[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) › 3.47 # 大宋僧史略 3.47 大宋僧史略 3.47 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.3.47) 問曰。略僧史求事端。其故何也。答曰。欲中興佛道令正法久住也。曰方今天子重佛道崇玄門。行儒術致太平。已中興矣。一介比丘力輪何轉。而言中興佛道耶。答曰。更欲助其中興耳。苟釋氏子不知法不修行。不勤學科不明本起。豈能副帝王之興之乎。或曰。子有何力令正法久住乎。答曰。佛言。知法知摩夷。護持攝受。可令法不斷也。又曰。諸師已廣著述。何待子之為邪。答曰。古人著述用則闕如。曾不知三教循環終而復始。一人在上高而不危。有一人故奉三教之興。有三教故助一人之理。且夫儒也者。三王以降則宣用而合宜。道也者。五帝之前則冥符於不宰。昔者馬史躋道在九流之上。班書拔儒冠藝文之初。子長欲反其扑而還其淳。尚帝道也。孟堅思本其仁而祖其義行王道焉。自夏商周至于今。凡幾百千齡矣。若用黃老而治。則急病服其緩藥矣。由此仁義薄禮刑生。越其禮而逾其刑。則儒氏拱手矣。釋氏之門周其施用。以慈悲變暴惡。以喜捨變慳貪。以平等變冤親。以忍辱變瞋害。知人死而神明不滅。知趣到而受業還生。賞之以天堂。罰之以地獄。如範脫土。若模鑄金。邪範漏模寫物定成其寢陋。好模嘉範傳形必告其端嚴。事匪口談。人皆目擊。是以帝王奉信。群下歸心。草上之風翕然而偃。而能旁憑老氏兼假儒家。成智猶待於三愚。為邦合遵於眾聖。成天下之亹亹。復終日之乾乾。之於御物也。如臂使手。如手運指。或擒或縱。何往不臧耶。夫如是則三教是一家之物。萬乘是一家之君。視家不宜偏愛。偏愛則競生。競生則損教。已在其內。自然不安。及已不安。則悔損其教。不欲損教。則莫若無偏。三教既和故法得久住也。且如秦始焚坑儒術。事出李斯。後魏誅戮沙門。職由𡨥謙之崔浩。周武廢佛道二教。矜衒己之聰明。蓋朝無正人。唐武宗毀除寺像。道士趙歸真率劉玄靖。同力謗誣。李朱崔影助此四君。諸公之報驗何太速乎。奉勸吾曹。相警互防。勿罹愆失。帝王不容。法從何立。況道流守寶。不為天下先。沙門何妨饒禮以和之。當合佛言一切恭信。信于老君先聖也。信于孔子先師也。非此二聖曷能顯揚釋教。相與齊行。致君於犧黃之上乎。苟咈斯言。譬無賴子弟無端鬪競。累其父母。破產遭刑。然則損三教之大猷。乃一時之小失。日月食過何損於明君。不見秦焚百家之書。聖人預已藏諸屋壁。坑之令勦絕。揚馬二戴相次而生。何曾無噍類耶。梁武捨道。後魏勃興拓跋誅僧。子孫重振。後周毀二教。隋牽復之。武宗陷釋門。去未旋踵。宣宗十倍興之側掌。豈能截河漢之流。張拳不可防暴虎之猛。況為僧莫若道安。安與習鑿齒交游。崇儒也。為僧莫若慧遠。遠送陸脩靜過虎溪。重道也。余慕二高僧。好儒重道。釋子猶或非之。我既重他。他豈輕我。請信安遠行事。其可法也。詩曰。伐柯伐柯。其則不遠。孟子曰。天時不如地利。地利不如人和。斯之謂歟。 > Question: In compiling a brief history of the Saṃgha, you seek out historical precedents. What is the reason for this? Answer: I wish to revive the Buddhist Way and make the correct Dharma abide for a long time. Question: At present, the Son of Heaven values the Buddhist Way and esteems the Gate of Mystery, while practicing the Confucian arts to bring about great peace. It has already been revived! How can a single bhikṣu turn the wheel of power, that you speak of reviving the Buddhist Way? Answer: I simply wish to assist in this revival. If the sons of the Śākya clan do not know the Dharma, do not practice it, do not diligently study the subjects, and do not understand the origins, how could they match the sovereign’s promotion of it? Question: What power do you possess to make the correct Dharma abide for a long time? Answer: The Buddha said, “If one knows the Dharma and knows the Mātṛkā, guarding and upholding them, receiving and embracing them, one can prevent the Dharma from being cut off.” Question: The masters of the past have already written extensive works; why wait for you to do so? Answer: The ancients’ writings have deficiencies when put to practical use. They failed to realize that the three teachings circulate in a cycle, ending only to begin anew. The One Man sits above, high without being in danger; because there is the One Man, the flourishing of the three teachings is upheld; because there are the three teachings, the governance of the One Man is assisted. Now, as for Confucianism, from the Three Kings onward it was proclaimed and applied, matching what was appropriate. As for Daoism, prior to the Five Thearchs it was silently attuned to non-action. In the past, Sima Qian’s Records of the Grand Historian elevated Daoism above the nine schools of thought, while Ban Gu’s Book of Han singled out the Ruist classics to head the bibliographical catalog. Zichang wished to return to the unhewn log and restore simplicity, esteeming the Way of the Thearchs. Mengjian sought to root himself in benevolence and take righteousness as his ancestor, practicing the Way of the Kings. From the Xia, Shang, and Zhou down to the present, how many hundreds of thousands of years have elapsed! If one were to govern using Huang-Lao, it would be taking a slow-acting medicine for an acute illness. Because of this, benevolence and righteousness diminished, while rites and punishments arose. But when people transgress the rites and exceed punishments, the Ruists fold their hands in helplessness. The gate of the Śākya clan is comprehensive in its application: with compassion it transforms violence and cruelty; with sympathetic joy and renunciation it transforms stinginess and greed; with equanimity it transforms enmity and affection; with forbearance it transforms anger and harm. It understands that when a person dies the spirit is not extinguished, and knows that according to the destination arrived at, one receives retribution and is reborn. It rewards with heavenly realms and punishes with hells, like a mold shaping clay, or a matrix casting metal. A crooked mold or a leaky matrix will surely shape an object into ugliness; a fine matrix and a good mold will invariably render a form into upright majesty. These matters are not mere oral assertions; everyone sees them with their own eyes. For this reason, emperors and kings revere