Chang'an, speak. Shizu, Emperor Wu, reformed the world with the mandate of Heaven [and established the Jin dynasty] with his abundant intelligence. Suzu, Emperor Ming, who was quick in apprehension and of far-reaching intelligence, viewed everything with a tranquil mind. Wouldn't it have been easy for the śramaṇas 193

The Imperial Decree on Behalf of Emperor Cheng of the Jin Dynasty Composed by Yu Bing, Who Admonishes the Purport [of the Report] Again and Thinks that Śramaṇas Should Bow to the King

79c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II of their days to kneel [and bow to them]? [Both emperors,] however, regarded the permanence of the [śramaṇas'] way of doing good acts (i.e., not bowing to the king) to be a reason to facilitate the determination [of the people] of the world. We humbly think that you should follow the historical example of these preceding emperors, which is excellent in reason. The Imperial Decree on Behalf of Emperor

Cheng of the Jin Dynasty Composed by

Yu Bing, Who Admonishes the Purport

[of the Report] Again and Thinks that

Śramaṇas Should Bow to the King

All nations have different customs and the Way of the Spirit is difficult to discern. These facts are based in what they derive from. If we take a philosophic view of the object and closely understand it, there is really nothing strange, not to mention the [issue of] saluting in the kneeling-to-worship style. Why must anyone feel strange about this practice? We should trace back to the original intention with which the preceding emperors esteemed it. Were they simply fond of this style of bending one's body and from their seats meeting people circumambulating them [when they withdraw]? Certainly this was not the case. Based on the respect between father and son, the order between the king and his vassals was established, laws and institutions were set up, and considerate treatment was honored. How can these be done meaninglessly? There is a deep reason. Since there is a reason, why must we change it? If this is the case, when the teaching on morality and ethics (i.e., Confucianism) and the framing of ceremonies were established, was there no reasoning behind them?

Moreover, does the Buddha exist, or not, as a matter of fact? If the Buddha exists, his Way is assuredly magnanimous. If there is no Buddha, what significance can we obtain [from kneeling to worship]? Following [his Way] and believing that it is right is a matter for Buddhist monks. How could a matter for Buddhist monks become something that people of the secular world have to carry out? [Buddhist monks], however, deform their physical appearance, avoid ordinary duties, change the statutes of ceremonies, and reject the teaching on morality and ethics (i.e., Confucianism). This is something by which I am surprised. 194

Fascicle Twelve

The teaching on morality and ethics has a long history. It is not discontinued no matter how many generations pass. [The inscription on the tripod of Chan says,] "You may get up early in the morning and [study to] become greatly distinguished, but in future generations [your descendants] will still become idle.

"301Regarding the bad aspect that [one's descendents] will become idle, it is difficult to discern the cause. If today we adore something that is far away and uncertain, rely on something faint and undistinguished, reject our proprieties suddenly, and discontinue the teachings of the present age, we will cause ordinary people to haughtily go against the constitution. This is also something by which I am surprised.

Even if [the Buddhist Way] is truly so [great], and even if [the Buddha] actually exists, I will understand these issues with my intelligence and keep them in mind. Rules, laws, and magnificent models should assuredly not be discontinued in the Imperial court. All these kinds of people (i.e., Buddhist monks) are the nation of the Jin dynasty. Speaking of their intelligence, they are only ordinary people, too. Nevertheless, because what they assert is difficult to argue against, they avail themselves of outrageous costumes and accessories, set up haughty decorum based on strange customs, and do not bow down even before the emperor who commands ten thousand chariots. This is again something I cannot accept.

You, gentlemen, are all people of talent of our country. When you hear reasonable words you will survey what is obscure. When you speak of governing the nation you must honor national laws. If you do not do so, of what shall I give an account?

