佛祖統紀 40.5

40.5

述曰。永嘉謝守灝。述老君實錄。引諸書言。老子數數下生。商高宗時生於亳州。乘鹿升天（一也）商紂時降於岐山。至周武王為柱史。昭王二十二年。度關授尹令道德經。西遊不反（二也）昭王二十五年。復降於蜀李本官家。二十七年。與尹子會于成都青羊肆。往西域化胡。於于闐國升天（三也。已上並實錄引。守灝孝宗時人。林靈素舊徒也）史記定王三年生於楚苦縣。為柱下史。孔子朝周問禮。敬王元年入關。為尹令說道德五千言與尹子。西之流沙（四也）此前後降生事跡不可言無。昭定兩時皆說為尹令說道德經。若取孔子同時則且以後文為正議曰。駁化胡之偽有九說焉。史記老子傳。著書五千言而去。莫知所終。本傳注引列仙傳云。尹喜老子俱之流沙。莫知所終。今刊行列仙傳。乃於流沙下增化胡二字。一繆也。尹子作老子西昇經云。聞竺乾有古皇先生。吾之師也。今實錄不欲師佛。乃改為吾之身也。二繆也。化胡經說。老子至罽賓化胡剃髮。當昭王二十七年。是時佛生方二歲。世間未聞有佛。不應罽賓有剃髮事。三繆也。偽經又言。老君勅尹子化丈六金身。名曰佛陀。為胡王授五戒。本云化胡。今乃化尹子成佛。四繆也。偽經言。浮圖寂滅永為陰靈。神仙飛升長生不滅。本云化胡成佛。不應讚仙毀佛。五繆也。偽經言。老君命梵天煩陀王。以二莊時下生為佛。釋迦本降自兜率天。當昭王甲寅歲。既無煩陀之稱。又非梵天而降。六繆也。偽經言。尹子化舍利弗賓頭盧善女天九十五種等。此諸人自是釋迦弟子。不應云尹子所化。造偽經者。亦不知舍利弗為何義。七繆也。實錄妄謂。弟子守佛冢者為喪門。羅什改作桑門沙門。老君遣北斗降魔。故稱穢迹金剛。又謂。仙道為教外別傳。此皆假竊佛經妄立議論。八繆也。實錄不識佛壽長遠。見光明經壽命短促方八十年。不知何義。便取此言譏佛滅之速。九繆也。老子下為法師上為天主。一切諸天無不事佛。今道家雖欲尊道重天。而立論失理。反成謗佛之咎。可不畏哉。昔王符偽造此經。死墮地獄。閻王訶云。世間偽經毀盡汝罪方脫。今人撰實錄者。方盛引偽文。甘與王符同一受罪。可不悲哉（偽經諸說。略見所引。更不別錄）北朝魏孝明。唐高宗中宗。屢朝毀除顯是偽說。獨武后朝八學士議不能區別。尚須細評。故世欲存老子化胡者。當作二說。一審其時。二據其文。何謂審其時。須知佛生於昭王時。老子生於定王時。至景王時孔子朝周問禮於老子。此時在佛後三伯年。可言有佛可言化胡。何謂據其文。列仙傳云。老子尹子俱之流沙（古本無化胡字）漢襄楷傳云。老子入夷狄為浮圖之化。晉高士傳。魏典略。西戎傳。皆言。老子化戎俗為浮圖。隋史。西域傳。魏宋雲西行記。唐太子實錄。皆言于闐有毘摩寺是老子化胡處。唐則天時。沙門慧澄乞毀化胡經。勅劉如睿八學士各為議狀。皆言漢隋諸書所載。化胡是實。不當除削。今詳諸書。言老子入西域止在于闐葱嶺之東。正是胡鄉無可疑者。若欲實其事。則當為之語。曰老子本迦葉尊者。釋迦遣化東土。先說世間道德五千言。以熟機緣（義見大藏冢墓因緣經并輔行）後反西域。以佛道勸化胡俗令成佛道。如此言之方為合理。昔王符據諸書造經。若獨引于闐胡地之國。猶可取信。至廣說罽賓維衛。不識此是梵種。胡梵相去二萬里。豈當混濫如此。偽說敗績不少。前列九繆。有能立難者。吾當截舌以謝。

The treatise remarks: Xie Shouhao of Yongjia compiled the *Veritable Record of Laozi*, citing various texts stating that Laozi repeatedly descended to be born. Under King Wuding of the Shang, he was born in Bozhou and ascended to heaven riding a deer (the first [instance]). Under King Zhou of the Shang, he descended on Mount Qi, and by the time of King Wu of the Zhou, he served as the Archivist. In the twenty-second year of King Zhao, he passed through the pass, transmitted the *Daodejing* to Magistrate Yin [Xi], journeyed to the West, and did not return (the second [instance]). In the twenty-fifth year of King Zhao, he again descended in Shu into the official household of Li Ben. In the twenty-seventh year, he met Master Yin at the Qingyang Market in Chengdu, traveled to the Western Regions to convert the barbarians, and ascended to heaven in the kingdom of Khotan (the third [instance]; all the above are cited from the *Veritable Record*; Shouhao lived during the reign of Emperor Xiaozong and was a former disciple of Lin Lingsu). The *Records of the Grand Historian* records that he was born in the third year of King Ding in Ku County of Chu, served as the Archivist Beneath the Pillar, and that Confucius came to court in Zhou to inquire about the rites. In the first year of King Jing, he entered the pass, expounded the five thousand words of the *Daodejing* for Magistrate Yin, and, together with Master Yin, went west to the Shifting Sands (the fourth [instance]). These traces of his earlier and later descents and births cannot be called nonexistent. Under both King Zhao and King Ding, he is said to have expounded the *Daodejing* for Magistrate Yin; if one aligns him with Confucius's time, one should provisionally take the latter account as correct.

Critique: Refuting the falsehood of converting the barbarians comprises nine points:
