法苑珠林 55.69

55.69

皇帝。命朝散大夫衛尉寺丞上護軍李義表副使前融州黃水縣令王玄策等二十二人。使至西域。前後三度。更使餘人。及古帝王前後使人。往來非一。皆親見世尊說經時處伽藍聖迹。及七佛已來所有徵祥。靈感變應具存西國志六十卷內。現傳流行。宰貴共知。未知天尊老子既出爾許經書。爾時說處在何對何人說。說時說處有何靈驗。何帝何時說是經等。若有時處片有徵祥。何故五經無文諸史不載。止欲苟存同異。用多流行誑於草萊。無識之徒不知。有識君子久知其偽。良由漢時有黃巾五斗米賊。前後踵繼迄今不除。故涅槃百喻經等。我涅槃後有諸外道。偷我佛語著己法中。以為自有。以不解布置迷亂上下。譬如山羌。偷得王寶衣。雖得不識次第。顛倒而著。亦如偷狗夜入人舍不知食處。佛既懸記不可不信。今時道士偷佛經將為己法。亦不可怪若今不偷佛便妄語。非大聖人也。故吳主孫權問尚書令闞澤曰。仙有靈寶之法。其教如何。闞澤對曰。夫靈寶者。一無氏族可依。二無成道處所。教出山谷非人所知。直是幽居濫說。非聖人制也。吳主歎其善對焉。所言天尊之號出自佛經。竊我聖蹤施乎已典。何者。案五經正史。三皇已來並不云別有天尊住於天上。但敘周公孔子制禮刪詩。所以五典三墳。靡覩大羅之稱。前王往帝。不聞郊祀之名。安有執玉璋披黃褐。垂素髮戴金冠。別號天尊。端拱九華之殿。獨稱大道。統御七英之宮。縱有道教辯天尊諸子談靈寶。此乃道聽途說。未足可依。委衖之書。非關國史。又齋儀矯制事跡可尋。莫不廣列金銀多班繒綵。並是三張詭述修靜妄言。斥破逗遛備如琳論。又道士之號。老教先無。河上之言。儒宗未辯。何者。姚書云。始乎漢魏終暨符姚。皆號眾僧以為道士。至魏太武世。有寇謙之。始竊道士之名。私易祭酒之稱。此豈琳之臆斷。乃是史籍盛明。又班固漢書。文帝傳及潘岳關中記𰎨康皇甫謐高士傳及訪父老等。皆無河上公結草為菴現神變事處。並虛謬不涉典謨。妄搆斐然。動成焉有。當今主上垂拱問道坐朝九族既親平章百姓。寔可黜三張之穢術。闡五千之妙門。

