鐔津文集 14.6

Master Han's arguments are narrow and shallow, falling far short of the utmost Dao of Confucianism that can be debated. When I first saw his title, 'Tracing the Dao to Its Source' (Yuandao), I examined it slowly: his assertion that humaneness and righteousness are fixed designations, whereas the Dao and virtue are empty positions. Investigating his intent, precisely because humaneness and righteousness inevitably exist in human affairs, he then said that humaneness and righteousness are fixed designations; and because the Dao and virtue inherently have no [fixed locus] but are attained by relying on humaneness, he then said that the Dao and virtue are empty positions. This explanation merely shows that Master Han's contemplation was not rigorous. Now, if one attains the Dao and virtue by relying on humaneness and righteousness, then were it not for humaneness and righteousness, there would naturally be no Dao or virtue. If one realizes that empty position, then humaneness and righteousness indeed exist; since the Dao and virtue are proceeded from and fulfilled by them, how could they be 'empty'? Since the Dao and virtue are already regarded as empty positions, this Dao cannot be traced to its source; why must he entitle it 'Tracing the Dao to Its Source'? The 'Canon of Shun' says: 'Reverently distribute the five teachings'—this refers to humaneness, righteousness, and the five constant virtues. If Master Han truly specialized exclusively in humaneness and righteousness, he should have entitled his work 'Tracing the Teachings to Their Source' (Yuanjiao), and that would have been proper. This also shows Master Han's failure to examine the classics. He said: 'Universal love is called humaneness; acting appropriately is called righteousness; proceeding from these is called the Dao; being self-sufficient without relying on the external is called virtue.' Now, the Dao, virtue, humaneness, and righteousness—these four are the great fundamentals by which the sages established their teachings. Their sequence and precedence possess appropriateness and principle; how could they be altered? Even in the minor senses of the Dao and virtue—such as the Dao meaning talents and arts, and virtue meaning performing goodness—the Dao and virtue still occupy the foremost position. When people speak of 'the dao of humaneness and righteousness,' they are merely speaking in general terms, adopting convenient phrasing where 'dao' happens to follow. From antiquity to the present, there has never been a case where these four appear in succession and yet the Dao and virtue are placed last. The 'Quli' says: 'The Dao, virtue, humaneness, and righteousness are not perfected without ritual.' The 'Shuogua' says: 'Harmonizing with and according with the Dao and virtue, and ordering through righteousness.' The Analects says: 'Set your aspiration upon the Dao, rely on virtue, lean upon humaneness, and play in the arts (yi; here glossed as righteousness).' The 'Liyun' says: 'Righteousness is the distribution of arts and the regulation of humaneness; harmonizing in arts and lecturing on humaneness, those who attain it are strong.' This clarifies that 'playing in righteousness' is indeed the profound intent of the sage in utilizing righteousness. Yangzi said: 'Guide them by the Dao; attain them by virtue; humanize them by humaneness; make them appropriate by righteousness.' Although Confucians do not adopt the assertions of Laozi, Confucians also say: 'After the Dao comes virtue; after virtue comes humaneness; after humaneness comes righteousness.' The Dao first opens and penetrates. (Explanation: 'Opening and penetrating' is just what the Xici means by 'opening up things and accomplishing tasks,' and also by 'penetrating the aspirations of the world.') Only by opening and penetrating does one obtain its principle; therefore, virtue comes next. Obtaining principle constitutes goodness, which benefits things through kindness and love; thus humaneness comes next. Once there is humaneness and love, one must exercise judgment and fit what is appropriate; thus righteousness comes next again. The Dao, virtue, humaneness, and righteousness exist by depending upon one another. Their root and branches, principle and coherence, are like this. When the sages composed the classics, they determined their sequence precisely to preserve their great meaning. Now Master Han contravenes the classics, placing humaneness and righteousness first and putting the Dao and virtue last; his conjectural words, when compared with the great opening and penetrating to attain principle, are they not upside down, perverse, circuitous, and nonsensical? However, the Dao and virtue in Confucianism certainly have their minor and major aspects. The minor aspects are as in the separate meaning in the 'Quli', where one interpretation says the Dao means talents and arts, while virtue means performing goodness within oneself; this is one such case. The major aspects are as in the Xici: 'One yin and one yang are called the Dao. That which continues it is good; that which completes it is the nature. The humane person sees it and calls it humaneness; the wise person sees it and calls it wisdom. The common people use it daily without knowing it; hence the Dao of the noble person is rare.' The 'Shuogua' says: 'In ancient times, when the sages made the Changes, they intended thereby to accord with the principle of the nature and destiny. They established the Dao of Heaven, called yin and yang; they established the Dao of Earth, called the soft and the firm; they established the Dao of Man, called humaneness and