鐔津文集 14.6.3

14.6.3

Yet the Great Way is one. The "Xici" says: "The Yellow Emperor, Yao, and Shun simply wore their robes and the world was well governed." This is how it is. Kong Anguo called the books of the Three Sovereigns the *Three Fen*, which speak of the Great Way; and the books of the Five Thearchs the *Five Dian*, which speak of the constant Way. Kong Yingda rectified its meaning, saying: "The Sovereigns were superior to the Thearchs. Their Way was not merely one that could be practiced constantly; it was also greater than the constant. Hence they are called *Fen*." This was merely a contrasting comparison. Although there was a slight difference in superiority, all were the Great Way and all could be practiced constantly. He also cited the passage in the "Liyun" on the practice of the Great Way as referring to the time of the Five Thearchs to corroborate this. Yet of the books of the Five Thearchs and Three Sovereigns, none reaches the height of the *Yijing*. When one compares the *Yijing* with the *Laozi*, how could their Way be different? For instance, the "Xici" says: "The movement of all under Heaven is rectified in the One"; and the *Laozi* says: "Lords and kings obtain the One to become the standard for all under Heaven." Such is the broad outline. If one examines the principle of non-thinking and non-action, and the discourse on the transformations of yin and yang, how could both books not be identical? Ban Gu's *Hanshu* says: "The lineage of Laozi probably issued from the scribal officials." It also says: "It accords with Yao's ability to yield and the modest humility of the *Yijing*." This is what it refers to. When I was young, I heard from an elder who said: "Laozi was an heir to the Yellow Emperor." And when I saw in the *Zhuangzi* where Guangchengzi says, "One who attains my Way is a Sovereign above and a King below," I believed all the more that Laozi truly inherited from the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs. This makes it clear that Laozi's Way and virtue are indeed the root of the Way, virtue, benevolence, and righteousness of the Three Sovereigns and Five Thearchs in Confucianism. Clear and manifest as it is, how could it have come from the private theory of Laozi alone? If one must consider Laozi to be wrong, then the *Yijing* and "Liyun" might as well be burned, and King Wen and Confucius would be seen as demolishers of benevolence and righteousness! Among the earlier Confucians who were fond of disputation, who could compare to Mencius? In Mencius's time, Laozi's book had already appeared for more than a hundred years, and Zhuangzi was a contemporary of Mencius. If it could have been rejected, Mencius would have already rejected it; why wait for Confucians of later generations to argue against it? Sima Qian said: "Laozi's Way is concise and easy to practice; it requires few matters and achieves great merit." Some Confucians disagree, criticizing him for putting Huang-Lao first and the Six Classics second; this too comes from not understanding his intention. In the Grand Historian's book, Confucius is given a "Hereditary House" (*shijia*), while Laozi is merely given an "Arranged Biography" (*liezhuan*). How could this be said to venerate Laozi over Confucius? It is because Laozi's Way is the root of Confucianism; putting him first was solely to honor that root, not arbitrarily to rank the man ahead. Zichang's words are subtle and profound! Han Yu could not ponder deeply or examine far into the past; hastily positioning himself among the early Confucians, he claimed: "When the Way of Zhou declined, Confucius passed away. There was the burning of books under the Qin, Huang-Lao under the Han, and Buddhism between the Jin, Song, Qi, Liang, Wei, and Sui. Those who spoke of the Way, virtue, benevolence, and righteousness entered Yang Zhu if not Mozi; entered Mozi if not Laozi; entered Laozi if not the Buddha. Entering the one meant departing the other. Those who entered it took it as master; those who departed it treated it as a slave. Those who entered it adhered to it; those who departed it defiled it." Alas! How could his words be so disrespectful? When he speaks of departing and entering, enslaving and defiling, does he mean departing from Yang and Mo, or departing from the Buddha and Laozi? How could the Buddha and Laozi ever bring people to despise and debase them like this? If lay practitioners of the Buddha-dharma truly enter the Way with a sincere heart, in the long run they will accomplish extraordinary and wondrous states of worthies and sages; in the immediate present, their bodies and minds will be pure, tranquil, compassionate, and benevolent, making them people of supreme goodness. Living in their local communities, people respect them and dare not deceive them. This is also something commonly seen before human eyes. How could there be the humiliation of those who depart enslaving and defiling them? In antiquity there were emperors and kings who entered and participated in the Buddha-dharma; from the Eastern Han to the Tang they cannot all be counted. For example, Emperor Taizong of the Tang at Chongfu Temple made a vow, styling himself "Emperor and Bodhisattva Precept Disciple"; and Xuanzong devoted himself to the purity of Buddhism and engaged in its cultivation. These also issued from the Buddhist teachings; were they truly enslaved or defiled? Han Yu merely took Emperor Wu of Liang to be an extreme case, unaware that he was thereby insulting his own dynasty's imperial ancestors! How could this show any discernment? Nevertheless, regarding the affairs of Emperor Wu of Liang, although my *Yuanjiao* offered a brief evaluation in accommodation to worldly views, it never engaged in vehement censure. If we examine his renunciation of the throne and his person: from the perspective of the world it was an excess, but from the perspective of the Way it was a virtue. This is not something ordinary human sentiments can readily understand; only heaven, earth, and the divine spirits know it. Thus, at the moment when Emperor Wu of Liang renounced his person, the earth shook for him. This was truly an extraordinary event, yet the court historians did not record it, and later generations became all the more ignorant of it, failing to recognize Emperor Wu of Liang's profound and superior intent. His setting of resolve was certainly not something ordinary people do; one cannot regard him with contempt. Since Han Yu banished and rejected Yang, Mo, the Buddha, and Laozi in such a manner, yet his "Shishuo" (Discourse on the Teacher) says: "Confucius took Lao Dan as his teacher in ritual." His "Du Mo" (Reading Mozi) says: "Confucius would certainly use Mozi, and Mozi would certainly use Confucius; if they did not use each other, they would not be worthy of being Confucius and Mo." His account of conduct for Lord Prefect Ma of Jiangzhou says: "When the Grand Minister of Works passed away, he pricked his arm to draw blood and wrote more than a thousand words of Buddhist sutras to pray for requiting blessings." It also says: "In observing mourning, he possessed conduct surpassing other men." His prefaces praising Dadian and Gaoxian also both extolled the Buddha-dharma. How could Han Yu's judgments of right and wrong be so unsettled, contradicting themselves from start to finish like this? This not only deludes oneself, but also misleads and encumbers later scholars. If the Buddha and Laozi were indeed right and Han Yu declared them wrong, later learners—failing to discern this, and seeing only that Han Yu was a great Confucian whose prose was refined—emulate him and declare them wrong. If Yang and Mo were indeed wrong and Han Yu declared them right, students likewise imitate him and declare them right. Now, taking what is right to be wrong destroys people's good hearts; taking what is wrong to be right leads people to learn what is wrong. If this ethos of destroying goodness is transmitted to later generations, misleading the very foundation of human minds is no small matter! It diminishes and cuts away unseen virtue (*yinde*), while invisibly multiplying one's faults. If retribution does not fall upon one's own body, it must fall upon one's spirit and one's descendants; this is indeed something to be dreaded in future generations! There are Confucians siding with Han Yu who say: "Confucius merely learned ritual from Lao Dan; he did not learn his Way." I say: Not so. Ritual is also the Way. The "Yueji" says: "Great ritual shares its rhythm with heaven and earth." It also says: "Being centered and correct without depravity is the substance of ritual." The "Liyun" says: