论文部分内容阅读
唐释道宣关于梁武帝天监三年“舍事李老道法”的记载，当代一些颇有影响的思想史、哲学史、佛教史论著几乎无例外地以之作为立论之依据，实则此事纯属子虚。因为，一、材料来源可疑。道宣以前诸于、史、集，无一字言及；梁僧佑编《弘明集》，未见梁武为此事所作诏、敕。二、道宣所述本身露出破绽。其云梁武下诏敕“舍道”，邵陵王纶上启响应，中书舍人任孝恭宣敕，实则其时萧纶尚未出生，任某也不是中书舍人。三、梁武固然佞佛，但绝不排斥儒道。不可能斥儒道为“邪”为“伪”。道宣惯于作伪，其伪造此事乃与其排斥孔老的立场相关。
Tang Shuxuan proclaims the record of Liang Judi’s three-year “custody of Li Laodao” written by Tian Wujian, and some influential ideological, philosophical, and Buddhist history treatises are almost invariably used as the basis for his argument in the past few years. Belong to the child. Because, one, the source of the material suspicious. Daoxuan before all, history, collection, no word and; Liang Seng You series “Hongming set”, did not see Liang Wu for this matter made Chao, 敕. Second, Daoxuan itself revealed flaws. The Yun Liangwu under the imperial edict “Hsieh Road,” Shao Ling Wang Lun response, Renxiao Christine in the book Renxuan, but at the time of Xiao Lun has not yet been born, Ren is not a book man. Third, Liang Wu Although the Buddha, but certainly not repel Confucianism. Confucianism can not be denounced as “evil” as “false.” Taoists pretended to be fake, and the forgery of the matter was related to their rejection of Kong Lao’s position.