righteousness.' The Zhongyong says: 'What Heaven imparts is called the nature; following the nature is called the Dao; cultivating the Dao is called teaching.' This is another such case. The Xici considers that which is subtle within yin and yang to be the Dao. Humans receive the Dao to complete their nature. Although the humane and the wise rely on the Dao to perceive humaneness and wisdom, they end up stagnating and clinging to the perspectives of humaneness and wisdom. Although the common people use the Dao daily, they are completely ignorant that it is the Dao. Therefore, the sagely Dao being manifest and bright becomes obscure and rare (some texts have 'decayed' for 'obscure'). Yet how could the Dao of the sages be restricted merely to humaneness and righteousness? The 'Shuogua' regards the principle of nature and destiny as the most spiritual principle. Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things all partake in it. Therefore, when the sages composed the Changes and doubled the hexagrams, they followed this principle, thereby establishing the Dao of the three powers of Heaven, Earth, and Man. The Dao of Heaven provides the beginning, so there are yin and yang; the Dao of Earth completes form, so there are the soft and the firm; the Dao of Man embodies feelings and nature, so there are humaneness and righteousness. These all exist by relying on the Dao. The Zhongyong considers following this nature to be called the Dao, and cultivating this Dao to be called teaching. Teaching is humaneness, righteousness, and the five constant virtues. How could the Dao be confined to humaneness and righteousness, and could there truly be no Dao prior to humaneness and righteousness? Cases like the 'Shuogua', the Analects, the alternative meaning in the 'Quli', or Laozi and Yangzi—what they call the Dao and virtue are all this Great Dao. Yet this Dao and virtue: in the Rites, it is the Mean (Zhongyong) and sincerity and brightness; in the Classic of Documents, it is the Grand Plan (Hongfan) and the August Ultimate (Huangji); in the Classic of Poetry, it is 'having no depravity in thoughts'; in the Spring and Autumn Annals, it is the Great Middle Way of the succession of sages. Confucius said to Zengzi: 'Shen! My Dao is bound together by a single thread.' Zengzi said: 'Yes.' He also said to Zigong: 'No, I bind it together with a single thread.' But because disciples asked about it, and Zengzi considered those junior disciples not yet capable of fully fathoming the Dao, he therefore instructed them with what was near to the Dao, answering them: 'The Master's Dao is loyalty and reciprocity (zhong and shu), and nothing more.' Zengzi was probably using the idea from the Zhongyong that 'loyalty and reciprocity are not far from the Dao.' Later Confucians failed to comprehend this, and directly took loyalty and reciprocity to be the single thread; this is an error! The Xici says: 'The movements of the world are steadfast in unity.' It also says: 'They arrive at the same destination through a hundred different deliberations.' The 'Liyun' says: 'Ritual must be rooted in the Great Unity.' The Zhongyong says: 'Its existence as a thing is unfragmented; its generation of things is unfathomable.' Comparing and exemplifying through these, how could one arbitrarily take loyalty and reciprocity to be that single thread? Yan Yuan sighed deeply: 'I look up to it and it grows higher; I bore into it and it grows harder; I behold it in front of me, and suddenly it is behind me.'

The Master systematically and skillfully guides people forward. Yanzi was referring precisely to the Sage teaching people by means of this single thread of the Way. Systematically having its proper order—this is what is meant by skillfully advancing and encouraging people. This clarifies that the Sage took only the sincere and luminous Great Way, opening up the single principle, as his teaching. It is fundamentally the root of all goods and the hundred conducts. The Zhongyong says: 'Centrality is the great root under Heaven.' Is this not so? Here [Han Yu] suddenly takes these three roots, skimps on the standard classics, and forces benevolence and righteousness to serve as his Way and Virtue. In the model of the Sage, is this not deficient? The Zhongyong says: 'I know why the Way is not practiced: the worthy exceed it, and the unworthy fall short of it.' This means that the worthy and wise neglect the Way and thereby exceed it, while the foolish and unworthy keep distant from the Way and thereby fall short of it. Hanzi forgets the root; does he not exceed it? Lightly discarding the Supreme Way while seeking to trace the origin of the Way, and wishing for the Way to be clearly argued—this too is delusion. What the Xici calls 'the benevolent and the wise' refers to obscuring the Way and stubbornly clinging to one's views, which brings about the decline and dimming of the Sage's Way so that it is not fully manifested. When Hanzi restricts benevolence and righteousness to make them his Way and Virtue, it is precisely what the Xici was concerned about. Now, righteousness is the good within human feelings, yet it is secondary to the Way and Virtue. Where feelings are concerned, it is rare that they are invariably correct and never err. Therefore the Analects says: 'In major virtues one must not transgress the boundary; in minor virtues one may come and go.' It also says: 'Ci exceeds, and Shang falls short.' And it says: 'Assuming a virtuous appearance while actions contravene it, resting therein without doubt.' The Biaoji records that the Master said: 'There are three kinds of benevolence: having