鐔津文集 14.6.2

14.6.2

夫子循循然善誘人。 顏子正謂聖人以此一貫之道教人。 循循然有其次緒。 是為善進勸於人也。 此明聖人唯以誠明大道開通一理為其教。 元為眾善百行之本。 中庸曰。 中也者天下之大本也。 豈不然乎。 于此輒三本略經正以仁義二者曲為其道德。 其於聖人之法。 豈不闕如。 中庸曰。 道之不行我知之矣。 賢者過而不肖者不及。 茲謂賢智之人忽道而所以為過也。 愚不肖輩遠道而所以為不及也韓子忘本。 豈不為過乎。 輕亡至道而原道。 欲道之辯明。 是亦惑也。 繫辭所謂仁智云者。 為昧道執滯其見致。 迺聖人之道衰少不備顯。 若韓子局仁義而為其道德者。 正繫辭所患也。 夫義乃情之善者矣。 於道德為次。 以情則罕有。 必正而不失。 故論語曰。 大德不踰閑。 小德出入可也。 又曰。 賜也過。 商也不及。 又曰。 色取人而行違居之不疑。 表記子曰。 仁有三。 與仁同功而異情。 與仁同功。 其仁未可知也。 與仁同過。 然後其仁可知也。 莊子曰。 諸侯之門而仁義存焉。 其欲偏以仁義而為可乎。 然子貢子夏為仁義之賢者。 猶有過與不及。 況其不如賜與商者。 後世何可勝數。 此烏得不究大本與人教。 其以道德而正其為善乎。 中庸曰。 道其不行矣。 夫是乃聖人憫傷其不與至道至德而教人也。 或曰。 韓子先仁義而次道德者。 蓋專人事而欲別異乎。 佛老虛無之道德耳。 曰昔聖人作易以正乎天道人事。 而虛無者最為其元。 苟異虛無之道則十翼六十四卦。 乃非儒者之書。 伏羲文王孔子治易之九聖人。 亦非儒者之師宗也。 孔子非儒宗師可乎。 果爾則韓子未始讀易。 易尤為儒之大經。 不知易而謂聖賢之儒。 吾不信也。 其曰老子之小仁義非毀之也。 其見者小也。 坐井而觀天曰天小者。 非天罪也。 然老子曰。 失道而後德。 失德而後仁。 失仁而後義。 失義而後禮。 此誠不毀小仁義也（或無小字）蓋為道德與仁義為治有隆殺。 而其功有優劣耳。 夫明此不若以禮運較。 孔子曰。 大道之行也天下為公。 選賢與能講信修睦。 故人不獨親其親。 不獨子其子。 又曰。 謀閉而不興盜竊亂賊而不作。 故外通而不閉。 是謂大同。 是豈非大道與德為治而優乎。 又曰。 今大道既隱。 天下為家。 各親其親。 各子其子。 又曰。 禹湯文武成王周公。 由此其選也。 此六君子者。 未有不謹於禮者也。 以著其義。 以考其信。 著其有過。 刑仁講讓。 示民有常。 如有不如此者在執者去。 眾以為殃。 是為小康。 是豈非仁義為治於道德為劣乎。 如此何獨老子而小仁義耶。 韓子何其不自忽儒經而輒誚老子乎。 又曰。 老子所謂道德云者。 去仁與義言之也。 一人之私言也。 此韓子之言。 所以大不公也。 夫老子之所言者大道也。 道果私乎。 所謂大道者。 豈獨老子之道。 蓋三皇五帝列聖之大道也。 韓子不知。 徒見老氏道家。 自為其流與儒不同。 欲抑而然也。 夫析老氏為之道家者。 其始起於司馬氏之書。 而班固重之。 若老子者其實古之儒人也。 在周為主藏室之史。 多知乎聖人神法之事（或本無聖人字）故孔子於禮則曰。 吾聞諸老聃。 是蓋老子嘗探三皇五帝之書而得其大道之旨。 乃自著書發明之。 韓子不能揣本齊末。 徒欲排之而務取諸儒名。 不亦易乎。 禮運曰。 大道之行與三代之英丘。 未之逮也而有志焉。 鄭玄解曰。 大道謂五帝時也。 然他書多謂大道為皇道。 而鄭獨謂五帝之時也。 其意以謂。 雖皇與帝其道相通故也。 五帝本紀而黃帝當其首。 然黃帝與虙犧神農其實三皇。 而經史但為帝者。 蓋皇帝與王古亦通稱耳。 故鄭謂五帝之時而皇在其間矣。 但黃帝乃三皇。 處五帝之初而冠乎堯舜。 雖本末小異。

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,