隨代為帝王師偽第四
Chapter 4: Falsehood of Being Teacher to Emperors
第十一化云。老君在伏犧時。號欝華子。說元陽經教伏犧。敘人倫畫八卦。在祝融時號廣壽子。說按摩通精經。教以鑽木出火。陶冶為器。在神農時號大成子。說太一元精經。教以播種五穀採和諸藥。在黃帝時號廣成子。教以抱神守靜之道。在少昊時號隨應子。說莊敬經。教以鳥官為理。分布九鳸以統百司。在顓頊時號赤精子。說微言。帝嚳時號錄圖子。說黃庭經。帝堯時號務成子。說宣化經。帝舜時號尹壽子。說通玄經七十卷。又說道德經一千二百卷。夏禹時號真行子。說元始經六十卷。殷湯時號錫則子。說長生經二十卷。周文王時號爕邑子。說赤精經。教以仁孝之道。乃至云上古之君皆受教於老子。然後造作群物也。
**Eleventh Manifestation**
During the time of Fuxi, Laozi was known as Yuhua. He taught the *Yuan Yang Jing* to Fuxi, explaining human relationships and drawing the Eight Trigrams. In the time of Zhu Rong, he was called Guang Shouzi. He taught the *An Mo Tong Jing Jing*, showing how to create fire by drilling wood and how to make pottery. In the time of Shennong, he was known as Dachengzi. He taught the *Tai Yi Yuan Jing Jing*, instructing in the cultivation of grains and the gathering of medicinal herbs. In the time of the Yellow Emperor, he was called Guangchengzi. He taught the way of embracing the spirit and maintaining stillness. In the time of Shaohao, he was known as Sui Yingzi. He taught the *Zhuang Jing Jing*, advising that officials should take the title of "Birds" and that the nine tribes of birds should manage the various offices. In the time of Zhuanxu, he was called Chijingzi and taught subtle words. In the time of Emperor Ku, he was known as Lutu Zi and taught the *Huang Ting Jing*. In the time of Emperor Yao, he was called Wuchengzi and taught the *Xuan Hua Jing*. In the time of Emperor Shun, he was called Yin Shouzi. He taught the *Tong Xuan Jing* in seventy volumes, and also the *Dao De Jing* in one thousand two hundred volumes. In the time of Yu the Great (Xia dynasty), he was known as Zhen Xingzi and taught the *Yuan Shi Jing* in sixty volumes. In the time of Tang (Shang dynasty), he was called Xizezi and taught the *Chang Sheng Jing* in twenty volumes. In the time of King Wen of Zhou, he was known as Xie Yizi and taught the *Chi Jing Jing*, explaining the path of benevolence and filial piety.
Thus, it is said that all the ancient rulers were taught by Laozi before they created the various things of the world.
辯曰。夫賢之與聖名位不同。古哲今人出處各異。莊周云。萬世之後一遇大聖。猶旦暮過之。此明聖人出世表瑞協祥。應千年之期。膺適時之運。孤標特秀逈出常流。故得帝王師之諸侯禮重。萬載一遇尚為旦暮。豈有隨代而出現乎。夫李耳者退靜之士。史記稱為隱君子也。避亂過關葬於槐里。潛身柱下。本是人臣。位不躐於上階。名未廁於台輔。何乃擢居聖地為帝王師。譣詖不經駭人耳目。培塿要齊於嵩華。孰肯憑焉。潢洿擬廣於滄溟。終難信矣。豈有開闢之後萬億餘年。中間別無一人拔萃。唯有老子為帝王師乎。三墳五典八索九丘。孔子春秋丘明國語。百家異說九流雜談。並無老子為師之語。唯是後代無知道士。妄撰斯言。欲使老子獨高群聖。美則美矣。偽且偽焉。且伏犧神農皆有聖德。軒皇堯舜並號明君。或幼而能言。或生知妙道。詎假老子教之。然後造作群物乎。況書傳所紀古史所明(有古史考並世本並明造物之源)燧人鑽火。伏犧畫卦。炎帝播耨。女媧造簧。黃帝作宮室軒冕樂有咸池。顓頊作六英。堯有大章。舜有大韶。及作圍碁。禹有大夏。湯有大濩。文王有辟雍。武王有下武鯀作城郭。出尤作兵器。岐伯造醫。俞附脈經。伶倫制律。隸首作算。容成作曆。大撓造甲子。奚仲作車。曹胡作衣。伯余作裳。於則作履。共鼓作舟楫。巨揮作弓。夷牢作矢。黃雍父作杵臼。孟莊子作鉅。趙武靈王作靴。蘇威公作篪。暴辛作塤。后稷之孫叔均作犁。蒙恬作筆。蔡倫作紙。夏昆吾氏作瓦。此皆各有其王。群書所明何得自矜覽為我造。又周易繫辭孔子所述。列明古帝制造之事。如云庖犧氏之王天下也。觀像於天俯察於地。近取諸身遠取諸物。始畫八卦以通神明之德。以類萬物之情。作結繩而為網罟。以佃以漁。蓋取諸離。神農氏作為耜為來。以利天下。日中為市交易有無。乃至黃帝堯舜垂衣裳而天下治。蓋取諸乾坤。如此歷陳法易造物。不言老子所造也。竊他功業標為己能。衒名自高君子不忍。又云。老子在堯時為務成子者。案後漢應邵風俗通云。東方朔是太白星精。黃帝時為風后。堯時為務成子。周時為老聃。在越時為范䗍。在齊為鴟子。此則務成子乃東方朔。非干老子明矣。何得妄加鈎引稱老子為人師乎。案魯哀公問於子夏曰。五帝三皇皆有師乎。子夏曰有。臣聞黃帝學乎太真。顓頊學乎綠圖。帝嚳學乎赤松子。堯學乎尹壽。舜學乎務成跗。禹學乎西王國。湯學乎威子伯。文王學乎鉸時子斯。武王學乎郭政。周公學乎太公呂望。上之所敘文極分明。而言老子隨代為帝王師。何出言之狂悖哉。巧言如篁顏之厚矣。且老子衰周柱史。史有明文。本是人臣。返為上古帝王之師。履冠戴屨何顛狂之甚乎。又上文云。上古之君皆受教於老子。則桀紂之不仁。幽厲之無道。秦皇之凶暴。王莽之篡逆。亦老子之所教也。既然如是則老子為悖逆之魁首。巨猾之元匠。不忠不孝。老子之所生。不義不仁。老子之所主。為人師者不亦慚乎。老君既說隨代為師。而秦漢之下至於今朝。偏無一現乎。今既無矣。古亦虛焉。且漢文恭儉。孝武英明。孝明達禮樂之情。孝章優儒雅之道。魏文帝風流文藻。晉世祖明達寬仁。宋文帝致治昇平。梁武帝文武兼備。隋高祖混同四海。唐太宗混一車書。此時不俟老子之化而皆金聲玉振。則知牽合巧會枉廢詞章。秖可誑於閭閻。難可信於達士。嫫母加粉見者愈嗤。隣女效顰鄉人不貴(哀公問子夏文氏春秋亦有見劉向新序呂文不次爾)。
