廣弘明集 9.133

9.133

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!