鐔津文集 15.6

15.6

韓子。取孔子所謂唯上智與下愚不移與其曰中人以上可以語上也。中人以下不可以語上者為性。而著原性曰。性之品有三。而其所以為性者五。曰何也。曰性之品有上中下三。上焉者善焉而已矣。中焉者可道而上下也。下焉者惡焉而已矣。其所以為性者五。曰仁。曰義。曰禮。曰智。曰信。上焉者主於一而行之四。中焉者之於五。一也不少有焉則少及焉。其於四也混。下焉者之於五也。反於一而悖於四。謂上焉者善也。故能行其五者之道。中焉者可道而為善惡也。其於五者雖不甚有。亦可進而及之也。下焉者惡也。其於五者反悖而不能為之也。性之於情視其品。情之品亦有上中下三。其所以為情者七。曰喜。曰怒。曰哀。曰懼。曰愛。曰惡。曰欲。上焉者之於七也。動而處其中。中焉者之於七也。有所甚有所亡。然而求合其中也。下焉者之於七也。亡與甚直情而行也。然韓子如此而言善惡之者。與夫佛老之言同。乃特異其說也。夫性豈止佛老乎。天下之人皆得。蓋至公之道者也。烏可私之而臆說耶。嘻韓子惡佛老。遂至以其性命而曲說。何其愛惡如是之甚乎。夫孔子所謂惟上智與下愚不移者。蓋言人之有才智與聰明及愚冥而無識耳。非言性也。夫智之與愚乃其性通塞之勢耳。非性命之本末。若夫性者即在物靈焉。而有知者是也。今天下之人靈。然利至而知趨。害至而知避。孰不皆然。豈有上下之別耶。但其所知有遠邇。其能有多寡。是蓋通塞之勢異爾。論語所謂性相近者。蓋言其性則同也。曰習相遠者。蓋言其因學習故則人善惡異矣。其後曰。唯上智與下愚不移也者。是亦承會前語之意耳。謂人苟不為不善之習所移易者。唯是上智高才者也。不為善習而卒易者。亦唯是下愚絕頑者也。此外罔不由其所學習而為善為惡也。是亦聖人篤於勸教而化之也。夫上焉者聖人也。下焉者愚人也。善惡者好惡也。好惡與生皆生人皆有之。豈聖人唯好而愚人唯惡。苟曰聖人愚人皆有好惡。是善惡均也。豈上者唯善下者唯惡乎。韓子必謂上智與下愚不移。為上下之人其性善惡各已定矣。何孔子既曰性相近習相遠。謂人性之不差遽。又曰唯上智與下愚不移。謂人性之善惡各定。豈聖人之言前後不相副反覆而如此也。不直不相副。抑亦非示教也。謂聖人之言反覆可乎。韓子讀書不求其文之意如何耳。乃輒勍其語遂以為立言。夫仁義五常蓋人情之善者也。而韓子不審知。乃曰。所以為性者五。彼徒見五常者出。於性而遂以為性。殊不知性之所出者皆情也。今問其人曰。爾為五常仁愛與爾七情愛惡之愛異耶同乎。是必曰同也。爾五常好仁義之好與爾七情喜好之好同乎異耶。是必曰不異也。如此則韓子之謂五謂七謂善謂惡者。豈不皆情耶。著在乎情而始處性之邊徼也。韓子之所師者孔子也。欲為書安得不審其師之言而然後發何輒作謬乎。聖人之意也如此。孔子之言性。曰人生而靜天之性也。感物而動性之欲也。又曰。寂然不動感而遂通天下之故。夫人生而靜者。寂然不動者。是豈非人之性唯寂唯靜何嘗有善有惡有其品乎。夫感動而動性之欲者。感而遂通天下之故者。豈非接乎外物乃成其善惡之情耶。中庸曰。喜怒哀樂未發謂之中。發而皆中節謂之和。中也者天下之大本也。和也者天下之達道也。是亦備見乎情性之分矣。嗚呼古聖人其言情性如此之效白。而後世不遵競務異而苟為其說。雖欲求異乎佛老。殊不識大悖其師之言而亂乎聖人之道也。易曰。利貞者性情也者。謂性正也情邪也。必以性制情乃中正也。後之學者方不知其性。乃為狂為悖為邪為佞為貪為惑。鮮有成其德性者也。豈堪立言垂法者。乃復以情以性不辨其真偽而傳之。其人吾恐夫益惑也。聖人之道斯將廢矣。

