Buddhism is a foreign religion. To take root and sprout in China, we must be attached to the traditional culture of China for a long time. After Buddhism was introduced into the Eastern Han Dynasty, it was first attached to the Huang and Lao families, and it was attached to metaphysics in the Wei and Jin Dynasties. Buddhism gradually became independent in the Southern and Northern Dynasties, and developed to a high degree in the Sui and Tang Dynasties, forming various sects. Buddhist Prajna thought was introduced into China in the Jin Dynasty. Buddhists use the concepts and propositions of metaphysics to explain their thoughts, so that this kind of thought can enter the upper ruling class and the scholar class more easily and quickly. However, due to the excessive use of metaphysical concepts and propositions of Laozi and Zhuangzi to interpret the Prajna Sutra, Buddhism has been metaphysical to some extent. There are many factions in metaphysics, such as those who don't value anything, those who worship something, those who are independent, and so on. The influence of these factions has split Buddhism. During the Eastern Jin Dynasty, due to different understandings of Prajna, there was a so-called "six schools and seven schools" dispute in Buddhism.
There are similarities between Buddhism and Taoism. Buddhism entered China thanks to the introduction of Taoism. The China of Buddhist teachings and the further development of Taoism and Taoist theories are all the results of the integration of Buddhism and Taoism. Zhu criticized Taoism and said, "Taoism has two books, Lao and Zhuang, but they don't know how to read them. They were stolen by the teacher, but they imitated the teacher's classics. " For example, the children in the giant room learned that all the treasures had been stolen, but went to clean up the broken kettle "(Volume 125, page 3005); Buddhism stole the benefits of Laozi, and later Taoism stole the benefits of Buddhism. For example, there is a treasure in Taoism that was stolen by Buddhists; Later, Taoism only got the rubble of Buddhism, which was ridiculous "(Volume 126, p. 3009), which revealed that Buddhism infiltrated the Central Plains under the guise of Taoism, substituted flowers for trees, and stole the essence of Laozi for its use. The most precious treasure that Buddhism stole from Taoist treasures is Lao Tzu's view on the origin of the world expressed in "Everything in the world is born and nothing is born" (Chapter 40). Buddhist emptiness borrowed from Laozi's emptiness, and Laozi's emptiness interpreted Buddhist emptiness. Therefore, Zhu said, "It is suspected that when Buddhists first came to China, they stole Lao Tzu's intention to do sutras, saying that there was nothing" (Volume 126, p. 3008). Specifically, "Master Ruyuan and Master Zhao's disciples only talked about Zhuang Lao, and later generations also used Zhuang Lao to help Zen" (volume 126, p. 3025), and the Buddha "had forty-two chapters at the beginning, but the handouts between Jin and Song Dynasties all copied Zhuang Lao, citing many examples" (volume 125), Hui Yuan.
The wind of doubting Liezi was initiated by Buddhist Liu Zongyuan. After that, Gao, Ye Daqing and others were interested in this at first. People just thought that some parts of Liezi were not written by Liezi himself, but were added by later generations. But I don't think Liezi is a fake book. However, it has attracted many extreme repercussions from later generations. Zi and Confucianism followed suit and questioned Liezi one after another, so they made mistakes. Zhu Xiyan was quoted in "A Brief Introduction to Distinguishing Fake Words": "Seeing that the spirit of his words enters his door and the bones are against his roots, why do I still exist, that is, four Buddhist books are separated, and today people are ridiculous? Where should I be?" If he has a lot of these things, tell him a little, and you can see the clouds of plunder. However, Zhu's opinion is that the Buddhist book copied Liezi, and it is more clear in genre: "Where should the cloud of this view be?" "That is, stealing Liezi's words," Bone goes against its root, and spirit enters its door. How can I keep it? " (Volume 126). It can be seen that making up false words is out of context.
