鐔津文集 15.10

15.10

韓子為本政曰。周之政文。既其弊也。後世不知其承。大敷古先。遂一時之術以明示民。民始惑教百氏之說以興。又曰。聞於師曰。古之君天下者化之。不示其所以化之之道。及其弊也易之。不示其所以易之之道。政以是得民以是淳。其有作者知教化之所繇廢。抑詭怪而暢皇極。伏文貌而尚忠質。茫乎天運窅爾神化。道之行也其庶已乎。韓子此說豈非厭以文之過惡。為教之有迹者也。然其言似欲天下如三王之政以文質相救。又若欲天下如三皇以易簡之道以為化。其言不端倪。令學者惑之。韓子苟欲如三王之政。則三王安得不示其所以政之之道耶。苟欲如三王之無為。其茫乎天運窅爾神化。則類乎老子之所謂其道德者也。如古之君天下者化之。而不示其所以化之之道者。莫盛乎伏犧神農黃帝三皇氏者也。三皇乃老氏之道之所師宗者也。韓子當譏老子謂其道德而為一人之私言也。老氏之說果私。則韓子斯言烏得為公耶。韓子為書何其不思不審而如此也。使學者何以考而為法。

In 'The Basis of Government' (Benzheng), Master Han says: 'The governance of the Zhou emphasized cultural refinement. Once it fell into corruption, later generations did not know how to continue it. Broadly displaying antiquity, they followed the techniques of their own age to make them clear to the people. The people then began to be bewildered by teachings, and the doctrines of the hundred schools arose thereby.' He also says: 'I have heard from my teacher: In antiquity, those who ruled the realm transformed it without displaying the way by which they transformed it. When it fell into corruption, they changed it without displaying the way by which they changed it. Through this, government was attained, and through this, the people became pure and honest. If a future creator understands the reasons why teaching and transformation decayed, restrains the bizarre and eccentric, promotes the August Ultimate, suppresses superficial ornamentation, and esteems loyalty and substance—then, vast like the movements of Heaven, subtle like spiritual transformation, the practice of the Way will surely be near.' Does this statement by Master Han not show disgust at the excesses and evils of cultural refinement, regarding teachings as possessing traces? Yet his words seem to want the realm to use cultural refinement and plain substance to rescue each other, like the governance of the Three Kings, and also seem to want the realm to employ the way of ease and simplicity to effect transformation, like the Three Sovereigns. His words lack a clear beginning or end, causing students to be confused. If Master Han wished for governance like that of the Three Kings, how could the Three Kings not display the way by which they governed? If he wished for the non-action (wuwei) of the Three Sovereigns, where 'vast like the movements of Heaven, subtle like spiritual transformation,' then this resembles what Laozi called his 'Dao and De.' As for those who ruled the realm in antiquity and transformed it without displaying the way by which they transformed it, none were more prominent than the Three Sovereigns: Fuxi, Shennong, and the Yellow Emperor. The Three Sovereigns are precisely whom Laozi's tradition took as masters and ancestors. Master Han ought to have criticized Laozi, asserting that his 'Dao and De' were merely the private words of one individual. If Laozi's doctrines were indeed private, how could these words of Master Han be considered public? Why was Master Han so unreflective and uncritical when writing books? How are students to examine and take them as a model?