弘明集 4.11

4.11

薄從歲事躬斂山田。田家節隙野老為儔。言止穀稼務盡耕牧。談年計耦無聞達義。重獲微辯得用昭慰。啟告精至愈慚固結。今復忘書往懷。以輸未述。夫藉意探理。不若析之聖文三才之論。故當本諸三畫。三畫既陳中稱君德。所以神致太上崇一元首。故前謂自非體合天地無以允應。斯弘研其清慮。未肯存同。猶以恐兼容罔棄廣載不遺。篤物之志誠為優贍。恐理位雜越疑陽遂眾。若惻隱所發窮博愛之量。恥惡所加盡祐直之正。則上仁上義。吾無間然。但情之者寡。利之者眾。豫有其分。未臻其極者不得以配擬二儀耳。今方使極者為師。不極者為資。扶其敬讓去其忮爭。令䥸斧鑄刃利害寢端。驅百代之民出信厚之塗。則何萌不滋何善不援。而誣以不算未值其意。三才等列。不得取偏才之器。眾生為號。不可濫無生之人。故此去氓隸彼甄聖智。兩藉俱舉旨在於斯。若僑札未能道一。皇王豈獲上附。伊顏猶共賴氣化宜乎下麗。二塗之判易於賾指。又知以人生雖均被大德。不可謂之眾生。譬聖人雖同稟五常。不可謂之眾人。夫不可謂之眾人。以茂人者神明也。今已均被同眾。復何諱眾同。故當殊其特靈。不應異其得生。徒忌眾名未虧眾實。得無似蜀梁逃畏卒不能避。所謂役物為養見役養人者。欲言愚慧相傾惛算相制。事由智出非出天理。是以始矜萌起終哀欝滅。豈與足下芻豢百品共其指歸。凡動而善流下民之性。化而裁之上聖之功。謹為垣防猶患踰溢。況乃罔不備設以充侈志。方開所泰何議去甚。故知慘物之談不得與薄夫同憂樂。殺意偏好生情博。所云與道為心者。博乎生情將使排虛率遂跖實。莫夭利澤通天而不為惠。庸適恩止麛卵事法豺獺耶。推此往也。非唯自己不復委咎市𮠔乎庖厨。且市庖之外非無御養。神農所書。中散所述。公理美其事仲彥精其業。是亦古有其傳。今聞其人。何必以刲刳為稟和之性。爓[卄/瀹]為翼善之具哉。若以編戶難齊憂鄙論未立是見。二叔不咸慮周德先亡。儻能申以遠圖要之長世。則日計可滿歲功可期。精靈草木果已區別。遊魂之答。亦精靈之說。若雖有無形天下寧有無形之有。顧此惟疑宜見正定。仲尼不答有無未辯。足下既辯其有。豈得同不辯之答。雖子嗜學。懼未獲所附。或是曉晦塗隔隱著事懸。遂令明月廢照世。智限心知謂必符之。言體之極于罔講求。反意如非相盡。或世人守璞受讓玉市將譯胥牽俗還說國情苟未照盡。請復其具申近釋。報施首稱氣數者以為物無妄。然各以類感。感類之中人心為大。心術之動隷歷所不能得及其積致于可勝原而當斷取世見據為高證。莊周云。莾鹵滅裂報亦如之。孫卿曰。報應之勢各以類至後身著戒可不敬與慈護之人深見此數。故正言其本非邀其末。長美遏惡反民大順。濟有生之類。入無死之地。令慶周兆物尊冠百神。安宜祚極子胤福限卿相而已。常善以救善亦從之勢。猶影表不慮自來何言乎。要惠悅報疑罪勤施。似由近驗吝情遠猜德教。故方罰矜功。而濫咎忘賢。遺存異義。公私殊意。已備前白。羌不重云。想處實陋華者。復見其居厚去薄耳。若施非周急惠而期譽。乃如之人誠道之蠧。惟子之恥丘亦恥之。

I have slightly followed the affairs of the seasons, personally harvesting the mountain fields. In the lulls of the farming household, elderly peasants are my companions. My speech stops at grain and crops, and my efforts are spent entirely on plowing and herding. Discussing the year's yield and counting the plow-pairs, I hear nothing of lofty principles. Having received your subtle argumentation once again, it has brought me clarity and solace. Your instructive letter is exquisitely thorough, making me feel ever more ashamed of my obstinacy. Now, having once again forgotten my former intention to lay down the brush, I set forth what remains unsaid.
