大宋僧史略 3.25

3.25

西域從始立名。至終不改。如阿難。是佛成道夜生。號為慶喜。及受記結集。亦號阿難。諸皆效此。近見梵僧到。多名為迦葉文殊等。西土無嫌。亦如東夏相如子貢之類也。案寄歸傳曰。西方受戒。以十夏前稱小師。十夏稱住位。通經論。多者曰多聞求寂。此皆通稱也。若單云僧。則四人以上方得稱之。今謂分稱為僧。理亦無爽。如萬二千五百人為軍。或單己一人亦稱軍也。僧亦同之。南山律師云。沙門者凡聖同稱也。西天異道亦號沙門。故須釋字以別之。二種合稱。猶此方人稱爵里及姓氏也。然姓所同也。苟用單名。名所獨也。獨則簡濫焉。自魏晉以來。沙門多從師姓。如支道林。姓關。從師姓支。道安姓衛。從師佛圖澄姓帛。安獨悟曰。從師莫過於佛。佛本姓釋。遂通令比丘姓釋。東夏稱釋氏。自安始也。後阿含經梵本至譯出。果有四河歸海無復本名。四姓出家咸稱釋氏之文。自相符合也。新翻苾芻者。由苾芻草有五德。因號之。比丘者訛梵語也。又舊曰除饉者。康僧會注法鏡經曰。凡夫於六情境。如餓夫夢食。出家人除去六情。名為除饉也。又習鑿齒呼道安為道士。西域人多稱我。卑於尊所稱亦無嫌。故阿難云。如是我聞也。若此方對王者。漢魏兩晉或稱名。或云我。或云貧道。故法曠上書於晉簡文。稱貧道。支遁上書乞歸剡。亦稱貧道。道安諫符堅。自稱貧道。呼堅為檀越。于時未為定式。又跋陀對宋孝武云。從陛下乞順。此見呼陛下也。至南齊時。法獻玄暢二人分為僧正。對帝言。論稱名而不坐。後因中興寺僧鐘啟答。稱貧道。帝嫌之。問王儉曰。先輩沙門與帝王共語何稱。正殿還坐不。儉對曰。漢魏佛法未興。不見紀傳。自偽國稍盛皆稱貧道。亦聞預坐。及晉初亦然。中代有庾氷桓玄等。皆欲使沙門盡禮。朝議紛紜。事皆休寢。宋之中朝。亦令致禮。尋且不行。自爾迄今。多預坐而稱貧道。帝曰。暢獻二僧道業如此。尚自稱名。況復餘者令揖拜則太甚稱名亦無嫌。由是沙門皆稱名於帝王。獻暢為始也。近朝今代道薄人乖稱謂表章。稱臣頓首。夫頓首者拜也。稱臣卑之極也。尋其所起。不出唐時。隋大興善寺翻經沙門法經等。進眾經目錄。猶未稱臣。止云眾沙門法經等謹白皇帝大檀越。後周釋曇積諫沙汰表亦唯稱名。白皇帝大檀越。後稱貧道。若後周釋任道林。對武帝詔曰。又稱臣。詳其時。林形服已變。猶佛圖澄法孫王明廣同也。如作僧道林。必不稱臣也。唐西明寺沙門玄則。上禪林妙記後序中。但稱僧等二字。故序云。遂以所物之餘。親迂睿旨。正名之末。特繕嘉題。僧等荷鎔施之恩。緘紹隆之澤。云唐三藏請御製經序表。稱沙門玄奘。答詔云。勅奘尚而不名也。貞觀中詔僧尼居道下。京邑沙門智實上表論班位。亦唯稱名。高宗勒僧道二教。拜君親時。司戎議狀曰。不孝莫過於絕嗣。何不制以婚姻。不忠莫大於不臣。何不令稱臣妾。由是知之。唐之三葉猶未稱臣也。肅宗上元元年三月八日。降御札。遣中使劉楚江。請曹谿六祖所傳衣鉢入內。并詔弟子令韜。韜表辭年老。遣弟子明象。上表稱臣。見于史傳。自此始也。或曰。法琳上表。論道居僧上云。臣年迫乘榆。始遇太平之世。貌侵蒲柳。方值聖明之君。若然者。法琳已自稱臣。何以高宗朝司戎議云。不忠莫大於不臣。何不令稱臣妾。苟或琳公已稱。司戎必無此句。答曰。宣律威秀等皆不稱臣。恐法琳危迫情切。乍稱之耳。朝廷未著于令式。眾不同稱。故司戎云。何不令稱臣妾。其次又疑傳寫者錯誤耳。據此說。則法琳稱臣。又在初也。肅宗至德二年。隨駕撿挍藥師道場。內供奉僧元皎。奏道場內生李樹四十九莖表中云。臣等忝為臣子。至上元元年九月八日勅。今後僧尼朝會並不須稱臣及禮拜。斯乃因開元中令僧道拜時皆稱臣。至是方免也。大曆八年。又放元日冬至朝賀陪位。蓋以代宗之世君臣表裏偕重空門。此亦久污則隆既否終泰也。

In the Western Regions, names are given at the beginning and remain unchanged until the end. For instance, Ānanda was born on the night the Buddha achieved awakening, so he was named 'Joy' (Qingxi); when he received prediction and recited the compilation of the scriptures, he was still named Ānanda. All others follow this pattern. Recently, when I have seen Indian monks arrive, many are named Kāśyapa, Mañjuśrī, and the like. In the Western Land there is no taboo against this, just as in the Eastern Xia people are called Xiangru or Zigong. According to the Record Sent Home, in the West, after ordination, those with fewer than ten summer retreats are called 'junior masters,' and at ten summer retreats they are called 'established in status'; those versed in many sūtras and treatises are called 'learned seekers of quietude.' These are all general titles. As for simply using the word 'saṃgha,' it may only be used of four or more persons. In my view, to apply it individually to a monk does not violate principle either: just as twelve thousand five hundred men make an army, yet an individual single person may also be called 'the army.' The same holds for 'saṃgha.' The Vinaya Master of Nanshan said: 'Śramaṇa is a common designation for both ordinary people and sages. Heterodox traditions in the Western Heaven are also called śramaṇas; hence the character Shi (Śākya) must be used to distinguish them. Combining the two is like people of this land stating their official rank, hometown, and surname.' Yet a surname is shared; if an individual name alone is used, that name is unique. Uniqueness avoids confusion. From the Wei and Jin dynasties onward, śramaṇas mostly adopted the surnames of their masters. For example, Zhi Daolin had the surname Guan, but took his master's surname Zhi. Dao'an had the surname Wei, but took his master Fotudeng's surname Bo. Dao'an alone had the insight: 'In taking a master, none surpasses the Buddha; the Buddha was originally of the Śākya clan.' He thereupon ordered universally that all monks take the surname Shi. The use of the Śākya clan in the Eastern Xia began with Dao'an. Later, when the Sanskrit text of the Āgamas arrived and was translated, there indeed appeared the passage: 'Just as the four rivers flow into the sea and have no more of their original names, the four castes who leave household life are all called the Śākya clan.' This spontaneously corresponded with his view. The newly translated term biqiu (bhikṣu) comes from the five virtues of the biqiu grass, after which they were named; biqiu (比丘) was an erroneous transcription from Sanskrit. Furthermore, in the older translation it was rendered 