辯偽錄 1.19

1.19

辯曰。夫賢之與聖名位不同。古哲今人出處各異。莊周云。萬世之後一遇大聖。猶旦暮過之。此明聖人出世表瑞協祥。應千年之期。膺適時之運。孤標特秀逈出常流。故得帝王師之諸侯禮重。萬載一遇尚為旦暮。豈有隨代而出現乎。夫李耳者退靜之士。史記稱為隱君子也。避亂過關葬於槐里。潛身柱下。本是人臣。位不躐於上階。名未廁於台輔。何乃擢居聖地為帝王師。譣詖不經駭人耳目。培塿要齊於嵩華。孰肯憑焉。潢洿擬廣於滄溟。終難信矣。豈有開闢之後萬億餘年。中間別無一人拔萃。唯有老子為帝王師乎。三墳五典八索九丘。孔子春秋丘明國語。百家異說九流雜談。並無老子為師之語。唯是後代無知道士。妄撰斯言。欲使老子獨高群聖。美則美矣。偽且偽焉。且伏犧神農皆有聖德。軒皇堯舜並號明君。或幼而能言。或生知妙道。詎假老子教之。然後造作群物乎。況書傳所紀古史所明（有古史考並世本並明造物之源）燧人鑽火。伏犧畫卦。炎帝播耨。女媧造簧。黃帝作宮室軒冕樂有咸池。顓頊作六英。堯有大章。舜有大韶。及作圍碁。禹有大夏。湯有大濩。文王有辟雍。武王有下武鯀作城郭。出尤作兵器。岐伯造醫。俞附脈經。伶倫制律。隸首作算。容成作曆。大撓造甲子。奚仲作車。曹胡作衣。伯余作裳。於則作履。共鼓作舟楫。巨揮作弓。夷牢作矢。黃雍父作杵臼。孟莊子作鉅。趙武靈王作靴。蘇威公作篪。暴辛作塤。后稷之孫叔均作犁。蒙恬作筆。蔡倫作紙。夏昆吾氏作瓦。此皆各有其王。群書所明何得自矜覽為我造。又周易繫辭孔子所述。列明古帝制造之事。如云庖犧氏之王天下也。觀像於天俯察於地。近取諸身遠取諸物。始畫八卦以通神明之德。以類萬物之情。作結繩而為網罟。以佃以漁。蓋取諸離。神農氏作為耜為來。以利天下。日中為市交易有無。乃至黃帝堯舜垂衣裳而天下治。蓋取諸乾坤。如此歷陳法易造物。不言老子所造也。竊他功業標為己能。衒名自高君子不忍。又云。老子在堯時為務成子者。案後漢應邵風俗通云。東方朔是太白星精。黃帝時為風后。堯時為務成子。周時為老聃。在越時為范䗍。在齊為鴟子。此則務成子乃東方朔。非干老子明矣。何得妄加鈎引稱老子為人師乎。案魯哀公問於子夏曰。五帝三皇皆有師乎。子夏曰有。臣聞黃帝學乎太真。顓頊學乎綠圖。帝嚳學乎赤松子。堯學乎尹壽。舜學乎務成跗。禹學乎西王國。湯學乎威子伯。文王學乎鉸時子斯。武王學乎郭政。周公學乎太公呂望。上之所敘文極分明。而言老子隨代為帝王師。何出言之狂悖哉。巧言如篁顏之厚矣。且老子衰周柱史。史有明文。本是人臣。返為上古帝王之師。履冠戴屨何顛狂之甚乎。又上文云。上古之君皆受教於老子。則桀紂之不仁。幽厲之無道。秦皇之凶暴。王莽之篡逆。亦老子之所教也。既然如是則老子為悖逆之魁首。巨猾之元匠。不忠不孝。老子之所生。不義不仁。老子之所主。為人師者不亦慚乎。老君既說隨代為師。而秦漢之下至於今朝。偏無一現乎。今既無矣。古亦虛焉。且漢文恭儉。孝武英明。孝明達禮樂之情。孝章優儒雅之道。魏文帝風流文藻。晉世祖明達寬仁。宋文帝致治昇平。梁武帝文武兼備。隋高祖混同四海。唐太宗混一車書。此時不俟老子之化而皆金聲玉振。則知牽合巧會枉廢詞章。秖可誑於閭閻。難可信於達士。嫫母加粉見者愈嗤。隣女效顰鄉人不貴（哀公問子夏文氏春秋亦有見劉向新序呂文不次爾）。

The refutation says: Worthies and sages differ in title and position; ancient philosophers and modern people vary in their public appearances and retirements. Zhuang Zhou said: 'To meet a great sage once after ten thousand generations is still like encountering him between morning and evening.' This clarifies that when a sage appears in the world, he displays auspicious omens and conforms to favorable signs, answering the millennial period and meeting the timely fortune. Standing solitary and exceptional, he far transcends the ordinary stream; thus he is taken as the master of emperors and kings and esteemed with ritual courtesy by feudal lords. Meeting one once in ten thousand years is still considered like morning and evening; how could one appear in every successive generation? Now, Li Er was a retired and tranquil gentleman, whom the *Shiji* called a hidden gentleman. Escaping chaos, he crossed the pass and was buried in Huaili. Hiding his presence beneath the pillars, he was originally a subject of men; his rank did not step onto the upper stairs, and his name was not included among the grand ministers. Why then should he be promoted to the station of a sage and become the master of emperors and kings? Such treacherous and unorthodox fabrications startle people's ears and eyes! If an ant-hill demands to be equal to Mount Song and Mount Hua, who would rely upon it? If a puddle pretends to be as vast as the azure ocean, it is ultimately hard to believe. How could it be that in the more than ten thousand myriad years since the opening of the cosmos, not a single other outstanding individual arose in between, and only Laozi served as the master of emperors and kings? Across the Three Plans, the Five Canons, the Eight Chords, and the Nine Hills, Kongzi's *Chunqiu*, Zuo Qiuming's *Guoyu*, the divergent doctrines of the hundred schools, and the mixed discourses of the nine streams of thought, there are absolutely no words about Laozi acting as a master. It