[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [集古今佛道論衡](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104) › 2.4 # 集古今佛道論衡 2.4 集古今佛道論衡 2.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104.2.4) 周武初信於佛。後以讖云黑衣當王。遂重於道法躬受符錄。玄冠黃褐內常服禦。心忌釋門志欲誅殄。而患信佛者多未敢專制。有道士張賓。譎詐罔上私達其策。潛集李宗排棄釋氏。又與前僧衛元嵩脣齒相副。共相爼醢。帝納其言。欲親覘經過貶量佛失。召僧入內七宵行道。時既密知。各加懇到。帝亦同僧七夕不寐。為僧讚唄并諸法事。既無過犯。無何而止。天和四年歲在己丑三月十五日。勅召有德眾僧名儒道士文武百官二千餘人昇正殿。帝御坐。量述三教優劣廢立。眾議紛紜情見乖咎。不定而散。至其月二十日依前集論是非更廣莫簡帝心索然又散。至四月初。又依前集令極言陳理。又勅司隷大夫甄鸞。詳佛道二教定其深淺。鸞乃上笑道論三卷。用笑三洞之名。及笑經稱三十六部。文極據明事多揚搉。至五月十日。帝大集群臣詳鸞上論。以為傷蠧道士。即於殿庭焚之。有安法師。慧解洞達內外淹通。時號釋宗眾標僧傑。帝所信重。常侍對揚僉議攸同三教齊立惟安抗辯。教止二焉。言出難尋著文易顯。乃撰二教論一十二篇。初歸宗顯本篇。略云。夫萬化本於無生。三才兆於無始。然則無生無始物之性也。有化有生人之聚也。聚雖一體而形神兩異。散雖質別而心數弗忘。故救形之教教稱為外。濟神之教教稱為內。是以智論有內外兩徑。仁王辯內外兩論。方等明內外兩律。百論言內外二道。若通論內外則該被華戎。若局命此方則可云儒釋。釋教為內。儒教為外。道無別教宗結儒流。備彰前典非為誕謬。詳覽載籍尋討根源。教惟有二。何得有三。何者昔玄古樸素。墳典之誥未弘。淳風稍離。丘索之文乃著。故包論七典統括九流。咸為軍國之謨。並是修身之術。若派而別之則應為九教。今總而合之則同屬儒宗。論其官也。各王朝之一職。談其籍也。並皇家之一書。何欲於一化之內合九流爭川。大道之世使小成競辯。豈不上傷皇極莫二之風。下開拘放鄙蕩之弊。真所謂巨蠹鴻猷眩曜朝野矣。言佛教者。窮理盡性之格言。出世入真之正轍。論其文則部分十二。語其旨則四種悉檀。理妙域中。固非名號所及。化擅像表。又非情智所尋。至於遣累落筌陶神盡照。近超生死遠證泥洹。播闡五乘。接群機之深淺。該明六道。辯善惡之昇沈。敻期出世而理無不周。邇及王化而事無不盡。能博能要不質不文。自非天下之至慮。孰能與斯教哉。雖復儒道千家農墨百氏。取捨驅馳未及其度者也。夫厚生情篤。身患之誡遂興。不悟遷流。逝川之歎乃作。並是域內之至談。非踰方之巨唱也。何者推色盡於極微。老氏之所未辯。究心窮於生滅。宣尼又所未言。可謂瞻之似盡。而察之未極者也。經曰。分別色心有無量相。非諸聲聞緣覺所知。況凡夫識想。安得齊於佛聖乎。經云。無以日光等彼螢火。斯喻極也。若夫以齊而齊不齊。未曰齊也。余聞善齊天下者。以不齊而齊天下者也。何須夷嶽實淵然後方平。續鳧截鶴於焉始等。此蓋狷夫之野議。豈達士之貞觀乎。故諺曰。紫實昧朱狂斯濫哲。請廣其類。上至天子下至庶人。莫不資色心以成軀。稟陰陽而化體。不可以色心是等而便混以智愚。陰陽義齊則使同之於貴賤。此之不可至理皎然。雖強齊之其義安在。餘文多不載。又曰。史記云。李老西邁止及流沙。化胡西昇等經不足窮究。漢末三張方行其道惑亂天下。備見史書。故李膺蜀記云。張陵避病瘧於丘社中。得呪鬼術書遂解鬼法。後為大蛇所噏。弟子等妄述昇天。其子衡。衡子魯。還習其道自號三師。陵為天師。衡為係師。魯為嗣師。咸以鬼道以化愚俗。後漢書云。張魯初為督義司馬。遂掩殺漢中太守蘇固。斷絕斜谷。殺漢使者。專據漢中三十餘載。戴黃巾。服黃布。造作符書。以惑百姓。受其道者出米五斗。世號米賊初來學者名為鬼卒。後云祭酒。各領部眾夷俗信向。朝廷不能討。遂就拜魯為鎮夷中郎將。通其貢獻。至獻帝二十年。曹操征而破之初漢末鬼言。黃衣當王。於是張角張魯等始服黃衣。曹氏受命以黃代赤。故年號黃初。黃巾之賊至是始平。元魏寇謙稍稍還服。今大道之世。風化宜同小巫。巾色宜改復古。且老子大賢絕棄貴尚。又是朝臣。服色寧異。古有專經之學而無服象之殊。黃巾布衣出自張氏。夫聖賢作訓弘裕溫柔。鬼神嚴厲動為寒暑。老子誡味祭酒咸飲。張制鬼服黃衣則齊。真偽皎然急緩可見。故略引張氏數條妄作。用懲未聞。 > Emperor Wu of the Zhou initially had faith in Buddhism. Later, because a prophecy said that 'those in black garments shall rule as kings,' he came to esteem Daoist techniques, personally received talismans and registers, wore a dark cap and yellow coarse robes in the palace, harbored suspicion toward the Buddhist tradition, and resolved to exterminate it. Yet fearing that those who believed in the Buddha were numerous, he did not dare to act unilaterally. There was a Daoist priest named Zhang Bin who deceitfully misled the sovereign to secretly advance his scheme, quietly gathering the Li clan to oust and abandon the Śākya clan. He also allied intimately with the former monk Wei Yuansong, joining together as mouth and teeth to cut down \[Buddhism\]. The Emperor accepted his words; wishing to personally inspect faults and measure the shortcomings of Buddhism, he summoned monks into the palace to practice the Way for seven nights. The monks, having secretly learned of this beforehand, all doubled their sincerity and devotion. The Emperor likewise stayed awake through the seven nights along with the monks, chanting hymns of praise for them and performing various ritual acts. As no transgression was found, the matter ceased without consequence. On the fifteenth day of the third month in the fourth year of the Tianhe reign (a jichou year), an imperial decree summoned over two thousand virtuous monks, renowned Confucians, Daoist priests, and civil and military officials to ascend the main palace hall. The Emperor took the imperial seat and appraised the merits, faults, abolition, or establishment of the three teachings. The assembly debated noisily; opinions clashed in disharmony, and they dispersed without resolution. On the twentieth day of that month, they assembled as before to debate right and wrong, but the scope broadened even further without