廣弘明集 9.133

9.133

臣鸞笑曰。道士所上經目。陸修靜目中見有經書。藥方符圖止有一千二百二十八卷。本無雜書諸子之名。而道士今列二千餘卷者。乃取漢藝文志目八百八十四卷為道之經論。據如此狀。理有可疑。何者至如韓子孟子淮南之徒。並言道事。又有八老黃白之方。陶朱變化之術。翻天倒地之符。辟兵殺鬼之法。及藥方呪厭得為道書者。可須引來。未知連山歸藏易林太玄黃帝金匱。太公六韜。何以不在道書之例乎。修靜目中本無諸子。今乃剩安。不知何據。且去年七月中道士所上經目。止注諸子三百五十卷為道經。今云八百餘卷。何以前後不同。又人之有惡惟恐人知。己之有善慮人不見。故道士自書云。不受道戒者不得讀道經。即如此狀。恐人知其醜乎。若以諸子為道書者。人中諸子悉須追取。何得遺之。且道士引例我老子道德。本是諸子。今尊為經。流例相附有何過歟。若爾則知老子黃子諸子之流。如何得與儒流七經而相抗乎。班固先六經後二篇。序道為中上賢類。斯實錄矣。

Your subject [Zhen] Luan smiles and says: In the catalogue of scriptures submitted by the Daoist priests, among the scriptures, medical recipes, tallies, and charts actually found in Lu Xiujing’s catalogue, there were only 1,228 fascicles. Originally there were no titles from miscellaneous books or the various philosophers. Yet now the Daoist priests list over two thousand fascicles by taking the 884 fascicles from the bibliographic treatise of the Han History and making them Daoist scriptures and treatises! Based on this circumstance, it is logically suspect. Why? If figures such as Han Fei, Mencius, and Huainanzi all spoke of matters concerning the Dao, and there are recipes of the Eight Elders for yellow and white, the arts of transformation of Tao Zhu, tallies to overturn heaven and invert earth, methods to ward off weapons and slay demons, as well as medical recipes and spells that can be considered Daoist books and must be cited, I wonder why the Lianshan, Guicang, Yilin, Taixuan, Yellow Emperor's Golden Casket, and Taigong's Six Strategies are not also classified as Daoist books? In Lu Xiujing's catalogue there were originally no philosophers; now they have added them in superfluously, without any known basis. Furthermore, in the catalogue of scriptures submitted by the Daoist priests in the seventh month of last year, they only annotated 350 fascicles of the various philosophers as Daoist scriptures; now they claim over 800 fascicles. Why does earlier contradict later? Moreover, when people have vice, they fear only that others might know it; when they have virtue, they worry only that others might not see it. Thus the Daoist priests' own texts state: ‘Those who have not received the Daoist precepts may not read Daoist scriptures.’ If this is the case, is it not because they fear people will know their ugliness? If the various philosophers are considered Daoist scriptures, then all the philosophers among men must be gathered in—how could any be omitted? Furthermore, the Daoist priests cite the precedent: ‘Our Laozi's Daodejing was originally among the philosophers, but is now revered as a scripture; what fault is there in attaching comparable works?’ If so, then how could the likes of Laozi, Huangzi, and the other philosophers compete with the Confucian lineage's Seven Classics? When Ban Gu placed the Six Classics first and the two chapters [of Laozi] after them, categorizing the Daoists as upper-middle worthies, that was truly an accurate record!