[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) › 8.25 # 廣弘明集 8.25 廣弘明集 8.25 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.25) 問曰。先生涇渭孔釋清濁大懸。與奪儒道取捨尤濫。史遷六氏道家為先。班固九流儒宗為上。討其祖述並可命家。論其憲章未乖典式。欲言俱非情謂未可。儻其都是何宜去取。答曰。塗軌乖順不可無歸。朱紫之際久宜有在。漢書十志並是古則。藝文五行豈今始有。農為治本史遷不言。安毀縱橫官典俱漏。故孟堅之撰。今古褒其是。子長之論。曩見貶其非。是以前漢書曰。史遷序墳籍。則先黃老後六經。論遊俠則退處士進姦雄。述貨殖則崇勢利羞貧賤。此其為弊也。 > "Question: Master, you distinguish Confucius and the Śākya like the Jing and Wei rivers, their clarity and turbidity greatly disparate; and in accepting and rejecting Confucianism and Daoism, your selections are especially unrestrained. In Sima Qian's six schools, the Daoists come first; in Ban Gu's nine schools, the Confucian lineage is placed foremost. Investigating what they transmitted, both can establish a school; discussing their regulations, neither violates the canonical model. To say they are both wrong, I feel, is unacceptable. If both are correct, on what basis should one choose or reject? Answer: Pathways of divergence and compliance must have that to which they belong; the boundary between vermilion and purple ought to have been established long ago. The Ten Treatises of the Book of Han all follow ancient standards; were the Treatises on Literature and the Five Elements newly created only now? Agriculture is the foundation of governance, yet Sima Qian did not discuss it; easily destroying the Strategists, both offices and canonical statutes were omitted. Therefore, regarding the composition of Ban Gu, both past and present praise its correctness; regarding the discussions of Sima Qian, antiquity saw criticism of his errors. Hence the Book of Former Han states: 'In Sima Qian's preface to the ancient texts, he placed Huang-Lao before the Six Classics; discussing wandering knights, he degraded retired scholars and advanced treacherous heroes; narrating money-making, he exalted power and profit while scorning poverty and lowliness. These are his defects.'" > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.24) - [Next: 8.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.26) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103~en-mt.8.25) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.25) · Pramāṇa