鐔津文集 15.22

15.22

韓子與馮宿書論文。謂人不知其文。遂自比楊子雲。為太玄之時。乃引雄之言曰。世不知我無害也。後世復有楊子雲。必好之矣。因謂子雲死近千載。竟未有楊子雲可歎也。其時桓譚亦以雄書勝老子。老子未足道也。子雲豈止與老子爭疆而已乎。此不為知雄者。其弟子侯芭頗知之。以為其師之書勝周易。然侯之他文不見於世。不知其人。果何如耳。以此而言。作者不祈人之知也明矣（已上皆退之文）吾視此未嘗不撫書而為其太息。謂韓子可賢耶。何其為言之易也。夫聖賢之所以著書。豈欲與人爭彊乎。聖賢唯恐道不明而人不治。故為之書欲以傳其道也。豈意與人爭疆也。不爭而乃有所為耳。夫以其所為而與人欲爭疆鬪勝者。此特流俗使氣不逞者之所尚也。聖賢如此而為其去眾人也何遠哉。其道至自形人之不至。其言是自形人之不是。其人有知遂自服而尊美也。豈有爭之而得人尊美乎。自古著書而其文章炳然藹如也孰如孔子。而孔子曰。文莫吾猶人也。聖人豈以其道而苟勝乎。中庸曰。寬柔以教不報無道。南方之強君子居之。是豈以爭之而為強耶。語曰。由也兼人。故退之。是聖人豈欲儒者而與人爭彊乎。韓子師儒。為言不類其法。不亦誤後世之學者也。若老子之書。其所發明三皇五帝之道德者也。其文約而詳。其理簡而至。治國治家修身養神之方。出師用兵之法。天地變化之道。莫不備之矣。孔子嘗從事而師問其人豈非以其如此也。而老子豈易勝之乎。又況其所尚以不爭為德也。子雲平生學問於蜀人嚴遵君平。故其法言盛稱於君平。君平乃治老子者也。及子雲為太玄。乃以一生三為創制之本。是亦探老子所謂一生二二生三者也（此說見太玄解義）故子雲曰。老子之言道德。吾有取焉耳。雄書之宗本既出於老子。而謂玄勝老氏。亦其未之思也。然桓譚豈為能知子雲乎。而韓子乃援桓譚之言。則已可笑矣。乃又曰。其弟子侯芭頗知之。以為其師之書勝周易。此又韓子之大謬矣。若雄之太玄。設方州部家四位者。乃易之四象六畫耳。布八十一首者。易之六十四卦也。二百四十二表存之而不盡書者。依周武口訣也。展七百二十九贊者。乃易之三百六十爻耳。其本不出乎陰陽二儀。其生剋不出乎七八九六五行之數。其紀綱不出乎三極之道。而雄之書大底資易而成之耳。其法言曰。其事則述。其書則作。漢書稱雄亦曰。以為經莫大於易。故作太玄皆酙酌其本。相與放依而馳騁云。吾嘗治易。得其四象八卦之數。凡玄之所存者。六氣五行三才七政四時十二月。二十四節七十二候五紀五方五神五音十二律九宮十日十二辰。莫不統而貫之。蓋聖人含章天機祕而不發耳。至漢而焦贛京房輩輒分爻直日。而易之道遂露矣。子雲蓋得意於焦氏之分爻也。復參之以渾天之法。然其巧思推數。自起其端為位為首為贊。以鈐乎一歲。傚易以占天人之事。此其賢也。夫易者資河圖洛書以成之。蓋天地自然至神之法。非聖人之創制也。然非聖人亦不能發明之。雖其時世更歷三古藉聖人發揮者九人焉。唯伏犧文王孔子。事業尤著。若子雲之書。其始何出而何得之。其為書之人何如於伏犧文王仲尼乎。然玄之法。蓋出於人之意思經營之致耳。與夫天地自然之道。固不可同日而言哉。子雲之賢不及伏犧文王孔子。雖童蒙亦知其然也。而韓子以侯芭為頗知之而謂玄勝易。何其惑之甚也。晉書謂。王長文嘗著書號通玄。有文言卦象。可用卜筮。時人比之楊雄太玄。是亦可謂勝易乎。彼侯芭者尚不知其師之所祖述。何妄為之說掩抑聖人之經。亂後世學者之志。非細事也。此足以識芭之狂。愚何甚也。不必待見其他文而知其為人也。韓子於此當辨斥之。以尊證聖人之道可也。乃更從事其說。苟以資其自矜。儒者果當爾耶。吾恐以文爭強而後生習為輕薄。人人無謙敬之德。未必不自韓子之造端也。吾嘗謂。楊子因易以成書。其謂述之可也。不應作經自為其家與夫大易抗行。孔子述而不作。信而好古。竊比於我老彭。仲尼猶不敢作。子雲乃作之歟。漢書謂。諸儒譏楊子非聖人而作經。蓋亦以其不能尊本也。何復用其書勝易以重儒者之相非耶。

In his letter discussing literature with Feng Su, Master Han said that people did not understand his writing, and he subsequently compared himself to Yang Ziyun. Regarding the time when [Yang Ziyun] composed the *Taixuan*, he quoted Xiong's words, saying: 'It does no harm that the world does not understand me. If there is another Yang Ziyun in later ages, he will surely love it.' He then remarked: 'Ziyun has been dead for nearly a thousand years, yet lamentably there has never been another Yang Ziyun. At that time, Huan Tan also considered Xiong's book to surpass Laozi. Laozi is not even worth mentioning; did Ziyun merely contend for supremacy with Laozi? This is not truly knowing Xiong. His disciple Hou Ba knew him quite well, considering his master's book to surpass the *Zhouyi*. However, Hou's other writings are not seen in the world, and it is unknown what kind of person he actually was. Judging from this, it is clear that authors do not seek to be understood by men.' (The above are all Tuizhi's words.) Whenever I look upon this, I cannot help but stroke the book and sigh deeply for him. Can Master Han be deemed worthy? How careless he was in uttering such words! As for why sages and worthies write books, how could it be that they wish to contend for supremacy with others? The sages and worthies only feared that the Way would not be illumined and the people would not be well governed; thus they made their books wishing to transmit their Way. How could their intention be to contend for supremacy with others? They acted precisely without contention. Yet to use one's work to contend for supremacy and vie for victory with others—this is merely what vulgar and impetuous failures esteem. If sages and worthies were like this, how far would they be from the common crowd? When their Way is consummate, it naturally manifests the shortcomings of others; when their words are right, they naturally manifest the errors of others. When someone has understanding, they then naturally submit and venerate its beauty. Could one ever obtain people's veneration and esteem by contending for it? Since antiquity, of those who wrote books whose writings were luminous and glorious, who was like