佛祖歷代通載 21.99

21.99

辯曰。夫仲尼入夢。十翼之道始宣。伯陽過關。二篇之教方闡。有名為萬物之始。無名為天地之先。混徼妙而同玄。驚寵辱而一致。谷神不死久視長生。挫銳解紛謙卑自牧。此老氏之旨也。自餘教典皆是偽書。制雜凡流唯尚誇競。採傍佛語換體安名。擬三界而立三清。倣三大而立三洞。虛勞紙墨妄飾詞章。何以知之。漢時張道陵造靈寶經。王褒造洞玄經。吳時葛孝先造上清經。晉時王浮造明威化胡經。鮑靜造三皇經。後改為三清經。齊朝陳顯明造六十四真步虛經。梁時陶弘景造太清經。隋末輔惠祥。改涅槃為長安經。後事發被誅。案甄鸞笑道論云。道家妄注諸子三百五十卷為道經。如此詳之代代穿鑿人人妄制。採他佛教標為道書或言仙洞飛來。或言老子再現。群賢不覩道士獨傳。欺誷時君不懼朝憲。故唐琳法師對太宗皇帝云。若據肅溫眾議道家。止有道德二篇。如依漢明校量。便應七百餘卷。約葛洪神仙之說。僅有一千。准修靜所上目中。過前九十。又檢玄都目錄。轉復彌多。既其先後不同。顯知後人妄制增加卷軸添足篇章。依傍佛經改頭換尾。或道名山自出。時唱仙洞飛來。何乃黃領獨知英賢罕覩。典籍不記書史無聞。試問當今道士推勘後出之經。為是老子別陳。為是天尊更說。若也更說。應有時方師資傳授。為是何年何月何邦何代。若在天上而說。何人傳來。若在西域而談。何人譯出。如其有據。容可流行。若也妄言。理須焚剪。又漢晉之代。僧號道士。寇謙得志僭冐其名。今稱法師愈為矯節。法師之號源出佛經。萬卷百家本無此語。且為法之師。名為法師。法即是師。名為法師。名義不知。妄安己號。按賢劫已來有三佛出。初佛出時人壽六萬歲第二佛。出時人壽四萬。第三佛出人壽二師。何乃改彼三皇妄合其數。又前說云。上三氣中而有龍漢赤明之號。是時五運尚無但唯一氣。何有三皇之君人壽之數乎。上古縱有五龍四姓九頭十紀。亦無三皇建立年號。試問龍漢赤明上皇開皇。誰君之年乎。若言有說。史無明文。若言無憑。不可妄立。扣其兩端竟無一是。又伏羲之前文字未有。何出三洞靈寶之篇乎。又十二部名源出佛經。一代時教類分十二。道家名義不知何以妄著己典。如琢美玉擬作甑窐。雖受劬勞智者見誚。