was merely the ignorant Daoists of later generations who falsely fabricated these words, wishing to make Laozi alone exalted above all sages. It may be fine in fancy, but it is utterly false in truth! Moreover, Fuxi and Shennong both possessed sage virtue; the Xuan Emperor (Huangdi), Yao, and Shun were all called enlightened rulers. Some could speak in infancy, while others were born with knowledge of the wondrous Way. How could they rely on Laozi to instruct them before creating the myriad things? Furthermore, as recorded in classical histories and clarified by ancient annals (the *Gushi kao* and the *Shiben* both clarify the origins of invented things): Sui Ren drilled for fire, Fuxi drew the trigrams, Yandi sowed and hoed, Nüwa created the reed pipe, the Yellow Emperor built palaces and mansions, created carriage canopies and caps, and his music had the *Xianchi*; Zhuanxu composed the *Liuying*; Yao had the *Dazhang*; Shun had the *Dashao* and made the board game of go; Yu had the *Daxia*; Tang had the *Dahu*; King Wen had the Piyong; King Wu had the *Xiawu*; Gun built city walls; Chiyou made weapons; Qibo founded medicine; Yu Fu wrote the *Maijing*; Ling Lun regulated the musical pitches; Li Shou created mathematics; Rong Cheng formulated the calendar; Da Nao created the sexagenary cycle; Xi Zhong made carriages; Cao Hu made robes; Bo Yu made skirts; Yu Ze made shoes; Gong Gu made boats and oars; Ju Hui made bows; Yi Lao made arrows; Huang Yongfu made mortars and pestles; Meng Zhuangzi made saws; King Wuling of Zhao made boots; Duke Suwei made transverse flutes; Bao Xin made ocarinas; Shu Jun, grandson of Hou Ji, made plows; Meng Tian made writing brushes; Cai Lun made paper; and Kunwu of the Xia made roof tiles. These all had their respective initiators, as clarified in the various books; how can [Laozi] arrogantly claim and seize them as his own creations? Furthermore, in the *Xici* commentary of the *Zhouyi* expounded by Kongzi, the inventions of the ancient sovereigns are clearly enumerated, such as: 'When Baoxi ruled the world, he looked up and contemplated the images in the sky, looked down and examined the models on earth, took examples from his own person near at hand, and took examples from things far away; he first drew the eight trigrams to connect with the virtue of the spirits and to classify the dispositions of the myriad things. He knotted ropes to make nets and snares for hunting and fishing, which he probably took from the hexagram Li. Shennong fashioned wood into plowshares and bent wood into plow-handles to benefit the world; he held markets at midday, exchanging what people had for what they lacked. Even up to the Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun, who let fall their robes and garments while all under Heaven was governed, which they probably took from the hexagrams Qian and Kun.' Thus, successively detailing the modelling on the *Changes* to create things, it never says they were created by Laozi. To steal the accomplishments of others and boast of them as one's own ability, showing off a false name to exalt oneself, is what an exemplary person cannot bear. It also says that Laozi was Wuchengzi in the time of Yao. However, according to Ying Shao's *Fengsu tong* of the Later Han: Dongfang Shuo was the essence of the