Reply: The terms "worthy" and "sage" denote different ranks of beings, and the appearances of ancient philosophers and modern individuals occur in different times. Zhuangzi said, "Meeting a great sage once in ten thousand generations is still like passing by in a single morning or evening." This illustrates that when a sage appears in the world, it is a sign of harmony and auspiciousness, responding to the cycle of a thousand years and aligning with the timely tide of destiny. Such a one stands alone, exceptionally brilliant, far exceeding the common crowd. Thus they become teachers to emperors and kings, honored by feudal lords. Even encountering such a being once in ten thousand generations is like a brief morning or evening encounter—how could it be that sages appear with every passing dynasty?
Now, Li Er (Laozi) was a recluse who valued tranquility. The *Records of the Grand Historian* describes him as a "hidden gentleman." He crossed the pass to escape chaos and was buried in Huaili, once concealing himself as a minor official in the Zhou archives. Originally, he was a subject of the state, his rank never rising above the lower echelons, his name never gracing the ranks of high ministers. How, then, could he be elevated to the status of a sage and made teacher to emperors and kings? Such a claim is deceptive, unfounded, and shocks people's eyes and ears. It is like trying to make a small mound equal to Mount Song or Mount Hua—who would believe it? Or attempting to compare a puddle to the vast ocean—it can never be trusted. Since the beginning of the world, over a trillion years, has there been no other outstanding person besides Laozi to serve as teacher to emperors and kings?
The ancient classics—the *Three Tombs*, *Five Codes*, *Eight Suos*, *Nine Qius*; Confucius’s *Spring and Autumn Annals*; Zuo Qiuming’s *Guoyu*; the hundred schools of thought and nine streams of philosophy—contain no mention whatsoever of Laozi serving as a teacher to emperors. This claim is merely the invention of ignorant Daoist priests of later ages, who recklessly fabricated such statements in an attempt to elevate Laozi above all other sages. Though it sounds beautiful, it is utterly false.
Now, consider the ancient sage-kings: Fu Xi and Shen Nong both possessed sage-like virtue; the Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun were all renowned as enlightened rulers. Some could speak from childhood, others were born knowing the profound Way. Did they truly need Laozi to teach them before they could create the myriad things? Moreover, historical records and ancient documents clearly describe the origins of various inventions: Suiren drilled wood for fire; Fu Xi drew the eight trigrams; Shen Nong taught plowing and hoeing; Nüwa made reed organs; the Yellow Emperor built palaces, chariots, and crowns; the *Xianchi* music was created; Zhuan Xu composed the *Six Blossoms*; Yao had the *Great Zhang*; Shun had the *Great Shao* and invented *weiqi* (Go); Yu had the *Great Xia*; Tang had the *Great Huo*; King Wen built the Imperial Academy; King Wu had the *Xia Wu* cycle; Gun built city walls and moats; Chi You made weapons; Qi Bo created medicine; Yu Fu wrote the pulse classic; Ling Lun established musical tones; Li Shou invented mathematics; Rong Cheng made the calendar; Da Nao created the Heavenly Stems and Earthly Branches; Xi Zhong built the chariot; Cao Hu made clothes; Bo Yu made robes; Yu Ze made shoes; Gong Gu built boats and oars; Ju Hui made bows; Yi Lao made arrows; Huang Yongfu made mortars and pestles; Meng Zhuangzi made saws; King Wuling of Zhao made boots; Su Weigong made the *chi* flute; Bao Xin made the *xun* ocarina; Houji’s grandson Shu Jun made the plow; Meng Tian made the brush; Cai Lun made paper; the Xia clan’s Kunwu made tiles. All these were accomplished by their respective kings and are clearly documented in numerous texts. How can Laozi claim, "Look, I made all of this"?
