[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [辯偽錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116) › 1.13 # 辯偽錄 1.13 辯偽錄 1.13 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116.1.13) 辯曰。蓋聞班固律曆之志。史記天官之書。皇甫謐之帝年。陶隱居之帝紀。未聞五運之前先有年號。三氣之內虛立劫名。既清濁之未形。只是洪濛一氣。何有老君元始五老九天。雖竊佛立劫之名。而不曉成壞之數。梵云劫波。此云時分。時雖長短皆立劫名。錯謬梵言迷惑體相。釋教未來此土。但有劫殺劫賊故許慎說文云。以兵愶人曰劫。又魯將曹沫劫桓公於壇上求所侵地。此則逼奪名劫。豈有劫運之言乎。今陳此言妄竊見矣。夫名位既有年號斯張。將以率領萬方整齊四海。混同九有同一車書。天子至尊得建年號。無名位者不敢立焉。孔子雖然刪書定禮分辯君臣。以無貴位止號素王。矧乎老聃周之柱史臣子之列。而草竊帝王妄建年號哉。況軒皇之前本無甲子（黃帝臣大橈造甲子）漢武之代始建年號（武帝始立年號）將古標古。亦何偽乎。或曰。老子生於天地之前。別立年號。有何乖違。答曰。既在天地之上。乃是太易之前。世界未形。君臣無跡。杳然空寂唯一溟濛。建立年號統領誰人乎。明知偷佛莊嚴。賢劫星宿之意。而立此延康赤明清運之目。彼明三世。此約一時。正同山羗偷王衣物。迷惑顛倒上下失次。爾下云。老子生於天崗李谷字曰光明。則在三皇之後。何得老君以陰陽二氣結為混沌而分布天地耶。首尾兩端穿鑿見矣。 > Refutation: I have heard of the 'Treatise on Pitch Pipes and the Calendar' by Ban Gu, the 'Book of Celestial Officials' in the Shiji, the Imperial Chronology by Huangfu Mi, and the Imperial Annals by Tao Yinju (Tao Hongjing); never have I heard that prior to the five cyclical turns there were already reign eras, or that within the three breaths they had falsely established kalpa names. Since the pure and turbid had not yet taken form and there was only the single breath of vast chaos, how could there be Lord Lao, Primal Beginning, the Five Elders, and the Nine Heavens? Though they stole the Buddhist term of establishing kalpas, they did not understand the calculations of formation and destruction. In Sanskrit it is called kalpa; here we translate it as 'time-span'. Whether the time is long or short, all are designated by the name kalpa. Erring in the Sanskrit term, they confused its essence and characteristics. Before the Buddhist teachings came to this land, there were only 'plunder and kill' (jie-sha) and 'plundering bandits' (jie-zei); thus Xu Shen's Shuowen says: 'To threaten someone with weapons is called jie.' Furthermore, the Lu general Cao Mo coerced (jie) Duke Huan upon the altar, demanding the territory that had been seized. This refers to coercion and seizure being called jie; how could there be any talk of 'kalpa cycles' (jieyun)? Presenting such words now reveals their fraudulent theft. Now, once titles and ranks exist, reign eras are promulgated, to be used to lead the myriad quarters, align the four seas, unify the nine realms, and standardize cart axles and scripts. Only the Son of Heaven, the most venerable, is entitled to establish reign eras; those without title and rank dare not establish them. Even though Confucius edited the Documents, fixed the Rites, and distinguished between ruler and minister, because he lacked noble rank he was only titled the 'Uncrowned King' (Suwang). How much less, then, could Lao Dan, a mere archivist of the Zhou in the ranks of ministers, improvise like a bandit to arrogate the role of emperors and kings and falsely establish reign eras? Moreover, prior to the Yellow Emperor (Xuanhuang) there was originally no sexagenary cycle (Danao, a minister of the Yellow Emperor, created the sexagenary cycle); reign eras were first established in the era of Emperor Wu of Han (Emperor Wu first established reign eras). Projecting antiquity upon antiquity—how can this be anything other than a forgery? Someone might ask: 'Laozi was born before Heaven and Earth; what contradiction is there in establishing separate reign eras?' I reply: Since he was prior to Heaven and Earth, he was before the Supreme Change. Worlds had not taken form, and ruler and minister had left no trace; in the dim and empty silence there was only a single murky vapor—for whom would he establish reign eras to govern? It is obvious that they stole the concepts of the Glorious Kalpa (Vyūhakalpa), the Auspicious Kalpa (Bhadrakalpa), and the Constellation Kalpa (Nakṣatrakalpa) from Buddhism, and invented these labels of Yankang, Chiming, and Qingyun. The former clarifies the three periods of time (past, present, and future), while the latter restricts it to a single period. This is just like a mountain Qiang barbarian stealing the king's robes, bewildered and confused, with upper and lower out of order. Furthermore, below it says: 'Laozi was born in Tiangang, Ligu, and his style was Guangming.' This was after the Three Sovereigns; how could Lord Lao then congeal the two breaths of yin and yang into Chaos to deploy Heaven and Earth? Contradictions from beginning to end and forced interpretations are clearly seen. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116.1.12) - [Next: 1.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116.1.14) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116~en-mt.1.13) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [佛祖歷代通載](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2036.21.93) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116.1.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2116.1.13) · Pramāṇa