Refutation: Zhongni had his dream, and only then was the teaching of the 'Ten Wings' proclaimed. Boyang passed the pass, and only then was the doctrine in two scrolls expounded. Having a name is the origin of the myriad things; having no name is prior to heaven and earth. Blending manifestation and subtlety, both are the mysterious; being alarmed at favor and disgrace, they are treated as one. The valley spirit never dies, leading to long vision and long life; dulling the sharpness and untying tangles, one is humble and tends oneself. These are the principles of Laozi. All the other doctrinal texts are spurious books, concocted and mixed by common folk who prize only boasting and rivalry. Borrowing Buddhist terms, they altered the format and assigned new names: imitating the three realms, they established the Three Clarities; copying the three greats, they established the Three Caverns. They waste paper and ink in vain and falsely adorn phrases. How do we know this? In the Han, Zhang Daoling fabricated the Lingbao jing; Wang Bao fabricated the Dongxuan jing. In the Wu, Ge Xiaoxian fabricated the Shangqing jing. In the Jin, Wang Fu fabricated the Mingwei huahu jing, and Bao Jing fabricated the Sanhuang jing, which was later changed to the Sanqing jing. In the Qi, Chen Xianming fabricated the Liushisi zhen buxu jing. In the Liang, Tao Hongjing fabricated the Taiqing jing. At the end of the Sui, Fu Huixiang changed the Nirvāṇa Sūtra into the Chang'an jing; later, when the matter was exposed, he was executed. According to the Xiaodao lun by Zhen Luan, Daoists falsely commented on three hundred and fifty scrolls of the philosophers and called them Daoist scriptures. Viewed closely in this way, each generation forced interpretations, and every person falsely concocted [texts], plundering the Buddha's teachings to label them Daoist books. Some claim they flew in from immortal caverns, or that Laozi reappeared. None of the sages saw them; only Daoists hand them down. They deceive the ruler of the day and fear not the imperial laws. Thus, Dharma Master Falin of the Tang said to Emperor Taizong: 'If we rely on the public discussions of the Su and Wen eras, the Daoists possess only the two scrolls of the Daode[jing]. If compared according to Emperor Ming of the Han, there should be over seven hundred scrolls. Estimating according to Ge Hong's account of immortals, there are barely one thousand. According to the catalogue submitted by [Lu] Xiujing, it exceeds the former by ninety. Furthermore, examining the Xuandu catalogue, it has increased ever more. Since the earlier and later accounts do not agree, it is obvious that later men falsely concocted them, increasing the fascicles and padding the chapters. Relying on Buddhist sūtras, they changed the heads and switched the tails, claiming they emerged of themselves from famous mountains, or declaring from time to time that they flew in from immortal caverns. Why is it that only the yellow-collared [Daoists] know of them, while men of wisdom and talent seldom see them? The ancient records do not record them, and the histories have never heard of them. Let us ask the Daoists of today to investigate the scriptures produced later: did Laozi state them separately, or did the Heavenly Worthy preach them anew? If he preached them anew, there should be a time, a place, and transmission from master to disciple: in what year, what month, what land, and what dynasty? If preached in heaven, who transmitted them down? If spoken in the Western Regions, who translated them? If there is evidence, they might be permitted to circulate; if they are empty words, reason dictates they must be burned and cut away.' Furthermore, in the Han and Jin dynasties, monks were called 'Daoists' (daoshi); Kou Qianzhi attained his ambition and usurped that name. Now to call themselves 'Dharma masters' is even more an artificial affectation. The title of 'Dharma master' (fashi) originates in Buddhist sūtras; among the myriad scrolls of the hundred schools, this term never existed. Moreover, a master of the Dharma is named a 'Dharma master'; the Dharma is itself the master, hence named a 'Dharma master'. Not understanding the name or meaning, they falsely take it as their own title. According to the Bhadrakalpa, three Buddhas have appeared so far. When the first Buddha appeared, human lifespan was sixty thousand years; when the second Buddha appeared, human lifespan was forty thousand; when the third Buddha appeared, human lifespan was twenty thousand. Why have they altered these and falsely matched their numbers to their Three Sovereigns? Moreover, the earlier statement says that within the Upper Three Qi there were the designations of Longhan and Chiming. At that time the five phases did not yet exist, and there was only a single qi; how could there have been the rulers of the Three Sovereigns and numbers for human lifespan? Even if high antiquity had the Five Dragons, Four Surnames, Nine Heads, and Ten Eras, none of the Three Sovereigns established reign eras. May we ask: under which ruler's year were Longhan, Chiming, Shanghuang, and Kaihuang? If you claim there is an account, the histories contain no explicit record; if you say there is no evidence, they cannot be falsely established. Investigating both sides, not a single point is correct. Furthermore, before Fuxi, writing did not yet exist; how could the chapters of the Three Caverns and Lingbao have appeared? Again, the names of the twelve divisions originate in Buddhist sūtras, dividing the teachings of a lifetime into twelve categories. The Daoists, not knowing the names or meanings, why did they falsely affix them to their own texts? It is like carving beautiful jade with the intention of making a coarse clay pot: though one endures toil, one is mocked by the wise.