宋高僧傳 17.13

17.13

釋法明，本荊楚人也。博通經論，外善群書，辯給如流，戒範堅正。中宗朝入長安，遊訪諸高達，適遇詔僧、道定奪《化胡成佛經》真偽。時盛集內殿，百官侍聽。諸高位龍象，抗禦黃冠，翻覆未安，𦤞𭺠難定。明初不預其選，出場擅美，問道流曰：「老子化胡成佛，老子為作漢語化？為作胡語化？若漢語化胡，胡即不解。若胡語化，此經到此土，便須翻譯。未審此經是何年月？何朝代？何人誦胡語？何人筆受？」時道流絕救無對。明由此公卿歎賞，則神龍元年也。其年九月十四日，下勅曰：「仰所在官吏廢此偽經，刻石於洛京白馬寺，以示將來。」勅曰：「朕叨居寶位，惟新闡政，再安宗社，展恭禋之大禮，降雷雨之鴻恩，爰及緇黃，兼申懲勸。如聞天下諸道觀皆畫《化胡成佛變相》，僧寺亦畫玄元之形，兩教尊容，二俱不可。制到後限十日內並須除毀。若故留，仰當處官吏科『違勅罪』。其《化胡經》累朝明勅禁斷，近知在外仍頗流行，自今後其諸部《化胡經》及諸記錄。有化胡事，並宜除削。若有蓄者，準勅科罪。」其月洛京大恒道觀主桓道彥等上表固執，勅批曰：「朕以匪躬，忝承丕業，雖撫寧多失，而平恕實專。矧夫三聖重光，玄元統序，豈忘老教，偏意釋宗。朕志欵還淳，情存去偽。理乖事舛者，雖在親而亦除；義符名當者，雖有怨而必錄。頃以萬機餘暇，略尋三教之文。至於《道德》二篇，妙絕希夷之境。天竺有空二諦，理祕真如之談。莫不敷暢玄門，闡揚至賾，何假《化胡》之偽，方盛老君之宗。義有差違，文無典故，成佛則四人不同，論弟子則多聞舛互。尹喜既稱成佛，已甚憑虛。復云化作阿難，更成烏合。鬼谷、北郭之輩，未踐中天；舍利、文殊之倫，妄彰東土。胡漢交雜，年代亦乖。履水而說涅槃，曾無典據；蹈火而談妙法，有類俳優。誣詐自彰，寧煩縷說。經非老君所制，毀之則匪曰孝虧；文是鄙人所談，除之則更彰先德。來言雖切，理實未安。宜悉朕懷，即斷來表。」明之口給，當代無倫。援護法門，由之禦侮，惡言不入耳，其是之謂乎！

Śramaṇa Faming was originally a native of Jingchu. He was broadly versed in the sūtras and treatises, and also skilled in secular texts; his eloquence flowed like a stream, and his disciplinary standards were firm and upright. During the reign of Emperor Zhongzong he entered Chang'an, visiting various eminent figures, and happened to encounter an imperial edict ordering Buddhists and Daoists to determine the authenticity of the Scripture of Converting the Barbarians into Buddhas. At that time, a great assembly met in the inner palace, with the civil and military officials attending to listen. Various lofty dragons and elephants of the saṅgha resisted the yellow-crowns, back and forth without resolution, wavering and difficult to decide. Faming was initially not among those selected; stepping forth, he displayed his excellence, asking the Daoists: "Laozi converted the barbarians into Buddhas—did Laozi use Chinese to convert them, or did he use barbarian speech to convert them? If he used Chinese to convert the barbarians, the barbarians would not have understood. If he used barbarian speech to convert them, then when this scripture arrived in this land, it had to be translated. May I ask in what year and month, in what dynasty, who recited the barbarian speech, and who transcribed it?" At that time, the Daoists were utterly without recourse and could not answer. Faming was thereby admired and praised by the dukes and ministers; this was the first year of Shenlong. On the fourteenth day of the ninth month of that year, an imperial edict was issued: "Let the local officials in their jurisdictions abolish this forged scripture, and carve an inscription on stone at Baima Temple in Luoyang to show to future generations." The edict read: "We unworthily occupy the precious throne, newly promoting governance, once again securing the ancestral altars, carrying out the grand rites of reverent sacrifice, and bestowing the vast benevolence of thunder and rain; extending to both Buddhists and Daoists, We concurrently administer reprimand and encouragement. We have heard that throughout the empire Daoist monasteries all paint tableaux of 'Converting the Barbarians into Buddhas,' and Buddhist temples also paint images of the Mysterious Origin; the revered visages of both teachings are both impermissible. Within ten days after this decree arrives, all must be removed and destroyed. If anyone intentionally preserves them, let the local officials penalize them with the crime of 'violating an imperial edict.' As for the Scripture of Converting the Barbarians, successive reigns have clearly banned it by edict; recently We learned that among the populace it is still quite prevalent. From now on, all versions of the Scripture of Converting the Barbarians and various records containing matters of converting the barbarians should all be purged. If anyone harbors them, penalize the crime in accordance with the edict." That month, Abbot Huan Daoyan and others of Daheng Daoist Monastery in Luoyang stubbornly submitted a memorial, and the imperial rescript endorsed it: "We, through Our unworthy self, unworthily succeeded to the great enterprise; though Our pacification and comfort have suffered many shortcomings, Our fairness and forgiveness have been truly concentrated. Furthermore, since the three sages renewed their radiance and the Mysterious Origin established our ancestral lineage, how could We forget Laozi's teachings and be biased toward the Buddhist school? Our intention desires a return to simplicity, and Our sentiment rests on eliminating the false. Those whose principles are contrary and whose facts are flawed, even if close to Us, shall also be eliminated; those whose meaning accords and whose names are fitting, even if hostile, must certainly be recorded. Lately, in the leisure from myriad affairs of state, We have briefly perused the texts of the three teachings. As for the two chapters of the Daodejing, they wondrously surpass the realm of the subtle and silent. In India there are the two truths of emptiness and existence, and the principles conceal the discourse of suchness. There are none that do not expound the mystical gate and promote the utmost mysteries; why rely on the forgery of 'Converting the Barbarians' to cause Lord Lao's school to flourish? Its meanings are contradictory, and its text lacks classic precedents: as for becoming Buddhas, four persons differ; as for discussing disciples, those of great learning are inconsistent. For Yin Xi to already be claimed to have become a Buddha is already exceedingly groundless; furthermore to say that he transformed into Ānanda makes it even more of an unruly rabble. Figures such as Guigu and Beiguo never trod on Central India; those such as Śāriputra and Mañjuśrī are falsely manifested in the eastern land. Barbarian and Han are intermingled, and the eras are also contradictory. Walking on water to expound nirvāṇa has no canonical evidence; treading on fire to speak of the wondrous Dharma resembles the antics of actors. Its deceit is self-evident; why bother with detailed explanation? The scripture was not composed by Lord Lao; destroying it is not a lapse of filial piety. The text was spoken by vulgar persons; eliminating it will all the more manifest the virtues of the forebears. Although your submitted words are earnest, the principle is truly unstable. You should understand Our intention and immediately discontinue further memorials." Faming's eloquence was peerless in his generation. In defending the Dharma gate, through him they repelled insults; "evil words do not enter the ears"—is it not said of this?