鐔津文集 6.4

6.4

客以論兵問。而叟愀然曰。何是問之相屬也。叟野人也。安知兵乎。客曰。謂子其學兼儒。儒之道具於文武。兵也者武之效也。不知兵孰謂之道。曰道也者何真兵亦仁義而已矣。客不達且引去。叟介然謂席人曰。兵者刑也。發於仁而主於義也。發於仁。以仁而憫亂也。主於義。以義而止暴也。以義而止暴。故相正而不相亂。以仁而憫亂。故圖生而不圖殺。是故五帝之兵謂之正刑。三王之兵謂之義征。義征舉而天下莫不懷也。正刑行而天下莫不順也。炎帝之後不逞。而軒轅氏陳于涿鹿。兵未接而其人已服。共工氏封豕其民而顓帝伐之。亦未戰而遂服。湯東面而征西夷怨。南面而征北狄怨。曰奚為後我民望之若大旱之望雲霓也。紂為無道而武王征之。至于孟津不誥而諸侯會。紂有億兆夷人。不用於商而用於周。周衰而兵道一變。所謂仁義者遂妄矣。乃發於暴而至於詐。強國以兵橫。大國以兵驕。忿國以兵亂。貪國以兵侵。齊始勝於楚。而齊後負於晉。晉始勝齊。而晉復負於秦。迭興迭亡。類乎博塞之為玩。夫兵逆事也。無已則君子用之。是故聖人尚德而不尚兵。所以明兵者不可專造天下也。穀梁子曰。被甲嬰冑非所以興國也。則以誅暴亂也。文中子曰。亡國戰兵。霸國戰智。王國戰仁義。帝國戰德。皇國戰無為。聖王無以尚可以仁義為。故曰仁義而已矣。孤虛詐力之兵而君子不與。吾其與乎。席人咨嗟曰。未之聞也。羅拜而罷。

A guest asked him about the discussion of warfare. The old man frowned sorrowfully and said, “Why do you press me with this question? I am a rustic; how could I know about warfare?” The guest said, “It is said that your learning encompasses Confucianism. The Way of the Confucians is fully equipped with both civil and martial arts. Warfare is the effective application of the martial. If one does not know warfare, how can it be called the Way?” [The old man] said, “What is the Way? True warfare is simply benevolence and righteousness, and nothing more.” The guest did not comprehend and was about to leave. The old man, composed and upright, said to those seated with him: “Warfare is punishment. It arises from benevolence and is governed by righteousness. It arises from benevolence: with benevolence one pities disorder. It is governed by righteousness: with righteousness one puts an end to tyranny. Putting an end to tyranny with righteousness, they correct one another and do not bring about disorder. Pitying disorder with benevolence, they seek life and do not seek killing. For this reason, the warfare of the Five Thearchs was called ‘proper punishment,’ and the warfare of the Three Kings was called ‘righteous punitive expedition.’ When righteous punitive expeditions were launched, there was no one in the world who did not cherish them. When proper punishments were carried out, there was no one in the world who did not submit. When the descendants of the Flame Thearch were unruly, the Xuanyuan clan drew up battle lines at Zhuolu; before weapons even crossed, those people had already submitted. When the Gonggong clan devoured their people like ravenous boars, Thearch Zhuanxu attacked them; likewise, before battle was joined, they forthwith submitted. When Tang faced east and campaigned, the western barbarians resented it; when he faced south and campaigned, the northern Di barbarians resented it, saying: ‘Why does he put us last?’ The people gazed toward him as if gazing for rain clouds during a great drought. King Zhou of Shang was without the Way, and King Wu campaigned against him; when he reached Mengjin, without any summons the feudal lords assembled. King Zhou had hundreds of thousands of Eastern Yi peoples, but they would not fight for Shang and instead fought for Zhou. When the Zhou declined, the way of warfare underwent a change: what had been called benevolence and righteousness became completely fraudulent. Warfare then arose from tyranny and led to deceit. Strong states were overbearing with their armies; large states were arrogant with their armies; resentful states caused disorder with their armies; covetous states invaded with their armies. Qi first triumphed over Chu, but Qi later suffered defeat at the hands of Jin. Jin first triumphed over Qi, but Jin again suffered defeat at the hands of Qin. Rising and falling in succession, it was like the amusement of gambling and board games. Now, warfare is a contrary undertaking; when there is no other choice, a gentleman employs it. For this reason, the sage values virtue and does not value warfare, thereby making clear that warfare cannot be exclusively relied upon to order the world. Guliangzi said: ‘Donning armor and tying on a helmet is not the means to make a state flourish, but rather to punish tyranny and disorder.’ Wenzhongzi said: ‘Perishing states fight with weapons; hegemon states fight with stratagems; kingly states fight with benevolence and righteousness; thearch states fight with virtue; sovereign states fight with non-action. For a sage king who has nothing higher, benevolence and righteousness may be adopted.’ Thus I said: ‘It is simply benevolence and righteousness, and nothing more.’ A gentleman does not approve of armies of deceit and force based on astrological voids and illusions; how could I approve of them?” Those seated sighed in admiration and said, “We had never heard this before!” They bowed all around and took their leave.