The Great Tang's Civil Emperor Taizong and the present Emperor dispatched the Court Gentleman for Ceremonial, Assistant Minister of the Court of the Imperial Insignia, and Senior Commandant of Cavalry Li Yibiao, together with the Vice Envoy, the former Magistrate of Huangshui County in Rongzhou, Wang Xuance, and twenty-two others, on missions to the Western Regions. Successive missions were sent three times, and others were further dispatched; together with the envoys sent back and forth by ancient emperors and kings, the journeys were not just once. All personally witnessed the saṃghārāmas and sacred traces of the times and places where the World-Honoured One preached the sūtras, as well as all auspicious omens since the Seven Buddhas. These wondrous manifestations and sympathetic resonances are preserved in full within the sixty fascicles of the Record of the Western Countries (Xiguo zhi), which is presently transmitted and in circulation, known to ministers and nobles alike. It is not known, when the Heavenly Worthy Laozi produced so many scriptures, at what time and place he preached them, to whom he spoke, what wondrous verifications occurred at that time and place, and under which emperor and in what year these scriptures were delivered. If there were any auspicious omens at all regarding time and place, why do the Five Classics contain no mention, and why do the various histories not record them? They merely sought illicitly to create points of difference and concordance, circulating them widely to deceive the common populace. Ignorant fellows do not know, but gentlemen of discernment have long known their falsity. This is indeed because during the Han dynasty there were the Yellow Turban and Five Pecks of Rice bandits, who have continued in unbroken succession down to the present without being eliminated. Therefore, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the Sūtra of One Hundred Parables, and others state: 'After my nirvāṇa, there will be non-Buddhists who steal my Buddha-words and place them into their own teachings, taking them to be their own. Because they do not understand how to arrange them, they confound and disorder the beginning and the end. They are like mountain Qiang who have stolen a king's precious robes: though having obtained them, not knowing the proper order, they put them on upside-down. They are also like a thieving dog that enters a person's house at night and does not know where the food is.' Since the Buddha has made this prediction in advance, it cannot be disbelieved. That Daoists today steal Buddhist sūtras and make them into their own teachings is likewise not to be wondered at; if they did not steal them now, the Buddha would have spoken falsely and would not be a Great Sage. Thus, Sun Quan, the Lord of Wu, asked the Prefect of the Masters of Writing, Kan Ze: 'The immortals have the teaching of Lingbao. What is this doctrine like?' Kan Ze replied: 'As for Lingbao: first, it has no clans or lineages that can be verified; second, it has no place where the Way was attained. The teachings emerged from mountain valleys and are not known to men; they are merely the careless talk of recluses and were not instituted by sages.' The Lord of Wu sighed in praise of his excellent response. What is called the title 'Heavenly Worthy' comes from Buddhist sūtras; they stole our sage's traces and applied them to their own scriptures. Why? When one examines the Five Classics and the standard histories, from the Three Sovereigns onward they never state that there is a separate Heavenly Worthy residing in heaven. They merely recount the Duke of Zhou and Confucius instituting the rites and editing the Odes. Thus, in the Five Classics and the Three Tomes, one never sees the designation 'Daluo'; among former kings and past emperors, one never hears the name of suburban sacrifices [to him]. How could there be one who grasps a jade sceptre and dons a yellow robe, with flowing white hair and wearing a golden cap, separately named 'Heavenly Worthy', hands folded in the Hall of Nine Glories, uniquely titled 'Great Dao', ruling over the Palace of Seven Excellences? Even if there are Daoist teachings that speak of the Heavenly Worthy or the masters who discuss Lingbao, these are merely hearsay from the streets and paths, insufficient to rely upon; they are the books of alleyways and lanes, unconnected to the dynastic histories. Furthermore, their retreat rituals are fabricated imitations whose origins can be traced: none fail to display gold and silver extensively and distribute silks and brocades in abundance. These are all the deceptive accounts of the three Zhangs and the false words of [Lu] Xiujing. Their refutation and hesitation are fully detailed in [Fal]in's treatises. Moreover, the title 'Daoist' (daoshi) was originally absent from the teachings of Laozi; the words of Heshang [Gong] were not discussed by the Confucian school. Why? The History of the Yao [Qin] states that beginning in the Han and Wei and ending with Fu [Jian] and Yao [Xing], all the monastic assemblies were referred to as 'daoshi'. In the time of Emperor Taiwu of the Wei, there was Kou Qianzhi, who first stole the name 'daoshi' and illicitly replaced the title 'libationer' (jijiu). How could this be Falin's subjective judgment? It is clearly evident in the historical records. Furthermore, Ban Gu's Book of Han, the Annals of Emperor Wen, Pan Yue's Account of Guanzhong, and the Biographies of Eminent Gentlemen by Ji Kang and Huangfu Mi, as well as inquiries to elderly locals, all contain no place where the Master on the River (Heshang Gong) thatched straw to make a hut or manifested divine transformations. These are all empty falsities that do not touch upon the canonical documents, wildly constructed and fabricated, easily becoming sheer fiction. The present sovereign folds his hands in non-action and inquires into the Dao, sitting in court with his nine degrees of kin already concordant and the myriad people regulated; he may indeed banish the defiled arts of the three Zhangs and elucidate the marvelous gate of the Five Thousand Words.