唐護法沙門法琳別傳 2.15

2.15

當今帝系所崇老聃為本。奉遵柱下。勅道居先。因何固拒詔文。擅生爬毀事既非小須具委陳。不得徒事飾非虛煩翰墨法師對曰琳所著論文。本緣劉李。實非詔出已後。乃是八年已前。但為諡號未行。創云皇帝。次依漢史為太上皇。後見帝諡頒行。方題大武。請尋論卷第四。指的顯然敘德。但記八年足知非謬。豈敢詔書出後公然爬毀。求虛責實罪有所歸。乞撿逗遛自分清白。威等又問法師曰。論第五云。依姚長謙曆云。佛是周昭王甲寅歲生。穆王壬申之歲始滅度者。因何法顯為傳云。聖殷王時生。推於像正之記言。佛是周平王世出。道安作論確執桓王。長房為錄固言庄代。是知傳述乖紊。無的可依仰。具顯先後。不同遐邇所以。法師對曰。琳聞。大聖應生本期利物。有感斯現無機不燭。故經云。一音所暢各隨類解。論聲既爾語體亦然。而傳記所明非無斥理。琳今正據取彼多家。先列其真後陳其妄。謹依魏國曇謨最法師齊朝上統法師。及隋修曆博士姚長謙等。據周穆天子傳。周書異記。前漢劉向列仙傳序。并古舊二錄。後漢法本內傳。及傅毅法王本記。吳尚書令闞澤等眾書。准阿含等經。推佛是姬周第五主昭王瑕即位二十三年癸丑之歲七月十五日。現白象形降神。自兜率託淨飯王宮摩耶受胎。故後漢法本內傳云。明帝問摩騰法師曰。佛生日月可知以不。騰答曰。佛以癸丑之年七月十五日。託陰摩耶。即此年也。昭王二十四年甲寅之歲四月八日。於嵐毘園內波羅樹下。右脇而誕生。故普曜經云。普放大光照三千界。即周書異記云。昭王二十四年甲寅之歲四月八日。江河泉池忽然汎漲。枯井涌泉並皆溢出。宮殿人舍山川大地咸悉震動。其夜即有五色光氣。入貫太微遍於西方。盡作青紅色。昭王即問太史蘇由曰。是何祥也蘇由曰。有大聖人生於西方。故現此瑞。昭王曰。於天下何如。蘇由曰。即時無他。一千年後聲教被於此土。昭王即遣人鐫石記之。埋在南郊天祠前。佛生即此年也。昭王四十二年壬申之歲四月八日夜半。踰城出家。故瑞應經云。太子十九四月八日夜半。天人窺於窓中。叉手白言。時可去矣。因命馬行。即此年也。周第六主穆王諱滿。二年癸未二月八日。佛年三十成道。故普曜經云。菩薩明星出時豁然大悟。即此年也。周穆王五十二年壬申之歲二月十五日。佛年七十九方始滅度。故涅槃經云。二月十五日臨涅槃時。出種種光。大地六種震動。聲至有頂。光遍三千。即周書異記云。穆王即位五十二年壬申之歲二月十五日平旦。暴風忽起撥損人舍傷折樹木。山川大地皆悉震動。午後天陰雲黑。西方有白虹十二道。南北通過。連夜不滅。穆王問太史扈多曰。是何徵也。扈多對曰。西方有大聖人。滅度衰相現耳。佛入涅槃。即此年也。始自昭王二十四年甲寅之歲誕應已來。至今大唐貞觀十三年已亥之歲。正經一千六百一十八（一十八者恐六十六之錯）載。言法顯為傳云。聖殷王時生者。但法顯雖遊外國。傳未可依。年月特殊大為河漢。又道安乙丑上統甲寅。諸無所據未足為驗。又像正之記罕見依憑。安公為論據羅什記。羅什記者。承安世高。安世高者。以漢桓帝時在洛陽翻譯。信執筆者據桓王時。但羅什秦曰始來。世高漢朝先至。二師相去垂三百年。信彼相承依而為記。非是安論造次謬陳。並由當時傳者之過。又隋朝翻經學士費長房言。佛莊王時生者。房以二莊同世周莊十年即魯莊七年也。但據恒星為驗而云佛生。未悟恒星別由他事。琳案文殊師利般涅槃經云。佛滅度後二百五十年。文殊至雪山中。化五百仙人訖。還歸本土。放大光明遍照世界入於涅槃。恒星之瑞即其時也。長房言二月八日生者。乃是四月非二月也。然長房所判。未究事根。何者。長房云。周以十一月為正月。言四月者今二月也。雖云二月終是四月。案春秋一部。年用魯莊之年。月取周王之月。恒星本瑞於周世。須據周之時日月。長房乃云。佛莊王十年二月八日生者。大為猛浪。若是二月不應論星。長房又云。佛以四月八日下託胎者。託胎既用周月。現生還是周辰。今言二月是亦非也。若周以十一月為正月。如來不容二月生。凡人正月胎即十月生。四月胎即正月生。佛俯同人世七月胎故乃四月生。王劭齊誌云。周四月者夏之六月（周夏二字上下方可）以此却推。四月生者是七月胎。今言六月取其節氣。雖經七月終屬六月。信知王劭所說不差。又長房言。佛以周惠王十九年癸亥二月明星出時成道者。亦有大過。何者。案劉向古舊二錄云。周惠王時已漸佛教始。一百五十年後。老子方說五千文。若以惠王之時始成佛者。不應經教已傳京洛。又計惠王即莊王孫也。以癸亥年推其相去唯三十年。不應始得成佛。經教已來此土。尋如來化世四十九年。迦葉結集在佛滅後。法門東漸正是周時。劉向之言誠非謬矣。長房之錄定不可依。詳夫聖應無方理難窺測。況乃東西敻遠年代遐遙。復遭六國縱橫秦焚五典。為年紀者不少。序帝曆者多家。而互有差違增減出沒。皆師己意各謂指南。琳今粗述見聞。詳諸史錄。略陳遐邇。揚確後先者也。

The present imperial lineage venerates Lao Dan as its ancestor, reverently following the one from beneath the pillars and decreeing Daoism to take precedence. Why did you stubbornly resist the imperial decree and presumptuously give rise to slander and denigration? Since the matter is no small one, you must give a detailed explanation; you may not merely gloss over your wrongs or waste ink in vain.” The Dharma Master replied: “The treatise composed by Lin originally arose because of Liu [Zhongqing] and Li [Zhongqing]; it certainly was not after the decree was issued, but before the eighth year [of Wude]. Merely because the posthumous title had not yet been promulgated, it first said ‘Emperor’; next, following the Han histories, it used ‘Retired Emperor’ (Taishang Huang); and later, seeing the emperor’s posthumous title promulgated, it only then inscribed ‘Dawu’. Please consult the fourth fascicle of the treatise: the point is clearly evident. In narrating his virtues, it merely records the eighth year, which is sufficient to know it is no error. How could I dare to openly slander and denigrate after the imperial decree was issued? When one seeks the truth and demands reality, the blame will have its proper place. I beg that you examine my delay so that its innocence will naturally become clear.” Wei and the others again asked the Dharma Master: “The fifth fascicle of your treatise says that, according to Yao Changqian's calendar, the Buddha was born in the jiayin year of King Zhao of the Zhou and only passed away in the renshen year of King Mu. Why then does Faxian state in his record that the Sage was born in the time of the Yin kings? Calculating by the records of the semblance and true [dharmas], it says the Buddha appeared in the era of King Ping of the Zhou. Dao'an composed a treatise firmly