集古今佛道論衡 1.19

1.19

執古之道以御今之有。上章云。執者失之為者敗之。而復云執古之道以御今之有。或執或否。得無陷矛盾之論乎。絕聖棄智民利百倍。孫盛曰。夫有仁聖必有仁聖之迹。此而不崇則陶訓焉融。仁義不尚則孝慈道喪。老氏既云絕聖。而每章輒稱聖人。既稱聖人則迹焉能得絕。若所欲絕者。絕堯舜周孔之迹。則所稱聖者為是何迹乎。即如其言。聖人有宜滅其迹者。有宜稱其迹者。稱滅不同吾誰適從。絕仁棄義民復孝慈。若如此談仁義不絕則不孝不慈矣。復云。居善地與善仁不審與善仁之仁。是向所云欲絕者非耶。如其是也。則不宜復稱述矣。如其非也。則未詳二仁之義一仁宜絕一仁宜明。此又所未達也。若謂不聖之聖不仁之仁。則教所誅不假高唱矣。退至莊周云。聖人不死大盜不止。又曰。田常竊仁義以取齊國。夫天地陶鑄善惡兼育。各稟自然理不相關。梟鴆縱毒。不假學於鸞鳳。豺虎肆害。不借術於騏麟。此皆天質自然不須外物者也。何至凶頑之人。獨當假仁義以濟其姦乎。若乃冒頓殺父鄭伯盜鄶。豈復先假孝道獲其終害乎。而莊李棓擊殺根毀駁正說。何異疾盜賊而銷鑄干戈。覩食噎而絕棄嘉穀乎。後之談者。雖曲為其義辯而釋之。莫不艱屯於殺聖困躓於忘親也。知我者希則我貴矣。又上章云。聖人之在天下。百姓皆注其耳目。師資貴愛必彰萬物。如斯則知之者安得希哉。知希者何必貴哉。即己之身見貴九服何得背實抗言云貴由知希哉。斯蓋欲抑動恒俗故發此過言耳。聖教則不然。中和其詞以理訓導。故曰。在家必聞。在邦必聞也。是聞必達也。不見善而無悶。潛龍之德。人不知而不慍。君子之道。眾好之必察焉。眾惡之必察焉。既不以知多為顯。亦不以知少為貴。誨誘綽綽理中自然。何與老聃之言。同日而語其優劣哉。禮者忠信之薄而亂之首。前識者道之華而愚之始。是以大丈夫處其厚不處其薄。處其實不處其華也。孫盛曰。老聃足知聖人禮樂。非玄勝之具不獲已而制作耳。而故毀之何哉。是故屏撥禮學以全其任。自然之論豈不知叔末。不復得返自然之道。直欲申已好之懷。然則不免情於所悅。非浪心救物者也。非惟不救乃獎其弊矣。或問。莊老所以故發此唱。蓋與聖教相為表裏。其於陶物明訓其歸一也。盛以為不然。夫聖人之道廣大悉備矣。猶日月懸天。有何不照者哉。孔氏之言皆絞於六經矣。寧復有所愆之俟佐助於聃周乎。即莊周所謂日月出矣。而焦火不息者也。至於虛詠譎怪徼詭之言。尚拘滯於一方而橫稱不經之奇詞也。王侯得一以為天下貞。貞正也。又下章云。孰知其極其無正。正復為奇善復為妖。尋此二章。或云。為天下正。或云無正。既云善人不善人師。而復云為妖天下之善一也。而或師或妖。天下之正道一也。而云正復為奇。斯反鄙見所未能通也。