meeting the Emperor's intentions, and they dispersed in disappointment. In the early part of the fourth month, they gathered once more as before, ordered to speak exhaustively and present their principles. An imperial decree was also issued to the Metropolitan Commandant Zhen Luan to scrutinize the two teachings of Buddhism and Daoism and determine their relative depths. Zhen Luan thereupon submitted the Xiaodao lun (Treatise Laughing at the Dao) in three fascicles, ridiculing the title 'Three Caverns' and the claim of thirty-six divisions of scripture. Its text was exceptionally well-evidenced and clear, extensively examining the issues. On the tenth day of the fifth month, the Emperor convened the civil and military officials on a grand scale to examine the treatise submitted by Zhen Luan. Deeming it harmful and damaging to Daoist priests, he had it burned immediately in the palace courtyard. There was a Dharma Master Dao'an whose wisdom and understanding penetrated thoroughly and who was comprehensively versed in both internal and external \[teachings\]. At the time he was called the pillar of the Śākya lineage and singled out as preeminent among the saṅgha. The Emperor trusted and esteemed him, regularly attending upon him and conversing with him. When the collective opinion agreed that the three teachings should be established alongside one another, only Dao'an argued vigorously: 'There are only two teachings!' Since spoken words are hard to trace while written compositions are easy to clarify, he composed the Erjiao lun (Treatise on the Two Teachings) in twelve chapters. In the first chapter, 'Returning to the Source and Revealing the Root', it states in brief: 'The myriad transformations are rooted in the unproduced; the three powers (Heaven, Earth, and Man) emerge from the beginningless. Thus, the unproduced and the beginningless are the nature of things. Transformation and birth are the convergence of humanity. Though convergence constitutes a single body, form and spirit are two distinct realities. Though dissolution separates physical form, the mental attributes are never forgotten. Therefore, the teaching that rescues the form is called external, while the teaching that delivers the spirit is called internal. For this reason, the Treatise on the Great Perfection of Wisdom speaks of the two paths of internal and external; the Humane Kings Sūtra distinguishes the two discourses of internal and external; the Vaipulya sūtras clarify the two monastic codes of internal and external; and the Śata-śāstra speaks of the two paths of internal and external. If speaking broadly of the internal and external, it encompasses both the Chinese and the barbarians. If speaking strictly of this land, one may say Confucianism and Buddhism. The Buddhist teaching is internal; the Confucian teaching is external. Daoism has no separate teaching; its fundamental lineage belongs to the Confucian stream. This is fully attested in ancient scriptures and is no fabrication. If one carefully examines the records and traces their origins, there are only two teachings; how could there be three? For in the primordial simplicity of high antiquity, the proclamations of the Three Sanhuang and Five Di texts were not yet widespread. When pristine customs gradually declined, the writings of the Sanfen and Baosuo began to appear. Therefore, embracing the seven canonical texts and encompassing the nine lineages, they were all statecraft for military and governance, and techniques for cultivating the person. If divided into branches, there should be nine teachings; if unified together now, they equally belong to the Confucian lineage. In terms of office, each was a post of the royal court; in terms of texts, they were all books