法苑珠林 100.405

100.405

又案文殊師利涅槃經云。佛滅度後二百五十年。文殊至雪山中。化五百仙人訖。還歸本土放大光明。遍照世界入於涅槃。常星之瑞。即其時也。長房言二月八日生者。乃是四月。非二月也。然長房所判未究事根。長房云。周以十一月為正。言四月者。今二月也。雖云二月終是四月。案春秋一部。年用魯侯之年。月取周王之月。星本瑞於周世。須據周之日月。長房乃云。佛以莊王。十年二月八日生者。太為猛浪。若是二月不應論星。長房又云。佛以四月八日下託胎者。託胎既用周月現生還是周辰。今言二月。是亦非也。若周十一月為正。如來不容十一月生。凡人正月胎即十月生。四月胎即正月生。佛俯同世。七月胎故。乃四月生。王邵齊誌云。周四月者。夏之六月。以此却推。四月生者。是七月胎。今言六月。取其節氣。雖授七月。終屬六月。信知王邵所說不差。又長房言。佛以周惠王十九年癸亥二月明星出時成道者。亦有大過。何者案劉向古舊二錄云。周惠王時已漸佛教一百五年後老子方說五千文。若以惠王之時始成佛者。不應經教已傳京雒。又計惠王即莊王孫也。以癸亥年。推其相去。唯三十年。不應始得成佛。經已來此。尋如來化世四十九年迦葉結集在佛沒後。法門東漸。正是周時。劉向之言。誠非謬矣。長房之錄定不可依。詳夫聖應無方。理難窺測。況乃東西敻遠。年代遐遙。復遭六國從衡。秦焚五典為年紀者不少。序帝曆者多家。而互有差違。增減出沒。皆師己意。各謂指南。琳今粗述見聞詳諸史牒。略有遐邇楊確先後。

Furthermore, examining the Mañjuśrīparinirvāṇa Sūtra, it says: ‘Two hundred and fifty years after the Buddha's extinction, Mañjuśrī went into the Snow Mountains, and after converting five hundred ṛṣis, returned to his home land, emitted a great light that illuminated the world everywhere, and entered nirvāṇa.’ The auspicious sign of the invariable stars was precisely that time. Changfang's statement that He was born on the eighth day of the second month actually means the fourth month, not the second month. However, Changfang's judgment did not fathom the root of the matter. Changfang said: ‘The Zhou took the eleventh month as the first month of the year; what is called the fourth month is the present second month.’ Although he says the second month, it is ultimately the fourth month. According to the complete Spring and Autumn Annals, the years use the years of the Dukes of Lu, while the months take the months of the Zhou kings. The stars were originally an omen in the Zhou era, so one must rely on the months and days of the Zhou. For Changfang then to say that the Buddha was born on the eighth day of the second month in King Zhuang's tenth year is exceedingly reckless. If it were the second month, one should not discuss the stars. Changfang also said: ‘The Buddha descended to take lodging in the womb on the eighth day of the fourth month.’ Since taking lodging in the womb used the Zhou months, His manifesting birth must also be the Zhou calendar. Now to call it the second month is also mistaken. If the Zhou took the eleventh month as the first, it is impossible for the Tathāgata to have been born in the eleventh month. When ordinary mortals conceive in the first month, they are born in the tenth month; when they conceive in the fourth month, they are born in the first month. The Buddha condescended to accord with the world: because He was conceived in the seventh month, He was born in the fourth month. Wang Shao's Qi Zhi says: ‘The fourth month of the Zhou is the sixth month of the Xia.’ Calculating backwards from this, one born in the fourth month was conceived in the seventh month. Now speaking of the sixth month, this refers to its solar term; though assigned to the seventh month, it ultimately belongs to the sixth month. We truly know that what Wang Shao said is not mistaken. Furthermore, Changfang's statement that the Buddha attained the Way in King Hui of Zhou's nineteenth year, a guihai year, in the second month when the morning star appeared, is also a great error. Why is this? According to Liu Xiang's two catalogues, ancient and old, in the time of King Hui of Zhou, the Buddhist teachings had already gradually spread, and one hundred and five years later Laozi only then expounded his five-thousand-word text. If He had only first attained buddhahood in the time of King Hui, it would be impossible for the scriptural teachings to have already spread to the capital Luoyang. Moreover, calculating that King Hui was the grandson of King Zhuang: deduced by the guihai year, the distance between them was only thirty years. It is impossible that having just attained buddhahood, the scriptures had already arrived here. Investigating further: the Tathāgata taught the world for forty-nine years, and Kāśyapa's compilation of the canon took place after the Buddha's passing. The eastward spread of the Dharma gates was precisely in the Zhou period. Liu Xiang's words are truly not erroneous. Changfang's catalogue definitely cannot be relied upon. In detail, the Sage's responses are without fixed direction; His principle is difficult to fathom. How much more so given that East and West are far apart, and the epochs are remote! Furthermore, encountering the vertical and horizontal alliances of the Six States and the Qin's burning of the Five Classics, those who kept chronological records were not few, and those who arranged the imperial genealogies were many, yet they conflict with one another, adding or subtracting, appearing or disappearing, each taking their own opinion as teacher and regarding it as the true guide. Lin has now roughly related what he has seen and heard, examining the historical records in detail, slightly clarifying the distant and near, and verifying the precedence.”