Furthermore, Confucius’s commentary on the *Book of Changes* (the *Xici* appendix) lists the creations of ancient emperors. For example: "When Lord Bao Xi (Fu Xi) ruled the world, he observed images in the sky, surveyed patterns on earth, took from his own body and from external things, and first drew the eight trigrams to communicate with the virtues of the spirits and to classify the natures of all things. He knotted cords to make nets for hunting and fishing, taking inspiration from the *Li* hexagram." "Shen Nong made plows and hoes to benefit the world, and established mid-day markets for the exchange of goods." "The Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun let their robes hang down and the world was well governed, taking inspiration from the *Qian* and *Kun* hexagrams." Such passages detail creations based on the *Yi* and never attribute them to Laozi. To claim others' achievements as one's own, boasting for self-aggrandizement, is unworthy of a noble person.
Another claim states that "in Yao’s time, Laozi was known as Wuchengzi." According to Ying Shao’s *Fengsu Tongyi* of the Later Han, "Dongfang Shuo was the essence of the Venus star; in the Yellow Emperor’s time he was Fenghou; in Yao’s time he was Wuchengzi; in the Zhou dynasty he was Lao Dan; in the state of Yue he was Fan Li; in Qi he was Daozhi (the Owl)." Thus, Wuchengzi was actually Dongfang Shuo, not Laozi. How can one falsely link and claim that Laozi was the teacher of humanity?
Furthermore, Duke Ai of Lu once asked Zixia, "Did the Five Emperors and Three Kings all have teachers?" Zixia replied, "Yes. I have heard that the Yellow Emperor studied under Tai Zhen; Zhuan Xu studied under Lü Tu; Emperor Ku studied under Chi Songzi; Yao studied under Yin Shou; Shun studied under Wuchengfu; Yu studied under the King of Xiwang; Tang studied under Weizibo; King Wen studied under Jiaoshizisi; King Wu studied under Guo Zheng; the Duke of Zhou studied under Taigong Wang, Lü Shang." This account is perfectly clear, yet some claim that Laozi served as teacher to emperors and kings in every generation—how can such mad and absurd speech be uttered? Such clever words are like a thick-skinned person’s flattery.
Besides, Laozi was a mere archivist in the declining Zhou dynasty—this is clearly stated in historical records. He was originally a subject, yet people make him the teacher of ancient emperors and kings. This is like wearing a hat on one's feet or shoes on one's head—how utterly ridiculous! Furthermore, if we accept the claim that "ancient rulers were all taught by Laozi," then the cruelty of Jie and Zhou, the tyranny of King You and King Li, the brutality of Qin Shihuang, and the usurpation of Wang Mang were all teachings of Laozi as well. If that is so, then Laozi was the chief of rebels, the master of great villains. Unfilial and disloyal—Laozi gave birth to such deeds; unjust and unkind—Laozi presided over them. Should one not be ashamed to be called a teacher?
If Lord Lao (Laozi) truly says he serves as teacher in every generation, why has he never appeared from the Qin and Han dynasties down to the present day? Since he is absent now, his presence in ancient times is also empty. Consider that Emperor Wen of Han was frugal and respectful; Emperor Wu was brilliant and heroic; Emperor Ming of Han understood ritual and music; Emperor Zhang of Han valued Confucian learning; Emperor Wen of Wei (Cao Pi) was elegant and literary; Emperor Wu of Jin was wise, clear-minded, and benevolent; Emperor Wen of Song brought peace and prosperity; Emperor Wu of Liang was accomplished in both civil and military arts; Emperor Gao of Sui unified the realm; Emperor Taizong of Tang brought all the world under one rule. None of these rulers waited for Laozi’s teachings, yet they all achieved golden voices and jade-like resonances. Thus we know that such forced coincidences and clever associations are nothing but wasted words. They can only fool the common folk in the alleys, but cannot be trusted by wise people. It is like applying powder to an ugly woman—people laugh all the more. A neighboring girl tries to imitate a beauty’s frown, but the villagers do not value her. *(Note: The passage regarding Duke Ai’s question to Zixia also appears in the *Lüshi Chunqiu* and is referenced in Liu Xiang’s *Xinxu*, though the wording varies.)*