鐔津文集 15

English (machine translation) 15

Language: English

15.1

Composed by Śramaṇa Qisong of Dongshan in Tanjin, Tengzhou.

When I first examined Master Han's *Yuan dao* ("Inquiry into the Way"), he merely took humaneness and righteousness as the Way and virtue, so I thought that Master Han must have been utterly ignorant of the Confucian Way and virtue. Later, I saw his *Essay on Yanzi Not Repeating a Fault*, which says: "The sage embraces the correct nature of sincerity and clarity, and roots himself in the correct virtue of the Mean." He also cited the *Zhongyong*: "From sincerity arises clarity, which is called nature; from clarity arises sincerity, which is called education." He further said: "All these mean that faults cannot but arise in the mind, yet they are not manifested externally; evaluated by the Way of the sage, a slight deviation is called an error." Now, the Mean, sincerity, and clarity are truly the root and source of the sages' and worthies' Way, virtue, humaneness, righteousness, and myriad practices. If so, Master Han certainly also knew that there are the Way and virtue of the Mean, sincerity, and clarity. Why then did *Yuan dao* discard them and speak nothing of them? Did he consider people unfit to be taught this Way? Or did he consider that people must not be neglected? Or was he about to conceal what is good and not speak exhaustively? A gentleman surely must not conceal the good. It must be that Master Han merely saw the words "sincerity," "clarity," and "Mean," yet his mind had not penetrated their principle. However, principle is most subtle; it is refined and precise, and not easily attained. Among the seventy-two disciples, Confucius conceded this to Yan Yuan alone, saying: "He is nearly there, is he not?" Yanzi attained it, so his words rarely erred. Now, when Master Han traces the root of the sages' Way, virtue, humaneness, and righteousness, what does he esteem above others? His writings have it absent earlier and present later, contradicting and throwing themselves into confusion. Can this be called reaching the utmost? If his mind did not penetrate the ultimate principle of sincerity, clarity, and the Mean, even if he wrote more books, could they be transmitted as a standard?

15.5

Section Three

15.6

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.

15.7

Section Four

15.8

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.

15.9

Section Five

15.10

In 'The Basis of Government' (Benzheng), Master Han says: 'The governance of the Zhou emphasized cultural refinement. Once it fell into corruption, later generations did not know how to continue it. Broadly displaying antiquity, they followed the techniques of their own age to make them clear to the people. The people then began to be bewildered by teachings, and the doctrines of the hundred schools arose thereby.' He also says: 'I have heard from my teacher: In antiquity, those who ruled the realm transformed it without displaying the way by which they transformed it. When it fell into corruption, they changed it without displaying the way by which they changed it. Through this, government was attained, and through this, the people became pure and honest. If a future creator understands the reasons why teaching and transformation decayed, restrains the bizarre and eccentric, promotes the August Ultimate, suppresses superficial ornamentation, and esteems loyalty and substance—then, vast like the movements of Heaven, subtle like spiritual transformation, the practice of the Way will surely be near.' Does this statement by Master Han not show disgust at the excesses and evils of cultural refinement, regarding teachings as possessing traces? Yet his words seem to want the realm to use cultural refinement and plain substance to rescue each other, like the governance of the Three Kings, and also seem to want the realm to employ the way of ease and simplicity to effect transformation, like the Three Sovereigns. His words lack a clear beginning or end, causing students to be confused. If Master Han wished for governance like that of the Three Kings, how could the Three Kings not display the way by which they governed? If he wished for the non-action (wuwei) of the Three Sovereigns, where 'vast like the movements of Heaven, subtle like spiritual transformation,' then this resembles what Laozi called his 'Dao and De.' As for those who ruled the realm in antiquity and transformed it without displaying the way by which they transformed it, none were more prominent than the Three Sovereigns: Fuxi, Shennong, and the Yellow Emperor. The Three Sovereigns are precisely whom Laozi's tradition took as masters and ancestors. Master Han ought to have criticized Laozi, asserting that his 'Dao and De' were merely the private words of one individual. If Laozi's doctrines were indeed private, how could these words of Master Han be considered public? Why was Master Han so unreflective and uncritical when writing books? How are students to examine and take them as a model?

