佛祖歷代通載 21.97

21.97

辯曰。夫賢之與聖名位不同。古哲今人出處各異。莊周云。萬世之後一遇大聖。猶旦暮遇之。此明聖人出世表瑞協祥。應千年之期。膺適時之運。孤標特秀逈出常流。故得帝王師之諸侯禮重。萬載一遇尚為旦暮。豈有隨代而出現乎。夫李耳者退靜之士。史記稱為隱君子也。避亂過關葬於槐里。潛身柱下。本是人臣。位不躐於上階。名未廁於台輔。何乃擢君聖地為帝王師。譣詖不經駭人耳目。培塿要齊於嵩華。孰肯憑焉。潢洿擬廣於滄溟。終難信矣。豈有開闢之後萬億餘年中間別無一人拔萃唯有老子為帝王師乎。三墳五典八索九丘。孔子春秋丘明國語。百家異說九流雜談。並無老子為師之語。唯是後代無知道士。妄撰斯言。欲使老子獨高群聖。美則美矣。偽且偽焉。且伏羲神農皆有聖德。軒皇堯舜並號明君。或幼而能言。或生知妙道。詎假老子教之。然後造作群物乎。況書傳所記。古史所明。燧人鑽火伏羲畫卦。炎帝播耨。女媧造篁。黃帝作宮室。軒冕樂有咸池。顓頊作六英。堯有大章。舜有大韶。及作圍碁。禹有大夏。湯有大濩。文王有辟雍。武王有下武。鯀作城郭。蚩尤作兵器。岐伯造醫。俞附脈經。伶倫制律。隷首作算。容成作曆。大橈造甲子。奚仲作車。曹胡作衣。伯余作裳。於則作履。共鼓作舟楫。巨揮作弓。夷牟作矢。黃雍父作杵臼。孟莊子作鋸。趙武靈王作靴。蘇威公作箎。暴辛作塤。后稷之孫叔均作犁。蒙恬作筆。蔡倫作紙。夏昆吾氏作瓦。此皆各有其主。群書所明。何得自矜覽為我造。又周易繫辭孔子所述。列明古帝制造之事。如云包羲氏之王天下也。觀象於天俯察於地。近取諸身。遠取諸物。始畫八卦。以通神明之德。以類萬物之情。作結繩而為網罟。以畋以漁。蓋取諸離。神農氏為耜為耒。以利天下。日中為市。交易有無。乃至黃帝堯舜。垂衣裳而天下治。蓋取諸乾坤。如此歷陳法易造物。不言老子所造也。竊功業標為己能。衒名自高。君子不忍。又云。老子在堯時為務成子者。案後漢應劭風俗通云。東方朔是太白星精。黃帝時為風后。堯時為務成子。周時為老聃。在越時為范蠡。在齊為鴟子。此則務成子乃東方朔。非干老子明矣。何得妄加鉤引稱老子為人師乎。案魯哀公問於子夏曰。五帝三皇皆有師乎。子夏曰。有。臣聞皇帝學乎太真。顓頊學乎綠圖。帝嚳學乎赤松子。堯學乎尹壽。舜學乎務成跗。禹學乎西王國。湯學乎威子伯。文王學乎鉸時子斯。武王學乎郭政。周公學乎太公呂望。上之所敘文極分明。而言老子隨代為帝王師。何出言之狂悖哉。巧言如篁顏之厚矣。且老子衰周柱史史有明文。本是人臣。返為上古帝王之師。履冠戴屨何顛狂之甚乎。又上文云。上古之君皆受教於老子。則桀紂之不作。幽厲之無道。秦王之凶暴。王莽之篡逆。亦老子之所教也。既然如是。則老子為悖逆之魁首。巨猾之元匠。不忠不孝。老子之所生。不義不仁。老子之所主。為人師者。不亦慚乎。老君既說隨代為師。而秦漢之下至於金朝。偏無一現乎。今既無矣古亦虛焉。且漢文恭儉孝武英明。孝明達禮樂之情。孝章優儒雅之道。魏文帝風流文藻。晉世祖明達寬仁。宋文帝致治昇平。梁武帝文武兼備。隋高祖混同四海。唐太宗混一車書。此時不俟老子之化。而皆金聲玉振。則知牽合巧會枉費詞章。秖可誑於閭閻。難可信於達士。嫫母加粉見者愈嗤。隣女效顰鄉人不貴。

Refutation: The virtuous and the sage differ in name and station; the ancient philosophers and modern men differ in their coming and going. Zhuang Zhou said: 'Meeting a great sage after ten thousand generations is still like meeting him from dawn to dusk.' This clarifies that when a sage appears in the world, he brings auspicious omens and conforms to propitious signs; he responds to the cycle of a thousand years and accords with the opportune destiny of his time, standing out solitary and preeminent, far transcending the common stream. Therefore, emperors and kings take him as their teacher, and feudal lords treat him with reverence. Meeting one in ten thousand years is still regarded as dawn to dusk; how could he appear successively throughout the dynasties? Li Er was a man of retreat and quietude; the *Shiji* refers to him as a 'hidden gentleman'. Fleeing disorder, he passed the pass and was buried in Huaili. Hiding his person as an archivist, he was originally a subject of men; his rank did not advance to the upper steps, nor was his name placed among the prime ministers. How then could one promote his sovereign sagehood as a teacher to sovereigns and emperors? Such deceptive absurdity shocks people's ears and eyes. Can an earthen mound be made equal to Mount Song or Mount Hua? Who would rely on that? If a puddle seeks to match the breadth of the great ocean, in the end it can hardly be believed. How could it be that after the creation of the world, during more than ten thousand myriad years, there was no other distinguished person, but only Laozi served as teacher to sovereigns and emperors? In the Three Graves, the Five Canons, the Eight Chords, and the Nine Hills, in Confucius's *Spring and Autumn Annals*, Zuo Qiuming's *Discourses of the States*, the diverse accounts of the hundred schools, and the sundry talks of the nine streams, there is nowhere any statement that Laozi served as their