the same efficacy as benevolence yet different feelings. When having the same efficacy as benevolence, their benevolence cannot yet be known. When having the same faults as benevolence, only then can their benevolence be known.' Zhuangzi said: 'At the gates of the feudal lords, benevolence and righteousness are preserved.' Can one wish to rely solely on benevolence and righteousness and consider them sufficient? Even Zigong and Zixia, who were worthies of benevolence and righteousness, still had their exceeding and falling short; how much more so those who do not equal Ci and Shang—how could they be counted in later generations? How could one not investigate the great root to teach people, so that they may correct their goodness through the Way and Virtue? The Zhongyong says: 'The Way is not practiced!' This is the Sage lamenting that people are not taught in accordance with the Supreme Way and Supreme Virtue. Some might say: 'When Hanzi places benevolence and righteousness first and the Way and Virtue second, it is because he focuses exclusively on human affairs and wishes to distinguish them from the Way and Virtue of Buddhist and Daoist emptiness and nothingness.' I reply: In ancient times, the Sages created the Yijing to regulate the heavenly way and human affairs, and emptiness and nothingness were foremost as their origin. If one rejects the Way of emptiness and nothingness, then the Ten Wings and the sixty-four hexagrams would not be the books of the Confucians, and the nine sages who cultivated the Yijing—such as Fuxi, King Wen, and Confucius—would also not be the ancestral masters of the Confucians. Could Confucius not be an ancestral master of the Confucians? If so, then Hanzi never read the Yijing. The Yijing is especially the greatest classic of the Confucians; if one does not know the Yijing yet is called a Confucian of the sages and worthies, I do not believe it. When he says that Laozi belittled benevolence and righteousness, he was not slandering them; his vision was simply petty. One who sits in a well and looks at the sky, saying the sky is small, does not thereby indict the sky. But Laozi said: 'When the Way is lost, there is virtue; when virtue is lost, there is benevolence; when benevolence is lost, there is righteousness; when righteousness is lost, there is propriety.' This truly does not disparage benevolence and righteousness [as petty]; it is merely that when the Way and Virtue, compared with benevolence and righteousness, are employed for governance, there are heights and declines, and their merits have superiority and inferiority. To clarify this, nothing is better than comparing it with the Liyun. Confucius said: 'When the Great Way was practiced, all under Heaven was shared for the public good. They selected the worthy and capable, fostered trust, and cultivated harmony. Therefore people did not treat only their own parents as parents, nor treat only their own children as children.' He also said: 'Conspiracies were stifled and did not arise; theft, robbery, rebellion, and treason did not occur. Therefore the outer doors remained open and were not shut. This was called the Grand Harmony.' Is this not superior, with the Great Way and Virtue serving as governance? He also said: 'Now that the Great Way has hidden itself, all under Heaven belongs to families. Each treats only their own parents as parents, each treats only their own children as children.' And he said: 'Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, King Cheng, and the Duke of Zhou were selected because of this. Among these six gentlemen, there was none who was not attentive to propriety, so as to make manifest their righteousness, test their faithfulness, show their errors, model benevolence, promote deference, and display constancy to the common people. If there were any who did not act thus, those in authority would be deposed, and the multitude would consider them a calamity. This is called the Modest Prosperity.' In governance, is this not inferior when benevolence and righteousness are compared to the Way and Virtue? Such being the case, why should only Laozi belittle benevolence and righteousness? Why does Hanzi neglect his own Confucian classics and heedlessly disparage Laozi? Furthermore, he says: 'What Laozi calls the Way and Virtue leaves out benevolence and righteousness to speak of them; it is merely one man's private talk.' This remark of Hanzi's is precisely where he is exceedingly unjust. What Laozi spoke of was the Great Way. Can the Way truly be private? What is called the Great Way—how could it be solely the Way of Laozi? It is the Great Way of the Three Sovereigns, the Five Thearchs, and the succession of sages. Hanzi did not realize this; he merely saw Laozi's Daoist school as having made its own lineage distinct from Confucianism, and so he wished to suppress it. As for dividing Laozi out to establish the Daoist school, that began with the writings of the Sima clan, and Ban Gu reinforced it. As for Laozi himself, he was in fact an ancient Confucian. In the Zhou, he served as the archivist of the royal library and was well-versed in the affairs of the sages' spiritual standards. Therefore, regarding propriety, Confucius said: 'I have heard it from Lao Dan.' This was because Laozi had once delved into the books of the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs, grasped the essential tenets of the Great Way, and then authored his own book to elucidate it. Hanzi could not weigh the root and regulate the branch; merely seeking to reject him, he strove to seize the title of Confucian. Is this not too superficial? The Liyun says: 'The practice of the Great Way and the heroes of the Three Dynasties—Qiu has not reached them, yet my aspirations lie there.' Zheng Xuan commented: 'The Great Way refers to the era of the Five Thearchs.' However, other books mostly refer to the Great Way as the Way of the Sovereigns, whereas Zheng alone referred to the era of the Five Thearchs. His meaning was that the ways of both the Sovereigns and the Thearchs are mutually continuous. In the Basic Annals of the Five Thearchs, the Yellow Thearch stands at their head. Yet the Yellow Thearch, along with Fuxi and Shennong, are in fact the Three Sovereigns, and the classics and histories merely refer to them as Thearchs because 'Sovereign', 'Thearch', and 'King' were also interchangeably used in antiquity. Therefore, when Zheng referred to the era of the Five Thearchs, the Sovereigns were included therein. It is only that the Yellow Thearch, being of the Three Sovereigns, stood at the beginning of the Five Thearchs and preceded Yao and Shun; thus although the root and branches differ slightly,

Yet the Great Way is one. The "Xici" says: "The Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun simply wore their robes and the world was well governed." This is how it is. Kong Anguo called the books of the Three Sovereigns the *Three Fen*, which speak of the Great Way; and the books of the Five Thearchs the *Five Dian*, which speak of the constant Way. Kong Yingda rectified its meaning, saying: "The Sovereigns were superior to the Thearchs. Their Way was not merely one that could be practiced constantly; it was also greater than the constant. Hence they are called *Fen*." This was merely a contrasting comparison. Although there was a slight difference in superiority, all were the Great Way and all could be practiced constantly. He also cited the passage in the "Liyun" on the practice of the Great Way as referring to the time of the Five Thearchs to corroborate this. Yet of the books of the Five Thearchs and Three Sovereigns, none reaches the height of the *Yijing*. When one compares the *Yijing* with the *Laozi*, how could their Way be different? For instance, the "Xici" says: "The movement of all under Heaven is rectified in the One"; and the *Laozi* says: "Lords and kings obtain the One to become the standard for all under Heaven." Such is the broad outline. If one examines the principle of non-thinking and non-action, and the discourse on the transformations of yin and yang, how could both books not be identical? Ban Gu's *Hanshu* says: "The lineage of Laozi probably issued from the scribal officials." It also says: "It accords with Yao's ability to yield and the modest humility of the *Yijing*." This is what it refers to. When I was young, I heard from an elder who said: "Laozi was an heir to the Yellow Emperor." And when I saw in the *Zhuangzi* where Guangchengzi says, "One who attains my Way is a Sovereign above and a King below," I believed all the more that Laozi truly inherited from the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs. This makes it clear that Laozi's Way and virtue are indeed the root of the Way, virtue, benevolence, and righteousness of the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs in Confucianism. Clear and manifest as it is, how could it have come from the private theory of Laozi alone? If one must consider Laozi to be wrong, then the *Yijing* and "Liyun" might as well be burned, and King Wen and Confucius would be seen as demolishers of benevolence and righteousness! Among the earlier Confucians who were fond of disputation, who could compare to Mencius? In Mencius's time, Laozi's book had already appeared for more than a hundred years, and Zhuangzi was a contemporary of Mencius. If it could have been rejected, Mencius would have already rejected it; why wait for Confucians of later generations to argue against it? Sima Qian said: "Laozi's Way is concise and easy to practice; it requires few matters and achieves great merit." Some Confucians disagree, criticizing him for putting Huang-Lao first and the Six Classics second; this too comes from not understanding his intention. In the Grand Historian's book, Confucius is given a "Hereditary House" (*shijia*), while Laozi is merely given an "Arranged Biography" (*liezhuan*). How could this be said to venerate Laozi over Confucius? It is because Laozi's Way is the root of Confucianism; putting him first was solely to honor that root, not arbitrarily to rank the man ahead. Zichang's words are subtle and profound! Han Yu could not ponder deeply or examine far into the past; hastily positioning himself among the early Confucians, he claimed: "When the Way of Zhou declined, Confucius passed away. There was the burning of books under the Qin, Huang-Lao under the Han, and Buddhism between the Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Wei, and Sui. Those who spoke of the Way, virtue, benevolence, and righteousness entered Yang Zhu if not Mozi; entered Mozi if not Laozi; entered Laozi if not the Buddha. Entering the one meant departing the other. Those who entered it took it as master; those who departed it treated it as a slave. Those who entered it adhered to it; those who departed it defiled it." Alas! How could his words be so disrespectful? When he speaks of departing and entering, enslaving and defiling, does he mean departing from Yang and Mo, or departing from the Buddha and Laozi? How could the Buddha and Laozi ever bring people to despise and debase them like this? If lay practitioners of the Buddha-dharma truly enter the Way with a sincere heart, in the long run they will accomplish