15.11

Part Six

15.12

Master Han wrote 'An Inquiry into Ghosts' (Yuan gui), claiming that because the people of his day happened to encounter such things, he investigated ghosts to make an argument about them. Alas! Why must ghosts be investigated? If the people do not know about ghosts, what harm is that to government? If the people know about ghosts, what benefit is that to teaching? The gentlemen of antiquity resolved confusion through the Way and pacified prodigies through governance; it was merely this and nothing more. Formerly, when the governance of the Yin fell into corruption, its people were obsessed with ghosts. The former kings were troubled by this and curtailed it (the character 'to curtail' is perhaps 'to save'). Being obsessed with ghosts means that they had many ceremonious observances resembling the service of ghosts and spirits. How much more so when he further inquires into ghosts, genuinely displaying ghosts to the people—how could this be the way of the former kings? The Analects say: 'When you are not yet able to serve humans, how can you serve ghosts?' Master Han's words not only run counter to the way of the former kings, but also obscure Confucius's intent. How exceedingly mistaken this is!

15.13

Part Seven

15.14

In his 'Explanation of Capturing the Qilin' (Huo lin jie), Master Han says: 'When the qilin appears, there must be a sage on the throne; the qilin appears for the sage. A sage is sure to recognize the qilin, and indeed the qilin does not bring ill omen.' This means that the qilin appeared for Confucius, Confucius recognized the qilin, and the qilin was an auspicious omen, thereby resolving the view of the men of Lu in the past who regarded the qilin as an ill omen. How poorly Master Han's statements understand the Classics! The qilin is that by which the Spring and Autumn Annals was initiated. If one cannot elucidate Confucius's intention in composing the Spring and Autumn Annals, what is the use of explaining the qilin? Ordinary scholars can also identify a qilin. Confucius was a sage—could his ability be limited merely to recognizing a qilin? Saying that the qilin appeared for Confucius relies arbitrarily on the wild statements of the eclectic masters and groundless, erroneous arguments not found in the Classics. Master Han knew only that the sage praised the qilin, not that it was more than a matter of its appearance or non-appearance. Formerly, when Confucius composed the Spring and Autumn Annals on the occasion of the qilin, it was because the four numinous beasts, such as the qilin and phoenix, generally correlate with royal governance. Therefore, the 'Evolution of Rites' (Liyun) says: 'When the sage arises, the four numinous beasts are kept as domestic animals.' In Confucius's time, the Zhou royal house had steadily declined and the kingly way was already cut off; there was a qilin, but no proper governance. The sage, moved by this, consequently considered how to preserve the kingly laws. Therefore, his book begins with King Ping and puts down the brush at the capture of the qilin. But Du Yu's commentary on 'the capture of the qilin' is vague and indecisive. He says both that 'the qilin is an auspicious omen of a sage-king' and that 'at that time there was no enlightened king, so it was moved to bring an auspicious omen but found no resonance.' Since there was no enlightened king, how could it be moved to appear? This is because Mr. Du failed to examine the meaning of its appearance or non-appearance. In the 'Evolution of Rites,' Confucius said that when the sage-king's governance is in great accord, the fenghuang and qilin are in the suburbs and groves, while turtles and dragons are in the palace ponds. 'Suburbs' means close to the royal city; 'groves' means shallow thickets where firewood is gathered. This means that, moved by great accord, the qilin and phoenix are as though domesticated. This merely speaks of their staying in nearby suburbs and among firewood thickets; this is what is meant by the appearance of the qilin. Zuo's Commentary says: 'A hunt in the west in Daye captured a qilin.' Daye was the great marsh of Lu; its desolate, distant, steep, and remote nature made it comparable to Chu's Yunmeng and Wu's Juqu, all being what the world calls the ten great marshes. Deep mountains and vast marshes are indeed where extraordinary creatures hide. The qilin was unfortunately flushed out and taken by Lu; how could it have been moved to come out on its own? Hence I say: the qilin never came forth at all. If one must assert that this was the 'appearance' of the qilin, then Confucius's words in the 'Evolution of Rites' would be erroneous. But could the sage be in error? The Classic says: 'Hunting in the west, they captured a qilin.' From this it can be known that the qilin did not come forth naturally. The sage recorded this with his brush, but not to praise it. In the Spring and Autumn Annals, wherever 'captured' (huo) is stated, it does not merely mean 'obtained'; it signifies being victorious through the strength of weapons. This is exemplified by the Classic's phrase 'captured the Marquis of Jin.' Now, saying 'hunted in the west' expresses detestation for hunting out of season and doing violence to creatures; 'captured the qilin' is indeed a criticism. Dissenting commentators say: 'Confucius compiled the Spring and Autumn Annals, establishing words as laws for an uncrowned king (suwang), and the qilin resonated with this.' Others say: 'What rises is an auspicious omen; what perishes is a calamity,' regarding the qilin as a talismanic omen for one who would receive the mandate in a later generation. These are not recorded in the Classics or Commentaries; they are arbitrary fabrications completely unworthy of acceptance. Calling Confucius an 'uncrowned king' slanders the sage most severely.

