[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) › [弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102) › 2.13 # 弘明集 2.13 弘明集 2.13 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.2.13) 答曰。余前論之指已明。俗儒而編專在治跡。言有出於世表。或散沒於史策。或絕滅於坑焚。今又重敷所懷。夫三皇之書謂之三墳。言大道也。爾時也孝慈天足。豈復訓以仁義。純朴不離。若老莊者復何所扇。若不明神本於無生空眾性以照極者。復以何為大道乎。斯文沒矣。世孰識哉。史遷之述五帝也。皆云。生而神靈。或弱而能言。或自言其名。懿淵疏通其智如神。既以類夫大乘菩薩化見而生者矣。居軒轅之丘。登崆峒陟几岱。幽陵蟠木之遊逸跡超浪。何以知其不由從如來之道哉。以五帝之長世。堯治百年。舜則七十。廣成大隗鴻崖巢許支父化人姑射四子之流。玄風畜積洋溢于時。而五典餘類唯唐虞二篇。而至寡闕子長之記。又謂。百家之言黃帝。文不雅訓。搢紳難言。唯採殺伏。治跡猶萬不記一。豈至道之盛不見于殘缺之篇。便當皆虛妄哉。今以神明之君。遊浩然之世。携七聖於具茨。見神人於姑射。一化之生復何足多談。微言所精。安知非窮神億劫之表哉。廣成之言曰。至道之精窈窈冥冥。即首楞嚴三昧矣。得吾道者上為皇下為王。即亦隨化升降為飛行皇帝轉輪聖王之類也。失吾道者上見光下為土。亦生死於天人之界者矣。感大隗之風稱天師而退者。亦十號之稱矣。自恐無生之化。皆道深於若時。業流於玄勝。而事沒振古理隨文翳。故百家所摭若曉而昧。又搢紳之儒不謂雅訓。遂令殉世而不深于道者。仗史籍而抑至理。從近情而忽遠化。困精神於永劫豈不痛哉。伯益述山海。天毒之國偎人而愛人。郭璞傳。古謂天毒即天竺浮屠所興。偎愛之義。亦如來大慈之訓矣。固亦既聞於三五之世也。國典不傳不足疑矣。凡三代之下及孔老之際。史策之外竟何可量。孔之問禮老為言之。關尹之求復為明道。設使二篇或沒其言。獨存於禮記。後世何得不謂柱下翁。直是知禮老儒。豈不體於玄風乎。今百代眾書飄蕩於存亡之後。理無備在。豈可斷以所見絕獻酬於孔老哉。東方朔對漢武劫燒之說。劉向列仙敘七十四人在佛經。學者之管窺於斯又非漢明而始也。但馳神越世者眾而顯。結誠幽微者寡而隱。故潛感之實不揚於物耳。道人澄公仁聖。於石勒虎之世。謂虎曰。臨菑城中有古阿余王寺處。猶有形像承露盤。在深林巨樹之下。入地二十丈。虎使者依圖陷求皆如言得。近姚略叔父為晉王。於河東蒲坂古老所謂阿育王寺處。見有光明。鑿求得佛遺骨。於石函銀匣之中光曜殊常。隨略迎都。於霸上比丘今見在新寺。由此觀之。有佛事於齊晉之地久矣哉。所以不說於三傳者。亦猶于寶孫盛之史。無語稱佛而妙化實彰。有晉而盛於江左也。 > I reply: "The purport of my previous treatise has already made this clear: the compilations of worldly scholars focus exclusively on traces of governance; words that surpass the world were either scattered and lost from historical records, or destroyed and extinguished in the burning of books and burying of scholars. Now I shall once again lay out my thoughts. The books of the Three Sovereigns are called the Three Fen, which speak of the Great Dao. In that time, filial piety and kindness were naturally complete; how could they have instructed with humaneness and righteousness? Pure simplicity was not yet abandoned; what would there have been for those like Laozi and Zhuangzi to sway? If they did not illuminate the spirit as originating in the unarisen and making empty all natures to shine upon the ultimate, what else would be regarded as the Great Dao? These texts are lost; who in the world would recognize them? When Sima Qian described the Five Emperors, he said of all of them that they were 'born divine and efficacious,' or 'able to speak while infants,' or 'named themselves,' and were 'profound, penetrating, and their wisdom was like spirits.' They already resemble Mahāyāna bodhisattvas who manifest transformations and are born. Residing on the hill of Xuanyuan, ascending Mount Kongtong, climbing Mount Ji and Mount Tai, traveling to the Youling and Panmu trees—their free and unrestrained traces were transcendent. How do we know they did not follow the way of the Tathāgata? Given the long eras of the Five Emperors—Yao governed for a hundred years, and Shun for seventy—the mysterious influence of figures like Guangcheng, Dawei, Hongya, Chao Fu, Xu You, the father of Zizhou, the transformed men, and the four masters of Mount Gushe accumulated and overflowed at that time. Yet among the Five Dian, only two chapters on Tang and Yu remain, being extremely sparse and incomplete. Zichang's records also state that the sayings of the Hundred Schools concerning the Yellow Emperor 'are not elegant and proper in language, so the gentry find them hard to speak of.' He recorded only deeds of subjugation and traces of governance, yet not one in ten thousand was recorded. How could it be that because the flourishing of the ultimate Dao is not seen in incomplete chapters, it must all be false? Now, divine and enlightened rulers traveled in a vast world, leading the seven sages at Jici and visiting the divine man at Gushe; what need is there to speak further of the life of a single transformation? How do we know that what was refined in their subtle words did not plumb the spirit beyond billions of kalpas? The words of Guangcheng say, 'The essence of the ultimate Dao is deep and dark'—this is the Śūraṅgama Samādhi. 'Those who attain my Dao become sovereigns above and kings below'—this means ascending or descending in accordance with transformation to become flying emperors, wheel-turning sage kings, and the like. 