廣弘明集 5.49

5.49

難云。釋迦之現。近在莊王。唐虞夏殷何必已有。周公不言。恐由未出。非關宜隱。育王造塔。始敬王之世。閻浮有四。則東國不容都無。答曰。釋迦出世年月不可得知。佛經既無年歷注記。此法又未東流。何以得知是周莊之時。不過以春秋魯莊七年四月辛卯恒星不見為據。三代年既不同。不知外國用何曆法。何因知魯莊之四月。是外國之四月乎。若外國用周正耶。則四月辛卯長曆惟是五日了非八日。若用殷正耶周之四月殷之三月用夏正耶周之四月夏之二月。都不與佛家四月八日同也。若以魯之四月為證。則日月參差不可為定。若不以此為證。則佛生年月無證可尋。且釋迦初誕。唯空中自明。不云星辰不見也。瑞相又有日月星辰停住不行。又云。明星出時墮地方行七步。初無星辰不現之語。與春秋恒星不現。意趣永乖。若育王造塔是敬王之世。閻浮有四此道已流東國者。敬王以來至於六國。記注繁密曾無一概。育王立塔非敬王之時。又分明也。以此而推。則釋迦之興不容在近周世。公旦之情何得未有。難云。夫子自以華禮興教。何宜乃說夷法。故歎中國失禮。求之四夷。亦良有別意。答曰。弘教次第前論己詳。不復重辯。

The objection states: 'The appearance of Śākyamuni occurred only recently, during the reign of King Zhuang; why must it already have existed in the times of Tang, Yu, Xia, and Yin? That the Duke of Zhou did not speak of it was probably because it had not yet appeared, not because it was meant to remain hidden. King Aśoka built stupas starting in the reign of King Jing; since there were four in Jambudvīpa, the Eastern realm could not be utterly without them.'
I reply: The year and month of Śākyamuni's appearance in the world cannot be known. Since the Buddhist scriptures have no chronological records, and this Dharma had not yet flowed eastward, how can one know that it was during the time of King Zhuang of Zhou? It is merely based on the Spring and Autumn Annals, Duke Zhuang of Lu, seventh year, fourth month, the xinmao day, when 'the fixed stars were not seen.' The calendar years of the Three Dynasties differed; we do not know what calendar the foreign countries used. How do we know that the fourth month of Duke Zhuang of Lu was the fourth month of the foreign country? If the foreign country used the Zhou calendar, then the xinmao day of the fourth month in the astronomical tables was only the fifth day, not the eighth day at all. If they used the Yin calendar, the fourth month of Zhou was the third month of Yin; if they used the Xia calendar, the fourth month of Zhou was the second month of Xia. None of these corresponds to the eighth day of the fourth month in Buddhism. If one takes the fourth month of Lu as evidence, then the discrepancies in days and months cannot be fixed. If one does not take this as evidence, then there is no evidence to be found for the year and month of the Buddha's birth. Furthermore, when Śākyamuni was first born, it was only that the sky became luminous of itself; it is not said that the stars were not seen. The auspicious signs also included the sun, moon, and stars coming to a halt without moving. It also says: 'When the bright star appeared, he descended to the earth and immediately walked seven steps.' Originally, there was no mention of the stars not appearing. This completely contradicts the purport of 'the fixed stars were not seen' in the Spring and Autumn Annals. If King Aśoka built stupas during the reign of King Jing, and Jambudvīpa had four of them such that this Way had already flowed into the Eastern realm, then from King Jing down to the Six States, historical records were dense and detailed, yet there was never any trace of this. That King Aśoka's erection of stupas was not during the time of King Jing is also quite clear. Deductions based on this show that Śākyamuni's arising could not have been so recent as the Zhou dynasty. How could the Duke of Zhou's understanding have lacked it?
The objection states: 'Confucius himself promoted teaching based on Chinese ritual; why would it be appropriate for him to expound barbarian methods? Thus, he lamented that the Middle Kingdom had lost ritual and sought it among the Four Barbarians, which also truly had a distinct purpose.'
I reply: The gradual order of propagating the teaching has already been detailed in my previous treatise, so I will not argue it again.