弘明集 9.75

9.75

難曰。論云。豈有聖人之神。而寄凡人之器。亦無凡人之神。而託聖人之體。今陽貨類仲尼。項籍似帝舜。即是凡人之神託聖人之體也。珉玉鶋鳳不得為喻。今珉自名珉玉實名玉。鶋號鶢鶋鳳曰神鳳。名既殊稱貌亦爽實。今舜重瞳子。項羽亦重瞳子。非有珉玉二名。唯覩重瞳相類。又有女媧蛇軀。皐陶馬口。非直聖神入於凡器。遂乃託乎蟲畜之體。此形神殊別明闇不同。茲益昭顯也。若形神為一理絕前因者。則聖應誕聖。賢必產賢。勇怯愚智悉類其本。即形神之所陶甄。一氣之所孕育。不得有堯睿朱嚚瞍頑舜聖矣。論又云。聖同聖氣而器不必同。猶馬殊毛而齊逸。今毛復是逸器耶。馬有同毛色而異駑駿者如此。則毛非逸相。由體無聖器矣。人形骸無凡聖之別。而有貞脆之異。故遐靈栖於遠質。促神寓乎近體。則唯斯而已耳。向所云聖人之體旨。直語丘舜之形。不言器有聖智。非矛盾之說。勿近於此惑。

[The guest] objected: The treatise says, 'How could the spirit of a sage be lodged in the capacity of an ordinary person? Nor is there an ordinary person's spirit lodged in the body of a sage.' Now Yang Huo resembled Zhongni, and Xiang Ji resembled the Emperor Shun; this is precisely an ordinary person's spirit lodged in the body of a sage. Min stone and jade, the yu bird and the phoenix cannot serve as an analogy. For min stone is of itself called min stone, while jade is truly named jade; the yu is called yu bird, while the phoenix is called the divine phoenix. Their names already differ, and their appearances also fail to match their reality. Now Shun had double pupils, and Xiang Yu also had double pupils; there were not two different names like min and jade, but one only saw their double pupils resembling each other. Furthermore, Nüwa had a serpent's body, and Gaoyao had a horse's mouth; not only did sagely spirits enter into ordinary vessels, but they even came to dwell in the bodies of insects and beasts. This distinct difference between form and spirit, their difference in illumination and darkness, becomes all the more evident here! If form and spirit were one, and in principle cut off from past causes, then a sage should give birth to a sage, and a worthy must produce a worthy; the brave, the cowardly, the foolish, and the wise would all resemble their origin, being shaped by form and spirit and nurtured by the single qi. Then one could not have the sagacious Yao and the obstinate Danzhu, or the blind and stubborn Gu Sou and the sagely Shun. The treatise also says: 'Sages are identical in sagely qi, yet their vessels need not be identical, just as horses differ in coat yet are equally swift.' Now is the coat itself the vessel of swiftness? When horses share the same coat color yet differ in being nags or thoroughbreds, it shows that the coat is not a sign of swiftness, just as the body is not a sagely vessel. The human corporeal frame has no distinction of ordinary or sage, but has differences in durability and fragility; thus an enduring spirit resides in an enduring substance, while a fleeting spirit stays in a transient body. It is merely this and nothing more. What was meant earlier by 'the body of a sage' directly referred to the physical forms of Confucius and Shun, not that their capacities possessed sagely wisdom. This is not a contradictory argument; do not approach this confusion.