'Those who lose my Dao see light above and become soil below'—this also refers to being born and dying within the realms of devas and humans. That \[the Yellow Emperor\], stimulated by Dawei's wind, addressed him as Heavenly Master and withdrew—this is also one of the ten titles \[of a Buddha\]. I suspect that the transformation of the unarisen was profoundly deep in those times, and its karma flowed among the mysteriously supreme; but deeds were lost in antiquity and the principle was obscured along with the texts. Therefore, what the Hundred Schools gathered was as if understood yet obscure; furthermore, the gentry scholars did not regard it as elegant and proper, thus causing those who sacrifice themselves for worldly matters without deepening themselves in the Dao to rely on historical records to suppress the ultimate principle, following immediate inclinations while neglecting distant transformations, and entangling their spirits across eternal kalpas—is this not lamentable? Boyi described the Classic of Mountains and Seas, saying that in the country of Tiandu, 'they lean on people and love people.' Guo Pu's commentary says that antiquity called Tiandu 'Tianzhu,' where Buddhism arose; the meaning of 'leaning on and loving' is also the Tathāgata's instruction of great compassion. It was indeed already heard in the era of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors; that the state records did not transmit it is not sufficient cause for doubt. In general, from the Three Dynasties down to the era of Confucius and Laozi, how could anything outside the historical records be measured? When Confucius asked about ritual, Laozi explained it to him; when the Gatekeeper Yin requested it, he again clarified the Dao for him. Supposing those two chapters had lost their words and were preserved solely in the Book of Rites, how could later generations not regard the Old Man under the Pillar simply as an old Confucian who knew ritual—how could they know he embodied the mysterious wind? Today, books of a hundred generations have drifted away amidst preservation and loss, and principles cannot be fully present; how can one judge by what is seen and cut off the interaction of Confucius and Laozi? Dongfang Shuo's answer to Emperor Wu of Han regarding the kalpa fire, and Liu Xiang's Liexian zhuan recording seventy-four persons found in Buddhist scriptures—the scholars' glimpse through a bamboo tube in these matters did not begin with Emperor Ming of Han. However, those who gallop their spirits beyond the world are numerous and prominent, while those who bind their sincerity in the subtle and obscure are few and hidden; thus the reality of latent stimulation is not proclaimed among worldly matters. Master Dao'an's teacher Fotudeng was humane and sage. In the era of Shi Le and Shi Hu, he said to Hu, 'Within the city of Linzi there is the site of an ancient King Aśoka monastery, where there are still images and dew-receiving basins beneath deep forests and giant trees, twenty fathoms into the earth.' Hu sent messengers to dig and search according to the map, and all was found as he had said. Recently, Yao Lüe's uncle, serving as Prince of Jin, saw a bright light at Hedong's Puban where elders spoke of an ancient King Aśoka monastery; digging in search, he found a relic bone of the Buddha inside a stone case and silver box, shining with extraordinary brilliance. Following Lüe, he welcomed it to the capital, and it is now seen in the new monastery by the monks on the Ba Embankment. Viewed from this, that there were Buddhist events in the regions of Qi and Jin has been true for a long time. The reason they were not recounted in the Three Commentaries is just as in the histories of Gan Bao and Sun Sheng: without mentioning the word 'Buddha,' the wondrous transformation was nonetheless manifested, flourishing in Jiangzuo under the Jin dynasty." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.2.12) - [Next: 2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.2.14) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102~en-mt.2.13) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.2.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2102.2.13) · Pramāṇa