[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [鐔津文集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115) › 16.8 # 鐔津文集 16.8 鐔津文集 16.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [16.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115.16.8) 韓子為鱷魚文與魚。而告之世。謂鱷魚因之而逝。吾以為不然。鱷魚乃昆蟲無知之物者也。豈能辨韓子之文耶。然使韓子有誠必能感動於物以誠即已。何必文乎。文者聖人所以待人者也。遺蟲魚以文。不亦賤乎。人哉文之。其人猶有所不知況昆蟲歟。謂鱷魚去之。吾恐其未然。唐書雖稱之。亦史氏之不辨也。 > Master Han composed the 'Text for the Crocodile' (Eyu wen) to address the creature, and told the world that the crocodile departed on account of it. I consider this not to be so. A crocodile is an insect-like, ignorant creature; how could it comprehend Master Han's text? Yet if Master Han had sincerity, he surely could have moved things through sincerity alone, and that would have been that; why was a text necessary? Text is that by which the sage treats human beings. To bestow text upon insects and fish—is that not degrading \[the text\]? Even when men are addressed with text, there are still things they do not understand; how much more so with insects and reptiles? To claim that the crocodile departed because of it—I fear this was not so. Although the \*Tangshu\* praises it, this was simply a lack of discernment on the part of the historians. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 16.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115.16.7) - [Next: 16.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115.16.9) - [Up: 16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115.16) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115~en-mt.16.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115.16.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2115.16.8) · Pramāṇa