集古今佛道論衡 1.17

1.17

Sheng considers that names of beauty and ugliness arise from the realities of beauty and ugliness. When the Dao and virtue are pure and beautiful, there is a good name; when one is stubborn, stupid, deaf, and blind, there is an evil reputation. Thus the Changes says: 'If evil is not accumulated, it is not sufficient to ruin oneself'; and it says: 'Beauty being within, it extends to the four limbs and manifests in undertakings'; and it says: 'The Shao is completely beautiful, yet not completely good.' This being so, supreme beauty and supreme goodness are known to everyone under Heaven; how can one say 'there is already ugliness'? If false beauty is not beauty, and pretended good is not good, what is considered beautiful exceeds beauty, and what is considered good departs from the mean; such things are what worldly teachings detest and what the sage-kings warned against, and everyone under Heaven naturally knows them as well. Regarding the statements: 'Do not esteem the worthy, so that people do not contend; do not value goods hard to obtain, so that people do not steal; constantly cause people to be without knowledge and without desire, and cause those with knowledge not to dare to act'; and again: 'Abandon learning and there is no sorrow. Between assent and dissent, how much is the difference? Between good and evil, what is the contrast?' And the later chapter says: 'The good person is the teacher of the not-good person; the not-good person is the resource of the good person. If one does not value one's teacher and does not love one's resource, although wise, one is greatly deluded'—Sheng considers that if the people genuinely have no desires, what would they take as teacher from a teacher? Since they take each other as teachers and resources, how can this not be learning? When the not-good takes the good as teacher, how can this not be esteeming the worthy? Since valuing and loving are present, then good and evil must become manifest; how can it be said 'what is the contrast?' And the later chapter says: 'What others teach, I also teach to people. My words are very easy to know, yet no one under Heaven can know them'; and again: 'I will take it as the father of teaching.' Tracing these statements, this is not yet abandoning learning. Does the so-called 'abandoning' refer to the learning of Yao and Confucius? The learning of Yao and Confucius instituted teachings according to the times; the words of Master Lao made single what was esteemed. Instituting teachings according to the times is why their way penetrates a hundred generations; making single what is esteemed inevitably causes stagnation in adapting to change. This is another point that my benightedness cannot comprehend.