辯正論 2.6

2.6

通人折曰。子能誦文不知求理。互鄉之類誠難與言。夫凝氷慘慄。不能彫欵冬之花。朱飈鑠石。不能靡蕭丘之木。舉熠（淫入反）燿於日月之間非智也。擁甂甌於鴻鍾之側非慮也。子所引文。今當立驗。何者。禮云。太上貴德。鄭注謂古之王者。老子云。太上下知。集注云。太古之世知上有君而不臣事。即三皇時也。天尊之號出自佛經。陛下之名肇於秦始。其公卿大夫及元士曹局。並用周官秦漢之制。而改頭換尾以偽為真。所敘三皇。並引帝系譜等。其三界品次諸天重數。並依傍佛經假立名字。而增減出沒似異而同。若上古已來實有斯法。庖犧著易未見敘之。往代皇王不聞奉事。周秦已後漸出訛言。莊子天運篇云。孔子行年五十有一。而不聞有道。乃南從清沛見老聃曰。使道可獻人莫不獻其君矣。幸子思之。無多言也。而云三界之外別有京闕都城者。有識之徒咸所嗟怪。笑道論中備詳其偽矣。莊子云。王台廢疾之人。庚桑抱患之士。不行章醮未出符書。身著時俗之衣。口授先王之典。弗為道士靡戴黃巾。輒引將來欲何所表。縱夏禹開鍾山之藏。不道天尊。漢文詣河上之遊。絕無蹤迹。案潘嶽關中記嵇康皇甫謐高士傳班固漢史文帝傳及訪父老等無河上公結草為菴現神變處事。並虛謬焉可憑乎。又言。道稱教者。凡立教之法先須有主。道家既無的主。云何得稱道教。以三事故道家不得別稱教也。一者就周孔對談。周孔二人直是傳教人。不得自稱教主。何以故。教是三皇五帝之教。教主即是三皇五帝。二者案前漢藝文志。討論今古墳典。總判凡有九流。一儒流。二道流。道無別教。總在九流之內。據此而言。無別立教。何以故。無教主故。若言以老子為教主者。老子非是帝王。若為得稱教主。若言別有天尊為道教主者。案五經正典。三皇已來周公孔子等。不云別有天尊住在天上垂教布化為道家主。並是三張以下偽經。妄說天尊上為道主。既其無主。何得稱教。三者姚道安作二教論。唯立儒教佛教。不立道教。何以故。儒者用三皇五帝為教主。尚書云。三皇之書。謂之三墳。五帝之書。謂之五典。用墳典之教以化天下。毛詩云。風以動之。教以化之。墳典是教。帝皇為主。儒得稱教。佛是法王所說。十二部經布化天下。有教有主也。然佛是出世人。經是出世教。故得稱教主三皇五帝是世主。三墳五典是世教。先以世教化。後以出世教化。事盡於此。攝法既周。為緣亦了。何須別有道教。又毛詩云。一國之事繫一人之本謂之風。天子有風能化天下。故得稱教。道非天子不得有風。既其無風。云何布化無風可化。不得別稱教也。據此而言。但有二教。縱稱有道制入儒流。又老子是俗人。未斷煩惱。有所言說。但序三皇之教化。河上公云。大道之世無為養神無事安民。謂無所施為無所造作。日出而起。日入而止。名為大道。無別天尊住於天上。此謂道是道理。淳和之氣亦無形相也。又葛仙公云。吾師姓波閱宗。字維那訶。西域人也。亦不云天尊是我師也。

