廣弘明集 12.32

12.32

The treatise states: We observe that on the xinmao night the brilliance shone, and the Lu history recorded the traces of his transformation; on the bingzi day the comet flared, and the Han annals recorded his majestic spiritual power. Thereafter, the image teaching moved westward and the stream of Dharma gradually flowed east. From the time Mātaṅga arrived in the Han and first translated the true words, to when Gupta entered the Sui and copiously translated the Buddhist scriptures, rattan bark and palm leaves transmitted the texts of India from afar, and jade tablets and golden paper recently translated the language of Cīnasthāna. Since then, the flowing spread has continued down to the present. From Emperor Ming of the Han onward, passing through fifteen dynasties, there have been one hundred and ninety-six translators; the sūtras, vinayas, records, and treatises they produced amount to 2,145 works in 6,152 fascicles. All of these were expounded in the Sanskrit tongue and transmitted from India. Discussing the dragon cave and scripture storehouses, not even a tenth has been exhausted; the Dharma treasury of Vulture Peak is ten thousand times greater, so how could it ever be ended? What has been translated today is merely a modest amount. Examining the imperial reigns and seeking through the charts and histories, the documents provide clear proof; how could any doubt be cast? Looking back into the scriptures and records annotated by the Daoists: what was absent in the past exists today, with genuine texts being few and forgeries many. As the "Treatise on Literature" clarifies: although there were thirty-seven houses and 793 chapters in the Daoist lineage, only seven houses and 82 chapters clarified the Dao of pristine vacuity and self-preservation of Laozi. The remaining thirty houses and 711 chapters merely clarified the ancient and modern ways of imperial governance and moral transformation. Therefore the *Inner Transmission of the Origin of the Dharma* of the *Book of the Later Han* states: "On the occasion of the New Year's audience on the first day of the first month of the fourteenth year of the Yongping era of Emperor Ming of the Han, Chu Shanxin and other Daoists from the mountains of the Five Sacred Peaks and eighteen abbeys, numbering 690 persons, heard that Kāśyapa Mātaṅga, Dharmaratna, and others had brought Buddhist scriptures and images to Luoyang, and that the entire realm revered them and the whole country turned toward them. Shanxin and the others harbored malice and jealousy within, and sought to compete. They brought all of their Daoist scriptures and books, totaling thirty-seven works in 744 fascicles. At that time, when set against [the Buddhist texts] to be burned, they were all reduced to ashes. Shanxin and the others died of shame, indignation, resentment, and agitation." Deducing from this, in the time of Emperor Ming of the Han, Daoist scriptures and books numbered merely thirty-seven works in 744 fascicles. Although there were many scrolls, they were not all Daoist scriptures; only 509 fascicles were spoken by the Heavenly Worthy and Daoist Lord, while the remaining 235 fascicles were books by various masters such as Huangdi and Laozi. Since that time, those exceeding this number have all been false fabrications added by Daoists, and cannot be trusted. Coming down to the Song dynasty, the Daoist Lu Xiujing replied to Emperor Ming of the Song, saying: "Daoist scriptures and books, together with medicinal recipes, talismans, and diagrams, total 1,228 fascicles. Only these are correct; the rest are all spurious." Yet today's Daoists either fabricate texts from their own whim or alter Buddhist sūtras, supplementing catalogues and increasing the works and cases, claiming that there are 2,040 fascicles—how much empty talk is this, exceeding the former count! We may ask the Daoists: Were the scriptures produced later spoken anew by the Heavenly Worthy, or were they previously set forth by Laozi? Even if they were expounded scriptures, they should have had a location: Under which emperor, at what time, in which year, and in which month? If there is certainly evidence, they may be permitted to circulate; if they are fraudulent and false, by principle they ought to be excised and deleted. Moreover, texts composed by secular scholars that have been co-opted as Daoist scriptures are likewise many in kind: such as the *Taixuan jing* composed by Yang Xiong, the *Dongxuan jing* produced by Wang Bao, the *Zhigui jing* composed by Yan Junping, the *Sanhuang jing* produced by Bao Jing, the *Kaitian jing* composed by Zhang Pan, and the *Huahu jing* produced by Wang Fu. They have either taken the legend of Pangu or taken chapters from the various masters, falsely adopting secular books to serve as the Daoist teaching, and stealing Buddhist scriptures to treat as Laoist classics. This has been briefly stated before and cannot be repeated. It is like an utterly destitute man stealing another's treasures to serve as his family wealth, or a starving man in desperate straits eating chaff and mustard as delicious food. In my, Gai's, view: Laozi's two chapters are the true Daoist scriptures, which should be practiced in accordance with the statutes; all the other sections are false attributions and must be rectified, so that it may be known that Daoism is distinct from Buddhism and Laozi is different from Śākya, so that the rat-jade is not confused with genuine jade and chickens and phoenixes are clearly distinguished. How could students of later generations fall into error?