廣弘明集 8.36

8.36

The questioner asks: I respectfully examine your esteemed writing, analyzing division and union, which says: 'Separating them into branches, there ought to be nine teachings; uniting them in common, they share the single Confucian ancestry.' Yet seeking its rationale, I still consider it inappropriate. Why? The School of Names is mixed with Deng Xi and Yin Wen; the Legalists blend Li Kui and Shang Yang; Mohism came from You and Hu; Agriculture arose from the Old Rustic of the Wilds. All these were formulations developed by worthy and eminent persons; they cannot be taken as heads of teachings. Were not Confucius and Laozi sages? They may establish teachings! Therefore, among the nine currents, we should discuss only these two. Is not Confucianism and Daoism quite apt?