of the imperial house. Why seek, within a single transformation, to let the nine streams vie like converging rivers, or in an age of the Great Dao, allow minor attainments to compete in argument? Does this not above injure the singular way of the sovereign, and below open the faults of either rigid narrowness or vulgar licentiousness? This is truly what may be called a great harm to the grand design, bewildering both court and countryside! As for the Buddhist teaching, it is the standard of exhausting principles and fulfilling nature, the true path of transcending the mundane and entering ultimate reality. Regarding its texts, it is divided into twelve parts; speaking of its tenets, it comprises the four siddhāntas. Its principle is subtle within the realm, indeed beyond the reach of names and designations; its transformative influence reigns beyond all forms, again beyond what cognitive discernment can trace. As for shedding burdens and abandoning the fish-trap, refining the spirit to full illumination, it immediately transcends birth and death and ultimately realizes nirvāṇa. It proclaims and expounds the five vehicles, accommodating the depths and shallows of varied capacities; it completely illuminates the six destinies, distinguishing the ascents and descents of good and evil. Reaching far into the supramundane, its principles are all-encompassing; extending near to royal governance, its matters are exhaustively addressed. It can be broad, it can be essential; it is neither crude nor overly ornate. If not for the supreme contemplation under Heaven, who could participate in this teaching? Even with the thousand schools of Confucians and Daoists, or the hundred lineages of agriculturists and Mohists, their selections and strivings have never attained its measure. When the sentiment of valuing life is profound, the admonition concerning the afflictions of the body arises; failing to realize impermanence, the lament over the flowing stream is uttered. These are all supreme discourses within the realm, not the great proclamations transcending the world. Why is this? Pushing material form to its subatomic extreme was never explained by Laozi; investigating the mind to its arisings and ceasings was never spoken of by Confucius. One may say that gazing at them, they seem exhaustive, but scrutinizing them, they have not reached the ultimate. A sūtra says: "Distinguishing form and mind has immeasurable characteristics; it is not known by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." How much less could the discursive thoughts of ordinary mortals ever be equated with the Buddha-sage? A sūtra says: "Do not compare the light of the sun to that of a firefly." This metaphor is consummate! If one makes things equal merely by forcing what is unequal into equality, that cannot be called equality. I have heard that one who is good at equalizing all under Heaven equalizes all under Heaven through their inequalities. Why must one level the mountain peaks and fill the deep chasms before they are flat, or lengthen the duck’s legs and sever the crane’s before they are equal? Such is the crude opinion of narrow-minded men; how could it be the upright discernment of an enlightened master? Thus the proverb says: "Purple indeed obscures red; folly thus corrupts wisdom." Let us broaden the comparison: from the Son of Heaven above down to the commoners below, all rely on form and mind to constitute their person, and receive yin and yang to transform their bodies. One cannot, simply because form and mind are alike, conflate the wise with the foolish; nor, because yin and yang are fundamentally equal, make the noble and the base identical. That this is untenable is luminous in its ultimate principle; even