佛祖歷代通載 13.24

13.24

論曰。歐陽文忠公雅嫉吾釋。未始略有假借。獨於唐志尊一行大衍之作。而宋景文於方技篇削一行玄奘等傳。而獨著道泓地理之說。或者以為唐浮圖行業無足為二公取者。故止於是而已。夫豈然哉。蓋大衍所以統天時。地理則切於人事。是宜史筆取也。若吾釋之盛莫甚於唐。凡三百年間。以道德為天下宗師者。不可悉數。歐宋以為奉異方之教。故諱之而不書。猶春秋時雖老聃郯子之賢。返不若江人黃人得書于經。豈亦老氏不足取哉。蓋國經之典。凡禮樂刑政所及貴賤必書。若吾浮圖大絕世累頴脫塵表者。於刑政何與焉。宜其不參於世典也。由是言之。歐宋黜吾釋。其微意乃所以尊之也。盛哉一行。前膺洛下閎八百年之讖。當時則明天子跪之稱為聖人。及其製作施於後世。縕天地貫幽明歷數百年而其術益驗。果聖與賢耶。吾弗得而知矣。

The appraisal states: Duke Ouyang Wenzhong [Ouyang Xiu] was habitually averse to our Buddhist teaching and never showed the slightest indulgence toward it. Yet, solely in the Treatise [on Astronomy and Calendar] of the Tang History, he honoured Yixing's Dayan system. Song Jingwen [Song Qi], however, in the 'Biographies of Diviners and Magicians', excised the biographies of Yixing, Xuanzang, and others, recording only Daohong's discourse on geography. Some might think that the conducts and practices of Tang Buddhists held nothing worthy of acceptance by these two dukes, and so it ended at that. But could that really be so? The Dayan calendar governs celestial seasons, while geography pertains closely to human affairs; it was therefore appropriate for the historical brush to record them. As for the flourishing of our Buddhist teaching, nothing surpassed the Tang dynasty. Throughout those three hundred years, those who served as the empire's supreme masters in virtue and the Way were beyond counting. Ouyang and Song, deeming it to be following the teaching of a foreign land, therefore deliberately omitted it and did not record it. This is like the Spring and Autumn period, where despite the worthiness of Laozi and the Viscount of Tan, they were, on the contrary, not recorded in the Classic as were the men of Jiang and Huang. Could it be that the Master Lao also held nothing worthy of acceptance? The statutes of state classics record nobles and commoners alike wherever rites, music, punishments, and administration reach. As for our Buddhists, who completely sever worldly entanglements and rise extraordinarily above the realm of dust, what do they have to do with punishments and administration? It is fitting indeed that they are not included in secular canons. From this perspective, Ouyang and Song's exclusion of our Buddhist teaching was, in its subtle intent, precisely the means to honour it. How magnificent was Yixing! Long before, he fulfilled the eight-hundred-year prophecy of Luoxia Hong; in his own time, the enlightened Son of Heaven knelt before him and called him a sage. When his works were transmitted to later generations, embracing Heaven and Earth and penetrating the hidden and the manifest, his calculations and methods became ever more verified over several centuries. Was he truly a sage or a worthy? That I cannot know.