破邪論 2.2

2.2

答秦仲已下三十五世六百餘年者。對曰。史記云。自殷已前。諸侯不可得而譜。為多失次第年代難知。故尚書但以甲子為次第而無年月者。良以史闕不記也。邪見。乃云始於秦仲迄于二世有六百餘年者。一往似長。出何的證。按春秋已前。秦本未有。春秋已來。始有秦伯。當春秋時。秦雖漸霸。但是周之小邑。孝王之世。令非子放馬於汧渭之間。不承天命未有正朔。曾孫秦仲宣王之世。始受車馬為侍御之臣。仲孫襄公以送。平王東遷進爵為伯。文公已下始見史記。自茲訖滅不過二百餘年。史記竹書及陶公年紀等皆云秦無曆數。周世陪臣。故隱居列之在諸侯之下。何因得有年紀。續至胡亥。史記但厲公列之。一百一年終乎二世。縱有年代皆附春秋。自無別紀。𧹞王之末。秦昭襄王。因周微弱始滅周國。僭號稱王。諸史相承。秦唯五世四十九年。齊祕書楊玢史目云。秦自始封至滅。凡三十五世六百餘年者。蓋取始封秦號經六百餘年非霸統中國經多年也。邪見。乃延秦短祚冐上長年。一何虛妄哉　答帝王無佛年長有佛祚短自庖犧已下爰至漢高二十九代君明臣忠者。對曰。何故庖犧獨治不及子孫。堯舜二君位居五帝。堯則翼善傳聖。舜則仁盛聖明。如尚書二典論。其化民治道功業最高。民無能名則天之明君也。堯又廢兄自立。其子丹朱不肖。舜則父頑母嚚。並止一身不能及嗣。爾時無佛。何不世世相傳。遽早磨滅。隱居年紀云。夏禹治九年。羿篡十五年。浞篡十二年。睪十一年。夏癸五十二年。又對曰。書云。舜禹之有天下。巍巍乎其有成功。煥乎其有文章。大禹謨云。禹能卑宮菲食。皂帳綈衣而盡力於溝洫。為民治水。於民有功。若皇天輔德。何為天祚不永。止治九年。勘年紀云。夏后相及少康之世。其臣有窮羿寒浞及風夷淮夷黃夷斟尋等國。並相次作亂。凡二十六年。篡夏自立。當時無佛。篡逆由誰　殷湯治（十三年）外丁治（三年）仲壬治（四年）太甲治（十年）沃丁治（十三年）太戊治（十年）外壬治（三年）沃甲治（四年）盤庚治（九年）小辛治（七年）武乙治（四年）祖庚治（七年）祖乙治（十年）又對曰。湯仁不殺。開三面之網。放夏桀於鳴條。甚有仁德。爾時無佛。何以天曆不長。外丁外壬其年轉促。尚書云。湯行九伐。太甲五征。伊尹立湯次子勝又立。勝弟仲壬又放太甲于桐宮。汲塜書云。尹自篡立。後太甲潛出親殺伊尹而用其子。既稱忠樸之世。爾時無佛。何為亹起蕭牆君臣無道。周武王治（十一年）懿王治（三年絕嗣）僖王治（五年絕嗣）傾王治（六年）匡王治（六年）元王治（八年）烈王治（七年）靜王治（六年）貞王治（八年）悼王治（一百一日）哀王治（三月）思王治（五月）。

Answering [the claim of] thirty-five generations and over six hundred years from Qin Zhong downward: It is replied: The Records of the Grand Historian states that before the Yin dynasty, genealogies of the feudal lords cannot be obtained because the order was largely lost and the chronology is difficult to know. Therefore, the Classic of Documents merely uses sexagenary cycles for order without years or months, truly because the historical records were deficient and did not record them. The heterodox view claims that from Qin Zhong down to the Second Emperor there were over six hundred years; at first glance this seems long, but what definite evidence does it have? According to the Spring and Autumn period and earlier, Qin did not originally exist. Only since the Spring and Autumn period did there begin to be an Earl of Qin. During the Spring and Autumn period, although Qin gradually rose to hegemony, it was merely a small town of Zhou. In the reign of King Xiao, Feizi was ordered to pasture horses between the Qian and Wei rivers; not having received the Heavenly mandate, they had no calendar. In the reign of King Xuan, his great-grandson Qin Zhong first received a carriage and horses to serve as an attendant officer. Zhong's grandson Duke Xiang was elevated to the rank of earl for escorting King Ping in his eastward move. Only from Duke Wen downward does Qin first appear in the Records of the Grand Historian. From then until its destruction was no more than two hundred-odd years. The Records of the Grand Historian, the Bamboo Annals, and Master Tao's Chronicle all state that Qin had no dynastic calendar and was a sub-vassal during the Zhou era. Therefore, Yinju [Tao Hongjing] listed it beneath the feudal lords. For what reason could there be a continuous chronology down to Huhai? The Records of the Grand Historian only begins to record it continuously from Duke Li, lasting one hundred and one years, ending with the Second Emperor. Even if there are dates, they are all appended to the Spring and Autumn Annals and do not possess an independent chronicle. At the end of King Nan's reign, King Zhaoxiang of Qin, taking advantage of Zhou's weakness, first destroyed the Zhou state and usurped the title of king. Historical accounts consistently maintain that the Qin [dynasty proper] lasted only five generations and forty-nine years. The Catalogue of History by Yang Bin, Secretarial Director of Qi, states: "From Qin's initial enfeoffment to its destruction, there were thirty-five generations and over six hundred years in all." This refers to the over six hundred years that elapsed since the initial enfeoffment with the name Qin, not that it held hegemony over the Central Plain for many years. The heterodox view extends the short lifespan of Qin and falsely claims a long duration; how completely absurd!

