廣弘明集 13.34

13.34

The Bodhisattva says: The Book of the Former Han states: 'Confucius belongs to the uppermost class; he is a sage. Laozi belongs to the upper-middle class; he is a worthy.' He Yan and Wang Bi say: 'Laozi had not yet attained sageliness.' The Treatise on the Two Teachings states: 'The Archivist serving in the court was originally not a counsellor; departing Zhou and entering Qin, he expounded the Dao for the Guardian of the Pass. He was unheard of among the feudal lords and was never received by the Son of Heaven.' If he were the teacher of Zhou, history would have clear proof. Since this does not match orthodox accounts, how could it be accepted? According to the Records of the Grand Historian and Wang Jian's Genealogy of the Hundred Families: The Li family descended from Gaoyang. Their founding ancestor was Gaoyao, who served as Shun's judicial officer (li), and thus adopted it as his clan name. The rise of the surname Li began with Dan. Prior to Dan, there was no surname Li; there was only the clan name Li (理). Because he was born beneath a plum tree (li), he adopted the surname Li. Laozi's son was named Zong, who served Marquis Wen of Wei; he was a person of the Six States period, at the end of the Spring and Autumn era. In the time of King Wen, there was not yet even the surname Li; how could there have been a Dan appearing as the master of the Zhou? The chronology is contradictory and has no reliable foundation. When Ge Hong's Baopuzi says he appeared in the era of King Wen, and Ji Kang and Huangfu Mi both say he was born at the end of the Yin, these refer to fabricated Daoist texts, not what is recorded in the state classics.