廣弘明集 8.40

8.40

The questioner asks: Duke Yin of Lu was a worthy ruler who ceded his state, yet the Table of Historical Figures rates him as low-lower. Laozi was a great sage of non-action (asaṃskṛta), yet the Book of Han ranks him as middle-upper. Thus we know the assessments of Ban Biao and his son were precarious and unfair. Why, Sir, do you cite them as evidence? I reply: You, Sir, rely on Du Yu's remarks near at hand, but overlook the meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annals afar. Duke Yin was the elder brother of Duke Huan by a concubine. When Duke Huan was young, he acted as regent in governmental affairs; when Huan grew up, he was to return the government to Duke Huan. Although he was able to return the government, he was unable to dispel suspicion; slanderous malice ran rampant, and he was eventually murdered by Duke Huan. He neither preserved himself nor prevented his younger brother from sinking into unrighteousness; where then was the beauty of ceding the state? If this is not low, what could be low? The evaluation of the Book of Han was correct in this regard. Furthermore, Confucius received the mandate and was consequently called the Uncrowned King; it has never been heard in the historical records that Laozi was called a sage. To speak of what does not concern the canons is what the gentleman is ashamed of. The questioner asks: The Book of Documents says: 'Only the madman, through reflection, can become a sage; only the sage, through heedlessness, becomes a madman.' You said that being a sage does not concern learning; what kind of talk is that?