佛祖統紀 45.54

45.54

述曰。居士者西竺學佛道者之稱。永叔見祖印。排佛之心已消。故心會其旨。而能以居士自號。又以名其文集。信道之篤於茲可見。然其傳六一。謂以一身老五物之間。五物者身外之餘物。豈足以寓諸道。則知居士之稱。或近於濫。蓋好名而失其實者也。良渚曰。歐陽氏號稱大儒而無通識。以故立論時有乖戾。而為當時君子之所見攻。如議追尊濮王為皇考誤。英宗承大統無人子禮（英宗本生父濮王。及繼仁宗。王珪議宜稱皇伯。歐陽修請如漢宣帝光武稱皇考。范鎮奏。既考仁宗。又考濮王。非是宜。從珪議。司馬光奏。歐陽修巧說誤聽。宜從珪議。呂誨十一奏。乞依王珪。不報。乃與范純臣呂大防合奏。歐陽修首開邪議。韓琦餙非傳會。乞下修于理正其罪。上竟從修議。其後神宗以追尊事與漢宣帝異。以問吳奎。對曰。此誠牽於私恩耳。神宗曰。當時為歐陽修所誤。奎曰。韓琦於此事亦失眾心）謂見在佛不拜過去佛。誣太祖真宗不為佛敬（歐陽歸田錄載。太祖入寺問贊寧。佛當拜否。答曰。見在佛不拜過去佛。今詳贊寧隨吳越王歸京師。在太宗朝未嘗及見太祖。歸田所載妄也。會要國史也。稱真宗每上元詣寺觀三十處百拜以上。歐陽豈不知之。而妄載歸田錄中。上誣兩朝。下誣贊寧。其為過不少矣）削唐太宗戰士建剎之詔。失史官記事之實（太宗正觀三年。詔建義以來隕身戎陳者。為建寺薦福。四年戰場七處建寺成。命虞世南岑文本七人為七寺撰碑。事載舊史。歐陽並刪去之。本朝建隆二年。韶於楊州置建隆寺。為死事者薦福。如唐正觀四年故事。其後王禹偁撰碑。建隆之詔。既指唐朝故事。考之新書則無所可據。使後世有歐陽子修宋史。則將并除建隆之詔矣）謂河圖洛書為怪妄不足信。與易繫辭論語相反（見居士集論易篇）至若著本論。斥佛法為中國患。而晚年敬明教服圓通。稱居士。讀華嚴竟自畔其前說。猶韓退之始排佛而終信服。至哉子瞻之論曰。韓愈之於聖人之道。蓋亦好其名而不樂其實也。其論至於理而不精。往往自畔其說而不知今觀歐陽之始卒。當亦不逃子瞻之論。

