辯正論 2.8

2.8

又靈寶自然經訣云。太上玄一真人曰。太上無極大道無上至真玄居虛無無形自然極虛無之上。上無復天下無復地。故曰無上至真大道。道雖虛無而能生一。為萬物之本也。通人問曰。道能生一。誰復生道。若道無從生。亦道不生一。若道不從他生。一亦不從道生。若道自生。一亦自生。一既不能自生。道亦不能自生。若道自生道。亦道自法道。何故老子云。人法地。地法天。天法道。道法自然。既道不自法而法自然。亦可道不自生從自然生。若道不從自然生。亦一不從道生。又一不及道從道生。亦可道不及自然從自然生。一從道生道得稱大。道從自然生亦可自然稱大。道不得稱大。若不稱大應云小道。若道望自然即道法自然。自然即為道本。既道本於自然。即自然是常道不得是常。今道既稱常自然亦常。亦可道法自然自然亦應法道。若自然為本道不得為本。自然為常道不得為常。若兩箇俱是常。亦兩箇俱相法。如其一法一不法。亦一常一不常。若言俱常即俱自然。既有自然不自然。亦有常有無常。若自然為本道為迹。本迹俱稱常。亦可道為本天為迹。天道俱無常。今以道本對天迹。道常天無常。亦可自然對道迹。道無常而自然常。若道即自然亦天即是道。若天體非道體即一常一無常。今亦可道體即自然體。同體亦同常。今道法自然。云何得同體。既道法然不法還是然常道無常。若有常異無常。可得無常非有常無無常異常。何得令常異無常。由無常有常。有常故無常。常法尚無有何得有無常。若離常有無常。因餘常有常亦離常無有常。是故知無常常法既無有云何有無常道。若稱常便為諸見之首。如其稱大復被域中所拘。鳥鼠二端何以自出。假令有道因藥成仙耳。故袁宏後漢紀郊祀志云。道家者流出於老子。以清虛淡泊為主姤善疾惡為教。禍福報應在一生之內。畜妻子用符書。其修行不已。得至神仙也。

“Furthermore, the *Oral Instructions on the Spontaneity of Lingbao* says: ‘The Perfected of the Supreme Mysterious Unity said: “The Supreme Limitless Great Dao, the Unsurpassed Supreme True Mystery, dwells in empty non-being, formless and spontaneous, atop the pinnacle of empty non-being. Above, there is no heaven; below, there is no earth; hence it is called the Unsurpassed Supreme True Great Dao. Although the Dao is empty and non-being, it can generate the One and serves as the root of all things.”’” The Master of Comprehension asked: “If the Dao can generate the One, who then generated the Dao? If the Dao does not arise from anything, then the Dao also cannot generate the One. If the Dao is not born from an other, the One is also not born from the Dao. If the Dao is self-born, the One is also self-born. Since the One cannot be self-born, the Dao likewise cannot be self-born. If the Dao generates itself, then the Dao also models itself on the Dao. Why did Laozi say: ‘Humanity models itself on Earth; Earth models itself on Heaven; Heaven models itself on the Dao; the Dao models itself on spontaneity’? Since the Dao does not model itself on itself but models itself on spontaneity, it follows that the Dao is not self-born, but born from spontaneity. If the Dao is not born from spontaneity, then neither is the One born from the Dao. Furthermore, if the One is inferior to the Dao and is born from the Dao, it follows that the Dao is inferior to spontaneity and is born from spontaneity. If the One is born from the Dao and the Dao can be called great, then the Dao being born from spontaneity means spontaneity can be called great, and the Dao cannot be called great. If it cannot be called great, it should be called the small Dao. If the Dao faces toward spontaneity, then the Dao models itself on spontaneity, and spontaneity is the root of the Dao. Since the Dao is rooted in spontaneity, then spontaneity is permanent and the Dao cannot be permanent. Now, if the Dao is called permanent and spontaneity is also permanent, it should also be that just as the Dao models itself on spontaneity, spontaneity should also model itself on the Dao. If spontaneity is the root, the Dao cannot be the root; if spontaneity is permanent, the Dao cannot be permanent. If both are permanent, then both should model themselves on each other. If one models itself on the other while the other does not, then one is permanent and the other is impermanent. If you say both are permanent, then both are spontaneous. Since there is the spontaneous and the non-spontaneous, there is also the permanent and the impermanent. If spontaneity is the fundamental and the Dao is the trace, and both fundamental and trace are called permanent, it should also be that the Dao is the fundamental and Heaven is the trace, and Heaven and Dao are both impermanent. Now, if the fundamental of the Dao is contrasted with the trace of Heaven, the Dao is permanent while Heaven is impermanent. It should also be that spontaneity is contrasted with the trace of the Dao: the Dao is impermanent while spontaneity is permanent. If the Dao is identical to spontaneity, then Heaven is also identical to the Dao. If the substance of Heaven is not the substance of the Dao, then one is permanent and one is impermanent. Now, could it also be that the substance of the Dao is identical to the substance of spontaneity? If they share the same substance, they share the same permanence. Now, if the Dao models itself on spontaneity, how could they have the same substance? Since the Dao models itself on spontaneity and spontaneity does not model itself [on the Dao], it still follows that spontaneity is permanent and the Dao is impermanent. If there is a permanence different from impermanence, how could impermanence not be different from permanence? Because of impermanence there is permanence; because of permanence there is impermanence. Even a permanent phenomenon does not exist—how could there be an impermanent one? If impermanence exists apart from permanence, or permanence exists due to other permanences, then apart from permanence there is no permanence. Therefore, know that both impermanent and permanent phenomena do not exist; how then could there be an impermanent Dao? If it is called permanent, it becomes the foremost among all wrong views; if it is called great, it is again bound within the worldly realm. Hesitating between two extremes like a bat, how can you free yourself? Even if there were a Dao, it would merely be achieving immortality through elixirs. Therefore, Yuan Hong's ‘Treatise on Suburban Sacrifices’ in the *Records of the Later Han* says: ‘The Daoist school emerged from Laozi. It takes purity, emptiness, and detachment as its foundation, and hatred of good and resentment of evil as its teaching. Retribution of fortune and misfortune occurs within a single lifetime. They maintain wives and children, and make use of talismans and writings. If their practice never ceases, they can attain divine transcendence.’”} ],