Second Report to the Throne by Director

of the Imperial Secretariat He Chong

and Officials such as Chu She,

Zhuge Hui, Feng Huai,

and Xie Guang

We, [He] Chong, Director of the Imperial Secretariat, Army Commander, General of the Pacification Army, and Chief Township Marquis; [Chu] She, Cavalier Attendant-in-Ordinary, Left Supervisor, and Count of Changping; [Zhuge] Hui, Cavalier Attendant-in-Ordinary, Right Supervisor, and Count of Jian'an; [Feng] Huai, Imperial Secretary and Marquis of Guanzhong; and 195

Emperor Cheng’s Second Imperial Decree

80a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II [Xie] Guang, Probationary, Imperial Secretary, and Viscount of Chang'an, speak.

The Imperial decree is just as found above.

We are ignorant and witless. We do not deserve to glorify the Imperial will and to propagate the great righteousness. We humbly examined the brilliant Imperial decree. We now tremble in fear and confusion. Together we all promptly inquired into the details. The issue of whether or not the Buddha exists is assuredly not something we can determine. Never theless, when we look into the scriptures that have been left to us and intensively study their essential points, [we find that] the prescription of the five precepts truly helps the king's edification for the people. [Buddhists] despise actions that are taken obviously to seek fame, and they value the imperceptible secret fidelity. To practice virtue lies in forgetting oneself. To stick to one principle (baoyi) is the purity and wondrousness of the mind. Moreover, from the time of the Han dynasty [when Buddhism was] introduced [to China] up to the present day, even though the Dharma has risen and fallen there has not been any harm of weirdness and absurdity. The Way of the Spirit (i.e., Buddhism) has prevailed for a long time. There is no other case like this. One who curses has loss, and one who prays must gain benefit. From the bottom of our hearts we truly wish that [Buddhist monks' prayers, which are] as insignificant as dust and dew, will increase [Your Majesty's] benefaction, which is as lofty as Mount Song and Mount Tai, and that their unimportant prayers will enable [Your Majesty] to manage the most important rules to govern the world. [Nevertheless,] if you even once order [monks] to bow to you, you will consequently destroy the Dharma and cause the custom of cultivating wholesomeness to be discontinued in your holy world. If an [obsolete] custom becomes a common practice, an unhappy and fearful situation will certainly occur. We are concerned about these things and our minds quietly grow uneasy.

Even though we are ignorant, how could we dare confuse and misguide Your Majesty's ears with our biased views? We simply think that [Buddhism] has prevailed through the three dynasties (i.e., Han, Wei, and Jin) and that intelligent and enlightened rulers have appeared one after another. Presently, even if we do not create a new law [mandating that śramaṇas must bow to the king], there will be no shortage of the king's law, and it is possible that 196

Fascicle Twelve

there would be no hindrance of the rules of the other world. For these reasons, we again express our sincerity. We beg you to graciously examine this. Humbly yours.

Emperor Cheng's Second

Imperial Decree

I examined the report in which you fully explained your situation and intention. The issue of the other world truly cannot be completely explained with allegories. The general idea [of the Buddhist netherworld] is, however, simply that conventional rules between human beings and spirits are overstated and classified examples are briefly added to them.

In all cases, when various kings institute laws, even though they emphasize substance or rhetorical embellishments that follow the tendency of the times, it is unprecedented for foreign customs to be mingled with political affairs, and for weird and absurd stories to be mixed into the edification. Is it because the sages of former times were not intelligent but sages of the later age are knowledgeable?

Moreover, the minor good conduct outlined in the five precepts was roughly drawn up and modeled after the [five] principles of human relationships [of Confucianism]. Nevertheless, do [Buddhist monks] omit [all practices of] decorum and homage for the ruler of the times? Decorum is important and paying homage is significant. The general rules of government administration reach an extreme at this point. The emperor who commands ten thousand chariots is superior not from [his own] choice, and the people of his territory are his inferiors not by [their own] preference. Nevertheless, even if the difference between superiors and inferiors is not arranged, the king's teaching must be unified. If there are two [paths] in the king's teaching the world becomes disordered. This is why the sage kings of former times established constitutions, and those who assume the responsibility of governing the country should not be misled. People of all-around talent extensively collect [knowledge] and they often study the principles [of Buddhism]. They may cultivate themselves [in Buddhism] in private but not on the level of the nation and the Imperial court. Wouldn't this [therefore] mean to stay away from [Buddhism]? I examined your statement. Sure enough, you have not been able to determine whether 197

Third Report to the Throne Regarding the Issue that [Śramaṇas] Should Not Bow [to the King] by Officials such as Director of the Imperial Secretariat He Chong and [Left] Supervisor Chu She

80b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II or not [the Buddha] exists. Even if you know [that the Buddha exists], I still say that [Buddhism] cannot be a part of state affairs, not to mention the case of [the Buddha] not existing at all. Should we allow both [Chinese and Buddhist decorum] to be practiced?

