集古今佛道論衡 1.14

1.14

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。道之為物惟怳惟惚。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。

In the past, Pei Yimin composed the two treatises, 'Upholding Being' and 'Valuing Non-being'. Commentators of the time either considered him unable to penetrate the way of emptiness and transcendence, or considered him one who corrected the drifts of his era. In my view, to value non-being is already an error, and to uphold being is not yet to grasp it either. As a thing, the Dao is only elusive and vague; responding to circumstances without fixed direction, it moves according to whatever change demands. Meeting with times of clarity and purity, it oversees tallies with hands folded; encountering the transformations of the myriad movements, physical forms vigorously arise. Hence, though their thorough insight was identical, their teachings of being and non-being were laid out differently; though the sagely attainment was one, the appellations and designations differed in title. Tang and Yu did not yearn for knotted cords, and Tang and Wu did not emulate abdication. How could they be different? It was because of the movements of the times. But Boyang sought to hold to the way of antiquity to govern the beings of the present, and Yimin sought to hold to the beings of the present to sever the mores of antiquity. Therefore, I consider that those two gentlemen did not penetrate the way of all-encompassing transformation, each merely boasting of his own single corner.