佛祖歷代通載 21.105

21.105

辯曰。夫子字之聿興爰從上古。伏羲氏之王天下也。始畫八卦。造書契以代結繩之政。由是文藉生焉。故有青丘紫府三皇刻石之文。綠檢黃繩六甲靈蜚之字。後有蒼頡。因而增制。大篆起於史籀。小篆興於李斯。飛白創於蔡邕。隷書變於程邈。秦書八體漢字六形。瘦金堆金。垂雲垂露。蔡葉龍爪顏體坡書。皆循古以增成。近代而改制。豈假真氣而結。何關老子傳來。掩竊他能衒賣己德。放舒白眼不恥清流。上云。龍漢起於初氣。何有老子而生。既言紫筆書林。乃在蒙恬之後。牽今引古。欺我賢人。孔安國云。伏羲神農黃帝之書。謂之三墳。言大道也。少昊顓頊高辛唐虞之書謂之五典。言常道也。易則三聖方定詩則群英之言。春秋孔子所修。禮則周公所定。爾雅周公所纂。國語丘明所述。劉熙釋名。許慎說字。埤蒼廣雅。桂苑珠叢。顧野王之玉篇。陸法言之切韻。各有源系。非干老聃而言墳典自我而出經籍自我而主。荒唐謬談侮弄明哲亦猶相如上林說。盧橘夏熟。楊雄甘泉賦。玉樹冬菁。聽其言則洋洋美耳。究其事則杳杳空傳。矧乎國名虛設。妄採他書。大福堂。改大堂而取名。東浮黎。彷扶桑而立號。南禪黎。革重黎而標字。西衛羅。竊於迦維羅衛。北方全收欝單越名。十洲所不收。神異所不攝。地理無所紀。括地絕形名。空闡五車了無一實。偷鈴掩耳斯之謂與。

The refutation states: The initial rise of characters and writing began from high antiquity. When Fuxi ruled the realm, he first drew the eight trigrams and created written tallies to replace the governance of knotted cords; from this, written records came into being. Therefore there were the inscribed stone writings of the Three Sovereigns of Qingqiu and Zifu, and the characters of the wondrous ascents of the Liujia on green tablets and yellow cords. Later there was Cangjie, who augmented and systemised them accordingly. The Large Seal script originated with Historian Zhou; the Small Seal script arose with Li Si. Flying-white script was created by Cai Yong; clerical script was transformed by Cheng Miao. There were the eight scripts of Qin and the six forms of Han; slender-gold and heaped-gold, dripping-clouds and hanging-dew, Cai's leaves and dragon's claws, Yan's style and Su Shi's calligraphy—all followed antiquity by augmenting and perfecting, or were modified and reformed in recent generations. How could they depend upon the congealing of true qi? What do they have to do with being handed down by Laozi? Masking and stealing others' abilities to peddle their own virtue, they cast haughty sidelong glances without shame before the pure stream. It was said above that the Longhan era arose from the primal qi—how then could Laozi have already been born? Since they say he wrote on the grove with a purple brush, that was only after Meng Tian. Conflating present and past, they deceive our worthies. Kong Anguo said: The books of Fuxi, Shennong, and the Yellow Emperor are called the Three Graves (Sanfen), which speak of the Great Dao. The books of Shaohao, Zhuanxu, Gaoxin, Tang, and Yu are called the Five Canons (Wudian), which speak of the Constant Dao. The Changes was settled only through the Three Sages; the Odes are the words of the host of heroes. The Spring and Autumn Annals was edited by Confucius; the Rites was determined by the Duke of Zhou. The Erya was compiled by the Duke of Zhou; the Guoyu was narrated by Zuo Qiuming. Liu Xi compiled the Shiming; Xu Shen wrote the Shuowen jiezi. There are the Bicang and Guangya, the Guiyuan zhucong, Gu Yewang's Yupian, and Lu Fayan's Qieyun: each has its own lineage and derivation, having nothing to do with Lao Dan. Yet they assert that the Graves and Canons emerged from him, and that the scriptures and records were mastered by him. Such wild and fallacious talk mocks the wise and bright, just like Sima Xiangru's Shanglin Fu speaking of loquats ripening in summer, or Yang Xiong's Ganquan Fu describing jade trees flourishing in winter: listening to their words, they are grand and pleasing to the ear, but examining the facts, they are distant, empty fabrications. Furthermore, their country names are fabricated out of nothing, recklessly plagiarised from other books: 'Da Futang' is derived by altering Datang; 'Dong Fuli' is coined in imitation of Fusang; 'Nan Chanli' changes Chongli to form its characters; 'Xi Weiluo' is stolen from Kapilavastu (Jiaweiluowei); and the northern quarter entirely appropriates the name of Uttarakuru (Yudanyue). They are unrecorded in the Ten Continents, uncovered by the Shenyi jing, omitted in geographical treatises, and completely lacking any form or name in the Kuodi zhi. Expounding empty wagonloads of books, there is not a single reality to them. Is this not called 'covering one's ears while stealing a bell'?