辯偽錄 1.13

1.13

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.