Examining principles by relying on one's own ideas is not as good as analyzing them through the sacred texts. The discourse on the Three Powers must indeed be based on the three lines [of the hexagram]. Once the three lines are laid out, the middle line represents the virtue of the ruler. This is why its spirit reaches to the Supreme and exalts the One Sovereign. Therefore, I previously stated that unless one embodies harmony with Heaven and Earth, one cannot properly respond [to this position]. You have profoundly investigated this with pure thought, yet you are unwilling to agree, still fearing that an inclusive embrace would discard nothing and broad containment would leave nothing out. While your intent to treat all things with earnestness is truly generous and abundant, I fear the proper order of principle and status will become confused and disordered, and those mimicking real virtue will only multiply.
If the arising of compassion exhausts the measure of universal love, and the practice of shame at evil carries to the utmost the rectitude of helping the upright, then that is supreme benevolence and supreme righteousness, and I would find no fault in it. But those who practice it out of true feeling are few, while those who exploit it for profit are many. Those who merely partake in their share of it without reaching its culmination cannot be matched with the Two Modes (Heaven and Earth). Now, we should make those who have reached the culmination our teachers, and take those who have not reached it as our raw material, fostering their respect and yielding, removing their malice and contention, causing axes to be melted into blades and self-interest to be put to rest, thus guiding the people of a hundred generations onto the path of trust and honesty. Then what sprout would not flourish, and what good would not be aided? To falsely accuse me of ‘not counting them’ does not grasp my meaning.
The Three Powers stand on an equal footing; one must not take those of one-sided talent as their vessels. 'Sentient beings' is a general designation; one must not blur it with those who have realized the Unborn. Therefore, here we exclude the commoners and slaves, and there we single out the sagely and wise. The simultaneous adduction of both sets of texts was intended precisely for this. If Zichan and Ji Zha could not yet unify the Dao, how could they ascend to attach themselves to the august sovereigns and kings? Since Yi Yin and Yan Hui still shared in reliance on pneumatic transformation, it is fitting that they adhere to the lower category. The distinction between the two paths is easier to grasp than the profound purport.
You also understand that although human life universally receives the Great Virtue, humans cannot be called 'sentient beings'—just as although the sages equally partake of the Five Constants, they cannot be called 'ordinary men'. That they cannot be called 'ordinary men' is because what makes a person eminent is their spiritual intelligence. Now, if they have already universally received life and are identical with the multitude, why taboo the designation of 'common multitude'? Therefore, one should distinguish their extraordinary spirit, but should not differentiate their attainment of life. Merely dreading the name of 'multitude' does not diminish the reality of the multitude. Does this not resemble the people of Shu and Liang fleeing their fears, ultimately unable to escape them?
As for what was called 'humans employing things for nourishment, and things being employed to nourish humans'—this meant that the foolish and the wise undermine each other, and the deluded and the calculating constrain one another. These matters arise from human cleverness, not from heavenly principle. For this reason, in the beginning one pities the rising of sprouts, and in the end one laments their gloomy destruction. How could this share the same purport with your domestic beasts of a hundred kinds?
