辯正論 5.5

5.5

夫世界初成。未有日月。二大菩薩下救蒼生。爰列三光是興八卦。伏羲皇者應聲大士（春秋內事曰。伏羲擁列三光。建立八節。以文應氣有二十四。消息禍福以制吉凶也。是以羲氏和氏世掌日月之官。皆伏羲之後也。故曰名羲和。蓋羲皇之本號也）女媧后者吉祥菩薩。何以明之。尋此劫中千佛出世。第四佛者即釋迦文。自餘續興終乎劫盡。爾乃劫劫相次。則佛佛無窮者也（立世毘曇云。跋陀劫中凡有千佛相續出世。以法化不絕故號賢劫。一賢劫中有成住壞空四大中劫也。如從十歲至八萬歲復從八萬還至十歲如摝攎上下。經二十反為一小劫。二十小劫為一成劫。凡經八千萬萬億百千八百萬八萬歲。為一小劫。俱舍又云。七火一水災。七水一風災。七火災已度。然後風災起。經八八六十四大劫。過四不可數。始是一賢劫也。住劫之中方有佛出。相次一千。釋迦如來位當第四餘有九百九十六在。世界是佛依報。眾生是佛緣因。但有眾生即有佛也。依須彌像圖山經及十二遊經。竝云。成劫已過入住劫來。經七小劫也。光音天等下食地肥。諸天項後自背光明。遠近相照。因食地肥。欲心漸發。遂失光明。人民呼嗟爾時西方阿彌陀佛告寶應聲寶吉祥等二大菩薩。汝可往彼與造日月。開其眼目造作法度寶應聲者示為伏羲。寶吉祥者化為女媧。後現命盡還歸西方）山海經云。身毒之國。軒轅氏居之（郭朴注云。則天竺國也）信知三皇根起在彼。奉佛使者。故不疑焉。取例尋文可以意得。帝系云。開闢之初。人情昏鯁。唯眠與食。莫曉逆從。起乎太昊上皇因時作範。比象畫卦尊卑位焉。始知敬以奉上慈以育下。微用心識漸開慧路。自非無涯大悲深妙解脫。孰能俯質同愚發蒙化世。二聖來應信而有徵。其弘道也。塵劫所不窮。其利物也。巧曆所不計。過去倍於恒沙。未來逾於上數。汝元皇之歲。猶大地之始一塵。開闢之年。比滄海之論一滴耳。非所聯類也。非所頡頏也。夫食木之蟲。尚不知皮外之味。豈知宇宙之廣哉。案三史正文與五經典誥並云。老子周末時人。次則阮氏七錄王家四部。華林遍略修文御覽。陶隱居之文。劉先生之記。王隱魏收之錄。楊玢費節之書。並編年紀。咸為代曆。莫不共遵正史。曾無異談。隋世有姚長謙者（名恭齊為渡遼將軍在隋為修曆博土）學該內外善窮算術（今太史承傳仁均受業師）以春秋所紀不過七十餘國。丘明為傳但敘二百餘年。至如世系世本。尤失根緒。帝王世紀又甚荒蕪。後生學者彌以多惑。開皇五年乙巳之歲。與國子祭酒開國公何妥等。被召修曆。其所推勘三十餘人。並是當世杞梓。備諳經籍者。據三統曆編其年號。上拒運開下終魏靜。首統甲子傍陳諸國。爰引九紀三元（九頭五龍括提合雄連通序命修飛因提善通等。謂之九紀）天皇人帝五經十緯六藝五行。開山圖括地象。古史考元命苞。援神契帝系譜。鉤命決始學篇。太史公律曆志。典略之與世紀。志林之與長曆。百王詔誥六代官儀。地理書權衡記。三五曆十二章。方叔機陶弘景等數十部書。以次編之。合四十卷。名為年曆帝紀。頗有備悉文義可依。從太極上元庚戌之歲。至開皇五年乙巳。積有一十四萬三千七百八十年矣。梁紀云。從開闢至梁太宗大寶二年。凡二百八十三代。七十六萬一千四十五年。案諸部年紀。莫見老氏為伏羲師。考此一虛則百事無實。長謙紀云。佛是昭王二十六年甲寅歲生。穆王五十三年壬申之歲佛始滅度（至開皇五年。得一千五百七十六載矣）與周書異記并漢法本內傳及法王本記。與吳尚書令闞澤魏曇謨最法師等所記不差。推老子以桓王六年丁卯之歲仕周。敬王三十二年癸丑之歲五月壬午乃西渡關（至開皇五年。得一千三十七載）案葛仙公序云。老子以上皇元年太歲丁卯二月十二日丙午為周師者。即桓王丁卯之歲也。又云。無極元年太歲癸丑五月壬午去周西度關者。即是敬王癸丑之歲檢。三皇以下本記。亦無建元。至漢武世始有元號。彼稱上皇無極等。並為妄說全無依據。又高麗王表問齊后。諸佛生世可得聞乎。文宣帝召上統法師為文具報。于時引周穆傳（蓋穆王別傳也）以對。使人與姚長謙所引無異。劉向列仙傳曰。𨈭與尹喜俱之流沙之西服巨勝實。是知孔老二儒皆生周末。老在佛後隔十二王。國語云。幽王二年三川震岐山崩。伯陽父云。周將亡矣。別有老人。非老子也。案梁元帝解莊老云。老子以景王初終。莊生以景王末卒。姚將軍言。孔老相見問禮之時。亦在景王十年景寅之歲。為尹說經。亦於景王之時。此則佛先道後。的可明矣。子云。清濁之年為國師者。甚大河漢不近人情。原夫清濁始兆而陰陽未分。陰陽未分則兩儀尚渾。兩儀尚渾則三才莫形。是以窈窈冥冥不可名也。甲子起於大撓。年月定於堯典。非唯羲皇未出。固是天地靡開。驗知天地搆精男女化生。羲之與老。其是人耶。必在二儀之內。不越三才之中。焉得道聽途說以自欺乎。又言。方朔亦𨈭之身。彌不可也。傳云。東方朔者。歲之之精也。何以明之。尋曼倩在朝二十餘載。歲星不見。亦二十餘年。朔之云亡大精始出。通人所紀驗可知矣。抱朴子神仙傳云。夫聖者不孤。必應物以成化。豈可天下國師皆待李耳一人乎。異哉斯言。良盡美矣。若歷多世唯一老𨈭為師。亦經多朝皆一羲皇為主。既有多政。必賴多君。信可一師但匡一治耳（如其歷代竝是𨈭身。靳固之言出何承。據葛稚川云。竝是無識道士假生神異。豈其然乎）。儒生問曰。皇甫謐云。老子出關入天竺國。教胡王為浮圖。此則老之與佛一時人也。何為浪談前後。以矯俗乎。開士喻曰。尋夫至人玄寂有類。谷神應變無方。事同山響不疾而速。豈隔華夷。井坎之徒好師偏見。朝三暮四空生喜怒。是以虛己應物者。必有千變之容。狹情適事者。豈知萬殊之妙。案西域傳云。老子至罽賓國見浮圖。自傷不及。乃說偈供養。對像陳情云。我生何以晚（新本改云佛生何以晚）。佛出一何早（新本改云。泥洹一何早）不見釋迦文。心中常懊惱（言不親覩佛。所以戀慕交懷。魏略西域傳云。臨猊國王無子。因礼浮圖。其妃莫耶夢白象而孕。及太子生。亦從右脅而出。自然有髻。墮地能行七步。其形相似佛。以祀浮圖得兒。故名太子為浮圖也。國有神人名曰沙律。年老髮白狀似老子。常教民為浮圖。近世黃巾見其頭白。改彼沙律題此老𨈭。曲能安隱誑惑天下。前漢哀帝時秦景至月氏國。其王令太子口授浮圖經。還漢浮圖所載。略與道經相出入也。皇甫之言未究其本。化胡經云。罽賓國王疑老子妖魅。以火焚之安然不死。王知神人舉國悔過。老子云。我師名佛。若能出家當免汝罪。其國奉教皆為沙門也。佛若先無老𨈭。豈知變身為佛。良以罽賓舊來信佛。老氏因推佛以化之。非起尹𨈭始有佛也。隋僕射楊素從駕至竹林宮。經過樓觀見老廟。壁上畫作老子化罽賓國度人剃髮出家之狀。問道士云。道若大佛老子化胡應為道士。何故乃為沙門。將知佛力大能化得胡。道力小不能化胡。此是佛化胡。何關道化胡。于時道士無言以對也）。晉世雜錄云。道士王浮每與沙門帛遠抗論。王浮屢屈焉。遂改換西域傳為化胡經。言喜與𨈭化胡作佛佛起於此（裴子野高僧傳云。晉慧帝時沙門帛遠字法祖。每與祭酒王浮一云道士基公次。共諍邪正。浮屢屈焉。既瞋不自忍。乃託西域傳為化胡經。以謚佛法。遂行於世。人無知者。殃有所歸致患累載。幽明錄云。蒲城李通死。來云。見沙門法祖。為閻羅王講首楞嚴經。又見道士王浮身被鎖械求祖懺悔。祖不肯赴。孤負聖人死方思悔）魏世姜斌道士妄引開天經對魏明帝。自云。老子定王時生。破邪論中備引斯證。莊子云。老𨈭死秦佚弔焉。關中記云。老子葬於槐里（今故扶風始平之南有槐里鄉）然漆園吏親學聃道。雖可宋魯邦異。出世時同。所說之文足堪依信。靡往天竺灼然不疑。皇甫士安斥其詭說明彼謬談。敘老流沙皆無實錄。備在高士安傳。豈可誷乎。佛先道後爾無惑也。

