廣弘明集 5.14

5.14

頃獲閑居。復申所詠。仰先哲之玄微。考大賢之靈衢。詳觀風流究覽行止。高下之辨殆可髣髴。夫大聖乘時。故迹浪於所因。大賢次微。故與大聖而舒卷。所因不同。故有揖讓與干戈迹乖。次微道亞。故行藏之軌莫異。亦有龍虎之從風雲。形聲之會影響。理固自然非召之也。是故箕文同兆。元吉於虎兕之吻。顏孔俱𠘶。逍遙於匡陳之間。唐堯則天。稷偰翼其化。湯武革命。伊呂贊其功。由斯以言。用舍影響之論。惟我與爾之談。豈不信哉。何者。大賢庶幾觀象知器。觀象知器豫籠吉凶。豫籠吉凶。是以運形斯同御治因應。對接群方終保元吉。窮通滯礙其揆一也。但欽聖樂易有待而亨。欽冥而不能冥。悅寂而不能寂。以此為優劣耳。至於中賢第三之人。去聖有間。故冥體之道未盡。自然運用自不得玄同。然希古存勝高想頓足。仰慕淳風專詠至虛。故有栖峙林壑若巢許之倫者。言行抗轡如老彭之徒者。亦非故然理自然也。夫形躁好靜質柔愛剛。瀆所常習愒所希聞。世俗之常也。是以見偏抗之辭。不復尋因應之適。覩矯誑之論。不復悟過直之失耳。案老子之作與聖教同者。是代大匠斵駢拇枝指之喻。其詭乎聖教者。是遠救世之宜違明道若昧之義也。六經何常闕虛靜之訓謙沖之誨哉。孔子曰。述而不作。信而好古。竊比於我老彭。尋斯旨也。則老彭之道以籠罩乎聖教之內矣。且指說二事而不非實言也。何以明之。聖人淵寂何不好哉。又三皇五帝不下靡不制作。是故易象經墳爛然炳著。棟宇衣裳。與時而興。安在述而不作乎。故易曰。聖人作而萬物覩。斯言之證。蓋指說老彭之德。有以髣髴類己形迹之處所耳。亦猶匿怨而友其人。左丘明恥之。丘亦恥之。豈若於吾言無所不說相體之至也。且顏孔不以導養為事。而老彭養之。孔顏同乎斯人。而老彭異之。凡斯數者非不亞聖之迹。而又其書往往矛盾。粗列如左。大雅搢紳幸祛其弊。盛又不達老聃輕舉之旨。為欲著訓戎狄宣導殊俗乎。若欲明宣導殊類。則左袵非玄化之所。孤遊非嘉遁之舉。諸夏陵遲敷訓所先。聖人之教自近及遠。未有輈張避險如此之遊也。若懼禍避地。則聖門可隱商朝。魯邦有無如者矣。苟得其道則遊刃有餘。觸地元吉何違天心。於戎貊如不能然者。得無庶於朝隱而祈仙之徒乎。

Recently, having attained leisure, I once again express my reflections, looking up to the mysterious subtleties of former philosophers and examining the spiritual paths of great worthies. Observing their character in detail and investigating their conduct, the distinction between higher and lower can be roughly discerned. The Great Sage rides with the times, and therefore his traces roam according to circumstances; the Great Worthy ranks just below the subtle, and therefore unfolds and folds along with the Great Sage. Because circumstances differ, there is the divergence of abdication versus armed conflict; because his attainment of the Way is second to the subtle, the track of his emerging or retiring does not differ. It is also like the dragon and tiger following the wind and clouds, or shapes and sounds meeting shadows and echoes—the principle is fundamentally natural and not summoned. For this reason, the Viscount of Ji and King Wen shared the same omen, finding supreme fortune in the jaws of tigers and wild oxen; Yan Hui and Confucius both attained ease, roaming freely between Kuang and Chen. Tang of Yao modeled himself on Heaven, and Houji and Xie aided his transformation; Tang and Wu carried out the revolution, and Yi Yin and Lü Shang assisted in their achievement. Speaking from this, the discourse on shadows and echoes regarding employment and dismissal, and the saying 'only you and I'—how could they not be believable? Why? The Great Worthy almost attains [perfection]; he observes signs and knows instruments. Observing signs and knowing instruments, he anticipates and encompasses good and bad fortune. Because he anticipates and encompasses good and bad fortune, the deployment of his actions is unified, his governance accords with conditions, and in engaging all realms he ultimately preserves supreme fortune; in adversity and prosperity, obstacle and hindrance, his measure is one. It is only that his admiration of the Sage and delight in ease require conditions to prosper: he admires the dark but cannot be fully dark, and takes pleasure in stillness but cannot be fully still; it is by this that superiority and inferiority are determined. As for the middling worthies of the third tier, they are separated from the Sage by an interval, so their realization of embodying the dark is incomplete, and in the natural operation they cannot spontaneously achieve mysterious unity. Yet aspiring to antiquity and preserving excellence, with lofty thoughts they stamp their feet, looking up in admiration to the pure customs and exclusively extolling supreme emptiness. Therefore, there are those who dwell in forests and valleys, like the peers of Chaofu and Xu You; and those whose words and deeds hold parallel reins, like the company of Lao Dan and Peng Zu. This too is not intentional, but the natural course of principle. Now, a restless form fond of stillness, a gentle nature loving firmness, being bored with what one is accustomed to and delighting in what is rarely heard—these are the common tendencies of the mundane world. Therefore, seeing one-sided, stubborn rhetoric, they no longer seek the fitness of according and responding; beholding exaggerated and deceitful discourses, they no longer realize the error of exceeding uprightness. Examining Laozi’s writings, what agrees with the sacred teachings is the analogy of hewing wood for the master carpenter and of webbed toes and extra fingers; what deceives compared to the sacred teachings is being far from what is suitable for saving the world and violating the meaning of 'the bright Way seems dim.' How could the Six Classics ever lack instructions on emptiness and tranquility, or admonitions on modesty and deference? Confucius said: 'A transmitter and not a maker, trusting in and loving antiquity, I venture to compare myself to our Old Peng.' If one examines this intent, then the Way of Lao Dan and Peng Zu was already encompassed within the sacred teachings. Moreover, he pointedly spoke of two matters, which were not meant as literal statements. How can this be clarified? The Sage is profound and still—what would he not love? Furthermore, among the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors down to later ages, none failed to create: hence the images of the Changes and the classic registers shine brightly and distinctly; buildings and garments arose with the times—how could it be said they transmitted and did not create? Therefore the Changes states: 'The Sage acts, and the myriad things are beheld.' The evidence of these words is merely that in pointedly speaking of the virtue of Old Peng, there was some resemblance to the external traces of his own actions. It is also like: 'To hide resentment and befriend the person—Zuoqiuming was ashamed of it, and Qiu is also ashamed of it.' How could this compare to 'in my words there is nothing he does not delight in,' which is the utmost embodiment of unity? Furthermore, Yan Hui and Confucius did not make health cultivation their business, whereas Lao Dan and Peng Zu cultivated it; Confucius and Yan Hui identified with ordinary people, whereas Lao Dan and Peng Zu distinguished themselves. All these several points are traces showing they did not rank next to the Sage; and moreover, their texts frequently contradict themselves, as roughly listed to the left. May the men of great elegance and the gentry dispel these errors. Moreover, I do not understand Lao Dan’s intent in ascending lightly: did he wish to teach the Rong and Di barbarians and guide distinct customs? If he wished to clearly guide distinct kinds, then the left lapel is not the place for mysterious transformation, and solitary wandering is not the act of auspicious seclusion. The decline of the Chinese states was the foremost priority for disseminating instruction; the teaching of the Sage proceeds from near to far, and there has never been a headlong flight to avoid danger in such wandering. If he feared disaster and fled the land, then within the gate of the Sage one could remain hidden in the Shang court, or in the state of Lu there were those who were unfazed. If one truly attains the Way, the blade roams with room to spare; whatever one encounters yields supreme fortune, so how could one oppose Heaven's mind? If he could not do so among the Rong and Mo barbarians, might he not merely belong to the company of those who seek reclusion from court to pray for immortality?