大宋僧史略 2.6

2.6

香也者解穢流芬。令人樂聞也。原其周人尚臭。冥合西域重香。佛出姬朝。遠同符契矣。經中長者請佛。宿夜登樓。手秉香罏。以達信心。明日食時。佛即來至。故知香為信心之使也。大遺教經曰。比丘欲食。先燒香唄讚之。又經中。蛇呼比丘自說宿緣。令為懺悔。并將仙提來取我行香。此方教法既行。經律散漫故。安法師三例中。第一是行香定座上講。斯乃中夏行香之始也。後魏及江表皆重散香且無沿革。至唐高宗朝。薛元起李義府奉勅為太子齋行香。因禮奘三藏。又中宗設無遮齋。詔五品以上行香。或用然香薰手。或將香粖遍行。謂之行香。後不空三藏奏為高祖太宗七聖忌辰設齋行香。勅旨宜依。尋因多故不齋但行香而已。文宗朝中書崔䗍上疏云。國忌設齋。百官行香。事無經據。伏請停廢。勅曰。崔䗍所奏遂遣討尋本末。禮文令式曾不該明。其兩京天下州府國忌於寺觀行香。今後並宜停罷甞試論之。崔䗍言無經據者。蛇之行香豈無經也。安公引教設儀。豈無據也。勅云討尋本末禮文令式曾不該明者。三代之禮何甞言飯釋子而行香耶。且令式唯是歷代沿革之法律。如代宗後之條格。豈標在隋末唐初之令式乎。矧以禮出儒家。詎可將釋書為據。事因釋氏。無宜用儒典為憑。就體證之。方云合理。儒流不許。還引儒書。何異獄訟之人召親黨而作證。若欲除廢。其無辭乎。夫孝子事祖考。唯善是從徇葬不益於生生。固宜寢也。行香是薦於冥漠。知無不為觀。文宗薄於祖宗。宜其寄坐矣。或曰何必行香為通。曰如周之尚臭燔柴血膋薌蕭。言天歆其臭也。天豈食血膋薌蕭之氣邪。由人尚其臭故。以臭而事天也。若然者。佛教重香。寧可奪乎。況百官行香代君也。百官事祖宗。亦臣子也。苟欲廢之。如忠孝何。宣宗即位再興斯道。大中五年。勅京城及外州府。國忌行香並須清潔。不得携酒肉入寺烹炮。既失嚴恪之心。頗乖追薦之道云。自此至于哀帝。行香如舊。朱梁廢唐。七廟方止。開平三年。大明節百官入寺。行香祝壽。後還薦祖宗。行香于今不絕。晉天福五年。竇貞固奏國忌宰臣跪爐百官列座。今欲宰臣跪爐百官立班。行香後飯僧百人。永為常式。宋大宗淳化三年。虞部員外郎李宗訥奏國忌行香請宰臣已下行香。後禁酒食表其精潔。

