集古今佛道論衡 1.18

1.18

道冲而用之。又不盈和其光同其塵。盛以為老聃可謂知道非體道也。昔陶唐之莅天下也。無日解哉。則維昭任眾師錫匹夫則馺然禪授。豈非冲而用之光塵同彼哉。伯陽則不然。既處濁位復遠遁西戎。行止則猖狂其迹。著書則矯誑其言。和光同塵固若是乎。余固以為知道體道則未也。道經云。三者不可致詰混然為一。繩繩兮不可名。復歸於無物。無物之象。是謂惚恍。又下章云道之為物惟恍與惚。惚兮恍兮。其中有象。恍兮惚兮其中有物。此二章或言無物。或言有物。先有所不宜者也。

'The Dao is empty, yet in using it, it is not exhausted. Harmonize its light, make it identical with its dust.' Sheng considers that Lao Dan can be said to have known the Dao, but not to have embodied the Dao. Formerly, when Taotang presided over all under Heaven, 'not a day did he become remiss'; when he discerned and employed the multitude, and consulted and raised a common man, he swiftly abdicated and conferred the throne. Was this not being empty and using it, being identical with that light and dust? Boyang was not so: having held a corrupt position, he then fled far away to the Western Rong; in his conduct his traces were wild and reckless, and in writing his book his words were artful and deceptive. Was harmonizing the light and identifying with the dust truly like this? I firmly maintain that he knew the Dao, but as for embodying the Dao, he had not yet done so. The Daoist scripture says: 'These three cannot be examined to the utmost, hence they blend into one. Continuous and unnameable, it returns to non-thingness. The image of non-thingness, this is called the elusive and vague.' And the later chapter says: 'As a thing, the Dao is only vague and elusive. Elusive and vague, within it there is an image; vague and elusive, within it there is a thing.' These two chapters either speak of non-thingness or speak of things—a previous inconsistency.