extraordinary and wondrous states of worthies and sages; in the immediate present, their bodies and minds will be pure, tranquil, compassionate, and benevolent, making them people of supreme goodness. Living in their local communities, people respect them and dare not deceive them. This is also something commonly seen before human eyes. How could there be the humiliation of those who depart enslaving and defiling them? In antiquity there were emperors and kings who entered and participated in the Buddha-dharma; from the Eastern Han to the Tang they cannot all be counted. For example, Emperor Taizong of the Tang at Chongfu Temple made a vow, styling himself "Emperor and Bodhisattva Precept Disciple"; and Xuanzong devoted himself to the purity of Buddhism and engaged in its cultivation. These also issued from the Buddhist teachings; were they truly enslaved or defiled? Han Yu merely took Emperor Wu of Liang to be an extreme case, unaware that he was thereby insulting his own dynasty's imperial ancestors! How could this show any discernment? Nevertheless, regarding the affairs of Emperor Wu of Liang, although my *Yuanjiao* offered a brief evaluation in accommodation to worldly views, it never engaged in vehement censure. If we examine his renunciation of the throne and his person: from the perspective of the world it was an excess, but from the perspective of the Way it was a virtue. This is not something ordinary human sentiments can readily understand; only heaven, earth, and the divine spirits know it. Thus, at the moment when Emperor Wu of Liang renounced his person, the earth shook for him. This was truly an extraordinary event, yet the court historians did not record it, and later generations became all the more ignorant of it, failing to recognize Emperor Wu of Liang's profound and superior intent. His setting of resolve was certainly not something ordinary people do; one cannot regard him with contempt. Since Han Yu banished and rejected Yang, Mo, the Buddha, and Laozi in such a manner, yet his "Shishuo" (Discourse on the Teacher) says: "Confucius took Lao Dan as his teacher in ritual." His "Du Mo" (Reading Mozi) says: "Confucius would certainly use Mozi, and Mozi would certainly use Confucius; if they did not use each other, they would not be worthy of being Confucius and Mo." His account of conduct for Lord Prefect Ma of Jiangzhou says: "When the Grand Minister of Works passed away, he pricked his arm to draw blood and wrote more than a thousand words of Buddhist sutras to pray for requiting blessings." It also says: "In observing mourning, he possessed conduct surpassing other men." His prefaces praising Dadian and Gaoxian also both extolled the Buddha-dharma. How could Han Yu's judgments of right and wrong be so unsettled, contradicting themselves from start to finish like this? This not only deludes oneself, but also misleads and encumbers later scholars. If the Buddha and Laozi were indeed right and Han Yu declared them wrong, later learners—failing to discern this, and seeing only that Han Yu was a great Confucian whose prose was refined—emulate him and declare them wrong. If Yang and Mo were indeed wrong and Han Yu declared them right, students likewise imitate him and declare them right. Now, taking what is right to be wrong destroys people's good hearts; taking what is wrong to be right leads people to learn what is wrong. If this ethos of destroying goodness is transmitted to later generations, misleading the very foundation of human minds is no small matter! It diminishes and cuts away unseen virtue (*yinde*), while invisibly multiplying one's faults. If retribution does not fall upon one's own body, it must fall upon one's spirit and one's descendants; this is indeed something to be dreaded in future generations! There are Confucians siding with Han Yu who say: "Confucius merely learned ritual from Lao Dan; he did not learn his Way." I say: Not so. Ritual is also the Way. The "Yueji" says: "Great ritual shares its rhythm with heaven and earth." It also says: "Being centered and correct without depravity is the substance of ritual." The "Liyun" says:

Ritual must be rooted in the Great One (Taiyi). Central correctness and the Great One are the essential substance and root of ritual; ceremonies, regulations, and hierarchy are the cultural branches of ritual. If a sage merely studied the cultural branches without investigating the essential substance and root, how could he be a sage? Only a sage is truly able to fully understand both substance and culture, root and branch, and to put them into practice with careful discernment. Scholars merely know the superficial matter of Zengzi asking about Confucius studying ritual under Lao Dan; they do not know the profound clarity of Confucius inquiring about ritual in the Shiji's biography of Lao Dan. Although that Han Yu studied the literature and expressions of Confucianism, how could he know the reason why ritual is as it is? He said: 'I have heard that in ancient times there were four classes among the people, but today there are six. In ancient times there was one teaching, but today there are two. There is one farming household, but six households eating grain; there is one artisan household, but six households using utensils; there is one merchant household, but six households relying on commodities. How could the people not be impoverished and turn to banditry?' Now, as for what is called 'teachings,' did they emerge alongside Heaven and Earth with their numbers definitively fixed? They too were created by sages adapting to the times and according to what was fitting, in order