The commentary states: 'Layman' (jūshì) is an appellation used in Western India for those who study the Buddhist path. When Yǒngshū met Zuyin, his desire to reject Buddhism had already dissolved. Thus his mind accorded with its principle, and he was able to style himself with the sobriquet 'Layman', and also use it to name his collected writings. His firm faith in the Path can be seen in this. However, his account of the 'Six-One' states that he aged his single person amidst five things. These five things are mere extraneous objects external to the body—how could they be adequate to house the Path? Hence we know that the appellation of 'Layman' bordered on being used improperly, an instance of loving the name while missing the reality. Liangzhu said: 'Master Ōuyáng was renowned as a great scholar, yet lacked penetrating insight. For this reason his arguments were sometimes perverse and contrary, and he was attacked by the gentlemen of his time. For instance, his proposal to posthumously honour the Prince of Pú as the Imperial Father was erroneous, leading Emperor Yīngzōng to receive the Great Succession without observing the propriety of a son. (Note: Emperor Yīngzōng's biological father was the Prince of Pú. When he succeeded Emperor Rénzōng, Wáng Guī argued that he should be addressed as 'Imperial Uncle'. Ōuyáng Xiū petitioned that, following the precedents of Emperor Xuān and Emperor Guāngwǔ of the Hàn, he be addressed as 'Imperial Father'. Fàn Zhèn submitted a memorial stating: 'To treat Rénzōng as a deceased father, and also treat the Prince of Pú as a deceased father, is incorrect. We should follow Guī's proposal.' Sīmǎ Guāng memorialised: 'Ōuyáng Xiū's clever talk misleads your hearing; you should follow Guī's proposal.' Lǚ Huì submitted eleven memorials begging to follow Wáng Guī, without receiving a reply. Thereupon he joined Fàn Chúnrén and Lǚ Dàfáng in a joint memorial stating: 'Ōuyáng Xiū was the first to initiate this heterodox argument, and Hán Qí has glossed over the fault and forced the interpretation. We beg that Xiū be handed over to the judicial officials to determine his punishment.' In the end the Emperor followed Xiū's proposal. Later, Emperor Shénzōng regarded the matter of posthumous honour as different from that of Emperor Xuān of the Hàn, and asked Wú Kuí about it. Wú replied: 'This was truly motivated by personal affection.' Shénzōng said: 'At that time, we were misled by Ōuyáng Xiū.' Kuí said: 'Hán Qí also lost the hearts of the masses on this matter.') He claimed that a present living Buddha does not bow to a past Buddha, thereby slandering Tàizǔ and Zhēnzōng as not showing reverence to the Buddha. (Note: Ōuyáng's Guītián lù records that when Tàizǔ entered a monastery, he asked Zànníng: 'Should I bow to the Buddha?' Zànníng replied: 'A present living Buddha does not bow to a past Buddha.' Now, examining the facts, Zànníng followed the King of Wúyuè to submit to the capital during the reign of Emperor Tàizōng, and had never met Tàizǔ. What is recorded in the Guītián lù is false. The Huìyào is an official state history; it records that at every Lantern Festival Zhēnzōng visited over thirty monasteries and abbeys, making more than a hundred bows. How could Ōuyáng not have known this, yet falsely record it in his Guītián lù? Above, he slanders two imperial reigns; below, he slanders Zànníng. His fault is not small!) He excised Tang Emperor Tàizōng's edict on building monasteries for fallen soldiers, failing to uphold the truth of a historian's records. (Note: In the third year of the Zhèngguān era of Emperor Tàizōng, an edict was issued ordering the construction of monasteries to dedicate merit for those who had fallen in the ranks of the army since the uprising. In the fourth year, the construction of monasteries at seven battlefields was completed, and Yú Shìnán, Cén Wénběn, and five others were ordered to compose stele inscriptions for the seven monasteries. This matter is recorded in the Old History, but Ōuyáng deleted it all. In the second year of the Jiànlóng era of our present dynasty, an edict ordered the establishment of Jiànlóng Monastery in Yángzhōu to dedicate merit for those who died in state service, following the precedent of the fourth year of the Zhèngguān era of the Tang. Later, Wáng Yǔchēng composed a stele inscription. Since the Jiànlóng edict pointed to the precedent of the Tang dynasty, if one consults the New History there is no evidence to be found. If future generations were to have another Master Ōuyáng compile the Song History, he would probably delete the Jiànlóng edict as well!) He claimed that the River Chart and the Luò Inscription were absurdities unworthy of belief, contradicting the Commentary on the Appended Phrases of the Book of Changes and the Analects. (Note: See the essay 'On the Changes' in the Jūshì jí.) As for composing his Benlun, in which he denounced the Buddha Dharma as a calamity to the Central Plains, yet in his later years he revered Míngjiào and submitted to Yuántōng, called himself 'Layman', and read the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, ultimately contradicting his former assertions. He was just like Hán Tuìzhī, who initially opposed Buddhism but in the end had faith and submitted to it. How profound was Zǐzhān's assessment when he said: 'Hán Yù's attitude toward the way of the sages was also merely to love its name without delighting in its reality. When his discussions reached ultimate principle, they were not refined; he frequently contradicted his own words without knowing it.' Now, observing Ōuyáng from beginning to end, he certainly cannot escape Zǐzhān's critique."