廣弘明集 12.32

12.32

論言。尋辛卯夜明。魯史傳其化迹。丙子星㪍。漢冊記其威靈。然後像教西移法流東漸。自摩騰降漢創譯真言。笈多入隋盛飜釋典。藤皮貝葉。遠傳天竺之文。玉牒金牋。近飜震旦之語。爾來流演迄至于今。從漢明已來時。經一十五代。譯人一百九十有六。所出經律記論二千一百四十五部。合有六千一百五十二卷。此並梵音所演天竺所傳。論其龍窟經厨十分而未盡。鷲山法藏萬倍而何窮。今之所飜。蓋少多耳。考其帝代尋其圖史。典誥明據。奚可致疑。緬尋道家所注經籍。昔無今有真少偽多。如藝文志明。於道流雖有三十七家七百九十三篇。唯七家八十二篇。明李老清虛自守之道。自餘三十家七百一十一篇。乃明帝王治化古今之道。故後漢書法本內傳云。漢明帝永平十四年正月一日朝正之次。五岳十八觀諸山道士褚善信等六百九十人。聞攝摩滕竺法蘭等將佛經像來到雒陽。傾國敬崇率土歸向。信等內懷惡嫉求欲挍量。盡將道家經書。合三十七部七百四十四卷。當時對燒並皆焚燼。善信等慚憤憾激而死。以此而推。漢明之時。道家經書止有三十七部七百四十四卷。雖有多軸非盡道經。唯五百九卷。是天尊道君所說。餘二百三十五卷。乃黃老等諸子之書。自爾已來過此數者。並是道士增加妄造。不可承信。爰至宋朝。道士陸修靜。答宋明帝云。道家經書并藥方符圖。總有一千二百二十八卷。唯此為正。餘者並非。而今道士或出情製造。或改換佛經。添足目錄增加部帙。云有二千四十卷。復過前數幾許浪言。請問道士後出之經。為是天尊更說。為是老子前陳。縱使說經。應有處所。為是何帝何時何年何月。如必有據容得流傳。如其詐妄理合刊削。又俗士所製取作道經。此之流類數亦多矣。如太玄經揚雄所造。洞玄經王褒所製。指歸經嚴君平造。三皇經鮑靜所製。開天經張泮所造。化胡經王浮所製。或取槃古之傳。或取諸子之篇。假認俗書以為道教。偷竊釋典持作老經。前已略陳不能重述。似貧人磬窘盜他寶為家財。飢者困窮噉芻芥為美食。如概所見。老子二篇正是道經。依令行之。自餘諸部皆是妄認。事須正之庶知道與佛殊李將釋別。庶使鼠璞不濫鷄鳳條分。後學之徒。豈應謬歟。

The treatise states: We observe that on the xinmao night the brilliance shone, and the Lu history recorded the traces of his transformation; on the bingzi day the comet flared, and the Han annals recorded his majestic spiritual power. Thereafter, the image teaching moved westward and the stream of Dharma gradually flowed east. From the time Mātaṅga arrived in the Han and first translated the true words, to when Gupta entered the Sui and copiously translated the Buddhist scriptures, rattan bark and palm leaves transmitted the texts of India from afar, and jade tablets and golden paper recently translated the language of Cīnasthāna. Since then, the flowing spread has continued down to the present. From Emperor Ming of the Han onward, passing through fifteen dynasties, there have been one hundred and ninety-six translators; the sūtras, vinayas, records, and treatises they produced amount to 2,145 works in 6,152 fascicles. All of these were expounded in the Sanskrit tongue and transmitted from India. Discussing the dragon cave and scripture storehouses, not even a tenth has been exhausted; the Dharma treasury of Vulture Peak is ten thousand times greater, so how could it ever be ended? What has been translated today is merely a modest amount. Examining the imperial reigns and seeking through the charts and histories, the documents provide clear proof; how could any doubt be cast? Looking back into the scriptures and records annotated by the Daoists: what was absent in the past exists today, with genuine texts being few and forgeries many. As the "Treatise on Literature" clarifies: although there were thirty-seven houses and 793 chapters in the Daoist lineage, only seven houses and 82 chapters clarified the Dao of pristine vacuity and self-preservation of Laozi. The remaining thirty houses and 711 chapters merely clarified the ancient and modern ways of imperial governance and moral transformation. Therefore the *Inner Transmission of the Origin of the Dharma* of the *Book of the Later Han* states: "On the occasion of the New Year's audience on the first day of the first month of the fourteenth year of the Yongping era of Emperor Ming of the Han, Chu Shanxin and other Daoists from the mountains of the Five Sacred Peaks and eighteen abbeys, numbering 690 persons, heard that Kāśyapa Mātaṅga, Dharmaratna, and others had brought Buddhist scriptures and images to Luoyang, and that the entire realm revered them and the whole country turned toward them. Shanxin and the others harbored malice and jealousy within, and sought to compete. They brought all of their Daoist scriptures and books, totaling thirty-seven works in 744 fascicles. At that time, when set against [the Buddhist texts] to be burned, they were all reduced to ashes. Shanxin and the others died of shame, indignation, resentment, and agitation." Deducing from this, in the time of Emperor Ming of the Han, Daoist scriptures and books numbered merely thirty-seven works in 744 fascicles. Although there were many scrolls, they were not all Daoist scriptures; only 509 fascicles were spoken by the Heavenly Worthy and Daoist Lord, while the remaining 235 fascicles were books by various masters such as Huangdi and Laozi. Since that time, those exceeding this number have all been false fabrications added by Daoists, and cannot be trusted. Coming down to the Song dynasty, the Daoist Lu Xiujing replied to Emperor Ming of the Song, saying: "Daoist scriptures and books, together with medicinal recipes, talismans, and diagrams, total 1,228 fascicles. Only these are correct; the rest are all spurious." Yet today's Daoists either fabricate texts from their own whim or alter Buddhist sūtras, supplementing catalogues and increasing the works and cases, claiming that there are 2,040 fascicles—how much empty talk is this, exceeding the former count! We may ask the Daoists: Were the scriptures produced later spoken anew by the Heavenly Worthy, or were they previously set forth by Laozi? Even if they were expounded scriptures, they should have had a location: Under which emperor, at what time, in which year, and in which month? If there is certainly evidence, they may be permitted to circulate; if they are fraudulent and false, by principle they ought to be excised and deleted. Moreover, texts composed by secular scholars that have been co-opted as Daoist scriptures are likewise many in kind: such as the *Taixuan jing* composed by Yang Xiong, the *Dongxuan jing* produced by Wang Bao, the *Zhigui jing* composed by Yan Junping, the *Sanhuang jing* produced by Bao Jing, the *Kaitian jing* composed by Zhang Pan, and the *Huahu jing* produced by Wang Fu. They have either taken the legend of Pangu or taken chapters from the various masters, falsely adopting secular books to serve as the Daoist teaching, and stealing Buddhist scriptures to treat as Laoist classics. This has been briefly stated before and cannot be repeated. It is like an utterly destitute man stealing another's treasures to serve as his family wealth, or a starving man in desperate straits eating chaff and mustard as delicious food. In my, Gai's, view: Laozi's two chapters are the true Daoist scriptures, which should be practiced in accordance with the statutes; all the other sections are false attributions and must be rectified, so that it may be known that Daoism is distinct from Buddhism and Laozi is different from Śākya, so that the rat-jade is not confused with genuine jade and chickens and phoenixes are clearly distinguished. How could students of later generations fall into error?