弘明集 5.52

5.52

見答問袒服指訓。兼弘摽未文於玄古資形。理於近用使敬慢殊流。識服俱盡殆無間然。至於所以明順。猶有未同。何者。儀形之設。蓋在時而用。是以事有內外。乃可以淺深應之。李釋之與周孔。漸世之與遺俗。在於因循不同。必無逆順之殊明矣。故老明兵凶處右禮以喪制不左。且四等窮奉親之至。三驅顯王跡之仁。在後而要其旨可見。寧可寄至順。於凶事表吉。誠於喪容哉。鄭伯所以肉袒。亦猶許男輿櫬。皆自以所乘者逆。必受不測之罰。以斯而證順將何在。故率所懷想更詳盡令內外有歸。

Having seen the question and answer regarding the instructions on baring the shoulder, which comprehensively and broadly indicate that it was unornamented in profound antiquity, relying on form and principle for near function, causing reverence and remissness to take different streams and discernment and attire to be fully exhausted, there is virtually no flaw. As for that by which compliance is clarified, I still do not agree. Why is this? The establishment of deportment and form is merely utilized according to the times. Therefore, affairs have internal and external, and one may respond to them shallowly or deeply. Li [Er] and Śākya compared to the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, adapting to the world compared to abandoning custom, lie in the difference of what they follow; there is certainly no distinction between rebellious and compliant, that is clear. Hence Laozi explained that weapons are inauspicious and placed on the right, and ritual propriety uses the mourning regulations and does not use the left. Moreover, the four equal states exhaust the utmost of serving parents, and the three-sided hunt displays the benevolence of the king's traces. Being behind, their essential purports can be seen; how could one attach utmost compliance to inauspicious matters, or express auspicious sincerity in mourning appearances? That the Earl of Zheng bared his flesh was also like the Lord of Xu carrying a coffin—each regarded what they had undertaken as rebellious, and that they must receive unforeseen punishment. Proving it with this, where is compliance? Therefore, expressing my thoughts, I hope you will elaborate further so that internal and external may have their proper place.