[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) › [佛祖統紀](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035) › 35.23 # 佛祖統紀 35.23 佛祖統紀 35.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [35.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.35.23) 案翻譯名義云。唐道士尹文操。謂法本內傳是羅什門人造。意欲所述漢明夢金人道家焚經事悉是虛偽。殊不思明帝感夢出自漢書。闞澤對吳主。亦言釋道焚經角試費叔才自感而死。見之吳志。以此推之。則內傳真是漢時非晉人造。文操之妄論敗矣。此與夫列仙傳加化胡字。同一謬詐。是亦文操之所加乎。 > I observe that the Fanyi mingyi \[ji\] states: The Tang Daoist Yin Wencao claimed that the Faben neichuan was fabricated by Kumārajīva's disciples, wishing to suggest that the accounts of Emperor Ming of Han dreaming of the golden man and the Daoists burning scriptures were entirely false. He utterly failed to consider that Emperor Ming's dream comes from the Book of the Han, and Kan Ze, answering the Lord of Wu, also spoke of the Buddhists and Daoists burning scriptures in a contest and Fei Shucai dying of self-reproach, which is seen in the Records of Wu. Deducing from this, the Neichuan is truly from the Han era, not a fabrication of Jin people. Wencao's absurd argument collapses. This is of the same deceitful nature as the interpolation of the phrase "converting the barbarians" into the Liexian zhuan; was that also added by Wencao? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 35.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.35.22) - [Next: 35.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.35.24) - [Up: 35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.35) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035~en-mt.35.23) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.35.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.35.23) · Pramāṇa