“Now, when the world was first formed, there were not yet the sun and the moon. Two great bodhisattvas descended to save the common people; thereupon they arrayed the three luminaries and brought forth the eight trigrams. The sovereign Fuxi was the Mahāsattva Response-Voice (The Spring and Autumn Inner Affairs says: ‘Fuxi gathered and arrayed the three luminaries, established the eight seasonal divisions, and with patterns responded to the twenty-four qi, waxing and waning fortune and misfortune so as to govern good and ill luck. Hence the Xi and He clans served generation after generation as officials in charge of the sun and moon, all being descendants of Fuxi. Therefore he was named Xihe, which was probably the original title of Sovereign Xi.’), and the sovereign consort Nüwa was Bodhisattva Auspiciousness. How is this known? In investigating this kalpa, one thousand Buddhas appear in the world; the fourth Buddha is none other than Śākyamuni, and the rest will arise in succession until the end of the kalpa. In this way, kalpa follows kalpa in sequence, so the Buddhas are limitless (The Vasumitra Treatise on Establishing the World says: ‘In the Bhadrakalpa there are altogether one thousand Buddhas who appear in succession in the world; because the transformation through the Dharma does not end, it is called the Wise Kalpa [Bhadrakalpa]. In one Bhadrakalpa there are the four great intermediate kalpas of formation, abiding, destruction, and emptiness. As when moving up and down like a well-pulley from ten years to eighty thousand years and back from eighty thousand down to ten years, passing through twenty turns makes one small kalpa. Twenty small kalpas make one kalpa of formation. Passing through eighty myriad myriad koṭis of hundreds of thousands of eighty-eight myriad years makes one small kalpa. The Abhidharmakośa also says: ‘Seven fire disasters and one water disaster; seven water disasters and one wind disaster. When the seven fire disasters have passed, then the wind disaster arises. Passing through eight times eight, sixty-four great kalpas, surpassing four incalculables, only then is it one Bhadrakalpa.’ Only in the kalpa of abiding do Buddhas appear, one thousand in succession. The Tathāgata Śākya occupies the fourth position; there remain nine hundred and ninety-six. The world is the dependent reward of the Buddha; sentient beings are the causal conditions of the Buddha. As long as there are sentient beings, there are Buddhas. According to the Mount Sumeru Diagram Mountain Sūtra and the Twelve Travel Sūtra, both say: ‘The kalpa of formation having passed and having entered the kalpa of abiding, seven small kalpas have elapsed.’ Devas of the Ābhāsvara Heaven and others descended and ate the fat of the earth. The devas naturally had radiance from behind their necks and backs, shining upon each other far and near. Because of eating the fat of the earth, lustful thoughts gradually arose, and they subsequently lost their radiance. The people wailed and lamented. At that time, Amitābha Buddha of the West told the two great bodhisattvas Jewel Response-Voice and Jewel Auspiciousness: ‘You may go there and make the sun and moon for them, open their eyes, and create the laws and standards.’ Jewel Response-Voice manifested as Fuxi, and Jewel Auspiciousness transformed into Nüwa. Later, manifesting the end of their lives, they returned to the West.’). The Classic of Mountains and Seas says: ‘The land of Shendu—the Xuan Yuan clan dwelt there’ (Guo Pu’s commentary says: ‘That is the country of Tianzhu’). We surely know that the roots of the Three Sovereigns arose there. Those who revere the Buddha’s emissaries therefore do not doubt it. Taking examples and investigating the texts, one can grasp this in mind. The Imperial Genealogies says: ‘At the beginning of the opening and dividing, the human disposition was dark and obstinate; they knew only sleep and food, and understood neither contrariness nor compliance. Beginning with Taihao, the supreme sovereign created models according to the seasons, compared images and drew trigrams, and the positions of high and low were established. They first knew to respect in order to serve superiors and to show loving-kindness in order to nurture inferiors, subtly using consciousness and gradually opening the path of wisdom.’ Were it not for boundless great compassion and profound, wondrous liberation, who could condescend in substance to be the same as the foolish, dissipate ignorance, and transform the world? The arrival and response of the two sages is trustworthy and has proof. Their propagation of the Way cannot be exhausted by kalpas like dust-particles; their benefiting of creatures cannot be calculated by skilful reckoners. The past doubles the sands of the Ganges; the future exceeds the supreme numbers. Your ‘years of the Primal Sovereign’ are merely like a single dust-particle at the start of the great earth; the ‘years of the opening and dividing’ are comparable to a single drop in the discussion of the vast ocean. They are not in the same category; they cannot stand abreast. Now, an insect that eats wood does not even know the taste beyond the bark; how could it know the breadth of the universe? Consulting the standard texts of the Three Histories and the canonical records of the Five Classics, all say that Laozi was a man of the late Zhou. Next are the Seven Records of Master Ruan and the Four Sections of the Wang Clan; the Comprehensive Summary of the Hualin [Garden], the Imperial Overview of Literary Flourishing, the writings of Tao the Recluse [Hongjing], the records of Master Liu, the catalogues of Wang Yin and Wei Shou, and the books of Yang Bin and Fei Jie. All compile annual chronicles, all make dynastic calendars, and none fail to conform to the standard histories together, never having any divergent claim. In the Sui dynasty there was Yao Changqian (named Gongqi, who served as General for Crossing the Liao, and in the Sui was Erudite of Calendar-Making), whose learning encompassed both the internal and external and who was thoroughly skilled in mathematical arts (the master under whom the present Grand Astrologer Chengchuan Renjun studied). Because the Spring and Autumn annals recorded no more than seventy-odd states, and Qiuming made a commentary only narrating two hundred-odd years, while genealogies like the Shiben especially lost their root threads, and the Imperial Ages was also exceedingly disordered, later scholars became increasingly confused. In the fifth year of Kaihuang, the yisi year [585 CE], he was summoned together with the Libationer of the National University, Duke of the Founding of the State He Tuo, and others to revise the calendar. Those who examined and checked numbered over thirty persons, all of whom were the fine timber of the age and thoroughly conversant with the classics and books. Basing themselves on the San统 [Triple