佛祖統紀 39.54

39.54

鎧菴曰。君舉必書。故曰史。史者所以記當時失得之迹也。以故惡如弑君必書。醜如蒸母必書。豈以其醜惡而不之記耶。是知修史者不沒其當時善惡之事。斯可為信史也。昔范曄著漢書。西域傳始論佛法。陳壽志三國。則忽而不錄。唐太宗修晉書。於沙門高行時有所取。魏收於北史著佛老志。李延壽於南史作顧歡傳。凡帝王公卿毀讚佛老者。莫不悉載。其於二教之偏正優劣。當年今日未嘗不明識所歸。歐陽氏之修唐書五代史也。於佛老之事則刪之。夫唐書唐家之正史。非歐陽之私書也。借使不足法。論之可也。豈當以己所不好而悉刪之耶。是知無通識者。不足以當修史之任也。夫佛法之取舍。大較係乎人之好惡。韓歐司馬始不好佛。遇事立言。必有詆訶。及退之問道於大顛。永叔聞法於圓通。君實廣文中子之言。而作禪頌。言為百世師。行為天下法。為賢為大聖。是名佛菩薩（禪頌六章見司馬公文集）是三賢者。始惡而終好之。惜乎聞道之晚。而其先出之言莫可收也。吁佛法之取舍。果在於人之好惡。可不審乎哉。

Kāi'ān said: What a ruler does must be written down; hence it is called history. History is that which records the traces of success and failure of the time. Therefore, an evil act such as regicide must be written down, and a scandal such as incestuous relations with one's father's concubines must be written down. How could one fail to record it merely because it is scandalous or evil? Thus we know that when historians do not suppress the good and evil deeds of their times, only then can it be considered authentic history. Anciently, when Fan Ye wrote the Book of the Later Han, he first discussed the Buddhist teachings in the 'Traditions on the Western Regions'. When Chen Shou wrote the Records of the Three Kingdoms, he neglected and did not record it. When Emperor Taizong of Tang compiled the Book of Jin, he occasionally drew upon the eminent conduct of monks. Wei Shou wrote the 'Treatise on Buddhism and Daoism' in the History of the Northern Dynasties, and Li Yanshou composed the biography of Gu Huan in the History of the Southern Dynasties. Whenever emperors, kings, ministers, or high officials defamed or praised Buddhism and Daoism, there was none that was not fully recorded. As for the bias, correctness, superiority, and inferiority of the two teachings, neither then nor today has there ever been a failure to understand clearly where they belong. When Mr. Ouyang compiled the Tang History and the History of the Five Dynasties, he deleted matters concerning Buddhism and Daoism. Now the Tang History is the official history of the Tang dynasty, not Ouyang's private book! Even supposing [certain matters] were not worthy of being taken as models, discussing them would have been permissible; how could he delete them entirely according to his personal dislikes? From this we know that one who lacks comprehensive understanding is unfit to assume the responsibility of compiling history. Generally, the acceptance or rejection of the Buddha's teaching is largely dependent on human likes and dislikes. Han [Yu], Ouyang [Xiu], and Sima [Guang] at first disliked Buddhism. Whenever an occasion arose and they made statements, they would inevitably criticize it. But when Tuizhi (Han Yu) inquired about the Way from Dadian, when Yongshu (Ouyang Xiu) heard the Dharma from Yuantong, and when Junshi (Sima Guang) expanded on the words of Wenzhongzi and composed the 'Chan Eulogies', saying, 'His words are a teacher for a hundred generations; his actions are a model for all under heaven; being a worthy and a great sage, this is called a Buddha or bodhisattva' (six stanzas of Chan Eulogies appear in Lord Sima's Collected Works)—these three worthies disliked it at the beginning and liked it in the end. It is regrettable that they heard the Way so late, and their earlier pronouncements could not be retracted. Alas! If the acceptance and rejection of the Buddha's teaching indeed depend on human likes and dislikes, can one not be discerning?