鐔津文集 14.6.4

14.6.4

禮必本於太一。 夫中正太一禮之質本也。 儀制上下禮之文末也。 苟聖人但學文末而不究乎質本。 何為聖人耶唯聖人固能文質本末備知而審舉之也。 學者徒知曾子問孔子學禮於老聃之淺者耳。 而不知史記老聃傳孔子問禮之深明者也彼韓子雖學儒之言文。 豈知禮之所以然耶。 其曰聞古之為民者四。 今之為民者六。 古之教者處其一。 今之教者處其二。 農之家一而食粟之家六。 工之家一而用器之家六。 賈之家一而資焉之家六。 柰之何民不窮且盜也。 夫所謂教者。 豈與乎天地皆出而必定其數耶。 是亦聖人適時合宜而為之。 以資乎治體者也。 然古今迭變時益差異。 未必一教而能周其萬世之宜也。 昔舜當五帝之末。 其時漸薄其人漸偽。 聖人宜之。 乃設五教制五刑。 各命官尸之。 而契為司徒。 專布五教。 遂遺後世使率人為善。 而天下有教自此始也。 及周公之世復當三王之際。 其時益薄其人益偽。 而天下益難治。 聖人宜之。 遂廣其教法而備之。 天下謂儒者之教。 自周公起焉。 其後孔子述而載之。 詩書六經（或云六藝）而儒之教益振周季。 三代之政弊。 善人恃術而費智。 不善人假法而作偽。 天下靡靡役生傷性而不知其自治。 老子宜其時。 更以三皇五帝道德之說以救其弊。 而天下遂有老子之教也。 兩漢之際。 視周末則愈薄愈偽。 賢與愚役於智詐紛然相半。 萬一雖習於老子之說。 而不能甚通乎性命奧妙。 推神明往來救世積昧。 指其死生之所以然。 天下遂有佛之教也。 楊子曰。 夫道非天然應時而造。 損益可知也。 是豈不然哉。 夫自周秦漢魏。 其薄且偽者日益滋甚。 皆儲積於後世之時。 天其或資乃佛教。 以應其事。 欲其相與而救世也。 不然何天人與其相感應久且盛之如是耶。 韓子泥古不知變。 而不悟佛教適時合用。 乃患佛老加於儒。 必欲如三代而無之。 是亦其不思之甚也。 夫三皇之時無教。 五帝之時無儒。 及其有教有儒也。 而時世人事不復如古。 假令當夏禹之時。 有人或曰。 古之治也。 有化而無教化則民化淳。 吾欲如三皇之世用化而不用教。 當此無教。 可乎當周秦之時亦有人曰。 古之為治用教也簡。 今之為治。 用儒也煩。 煩則民勞。 而苟且吾欲如二帝之世用教而不用儒。 當是時無儒可乎。 然以其時而裁之。 不可無教無儒必也矣。 比之韓子之說。 欲後世之時無佛無老。 何以異乎。 韓子曰。 今其言曰。 曷不為太古之無事。 是亦責冬之裘者曰。 曷不為葛之之易也。 責飢之食者曰。 曷不為飲之之易也。 韓子其亦知後世不可專用太古之道而譏其言之者。 不知乎時之宜也。 方益後世而韓子欲無佛與老。 何為迺自反不知其時之宜耶。 豈有所黨而然耳。 將欲蔽而特不見乎。 若夫四民之制六家食用之費。 吾原教論之詳矣。 今益以近事較之。 周漢而來治天下垂至於王道者。 孰與唐之太宗。 當正觀之間。 佛與老氏。 其教殊盛其人殊繁。 其食用殊廣。 而國之斷獄卒歲死刑者不過三十人。 東至于海南至嶺外。 皆外戶不閉。 行旅不齎糧。 玄宗開元中天下治平。 幾若正觀之時。 而佛老之作益盛。 是豈無佛老之人耶。 而唐天下富羨攘竊杜絕。 若爾吾謂民窮且盜。 但在其時與政。 非由佛老而致之也。 然佛教苟可以去之。 則唐之二宗以其勢而去之久矣。 烏得後世之人訩訩徒以空言而相訾也。 或謂韓子善擯佛老而功侔於禹。 較其空言實效。 無乃屈於禹乎。 狂夫之言何其不思也。 其曰今其法曰。 必棄而君臣去而父子禁其相生養之道。 以求其所謂清淨寂滅者也。 此乃韓子惡佛教人出家持戒。 遂尤其詞。 夫出家修道豈如是之酷耶。 夫出家者出俗從真。 臣得請于君。 父肯命其子乃可。 非叛去而逆棄也。

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.