'eliminator of hunger' (chujin). Kang Senghui's commentary on the Fajing jing says: 'Worldly beings toward the objects of the six sense-faculties are like starving men dreaming of food; world-renouncers eliminate the six senses, hence the name "eliminators of hunger."' In addition, Xi Zuochi called Dao'an a 'Daoist.' People of the Western Regions often refer to themselves as 'I'; there is no taboo even when speaking before superiors. Thus Ānanda said: 'Thus have I heard.' As for this land when facing kings, during the Han, Wei, and the two Jin dynasties, monks either stated their personal names, said 'I,' or said 'this impoverished follower of the Way' (pindao). Hence Fakuang, submitting a letter to Emperor Jianwen of the Jin, called himself 'this impoverished follower of the Way'; Zhi Dun, submitting a letter requesting to return to Shan, also called himself 'this impoverished follower of the Way'; Dao'an, admonishing Fu Jian, called himself 'this impoverished follower of the Way' and addressed Jian as 'dānapati.' At that time there was not yet a fixed standard. Moreover, Gunabhadra, speaking to Emperor Xiaowu of the Song, said: 'I beg compliance from Your Majesty'—here we see him addressing the emperor as 'Your Majesty.' Coming to the Southern Qi, Faxian and Xuanchang were separately made Rectifiers of the Saṃgha; when speaking to the emperor, they stated their personal names and did not sit. Later, because Monk Zhong of Zhongxing Monastery, in submitting a memorial reply, called himself 'this impoverished follower of the Way,' the emperor was displeased. He asked Wang Jian: 'In what manner did śramaṇas of earlier generations address emperors and kings when conversing with them? Did they sit or not in the main palace hall?' Wang Jian replied: 'In the Han and Wei, the Buddha-Dharma had not yet flourished, and nothing appears in the chronicles. From the rise of the illegitimate states onward, they all called themselves "this impoverished follower of the Way," and it is also heard that they were granted seats. This was also so in the early Jin. In the middle era, there were Yu Bing, Huan Xuan, and others, who all wished to make śramaṇas perform full rites of obeisance; the court debated tumultuously, and the matter was always laid to rest. In the middle of the Song dynasty, an order was also given to pay homage, but it was soon abandoned. From then until now, most have been granted seats and called themselves "this impoverished follower of the Way."' The emperor said: 'When the two monks Xuan and Faxian, possessing such religious practice, still state their names, how much more so should others? To order them to bow and prostrate would be excessive; stating their names carries no impropriety.' From this time on, all śramaṇas stated their names to emperors and kings; this began with Faxian and Xuanchang. In the recent and present dynasties, the Way has grown thin and men perverse; in titles and memorials, they call themselves 'your subject' and 'knock their heads.' Now, 'knocking the head' is prostration; calling oneself 'subject' is the utmost humility. Investigating its origin, it does not go beyond the Tang dynasty. When the translation śramaṇa Fajing and others of Daxingshan Monastery in the Sui presented their catalogue of the various scriptures, they did not yet call themselves 'subject'; they merely said, 'The multitude of śramaṇas, Fajing and others, respectfully report to the Emperor, the Great Dānapati.' Later, when Shi Tanji of the Northern Zhou presented a memorial remonstrating against the monastic purge, he also merely stated his name: 'Reporting to the Emperor, the Great Dānapati,' and later called himself 'this impoverished follower of the Way.' As for Shi Ren Daolin of the Northern Zhou, in his response to Emperor Wu's edict, he called himself 'your subject.' Examining his circumstances at that time, Daolin's robes and appearance had already been changed, just like Fotudeng's dharma-grandson Wang Mingguang. If he had acted as the monk Daolin, he certainly would not have called himself 'subject.' When the śramaṇa Xuanze of Ximing Monastery in the Tang presented his afterword to the Chanlin