佛祖歷代通載 6.86

6.86

（十六）　咸康六年。成帝幼冲。庾氷以元舅輔政。奏沙門應盡禮王者。尚書令何充等議。不應致拜。下禮官詳議。博士議與充合。而門下承氷風旨為駁。尚書令充僕射褚翌諸葛恢尚書馮懷戴廣等奏曰。世祖武皇帝。以盛明革命。肅祖明皇帝。聰聖玄覽。豈于時沙門不易屈膝。顧以不變其修善之法。所以通天下之志也。臣等謂。宜遵承先帝故事於義為長。氷固謂應盡敬。下制曰。夫萬方殊俗神道難辯。有自來矣。達觀旁通誠當無怪。況跪拜之禮。何必尚然。當後原先王所以尚之之意。豈直好此屈折而坐遘盤辟哉。良有以也。既其有以。將何以易之。然則名禮之設。其無情乎。且今果有佛耶無佛耶。有則其道固弘。無則義將安取。縱其信然。將是方外之事。方外之事豈方內所體。而當矯形體違常度易禮典棄名教。是吾所甚疑也。名教有由來。百代所不廢。昧旦丕顯後世猶殆。殆之為弊其故難尋。而今當遠慕茫昧依稀未分。棄禮於一朝。廢教於當世。使夫凡流傲逸憲度。又是吾所甚疑也。縱其信然。縱其有之。吾將通之於神明。得之於胸懷耳。軌憲宏謨固不可廢之於正朝。凡此等類皆晉民也。論其才智又常人也。而當因所說之難辨。假服飾以凌度。抗殊俗之傲禮。直形骸於萬乘。又是吾所弗取也。諸君並國器也。悟言則當測幽微。論治則當重。

(16) In the sixth year of the Xiankang era, Emperor Cheng was young and tender, and Yu Bing, acting as the regent in his capacity as the elder imperial uncle, memorialised that śramaṇas ought to render full rites [of obeisance] to the ruler. Prefect of the Masters of Writing He Chong and others deliberated that they ought not to perform prostrations. The matter was referred to the ceremonial officials for detailed deliberation, and the erudites' deliberation agreed with Chong. However, the Chancellery, complying with Bing's intentions, rejected their view. Prefect of the Masters of Writing Chong, Vice Directors Chu Yi and Zhuge Hui, and Masters of Writing Feng Huai and Dai Guang and others memorialised: "Emperor Wu, the Martial Ancestor, carried out the revolution through abundant brilliance; Emperor Ming, the Solemn Ancestor, was sagacious and profoundly discerning. Could it be that at that time it was not easy to make śramaṇas bend their knees? Yet taking into consideration that their method of cultivating good should not be altered was precisely how the intentions of the world were brought into accord. Your ministers believe that following and upholding the precedents of the former emperors is superior in righteousness." Bing firmly maintained that they ought to pay full respect, and an imperial edict was issued saying: "Diverse customs in myriad regions and the divine way are difficult to fathom; this has a long history. Those of broad vision and wide comprehension should truly find nothing strange in it. Furthermore, as for the rite of kneeling and bowing, why must it be esteemed? One should investigate back to the intention behind why the former kings esteemed it. Did they merely enjoy this bending and folding of the body, or sitting in formal posture and prostrating? It truly has a reason! Since it has a reason, with what could it be replaced? Thus, when proper rites were established, could they have been without substance? Furthermore, is there indeed a Buddha now, or is there no Buddha? If there is, his way is certainly vast; if not, where is its meaning to be derived? Even granted that it is true, it belongs to matters beyond the mundane realm. How could matters beyond the mundane realm be embodied within the mundane realm, such that one should alter one's bodily form, transgress the regular standards, change the ceremonial canons, and discard the moral teachings? This is what I deeply doubt. Moral teachings have their origin, and have not been discarded for a hundred generations. When the bright day has not yet dawned, subsequent generations still face peril. As for the harm of such peril, its causes are difficult to trace. Yet now, to long from afar for what is indistinct, vague, and undefined, discarding ritual overnight and abolishing teaching in the present age, causing the ordinary populace to haughtily defy the constitutional laws—this is also what I deeply doubt. Even granted that it is true, even granted that he exists, I would merely commune with him through the spiritual mind and grasp him in the breast. The grand schemes of standard ordinances certainly cannot be discarded in the imperial court. All such people are people of the Jin. Assessing their talent and wisdom, they are merely ordinary men. Yet because what is spoken of is difficult to fathom, they borrow vestments to transcend the ordinances, uphold the haughty etiquette of foreign customs, and hold their bodies erect before the sovereign of ten thousand chariots—this again is what I cannot accept. You gentlemen are all pillars of the state. When discoursing, you should fathom what is profound and subtle; when discussing governance, you should esteem..."