teacher. It is merely the ignorant Daoists of later ages who falsely fabricated these words, wishing to make Laozi alone exalted above all the sages. Though beautiful, it is beautiful indeed; though fabricated, it is fabricated as well. Furthermore, Fuxi and Shennong both possessed sage virtue; the Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun were all proclaimed enlightened monarchs. Some could speak in infancy, while others were born with knowledge of the wondrous Way. How could they have depended on Laozi to instruct them before fashioning the manifold implements? Moreover, as recorded in books and transmissions, and clarified in ancient histories: Suiren drilled fire, Fuxi drew the trigrams, Yandi sowed and weeded, Nüwa created reed pipes, the Yellow Emperor built palaces, introduced robes and caps, and composed the Xianchi music; Zhuanxu composed the Liuying music; Yao had the Dazhang; Shun had the Dashao and invented the game of Go; Yu had the Daxia; Tang had the Dahu; King Wen built the Biyong academy; King Wu composed the Xiawu hymn; Gun built city walls; Chiyou fashioned weapons; Qibo founded medicine; Yu Fu wrote the pulse treatise; Ling Lun regulated the musical pitches; Lishou created mathematics; Rongcheng created the calendar; Da'nao crafted the sexagenary cycle; Xi Zhong made chariots; Cao Hu made robes; Bo Yu made skirts; Yu Ze made shoes; Gonggu made boats and oars; Juhui made bows; Yimou made arrows; Huang Yongfu made mortars and pestles; Meng Zhuangzi made saws; King Wuling of Zhao made boots; Su Weigong made bamboo flutes; Bao Xin made clay ocarinas; Shujun, grandson of Houji, made plows; Meng Tian made brushes; Cai Lun made paper; the Kunwu clan of the Xia made tiles. These each have their own originators, as clarified in various texts; how could one arrogantly claim to have invented them oneself? Furthermore, the *Commentary on the Appended Phrases* of the *Book of Changes*, composed by Confucius, clearly lists the inventions of ancient rulers. For instance, it says: 'When Baoxi ruled the world, he looked up and observed the phenomena in heaven, and looked down and observed the patterns on earth; near at hand, he drew from his own person; far off, he drew from external things. He first drew the eight trigrams to penetrate the virtue of the spirits and to classify the natures of the myriad things. He knotted cords to make nets and snares for hunting and fishing, perhaps drawing from the hexagram Li. Shennong fashioned wooden plowshares and plow-handles to benefit the world; he held markets at midday, exchanging what they had for what they lacked. Down to the Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun, they hung their upper and lower garments and the empire was governed, perhaps drawing from the hexagrams Qian and Kun.' In this way, he successively detailed the modeling on the *Changes* to create implements, without mentioning that they were created by Laozi. Plagiarising meritorious deeds to claim them as one's own ability, and parading a name to exalt oneself—a gentleman cannot bear to do so. Furthermore, it is said that Laozi was Master Wucheng in the time of Yao. According to Ying Shao's *Fengsu tong* of the Later Han: 'Dongfang Shuo