[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大宋僧史略](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126) › 2.42 # 大宋僧史略 2.42 大宋僧史略 2.42 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.2.42) 佛法通行。朝代更歷。未全鼎成。則置而勿論。及動時君。則入宮見妬。加以僧乘時而炫曜。法因事而仳離。乃與玄門抗衡角力。因有諍故遂結朋黨。由朋黨故遂生愛憎焉。經中不許親近國王大臣王子等。又云。我法付囑王臣者何。若以倚傍力輪。苟不親近。而可得乎。若以招致殃咎。苟欲榮身。其可免乎。觀其末代。垢重情移。奉身而已。罕聞為教而觀近國王大臣也。脫或唯居蘭若。不履朝門。誰強召呼。誰分著定。則何班位之有。然以但思獨善。專事杜多。則王侯何以委知。大力曷能扶翼。故須分其表位廁其班行。去取二情各有意致。昔者教之東演也。漢魏之世或曰渺茫。晉宋以來頗聞烜赫。若其玄玄之道老氏之風。於漢魏時。存亡而已。何其知邪。如馬遷作史。將老子與韓非共傳。可非漢代未崇重之乎。夫立傳同科。權其趣類相齊。則史官列而偶出也。是知伯陽之道前漢未光。東漢桓帝方遣中官。醮祀祈福。魏黃初三年。下勅曰。告豫州刺史。老聃賢人未宜先孔子。不知魯郡為孔子立廟成未。漢桓帝不師聖法。正以嬖臣而事老子。欲以求福。良足笑也。此祠之興由桓帝也。武皇帝以老子賢人不毀其道。朕亦以此亭當路。往來者輒往瞻視。而樓屋傾頓儻能壓人。故令修整。昨過視之。殊整頓矣。恐小人謂此為神。妄往禱祀犯乎常禁。宜宣告吏民咸使聞知。由是觀之。漢魏之間。未露鋒穎至唐有羊角之現。厥道攸興。認作祖宗。冊為帝號。此君謂為雄。誰敢不雄。若史遷在唐作傳。必改為帝紀也。以仲尼同傳猶謂鴻毛不敵鈞石也。豈得韓非妄參廁邪。漢魏之人覽馬史者。豈驚駭乎。驚駭不倫者。近世之情也。然則物隨黨別。事逐時移。預三恪者。不免舊訛。有萬邦者。豈無新意。朱梁革命。勅改亳州太清宮。為老子廟。蓋由帝代無定愛憎不同。釋氏雖西來客教。自晉宋齊梁陳後魏北齊後周大隋。僧班皆在黃冠之上。梁武捨道不齒玄門。黃冠之徒固難爭長。唐貞觀十一年。駕幸洛陽。道士先有與僧論者。聞之於太宗。乃下詔曰。今鼎祚克昌。既憑上德之慶。天下大定。亦賴無為之功。宜有解張闡茲玄化。自今以後齋供行立。至於稱謂。道士女冠可在僧尼之上。庶敦反本之俗。暢於九有。貽諸萬葉。時京邑智寶上表陳諫不聽。自此僧班在下矣。至十五年。帝幸弘福寺。賜大德五人座曰。朕宗李在先。大德大應恨恨。以宗先故。朕見修功德。不曾別造道觀。皆崇寺宇也。如此宣慰。諸僧心皆喜躍。及高宗朝。有直東臺舍人憑神德上表。請仍舊僧尼在道士前。并依前不拜父母。辭繁不錄。則天天授二年四月。詔令釋教在道門之上。僧尼處道士女冠之前。睿宗景雲元年二月。詔以釋典玄宗理均迹異。拯人救俗。教別功齊。自今每緣法事集會。僧尼道士女冠宜行並集（此不分前後齊行東西也）。 > When the Buddha's teaching spread and dynasties succeeded one another, while it had not yet fully matured as an established institution, matters were left aside and not discussed. But once it moved the rulers of the age, it entered the palace and aroused jealousy. In addition, monks seized the moment to show off, and the Dharma was compromised on account of worldly affairs; thus they contended and vied in strength with the Daoists. Because there was contention, factions formed; and because factions formed, love and hatred arose. The scriptures forbid being familiar with kings, ministers, and princes, yet they also say, 'I entrust my Dharma to kings and ministers'—how is this? If one relies on their wheels of power, can one obtain it without being close to them? If this invites calamity, can one who merely seeks personal glory avoid it? Looking at later ages, defilements are heavy and dispositions have changed; they only serve themselves, and one rarely hears of approaching kings and ministers for the sake of the teaching. If they had merely dwelled in monasteries and never set foot in court gates, who would have forcibly summoned them, and who would have fixed their ranks? Then what protocol of court rank would there have been? However, if they only think of personal perfection and devote themselves exclusively to ascetic practices (dhūta), how would kings and nobles know of them, and how could those of great power support them? Therefore, their public seats had to be distinguished and their positions in court ranks assigned; the two attitudes of rejection and acceptance each had their reasons. In ancient times, when the teaching spread eastward, during the Han and Wei eras it was said to be dim and faint, but from the Jin and Song onward it was heard to be illustrious. As for the profound Dao and the tradition of Laozi, in the Han and Wei periods it merely existed on the brink of survival; how could anyone know it? For instance, when Sima Qian wrote his history, he placed Laozi and Han Fei in the same biography; was this not because the Han did not honor him? To establish biographies in the same category balances their types as equals, so the court historians paired and presented them together. Thus we know that Boyang's Dao did not shine in the Former Han. It was only during the Eastern Han that Emperor Huan dispatched eunuchs to offer sacrifices and pray for blessings. In the third year of the Huangchu era of the Wei, an edict was issued: 'Tell the Inspector of Yuzhou that Lao Dan was a worthy man and should not precede Confucius. I do not know whether the temple established for Confucius in Lu Commandery is completed yet. Emperor Huan of the Han did not model himself on the sacred methods, but merely served Laozi on account of a favored minister, seeking blessings thereby; this is truly laughable. The rise of this shrine originated with Emperor Huan. Emperor Wu \[Cao Cao\] considered Laozi a worthy man and did not destroy his Dao. I also consider this pavilion to be beside the road; travelers frequently go to gaze at it, yet the buildings are dilapidated and might collapse on someone, so I ordered them repaired. Yesterday I passed