集古今佛道論衡 1.13

1.13

頃獲閑居。後申所詠。仰先哲之玄微。考大賢於靈衢。詳觀風流究覽行止。高下之辯殆可髣髴。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。亦猶龍虎之從風雲。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。顏孔俱否。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。由斯以言用合影響之論。惟我與爾之談。豈不信哉。何者大賢庶幾觀象觀象。知器。知器豫籠。豫籠吉凶。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。但欣聖樂易有待而亨。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。是以見偏抗之詞。不復尋因應之適。覩矯抂之論。不復悟過直之失耳。案老之作與聖教同者。是代大匠斲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冲之誨哉。孔子曰。述而不作。信而好古。竊比我於老彭。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。又三皇五帝已下。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。斯言之發。蓋指說老彭之德有以髣髴類己形迹之處所耳。亦猶匿怨而於其人。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域乎。若欲明宣導殊類。則左袵非玄化之所。孤逝非嘉遁之舉。諸夏凌遲敷訓所先。聖人之教自近及遠。未有輈張遐嶮如此之遊也。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 found leisure in my retirement, I set down what I have reflected upon, looking up to the dark and subtle depths of the early philosophers and evaluating the great worthies along the spiritual path. Observing their manners and investigating their conduct, the distinction between higher and lower can practically be discerned. Now, the great sagely ones seize their opportune time; hence, their traces follow wherever circumstance leads. The great worthies are slightly inferior to them; hence, they expand or contract in accord with the great sages. Because what they respond to is different, their visible traces diverge—in abdication versus armed conflict. Because their way is second only to the subtle, their course of stepping forth or holding back does not differ [in principle]. This is just like dragons and tigers following wind and clouds, or forms and sounds uniting with their shadows and echoes: the principle is inherently natural, not brought about by summoning. For this reason, the Viscount of Ji and King Wen shared the same portent, yet found primal auspiciousness amid the maws of tigers and rhinos; Yan Hui and Confucius both met with adversity, yet wandered carefree between Kuang and Chen. Tang Yao emulated Heaven, and Ji and Xie aided his transformation; Tang and Wu carried out the mandate of revolution, and Yi Yin and Lü Shang assisted their achievements. Arguing from this, they accord with the thesis of shadows and echoes and the talk of 'only you and I'—how could this not be credible? Why is this? The great worthies draw close to observing the images. In observing the images, they understand the vessel; understanding the vessel, they encompass beforehand; encompassing beforehand good fortune and bad, they thereby maneuver the forms. In this, they are one with governing, responding to and engaging with the myriad quarters; in the end they preserve primal auspiciousness, whether in obstruction or success, hindrance or fluidity—their measure is one. It is only that they delight in the sage and take joy in ease, yet depend on external conditions to flourish; they revere the hidden yet cannot fully unite with the hidden; they rejoice in stillness yet cannot abide entirely in stillness. It is by this that superiority and inferiority are judged. As for the middling worthies, the third class of persons, they are separated from the sages by a gap; thus the way of embodying the hidden is not fully realized, and their natural application cannot attain profound unity. Yet, yearning for antiquity and cherishing excellence, their loftier ideals halt in frustration; looking up in admiration to the pure mores and exclusively chanting of ultimate emptiness, there are some who lodge among forests and gorges like the likes of Chaofu and Xu You, or whose words and deeds hold the reins [of independence] like the fellows of Laozi and Pengzu. This too is not done intentionally; it is of the natural order of things. Now, an agitated disposition loves stillness, and a soft nature cherishes firmness; profaning what is habitually practiced and enjoying what is rarely heard are the common ways of the world. Therefore, when seeing one-sided, contrarian statements, people no longer investigate their suitability to circumstances; seeing discourses of bending and straightening, they no longer realize the error of exceeding straightness. Examining what Laozi wrote that agrees with the sage's teaching: are his metaphors of cutting in place of the master carpenter and of webbed toes and extra fingers absurd? What opposes the sage's teaching goes far from what is suitable for saving the world and contravenes the meaning of 'the bright Way seeming dim.' When do the Six Classics ever lack instruction on emptiness and stillness, or lessons on humility and restraint? Confucius said: 'Transmitting and not creating, trusting in and loving antiquity, I quietly compare myself to Lao Peng.' Examining this intent, the way of Lao Peng is already encompassed within the sage's teaching! Moreover, it merely points to two matters, and was not an absolute claim. How is this clear? The sage is profoundly still—what would he not love? Furthermore, from the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors downward, none did not create. Hence the hexagram images of the Changes and the classic tomb-texts are brilliantly displayed, and rafters, eaves, and clothing arose with the times. Where is there only transmitting and not creating? Therefore the Changes says: 'When the sage creates, the myriad things behold him.' The utterance of these words merely pointed out that the virtues of Lao Peng bore some slight resemblance to the points of his own visible conduct. It is also just like: 'Concealing resentment and befriending the person—Zuoqiuming was ashamed of it; Qiu was also ashamed of it.' How could that compare to 'there is nothing in my words that does not please him' as the utmost in mutual understanding? Furthermore, Yan Hui and Confucius did not make health preservation their concern, while Laozi and Pengzu cultivated it; Confucius and Yan Hui made themselves one with common people, while Laozi and Pengzu set themselves apart. All these several items are not without the traces of those inferior to the sages; and yet their book often contains contradictions, roughly listed as follows. May the men of broad cultivation and noble attire fortunately eliminate their errors! Moreover, I do not understand Lao Dan's intention in soaring away: was it to lay down instruction for the Rong and Di barbarians and guide different domains? If he wished to clearly proclaim and guide different kinds, then 'left-folded lapels' are not the place for dark transformation, and a solitary departure is not an act of laudable retirement. When the Chinese lands were declining, disseminating instruction was the priority. The teachings of the sage proceed from the near to the distant; there has never been a wandering across such distant perils as that. If he feared misfortune and sought to avoid the land, then he could have hidden within the sage's gate: the Shang court and the state of Lu each had those who remained unaffected. If one attains the Dao, then the butchering blade moves with room to spare and whatever ground one touches meets with primal auspiciousness: why go against the mind of Heaven among the Rong and Mo barbarians? If he could not do so, was he not merely of the kind who hides at court to pray for immortality?