廣弘明集 13.12

13.12

開士曰。案盧景裕戴詵韋處玄等集解五千文及梁元帝周弘政等考義類云。太上有四。謂三皇及堯舜是也。言上古有此大德之君。臨萬民之上。故云太上也。郭莊云。時之所賢者為君。材不稱世者為臣。老子非帝非皇。不在四種之限。有何典據輒稱太上耶。撿道家玄妙及中台朱韜玉札等經并出塞記云。老是理母所生。不云有玄妙玉女。既非正說。尤假謬談也。仙人玉籙云。仙人無妻玉女無夫。雖受女形畢竟不產。若有茲瑞誠曰可嘉。何為史記無文周書不載。求虛責實。信矯妄者之言乎。

The Bodhisattva says: According to the Collected Explanations of the Five Thousand Characters by Lu Jingyu, Dai Shen, Wei Chuxuan, and others, as well as the Examination of Categories of Meaning by Emperor Yuan of the Liang and Zhou Hongzheng, 'Supreme' has four meanings, referring to the Three Sovereigns and Yao and Shun. This means that in high antiquity there were these rulers of great virtue who oversaw the ten thousand people, and therefore they are called 'Supreme.' Guo Xiang and Zhuangzi state: 'The worthy of the time is the ruler; he whose talent is not suited to the age is the minister.' Laozi was neither emperor nor sovereign, and does not fall within the scope of these four categories. On what canonical authority does he arbitrarily claim the title 'Supreme'? Examining Daoist scriptures such as the Xuanmiao Jing, the Zhongtai Zhutao Yuzha Jing, and the Chusai Ji, it states that Laozi was born of Mother Li, and makes no mention of a 'Profound and Marvellous Jade Maiden.' Since it is not an orthodox account, it is all the more a fabricated and erroneous assertion. The Jade Register of the Immortals says: 'Immortals have no wives, and jade maidens have no husbands; though they receive a female body, they never give birth.' If there were such an auspicious sign, it would indeed be praiseworthy. Why then is there no text in the Records of the Grand Historian, and no record in the Book of Zhou? Seeking truth amidst falsehood, should one believe the words of deceivers?