北山錄 10.2.5

10.2.5

"To attack heterodoxy brings harm indeed!" (The schools that force strained interpretations harm the correct meaning.) How could it be otherwise? Observing ancient and modern compositions (writings of the inner teaching), many first disparage the Duke of Zhou and Confucius and demote Laozi and Zhuangzi, considering this to show literary capability (such as the prefaces to commentaries on Hetuvidyā). This is the reason why they open the doors and admit robbers, provoking enemies and inciting factions (to incite means to instruct; recently, angering Daoism while also criticizing Confucianism is instructing them, so Daoism and Confucianism form factions to give support). Even a single bandit must not be treated lightly, how much less can one face the brunt of two bandits uniting? If the enemy indeed arrives, valiant and martial, taking stubborn rigidity as their shields and slander and abuse as their spears and pikes, angry and resentful, seething with glared eyes (glared eyes denote anger), this causes the foolish to laugh and clap their hands, while the benevolent are sorrowful and pained (laughing means smiling; clapping means dancing; the utterly foolish hear it and laugh at it; sorrowful means grieving and hating; the benevolent see it and abhor it). Wishing to drum them down and suppress them, or waving feathers to beckon them (recently wishing to muster momentum to suppress them, or raising feathers to summon them, both are impossible), this is truly hard to achieve. Now, a single spark from the flue of a stove begins on creeping weeds and blazes up into the palace halls; a single outburst from a wicked man begins among the mediocre and ascends to slander the sages and worthies (the fire from the flue of a stove can burn the palace chambers; does the slander of a wicked man fear the sages and worthies?). How can one not be truly cautious? (Not being without means how could one not be cautious in speech?) An ancient saying goes: "If one behaves without propriety, it will surely rebound upon oneself" (one who respects others will surely be respected by others; one who insults others will also have others as enemies). Formerly, Lü Bu (a general under Cao Cao of Wei) forced Yuan Huan to compose a letter reviling Liu Bei. Huan said: "Only virtue can humiliate a person; I have never heard of doing so with revilement. If he is indeed a gentleman, he will not feel disgraced by the general's words (the way of the gentleman is that when offended, he does not retaliate); if he is truly a petty person, and retaliates with the general's intent, then the disgrace lies here and not there." Therefore, when birds are desperate they peck; when beasts are desperate they seize (pronounced *fu*; the *Shuowen* says: contending to grasp an object); when people are desperate they deceive; when horses are desperate they bolt. He who can prevent pecking and bolting from arising—is he not of the supreme wisdom alone? Therefore, when our teaching meets with decline and injury, who does not form factions to practice further insult? Though their expressions are genial on the outside, their bowels are knotted within (injury means damage; insult means contempt; as the image teaching has fallen into decline, who does not join in factions to despise and scorn it? The scholars of Confucianism and Daoism, though deferential and obedient on the outside, inwardly harbor malice and jealousy). Yet if one acts resolutely to cultivate virtue, working invisibly and transforming silently, passing over their shortcomings and taking pleasure in their strengths, perhaps one in a hundred will taste the richness of our Way and naturally change their seats (towards those two teachings, merely practice kindness and virtue, promote that teaching's strengths, and overlook that teaching's insufficiencies; within a hundred people, perhaps by chance one will taste the Way and partake of the breeze, naturally turning their hearts toward it). One who travels to the Land of the Naked removes his garments to conform (when Yu arrived at the Land of the Naked, he happily took off his clothes, which was conforming to their customs). Moreover, people today are people of this land, and Confucianism and Daoism are the teachings of this country. Even if their customs recognize that nothing surpasses us, each will still temporarily bias toward their own school (to bias means to form factions; temporarily means for the time being). Bristling like scales and butting like horns, how could one not praise and follow them, be gentle and accommodating to them, pacify and guide them, so that they submit with pleasure? Does it really consist in common verbal recriminations? (This is what is called: "He who excels at war does not form battle ranks; he who excels at closing has no bolts"). If one worries that their doctrines do not reach the ultimate and that people will not swiftly shift their allegiance to our Way, yet the sages also responded to each capacity to guide beings. For instance, the Buddha expounded the merits of humans and gods for Trapuṣa and Bhallika; could the Great Sage not have wished that everyone entirely reach quiescence and cessation? Yet residing in that circumstance, it would not have been beneficial (even if expounding the ultimate teaching, if it does not accord with their faculties, it will not benefit others). Could the Old Sage Laozi not have wished that all entirely reach the vast emptiness? In the classic of two chapters he composed (the two chapters on the Way and Virtue), he concurrently discussed governing the family and state, so that those who save the world would not suppress or discard them (though expounding the Way and Virtue, he did not discard the methods of governing the state). Could Confucius not have wished that people all entirely reach the imperial way? In the Six Canons he cultivated, he also preserved the hegemons and kings, aiming to encompass them comprehensively without omission. Therefore, nothing covers greater than Heaven and Earth, and nothing transforms greater than the sages; and in truth, the two teachings toward us support without harming; and we toward the two teachings unify and have a return. Why is it that those who drink pure mellow wine do not dispute, while those who chew on the dregs dispute? (The consummate persons and gentlemen reach the same goal by different routes; the frivolous and petty persons bicker over right and wrong and form factions). Yet most people do not believe in their own foolishness, and are gleeful about things they can deceive themselves about (not knowing one's own foolishness and criticizing what one cannot reach). Ignorant of cinnabar and malachite, they love to praise or decry painted patterns; ignorant of lead and ink, they love to disparage or extol seal and clerical scripts; ignorant of rites and music, they love to alter standards and laws; ignorant of the *gong* and *yu* tones, they love to appraise melodies and pitchpipes. If anyone observes these words of mine, could they be without blame? My engagement with the profundity is privately to satisfy myself (seeking blame; *zhu* means seeing; fearing that later generations seeing the records of engaging with the profundity will blame oneself, now I merely follow my own disposition and write this). I dare not address it to gentlemen. On Shi Wen's zither (Wen Ruhai says he was an ancient adept of the zither), praise and blame both arrived—would he thus not play it? (He would not refrain from playing because of people's praise or blame). Grand Master Qu at fifty knew the wrongs of forty-nine years (Grand Master Qu Yuan of Wei, styled Boyu, saw a plowman and asked: "Between the black ox and the red ox, which has greater strength?" The plowman did not answer, but drove the oxen far away and then answered: "Both oxen are equally strong; if I answered unequally, I feared there would be resentment." Qu Yuan said: "A single farmer still fears the resentment of two oxen. Now at fifty, I know the wrongs of forty-nine years"). Confucius at sixty knew the wrongs of fifty-nine years. As for a petty person like me, it remains only to grow senile and close the coffin lid (closing the coffin means putting the lid on). The lord of Qi hung up a reward to await remonstrance, fearing lapses in governance (King Wei of Qi hung up a reward saying: "Those who remonstrate with us face to face will receive the highest reward; those who submit written remonstrance will receive the middle reward; those who criticize in the marketplace and court will receive the lowest reward"). The Han chancellor demoted his own rank to stop remonstrances (Xiao He leased the land within the imperial park to merchants contrary to the law; Emperor Gaozu was furious, and He thereupon took off his cap and walked barefoot to plead guilty, upon which the emperor released him), examining whether he could abide by his duty.