to assist the body of governance. Yet as past and present continually alternate and the times grow ever more varied, it is not necessarily the case that a single teaching could fully provide what is fitting for all myriad generations. Formerly, Shun came at the end of the Five Thearchs; the times were gradually declining and people were becoming increasingly deceitful. The sage deemed it fitting, and thus established the Five Teachings and instituted the Five Punishments, commanding officers respectively to preside over them; Xie became Minister of Instruction, exclusively propagating the Five Teachings. This was then bequeathed to later generations to guide people to good, and it was from this that there came to be teachings in the realm. Arriving at the era of the Duke of Zhou, it was again during the period of the Three Kings; the times had declined further, people had grown more deceitful, and the realm was even harder to govern. The sage deemed it fitting, and thus broadened the methods of teaching to make them complete. What the world calls the teaching of the Confucians arose with the Duke of Zhou. Thereafter, Confucius transmitted and recorded it in the Odes, Documents, and the Six Classics (some say the Six Arts), and the Confucian teaching flourished all the more. At the end of the Zhou, the governance of the Three Dynasties fell into decline; good people relied on stratagems and wasted their intelligence, while bad people exploited the laws and committed frauds. The world succumbed to degradation, wearing out life and harming their true nature without knowing how to govern themselves. Laozi, suiting his times, further used the discourse on the Dao and Virtue of the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs to remedy these defects, and thus the teaching of Laozi arose in the realm. During the Han dynasties, compared to the end of the Zhou, things were yet more depleted and deceitful; the worthy and the foolish were equally ensnared by cunning and trickery, dividing the world between them. Although one in ten thousand might practice the sayings of Laozi, they could not deeply penetrate the subtle mysteries of nature and destiny, deduce the workings of the spiritual intellect to rescue the accumulated delusions of the world, or point out the reasons for life and death. Thus the teaching of the Buddha arose in the realm. Yangzi said: 'The Way is not innate from nature; it is created in response to the times; its additions and subtractions can be known.' How could this not be so? From the Zhou, Qin, Han, and Wei dynasties onward, shallowness and deceitfulness grew daily more rampant, accumulating for later generations. Heaven perhaps provided the Buddhist teaching to respond to these circumstances, wishing them to work together to save the world. Otherwise, why would Heaven and humanity have resonated with it so long and so abundantly as this? Han Yu was stuck in antiquity without understanding change, and failed to realize that the Buddhist teaching was suited to the times and fit for use; he worried that the Buddha and Laozi were placed above Confucianism, insisting on wishing to be like the Three Dynasties and eliminate them. This was truly an extreme lack of thought on his part. In the time of the Three Sovereigns there were no teachings; in the time of the Five Thearchs there were no Confucians. By the time teachings and Confucians existed, the times and human affairs were no longer like the ancient past. Suppose during the time of Yu of Xia someone had said: 'In the governance of antiquity, there was transformation without teaching; through transformation the people were pure. I wish, as in the era of the Three Sovereigns, to employ transformation and not employ teaching.' Under those circumstances, would having no teaching have been permissible? In the time of the Zhou and Qin, someone might also have said: 'Governance of antiquity used teachings that were simple; governance today uses Confucians and is cumbersome. When it is cumbersome, the people toil and become negligent; I wish, as in the era of the Two Thearchs, to employ teachings and not employ Confucians.' At that time, would having no Confucians have been permissible? However, judging according to the times, it was certainly impossible to do without teachings or without Confucians. Compared to Han Yu's discourse of wishing to have neither Buddha nor Laozi in later generations, how is it any different? Han Yu said: 'Today their words say: Why not live in the inaction of high antiquity? This is like blaming someone wearing furs in winter by saying: Why not wear pueraria hemp cloth, which is easier? It is like blaming a hungry person eating by saying: Why not drink, which is easier?' Han Yu also knew that later generations could not exclusively employ the Dao of high antiquity, and ridiculed those who spoke of it for not understanding what is fitting for the times. Just when it was benefiting later generations, Han Yu wished to have neither Buddha nor Laozi; why did he contradict himself by not understanding what was fitting for his times? Was it that he was partisan, or did he deliberately blind himself so that he simply would not see? As for the regulation of the four classes of people and the consumption expenses of the six households, I have discussed this in detail in my Inquiry into the Teachings (Yuanjiao). Now comparing it further with recent events: among those who governed the realm since the Zhou and Han and nearly attained the Kingly Way, who could compare to Taizong of the Tang? During the Zhenguan era, the teachings of the Buddha and Laozi were