First, the biography of Laozi in the *Records of the Grand Historian* says that he composed a book of five thousand words and departed, and no one knew where he ended. A note to the original biography cites the *Biographies of Exemplary Immortals* as stating: 'Yin Xi and Laozi both went to the Shifting Sands, and no one knew where they ended.' Modern printed editions of the *Biographies of Exemplary Immortals* have added the two characters 'converting the barbarians' after 'Shifting Sands'. This is the first fallacy.
Second, the *Scripture of Laozi's Western Ascent* composed by Master Yin says: 'I have heard that in Tianzhu there is the Ancient Sovereign Gentleman, who is my teacher.' Now the *Veritable Record*, unwilling to take the Buddha as teacher, altered it to 'who is my own person.' This is the second fallacy.
Third, the *Scripture of Converting the Barbarians* says that Laozi arrived in Kaśmīra to convert the barbarians and shave their heads in the twenty-seventh year of King Zhao. At that time, the Buddha had only been born for two years; the world had not yet heard of a Buddha. It is impossible that there was head-shaving in Kaśmīra. This is the third fallacy.
Fourth, the apocryphal scripture further says that the Venerable Lord commanded Master Yin to manifest a sixteen-foot golden body named Buddha to bestow the five precepts upon the barbarian king. Originally it claimed to convert the barbarians, but here it instead has Master Yin transform into the Buddha. This is the fourth fallacy.
Fifth, the apocryphal scripture says that the Buddhist realm is an extinguishing into extinction, forever remaining a yin spirit, whereas divine immortals soar upward into eternal life without destruction. Originally claiming that he converted the barbarians into Buddhas, it should not praise immortals while denigrating the Buddha. This is the fifth fallacy.
Sixth, the apocryphal scripture says that the Venerable Lord commanded King Bhāṇḍa of the Brahmā Heaven to descend and be born as the Buddha during the period of the Two Zhuangs. Śākyamuni originally descended from the Tuṣita Heaven in the jiayin year of King Zhao; there is neither a title of 'Bhāṇḍa', nor did he descend from the Brahmā Heaven. This is the sixth fallacy.
Seventh, the apocryphal scripture says that Master Yin transformed into Śāriputra, Piṇḍola, the Devī Puṇyā, the ninety-five sorts [of non-Buddhists], and so forth. These persons are in fact disciples of Śākyamuni; they should not be called transformations of Master Yin. The author of the apocryphal scripture did not even know the meaning of Śāriputra. This is the seventh fallacy.
Eighth, the *Veritable Record* falsely asserts that disciples who guard the Buddha's tomb are 'grave-gatekeepers' (*sangmen*), which Kumārajīva altered into *sangmen* (śramaṇa). It also claims that the Venerable Lord dispatched the Northern Dipper to subdue māras, which is why it is called the Vajra of Impure Traces, and asserts that the Way of Immortals is a 'separate transmission outside the teachings'. These are all plagiarisms from Buddhist scriptures to advance spurious arguments. This is the eighth fallacy.
