鐔津文集 14.6.3

14.6.3

而大道一也。 繫辭曰。 黃帝堯舜垂衣裳而天下治。 此其然也。 孔安國謂三皇之書為三墳。 言大道也。 五帝之書為五典。 言常道也。 孔頴達正其義曰。 皇優於帝。 其道不但可常行而已。 又大於常。 故為墳也。 此謂對例耳。 雖少有優劣皆乃大道並可常行。 亦引茲禮運大道之行謂五帝時為之證。 然五帝三皇之書。 莫至于易。 以易與老子較。 而其道豈異乎哉。 如繫辭曰。 天下之動正夫一者也。 而老子曰。 王侯得一以為天下正。 此其大略也。 苟考其無思無為之理。 陰陽變化之說。 二書豈不皆然。 班固漢書曰。 老氏流者蓋出史官。 又曰。 合於堯之克讓。 易之謙謙。 此之謂也。 吾少聞於長者曰。 老子蓋承於黃帝氏者也。 及見莊周廣成子曰得吾道者。 上為皇下為王。 益信老氏誠得於三皇五帝者也。 此明老子之道德者。 實儒三皇五帝道德仁義之根本者也。 章章然（或止一章字也）豈出於老氏一人之私說邪。 必以老子為非。 則易與禮運可燔矣。 文王孔子則為槌提仁義者也。 夫先儒之好辯者孰與孟子。 孟子之時。 老子之書出。 百有餘年矣。 而莊周復與孟氏並世。 如其可排則孟已排之矣。 豈待後世之儒者辯之耶。 司馬遷謂。 老子之道約而易操（上或無之字）事少而功多。 儒者或不然。 譏其先黃老而後六經。 是亦不知其意也。 太史公之書。 孔子即為之世家。 老子即為列傳。 此豈尊老氏之謂耶。 蓋以老氏之道乃儒之本也。 所以先之者正欲尊其本耳。 非苟先其人也。 子長之言微且遠矣。 韓子不能深思而遠詳之。 輒居於先儒。 乃曰。 周道衰孔子沒。 火于秦黃老于漢。 佛于晉宋齊梁魏隋之間。 其言道德仁義者。 不入于楊則入于墨。 不入于墨則入于老。 不入于老則入于佛。 入于彼則出于此。 入者主之出者奴之。 入者附之出者污之。 嗚呼何其言之不遜也如此。 其曰出入奴污。 謂出于楊墨乎。 出於佛老乎。 佛老豈致人惡賤之如是耶。 夫佛法居家者果以誠心入道。 其所出遠則成乎殊勝之賢聖。 其所出近則乃身乃心。 潔靜慈惠為上善人出處閭里。 則人敬之而不敢欺。 是亦人間目擊常所見也。 安有出者奴之污之之辱耶。 古者有帝王而入預佛法者。 自東漢抵唐不可悉數。 如唐太宗於崇福寺。 發願稱皇帝菩薩戒弟子者。 玄宗務佛清淨事其熏修者。 是亦佛教而出。 果奴乎污耶。 韓子徒以梁武為尤。 而不知辱類其本朝祖宗。 此豈有識慮耶。 然梁武之事。 吾原教雖順俗稍評之而未始劇論。 如較其舍身。 於俗則過於道則德。 非爾人情輒知。 唯天地神明乃知之耳。 故當梁武舍身之際而地為之振。 此特非常之事。 而史臣不書而後世益不識。 知梁武帝幽勝之意也。 其發志固不同庸凡之所為。 未可以奴視之也。 韓子既攘斥楊墨佛老如此矣。 而其師說乃曰。 孔子以禮師老聃。 其讀墨曰。 孔子必用墨子。 墨子必用孔子。 不相用不足為孔墨。 其為絳州馬府君行狀曰。 司徒公之薨也。 刺臂出血書佛經千餘言以祈報福。 又曰。 居喪有過人行。 其稱大顛序。 高閑亦皆推述乎佛法也。 韓子何其是非不定前後相反之如是耶。 此不唯自惑。 亦乃誤累後世學者矣。 佛老果是。 而韓子非之。 後學不辨。 徒見韓子大儒而其文工。 乃相慕而非之。 楊墨果非。 而韓子是之。 學輩亦相效而是之。 夫以是而為非者則壞人善心。 以非而為是者則導人學非。 壞善之風傳之後世。 誤人之所以為心非小事也。 損刻陰德而冥增其過。 不在乎身必在其神與其子孫。 後世亦可畏也。 儒有附韓子者曰。 孔子但學禮於老聃氏耳。 非學其道也。 曰不然。 禮亦道也。 樂記曰。 大禮與天地同節。 又曰。 中正無邪禮之質也。 禮運曰。

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: