[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) › 8.55 # 廣弘明集 8.55 廣弘明集 8.55 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.55) 答曰。吾子援引漢書而問。余亦還以漢書而答。後漢西域傳曰。張騫之著天竺。惟云地多濕暑。斑勇之列身毒。正言奉佛不殺而精文。善法導達之功。靡所傳記。余聞之後說也。其國則殷平中土玉燭和氣。靈智之所降集。賢𧫎之所挺生。神迹詭怪則理絕人區。感驗明顯則事出天外。而騫超無聞者。豈其道閉往運數開叔葉乎。不然何經典之甚也。漢自楚英始盛齋戒之祀。桓帝又修華蓋之飾。將微義未譯。但神明之耶。且好仁惡殺蠲弊崇善。所以賢達君子多受其法焉。然好大不經奇譎無已。雖鄒衍談天之辯。莊周蝸角之論。未足以概其萬一。尋漢書之錄。兼而有徵。取其微義未譯。則云道書之流。談其神奇感驗。則言理絕天表。惟四藏贍博二諦並陳。總論九道則無非佛說。別明三乘則儒道非流。此乃在我之明證。非吾子之清決乎。 > I answer: You quote the Book of the Han to question me; I shall also reply using the Book of the Han. The 'Account of the Western Regions' in the Book of the Later Han says: Zhang Qian's record of Tianzhu merely said that the land was humid and hot. Ban Yong's entry on Shendu directly stated that they venerate the Buddha, do not kill, and are refined in literature; of the efficacy of the wholesome Dharma in guiding and leading people, there was no record transmitted. What I have heard from later accounts is that its kingdom is situated in the prosperous and balanced central land, endowed with the harmonious atmosphere of the jade candle; it is where spiritual wisdom descends and gathers, and where virtuous and eminent ones naturally come forth. Its miraculous traces and marvelous wonders transcend the human realm in principle; its manifest verifications and responses exceed beyond the heavens in facts. That Qian and Chao had not heard of them—is it not because the Way was closed in past dispensations and its destined times only opened in later generations? Otherwise, why would there be such a profusion of scriptures? From the Han, Prince Ying of Chu first popularized the sacrifices of fasting and precepts, and Emperor Huan further adorned it with flowered canopies. Was it not that the subtle meanings were yet untranslated, and they merely treated it as divine spirits? Moreover, loving benevolence, abhorring killing, eliminating evils, and exalting goodness are why worthy and noble gentlemen mostly received its teachings. Yet its grandeur surpasses the ordinary and its marvels are boundless; even Zou Yan's debates on speaking of the heavens and Zhuang Zhou's discourse on the snail's horns are insufficient to encompass even one ten-thousandth of it. Looking into the records of the Book of the Han, there is evidence for both: taking the fact that its subtle meanings were not yet translated, it was said to be of the same stream as Daoist texts; speaking of its miraculous signs and manifest verifications, it was said that its principles surpass beyond the heavens. Only in the four piṭakas are teachings abundant and broad, and the two truths are expounded together. Comprehensively discussing the nine paths, none are not spoken by the Buddha; distinguishing the three vehicles, Confucianism and Daoism are not of the same stream. Is this not a clear proof on my side, and not your clear judgment? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.54) - [Next: 8.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.56) - [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.8.55) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.55) · Pramāṇa