miaoji, he merely used the two characters 'the monks' (sengdeng). Thus the preface states: 'Thereupon, utilizing the surplus of what was offered, Your Majesty personally turned your sagely intention; following upon the titles of correct names, you specially composed an exquisite title. We monks, bearing the favor of your molding and bestowing, treasure the blessing of your perpetuation and enhancement.' In the memorial of the Tang Tripiṭaka Master requesting an imperial preface for the sūtras, he called himself 'the śramaṇa Xuanzang'; the edict in reply said, 'Edict to Zang,' respecting him by not using his personal name. During the Zhenguan era, when an edict placed monks and nuns below Daoists, the capital śramaṇa Zhishi submitted a memorial discussing the order of precedence, also merely stating his personal name. When Emperor Gaozong compelled both the Buddhist and Daoist teachings to pay homage to ruler and parents, the Office of Military Affairs stated in a memorial: 'Of unfilial acts, none is greater than cutting off descendants: why not regulate them with marriage? Of disloyal acts, none is greater than not acting as subjects: why not order them to call themselves "subjects and handmaidens"?' From this we know that during the three reigns of the Tang, they still did not call themselves 'subjects.' On the eighth day of the third month of the first year of Shangyuan under Emperor Suzong, an imperial rescript was issued dispatching the palace envoy Liu Chujiang to request that the robe and bowl transmitted by the Sixth Patriarch of Caoxi be brought into the palace, and also summoned his disciple Lingtao. Lingtao submitted a memorial declining on grounds of old age, and dispatched his disciple Mingxiang; the memorial submitted called himself 'your subject,' as seen in the historical records. It began from this. Some say: 'When Falin submitted a memorial discussing Daoists being placed above monks, he said: "Your subject is pressed by years of advanced age, only now encountering an era of great peace; his appearance is ravaged like willow leaves, just now meeting a sagely and enlightened ruler." If that is so, Falin had already called himself "your subject." Why, then, during the reign of Gaozong, did the Office of Military Affairs say: "Of disloyal acts, none is greater than not acting as subjects: why not order them to call themselves 'subjects and handmaidens'"? If Master Lin had already used it, the Office of Military Affairs certainly would not have made this statement.' I reply: Daoxuan, Weixiu, and others did not call themselves 'subject.' It is feared that Falin, pressed by imminent danger and fervent feelings, merely called himself that on that single occasion. The court had not yet established it in legal statutes, nor did the multitude share this address; hence the Office of Military Affairs said, 'Why not order them to call themselves "subjects and handmaidens"?' Furthermore, it is suspected that copyists made an error. According to this account, Falin's calling himself 'subject' was even earlier. In the second year of Zhide under Suzong, the palace-attendant monk Yuanjiao, who accompanied the imperial retinue to oversee the Bhaiṣajyaguru bodhimanda, submitted a memorial concerning forty-nine plum tree stems growing inside the bodhimanda, in which he said: 'Your subjects humbly serve as subjects and sons.' By the eighth day of the ninth month of the first year of Shangyuan, an imperial decree stated: 'Henceforth, monks and nuns attending court assemblies need not call themselves "subject" or perform prostrations.' This was because, starting from the Kaiyuan era when monks and Daoists were ordered to pay homage, they had all called themselves 'subject'; only at this point were they exempted. In the eighth year of Dali, they were further released from standing in attendance at the court congratulations on New Year's Day and the Winter Solstice. This was because, during the reign of Daizong, both ruler and ministers internally and externally revered the Gate of Emptiness. This is also an instance where after long defilement there is flourishing, and once obstruction ends, peace arrives.