maintaining King Huan. Fei Changfang compiled a catalogue steadfastly asserting the era of King Zhuang. From this we know that the transmitted accounts are contradictory and confused, with no reliable standard to revere. State completely the reasons for their precedence, sequence, disparities, and chronological distance.” The Dharma Master replied: “Lin has heard: when the Great Sage manifests birth, it is fundamentally intended to benefit sentient beings; where there is a stimulus, he appears, leaving no spiritual capacity unilluminated. Thus the sūtra says: ‘What is proclaimed with a single voice is understood by each according to their kind.’ Since this is so for the sound of teaching, the same applies to its linguistic substance. Moreover, what the chronicles clarify is not without its critical rationale. Lin now relies correctly on drawing from those many houses, first laying out the true and then exposing the false. I respectfully rely on Master Tanmoxui of the Wei dynasty, Master Shangtong of the Qi dynasty, and the Erudite of the Bureau of Calendrical Computation Yao Changqian of the Sui, and based on the *Mu tianzi zhuan*, the *Zhoushu yiji*, Liu Xiang’s preface to the *Liexian zhuan* of the Former Han, both the ancient and old catalogues, the *Houhan faben neizhuan*, Fu Yi’s *Fawang benji*, and various books such as that by Kan Ze, the Director of the Secretariat of Wu; and according with sūtras such as the *Āgamas*, I calculate that the Buddha, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month of the twenty-third year (guichou) of the reign of Xia, King Zhao, the fifth ruler of the Ji clan of Zhou, manifested in the form of a white elephant and descended his spirit from Tuṣita to enter the womb of Māyā in the palace of King Śuddhodana. Thus the *Houhan faben neizhuan* says: ‘Emperor Ming asked Master She Moteng: “Can the month and day of the Buddha’s birth be known or not?” Teng replied: “On the fifteenth day of the seventh month of the guichou year, the Buddha entrusted his pregnancy to Māyā.” It was this very year.’ On the eighth day of the fourth month of the twenty-fourth year (jiayin) of King Zhao, he was born from her right flank beneath a poluo tree in the Lumbinī Grove. Thus the *Puyao jing* says: ‘He emitted a great light universally illuminating the trichiliocosm.’ This is what the *Zhoushu yiji* refers to: ‘On the eighth day of the fourth month of the twenty-fourth year (jiayin) of King Zhao, the rivers, streams, springs, and pools suddenly flooded; dry wells and gushing springs all overflowed. The palaces, human dwellings, mountains, rivers, and the great earth all trembled. That night, there was a five-coloured luminous vapour that penetrated the Great Subtlety and spread over the western quarter, turning entirely bluish-red. King Zhao immediately asked the Grand Astrologer Su You: “What kind of omen is this?” Su You said: “A Great Sage has been born in the western quarter, hence this auspicious sign appears.” King Zhao asked: “How will it be for the realm under heaven?” Su You said: “For the present there is nothing; a thousand years hence, his voice and teaching will reach this land.” King Zhao thereupon sent men to engrave a stone to record it and buried it in front of the heavenly shrine on the southern suburban altar.’ The Buddha’s birth was in this very year. In the forty-second year (renshen) of King Zhao, at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month, he leaped over the city wall to go forth. Thus the *Ruiying jing* says: ‘When the Prince was nineteen, at midnight on the eighth day of the fourth month, a god peeked through the window, clasped his hands, and said: “The time has come to leave!” He then ordered his horse and set off.’ It was this very year. The second year (guiwei) of the sixth ruler of the Zhou, King Mu, whose taboo name was Man, on the eighth day of the second month, when the Buddha was thirty, he attained the Way. Thus the *Puyao jing* says: ‘When the morning star appeared, the Bodhisattva was suddenly and greatly enlightened.’ It was this very year. In the fifty-second year (renshen) of King Mu of the Zhou, on the fifteenth day of the second month, when the Buddha was seventy-nine, he only then passed away into nirvāṇa. Thus the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: ‘On the fifteenth day of the second month, when he approached nirvāṇa, he emitted diverse lights, and the great earth quaked in six ways. The sound reached the Peak of Existence (bhavāgra), and the light pervaded the trichiliocosm.’ This is what the *Zhoushu yiji* refers to: ‘At dawn on the fifteenth day of the second month of the fifty-second year (renshen) of King Mu’s reign, a violent wind suddenly arose, damaging human dwellings and breaking trees; the mountains, rivers, and great earth all quaked. After midday, the sky grew overcast and the clouds turned dark; in the western quarter there were twelve white rainbows extending through from south to north, not vanishing throughout the night. King Mu asked the Grand Astrologer Hu Duo: “What kind of portent is this?” Hu Duo replied: “In the western quarter a Great Sage has passed into nirvāṇa, and the signs of decline have merely manifested.”’ The Buddha’s entry into nirvāṇa was in this very year. From the manifestation of his birth in the twenty-fourth year (jiayin) of King Zhao down to the present thirteenth year (yihai) of Zhenguan of the Great Tang, exactly 1,618 (18 is perhaps an error for 66) years have passed. As for the claim that Faxian’s record says the Sage was born in the time of the Yin kings: Faxian, although he traveled to foreign lands, left a record that cannot be relied upon; the year and month are extraordinarily discrepant and vast like the Han River. Furthermore, Dao'an’s [calculation of] yichou and Shangtong’s [calculation of] jiayin lack grounds and are insufficient as proof. Also, the records of the semblance and true [dharmas] rarely show reliable evidence. Master Dao'an's treatise relied on Kumārajīva's record; Kumārajīva's record received it from An Shigao; and An Shigao translated in Luoyang during the time of Emperor Huan of the Han, trusting that the scribe relied on the era of King Huan [of Zhou]. However, Kumārajīva only arrived in the Qin, whereas Shigao arrived earlier in the Han dynasty; the two masters were separated by nearly three hundred years. He trusted that successive transmission and relied on it for his record; it was not that Dao'an's treatise committed an error in haste, but rather that it was all due to the fault of the transmitters of that time. Furthermore, the Sui dynasty's Scholar of Translation Fei Changfang claimed that the Buddha was born during the reign of King Zhuang; Changfang, because two Zhuangs were contemporary, equated the tenth year of King Zhuang of the Zhou with the seventh year of Duke Zhuang of Lu. Relying merely on the fixed stars as verification, he said the Buddha was born, failing to realize that the fixed stars were due to another matter. Lin notes that the *Mañjuśrīparinirvāṇa Sūtra* states that two hundred and fifty years after the Buddha’s extinction, Mañjuśrī went to the Snowy Mountains, converted five hundred ṛṣis, and then returned to his native land, emitting a great light that universally illuminated the world before entering nirvāṇa. The auspicious omen of the fixed stars was precisely that time. Changfang's claim that he was born on the eighth day of the second month was in fact the fourth month, not the second month. However, what Changfang