In the 1920s and 1930s, a trend of "doubting the ancient" and "discriminating the false" suddenly emerged in academic circles. At that time, scholars wanted to follow the example of the United States and completely westernize. Qian said, "There is only one way to abolish Confucianism and destroy Taoism, and that is to shelve China's books. Why? Because 99% of China's books are these two kinds of books; ..... In order to make China survive in the twentieth century and make China a civilized nation, the fundamental solution must be to abolish Confucianism and Taoism, and the fundamental solution is to abolish the China language that records Confucianism and Taoist myths. " From this, we can also see one of the attitudes of some scholars towards traditional culture in the Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China. However, traditional cultures are intertwined. To criticize China culture, we should first criticize Confucianism and Taoism, and also criticize Taoism, which is the fundamental cultural foundation. This is called "radical". Under the influence of this thought at that time, many works of pre-Qin philosophers, especially Taoist works such as Laozi, Zhuangzi, Liezi, Wen Zi, etc. , was "pulled out" one by one, become the object of debate and criticism. For example, the first Zhuangzi was Buddhism, Lao Tzu copied Zhuangzi, Lao Tzu came from the end of the Warring States period, Wen Zi was forged by later generations, and the pipe was forged by later generations. If it weren't for the discovery of bamboo slips in Qin and Han dynasties, almost all Taoist classics would have become fake books. Among them, the debate about Liezi is the most intense. However, when studying Liezi and Yang Zhu's thoughts, some scholars thought that the materials in the book were generally credible. Around the 1990s, the theory of fake books was completely refuted. In recent years, with the improvement of the overall understanding level of the study of China's ideological history, the academic circles basically consider Liezi as a pre-Qin work on the issue of its authenticity, but there are few passages that may be absorbed by later generations.
It is inevitable that Liezi copied Zhuangzi's mixed books. Why can't Zhuangzi and other books quote Liezi? Just because a grandson looks like a grandfather, you can't say that grandpa can't have the characteristics of a grandson, so grandpa is "fake"!
As for the influence of Buddhism on Liezi, there is no inevitability. There is no direct Buddhist term in Liezi, and there is no explicit reference to "Buddha". When the west says there are saints, it doesn't necessarily mean "Buddha". Liezi may have this idea when telling fables. Liezi does have ideas and concepts similar to Buddhism, but it can't prove that Liezi was influenced by Buddhism at all, but it should be a natural connection between ancient Taoism and Buddhism. Looking at Liezi, no noun concept is defined as a special term of Buddhism; Moreover, the translation of Buddhist scriptures is mostly "formal meaning" at first. Relying on Taoist terms to translate Buddhism, how can we conclude that Liezi is similar in terms influenced by Buddhism? This cover reverses cause and effect. Scholars who say Liezi is influenced by Buddhism know neither Buddhism nor Taoism, but only have a little knowledge and speak purely by subjective impression. According to this impression, the Bible can also explain various Buddhist principles.
While those who come from abroad to sell chicken wings and French fries, in order to open the local market, all sell soybean milk fried dough sticks. But it can't be said that the local soybean milk fritters were copied from selling chicken wings and French fries. Of course, the lack of long-term turbulent data, cultural inferiority and subjective feelings can also promote soybean milk as selling potatoes or being invented by potatoes.
Scholars who regard Liezi as a fake book for modern textual research have basically not gone deep into the ideological content of Liezi itself, but have boldly come to the conclusion that Liezi is a fake book from some unnecessary details, which shows the frivolity of modern scholarship.
Ancient books have been edited many times, and sometimes a son is a collection of works of a certain school, not necessarily a personal monograph. Therefore, Liezi is not necessarily written by Liezi, but it may be compiled by later generations, but later generations must have their own books, and there is no doubt that Liezi's main body is the embodiment of Liezi's thoughts.
Judging from the ideological content and writing style of Liezi, Liezi should retain most of the ideological materials of Liezi, and it is an important document for studying primitive Taoist thought.
Non-false research works include: Wu Yineixiong's Liezi Miswords, Yao Mosheng's Selected Works of Pre-Qin philosophers and Liezi's Selected Notes, Liezi Argument and its central idea, Introduction to New Translation Classics, Gao Chenyang's Classics, Ma Da's Textual Research on Liezi and Xiao Liezi and Zheng. Xiao's Gongsun and Famous Scholars, Guan Zongchang's Liezi Study, the first series of Taoist cultural studies, the fourth series of Taoist cultural studies, the sixth series of Taoist cultural studies, the tenth series of Taoist cultural studies, the fifteenth series of Taoist cultural studies, Tang Yongtong, Hu, and Motor. The single paper includes Zheng's On the Two Trends of the Authenticity of Modern Ancient Books —— Taking Liezi as an Example, Zhou's Textual Research on Liezi, New Thoughts on the Study of True Liezi and Contemporary Fake Books, Hu Jiahe's Notes on Several Issues of Liezi, and Cen's works.