辯正論 8.35

8.35

元陽經云。太上靈寶從無央數劫來。在道為道本。在佛為佛先。十方之佛。皆始於靈寶也。東方香林剎土。其佛名入精進。菩薩號敬首。元陽又云。赤松子遊仙觀元陽宅中變化事。其中備有華嚴善才童子求善知識入法界。及現神通等語。靈寶妙真經偈云。假使聲聞眾。如稻麻竹葦。遍滿十方剎。盡思共度量。不能測道智。而靈寶唯改佛一字以為道字。及其體狀全取法花。自餘之文例皆採撮。宋人謝常侍為駁道論。以問道士顧歡。歡答言。靈寶妙經。天文大字出於自然。本非改法花為之。乃是羅什姦妄。與弟子僧禕改我道家靈寶以為法華。非改法華為靈寶也。准如此狀可以情求。靈寶之經不言可見。若言羅什改靈寶經為法華者。出何記傳止可誑此東土以惑下民。不應流向西域所在皆有。今彼沙門來遊此國。其所持經以樹葉抄寫。爾日又遣譯人對之翻解。與今經文不異。以此驗之。定知道士偷改法華以為道經。此事誠可信。如前所列。非止一部。凡是道書除五千文之外。悉皆偷採安置己典。誠如涅槃經之所說也。竊以佛之與僧代代相承。前賢後哲人人欽敬。蓋由威靈化被理事可詳。所以往古來今名僧繼踵。猶如師子得無畏焉。有喻香林栴檀圍遶。住持國界冥潤難量。以慈修身安人恕己。慎行之美無辱先乎。立身奉道揚名現矣。其若偷改道經為法華者。既習學詭言。寧有許多勝行。心用高潔智海弘深。而道士既奉真文。何事愚短相次。書史所載。未得其一。以此往推。改換正經以為邪典。其義可曝。眾共詳焉。

The Yuanyang jing says: "The Most High Lingbao, from countless kalpas ago, in Dao is the root of the Dao, and in the Buddha is the predecessor of the Buddha. The Buddhas of the ten directions all originate from Lingbao. The land of the fragrant grove in the east has a Buddha named Entering Diligence, and a bodhisattva named Respectful Head." The Yuanyang jing further says: "Chisongzi, roaming as an immortal, observed the matters of transformation in the dwelling of Yuanyang." Among these, it fully includes the words from the Avataṃsaka regarding the youth Sudhana seeking good spiritual friends to enter the dharmadhātu, displaying supernatural powers, and so on. A verse in the Lingbao miaozhen jing says: "Even if the assembly of śrāvakas, / like rice, hemp, bamboo, and reeds, / completely filled the lands of the ten directions / and exhausted their thoughts to calculate together, / they could not fathom the Dao's wisdom." Yet the Lingbao merely changed the single character "Buddha" to the character "Dao", and in its structure and form it plagiarised the Lotus Sūtra entirely. The rest of its texts are similarly patched together. Xie, Palace Attendant of the Song dynasty, wrote the Refutation of the Daoist Discourse to question the Daoist master Gu Huan. Huan replied: "The marvelous scripture of Lingbao consists of great characters of celestial script that arose from spontaneity. It was originally not created by altering the Lotus Sūtra; rather, it was Kumārajīva who, with malicious falsehood, together with his disciple Sengyi, altered our Daoist Lingbao to make the Lotus Sūtra—it was not an alteration of the Lotus into Lingbao." Judging from such circumstances, one can investigate the truth through reason: the nature of the Lingbao scripture can be seen without words. If it is claimed that Kumārajīva altered the Lingbao scripture into the Lotus Sūtra, in what historical records or biographies is this found? Such a claim can only deceive this eastern land to delude the common people, but it could not have flowed to the Western Regions to exist everywhere there. Nowadays, when those śramaṇas come to visit this country, the scriptures they hold are copied on tree leaves; on that day, translators were also sent to translate and interpret them face to face, and they did not differ from the present scripture texts. Proving it by this, one certainly knows that Daoist masters stole and altered the Lotus Sūtra to make Daoist scriptures. This matter is truly credible. As listed previously, it is not merely one work. All Daoist writings, other than the Five Thousand Characters [of the Daodejing], have stolen and adopted [Buddhist texts] and placed them into their own canons, just as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra has stated. We observe that the Buddha and the saṅgha have succeeded each other generation after generation; former worthies and later sages are revered by everyone. This is because their majestic numinous transformation covers [all], and their principles and phenomena can be verified. Therefore, from antiquity down to the present, renowned monks have followed in continuous succession, fearless like lions. They are compared to being encircled by fragrant groves of sandalwood, supporting and sustaining the state, and their hidden moistening is immeasurable. Cultivating themselves with loving-kindness, pacifying others, and forgiving themselves, the beauty of their prudent conduct does not disgrace their predecessors! Establishing themselves and upholding the Dao, their fame is manifested. If they were persons who stole and altered Daoist scriptures into the Lotus Sūtra, having practiced and studied deceitful words, how could they have had so many supreme practices? Their minds were elevated and pure, their ocean of wisdom broad and profound. Yet since Daoist masters uphold the true texts, why is their foolishness and narrowness consecutive? Among the historical records, not one [such virtue] is found in them. Deducing from this, their alteration of orthodox scriptures into heterodox texts—its meaning is fully exposed, and everyone can examine it together.