15.15

Part Eight

15.16

Master Han recommended himself through three letters, seeking employment by the prime minister. Whenever I read them, I cannot help but sigh. The world says that Master Han was an emerging worthy who succeeded the sages. I say that when sages and worthies advance, withdraw, speak, or keep silent, their every action has a model; they ought not to drift along with ordinary scholars. In antiquity, all scholars desired employment, but if it was contrary to propriety, they would not accept employment. Among the scholars of the Three Dynasties who took office assuming responsibility for the realm under Heaven, none compared to Yi Yin. At the close of the Zhou, among those who grieved for the realm under Heaven, none compared to Confucius. During the Warring States period, among those who wished to practice their Way, none compared to Meng Ke. Even so, they all took part in governance only when summoned with ritual propriety; one never heard of them promoting themselves through letters to seek employment. The Rites state: 'The classicist possesses treasures upon his mat and awaits invitation; he studies diligently day and night and awaits inquiry; he cherishes loyalty and trustworthiness and awaits promotion; he acts with vigour and awaits selection.' The Analects state: 'The Master obtained it through being gentle, upright, courteous, frugal, and yielding. Was not the Master’s way of seeking it different from other men’s seeking of it?' Chenzi asked Mencius: 'Under what circumstances did the gentleman of antiquity take office?' Mencius said: 'There were three conditions for taking office, and three for leaving. If one was received with utmost respect and ritual propriety, and it was said that one's words would be put into practice, then one took office. If the courtesy had not yet waned but one's words were not put into practice, then one left,' and so forth. Sages and worthies of antiquity waited and did not seek in such a way. Waiting and not seeking was because they valued righteousness and guarded the Way. This is precisely why they were sages and worthies. Since Master Han was unable to guard the Way and value righteousness like the sages and worthies of antiquity, and moreover promoted himself to his superiors with letters, he should properly have made his words respectful and his temper calm, simply expressing his own thoughts. How could he be impetuous and angry, summarily condemning the governance of others? Confucius said: 'To speak when it is not yet time to speak is called impetuous.' He also said: 'The boastful of today are angry and perverse.' Master Han adduced the affairs of the Duke of Zhou to compare them with the governance of his time, condemning it as inadequate. When he himself had not yet occupied a position, he abruptly criticized their administration—was this not impetuous? When his self-promotion bore no fruit, he blamed others—was this not boastful and angry? The 'Conduct of the Classicist' states: 'He bathes his person and soaks in virtue; he states his words and bows down; he remains calm and corrects them. If the superior does not know of him, he raises them roughly and does not act hastily.' 'He states his words and bows down' means that when a classicist has an explanation to state, he must bow down and await the command of his superior. 'He remains calm and corrects them' means that even if he does not receive the command, he must calmly maintain his resolve and be upright without becoming partial or impetuous. 'If the superior does not know of him, he raises them roughly and does not act hastily' means that even if he has good words and upright deeds but his superior does not know of them, he accommodates the superior's countenance, puts them forward roughly, and does not act with haste or violence. What the sage spoke of like this was surely intended to lead men to follow reason and keep away from disgrace. Following propriety is what makes one a classicist. Master Han admired Confucius and claimed to be a pure classicist, yet his actions went against the sage’s rules to such an extent; can he be called a true classicist? Not only did he fall short of being a classicist, but I fear he also misled later generations, causing people to abandon propriety and invite disgrace. Master Han's letters desired the court to use ranks and stipends to entice and attract the recluse scholars of the realm under Heaven. For Master Han to treat the realm under Heaven with such words, how shallow and erroneous! In the realm under Heaven there were certainly those who were not dismayed by poverty and humble station, not overbearing in wealth and honor, who could greatly guard the Way, cling to integrity, and whose worthiness surpassed Master Han's, such as the likes of Fu Yue and Zhuge Liang. Could Fu Yue and Zhuge Liang have come abruptly merely because of others, rushing off self-satisfied in pursuit of emoluments and profit? These are just slightly citing those whose reputation was renowned in their generations, whom contemporary rulers