if one forcibly equates them, where is the sense in it?' Much of the rest of the text is not recorded here. It also says: 'The Records of the Grand Historian states: "Laozi traveled west and only reached the Moving Sands." Scriptures such as The Conversion of the Barbarians and The Western Ascension are unworthy of serious investigation. Only at the end of the Han did the three Zhangs begin to practice their way, misleading and throwing all under Heaven into chaos, as is fully seen in historical records. Thus Li Ying's Shu ji says: "Zhang Ling, avoiding malaria among the shrine mounds, obtained a book of ghost-incantation techniques and thereupon understood ghost-magic. Later he was devoured by a great serpent, but his disciples falsely reported that he had ascended to Heaven. His son Heng, and Heng's son Lu, in turn practiced his way, calling themselves the Three Masters: Ling was the Heavenly Master, Heng was the Succession Master, and Lu was the Inheriting Master. All used the way of ghosts to transform the foolish masses." The Book of the Later Han says: "Zhang Lu was initially an Officer of Righteous Command; he then ambushed and killed Su Gu, the Grand Administrator of Hanzhong, cut off the Xie Valley, killed Han emissaries, and held sole control of Hanzhong for over thirty years. Wearing yellow turbans and yellow cloth robes, he fabricated talismanic writings to deceive the populace. Those who received his way paid five pecks of rice, so the world called them 'rice bandits'. When beginners first arrived, they were called 'ghost soldiers'; later they were called 'libationers', each leading their own units, and the barbarian customs revered them. The imperial court could not suppress him, and so appointed Lu as General of the Household for Pacifying the Barbarians, accepting his tribute. In the twentieth year of Emperor Xian, Cao Cao campaigned against and defeated him." At the end of the Han, ghosts uttered the prophecy: "Those in yellow robes shall be kings." Thereupon Zhang Jiao, Zhang Lu, and others first wore yellow robes. The Cao clan received the mandate, substituting yellow for red, hence adopting the reign title Huangchu ('Yellow Beginning'). Only then were the Yellow Turban bandits pacified. Under the Northern Wei, Kou Qianzhi gradually reinstated their garb. Today, in an age of the Great Dao, customs should conform to minor shamans; the color of the headcloth should be changed back to ancient ways. Furthermore, Laozi was a great worthy who renounced status and honors; he was also a court official, so how could his clothing color have been distinct? In antiquity there was specialized study of scriptures, but no special distinction of clothing. Yellow turbans and hemp clothing originated from the Zhang family. When sages and worthies institute teachings, they are magnanimous and gentle; ghosts and spirits are stern and harsh, shifting like cold and heat. Laozi warned against flavors, yet libationers all drink wine; Zhang instituted ghost garments, and yellow robes became uniform. The genuine and the counterfeit are clear as day, and their leniency and severity are plain to see. Therefore, I briefly cite several points of the Zhang clan’s fabrications to caution those who have not heard of them.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104.2.3) - [Next: 2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104.2.5) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104~en-mt.2.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [廣弘明集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2103.8.23) — Classical Chinese - [續高僧傳](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2060.23.13) — 道宣, Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2104.2.4) · Pramāṇa