by and inspected it; it is exceedingly well arranged. I fear the common people will consider this a spirit and recklessly go to pray, violating the standard prohibitions. Let this be proclaimed to officials and commoners so that all may know.' Viewed from this, between the Han and Wei it had not yet shown its prominence. But reaching the Tang, with the manifestation of the whirlwind, his Dao flourished; they recognized him as their ancestor and enfeoffed him with imperial titles. When the ruler declares him preeminent, who dares not consider him preeminent? Had Sima Qian written his biographies during the Tang, he would certainly have changed it to an imperial annal. Even pairing him with Confucius would have been seen as a goose feather not balancing a heavy weight; how could Han Fei have been rashly included with him? Could the people of the Han and Wei reading Sima's history have been astonished? It is only the sentiment of recent ages to be astonished at this disparity. Thus things vary with factions, and affairs shift with time. Those who partake of the Three Guests cannot avoid the old errors, and those who possess the myriad states—how could they lack new ideas? When the Zhu Liang dynasty changed the mandate, an edict changed the Taiqing Palace in Bozhou to a Temple of Laozi; this was simply because imperial lineages have no fixed rule and their loves and hatreds differ. Although the Śākya clan is a foreign teaching from the west, through the Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Chen, Later Wei, Northern Qi, Later Zhou, and Great Sui, the monks' rank was always above the Daoist priests. Emperor Wu of the Liang abandoned Daoism and refused to associate with the Daoists, so the followers of the yellow cap could hardly contend for precedence. In the eleventh year of the Zhenguan era of the Tang, when the emperor visited Luoyang, Daoist priests had previously debated with monks; this was reported to Taizong, who thereupon issued an edict saying: 'Now the imperial line flourishes greatly, relying on the blessings of superior virtue, and all under Heaven is firmly settled, depending on the efficacy of non-action (wuwei). We ought to unfold and propagate this profound transformation. From now on, in vegetarian feasts and court assemblies, and down to titles of address, Daoist priests and Daoist nuns may take precedence over monks and nuns, so as to promote the custom of returning to the origin, spread it through the nine regions, and bequeath it for myriad generations.' At that time Zhibao of the capital submitted a memorial admonishing him, but was not heeded; from this time the monks' rank fell below. In the fifteenth year, the emperor visited Hongfu Monastery and granted seats to five eminent monks, saying: 'We share our surname Li with him first; the Venerable Virtues must surely feel resentful. Because he is of our ancestral clan, We currently cultivate merit, but have not specially built Daoist abbeys; We have honored Buddhist monasteries in every case.' Comforted by such words, the monks were all overjoyed. Reaching the reign of Gaozong, Feng Shende, Secretariat Drafter on Duty in the Eastern Secretariat, submitted a memorial requesting that monks and nuns take precedence before Daoist priests as of old, and that as before they should not bow to parents; his words are numerous and not recorded here. In the fourth month of the second year of the Tianshou era of Zetian, an edict ordered the Śākya teaching to be placed above the Daoist school, and monks and nuns to stand before Daoist priests and Daoist nuns. In the second month of the first year of the Jingyun era of Ruizong, an edict stated: 'The Buddhist scriptures and the Daoist mystery are equal in principle though distinct in trace. In delivering mankind and saving the worldly, the teachings differ but their merits are equal. From now on, whenever they gather for religious services, monks, nuns, Daoist priests, and Daoist nuns shall assemble and walk side by side' (this did not divide front and back, but walked side by side in east and west). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.41](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.2.41) - [Next: 2.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.2.43) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126~en-mt.2.42) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.2.42](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.2.42) · Pramāṇa