甄正論

Zhēnzhèng lùn 甄正論

Treatise on Distinguishing the Genuine

written by 玄嶷 (Xuányí, late 7th c., 撰)

About the work

A 3-juan early-Tang anti-Daoist polemical treatise composed by the former Daoist priest turned Buddhist monk 玄嶷 Xuányí 玄嶷 — formerly known under his Daoist name Dù Yì liànshī 杜叉鍊師, head of the Hóngdàoguān 弘道觀 in Cháng’ān, and “a master of the sānxuán and the qīluè, the senior leader of the Daoist priesthood of his day.” Per the Sòng gāosēng zhuàn j. 17, Xuányí converted to Buddhism under the patronage of Wǔ Zétiān 武則天, who in Tiānshòu 天授 era (690–692) sanctioned the conversion and assigned him to the Fóshòujìsì 佛授記寺 in Luòyáng (the work’s title-line names this monastery as the place of composition: “大白馬寺僧玄嶷撰” — actually “Dà Báimǎsì sēng Xuányí,” referring to the Dà Báimǎsì 大白馬寺 in Luòyáng).

The work was composed during Xuányí’s mature Buddhist period under Wǔ Zétiān’s reign (690–705); the dating bracket given here is 696 – 705. Transmitted in Taishō 52 as T2112.

Prefaces

The work is structured as a dialogue between a “worldly-mired duke’s son” 滯俗公子 (representing Daoist orthodoxy) and a “Master of Distinguishing the Genuine” 甄正先生 (representing Xuányí’s Buddhist position).

Abstract

The work attacks Daoism from the privileged position of an insider: Xuányí, formerly a senior Daoist priest, knows the Daoist canon and ritual apparatus from within and is therefore peculiarly competent to attack their authenticity. The principal targets are:

1. The Daoist canonical texts — Xuányí systematically argues that the major Daoist canonical scriptures (the Língbǎo 靈寶, the Shàngqīng 上清, etc.) are late forgeries with no genuine antiquity, composed by named Daoist authors of the Six Dynasties rather than transmitted from the legendary Lǎozǐ.
2. The huàhú jīng — a particularly thorough demolition, drawing on Daoist canonical materials to which only an insider would have access.
3. The Daoist ritual apparatus — Xuányí argues that the Daoist talisman-and-altar tradition is doctrinally arbitrary and ritually inflated.
4. The doctrinal-philosophical weakness of Daoism vis-à-vis the Buddhist scholastic tradition.

The work is one of the most documentarily-rich anti-Daoist polemics of the Tang. Because Xuányí writes from former-insider knowledge, the work preserves substantial detailed information about the Tang Daoist establishment — much of which is otherwise lost. It is therefore valuable not only as Buddhist apology but as Daoist-historical documentation.

Translations and research

• Stanley Weinstein, Buddhism under the T’ang — discusses the Zhēn-zhèng lùn in the broader Buddhist-Daoist polemic context.
• Anna Seidel, “Imperial Treasures and Taoist Sacraments: Taoist Roots in the Apocrypha,” in Strickmann, ed., Tantric and Taoist Studies (Brussels, 1983) — uses Xuán-yí’s testimony about Daoist canonical materials.
• Stephen R. Bokenkamp, Early Daoist Scriptures (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997).
• 任繼愈 et al., 中國道教史 — uses the Zhēn-zhèng lùn in tracing the Tang Daoist establishment.

Other points of interest

The figure of the converted-Daoist Buddhist polemicist is unusual in pre-Sòng Chinese religious literature; Xuányí is one of very few documented cases of a major Daoist-priest who became a major Buddhist apologist. His former-insider position made his polemic peculiarly threatening to the Tang Daoist establishment, and the work is mentioned as a target of Daoist counter-polemic in the late-Tang materials.

Links

• CBETA: T52n2112