Third Report to the Throne Regarding the

Issue that [Śramaṇas] Should Not Bow [to

the King] by Officials such as Director

of the Imperial Secretariat He Chong

and [Left] Supervisor Chu She

Even though we are quite ignorant and do not thoroughly understand your profound intention, regarding the thought to follow assiduously, day and night, your virtue and magnanimity, how could we hold fast to narrow biased views and throw important [human] relations into disorder? Simply, from the time of the Han and Wei dynasties up to the time of the Jin dynasty, we have not heard that there were objections [to Buddhist monks' decorum] and there was no case in which the statutes of superior and inferior were damaged even for a short time.

Today śramaṇas are earnestly prudent in observing the precepts and they exercise decorum. This is simply the same as [our exercising Chinese decorum]. Regarding those who seriously observe the precepts, they do not spare even their own lives. How could they then dare neglect decorum and homage in order to be particular about [bowing] their bodies? Every time we see [Buddhist monks] burn incense and pray, they assuredly first offer prayers for the country and wish for the prosperity [of the country] with divine help. Their [earnest] feelings are boundless. They spontaneously admire the king and honor obedience. The simplicity of their decorum is probably because they concentrate their attention on abiding by the Dharma. Therefore, in ancient times the former sage kings followed [the śramaṇas] and did not change [their decorum].

"The meshes of the heavenly net are large, far apart, yet they let nothing escape.

"302We consider with reverence that even if we do not have [śramaṇas] bow [to the king], no damage is done to the laws of the land. If we favor people according to what benefits them, and if we cause none among the wise and the ignorant to dare not exert his mind, then what we have above 198

Fascicle Twelve

will be an extensive government, just as "Heaven overspreads all and Earth supports all,

"303 and what we have below will be people who preserve one principle and cultivate wholesomeness.

We have sincerely restated our fatuous and shallow [views]. We pray that you will graciously examine [our report].

Sincerely yours.

[Epilogue]

At this time, Yu Bing's opinion [that śramaṇas should bow to the king] came to an end and [the requirement that śramaṇas'] must bow [to the king] was not applied after all.

Letter Given to the Eight Executives

to Discuss Buddhist Monks' Bowing

[to the King] by Huan Xuan

I, Xuan, bow twice and speak. I bow with my head to the ground. The eighth day of the month is approaching.

Formerly śramaṇas did not bow to kings at all. Even though He [Chong] and Yu [Bing] have already debated this matter and both presented their opinions, neither of them submitted to the other logically. Yu [Bing's] intention lies in respecting the ruler, but he has not completely established the basis of his reason. Because of his strong inclination toward faith [in Buddhism], He [Chong] consequently lost the essence of his name. 304

Even though the Buddha's edification is endlessly vast and infers the world beyond the visual and aural senses, respect is considered to be its foundation. On this point, there is no difference between [Buddhist] clergy and laypeople. I assume that what they aspire for may differ but this does not mean that respect should be abolished.

In the Laozi[Dao de jing], princes are considered equal to the three great elements: [Heaven, Earth, and the Way]. When [we examine] why they are considered to be so important, [we find that the reason] lies entirely in that they support [all things] to grow and [the heavenly bodies] to move smoothly. [Otherwise,] how could they be referred to as equal to the two polarities, [Heaven and Earth], only for the reason that sages occupy the throne? [As the Book of Changessays,] "The great virtue of Heaven and Earth is called 199

The Eight Executives’ Response

80c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II life.