Confucius? Yet Confucius said: 'In literary attainments, perhaps I am not yet equal to other men.' Could a sage ever improperly seek victory through his Way? The *Zhongyong* says: 'To teach with broad-mindedness and gentleness, and not to avenge wrongdoing—this is the strength of the South, and the gentleman dwells in it.' Is this ever taking contention as strength? The *Analects* says: 'You has the energy of two men; therefore I held him back.' Would the sage ever wish a Confucian to contend for supremacy with others? Master Han took Confucianism as his model, yet what he said did not conform to its principles; does this not also mislead the scholars of later generations? As for the book of Laozi, it is that which brought to light the Way and virtue of the Three Sovereigns and the Five Emperors. Its text is concise yet detailed, its principles simple yet consummate. The methods of governing the state, regulating the family, cultivating the person, and nurturing the spirit; the rules of dispatching armies and employing troops; the Way of the transformations of heaven and earth—all are fully provided within it. Confucius once attended upon him, taking him as a master and inquiring of him; was it not because he was like this? Could Laozi be easily surpassed? Moreover, what he esteemed was taking non-contention as virtue. Throughout his life, Ziyun studied under Yan Zun (Junping) of Shu; thus in his *Fayan*, he lavishly praised Junping. Junping was one who studied Laozi. When Ziyun composed the *Taixuan*, he took 'the One gives birth to the Three' as the fundamental basis of his original creation; this was also an exploration of what Laozi called 'the One gives birth to the Two, the Two gives birth to the Three' (this explanation appears in the *Taixuan jieyi*). Thus Ziyun said: 'Regarding Laozi's words on the Way and virtue, I have taken something from them.' Since the fundamental source of Xiong's book derived from Laozi, to say that the *Taixuan* surpasses Master Lao is also to have not thought it through. Yet how could Huan Tan be one capable of understanding Ziyun? And for Master Han to cite Huan Tan's words is already laughable. Furthermore, he said: 'His disciple Hou Ba knew him quite well, considering his master's book to surpass the *Zhouyi*.' This is yet another great blunder of Master Han. As for Xiong's *Taixuan*, setting up the four positions of Region, Province, Department, and Family is merely the four images and six lines of the *Yijing*. Deploying eighty-one Heads corresponds to the sixty-four hexagrams of the *Yijing*. Preserving two hundred and forty-two Appraisals without writing them all out relies on the oral formula of King Wu of Zhou. Unfolding seven hundred and twenty-nine Appraisals is merely the three hundred and sixty lines of the *Yijing*. Its origin does not go beyond the two poles of yin and yang; its generation and overcoming do not go beyond the numbers seven, eight, nine, six, and the Five Elements; its guiding principles do not go beyond the Way of the Three Extremities. Xiong's book was fundamentally completed merely by drawing upon the *Yijing*. His *Fayan* says: 'Its matters are transmitted; its text is created.' The *Hanshu* also states of Xiong: 'Considering that among the classics none was greater than the *Yijing*, he therefore composed the *Taixuan*, in all cases deliberating on its origins, emulating, relying on it, and ranging freely.' I once studied the *Yijing* and grasped the numbers of its four images and eight trigrams. Everything preserved in the *Taixuan*—the six qi, the five elements, the three realms, the seven governors, the four seasons, the twelve months, the twenty-four solar terms, the seventy-two micro-seasons, the five markers, the five directions, the five spirits, the five