Mouzi lihuo lun 牟子理惑論

Mouzi 牟子, also known as Mouzi lihuo lun 牟子理惑論 "Master Mou dispelling doubts" or Lihuolun 理惑論, is a Chinese Buddhist treatise. According to the Tang-period 唐 (618-907) scholar Shenqing 神清, in his Beishanlu 北山錄, the original title of the book was Zhihuolun 治惑論, but the title was changed to avoid the personal name of Emperor Gaozong 唐高宗 (r. 649-683), Li Zhi 李治. The text is traditionally attributed to Mouzi, who is said to have lived at the end of the Eastern Han period 東漢 (25-220 CE).

Initially, the Mouzi was included in Lu Cheng's 陸澄 (425-494) Falun 法論, which characterises the book as "extensive teachings of Governor Mouzi of Cangwu" (Cangwu taishou Mouzi bozhuan 蒼梧太守牟子博傳). The bibliographical chapter in the official dynastic history Suishu 隋書 records the Mouzi as with 2 juan length, compiled by the Defender-in-chief (taiwei 太尉), Mou Rong 牟融, of the Later Han. Later, the text found its way into the collection Hongmingji 弘明集.

According to the book's preface, Mouzi was originally a Confucian scholar, widely read in the Classics and historical texts, and who also studied works of the Daoist immortals. However, he found the Daoists' claims exaggerated and unreliable, and often challenged them using the Five Classics. After the death of Emperor Ling 漢靈帝 (r. 167-188) and the ensuing chaos, he fled to Jiaozhi 交趾 (present-day northern Vietnam). At age 26 sui, he returned to his hometown of Cangwu (today's Wuzhou 梧州, Guangxi). Feeling that the world was in turmoil and "not a time to display oneself" (fei xian ji zhi qiu 非顯己之秋), he resolved not to serve in officialdom and devoted himself to Buddhism while also studying the Laozi 老子.

Many contemporaries criticised him for turning away from the Five Classics and following a "heterodox path" (yidao 異道), so he wrote the Lihuolun as a defence. The text addresses debates and difficulties that arose after Buddhism was introduced to China, offering reasoned responses. It mainly recounts the life of Śākyamuni (i.e., the Buddha), his renunciation, attainment of enlightenment, and teachings; the volumes and precepts of Buddhist scriptures; Buddhist views on life and death; and the early transmission of Buddhism in China. It is said that, noticing that the essential teachings of the Buddhist canon consist of thirty-seven factors and that Laozi's Daodejing 道德經 also contains thirty-seven chapters, he modelled his work on this and provided thirty-seven responses. The text frequently cites the Laozi and Confucian Classics to argue for the compatibility of Buddhist, Confucian, and Daoist perspectives. The Mouzi is one of the earliest Chinese works to expound the principles of Buddhism.

There has long been considerable debate about the author of this work, both in China and abroad. Hu Yinglin 胡應麟 (1551—1602) in his Sibu zheng'e 四部正訛, pointed out that the author of the Lihuolun was not Mou Rong, though he still believed it was written by someone from the Later Han. Sun Xingyan 孫星衍 (1753-1818) included the Lihuolun in his series Pingjingguan congshu 平津館叢書. His student, Hong Yixuan 洪頤煊 (1765-1833), wrote a preface arguing that identifying Mouzi with Mou Rong was unreliable. He observed that the style was closer to that of the Wei period 曹魏 (220-265). However, Sun Yirang 孫詒讓 (1848-1908) affirmed that the work was indeed authored by Mouzi of the Eastern Han. Liang Qichao 梁啟超 (1873-1929) wrote the discussion Mouzi lihuolun bianwei 牟子理惑論辨偽, denying the historical existence of Mouzi and claiming that the work was a later forgery, poorly composed, and "produced by local scholars of the Jin 晉 (265-420) or Southern Dynasties period 南朝 (420-589) who were not skilled in literary composition". In contrast, Tang Yongtong 湯用彤 (1893-1964) and Zhou Shujia 周叔迦 (1899-1970) shared Sun Yirang's view, affirming its Eastern Han origin. Lü Cheng 呂澂 (1896-1989), in his history of Chinese Buddhism, Zhongguo foxue yuanliu luejiang 中國佛學源流略講, also suggested it should be considered a forgery, arguing that the author was definitely not a contemporary of the late Han, since Buddhist doctrines at that time would not have included the material recorded in the book, and thus presumed it was composed around 400 CE. The Japanese scholars Yamauchi Shinkyō 山內晉卿 (1866-1945) and Fukui Kōjun 福井康順 (1898-1991) accepted the work as genuinely by Mouzi, whereas others, including Tokiwada Daijō 常盤大定 (1870-1945) and Matsumoto Bunzaburō 松本文三郎 (1869-1944), considered it a forgery. French scholar René Maspero (1872-1942) also regarded it as a forgery, while Paul Pelliot (1878-1945) affirmed that it was indeed authored by Mouzi.

There is an English translation by Keenan, John P. 1994. How Master Mou Removes Our Doubts: A Reader-response Study and Translation of the Mou-tzu Li-huo lun. Albany, NY: New York State University Press.