辯正論 2.6

2.6

The Master of Comprehension refuted him, saying: “You can recite texts, but you do not know how to seek the underlying principle. People like those of Huxiang are indeed difficult to converse with! Bitterly shivering freezing ice cannot wither the flowers of the coltsfoot; scarlet gales that melt stone cannot bend the trees of Xiaogiu. To hold up a spark between the sun and the moon is not wisdom; to clasp an earthen pot beside a great bell is not prudent foresight. The texts you have cited shall now be tested at once. Why so? The *Liji* says: ‘The highest reveres virtue.’ Zheng [Xuan's] commentary states that this refers to the kings of antiquity. Laozi says: ‘The highest is known by those below.’ The collected commentaries state: ‘In the era of highest antiquity, they knew there was a ruler above, yet did not serve him as subjects.’ That was the time of the Three Sovereigns. The title of ‘World-Honoured One’ (Tianzun) originated in Buddhist sūtras, while the title of ‘Your Majesty’ (Bixia) began with the First Emperor of Qin. The ministers, grandees, principal officers, and bureaus were all adopted from the systems of the Zhou officialdom and the Qin and Han, merely swapping heads for tails and taking the false to be true. The Three Sovereigns described [in your texts] are all cited from imperial genealogies and the like. The hierarchical grades of the three realms and the layers of the various heavens are all modelled on Buddhist sūtras, falsely establishing names, adding and subtracting, appearing and disappearing, seeming different yet identical. If these methods had truly existed since high antiquity, why did Baoxi not describe them when composing the *Book of Changes*? In bygone eras, sovereign rulers were never heard to have venerated and served them. It was only after the Zhou and Qin that erroneous words gradually emerged. The ‘Heavenly Movements’ chapter of the *Zhuangzi* says: ‘When Confucius was fifty-one years old and had not heard the Dao, he went south to Qingpei and saw Lao Dan, saying: “If the Dao could be presented to others, who would not present it to their ruler?”’ I hope you will reflect on this and not speak so much! Yet to claim that outside the three realms there are separate metropolises, palaces, and walled capitals—men of discernment all lament and marvel at such things; their falsehood is detailed thoroughly in the *Xiaodao lun* (Treatise Laughing at the Dao). Zhuangzi said: ‘Wang Tai was a man with a severed foot; Gengsang Chu was a scholar afflicted with illness.’ They did not perform jiao-offerings with memorials, nor did they issue talismans and registers; they wore the clothes of the contemporary world, and orally transmitted the canons of former kings. They did not become Daoist masters, nor did they wear yellow turbans. What is it that you wish to show by hastily bringing these matters forward? Even if Yu of Xia opened the treasuries of Mount Zhong, he spoke not of a Celestial Venerable. When Emperor Wen of the Han visited the Recluse of the Riverbank (Heshang Gong), there were entirely no traces left. Examining Pan Yue's *Record of Guanzhong*, Ji Kang's and Huangfu Mi's *Biographies of Eminent Scholars*, and Ban Gu's *History of the Han: Biography of Emperor Wen*, as well as inquiring of the elders, there is no event of Heshang Gong binding grass to make a hut or displaying supernatural transformations. These are all false and baseless—how can they be relied upon? Moreover, regarding your claim that the Dao is called a ‘teaching’: generally speaking, for establishing a teaching, there must first be a master. Since the Daoist school has no definite master, how can it be called a Daoist teaching? For three reasons, the Daoist school cannot be separately designated a teaching. First, speaking in terms of Zhou and Confucius: the two men, the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, were merely transmitters of the teaching and could not call themselves masters of the teaching. Why is this so? Because the teaching was the teaching of the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs; the masters of the teaching were indeed the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs. Second, examining the ‘Treatise on Arts and Literature’ of the *Book of the Former Han*, which discusses ancient and modern canons and records, it classifies a total of nine schools: the first is the Ru school, and the second is the Daoist school. The Dao has no separate teaching; it is entirely subsumed within the nine schools. Based on this, it does not establish a separate teaching. Why? Because it lacks a master of the teaching. If you say Laozi is the master of the teaching, Laozi was not an emperor or king; how could he be called a master of the teaching? If you say there is separately a Celestial Venerable who is the master of the Daoist teaching, examining the orthodox scriptures of the Five Classics, from the Three Sovereigns down to the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, none of them said that there was separately a Celestial Venerable dwelling in heaven who transmitted teachings and spread transformation as the master of the Daoist school. These are all forged scriptures from the Three Zhangs onward, falsely claiming that a Celestial Venerable above is the master of the Dao. Since there is no master, how can it be called a teaching? Third, Yao Dao'an composed the *Treatise on the Two Teachings*, establishing only the Confucian teaching and the Buddhist teaching, without establishing a Daoist teaching. Why so? The Confucians take the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs as masters of the teaching. The *Book of Documents* says: ‘The books of the Three Sovereigns are called the Three Tombs; the books of the Five Thearchs are called the Five Canons.’ They used the teaching of the Tombs and Canons to transform all under heaven. The *Mao Commentary to the Classic of Poetry* says: ‘The wind moves them; teaching transforms them.’ The Tombs and Canons are the teaching, and the thearchs and sovereigns are the masters; therefore, Confucianism can be called a teaching. The Buddha is the King of Dharma; the twelve divisions of scriptures he expounded spread transformation across all under heaven. There is a teaching and there is a master. Furthermore, the Buddha is a person who transcends the world, and his scriptures are teachings that transcend the world; hence he can be called a master of the teaching. The Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs are worldly rulers, and the Three Tombs and Five Canons are worldly teachings. First, one transforms with worldly teachings; later, one transforms with teachings that transcend the world. Affairs are exhausted in this. The containment of phenomena is complete, and the conditions are fulfilled. Why must there separately be a Daoist teaching? Moreover, the *Mao Commentary to the Classic of Poetry* says: ‘The affairs of a single state tied to the basis of a single person are called the wind.’ The Son of Heaven has the wind and can transform all under heaven; therefore it can be called a teaching. The Dao is not the Son of Heaven and cannot possess the wind. Since it has no wind, how could it spread transformation? Lacking the wind to transform, it cannot be separately called a teaching. Judging by this, there are only two teachings. Even if it is claimed that the Dao exists, it is governed and subsumed within the Ru school. Furthermore, Laozi was a worldling who had not severed afflictions; when he spoke, he merely described the teachings and transformations of the Three Sovereigns. Heshang Gong said: ‘In the age of the Great Dao, through wuwei one nourished the spirit, and through having no business one pacified the people.’ This means there was no contrivance and no artificial making; when the sun rose, they arose; when the sun set, they rested—this was called the Great Dao. There was no separate Celestial Venerable dwelling in heaven. This implies that the Dao is a rational principle, a harmonious qi, also without physical form. Moreover, Immortal Lord Ge said: ‘My master’s surname was Boyuecong and his style was Weināhe; he was a man of the Western Regions.’ He also did not say that the Celestial Venerable was his master.”