Ninth, the *Veritable Record* does not recognize the Buddha's boundless lifespan; seeing that in the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra* his lifespan was stated to be brief, merely eighty years, without understanding its meaning, it seized upon these words to mock the Buddha's swift extinction. This is the ninth fallacy.
Laozi, below, is a Dharma master, and above, is a heavenly lord; none among all the heavens fail to serve the Buddha. Now, though Daoists wish to exalt the Way and venerate Heaven, by establishing unreasonable arguments they conversely incur the fault of slandering the Buddha. Should they not tremble with fear? Formerly, Wang Fu fabricated this scripture and upon death fell into hell. King Yama rebuked him, saying: 'Only when all the apocryphal scriptures in the world are destroyed will your guilt be released.' Yet modern compilers of the *Veritable Record* now extensively cite these apocryphal texts, gladly incurring the same guilt as Wang Fu. How lamentable! (The various assertions of the apocryphal scripture are briefly seen in what has been cited; they are not recorded separately.)
During the Northern Dynasties, Emperor Xiaoming of the Wei, and in the Tang, Emperor Gaozong and Emperor Zhongzong, repeatedly destroyed and eliminated it; clearly it was an apocryphal doctrine. Only the deliberation of the Eight Scholars in the reign of Empress Wu failed to distinguish [the truth], and still requires fine appraisal. Therefore, if the world wishes to preserve Laozi's conversion of the barbarians, it must make two formulations: first, scrutinize the chronology; second, base it on the texts.
What does it mean to scrutinize the chronology? One must know that the Buddha was born during the time of King Zhao, while Laozi was born during the time of King Ding. Down to the time of King Jing, Confucius came to court in Zhou to inquire about the rites from Laozi. This was three hundred years after the Buddha; one can say there was a Buddha, and one can say there was conversion of the barbarians.
What does it mean to base it on the texts? The *Biographies of Exemplary Immortals* says: 'Laozi and Master Yin both went to the Shifting Sands' (the ancient version lacks the words 'converting the barbarians'). The biography of Xiang Kai in the *Book of the Later Han* says: 'Laozi entered the barbarian lands to perform the conversions of the Buddha.' The Jin *Biographies of Eminent Scholars*, the *Wei dianlüe*, and the *Biographies of the Western Rong* all say: 'Laozi converted the customs of the Rong into Buddhists.' The *History of the Sui*, the *Accounts of the Western Regions*, the *Record of the Western Journey of Song Yun of the Wei*, and the Tang *Veritable Record of the Crown Prince* all say that in Khotan there is the Bimo Monastery, which is where Laozi converted the barbarians. In the Tang, during the reign of Zetian, when the śramaṇa Huicheng petitioned to destroy the *Scripture of Converting the Barbarians*, she commanded Liu Rurui and the Eight Scholars each to prepare memorials of deliberation; all said that what was recorded in the various books of the Han and Sui concerning the conversion of the barbarians was factual and should not be expunged.
Now, examining these texts in detail, they say that Laozi entered the Western Regions and stopped in Khotan, east of the Congling Mountains, which is precisely barbarian land without any doubt. If one wishes to substantiate this event, one should frame it thus: Laozi was originally the Venerable Kāśyapa, sent by Śākyamuni to convert the Eastern Land, who first expounded the five thousand words of worldly virtue to ripen conditions (the meaning appears in the Tripiṭaka's *Zhongmu yinyuan jing* and the *Fuxing*), and later returned to the Western Regions to exhort and convert the barbarian customs with the Buddhist path, leading them to achieve the path to Buddhahood. Only when spoken of in this way is it reasonable. Formerly, when Wang Fu forged the scripture based on various texts, had he only cited kingdoms of the barbarian lands such as Khotan, it might still have been credible. But when he went on to expound widely on Kaśmīra and Vipaśyin, he did not know that these were of Brāhmaṇa stock. Barbarians and Brāhmaṇas are separated by twenty thousand li; how could they be conflated and confused like this? The collapses of his apocryphal doctrine are not few. I have laid out the nine fallacies above; if anyone can establish a refutation, I shall cut out my tongue in apology.