musical tones, the twelve pitch-pipes, the nine palaces, the ten stems, and the twelve branches—all are unified and threaded through by it. It was simply that the sages contained its brilliance, keeping heaven's mystery secret without disclosing it. When it came to the Han dynasty, the likes of Jiao Gan and Jing Fang arbitrarily allocated the lines to rule over the days, and the Way of the *Yijing* was thereby exposed. Ziyun presumably gained inspiration from Master Jiao's allocation of lines; he further combined it with the methods of the celestial sphere. Yet with his ingenious thought and calculation of numbers, he established the beginnings himself, making positions, heads, and appraisals to encompass a whole year, emulating the *Yijing* to divine the affairs of heaven and humanity—in this lay his worthiness. Now, the *Yijing* was completed by drawing upon the River Chart and the Luo Writing; it is fundamentally the most spiritual method of heaven and earth's nature, not an original creation of sages. Yet had there been no sages, they would also not have been able to elucidate it. Although its eras spanned the Three Antiquities and nine sages were relied upon to unfold it, only Fuxi, King Wen, and Confucius achieved especially illustrious deeds. As for Ziyun's book, whence did it originally arise, and how was it attained? How can the person who made that book compare to Fuxi, King Wen, and Zhongni? The method of the *Taixuan* fundamentally resulted merely from the deliberate contrivance of human intellect. Compared to the natural Way of heaven and earth, it certainly cannot be mentioned in the same breath! That Ziyun's worthiness did not reach that of Fuxi, King Wen, and Confucius is something that even an ignorant child knows to be so. Yet Master Han considered Hou Ba to have known him quite well and asserted that the *Taixuan* surpassed the *Yijing*; how could his delusion be so severe? The *Jinshu* states that Wang Changwen once wrote a book entitled *Tongxuan*, which possessed textual commentary and hexagram images that could be used for divination; people of the time compared it to Yang Xiong's *Taixuan*. Could this also be said to surpass the *Yijing*? That Hou Ba did not even know what his master took as his ancestral model; why did he make reckless claims that eclipsed and suppressed the scriptures of the sages, confusing the aspirations of later scholars? This was no minor matter. This is sufficient to recognize Hou Ba's madness; how could anyone be so extremely foolish? There is no need to wait to see his other writings to know what kind of man he was. Master Han should have refuted and denounced this, so as to venerate and verify the Way of the sages; yet instead he followed Hou Ba's claim, improperly using it to assist his own boastfulness. Is this truly how a Confucian should act? I fear that contending for supremacy through writing will cause later generations to practice flippancy and shallowness, so that no one possesses the virtue of humility and reverence; this might well have originated with Master Han. I have often said: Master Yang completed his book by relying on the *Yijing*; it would be acceptable to say he transmitted it, but he should not have composed a classic, setting up his own school to stand as an equal alongside the Great *Yijing*. Confucius transmitted and did not create; he was faithful to and loved antiquity, quietly comparing himself to our Old Peng. Even Zhongni dared not create; did Ziyun actually create? The *Hanshu* states that the various Confucians mocked Master Yang for not being a sage yet creating a classic, presumably also because he was unable to venerate the root. Why should one further use his book's surpassing of the *Yijing* to redouble the mutual censure among Confucians?