大宋僧史略 2.42

2.42

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).