廣弘明集 9.34

9.34

臣笑曰。文始傳云。道生東木男也。佛生西金女也。今以五行推之。則金能刻木。木以金為官鬼。金以木為妻財。推此則佛是道之官鬼。道是佛之妻財也。又云。道生佛者理則不然。陰陽五行豈有生金之木。故知道不生佛。道人大坐。以是道之官府。道士小坐。以上逼於官也。道人不兵租者。以本王種故免也。道士庶賤兵租是常。道經若此。若免兵租便違道教。又靈寶大誡云。道士不飲酒不干貴。如何故違犯大誡乎。後之紜紜。全無指的。又云。道士以齋為死法。故不齋者。何不飽食終日養此形骸。而興絕粒服氣以求長生之術乎。卒不見之終。為捕影之論矣。又云。道人獨臥道士聚宿。據此合氣。黃書不可妄乎。

Your servant laughs, saying: The Wenshi zhuan says: 'The Dao is born of eastern wood, male; the Buddha is born of western metal, female.' Now, inferring through the Five Elements, metal can carve wood; wood regards metal as official/ghost, and metal regards wood as wife/wealth. Inferring from this, the Buddha is the official/ghost of the Dao, and the Dao is the wife/wealth of the Buddha! It also says that 'the Dao produces the Buddha,' but the principle is not so. In yin-yang and the Five Elements, how could there be wood that produces metal? Hence we know the Dao does not produce the Buddha. That Buddhist monks sit in large assemblies is because they are the official bureau of the Dao; that Daoists sit in small assemblies is because they are pressed from above by the officials. That Buddhist monks are exempt from military service and taxes is because of their original royal clan, and thus they are exempted; for Daoists, being of common and lowly status, military service and taxes are standard. If the Daoist scriptures are like this, then exempting them from military service and taxes would violate Daoist teachings! Moreover, the Lingbao dajie says: 'Daoists shall not drink wine, nor shall they curry favor with the noble.' How can they deliberately violate this great precept? What follows is a confused babble entirely without point. It also says: 'Daoists consider fasting to be a method of death, and therefore do not fast'—why then do they not gorge themselves all day long to nourish this physical frame, rather than taking up the cessation of grain and ingestion of qi to seek the arts of longevity? In the end, nothing comes of it; it is merely an argument of chasing shadows! It also says: 'Buddhist monks sleep alone, while Daoists lodge together.' Based on this, can the Yellow Book of sexual joining be false?