and believe in them, and all the subjects submit in heart, just as the grass bends swiftly beneath the wind. Furthermore, one can concurrently rely on Laozi and borrow from Confucianism: achieving wisdom still requires the three fools, and ordering a state must follow the myriad sages. One completes the continuous industry of all under Heaven, and repeats the daily diligence of Qian. In governing things, it is like the arm employing the hand, or the hand moving the fingers; whether seizing or releasing, where would it not go well? In this way, the three teachings are the possessions of a single family, and the Lord of Ten Thousand Chariots is the ruler of a single family. In looking upon one’s family, it is improper to show partiality; if there is partiality, conflict will arise. If conflict arises, it will damage the teachings. When one is already caught up in this, unease naturally follows. Once unease arises, one regrets having damaged the teachings. If one does not wish to damage the teachings, nothing surpasses having no bias. Once the three teachings are in harmony, the Dharma can therefore abide for a long time. Furthermore, consider the Qin’s burning of books and burying of Ruists—this originated with Li Si. The Later Wei’s slaughter of śramaṇas was due to Kou Qianzhi and Cui Hao. Emperor Wu of the Northern Zhou abolished both Buddhism and Daoism, boasting of his own cleverness because the court lacked upright men. Emperor Wuzong of the Tang destroyed monasteries and statues, while the Daoist Zhao Guizhen led Liu Xuanjing in joining forces to slander and accuse; Li Deyu, Zhu Dao, and Cui Ying aided these four rulers. How exceedingly swift was the karmic retribution upon those gentlemen! I respectfully advise our fellow monks to caution and guard one another, and not fall into transgression. If emperors and kings do not tolerate us, upon what can the Dharma be established? Moreover, the Daoist line guards the treasure of “not presuming to take precedence in the world”; what harm is there for śramaṇas to be generous in courtesy to harmonize with them? This accords with the Buddha’s teaching to “revere and believe in all.” Believe in Lord Lao, the ancient sage; believe in Confucius, the ancient master. Were it not for these two sages, how could the Śākya teachings be glorified and made manifest, walking side by side to raise the ruler above Fuxi and the Yellow Emperor? If one goes against these words, it is like worthless youths quarreling without cause, entangling their parents, ruining the household, and suffering punishment. After all, damage to the great principles of the three teachings is merely a momentary, minor lapse. When a solar or lunar eclipse passes, how does it harm an enlightened ruler? Have you not seen that when the Qin burned the books of the hundred schools, the sages had already hidden them inside the walls of houses? Though they buried scholars to exterminate them, Yang Xiong, Sima Qian, and the two Dai brothers were born one after another; how was there ever a lack of survivors? Emperor Wu of the Liang abandoned Daoism, yet under the Later Wei it rose vigorously; the Tuoba clan slaughtered monks, but their descendants revived Buddhism; the Northern Zhou destroyed both teachings, and the Sui restored them; Wuzong brought disaster to the Śākya gate, but before one could turn on one’s heel, Emperor Xuanzong revived it tenfold. How could a tilted palm sever the flow of the Milky Way? A raised fist cannot fend off the fury of a fierce tiger. Furthermore, among monks none was greater than Dao’an: Dao’an associated with Xi Zuochi, which was esteeming Confucianism. Among monks none was greater than Huiyuan: Huiyuan accompanied Lu Xiujing across Tiger Stream, which was valuing Daoism. I admire these two eminent monks, who loved Confucianism and valued Daoism, yet some Śākya disciples still criticize them. Since I respect others, how could others look down on me? Please trust in the deeds of Dao’an and Huiyuan, for they serve as models. The Book of Songs says, “In hewing an axe-handle, in hewing an axe-handle, the pattern is not far off.” Mencius said, “The seasons of Heaven are not equal to the advantages of earth; the advantages of earth are not equal to the harmony among men.” Does it not refer to this? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.3.46) - [Next: 3.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.3.48) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126~en-mt.3.47) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.3.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2126.3.47) · Pramāṇa