" [The virtue] to make life all over the country and arrange all things lies in sovereigns. Therefore, we respect the throne and we are gloriously courteous to it. How could we vainly revere and value them? The significance is simply in the fact that sovereigns control [all things].

The reason śramaṇas are born in succession and live with support is also that they are every day under government ordinances [made by sovereigns]. How could it be that [śramaṇas] enjoy the virtue [given by sovereigns] and abandon courtesy [toward the sovereigns], or benefit from [sovereigns'] kindness but reject [the propriety of] paying respect to them?305 Inasmuch as this is not allowed in reason, neither is it tolerable in sentiment. For such a serious matter to our generation, we must together seek an appropriate idea. Moreover, we should thoroughly study this in a body. You should have a complete conclusion by this coming eighth day of the month. I, Huan Xuan, bow twice, and bow down with my head to the ground. The Eight Executives'

Response

(This piece of writing came from a historical fact.)

We, Huan Qian, General of the Capital Army, Director of the Imperial Secretariat, and Dynasty-founding Marquis of Yiyang, and others, fearing the death penalty, respectfully received your instruction to require śramaṇas to bow to the king. [You say that] even though He [Chong] and Yu [Bing] have debated [this matter] the issue has not been completely examined and, since this is a serious matter, an appropriate conclusion should be made. Everything is truly as you have said.

Nevertheless, the Buddhist Dharma and the teaching of Laozi and Confucius are separate from each other in tenor and entirely go against each other in terms of ethical education. [Chinese] people consider their hair and skin to be valuable, while [Buddhist monks] do not question shaving off their hair. [Buddhist monks] renounce the world, abandon their parents, and do not think that being respectfully attentive to their parents is filial piety. They view their bodies [as being as insignificant as] a clod of dirt or a piece of wood; they cut off desires and stop competing. They do not expect anything in this existence and seek for bliss beyond myriads of kalpas. They keep away from all the things that are considered honorable in the secular 200

Fascicle Twelve

world, and in their intention they completely cut off what is valued in ethical education.

"The service due to a father is employed in serving a ruler. "306

[This phrase shows that] the relationship with one's blood relatives is considered to be the most important [in ethical education]. [Buddhist monks, however,] leave behind even love for their relatives. How would it be possible that they would bow to the emperor who commands ten thousand chariots? Taking the tide as it comes, they naturally cope with discontinuing [the requirement to bow to the king].

Through the three dynasties (Han, Wei, and Jin) we have allowed [Buddhism] to take its own course. This is because [the people thought that] spirits have no set rules, and so they also did not control [what Buddhist monks do]. In the world that is beyond the visual and aural senses there is probably a separate reason. Even if today we require śramaṇas to bow [to the king], we fear that we have to change many things [related to this]; the issue is not only about bowing [to the king] with one's head to the ground and then standing up. Furthermore, the fact that the king deferentially follows the Dharma is due to his own respect [for Buddhism]. It is incomprehensible that he would believe in Buddhist doctrines yet want to change [Buddhist] deportment. To conform [to the present situation] and allow śramaṇas to be as they are is the magnificence of "letting the people act freely and exercising forbearance. "307Secretariat Director Wang [Mi] responded to your criticism separately. Zhang Chang of Confucius' kingdom is over there; I think you have already inquired of his [group] face-to-face what they have in mind. 308All Buddhist

monks, including Daobao, deserve to requite your lofty purpose. We do not know Buddhist doctrines. We have written here in accordance with what we feel. We are ashamed that our statement is unworthy for you to read. We, [Huan] Qian and others, are afraid of being sentenced with the death penalty.

Letter Given to Secretariat Director

Wang [Mi] to Discuss the Issue that

Buddhist Monks Should Bow

to the King by Huan Xuan

Śramaṇas reject bowing to the Most August. I feel that this is an awkward situation and a matter of grave concern of our generation. We should discuss 201

Letter in Response to Huan [Xuan] by Secretariat Director Wang [Mi]

81a

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II this fully together. I have already sent my letter to the Eight Executives in the capital. Today I give this letter to you. You are the one who is capable of managing this matter. I look forward to hearing your virtuous opinion. Letter in Response to Huan

[Xuan] by Secretariat

Director Wang [Mi]

Wang Mi, General of the Palace Guard, Minister of the Ministry of Personnel, Secretariat Director, and Baron of Wugang, fearing the death penalty, respectfully received your instruction, which refers to the fact that Buddhist monks reject bowing to the Most August. I read your letter, which was given to the Eight Executives at the same time.