The Master of Comprehension refuted him, saying: “You can recite texts, but you do not know how to seek the underlying principle. People like those of Huxiang are indeed difficult to converse with! Bitterly shivering freezing ice cannot wither the flowers of the coltsfoot; scarlet gales that melt stone cannot bend the trees of Xiaogiu. To hold up a spark between the sun and the moon is not wisdom; to clasp an earthen pot beside a great bell is not prudent foresight. The texts you have cited shall now be tested at once. Why so? The *Liji* says: ‘The highest reveres virtue.’ Zheng [Xuan's] commentary states that this refers to the kings of antiquity. Laozi says: ‘The highest is known by those below.’ The collected commentaries state: ‘In the era of highest antiquity, they knew there was a ruler above, yet did not serve him as subjects.’ That was the time of the Three Sovereigns. The title of ‘World-Honoured One’ (Tianzun) originated in Buddhist sūtras, while the title of ‘Your Majesty’ (Bixia) began with the First Emperor of Qin. The ministers, grandees, principal officers, and bureaus were all adopted from the systems of the Zhou officialdom and the Qin and Han, merely swapping heads for tails and taking the false to be true. The Three Sovereigns described [in your texts] are all cited from imperial genealogies and the like. The hierarchical grades of the three realms and the layers of the various heavens are all modelled on Buddhist sūtras, falsely establishing names, adding and subtracting, appearing and disappearing, seeming different yet identical. If these methods had truly existed since high antiquity, why did Baoxi not describe them when composing the *Book of Changes*? In bygone eras, sovereign rulers were never heard to have venerated and served them. It was only after the Zhou and Qin that erroneous words gradually emerged. The ‘Heavenly Movements’ chapter of the *Zhuangzi* says: ‘When Confucius was fifty-one years old and had not heard the Dao, he went south to Qingpei and saw Lao Dan, saying: “If the Dao could be presented to others, who would not present it to their ruler?”’ I hope you will reflect on this and not speak so much! Yet to claim that outside the three realms there are separate metropolises, palaces, and walled capitals—men of discernment all lament and marvel at such things; their falsehood is detailed thoroughly in the *Xiaodao lun* (Treatise Laughing at the Dao). Zhuangzi said: ‘Wang Tai was a man with a severed foot; Gengsang Chu was a scholar afflicted with illness.’ They did not perform jiao-offerings with memorials, nor did they issue talismans and registers; they wore the clothes of the contemporary world, and orally transmitted the canons of former kings. They did not become Daoist masters, nor did they wear yellow turbans. What is it that you wish to show by hastily bringing these matters forward? Even if Yu of Xia opened the treasuries of Mount Zhong, he spoke not of a Celestial Venerable. When Emperor Wen of the Han visited the Recluse of the Riverbank (Heshang Gong), there were entirely no traces left. Examining Pan Yue's *Record of Guanzhong*, Ji Kang's and Huangfu Mi's *Biographies of Eminent Scholars*, and Ban Gu's *History of the Han: Biography of Emperor Wen*, as well as inquiring of the elders, there is no event of Heshang Gong binding grass to make a hut or displaying supernatural transformations. These are all false and baseless—how can they be relied upon? Moreover, regarding your claim that the Dao is called a ‘teaching’: generally speaking, for establishing a teaching, there must first be a master. Since the Daoist school has no definite master, how can it be called a Daoist teaching? For three reasons, the Daoist school cannot be separately designated a teaching. First, speaking in terms of Zhou and Confucius: the two men, the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, were merely transmitters of the teaching and could not call themselves masters of the teaching. Why is this so? Because the teaching was the teaching of the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs; the masters of the teaching were indeed the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs. Second, examining the ‘Treatise on Arts and Literature’ of the *Book of the Former Han*, which discusses ancient and modern canons and records, it classifies a total of nine schools: the first is the Ru school, and the second is the Daoist school. The Dao has no separate teaching; it is entirely subsumed within the nine schools. Based on this, it does not establish a separate teaching. Why? Because it lacks a master of the teaching. If you say Laozi is the master of the teaching, Laozi was not an emperor or king; how could he be called a master of the teaching? If you say there is separately a Celestial Venerable who is the master of the Daoist teaching, examining the orthodox scriptures of the Five Classics, from the Three Sovereigns down to the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, none of them said that there was separately a Celestial Venerable dwelling in heaven who transmitted teachings and spread transformation as the master of the Daoist school. These are all forged scriptures from the Three Zhangs onward, falsely claiming that a Celestial Venerable above is the master of the Dao. Since there is no master, how can it be called a teaching? Third, Yao Dao'an composed the *Treatise on the Two Teachings*, establishing only the Confucian teaching and the Buddhist teaching, without establishing a Daoist teaching. Why so? The Confucians take the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs as masters of the teaching. The *Book of Documents* says: ‘The books of the Three Sovereigns are called the Three Tombs; the books of the Five Thearchs are called the Five Canons.’ They used the teaching of the Tombs and Canons to transform all under heaven. The *Mao Commentary to the Classic of Poetry* says: ‘The wind moves them; teaching transforms them.’ The Tombs and Canons are the teaching, and the thearchs and sovereigns are the masters; therefore, Confucianism can be called a teaching. The Buddha is the King of Dharma; the twelve divisions of scriptures he expounded spread transformation across all under heaven. There is a teaching and there is a master. Furthermore, the Buddha is a person who transcends the world, and his scriptures are teachings that transcend the world; hence he can be called a master of the teaching. The Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs are worldly rulers, and the Three Tombs and Five Canons are worldly teachings. First, one transforms with worldly teachings; later, one transforms with teachings that transcend the world. Affairs are exhausted in this. The containment of phenomena is complete, and the conditions are fulfilled. Why must there separately be a Daoist teaching? Moreover, the *Mao Commentary to the Classic of Poetry* says: ‘The affairs of a single state tied to the basis of a single person are called the wind.’ The Son of Heaven has the wind and can transform all under heaven; therefore it can be called a teaching. The Dao is not the Son of Heaven and cannot possess the wind. Since it has no wind, how could it spread transformation? Lacking the wind to transform, it cannot be separately called a teaching. Judging by this, there are only two teachings. Even if it is claimed that the Dao exists, it is governed and subsumed within the Ru school. Furthermore, Laozi was a worldling who had not severed afflictions; when he spoke, he merely described the teachings and transformations of the Three Sovereigns. Heshang Gong said: ‘In the age of the Great Dao, through wuwei one nourished the spirit, and through having no business one pacified the people.’ This means there was no contrivance and no artificial making; when the sun rose, they arose; when the sun set, they rested—this was called the Great Dao. There was no separate Celestial Venerable dwelling in heaven. This implies that the Dao is a rational principle, a harmonious qi, also without physical form. Moreover, Immortal Lord Ge said: ‘My master’s surname was Boyuecong and his style was Weināhe; he was a man of the Western Regions.’ He also did not say that the Celestial Venerable was his master.”