Answering [the claim that] rulers without the Buddha enjoy long years, while with the Buddha reigns are short, and that for twenty-nine generations from Paoxi downward to Emperor Gao of the Han, rulers were enlightened and ministers were loyal: It is replied: Why did Paoxi rule alone without [his throne] reaching his sons and grandsons? The two rulers Yao and Shun were ranked among the Five Emperors: Yao aided the good and transmitted to the sagely; Shun was abundantly benevolent and sagely wise. As discussed in the Two Canons of the Classic of Documents, their transformation of the people and governance achieved the highest merit; they were enlightened rulers imitating Heaven whom the people could not name. Yet Yao also deposed his elder brother to establish himself, and his son Danzhu was unworthy. Shun had an obstinate father and a deceitful mother; both [reigns] ceased with a single person and could not pass to their heirs. At that time there was no Buddha—why were they not transmitted generation after generation, but vanished so swiftly? The Chronicle by Yinju states that Yu of the Xia ruled for nine years; Yi usurped for fifteen years; Zhuo usurped for twelve years; Gao ruled for eleven years; Gui of the Xia ruled for fifty-two years. It is further replied: The Book says: "Sublime was the success of Shun and Yu in possessing all under Heaven! How glorious were their cultural patterns!" The "Counsels of Great Yu" states: "Yu was able to live in a humble palace and eat meager food, use coarse curtains and plain cloth garments, and exhaust his strength on ditches and water channels." He regulated the waters for the people and performed meritorious service for them. If Sovereign Heaven aids virtue, why was his heavenly mandate not long-lasting, ruling for only nine years? Examining the Chronicle: in the reigns of Sovereign Xiang and Shaokang of the Xia, their subjects Youqiong Yi and Han Zhuo, as well as the states of Fengyi, Huaiyi, Huangyi, and Zhenxun, consecutively rebelled for twenty-six years in all, usurping the Xia and setting themselves up. At that time there was no Buddha; from whom did usurpation and rebellion arise?

Tang of the Yin ruled for (thirteen years); Wai Ding ruled for (three years); Zhong Ren ruled for (four years); Tai Jia ruled for (ten years); Wo Ding ruled for (thirteen years); Tai Wu ruled for (ten years); Wai Ren ruled for (three years); Wo Jia ruled for (four years); Pan Geng ruled for (nine years); Xiao Xin ruled for (seven years); Wu Yi ruled for (four years); Zu Geng ruled for (seven years); Zu Yi ruled for (ten years). It is further replied: Tang was benevolent and refrained from killing, opening three sides of the net, and banishing Jie of the Xia to Mingtiao, possessing immense benevolence and virtue. At that time there was no Buddha; why was his heavenly mandate not long, and the years of Wai Ding and Wai Ren even shorter? The Classic of Documents states: "Tang conducted nine punitive expeditions, and Tai Jia made five campaigns." Yi Yin enthroned Tang's second son Sheng, and then enthroned Sheng's younger brother Zhong Ren, and also banished Tai Jia to the Tong Palace. The Books from the Ji Tomb state that Yi Yin usurped the throne himself, after which Tai Jia secretly emerged, personally killed Yi Yin, and employed his son. Since this is called an age of loyalty and simplicity, and at that time there was no Buddha, why did disasters arise within the household screen and rulers and ministers lack the Way?

King Wu of the Zhou ruled for (eleven years); King Yi ruled for (three years, terminating the lineage); King Xi ruled for (five years, terminating the lineage); King Qing ruled for (six years); King Kuang ruled for (six years); King Yuan ruled for (eight years); King Lie ruled for (seven years); King Jing ruled for (six years); King Zhen ruled for (eight years); King Dao ruled for (one hundred and one days); King Ai ruled for (three months); King Si ruled for (five months).