Master Han took Confucius's statements, "Only the highest wisdom and the lowest stupidity do not change," and "Those above average may be told of higher things; those below average may not be told of higher things," as defining nature, and composed *Yuan xing* ("Inquiry into Nature"), saying: "There are three grades of nature, and that by which it is nature has five [aspects]. What are they? The grades of nature are three: superior, middle, and inferior. The superior is good and nothing more. The middle can be guided to become superior or inferior. The inferior is evil and nothing more. That by which it is nature has five [aspects]: humaneness, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness. The superior takes one as primary and practices the other four. The middle, with regard to the five, if not lacking in one, falls slightly short in it, and in the four it is mixed. The inferior, with regard to the five, opposes the one and rebels against the four." He means that the superior is good, and therefore can practice the Way of the five; the middle can be guided to become good or evil, and although it does not possess the five fully, it can advance and reach them; the inferior is evil, and opposes and rebels against the five and cannot practice them. He continues: "Feelings correspond to nature according to their grades. The grades of feelings are also three: superior, middle, and inferior. That by which they are feelings has seven [aspects]: joy, anger, sorrow, fear, love, hate, and desire. The superior, with regard to the seven, moves and abides in the Mean. The middle, with regard to the seven, has excesses and deficiencies, yet seeks to accord with the Mean. The inferior, with regard to the seven, abandons [restraint] or goes to extremes, acting straightforwardly on feelings." Yet when Master Han speaks of good and evil like this, though it is the same as the teachings of the Buddha and Laozi, he made his theory uniquely different. Does nature pertain only to the Buddha and Laozi? All people under heaven possess it; it is the most impartial Way. How could one treat it privately and construct speculative theories about it? Alas! Master Han hated the Buddha and Laozi, to the point of constructing distorted theories about human nature and destiny. How could his loves and hates be so extreme? Confucius's statement, "Only the highest wisdom and the lowest stupidity do not change," merely spoke of people possessing talent, wisdom, and intelligence, or being foolish, ignorant, and devoid of understanding; he was not speaking of nature. Wisdom and stupidity are merely the tendencies of openness and blockage in one's nature; they are not the root and branch of nature and destiny. As for nature, it is that which is numinous and possessing awareness within living things. Nowadays, people of the world are numinous: when benefit arrives they know to pursue it; when harm arrives they know to avoid it. Who is not like this? How could there be a distinction between superior and inferior? It is only that their knowledge has far and near, and their abilities have much and little; this is merely the difference in the tendencies of openness and blockage. When the *Analects* says, "By nature they are near," it means that their nature is identical. When it says, "By practice they diverge," it means that because of study and habit, people differ in good and evil. When it later says, "Only the highest wisdom and the lowest stupidity do not change," it merely follows and gathers the meaning of the preceding words. It means that if someone is not moved or altered by habits of unwholesomeness, it is only someone of highest wisdom and elevated talent; if someone is never altered by habits of wholesomeness, it is only someone of lowest stupidity and utter obstinacy. Other than these, none fail to become good or evil through what they study and practice. This is also how the sage earnestly encouraged teaching and transformation. The superior is the sage, and the inferior is the fool. Good and evil are likes and dislikes. Likes and dislikes arise with life; all humans have them. Does the sage have only likes while the fool has only dislikes? If one says both the sage and the fool have likes and dislikes, then good and evil are equal. How could the superior be only good and the inferior only evil? Master Han insisted that "Only the highest wisdom and the lowest stupidity do not change" means that the natures of superior and inferior persons are each already fixed as good or evil. Why then did Confucius first say "By nature they are near, by practice they diverge," meaning that human nature does not differ radically, and then say "Only the highest wisdom and the lowest stupidity do not change," meaning that the good and evil of human nature are each fixed? Could the sage's words fail to match before and after, reversing and vacillating like this? Not only would they fail to match, but they would also fail to serve as teaching. Can one say that the sage's words vacillate? Master Han read texts without seeking what their meaning was, but rashly seized upon his words and straightway established doctrines. Humaneness, righteousness, and the five constants are the good aspects of human feelings; yet Master Han did not examine this carefully, and said: "That by which it is nature has five." He merely saw that the five constants issue from nature and thereupon took them to be nature, failing to realize that what issues from nature is entirely feelings. Now if one asks a person: "Is your love of the five constants—humaneness and love—different from or the same as your love in the seven feelings of love and hate?" he will certainly say it is the same. "Is your fondness in the five constants—fondness for humaneness and righteousness—the same as or different from your fondness in the seven feelings of joy and fondness?" he will certainly say it is not different. If so, then what Master Han calls the five, the seven, the good, and the evil—are they not all feelings? Being located in feelings, they merely dwell on the outer border of nature. The one Master Han took as teacher was Confucius. When wishing to write a book, how could he not examine his teacher's words before putting them forth, instead of rashly producing errors? The sage's intent is indeed like this. Confucius spoke of nature: "Man is born tranquil; this is the nature of Heaven. Moved by things, he acts; this is the desire of nature." He also said: "Silent and unmoving, when stimulated it then penetrates all affairs under heaven." That "man is born tranquil" and "silent and unmoving"—does this not mean that human nature is purely silent and tranquil, having never had good, evil, or grades? That "moved, he acts, which is the desire of nature" and "when stimulated it then penetrates all affairs under heaven"—does this not mean that it encounters external things and only then forms the feelings of good and evil? The *Zhongyong* says: "Before joy, anger, sorrow, and delight arise, it is called the Mean; when they arise and all hit the proper measure, it is called harmony. The Mean is the great root of the world; harmony is the pervasive Way of the world." This also fully shows the distinction between feelings and nature. Alas! The ancient sages spoke of feelings and nature with such clarity, yet later generations did not follow them, striving to be different and carelessly inventing theories. Though they sought to differ from the Buddha and Laozi, they completely failed to realize that they greatly rebelled against their own teacher's words and brought disorder to the Way of the sage. The *Yijing* says: "'Beneficial and steadfast' refers to nature and feelings," meaning that nature is correct and feelings are corrupt. One must use nature to regulate feelings; only then is there rectitude. Later scholars do not know their nature, and so become mad, rebellious, corrupt, fawning, greedy, and deluded; few succeed in their virtuous nature. How can those who are unfit to establish doctrines and hand down standards further transmit feelings and nature without distinguishing the true from the false? I fear that people will become even more deluded, and the Way of the sage will be abandoned.