魏晉六朝時期，佛法在士階層中流傳漸廣，其影響所及，除了以門第為主要存在型態的士族社會，更觸及當世政治。這些在當時被視為「君臣」、「父子」之倫的儒家「名教」，與僧伽團體所代表修行立場的「佛教」，彼此有形、無形間於生活儀節、思想觀念乃至意識型態的交涉上，終究無可避免地產生了若干的矛盾與挑戰，其中沙門是否應須敬王，即為當世較著的爭議之一 (以下簡稱「敬王論議」)。東晉時期，這樣的議題其間迭經庾冰與何充之辯、桓玄與王謐之辯，最後由慧遠撰述 〈沙門不敬王者論〉說服執政而暫告平息。 敬王論議雖顯題化為「尊君」或「護法」，然其基源問題，仍在「教化」：儒家奉行世禮名教，佛教則皈依修行，此無疑構成「名教」與「佛教」平行相參之對等架構，而論者對二者關係的處置態度與詮釋觀點則決定了其議論立場。 本文之寫作，即嘗試就敬王論議中「敬王論者」與「護法論者」雙方論難往返所呈現出「名教」與「佛教」(即「儒」與「佛」) 二家交涉之理論思維型態作出整理，一方面觀察其自衝突、互動以至圖通調和之脈絡，一方面以明其之於當代魏晉思想史發展之意義，主要歸納出有三大方面：1.儒本佛末，2.儒佛殊途，3.儒佛一致。

During Wei-Jin and the Six Dynasties, Buddhism gradually gained in popularity among the literati and its influenced began to be felt in politics. Traditional Confucian teachings of roles and relationships (such as that between monarch and courtier, father and son, etc.) came into conflict, both tangibly and intangibly, with Buddhist thought in terms of etiquette, basic concepts, and ideology. One of the most controversial issues at the time was whether monks ought to revere the king (here after termed the “revere the king” controversy). During Eastern Jin, this issue was argued over several times, first by Yu Bingm 庾冰 and Wang Mi 王謐, then by He Chong 何充 and Huan Xuan 桓玄. Finally, Huiyuan 慧遠 was able to persuade those in power by writing “Monks Ought not Worship the Governor.” Although the “revere the king” controversy often centered on topics such as “honoring the king” or “protecting and maintaining the truth," the core issue was always how to educate the people morally: to follow the rites and teachings of Confucianism or to practice Buddhism. This undoubtedly resulted in parallel and equal frameworks for both ideologies. The beliefs of those discussing the issues at hand were thus decided by the way in which they interpreted the concepts of both Confucianism and Buddhism. This paper attempts to delineate the ideals and ideology of both Confucianism and Buddhism as is shown through the “revere the king” controversy, in order to observe the way in which they progressed from conflict to compromise, as well as to explain the significance of this issue in the intellectual history of the Wei and Jin dynasties. Three main solutions were the result: (1) Confucianism is the base, and Buddhism is the function, (2) Buddhism and Confucianism both are separate, and (3) Confucianism and Buddhism are united in aim and purpose.