I fully understand your lofty purpose. Both the expression and principle of your patient assertion are of the utmost. Recently I briefly heard the impartial way but I have not yet completely investigated the issue. I examined the two purposes of He [Chong] and Yu [Bing]. I also regret that they have not fully [discussed the issue]. I think that these two [gentlemen's] debate has faltered in biased views. They have not pressed the point to make it clearly understandable. This is truly as you have pointed out.

The Buddhist Dharma arose in and came from India. Its foundation is deep and it is difficult to express in words. Since [some aspects of the foundation] became doctrines, we can roughly speak of it. I think that every place has its unique customs. Although what the people are content with varies in each place, as far as the principles by which their ruler reigns over the people are concerned, it is hardly possible that nothing is the same.

Today, even though śramaṇas are deeply respectful [to the king] in their minds, they do not consider bending their bodies [to bow down] to be a courtesy. [Monks] are those whose footprints fill this land and yet whose interest goes beyond the boundaries of this world. Therefore, every king of a foreign country humbly shows courtesy to them. This is really to value that the Way exists, not merely to weigh the importance on account of a [particular] individual. I think that it has been really a long time since the great Dharma began to be circulated [in China]. It has been more than four hundred years and three dynasties have elapsed. Even though our customs have changed and government 202

Fascicle Twelve

has shifted, there is no change in the fact that [the great Dharma] is propagated. Wouldn't this be because the teaching of splendid isolation is beneficial for edifying the people little by little in daily life, and the clean and simple style [of Buddhism] does no harm to worldly prosperity and peace? Therefore kings behave themselves prudently and do not feel sad about having fewer households (i.e., taxpayers) [because Buddhist monks are exempt from taxation]. Śramaṇas protect the truth and make no question of going against worldly affairs. I heard that you said,

"[The virtue] to make life all over the country and

arrange all things lies in sovereigns.

" When I examine what it is to which

all principles return, it is really just as you have argued. I read your virtuous letter three times and still cannot stop rereading it. Even though I wish to respectfully reply to you, I have no words. I still think that one whose achievement is lofty is not rewarded, and one whose benevolence is deep is not given grateful acknowledgement. Even if [śramaṇas] were to bow to [the king], would this be enough for them to respond to the kindness with which he aids and leads them?

With favorable consideration you did not forget me and asked me for my vulgar opinion. I have arbitrarily and frankly expressed my foolish views. I would simply not like to cause you to detest what I have reported. I pray that you will not reject my words merely because they are from me. At the moment I finished my statement, I felt restless.

I, [Wang] Mi, am afraid of the death penalty.

Criticism [to Wang Mi]

by Huan [Xuan]

You wrote in your letter,

"Even though śramaṇas are deeply respectful [to

the king] in their minds, they do not consider bending their bodies [to bow down] to be a courtesy.

"

I criticize this, saying,

"Regarding śramaṇas' reverence, how could they

all neglect it in their outward form and keep it only in their minds? When they repent and worship, they do so in a serious [manner]. Here, in regard to this matter (i.e., extending one's greeting), monks—from a teacher (Skt. śāstṛ) up to a senior priest who supervises the ceremonies and services of a temple—all [pay respect]. There is only a minor difference in their system from that of people in general who bow with their hands folded in front while 203

Second Response by Lord [Wang Mi]

81b

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II kneeling. Since they cannot forget the form [they follow] over there, why then do they disregard the style of deportment here?

