廣弘明集 8.39

8.39

I reply: Being mediocre and ignorant, how would I dare to make far-fetched interpretations? Discarding intellectual contrivance and relying on sincerity, I depend solely on the canonical records. Master Ji [Kang] said: 'Laozi studied the arts of the nine immortals under Master Juan, seeking refined elixirs.' This may well have occurred. As for being a sage, it is not said to come from study. The Analects says: 'Those who are born with knowledge are superior; those who learn and so have knowledge are next.' According to the Book of the Former Han, Confucius is ranked in the uppermost-upper category, all of whom are sages; Laozi is placed in the middle-upper stream, all of whom are worthies. Furthermore, He Yan and Wang Bi both said that Laozi had not yet reached sageliness. These are all rankings given by classical scholars; how could I differ from them? Confucius said: 'I have no constant teacher.' His inquiring about ritual from Lao Dan had this very meaning. When someone asked about farming, he said, 'I am not as good as an old farmer'; when asked about gardening, he said, 'I am not as good as an old gardener.' When entering the Grand Ancestral Temple, he inquired about every matter. Could the farmer, gardener, and temple-keeper be worthier than Kong Qiu? His 'privately comparing himself' was words of humility of this kind. Thus we know that others' assessments are close to reality, whereas self-deprecation is merely modest words. To speak of insulting the sage might rather bring blame upon yourself! (Confucius inquired about music from Chang Hong and studied the zither under Master Xiang; could Hong and his kind all be worthier than Confucius? The traces of the sage can be seen from this.)