could summon with propriety, righteousness, and sincerity to accomplish great deeds. How much more so for those who submerged their names, concealed their traces, and escaped beyond the nets of the world? There were those who viewed parting with a state as a mere grain of rice, neither serving as ministers nor taking office, like Taibo and Boyi; even if conferred ranks and commands were repeated a hundred times, they treated them as nothing. How could Master Han entice and attract them? I fear Master Han’s plan could not necessarily secure the most worthy for the state. Master Han said: 'If the ancients did not take office for three months, they condoled with one another.' This cites Mencius, in the lower chapter of 'Duke Wen of Teng', when he first answered Zhou Xiao's inquiry. Master Han merely took Mencius's words casually without penetrating their complete meaning. At the end of that chapter, Mencius then said: 'The ancients never did not desire to take office; yet they also hated not going by the proper Way. To go not by the proper Way is of the same category as boring holes and creeping through walls.' His intended meaning was precisely: though a scholar may be eager to take office, he also awaits his summons before being employed; he cannot improperly advance and seek employment. Those who improperly advance and seek employment are indeed like men and women who do not wait for their parents' command or the words of matchmakers, but bore through crevices to peek at one another and climb over walls to follow one another, becoming despised by others. Now Master Han recommended himself and sought employment, yet cited this chapter of Mencius as an analogy; why did he so unawares reveal his own loss of propriety and destruction of righteousness? I have heard that in antiquity, when one wished to have an audience, one only stepped forward with what was prescribed as an introductory gift: the Son of Heaven presented sacrificial spirits; feudal lords presented jade; ministers presented a lamb; grand masters presented a wild goose; and scholars presented a pheasant. Therefore Mencius said: 'When Confucius crossed the border, he always carried an introductory gift.' One did not hear of seeing one's superior with letters; this was surely an improper practice of later generations. During the reign of Emperor Wu of the Han, scholars from the four quarters, such as Dongfang Shuo and his like, were boastful, extravagant, and peddled their talents, recommending themselves through letters. The realm under Heaven followed suit, and it became a sweeping trend. Mencius said that selling oneself to serve one's ruler was something that even self-respecting men in villages would not do, so would a worthy do it? Yet who has ever felt ashamed of this? Alas! Later generations have declined even further, and the moral education has grown increasingly superficial and frivolous. Scholars boast to one another of their skills and vie with one another in ability, arrogant, extravagant, and full of self-importance—who is not like this? The way of being gentle, upright, courteous, frugal, and yielding has almost been abandoned. At that time, Master Han should properly have practiced the Way of the sages with vigour, taking the lead before the realm under Heaven to correct its customs; yet he pursued these very practices, and his boastfulness, anger, and impetuousness grew even more intense. Later students learn without understanding the roots; merely seeing Master Han's letters, they say to one another: 'Master Han was a great classicist; we ought to emulate what he did.' Doing so not only further harms moral education, but also damages a minister's integrity and disgraces a man's person. Therefore I say: Master Han's letters did not follow the model; I find nothing worthy in them. Some say: 'In Master Han's time, the method of selecting scholars was different from antiquity. Master Han merely acted in accord with his times. If one must maintain the ancient Way, waiting for an invitation before being employed, the Way of the scholar-gentleman would surely never be put into practice until death.' I say this is not so. Master Han still held the prime minister of his time accountable to the Way of the Duke of Zhou; why did he not consider then: 'Present times are different from antiquity; one cannot judge the present by the ancient Way'? Could it be that when scheming for himself he claimed to follow the times, but when censuring others he claimed they must conform to the ancient Way? Would a gentleman truly act with such intentions? Furthermore, in what generation has the ritual of inviting scholars been lacking? In the Tang dynasty, one also still heard of using ritual courtesy to summon hermits. How could they have overlooked sages and worthies without inviting them? The Analects state: 'Do not worry about having no position; worry about that by which you may establish yourself. Do not worry that no one knows you; seek to be worthy of being known.' Master Han and his like ought also to reflect upon this.