"Moreover, [in Buddhism], regarding the reason to become a teacher, they consider awakening through helping others to be virtuous. The way of the ruler is to make life possible throughout the country. Therefore, this principle should lie at the foundation. How could the meaning of the three most revered people (ruler, father, and teacher) not be the very pinnacle of reason and feeling?" You wrote in your letter,

"[Therefore,] every king of a foreign country

humbly shows courtesy to [Buddhist monks]. This is really to value that the Way exists, not merely to weigh the importance on account of a [particular] individual.

"

I criticize this, saying,

"It is not appropriate to compare [our king] to those

of foreign countries. In [the place] Buddhism originated we can see its tenor. Isn't it the case that since the six barbarian tribes are disobedient and strong and cannot be educated by normal teachings, therefore, by the great establishment of a mysterious and strange [teaching, the Buddha] aroused awe and they then submitted [to the teaching]? Having already aroused awe in them and gained their submission, the Buddha later caused them to follow the rules. This is probably based on the fact that [the barbarians] were basically fearful of the reward and retribution of spiritual beings. How can this be said to be reverence for the profound and wondrous Way? You said, 'This is really

to value that the Way exists.

" [The reality] differs from your purpose. How

could it be possible that if one merely puts on a Dharma robe the Way [then] exists within him? If the Way first exists and only later is deemed valuable, as you said, the way of sages would therefore be the culmination of the Way. In the homage paid to a ruler by his subjects courtesy would be deeper. In such a situation, how could it be possible that the reason śramaṇas do not bow [to the king] is because 'the Way exists' is considered to be valuable?" You wrote in your letter,

"[Since the great Dharma began to be circulated

in China] it has been [more than] four hundred years and three dynasties have elapsed. [Even though our customs have changed and government has shifted,] there is no change in the fact that [the great Dharma] is propagated. Wouldn't this be because the teaching of splendid isolation is beneficial for edifying the people little by little in daily life, and the clean and simple style [of Buddhism] does no harm to worldly prosperity and peace?" 204

Fascicle Twelve

I criticize this, saying,

"The fact that [Buddhism] has not changed over

the duration of [the three dynasties] cannot be considered as a testimony. Formerly there was almost no one among the Chinese who believed in the Buddha. All śramaṇas and their followers were various kinds of foreigners. Moreover, the [Chinese] kings did not make contact with [foreign śramaṇas and their followers]. [The kings] simply let them practice their own local customs without restriction. Presently His Majesty believes in the Buddha and is on intimate terms with [śramaṇas] in Buddhist services. The [present] situation is different from that of former times. Why, then, should we not have ratification of the Buddhists' decorum? '[Buddhism is beneficial] in daily life' and 'the clean and simple [style]' is helpful in teaching the people' —this is entirely as you have said, but this is likely the achievement of the Buddhist Dharma, not a benefit brought about by śramaṇas' boasting. If we are sincerely respectful to [śramaṇas] now there will be nothing more to strengthen their help [in edifying the people].

"

You wrote in your letter,

"One whose achievement is lofty is not rewarded,

and one whose benevolence is deep is not given grateful acknowledgement. Even if [śramaṇas] were to bow to [the king], would this be enough for them to respond to the kindness with which he aids and leads them?" I criticize this, saying,

"The utmost degree of reason is not recompensed.

This is really as you pointed out in your letter. Nevertheless, in our sentiments, when [the ruler's kindness] is boundless our respect for him naturally follows. This is why sages establish courtesy according to human feelings and lead each person to that to which he entrusts himself. If gratitude is always to be omitted when the achievement is deep and there is great benevolence, is Śākyamuni's virtue deep or shallow? If it is shallow, we should not throw important [human] relations into disorder [in order to follow] his minor ways. If it is deep, how could it be possible that [śramaṇas] seriously pay respect among themselves yet reject bowing [to the king]?"

Second Response by

Lord [Wang Mi]

You criticized,

"Regarding śramaṇas' reverence, how could they all neglect it in their outward form and keep it only in their minds? When they repent and worship they do so in a serious [manner].