Incense dispels foulness and spreads fragrance, causing people to delight in smelling it. Tracing its origin, the people of the Zhou valued odors, which coincided invisibly with the Western Regions' veneration of incense. The Buddha appeared during the Ji dynasty [of Zhou], matching this token from afar. In the sūtras, when an elder invited the Buddha, he climbed up a storied pavilion the night before, holding an incense burner in his hands to convey his faithful heart; the next day at mealtime, the Buddha arrived. Thus we know that incense is the envoy of faith. The *Great Sūtra of the Buddha's Testament* says: "When monks wish to eat, they first burn incense and chant praises." Furthermore, in a sūtra, a snake called to a monk, recounted its past karma, asked him to perform repentance on its behalf, and asked him to bring Xian-ti to take its offering of incense. When the teaching of this land was already spreading, the sūtras and vinayas were widely scattered and not yet systematic. Therefore, among Master [Dao]an's three rules, the first was the offering of incense, settling in seats, and ascending to preach. This was the beginning of the offering of incense in China. Under the Later Wei and in the regions south of the Yangtze, the scattering of incense was valued, and there was no alteration [to the practice]. In the reign of Emperor Gaozong of the Tang, Xue Yuanqi and Li Yifu received an imperial decree to offer incense at a vegetarian feast for the Crown Prince; in doing so they paid homage to Tripiṭaka Master [Xuan]zang. Furthermore, when Emperor Zhongzong established an unobstructed feast, he decreed that officials of the fifth rank and above should offer incense; some used burning incense to perfume their hands, while others took incense powder and went about everywhere—this was called "offering incense." Later, Tripiṭaka Master Amoghavajra memorialized that on the memorial anniversaries of the seven sacred emperors from Gaozu to Taizong, vegetarian feasts should be arranged and incense offered. The imperial decree ordered that this be followed. Soon thereafter, owing to many incidents, the feasts were not held and only the offering of incense remained. In the reign of Emperor Wenzong, Cui Chou of the Secretariat submitted a memorial stating: "On national memorial days, feasts are arranged and the hundred officials offer incense, yet this matter has no canonical authority in the classics. I prostrate myself to request that it be abolished." An imperial decree stated: "Regarding what Cui Chou has memorialized, We thereupon ordered an investigation of its origins and details. The ritual texts and codified ordinances have never covered or clarified it. Henceforth, the offering of incense on national memorial days by the two capitals and the prefectures and superior prefectures under heaven at temples and abbeys should all be discontinued." Let us test this with an argument: Cui Chou claimed it lacks canonical authority, but how could the snake's offering of incense lack canonical authority? When Master [Dao]an cited teachings to establish rituals, how could he lack authority? As for the decree stating that "an investigation of its origins and details revealed the ritual texts and codified ordinances have never covered or clarified it"—when did the rituals of the Three Dynasties ever speak of feeding the disciples of the Śākya clan and offering incense? Moreover, codified ordinances are merely the laws that evolved through successive dynasties. Could regulations from after Emperor Daizong's time be recorded in the codified ordinances of the late Sui and early Tang? Furthermore, since [Confucian] ritual emerged from the Ruist school, how could one take Buddhist texts as its authority? Since this affair originated with the Śākya clan, it is inappropriate to rely on Confucian classics as proof. Only when verified according to its own nature can it be called reasonable. If Confucian scholars do not accept this and again cite Confucian texts, how is that different from a litigant in court summoning their own relatives and partisans as witnesses? If they wish to abolish it, are there not other grounds? When a filial child serves their ancestors, they follow only what is good. Sacrificing lives to follow [the deceased] in burial does not benefit living beings, so it should certainly be abandoned. The offering of incense is a dedication to the unseen realm; when one knows this, there is nothing improper in doing it. Emperor Wenzong was neglectful toward his ancestors; it is only fitting that his reign was ephemeral. Someone might ask: "Why must the offering of incense be approved?" I reply: "It is like the Zhou valuing odors—burning firewood, sacrificial fat, and fragrant southernwood; it was said that Heaven relishes their odor. Does Heaven actually consume the vapor of sacrificial fat and fragrant southernwood? Because humans valued their odor, they served Heaven with odors. If so, since Buddhism values incense, how could this be discarded? Moreover, the hundred officials offering incense act on behalf of the sovereign. The hundred officials serving the ancestors are also ministers and sons. If one wishes to abolish this, what will become of loyalty and filial piety?" When Emperor Xuanzong ascended the throne, he revived this path. In the fifth year of Dazhong (851), an imperial decree ordered that in the capital and the external prefectures and superior prefectures, the offering of incense on national memorial days must be pure and clean; one must not bring wine and meat into temples to cook and roast. It was said: "This compromises reverent devotion and greatly violates the way of memorial dedication." From then until Emperor Ai, the offering of incense continued as before. When the Zhu Liang dynasty abolished the Tang, the offerings at the Seven Ancestral Shrines ceased. In the third year of Kaiping (909), on the Daming Festival, the hundred officials entered the temples, offering incense and praying for longevity; later, they again dedicated merits to their ancestors. The offering of incense has continued without interruption to this day. In the fifth year of Tianfu of the [Later] Jin (940), Dou Zhengu memorialized: "On national memorial days, the grand councilors kneel at the censers while the hundred officials sit in ranks. Now We desire that the grand councilors kneel at the censers and the hundred officials stand in formation; after the offering of incense, one hundred monks should be fed, to serve forever as a permanent rule." In the third year of Chunhua of Emperor Taizong of the Song (992), Li Zongne, Vice Director in the Bureau of Forestry and Crafts, memorialized regarding the offering of incense on national memorial days, requesting that those from the grand councilors down, after offering incense, be prohibited from wine and meat to manifest its purity.