exceptionally flourishing, their people exceptionally numerous, and their consumption exceptionally broad; yet in the legal judgments of the empire, the executions at the end of the year did not exceed thirty persons. Reaching eastward to the sea and southward past the Lingnan ranges, outer doors were nowhere bolted and travelers carried no provisions. In the Kaiyuan era of Xuanzong, the realm was peaceful and well-governed, nearly like the Zhenguan era, and the undertakings of the Buddha and Laozi were even more flourishing. Were there no people of the Buddha and Laozi then? Yet the Tang realm had abundance to spare, and thievery and theft were eradicated. If so, I say that the people's poverty and thievery depend only on the times and governance, and are not caused by the Buddha and Laozi. Moreover, if the Buddhist teaching could have been eliminated, the two Tang emperors would long ago have used their power to eliminate it. How could later people clamor and merely slander each other with empty words? Some say that Han Yu was good at rejecting the Buddha and Laozi and that his merit equaled Yu's. Comparing his empty words with real effects, does he not fall short of Yu? How thoughtless are the words of a madman! He also said: 'Now their teachings say: You must abandon your ruler and ministers, discard your father and son, and forbid the way of mutually sustaining and raising one another, in order to seek what they call purity and tranquil extinction.' This is merely Han Yu detesting that Buddhism teaches people to leave home and uphold the precepts, and consequently placing blame with his words. How could leaving home to cultivate the Way be as cruel as this? One who leaves home renounces the secular and follows the true; a minister may only do so if he obtains permission from his ruler, and a son may only do so if his father consents. It is not rebellious abandonment and treasonous rejection.

Those who maintain the precepts only desire that their disciples purify conduct related to lust and craving. The lay precepts allow for proper spousal union; they do not entirely cut off the way people give birth to and nurture one another. Yet among the burdens of the emotions, the burden of lust is the most perilous. The various teachings instruct people to be cautious of lust and to stifle desire. Even without desires, the world is still chaotic; how much more so when people drown in lust and craving to the point of losing their minds and destroying their bodies! Why must Han [Yu] fear that men and women will not mate? Seeing someone abstain from grain, must he hastily worry that the seeds of the five grains will thereupon be eradicated? Is that not overanxiety? Now, 'purity' refers to the wondrous clarity of the nature; 'quiescence' refers to supreme stillness; 'cessation' refers to ceasing the burdens of the emotions and sensations—it does not mean taking up senseless torpor or lifeless annihilation. When people leave home and keep the precepts, the Buddha simply employs his grand contemplation. The Sage contemplates that in the human world, the enduring relations of heaven and earth, husband and wife, in all their myriad varieties, are all formed through emotional attachment. They are all entirely fleeting, insubstantial, and like a dream. People crave them, cling to them, suffer from them, take pleasure in them, find glory in them, find disgrace in them, pursue them, are corrupted by them, cherish them with affection, and worry over them with afflictions, up to their very deaths without awakening to the fact that these are a great illusion and a great dream. They do not realize that these are a great calamity; and the wondrousness of great serenity and supreme correctness is truly lost! Those who leave home distance themselves from the dust and sever worldly ties; their spirit is concentrated and their thoughts are unified. Naturally, they are easy to awaken and easy to cultivate: seeing the body as having no self, to what could they cling? Seeing the mind as devoid of preconceptions, what could they crave? Seeing conditioned affairs as unworthy of attachment, why must they pursue them? For this reason, they attain great serenity and supreme correctness; superior virtues can be attained, and the sagely Way can be accomplished. An adage says: 'The Master was free from four things: he had no foregone conclusions, no arbitrary predeterminations, no obstinacy, and no egotism.' Laozi said: 'The reason I have great calamity is that I have a body. When I have no body, what calamity do I have?' The underlying cause in these two masters resembles the Buddha's method of leaving home. Only great sages understand and penetrate this. If the sages were merely to pursue the fleeting world, straying without knowing how to escape, spending their lives in vain—how would they differ from ordinary men? Therefore Confucius spoke of it sparingly; it is only subtly preserved in worldly books. As for expounding it extensively, making it brilliantly clear, investigating its subtleties to the utmost, and putting it into practice with efficacy—that was awaiting the supramundane teaching of the Buddha. It was fitting that this should be so. This can be verified by mysterious destiny. Now the Buddha, with his ordination and precept-keeping, specifically wished to warn the world against its fleeting, illusory, great dream, to unveil humanity's karmic obstacles, and to remedy their great calamity of birth and death. Yet Han [Yu] perversely considered this a calamity; donning the armor of his own hindrances, he resolutely rejected the Buddha, claiming that the Buddha