廣弘明集 5.15

5.15

昔裴逸民作崇有貴無二論。時談者或以為不虛達勝之道者。或以為矯時流遁者。余以為尚無既失之矣。崇有亦未為得也。道之為物惟怳與忽。因應無方惟變所適。值澄淳之時則司契垂拱。遇萬動之化則形體勃興。是以洞鑒雖同。有無之教異陳。聖致雖一而稱謂之名殊目。唐虞不希結繩。湯武不擬揖讓。夫豈異哉。時運故也。而伯陽以執古之道。以御今之有。逸民欲執今之有。以絕古之風。吾故以為彼二子者。不達圓化之道。各矜其一方者耳。

Formerly, Pei Yimin composed the two treatises *Exalting Being* and *Valuing Non-being*. Contemporary commentators either thought he did not vacantly attain the superior Way, or that he was correcting the prevailing drift of the times. In my view, to prize non-being is already an error, and to exalt being is likewise not to attain it. As an entity, the Way is indistinct and elusive; responding to circumstances without fixed method, it goes wherever change dictates. Encountering a time of clarity and purity, one holds the tally and folds one's hands in non-action; meeting the transformations of the myriad movements, physical forms vigorously arise. Therefore, although profound insight is the same, the teachings of being and non-being are expounded differently; though the sacred intent is one, the designations and terms have distinct labels. Tang and Yu did not long for knotted cords; Tang and Wu did not emulate abdication. How could they be different? It was because of the seasonal timing. Yet Boyang used holding to the ancient Way to govern present existence, while Yimin wished to hold to present existence to cut off the ancient style. I therefore maintain that those two men did not understand the Way of rounded transformation, and each merely prided himself on his own single perspective.