[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) › [續集古今佛道論衡](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105) › 1.67 # 續集古今佛道論衡 1.67 續集古今佛道論衡 1.67 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105.1.67) 法師對。曰佛當周昭王二十四年歲次甲寅四月八日生。當周昭王四十二年歲次壬申十九出家。當周穆王二年歲次癸未三十成道。當陽化世四十九載。當周穆王五十二年歲次壬申二月十五日入般涅槃。今計佛入涅槃後。經三百四十五年。至周定王三年老子始生。生已年八十五。至周敬王元年。經四百二十五年。始與尹喜西入。據此年月日懸殊不同。鄙夫一何闇說。輒言佛為侍者。豈不高岸為谷小乃謬乎。姜斌曰。案開天之文。李柱史西入化胡佛為侍者。亦應不謬。法師輒拒此事。恐理未安。法師對曰。夫佛者法王也。故能降靈兜率生出王宮。萬福圓備億善臻集。普化三千均濟六道。行即金花捧足。坐即百寶蓮臺。出則帝釋前驅。入則梵王侍後。左輔密跡以斷邪偽為効。右有金剛以滅邪魔為功。無央菩薩以充法子。無量聲聞以為聖眾。護世四王朝夕覲省。天龍八部曉夜奉接。天樂懸空如雲。天花散落如雨。師子一吼外道歸真。法鼓自鳴邪魔從正。何得與周藏吏以為侍者。若周柱下史有法王子之量。應在周世如現神通。何有避世西逃方能化物。若也柱史能化其時。周德雖曰衰微。仍承文武成康之風。柱史既乃周世五王。何不加之以神變。顯之以法藥。若能此者如風在草色正自由。何用潛逃於西遠化胡俗。況法王柱史相去四百二十餘年。今言同時。特為侍者。此亦誤之太甚。深可悼焉。仁者既有開天之說。此狂簡斐然文章。何足依信。 > The Dharma Master replied, saying, 'The Buddha was born on the eighth day of the fourth month in the twenty-fourth year of King Zhao of Zhou, the year jiayin. He left household life at nineteen in the forty-second year of King Zhao of Zhou, the year renshen. He attained the Way at thirty in the second year of King Mu of Zhou, the year guiwei. Manifesting in the world to convert it for forty-nine years, he entered parinirvāṇa on the fifteenth day of the second month in the fifty-second year of King Mu of Zhou, the year renshen. Calculating now, 345 years passed after the Buddha entered nirvāṇa until Laozi was first born in the third year of King Ding of Zhou. After he was born, he was eighty-five years old, and by the first year of King Jing of Zhou, 425 years had passed before he first traveled west with Yin Xi. Based on these dates, the gap is vastly different; why does this base fellow make such blind statements, rashly claiming that the Buddha was his attendant? Is this not indeed "making a valley of a high cliff"—no small error!?' Jiang Bin said, 'According to the text of the Kaitian \[jing\], Li, the Imperial Scribe, traveled west to convert the barbarians, and the Buddha was his attendant; this also ought not to be mistaken. For the Dharma Master to rashly reject this matter—I fear the logic is not yet sound.' The Dharma Master replied, saying, 'The Buddha is the Dharma King! Thus he was able to descend his spiritual presence from Tuṣita and be born into the royal palace, fully endowed with the ten thousand blessings and gathered with a hundred million virtues, universally converting the trichiliocosm and equally delivering the six realms of rebirth. When walking, golden flowers uphold his feet; when seated, it is upon a lotus throne of a hundred jewels. When he goes forth, Śakra precedes him; when he enters, King Brahmā attends behind him. On his left, the Secret Traces \[Vajrapāṇi\] assists him, taking the severance of heterodoxy and falsity as his efficacy; on his right, Vajradhara stands, taking the destruction of heterodox māras as his merit. Countless bodhisattvas serve as his sons of the Dharma; immeasurable śrāvakas serve as his assembly of sages. The Four World-Guarding Kings pay court to him morning and evening; the gods, dragons, and the eight classes of beings receive and attend him day and night. Heavenly music hangs in the sky like clouds; heavenly flowers scatter down like rain. With a single lion's roar, non-Buddhists return to the truth; the Dharma drum sounds of itself, and heterodox māras submit to what is right. How could he be an attendant to an archivist of the Zhou? If the Imperial Scribe under the Pillar of the Zhou possessed the capacity of a son of the Dharma King, he should have manifested spiritual powers as appropriate in the Zhou era; how could he have fled the world into the west before being able to transform beings? If the Imperial Scribe had been able to transform his era, then although the virtue of the Zhou was said to be in decline, it still inherited the legacy of King Wen, King Wu, King Cheng, and King Kang. Since the Imperial Scribe had served through five kings of the Zhou era, why did he not augment them with spiritual transformations and reveal to them the medicine of the Dharma? If he had been capable of this, it would have been like the wind over the grass, its direction completely free; what need was there to secretly flee to the west to convert the barbarian customs far away? Furthermore, the Dharma King and the Imperial Scribe were separated by more than 420 years. Now to say they were contemporaneous and that \[the Buddha\] served particularly as his attendant—this is an excessive error indeed, deeply to be lamented! Since you, benevolent one, have this tale from the Kaitian \[jing\], this is merely the flowery prose of reckless extravagance—how could it be worthy of reliance and belief?' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.66](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105.1.66) - [Next: 1.68](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105.1.68) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105~en-mt.1.67) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105.1.67](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2105.1.67) · Pramāṇa