"

205

81c

The Collection for the Propagation and Clarification of Buddhism, Volume II I reply,

"The way of śramaṇas originally takes reverence to be primary. Since [śramaṇas] are simply different from us (i.e., secular people) on the path to ferry [beings to the yonder shore], they do not bow [to the king,] according to what is right. Consequently, even though families and relatives are important, the physical form of showing courtesy [toward one's families and relatives] becomes insignificant. The reason śramaṇas admire and respect their teachers and senior monks is truly because when they share the same goal younger monks give precedence to elders, and in their relationships with [their teachers and senior monks] who support and lead them to [the goal] their actions comply with their minds. Originally, although the Buddhist Dharma is vast it does not abandon minor wholesome conduct. Reward complies with even small merit. 'Many a little [bit] makes a mountain.

' The meaning of this is apparent here.

"

You criticized,

"The way of the ruler is to make life possible throughout the country. Therefore, this principle should lie at the foundation. How could the meaning of the three most revered people not be the very pinnacle of reason and feeling?" I reply,

"The way of the ruler is to make life possible throughout the country; that is to say, it is the same, in reason, as the Creator. [The Creator] makes all things and spreads [life-giving] vapor all over, and its achievement is magnanimous. Nevertheless, it has never been the case that those who receive its blessings are thankful to [the Creator] for them. No one has felt obligated to the foundation of reason (i.e., the Creator). Why? It is truly because the foundation of profundity is quiet and remote and not something that can be shown in physical and phenomenal objects. The principle of moving [Heaven and Earth] smoothly is wondrous. How can we requite it through our poor conduct? Therefore, Confucius says,

'[The people] may be made to follow

[a course of action] but they may not be made to understand it. '309 That is

what this means.

"

You criticized,

"It is not appropriate to compare [our king] to those of foreign countries. In [the place] Buddhism originated we can see its tenor. Isn't it the case that since the six barbarian tribes are disobedient and strong and cannot be educated by normal teachings, therefore, by the great establishment of a mysterious and strange [teaching, the Buddha] aroused awe and they then submitted [to the teaching]?"

206

Fascicle Twelve

I reply,

"[Sages] established their instructions in accordance with the Way of the Spirit,

310 which is really difficult to discern in language. I think that [the Buddha] shows [the law of] reward and retribution by the great establishment of the mysterious and strange [teaching]. This is the superlative reason of the truth; [the effect follows the cause, just as] a shadow [follows a form] and an echo [follows a sound]. This is the fundamental essence of Buddhism. If we think now that [the teaching of] the three periods of existence is false and absurd and [the teaching of] weal and woe [as the result of good and bad conduct] is a threat, then what Śākyamuni clarified has nearly no standpoint.

"I usually think that the edification of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius is to rescue [the world] from a very harmful situation. Consequently, [the instructions] spoken by them are limited to a lifetime and do not explain the path [of the principle of causality] for myriads of kalpas. Nevertheless, when we deeply inquire about their purport we can also often find [teachings similar to those of Buddhism]. [Chinese teachings such as] being a filial child, showing respect to one's elder siblings, and being benevolent and righteous unexpectedly clarify that [such teachings] are spontaneously the same [as those of Buddhism]. Compassion and mercy are certainly observed in [the Chinese law regarding] the destruction of life according to the four seasons. Furthermore, [Confucius] admonished and stopped Zhong You (i.e., Zilu) from asking [about death and spirits].

311 It also appears that he had a profound purpose [for doing so]. The style of the teaching [of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius], however, differs from [that of Buddhism]. Therefore these points are usually obscure. I calmly looked into this issue. It is mostly so. It is nearly so. "

You criticized,

"In the homage paid to a ruler by his subjects courtesy would be deeper. In such a situation how could it be possible that the reason śramaṇas do not bow [to the king] is because 'the Way exists' is considered to be valuable?"

I reply,

"I reexamined your lofty discussion. You think that the way of the ruler moves [Heaven and Earth] smoothly and [that the ruler] is the same as the three great elements (Heaven, Earth, and the Way) in reason. Regarding this issue, I have already presented my vulgar opinion. I think that as far as the way of the ruler and his people is concerned, I personally agree with your lofty purport. Regarding the homage paid to a ruler by his subjects, the principle 207