三教平心論 1.19

1.19

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?