弘明集 9.109

9.109

論曰。若合而為用者明。不合則無用。如蛩巨之相資廢一則不可。此乃是滅神之精據。而非存神之雅決。子意本欲請戰。而定為我援兵也。論又云。形之於神猶刀之於利。未聞刀沒而利存。豈形止而神在。又申延陵之言。即形消於下神滅於上。故云無之也。又云。以稷配天非欺天也。猶湯放武伐非殺君也。子不責聖人放殺之迹。而勤勤於郊稷之妄耶。難曰。蛩蛩巨虛是合用之證耳。而非形滅即神滅之據也。何以言之。蛩非虛也虛非蛩也。今滅蛩蛩而駏驉不死。斬駏驉而蛩蛩不亡。非相即也。今引此以為形神俱滅之精據。又為救兵之良援。斯倒戈授人而欲求長存也。悲夫。斯即形滅而神不滅之證一也。論云。形之與神猶刀之於利。未聞刀沒而利存。豈容形亡而神在。雅論據形神之俱滅。唯此一證而已。愚有惑焉。何者。神之與形是二物之合用。即論所引蛩巨相資也。是今刀之於利是一物之兩名耳。然一物兩名者。故捨刀則無利也。二物之合用者。故形亡則神逝也。今引一物之二名。徵二物之合用。斯差若毫釐者何千里之遠也。斯又是形滅而神不滅之證二也。又申延陵之言曰。即是形消於下神滅於上。論云。形神是一體之相即。即今形滅於此。即應神滅於形中。何得云形消於下。神滅於上。而云無不之乎。斯又是形滅而神不滅之證三也。又云。以稷配天非欺天也。猶湯放桀武伐紂非殺君也。即是權假以除惡乎。然唐虞之君無放伐之患矣。若乃運非太平世值三季權假立教以救一時。故權稷以配天假父以配帝。則可也。然有虞氏之王天下也。禘黃而郊嚳。祖顓而宗堯。既淳風未殄。時非權假而今欺天罔帝也何乎。引證若斯。斯又是形滅而神不滅之證四也。斯四證既立而根本自傾。餘枝葉庶不待風而靡也。

[Fan Zhen's] treatise states: 'If they unite to function, this is clear; if they do not unite, there is no function. Just as the qiong and the ju depend on one another, so that neither one can be dispensed with, this is precisely a rigorous proof for the extinction of the spirit, not an elegant determination of the survival of the spirit. Your intention was originally to challenge me to battle, but in the end you have provided reinforcement for my side.' The treatise also states: 'The relation of corporeal form to spirit is like that of a knife to its sharpness. One has never heard of the knife disappearing while its sharpness remains; how could the corporeal form cease while the spirit persists?' It further elucidates the words of the Master of Yanling, namely that the corporeal form perishes below and the spirit is extinguished above, which is why it is said that it goes nowhere. It also says: 'To pair Houji with Heaven is not to deceive Heaven, just as Tang's banishing [Jie] and Wu's striking down [Zhou] were not regicide. Do you not censure the sages for their actions of banishment and regicide, yet fuss meticulously over the falsehood of the suburban sacrifice to Houji?'

I rebut this: The qiongqiong and the juxu are merely evidence of functioning in union, not proof that when the corporeal form is extinguished, the spirit is also extinguished. Why is this said? A qiong is not a xu, and a xu is not a qiong. Now if one kills the qiongqiong, the juxu does not die; if one slays the juxu, the qiongqiong does not perish. They are not identical. Now to cite this as a rigorous proof that corporeal form and spirit are both extinguished, and furthermore as fine reinforcements for rescue, is to hand over weapons to another with the points reversed while seeking long-lasting survival. How lamentable! This is the first proof that the corporeal form perishes while the spirit is not extinguished.

The treatise states: 'The relation of corporeal form to spirit is like that of a knife to its sharpness. One has never heard of the knife disappearing while its sharpness remains; how could the corporeal form perish while the spirit persists?' This elegant treatise bases the co-extinction of corporeal form and spirit on this single piece of evidence alone. I am perplexed by this. Why? The spirit and the corporeal form are two things functioning in union, as in the mutual reliance of the qiong and ju cited in your treatise. But the relation of the knife to its sharpness is merely two names for a single thing. Because they are two names for a single thing, when one discards the knife there is no sharpness. Because [the former] are two things functioning in union, when the corporeal form perishes the spirit departs. Now to cite two names for a single thing to verify two things functioning in union—this difference, seemingly by a fraction of a hair, misses the mark by a thousand leagues! This is the second proof that the corporeal form perishes while the spirit is not extinguished.

Furthermore, elucidating the words of the Master of Yanling, it says that the corporeal form perishes below and the spirit is extinguished above. The treatise says that corporeal form and spirit are identical in a single substance. If so, then when the corporeal form is extinguished here, the spirit should likewise be extinguished within the corporeal form. How can one say that the corporeal form perishes below while the spirit is extinguished above, and yet say that there is nowhere it does not go? This is the third proof that the corporeal form perishes while the spirit is not extinguished.

It also states: 'To pair Houji with Heaven is not to deceive Heaven, just as Tang's banishing Jie and Wu's striking down Zhou were not regicide.' This means using expedient accommodations to eliminate evil. Yet the rulers of Tang and Yu had no trouble with banishment or conquest. If the age is not one of great peace and encounters the end of the Three Dynasties, establishing teachings by expedient accommodation to save the contemporary situation, so that Houji is expediently paired with Heaven and one's father is accommodated to pair with God on High, then this would be permissible. However, when the lord of Youyu ruled the world, he performed the di sacrifice to the Yellow Emperor and the suburban sacrifice to Ku; he took Zhuanxu as ancestor and Yao as founder. Since the pure customs had not yet perished and the times did not call for expedient accommodations, why would he now deceive Heaven and delude the Lord on High? With citations of proof such as this, this is the fourth proof that the corporeal form perishes while the spirit is not extinguished.

Once these four proofs are established, the foundation collapses on its own; the remaining branches and leaves may be expected to bend without waiting for the wind.