辯正論 6.21

6.21

開士曰。前漢書云。孔子為上上流是聖老。子為中上流是賢何。晏王弼云老未及聖。二教論云。柱史在朝本非諧贊。出周入秦為尹言道。無聞諸侯不見天子。若為周師史無明證。不符正說其可得乎。案史記王儉百家譜云。李老高陽之後。始祖咎繇為舜理官。因遂氏焉。李氏之興起於聃也。自聃之前未有李姓。唯氏理焉。以樹下生乃稱李氏。老子之子。名宗。仕魏文侯。蓋春秋之末。六國之時人也。文王之世既無李姓。何得有聃出為周師。年代參差無的依據。抱朴云。出文王世嵆康皇甫謐並云生殷末者。蓋指道之偽文。非國典所載也。

The bodhisattva says: The Book of the Former Han states: 'Confucius is of the highest-upper class, being a sage; Laozi is of the middle-upper class, being a worthy.' He Yan and Wang Bi said that Lao[zi] had not yet attained sagehood. The Treatise on the Two Teachings states: 'The Archivist of the Pillars was at court, but was originally not an imperial counsellor. Leaving the Zhou and entering Qin, he spoke of the Dao for the Guardian of the Pass; he had no reputation among the feudal lords and was never received by the Son of Heaven.' If he were the teacher of the Zhou, the historical records lack clear evidence; since it does not accord with orthodox accounts, how could it be accepted? According to the Shiji and Wang Jian's Genealogy of the Hundred Families, 'Li Lao was a descendant of Gaoyang. The founding ancestor Gaoyao served as Shun's judicial officer (li), and hence they adopted that clan name. The rise of the Li clan began with Dan; before Dan, there was no surname Li, only the clan name Li (理). Because he was born beneath a plum tree (li), he was called the Li clan.' Laozi's son was named Zong, who served Marquis Wen of Wei; he was an individual from the end of the Spring and Autumn period, during the Warring States era. Since in the generation of King Wen there was no Li surname, how could there have been Dan appearing as the teacher of Zhou? The chronology is contradictory and lacks definitive basis. The Baopuzi says that he appeared in the generation of King Wen; Ji Kang and Huangfu Mi both say he was born at the end of the Yin; these are merely pointing to the forged texts of Daoism, not what is recorded in the state's standard histories.