Concordance] Calendar, they compiled the era-names, extending upward to the opening of fortunes and down to Jing of the Wei. Beginning with the jiazi year and arraying the various states to the side, they cited the Nine Eras and Three Primes (Nine Heads, Five Dragons, Kuoti, Hexiong, Liantong, Xuming, Xiufei, Yinti, Shantong, etc., are called the Nine Eras), the Heavenly Emperors, Human Thearchs, Five Classics, Ten Apocrypha, Six Arts, Five Elements, the Chart of Opening the Mountains, the Earth-Encompassing Images, the Examination of Ancient History, the Sprout of the Primal Mandate, the Key to Assisting the Spirits, the Genealogies of Imperial Lineages, the Decisive Seal of the Mandate, the Primer of Beginning Study, the Grand Scribe’s Treatise on Pitch-Pipes and Calendar, the Dianlüe and the Shiji, the Zhilin and the Long Calendar, the edicts and announcements of the hundred kings, the official rites of the six dynasties, the Geographical Books, the Record of Balances, the Three and Five Calendars, the Twelve Chapters, and dozens of books by Fang Shuji, Tao Hongjing, and others, compiling them in sequence into forty scrolls titled Chronological Calendars and Imperial Annals. It is quite complete in detail and its textual sense can be relied upon. From the Shangyuan gengxu year of the Supreme Ultimate up to the fifth year of Kaihuang, the yisi year, there have accumulated 143,780 years. The Liang Annals say: ‘From the opening and dividing to the second year of Dabao of Taizong of the Liang, there were altogether 283 generations and 761,045 years.’ Examining the records of these various texts, nowhere is Laozi seen as the master of Fuxi. When this one matter is verified to be false, then a hundred matters are devoid of truth. Changqian’s Chronicle says: ‘The Buddha was born in the twenty-sixth year of King Zhao, the jiayin year, and only in the fifty-third year of King Mu, the renshen year, did the Buddha enter extinction’ (reaching the fifth year of Kaihuang, this makes 1,576 years). This does not differ from what was recorded in the Diverse Records of the Book of Zhou, together with the Han Internal Tradition on the Origin of the Dharma, the Basic Record of the Dharma King, and by Kan Ze, Minister of the Secretariat of the Wu, and Dharma Master Tanmözui of the Wei. Calculating Laozi, he served the Zhou in the sixth year of King Huan, the dingmao year, and in the thirty-second year of King Jing, the guichou year, on the renyu day in the fifth month, he went west across the pass (reaching the fifth year of Kaihuang, this makes 1,037 years). Consulting Immortal Lord Ge’s Preface, it says: ‘Laozi serving as master of the Zhou on the bingwu day of the twelfth month in the dingmao year of the first year of Shanghuang’—that was the dingmao year of King Huan. It also says: ‘Leaving the Zhou to travel west across the pass on the renyu day in the fifth month of the guichou year of the first year of Wuji’—that was the guichou year of King Jing. Examining the basic annals below the Three Sovereigns, there was also no establishment of era-names; only down to the time of Emperor Wu of the Han did era-names begin. Their claims of ‘Shanghuang,’ ‘Wuji,’ and the like are all spurious statements completely without basis. Furthermore, the King of Goryeo submitted a memorial inquiring of the Empress of Qi: ‘May we hear of the eras when the Buddhas were born in the world?’ Emperor Wenxuan summoned the Supreme Controller Dharma Master to draft a text providing a full reply. At that time he cited the Biography of King Mu of the Zhou (presumably a separate biography of King Mu) in response; the envoy’s findings did not differ from what Yao Changqian cited. Liu Xiang’s Biographies of Arrayed Immortals says: ‘Dan and Yin Xi went together to the west of the Moving Sands to consume the seeds of sesame.’ Thus we know that both Confucius and Laozi, these two Ru scholars, were born in the late Zhou; Laozi was twelve kings after the Buddha. The Discourses of the States says: ‘In the second year of King You, the Three Rivers shook and Mount Qi collapsed; Boyangfu said, “The Zhou is about to perish.”’ This was a different elderly man, not Laozi. Consulting Emperor Yuan of the Liang’s Explanation of Zhuangzi and Laozi, he says: ‘Laozi passed away at the beginning of King Jing’s reign, and Zhuangzi died at the end of King Jing’s reign.’ General Yao said that when Confucius and Laozi met and inquired about rites, it was also in the tenth year of King Jing, the bingyin year; his explaining of the scripture for Yin was also at the time of King Jing. This makes it clearly certain that the Buddha came before and the Dao came after. When you say that in the year of clarity and turbidness he was the National Preceptor, it is exceedingly wide of the mark and goes against human reason. To trace it to the root: when clarity and turbidness first showed omens and yin and yang were not yet divided, since yin and yang were not yet divided, the two forms [heaven and earth] were still chaotic. Since the two forms were still chaotic, the Three Powers were not yet shaped. Therefore, being profound and dim, it cannot be named. The sexagenary cycle began with Da Nao; years and months were fixed in the Canon of Yao. Not only had Sovereign Xi not yet appeared, but heaven and earth had firmly not yet unfolded. Testing this, we know that heaven and earth joined essences, and men and women were transformed and born; were Xi and Lao not human beings? They must have been within the two forms, not outside the Three Powers. How can one listen by the road and talk on the way, deceiving oneself? Furthermore, to say that Fangshuo was also a manifestation of Dan is even more impossible. The traditions say: ‘Dongfang Shuo was the essence of the Year Star.’ How is this known? In investigating Dongfang Manqian’s remaining at court for twenty-odd years, the Year Star was also not seen for twenty-odd years; only when Shuo passed away did the great star first appear. As recorded by discerning men, the verification can be known. The Baopuzi’s Biographies of Divine Immortals says: ‘Sages do not stand alone; they must respond to things to complete their transformation. How could the national preceptors of all under heaven depend on Li Er alone?’ How extraordinary are these words! They truly exhaust the highest beauty. If across many generations there were only a single Lao Dan acting as master, then across many dynasties there would also be only a single Sovereign Xi acting as lord. Since there are many administrations, one must rely on many rulers; surely one master can only rectify one governance. (If across successive dynasties they were all Dan’s body, whence did this stubborn claim derive its support? Ge Zhichuan says: ‘These are all ignorant Daoist masters falsely inventing divine marvels.’ How could it be otherwise?) The Ru scholar asked: ‘Huangfu Mi says: “Laozi went out of the pass, entered the land of Tianzhu, and taught the barbarian king to become a Buddha.” This means that Laozi and the Buddha were men of the same time. Why make groundless talk of before and after to mislead worldly customs?’ The Bodhisattva explained: ‘In investigating the perfected person, his profound stillness is akin to the valley spirit responding to changes without fixed orientation; his actions are like a mountain echo, not hasty yet swift. How could he be partitioned by Chinese or barbarians? Those fellows in the bottom of a well are fond of cleaving to one-sided views; like [the monkeys with] ‘three in the morning and four in the evening,’ they give rise to joy and anger in vain. Therefore, he who empties himself to respond to things must possess a thousand transforming appearances; how could one of narrow sentiments who clings to particulars know the marvel of ten thousand differences? Consulting the Western Regions Tradition, it says: ‘When Laozi reached the country of Jibin, he saw the Buddha; lamenting his own lateness, he spoke verses in offering. Facing the image, he stated his feelings, saying: “Why was I born so late? (New editions alter this to: ‘Why was the Buddha born so late?’) / Why did the Buddha appear so early? (New editions alter this to: ‘Why was nirvāṇa entered so early?’) / Not seeing Śākya, / My heart is constantly anguished.” (This means that because he did not personally witness the Buddha, feelings of yearning and longing intertwined in his mind. The Weilüe’s Western Regions Tradition says: ‘The king of the country of Lin’er had no son. Through worshipping the Buddha, his consort Moye dreamed of a white elephant and became pregnant. When the crown prince was born, he also emerged from the right flank, naturally had a topknot, and upon touching the ground could walk seven steps; his form resembled the Buddha. Because they obtained a child by sacrificing to the Buddha, they named the prince Buddha. In the country there was a divine person named Shalü, old in years with white hair, resembling Laozi, who constantly taught the people to become Buddhists. Yellow Turbans of recent times, seeing his white head, altered that Shalü to write this Lao Dan, deceitfully setting it at ease to confuse and delude the world. In the time of Emperor Ai of the Former Han, Qin Jing went to the Yuezhi country; its king ordered the crown prince to orally transmit the Buddha Sūtra. Returning to the Han, what the Buddha [Sūtras] recorded roughly corresponded with Daoist scriptures.’ Huangfu’s words did not investigate their source. The Huahu jing says: ‘The king of Jibin suspected Laozi of being a demon and burned him with fire, but he was at peace and did not die. The king knew he was a divine person and the whole country repented of their errors. Laozi said: “My master is named Buddha; if you can leave the household, you shall be spared your guilt.” That country received his teaching and all became śramaṇas.’ If the Buddha had not existed before, how would Lao Dan know to transform his body into a Buddha? It was truly because Jibin had previously had faith in the Buddha that Laozi based himself on promoting the Buddha to transform them; it was not that only after Yin and Dan did the Buddha first come into being. When the Sui Minister of the Left Yang Su accompanied the imperial entourage to the Bamboo Grove Palace, he passed Louguan and saw a Laozi shrine. On the wall was painted the scene of Laozi transforming the country of Jibin and saving people by shaving their hair to leave the household. He asked the Daoist masters: ‘If the Dao is greater than the Buddha, when Laozi converted the barbarians he should have made them Daoist masters; why did he make them śramaṇas? We must know that the Buddha’s power is great, able to transform the barbarians, while the Dao’s power is small, unable to transform the barbarians. This is the Buddha transforming the barbarians; what has it to do with the Dao transforming the barbarians?’ At that time, the Daoist masters had no words to reply). The Miscellaneous Records of the Jin Dynasty says: ‘The Daoist master Wang Fu frequently engaged in debates with the śramaṇa Bai Yuan; Wang Fu was repeatedly bested. Thereupon he altered the Western Regions Tradition to make the Huahu jing, claiming that Yin Xi and Lao Dan converted the barbarians to make the Buddha, and that the Buddha originated from this.’ (Pei Ziye’s Biographies of Eminent Monks says: ‘In the time of Emperor Hui of the Jin, the śramaṇa Bai Yuan, courtesy name Fazu, frequently contested the correct and the deviant with Libationer Wang Fu—another source says Daoist master Jigong. Fu was repeatedly bested. Unable to contain his anger, he falsely took the Western Regions Tradition to make the Huahu jing so as to disparage the Buddha-Dharma, which then circulated in the world. People did not know this, but calamity had its destination, causing suffering for years on end. The Youming lu says: ‘Li Tong of Pucheng died, and returning, said that he saw the śramaṇa Fazu expounding the Śūraṅgama Sūtra for King Yama, and also saw the Daoist master Wang Fu, his body bound in chains and shackles, begging Fazu for repentance, but Fazu was unwilling to go to him. Having betrayed the sage, only upon death did he think of repenting.’) In the Wei dynasty, the Daoist master Jiang Bin falsely cited the Kaitian jing before Emperor Ming of the Wei, asserting that Laozi was born in the time of King Ding; this evidence is fully cited in the Treatise on Refuting Errors. Zhuangzi says: ‘Lao Dan died, and Qin Yi went to mourn him.’ The Records of Guanzhong says: ‘Laozi was buried in Huaili’ (now south of Shiping in ancient Fufeng there is a Huaili township). Now, the clerk of Qiyuan personally studied Dan’s Dao; though the states of Song and Lu were different, their times of appearing in the world were the same, so the texts he spoke are sufficient to be relied upon with faith. That he did not go to Tianzhu is distinct and beyond doubt. Huangfu Shi’an refuted these deceptive statements and exposed those erroneous discussions; that the account of Laozi going to the Moving Sands has no authentic record is fully detailed in his Biographies of Lofty Scholars. How could this be dismissed as deception? That the Buddha came before and the Dao came after—have no doubts on this!”