[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) › [三教平心論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117) › 1.19 # 三教平心論 1.19 三教平心論 1.19 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.19) 王浮作化胡經稱。老子尹喜欲化胡。成佛遂變身為釋迦文殊。而後胡人受化也。抑不思佛生之年周昭王二十四年也。佛滅之年周穆王五十二年也。佛滅後三百四十二年至定王時。老子始生於楚岵縣。為周柱下吏。過函谷關見尹喜時。佛已示滅四百餘歲。以後世之道而變身為上世之佛。是乃道不足以化胡。必假佛以化胡也。隋僕射楊素曰。聞老君化胡。胡人不受。乃與尹喜變身作佛。胡人方受。審爾則老君不能化胡。胡人奉佛有素明矣。素又常謂道流曰。老子何不化胡為道。安用化胡為佛。豈非道化不及佛化乎。是浮之說欲以卑佛。而不料其適以尊佛也。法琳作破邪論。大略謂。佛教徹萬法之原。而孔老特域中之治。謂可以闢邪說覺愚冥也。抑不思孔顏決非菩薩。老子決非迦葉。欲正彼誣。豈可自出於誣哉。故謂孔顏為菩薩。猶未為太失也。至於指老子為迦葉。則大謬矣。迦葉得教之別傳。繼釋迦而作祖。當時最上一乘不可言傳之妙。人天百萬昔皆罔措。而惟迦葉得之。老子豈迦葉變化哉。故迦葉付法於阿難即入定於雞足山。以伺慈氏下生。慈氏未生。其定未出。是迦葉之肉身今猶在定也。其不出而為老子也明矣。若以迦葉為老子。則老子乃宗之祖師也。不亦謬之甚乎。是琳之說將以卑道。而不料其適以尊道也。杜撰之言。矯誣以甚。識者奚取哉。 > Wang Fu composed the \*Scripture on Converting the Barbarians\* (\*Huahu jing\*), claiming that when Laozi and Yin Xi wished to convert the barbarians, \[they attained\] Buddhahood and thereupon transformed their bodies into Śākya and Mañjuśrī, after which the barbarians accepted conversion. But did he not consider that the year of the Buddha's birth was the twenty-fourth year of King Zhao of Zhou? The year of the Buddha's demise was the fifty-second year of King Mu of Zhou. Three hundred and forty-two years after the Buddha's demise, in the time of King Ding, Laozi was first born in Ku County of Chu and served as an archivist under the Zhou pillars. When he passed through the Hangu Pass and met Yin Xi, the Buddha had already manifested nirvana more than four hundred years earlier. To transform the Dao of a later age into the Buddha of an earlier age implies that the Dao was insufficient to convert the barbarians, and that one necessarily had to borrow the Buddha to convert them. Yang Su, Vice Director of the Right under the Sui, said: 'I have heard that when Lord Lao converted the barbarians, the barbarians did not accept him, so he and Yin Xi transformed their bodies into Buddhas, whereupon the barbarians finally accepted them. If this is so, then Lord Lao was incapable of converting the barbarians, and it is plain that the barbarians had long revered the Buddha.' Su also frequently said to followers of the Dao: 'Why did Laozi not convert the barbarians into Daoists? What was the use of converting them into Buddhas? Is this not because conversion by the Dao does not equal conversion by the Buddha?' Thus Wang Fu's claim sought to demean the Buddha, without realising that it served precisely to venerate him. Falin composed the \*Treatise Refuting Heresy\* (\*Poxie lun\*), which in general stated that Buddhism penetrates to the source of all phenomena, whereas Confucius and Laozi merely pertained to governance within the realm, claiming thereby to refute heterodox doctrines and awaken the ignorant. But did he not consider that Confucius and Yan Hui were by no means bodhisattvas, and Laozi was by no means Kāśyapa? In seeking to rectify the other's falsehoods, how could one produce falsehoods oneself? Therefore, to call Confucius and Yan Hui bodhisattvas is not yet too great an error; but when it comes to designating Laozi as Kāśyapa, it is an enormous blunder. Kāśyapa received the separate transmission outside the teachings, succeeding Śākya as patriarch; of the sublime wonder of the supreme vehicle of that time, which cannot be expressed in words, hundreds of thousands of humans and devas were formerly at a complete loss, and only Kāśyapa attained it. How could Laozi be a transformation of Kāśyapa? Therefore, after Kāśyapa transmitted the Dharma to Ānanda, he entered samādhi on Mount Kukkuṭapāda to await the descent of Maitreya into this world. Since Maitreya has not yet been born, he has not emerged from his samādhi; thus Kāśyapa's physical body remains in samādhi to this day. That he did not emerge to become Laozi is evident. If one takes Kāśyapa to be Laozi, then Laozi is a patriarch of our lineage—is this not an extreme absurdity? Thus Falin's claim intended to demean the Dao, without realising that it served precisely to venerate the Dao. Fabricated words and gross falsehoods—how could the discerning accept them? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.18](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.18) - [Next: 1.20](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.20) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117~en-mt.1.19) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.19](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2117.1.19) · Pramāṇa