"Grasp the Dao of antiquity to direct the beings of today." The preceding chapter says: "Those who grasp it lose it; those who act upon it spoil it." Yet here it says again: "Grasp the Dao of antiquity to direct the beings of today." Alternately grasping and not grasping—does this not fall into contradictory discourse? "Abandon sageliness and discard wisdom, and the people will benefit a hundredfold." Sun Sheng says: Where there are benevolence and sageliness, there must be traces of benevolence and sageliness. If these are not revered, how could edifying instruction flourish? If benevolence and righteousness are not valued, the way of filial piety and parental affection is lost. Laozi speaks of abandoning sageliness, yet in every chapter he readily refers to the sage. Having spoken of the sage, how can traces be abandoned? If what is to be abandoned are the traces of Yao, Shun, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius, then what traces belong to the one he calls a sage? If it is as he says, that for sages there are those whose traces should be destroyed and those whose traces should be praised, then with praising and destroying so divergent, whom should we follow? "Abandon benevolence and discard righteousness, and the people will return to filial piety and parental affection." If it is as this discourse says, then unless benevolence and righteousness are abandoned, there is neither filial piety nor parental affection. Yet it also says: "In dwelling, good is found in the land; in giving, good is found in benevolence." I do not understand whether this benevolence of "in giving, good is found in benevolence" is the very benevolence that he earlier spoke of wanting to abandon. If it is, then he should not praise and expound it again. If it is not, then the distinction between the two kinds of benevolence is not clarified—that one benevolence should be abandoned while the other benevolence should be made clear. This is another point I have not comprehended. If this refers to the sageliness of non-sageliness and the benevolence of non-benevolence, then what the standard teaching condemns does not require lofty proclamations [by him]. Coming down to Zhuang Zhou, he says: "Until the sage dies, the great robber will not cease." And he says: "Tian Chang stole benevolence and righteousness to seize the state of Qi." Now, Heaven and Earth mold and cast, rearing both good and evil together. Each is endowed with naturalness; by principle they do not depend on one another. The screech owl and the poison-feathered bird unleash their venom without needing to study under the luan-bird and the phoenix; jackals and tigers unleash harm without borrowing arts from the qilin. These are all natural endowments of Heaven that do not require external things. Why should vile and obstinate men alone have to borrow benevolence and righteousness to achieve their villainy? When Modu murdered his father, or the Earl of Zheng stole Kuai, did they first borrow the way of filial piety to achieve their ultimate harm? Yet Zhuangzi and Laozi strike down and destroy the root, slandering and rebutting correct teachings. How does this differ from despising robbers and thieves and therefore melting down shields and halberds, or seeing someone choke on food and therefore casting away fine grain? Even if later commentators craft twisted explanations and argue to resolve it, none avoids distress over killing the sage or stumbling over forgetting one's parents. "Those who understand me are rare, and therefore I am noble." The preceding chapter also says: "When the sage is in the world, the hundred surnames all fix their ears and eyes upon him." Teacher and student, esteem and love, are inevitably manifest to the ten thousand things. If it is like this, how could those who understand him be rare? And why must one whom few understand be noble? With his own person honored throughout the nine realms, how could he turn his back on reality and stubbornly claim that his nobility came from being understood by few? This was merely an attempt to restrain and reform common custom, which led to this exaggerated statement. The sacred teaching [of the sages] is not like this. Its words are moderate and harmonious, instructing and guiding through principle. Thus it is said: "At home he is sure to be heard of; in the state he is sure to be heard of." To be heard of means he is sure to have attained prominence. "Not showing off the good and being without resentment" is the virtue of the hidden dragon. "Not feeling resentful when people do not understand him" is the way of the noble person. "When the multitude loves him, one must examine it; when the multitude hates him, one must examine it." He neither considers having many understand him as prominent, nor considers having few understand him as noble. His instructions and enticements are generous and relaxed, naturally hitting the mean of principle. How could his merit and demerit be spoken of in the same breath as Lao Dan's words? "Rites are the thinning of loyalty and good faith, and the head of disorder. Foreknowledge is the flower of the Dao, and the beginning of foolishness. Therefore the great man dwells in the thick and not in the thin; he dwells in the solid and not in the flower." Sun Sheng says: Lao Dan was fully aware that the rites and music of the sages were not instruments of profound transcendence, but were fashioned only because there was no alternative. Why then did he deliberately vilify them? Discarding the study of rites to fulfill his own indulgence and discourse on naturalness—did he not understand that in decadent later ages, people could never return to the Dao of naturalness? He merely wanted to express what his own heart favored. In that case, he could not avoid being driven by his own preferences, and was not one who selflessly set his heart on saving beings. Not only did he fail to save them, he encouraged their vices. Some may ask: Did Zhuangzi and Laozi deliberately make these proclamations to serve as the exterior and interior along with the sage's teaching, their edifying of beings and lucid instructions returning to the same goal? Sun Sheng thought this was not so. The Way of the sage is broad, vast, and all-inclusive, like the sun and moon suspended in the heavens—what do they not illuminate? The words of Confucius are all interwoven in the Six Classics. Could there still be any deficit awaiting the support of Dan and Zhou? It is just what Zhuang Zhou called: "When the sun and moon have come out, yet the torch fire is not extinguished." As for empty cantillations, bizarre marvels, and craftily deceptive words, they remain confined and obstructed in one corner, arbitrarily proclaiming strange statements that are not canonical. "Kings and lords attain the One to become the uprightness of the world." "Uprightness" means rectitude. Yet the next chapter says: "Who knows its limit? It has no rectitude. Rectitude turns again into the strange; good turns again into the monstrous." Examining these two chapters, one says it is the rectitude of the world, while the other says there is no rectitude. Having said that the good person is the teacher of the bad person, it then says he becomes monstrous. The goodness of the world is one, yet it is alternately a teacher and monstrous. The upright Dao of the world is one, yet it says rectitude turns again into the strange. This is conversely something my humble understanding has not been able to penetrate.