Venus star; in the time of the Yellow Emperor he was Feng Hou, in the time of Yao he was Wuchengzi, in the time of Zhou he was Lao Dan, in the state of Yue he was Fan Li, and in Qi he was Chiyizi. This shows that Wuchengzi was Dongfang Shuo; it is clear that he had nothing to do with Laozi. How could they arbitrarily make false connections and claim that Laozi was a master to these men? According to Duke Ai of Lu asking Zixia: 'Did the Five Emperors and Three Sovereigns all have masters?' Zixia said: 'Yes. Your servant has heard that the Yellow Emperor studied under Taizhen; Zhuanxu studied under Lutu; Emperor Ku studied under Chisongzi; Yao studied under Yinshou; Shun studied under Wucheng Fu; Yu studied under Xiwangguo; Tang studied under Weizibo; King Wen studied under Jiaoshi Zisi; King Wu studied under Guo Zheng; and the Duke of Zhou studied under Grand Duke Lü Wang.' The above account is extremely clear; yet they say Laozi was the master of emperors and kings across successive ages. How wildly absurd is such talk! 'Skillful words like reed-organs'—how thick-skinned indeed! Moreover, Laozi was an archivist in the declining Zhou; the histories have clear records of this. He was originally a subject of men; yet conversely he is made the master of ancient emperors and kings. To wear shoes on one's head and a cap on one's feet—how extreme is such raving madness! Furthermore, the passage above says: 'The rulers of high antiquity all received teachings from Laozi.' If so, then the inhumanity of Jie and Zhou, the unprincipled rule of You and Li, the ferocity and cruelty of the First Emperor of Qin, and the usurpation of Wang Mang were also taught by Laozi! If it is so, then Laozi is the ringleader of treacherous rebellion and the master artisan of colossal cunning! Disloyalty and unfiliality were born of Laozi; unrighteousness and inhumanity were presided over by Laozi. As a master of men, should he not feel ashamed? Since Laozi is said to have been a master across successive ages, why is it that from the Qin and Han downwards to the present dynasty, not a single appearance has occurred? Since there are none now, the past is also fabricated. Moreover, Emperor Wen of Han was reverent and frugal; Emperor Wu was heroic and enlightened; Emperor Ming comprehended the sentiments of rites and music; Emperor Zhang favored the way of refined scholarship; Emperor Wen of Wei had romantic literary talent; Ancestor Shizu of Jin was discerning, broad-minded, and benevolent; Emperor Wen of Song achieved a peaceful and prosperous governance; Emperor Wu of Liang possessed both literary and martial virtues; Emperor Gaozu of Sui unified all within the four seas; and Emperor Taizong of Tang brought about unity of carriages and scripts. At these times, without waiting for Laozi's transformation, they all struck gold and resonated jade. Thus we know that such far-fetched matches and crafty concoptions are a useless waste of rhetoric, which can only deceive the alleyways and cannot be believed by enlightened scholars. When Momu applies powder, those who see her sneer all the more; when the neighbor girl imitates Xi Shi's frown, the villagers do not prize her. (Duke Ai's questioning of Zixia is also found in the *Lüshi chunqiu* and Liu Xiang's *Xinxu*, though Lü's text is not in that order).