[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [佛祖歷代通載](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036) › 8.86 # 佛祖歷代通載 8.86 佛祖歷代通載 8.86 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.8.86) （辛未）　逸士顧歡。隱居不仕。尚黃老。南史云。歡以佛道二家教異學者。互相非毀乃著夷夏論。其略曰。辨是與非宜據聖典。道經云。老子入關之天竺。維衛國王夫人曰淨妙。老子因其晝寢乘日精入淨妙口。後年四月八日剖右腋而生。墮地即行七步。於是佛道興焉。此出玄妙內篇。佛經曰。釋迦成佛有塵沙之數。或為國師道士儒林之宗。出瑞應本起。試論之。曰五帝三皇未聞有佛。國師道士無過老莊。儒林之宗孰出周孔右。孔老非聖誰或當之。然二經所說若合符契。道則佛也。佛則道也。其聖則符。其迹則反。或和光以明近或耀靈以示遠。道濟天下。故無方而不入。智周萬物。故無物而不為。其入不同。其為必異。各成其性。不易其事。是以端委縉紳諸華之容。剪髮曠衣群戎之服。全形守禮繼善之風。毀貌易形絕惡之學。豈伊同人爰及異物。無盡世界聖人代興。或昭五典。或布三乘。在鳥而鳥鳴。在獸而獸吼。教華而華言。化夷而夷語。雖舟車均於致遠。而有川陸之節。佛道齊乎達化。而有夷夏之別。若謂其致既均其法可換者。是車可涉川而舟可行陸乎。屢見刻有。沙門守株道士互爭。小大交相彈射。或域道以為兩。或混俗以為一。是牽異以為同。破同以為異。則乖爭之由淆亂之本也。尋夫聖道雖同而法有左右。始乎無端。終乎無末。泥洹仙化各是一術。佛號正真。道稱正一。一歸無死。真會無生。在名則返。在實則合。但無生之教賒。無死之化切。切法可以進謙弱。賒法可以退夸強。佛教文而博。道教質而精。精非麁人可信。博非精人所能。佛言華而引。道言實而抑。抑則明者獨進。引則昧者競前。佛經繁而顯。道經簡而幽。幽則妙門難見。顯則正路易遵。此二法之辨也。聖匠無方。方圓有體。器既殊用。教亦異施。佛是破惡之方。道是興善之術。興善則自然為高。破惡則勇猛為貴。佛迹光大宜以化物。道迹密微宜用為己。優劣之分大略在茲。歡雖同二法而意黨道教。 > (Xinwei \[491 CE\]) The recluse Gu Huan lived in seclusion without taking office and esteemed Huang-Lao. The History of the Southern Dynasties states: Because Huan observed that the two teachings of Buddhism and Daoism differed, and their scholars disparaged and slandered one another, he composed the 'Treatise on the Barbarian and the Chinese' (Yixia lun). Its summary states: 'To distinguish right from wrong, one should rely on the sacred scriptures. The Daoist scriptures state that Laozi entered the pass and went to Tianzhu, where the consort of the king of the country of Weishui (Vidiśā) was named Jingmiao. Laozi, taking advantage of her midday slumber, rode the essence of the sun into Jingmiao's mouth; the following year, on the eighth day of the fourth month, he was born from her right side. Falling to the ground, he immediately walked seven paces. Thereupon the Buddha-Way arose. This appears in the Xuanmiao neipian. Buddhist scriptures state that Śākya's attaining of Buddhahood is as countless as grains of sand and dust, and that he manifested as imperial preceptors, Daoist masters, or the leaders of the Confucian forest; this appears in the Ruiying benqi jing. Examining this, I say: among the Five Thearchs and Three Sovereigns, none ever heard of a Buddha. Among imperial preceptors and Daoist masters, none surpass Laozi and Zhuangzi; among the leaders of the Confucian forest, who surpasses the Duke of Zhou and Confucius? If Confucius and Laozi are not sages, who could match them? Yet what the two scriptures say matches like two halves of a tally: Dao is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the Dao. As sages they tally; their traces run contrary. Either they soften their light to illumine what is near, or shine forth their spirit to reveal what is far. Their Dao aids the world, so there is nowhere it does not enter; their wisdom encompasses all things, so there is nothing it does not accomplish. Their entrances differ, and their actions necessarily vary; each fulfils its nature, not altering its function. Therefore, the ceremonial caps and flowing sashes are the appearance of the Central Plains; shaving the hair and wearing loose robes are the dress of the various barbarians. Preserving the bodily form and maintaining ritual is the tradition that continues goodness; disfiguring the appearance and altering the form is the learning that severs evil. How could this apply only to fellow humans? It extends even to different creatures. Throughout boundless worlds, sages arise in succession: some elucidate the Five Classics, some propagate the Three Vehicles. Among birds they chirp like birds; among beasts they roar like beasts. Teaching the Chinese, they use the Chinese language; transforming barbarians, they speak barbarian tongues. Although boats and carts are equal in reaching afar, they differ in crossing rivers or traversing land; although Buddhism and Daoism are equal in achieving transformation, they differ as Barbarian and Chinese. If one says that because their destinations are equal their methods can be exchanged, could a cart cross a river or a boat travel on land? We repeatedly see rigid views: śramaṇas stick to their posts and Daoists contend with one another; the small and the great mutually attack each other. Some demarcate the Dao into two, while others conflate custom into one. This is dragging differences to make them identical, and shattering identity to make differences; it is the origin of discord and the root of confusion. Upon investigation, though the holy Dao is one, its methods have right and left; beginning without a starting point, ending without a conclusion. Nirvāṇa and immortal transcendence are each a single method. The Buddha is called "the Correct and True"; the Dao is named "the Correct and One". The "One" returns to deathlessness; the "True" meets with birthlessness. In name they are contrary, but in reality they unite. Yet the teaching of birthlessness is remiss and slow, while the transformation of deathlessness is urgent and direct. Urgent methods can advance the humble and weak; slow methods can check the boastful and strong. The Buddhist teaching is literary and broad; the Daoist teaching is plain and essential. What is essential cannot be believed by the coarse; what is broad cannot be mastered by the essential. The Buddha's words are flowery and beckoning; the Dao's words are substantial and restraining. Restraint allows the enlightened to advance alone; beckoning makes the benighted scramble forward. Buddhist sutras are profuse and evident; Daoist scriptures are concise and obscure. Being obscure, the wondrous gate is difficult to perceive; being evident, the straight path is easy to follow. Such is the distinction between the two teachings. The master carpenter has no fixed compass, yet squares and circles have forms; since vessels differ in use, teachings are likewise applied differently. The Buddha is a prescription for destroying evil; the Dao is a technique for promoting good. In promoting good, spontaneity is held high; in destroying evil, valour is deemed worthy. The traces of the Buddha are grand and bright, fitting for transforming external things; the traces of the Dao are subtle and secret, fitting for self-cultivation. The distinction between superior and inferior roughly lies herein.' Although Huan regarded the two teachings as identical, his intent was biased in favour of Daoism. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.85](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.8.85) - [Next: 8.87](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.8.87) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036~en-mt.8.86) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.6.27) — 僧祐, Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.8.86](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.8.86) · Pramāṇa