[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) › [廣弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103) › 13.34 # 廣弘明集 13.34 廣弘明集 13.34 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [13.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.13.34) 開士曰。前漢書云。孔子為上上流。是聖。老子為中上流。是賢。何晏王弼云。老未及聖。二教論云。柱史在朝本非諧贊。出周入秦為尹言道。無聞諸侯不見天子。若為周師史無明證。不符正說。其可得乎。案史記王儉百家譜云。李者高陽之後。始祖咎繇為舜理官。因遂氏焉。李氏之興起於聃也。自聃之前未有李姓。唯氏理焉。以樹下生乃稱李氏。老子之子名宗。仕魏文侯。蓋春秋之末六國時人也。文王之世既無李姓。何得有聃出為周師。年代參差無的依據。抱朴云。出文王世嵇康皇甫謐並云生殷末者。蓋指道之偽文。非國典所載。 > The Bodhisattva says: The Book of the Former Han states: 'Confucius belongs to the uppermost class; he is a sage. Laozi belongs to the upper-middle class; he is a worthy.' He Yan and Wang Bi say: 'Laozi had not yet attained sageliness.' The Treatise on the Two Teachings states: 'The Archivist serving in the court was originally not a counsellor; departing Zhou and entering Qin, he expounded the Dao for the Guardian of the Pass. He was unheard of among the feudal lords and was never received by the Son of Heaven.' If he were the teacher of Zhou, history would have clear proof. Since this does not match orthodox accounts, how could it be accepted? According to the Records of the Grand Historian and Wang Jian's Genealogy of the Hundred Families: The Li family descended from Gaoyang. Their founding ancestor was Gaoyao, who served as Shun's judicial officer (li), and thus adopted it as his clan name. The rise of the surname Li began with Dan. Prior to Dan, there was no surname Li; there was only the clan name Li (理). Because he was born beneath a plum tree (li), he adopted the surname Li. Laozi's son was named Zong, who served Marquis Wen of Wei; he was a person of the Six States period, at the end of the Spring and Autumn era. In the time of King Wen, there was not yet even the surname Li; how could there have been a Dan appearing as the master of the Zhou? The chronology is contradictory and has no reliable foundation. When Ge Hong's Baopuzi says he appeared in the era of King Wen, and Ji Kang and Huangfu Mi both say he was born at the end of the Yin, these refer to fabricated Daoist texts, not what is recorded in the state classics. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 13.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.13.33) - [Next: 13.35](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.13.35) - [Up: 13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.13) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103~en-mt.13.34) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [辯正論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2110.6.21) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.13.34](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.13.34) · Pramāṇa