關於東晉末年的「敬王之爭」，包括廬山慧遠的〈沙門不敬 王者論〉，前人的研究，往往注重於其思想意義從而其歷史必然 性的述評，而對於當時的具體歷史背景從而個人因素，則相對忽 視。至於對原始材料的引用，也有人云亦云的情況，不少人把慧 遠的〈答桓玄書沙門不應敬王者書〉和〈沙門不敬王者論〉混為 一談，造成了很多誤解。有鑒於此，本文按時間順序，對其人、 其事、其論一一考評，以期對東晉「敬王之爭」的來龍去脈，有 一較完整的描述。

Regarding the nature of the debate over veneration by the Buddhist monastic to the emperor in the Eastern Jin China, previous researches have tended to focus on the intellectual history aspect and put forward teleological arguments. As a result, they have overlooked the social historical background of the debate and hence ignored the agency of individuals. Moreover, there has been confusion regarding the primary texts in which the debate is found – many scholars have not distinguished between Huiyuan’s Letter About Why Buddhist Monastic Should Not Bow to the Emperor: A Response to Huanxuan and his Thesis on Why a Buddhist Monastic Should Not Bow to the Emperor. Such confusion has further created misunderstanding about the real nature of the debate. Aiming to correct those problems, this article re-examines chronologically the individuals, events, and historical documents relevant to the debate. I hope this study will provide a more complete historical picture of the debate.