determined did not investigate the root of the matter. Why? Changfang said that the Zhou took the eleventh month as the first month of the year; what is called the fourth month is the present second month. Although he called it the second month, it was ultimately the fourth month. If one examines the whole of the *Spring and Autumn Annals*, the year uses the years of Duke Zhuang of Lu, and the months take the months of the Zhou kings. Since the fixed stars were originally an omen in the Zhou era, one must rely on the seasons, months, and days of the Zhou. Changfang's statement that the Buddha was born on the eighth day of the second month of the tenth year of King Zhuang was extremely reckless. If it were the second month, one should not discuss the stars. Changfang also said that the Buddha descended into the womb on the eighth day of the fourth month: since descending into the womb used the Zhou month, his actual birth was also at a Zhou time. Now saying it was the second month is also incorrect. If the Zhou took the eleventh month as the first month of the year, the Tathāgata could not possibly have been born in the second month. An ordinary human entering the womb in the first month is born in the tenth month; entering the womb in the fourth month, they are born in the first month. The Buddha, stooping to match the human world, was in the womb for seven months and was therefore born in the fourth month. Wang Shao's *Qi zhi* says: ‘The Zhou fourth month is the Xia sixth month’ (the two characters ‘Zhou’ and ‘Xia’ can only work if transposed). Calculating backwards from this, one born in the fourth month was in the womb in the seventh month. Now saying the sixth month takes its solar terms; though it passed through seven months, it ultimately pertained to the sixth month. Truly we know that what Wang Shao said is not mistaken. Furthermore, Changfang's statement that the Buddha attained the Way in the nineteenth year (guihai) of King Hui of the Zhou, in the second month when the morning star appeared, also has a great flaw. Why? According to Liu Xiang’s ancient and old catalogues, in the time of King Hui of the Zhou, the Buddhist teaching had already gradually begun; one hundred and fifty years later, Laozi only then proclaimed the five-thousand-word text. If he had only attained Buddhahood in the time of King Hui, the scriptures and teaching could not already have been transmitted to the capital Luoyang. Moreover, calculating that King Hui was the grandson of King Zhuang, extrapolating from the guihai year, the separation was only thirty years; he could not have just attained Buddhahood while the scriptures and teaching had already arrived in this land. When we trace the Tathāgata's teaching in the world for forty-nine years, Kāśyapa's compilation occurred after the Buddha's extinction; the gradual eastward transmission of the Dharma gate was precisely during the Zhou. Liu Xiang’s words are truly not erroneous! Changfang’s catalogue definitely cannot be relied upon. In general, the holy manifestations have no fixed form and their principles are difficult to fathom. How much more so when east and west are separated by great distances, and the ages are so remote! Furthermore, they suffered the vertical and horizontal alliances of the Six States and the Qin burning of the Five Classics. Those who recorded chronologies have not been few, and those who arranged imperial calendars have been many houses; yet they have mutual discrepancies, additions, subtractions, appearances, and disappearances, each taking their own opinions as a guide. Lin has now roughly narrated what has been seen and heard, scrutinized the various historical records, briefly set forth the distant and near, and definitively clarified their sequence.”