弘明集 4.14

4.14

You also say: '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.' Since the spirit of extraordinary intelligence is different from the multitude, how could their principle of attaining life ever be identical even for a moment? Life is rooted in principle, yet principle differs; to what could the designation of 'life identical to the multitude' be attached? If you cling to this name of 'life' and insist on having it conform to the multitude, would not things formed by the chaotic blend also be included in this category?
You also say: '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?' You initially said: 'The august sages set forth teachings to observe things and carefully adhered to the classics of the seasons, in order to reverse gradual decline and halt excess.' Now you again object by saying 'just opening the way for excess.' It is unclear whether this is an objection to my humble discourse, or a criticism of the sages!
You also say: 'Outside of markets and kitchens, how could there be a lack of proper nourishment? What was written by Shennong and described by Xi Kang (Zhongsan)—why must cutting and gutting be taken as receiving harmony, and scalding and boiling be the means to assist the good?' Now, the pure sacrifices, young calves, and the three sacrificial beasts of the ancestral temple and altars of soil and grain, along with the morning fragrances and offering vessels prepared to serve guests, and the old of seventy waiting for meat to be satisfied—how could one merely lay out herbs and stones and take them as the superior medicines? What I worry cannot be established is not that your grand discourse is difficult to maintain, but upon reflection I fear that this matter cannot be abruptly abandoned in the world.
You also say: '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.' Examining your intention, it seems you do not reject the existence of ghosts, but rather maintain that ghosts must have material form; could you be misled because the texts of Tianzhu describe ghosts as a distinct category of living beings? In ancient times, people used ghosts and spirits as a teaching; they were listed in the canonical scriptures and spread across the bamboo tablets. Zichan of Zheng and Ji Zha of Wu also considered it to be so. Therefore, with the six changes of the Yunhe lute, heavenly spirits truly descended; with the nine completions at Longmen, both human ghosts and spirits all arrived. You, who nobly uphold the Rites of Zhou, have recently neglected this meaning; why then interrogate the 'non-corporeal existence' as a rambling and fragmented debate?