was the essence of the Venus star. In the time of the Yellow Emperor, he was Fenghou; in the time of Yao, he was Master Wucheng; in the time of the Zhou, he was Lao Dan; in the state of Yue, he was Fan Li; and in Qi, he was Chizi.' From this it is clear that Master Wucheng was Dongfang Shuo, and had nothing to do with Laozi. How can one falsely draw connections to claim that Laozi was the teacher of these men? According to Duke Ai of Lu asking Zixia: 'Did the Five Emperors and Three Sovereigns all have teachers?' Zixia said: 'They did. Your servant has heard that the Yellow Emperor studied under Taizhen; Zhuanxu studied under Lutu; Emperor Ku studied under Master Chisong; Yao studied under Yinshou; Shun studied under Wucheng Fu; Yu studied under the State of the Queen Mother of the West; Tang studied under Weizi Bo; King Wen studied under Jiaoshi Zisi; King Wu studied under Guo Zheng; and the Duke of Zhou studied under Grand Duke Lü Wang.' The above account is exceedingly distinct; yet to say that Laozi was a teacher to sovereigns and emperors throughout the dynasties—how wild and contrary are these words! 'Deceptive words like reed pipes'—how thick-skinned indeed! Moreover, that Laozi was an archivist in the declining Zhou is clearly attested in history; he was originally a human subject, yet turns out to be the teacher of the sovereigns and emperors of high antiquity—putting shoes upon the head and wearing a cap on one's feet, how extreme is this lunacy! Furthermore, the text above says: 'The rulers of high antiquity all received instruction from Laozi.' If so, then the misrule of Jie and Zhou, the wickedness of You and Li, the tyranny of the King of Qin, and the usurpation of Wang Mang were also taught by Laozi! If it is so, then Laozi is the ringleader of rebelliousness and the primary architect of monstrous cunning; disloyalty and unfilialness were spawned by Laozi, and injustice and inhumanity were governed by Laozi. For one who is a teacher of men, would he not feel ashamed? Since Laozi is said to have served as teacher through every dynasty, why is it that from the Qin and Han down to the Jin dynasty, he has not appeared even once? Since he is absent now, his ancient appearances are also fabricated. Furthermore, Han Wendi was respectful and frugal; Xiaowu was heroic and brilliant; Xiaoming grasped the essence of rites and music; Xiaozhang favored the noble path of the Ruists; Emperor Wen of Wei possessed refined elegance and literary grace; Shizu of Jin was enlightened, broad-minded, and benevolent; Emperor Wen of Song brought about orderly peace and prosperity; Emperor Wu of Liang combined civil and military virtues; Gaozu of Sui unified the four seas; Taizong of Tang brought about standard wagons and identical writing. At these times they did not wait for Laozi's transformation, yet all displayed music of resonant gold and vibrating jade. Thus we know that these forced combinations and contrived concoctions are merely a waste of verbiage; they can only deceive the alleyways and cannot be believed by discerning scholars. When Momu applies powder, those who see her ridicule her even more; when the neighboring woman mimics the knitted brow, the villagers do not hold her dear.