In general, being stirred to action and having the good flow forth is the nature of the common people; transforming and regulating them is the achievement of the supreme sages. Even when carefully erecting fences and dikes, one still worries about overflows; how much more so when nothing is left unprovided to satisfy extravagant desires! If you are just opening the way for excess, how can you discuss eliminating extremes? Therefore, one knows that discussions of cruelty to living things cannot share joys and sorrows with petty men. The intention to kill is partial; the sentiment that loves life is broad. When it is said, 'acting with the Dao as one's mind,' it means that through broad sentiments for life, one causes emptiness to be dispelled and reality to be pursued, so that no living thing is cut short prematurely and beneficial favors reach to Heaven without being considered mere favors. How could benevolence stop at fawns and eggs, taking the habits of wolves and otters as its model?
Extrapolating this forward: not only will one personally no longer lay the blame on the markets or kitchens, but outside of markets and kitchens, there is no lack of proper nourishment. What was written by Shennong, what was described by Xi Kang (Zhongsan), what Gongli praised, and what Zhongyan perfected—these are also recorded in antiquity. Now that we have heard of such persons, why must cutting and gutting be taken as the nature that receives harmony, and scalding and boiling be the means to assist the good?
If, because the registered households are difficult to unify, you worry that my humble thesis cannot be established—this is like seeing the disobedience of the Two Uncles and fearing that the virtue of Zhou would perish prematurely. If you can extend your vision with far-reaching plans and hold to them for generations, then the daily calculations can be fulfilled and yearly achievements can be expected.
Spirit and plants are indeed already distinguished. The response concerning the 'wandering soul' is also an explanation of the spirit. If, although non-corporeal, it exists, could there ever be a non-corporeal existence under Heaven? In consideration of this, there is only doubt, which ought to be corrected and settled. Zhongni (Confucius) did not answer because existence and non-existence were not yet distinguished. Since you have distinguished its existence, how could you agree with an answer that left it undistinguished? Although you are fond of learning, I fear you have not found the proper ground to rely on. Perhaps dawn and dusk are separated by a gulf, and the hidden and the manifest are far apart, causing the bright moon to cease its illumination and worldly wisdom to delimit the mind's knowledge, believing it must match reality. When it comes to the culmination of the essence, you do not examine it, and your thoughts turn as if things were utterly inexistent. Or perhaps like worldly people holding on to uncut jade who are rebuked in the jade market, an interpreter dragged by vulgar custom returns to recount the state's conditions. If it has not yet been fully illuminated, please allow me to fully state the recent explanation once more.
In speaking of retributive giving, when one first mentions cosmic allotment, it is because things do not happen in vain; rather, each resonates according to its category. Among categoric resonances, the human mind is the greatest. The movements of the mind's arts are beyond what records and calendars can capture; by the time their accumulation reaches what can scarcely be traced to its source, how could one arbitrarily seize upon worldly opinions and rely on them as supreme evidence? Zhuang Zhou said: 'If one acts recklessly and sloppily, the retribution will be likewise.' Sun Qing (Xunzi) said: 'The dynamics of retribution arrive each according to its kind.' When future lives are clearly set forth as warnings, can one fail to revere them? A person of compassionate protection sees deeply into these numbers; thus they speak correctly of their root, rather than courting their branches. They foster beauty, check evil, bring the people back to great accord, deliver the kinds of living beings into the realm of the deathless, and cause blessings to encompass myriad things, their reverence surpassing that of the hundred spirits. How could it be fitting that their fortunes should merely culminate in offspring and their blessings be limited to ministers and chancellors? When one constantly uses goodness to rescue, goodness also follows; its dynamic is like a shadow and a gnomon, arriving of itself without premeditation—what need is there to speak of it? To demand favors, delight in rewards, doubt transgressions, and strive in giving—this seems to stem from immediate experiences, selfish sentiments, and distant suspicions of moral teaching. Thus, just as one punishes those who boast of their merit, yet blindly faults those who forget the worthy, retaining and discarding have different meanings, and public and private matters have distinct intents; this was already fully explained before, so I will not repeat it. I suppose that those who dwell in the solid and despise the superficial will once again see how to dwell in the thick and avoid the thin. If giving is not to relieve urgency, and favors are done with the expectation of praise, such a person is truly a pest to the Dao. What you feel ashamed of, I, Qiu, also feel ashamed of.