deceitfully threw our worldly governance into disorder. Here Han [Yu], on account of his own blindness, slandered the vision of others; the error of his feelings was severe to such a degree! What more could the Buddha say? A strange book records that anciently there was a Land of Dreams, whose people all considered their dreams to be waking. When a truly awakened person tried to instruct them, the falsely awakened people instead all reviled him, saying: 'Why do you deceive us with dreams?' That awakened one fell silent, helpless to do anything. This is quite similar to Han [Yu] and his ilk rejecting the Buddha. Han [Yu]'s poem says: 'Do not grieve over worldly affairs and personal matters; / you must look upon the human realm as comparable to the realm of dreams.' This must have been because he gained a slight awakening through Dadian, and only then began to believe that there is that which transcends the physical form and overcomes oneself through principle. Even so, his previous theories had already spread; though he wished to regret his words, how could it avail? He also said: 'Alas! It was fortunate that it did not appear after the Three Dynasties, and so was not rejected by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius. It was also unfortunate that it did not appear before the Three Dynasties, and so was not rectified by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius.' Here Han [Yu] merely doubted without making a decision. When a gentleman faces an affair, he resolves it by principle; why must he rely on ancient men? Had Han [Yu] served as a general or chief minister, when facing great affairs of state he would still have said: 'This cannot yet be rejected, for it has not been rectified by Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius.' Hesitating like that, the great affairs would have been lost! Of what use would such a general or minister be? Now, the purity of all conduct and the restraint of body and prohibition of wrongs do not arise outside of purification and fasting; the alignment of all virtues toward good governance does not arise outside of rectifying the mind. The Buddha's Dharma for the most part teaches people to purify themselves, observe fasting, and rectify the mind; there is no evil that is not severed, no good that is not cultivated without attachment. In this age and later ages, there should naturally be sages and worthies who discern things according to their own principles. Why must it be verified only when rectified or rejected by the long-dead Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou for it to be believable? Among Confucian books that speak of human nature and destiny, the *Zhongyong* is the most prominent. In the *Zhongyong*, Confucius specifically stated: 'Tested against ghosts and spirits, they leave no doubt; awaiting a sage for a hundred generations, they show no confusion.' To test them against ghosts and spirits without doubt is to know Heaven; to await a sage for a hundred generations without confusion is to know humanity. This necessarily awaits a sage who has great knowledge of nature and destiny to discern the deep obscurities of the *Zhongyong* without delusion. Yet from Confucius until now, nearly a hundred generations have passed. As for exclusively taking nature and destiny as the teaching, only the Buddha's teachings have greatly flourished in China. Could Confucius's subtle meaning also have been awaiting the Buddha to bear witness to it? If not, what sage could there be in these hundred generations whose discourse on nature and destiny has flourished more abundantly and surpassed the Buddha? This makes it clear that Confucius's rectification of the Buddha has already shown its efficacy. Why must Han [Yu] doubt it? He also said: 'What Way is this? I say: This is what I call the Way, not what was previously referred to as the Way of Lao[zi] and the Buddha. Yao transmitted it to Shun; Shun transmitted it to Yu; Yu transmitted it to Tang; Tang transmitted it to Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius; Confucius transmitted it to Meng Ke; and upon Ke's death, it was not transmitted further.' According to this text of Han [Yu], he claimed that these nine sages and worthies—Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke—succeeded one another across generations, saw one another, and transmitted benevolence and righteousness in succession. But how could Yu and Tang, Tang and Wen, Wu, and the Duke of Zhou, the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, or Confucius and Mencius have seen one another and personally received the transmission? One laughs at what classic or commentary Han [Yu] relied upon to make such a rash claim. Mencius said: 'From Shun and Yu to Tang was more than five hundred years; from Tang to King Wen was more than five hundred years; from King Wen to Confucius was more than five hundred years; from Confucius to the present is more than a hundred years.' Thus, the generations separating Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, the Duke of Zhou, Confucius, and Meng Ke were as distant and remote as this! Yet Han [Yu] disregarded canonical texts, blindly venerating what he claimed was transmitted in his desire to make his doctrine prevail by force, unaware of the emptiness of his writing. Can this not be called reckless and disorderly? Can Han [Yu]'s words still be trusted? The *Analects* says that when Yao was about to transmit the realm to Shun, he advised him, saying: 'Ah! You, Shun, the celestial calendar rests on your person. Sincerely hold fast to the Mean!' Shun also commanded Yu in this manner.