鐔津文集 15.8

15.8

韓子作原人曰。形於上日月星辰皆天也。形於下草木山川皆地也。命於其兩間夷狄禽獸皆人也。曰然則吾謂禽獸人可乎。曰非也。指山而問焉曰山乎。曰山可也。山有草木禽獸皆舉之矣。指山之一草而問焉曰山乎。曰山則不可也。故天道亂而日月星辰不得其行。地道亂而草木山川不得其平。人道亂而夷狄禽獸不得其情。天者日月星辰之主也。地者草木山川之主也。人者夷狄禽獸之主也。主而暴之。不得其為主之道矣。是故聖人一視而同仁。篤近而舉遠。噫韓子何為言之不辨也。謂韓子善著書。吾不知也。彼其意亦類乎。祭統曰。夫人生於天地之間者皆曰命。其萬物死皆曰折。人死曰鬼。如孔子曰折曰鬼者。蓋分辨乎。人與禽獸草木異矣。韓子雖曰吾謂禽獸人可乎。曰非也。指山而問焉曰山乎。曰山可也。山有草木禽獸皆舉之矣者。欲以別其禽獸與人。而文不分明而取喻不切當。韓子之意其實謂人與夷狄禽獸皆同其性命之道也。不直云爾是必欲異乎他教之說也。然韓子如此而異。亦猶狙公賦茅曰朝三而莫四。朝四而莫三。果何能為異耶。其曰人者夷狄禽獸之主者。此又混漫蓋不足為訓也。韓子苟謂人為血氣之主。彼夷狄者亦人爾。自可主乎禽獸也。安得謂如禽獸而主乎人耶。然禽獸亦非人為之主也。萬類各自有其主焉。人自主於其人類之長。禽獸亦乃自主於其類之長者也。天下何有禽獸馴狎人而為之主耶。彼韓子苟恤乎夷狄禽獸。與吾同其性命。欲人不暴之也。為之原人當曰人者夷狄禽獸之同其生也。同生而暴其生者不得其所以為生之道也。如此則庶幾可乎。

Master Han wrote *Yuan ren* ("Inquiry into Man"), saying: "What takes shape above—the sun, moon, stars, and constellations—is all heaven. What takes shape below—grass, trees, mountains, and rivers—is all earth. What is endowed with life between the two—barbarians, birds, and beasts—is all man. One asks: 'If so, then can I call birds and beasts man?' The reply is: 'No. If one points to a mountain and asks, "Is it a mountain?", one may say, "It is a mountain." The mountain includes grass, trees, birds, and beasts, all of them. If one points to a single blade of grass on the mountain and asks, "Is it a mountain?", one may not say it is a mountain.' Therefore, when the Way of heaven is disordered, the sun, moon, stars, and constellations do not keep their courses; when the Way of earth is disordered, grass, trees, mountains, and rivers do not keep their peace; when the Way of man is disordered, barbarians, birds, and beasts do not obtain their proper feelings. Heaven is the master of the sun, moon, stars, and constellations; earth is the master of grass, trees, mountains, and rivers; man is the master of barbarians, birds, and beasts. If as master one acts tyrannically toward them, one fails to attain the Way of being a master. Therefore, the sage regards all with equal benevolence, being earnest to those near and raising up those far." Alas! Why were Master Han's words so indiscriminate? As for whether Master Han was skilled at writing books, I do not know. His idea is also similar to *Jitong* ("A Summary of Sacrifices"): "All men born between heaven and earth are said to have life; when the myriad things die, it is called snapping; when a man dies, he is called a ghost." As Confucius used "snapping" and "ghost," he was distinguishing how man differs from birds, beasts, grass, and trees. Although Master Han said: "'Can I call birds and beasts man?' The reply is: 'No. If one points to a mountain and asks, "Is it a mountain?", one may say, "It is a mountain." The mountain includes grass, trees, birds, and beasts, all of them'"—wishing thereby to distinguish birds and beasts from man—his text is not clear and his metaphor is not apt. Master Han's intended meaning was actually that man, barbarians, birds, and beasts all share the same Way of nature and life. That he did not say it directly was surely because he wanted to differ from the teachings of other traditions. Yet Master Han's manner of differing is just like the monkey trainer handing out chestnuts, saying 'three in the morning and four in the evening,' or 'four in the morning and three in the evening'—what real difference could he make? His saying 'man is the master of barbarians, birds, and beasts' is again muddled and truly unfit to be a model. If Master Han regarded man as the master of beings with blood and breath, those barbarians are also human; they can naturally master birds and beasts. How could one speak of them as like birds and beasts, with [other] men mastering them? Moreover, birds and beasts do not have man as their master. The myriad kinds each have their own master: humans naturally have the leaders of mankind as their masters, and birds and beasts also naturally have the leaders of their own kinds as their masters. Where under heaven do birds and beasts submit familiarly to man as their master? If Master Han had compassion for barbarians, birds, and beasts sharing the same nature and life with us, and wished that people not treat them tyrannically, in writing his *Inquiry into Man* he should have said: 'Man, barbarians, birds, and beasts share the same life; to share life yet act tyrannically toward their life is to fail to attain the Way by which life is sustained.' If he had said this, it would perhaps have been acceptable.