15.17

Part 9

15.18

Master Han wrote the 'Dui Yu wen' (Dialogue on Yu), asserting that although Yu transmitted the realm to his son, his virtue was no less than that of Yao and Shun transmitting to the worthy. In my youth, when writing my Ping rang (Critique of Abdication), I initially also adopted Master Han's theory that Yu transmitted to his son. Later, reflecting on it carefully, I investigated the books of Yu and Xia, and ultimately found no further mention of Yu transmitting to the worthy versus transmitting to his son. Mencius alone said: 'Yu presented Yi to Heaven. Seven years later, Yu died. When the three years of mourning were completed, Yi withdrew from Yu's son to the south of Mount Ji. Those who went to court and those who had lawsuits did not go to Yi, but went to Qi, saying: "He is our lord's son." Those who sang songs of praise did not sing of Yi, but sang of Qi, saying: "He is our lord's son."' And when corroborating this with the histories, the Grand Astrologer in the 'Xia benji' (Basic Annals of Xia) likewise stated that Yu entrusted the realm to Yi, but Yi abdicated in favour of Qi, whereupon the realm upheld Qi as ruler. Only here does it become clear that Yu never personally gave his realm to his son. Although Xun Qing and Yang Xiong both spoke of matters of transmission, neither ever claimed that Yu personally gave the realm to his son. I was therefore astonished at Master Han's carelessness and error in not thoroughly examining the classics and histories, rashly uttering such words. Even supposing that Master Han carelessly borrowed from the diverse theories of the various philosophical schools, asserting that Yu gave the realm to his son and yet his worth was no less than that of Yao and Shun, this again does not accord with the words of the 'Liyun' (Conveyance of Rites). The 'Liyun' says that when the Great Way was practiced, the realm was for the public good, which made that era the Great Unity; and that once the Great Way receded into obscurity, the realm was treated as a family estate, which made that era the Modest Prosperity. Zheng [Xuan]'s commentary explains: 'The realm being for the public good refers to abdication; the realm treated as a family estate refers to transmitting the throne to a son.' Now, since abdication constituted the Great Unity, whereas hereditary family transmission was merely Modest Prosperity, if Yu had indeed given the realm to his son, how could his worth not be inferior to that of Yao and Shun? Although Master Han wished to esteem Yu as worthy, he instead caused Yu to appear unworthy. Furthermore, Master Han conjectured the reasons for the transmissions of Yao, Shun, and Yu, and thus made his assertion: 'Yao and Shun's transmitting to the worthy was because they wanted the realm to find its proper place; Yu's transmitting to his son was out of anxiety over the chaos of strife in the realm.' He also said: 'Yao's transmitting to Shun was out of sorrow for later generations; Yu's transmitting to his son was out of concern for later generations.' Why are his writings so diffuse and undiscerning of distinctions to such an extent? Yet finding its proper place means there is no strife, and strife means not finding its proper place. Anxiety is synonymous with concern, and concern is synonymous with anxiety; how do their semantic glosses differ? Generally, contention and conflict must arise from selfishness and inequality. Having claimed that Yu wished to keep later generations from strife, it would have been proper and in accord with the principles of affairs not to give it to his son. Once he gave it to his son, how could he curb the chaos of strife? After Yu, reaching only the second generation of his sons and grandsons, Houyi seized the realm and possessed it, and together with the likes of Han Zhuo, they threw the governance of Xia into turmoil and cut it off for nearly two hundred years; only when Shaokang was established was the governance of Xia gradually restored and the way of Yu continued. Where was the so-called 'absence of strife'? Now, Yu was a sage; could a sage fail to know the cause of strife? Even if Master Han fabricated this theory haphazardly, does it not incriminate Yu? The Analects say: 'How majestic were Shun and Yu in holding the realm, yet not taking part in it!' Kong [Anguo]'s commentary is far-fetched and careless, inherently insufficient to illuminate the sage's intention. This passage actually means that although Shun and Yu possessed the realm, they did not treat it as their personal possession, all meaning that they always yielded it. Unhappily, Yu's abdication did not come to pass in the event, and so it was given to his son, inheriting it in succession to possess the realm. Confucius, in view of the count of eras, provisionally ranked Yu at the head of the Three Dynasties; hence the 'Liyun' says: 'Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, King Cheng, and the Duke of Zhou were chosen from this.' Nevertheless, the norms of Yao, Shun, and Yu were never different. The realm belongs to the realm; would a sage ever make arbitrary, proprietary calculations about whether to give it to a worthy person or to a son? If at that time the people of the realm wished to give the realm to a worthy person, then even if Yao and Shun had wished to transmit it to their sons, it would have been impossible. If at that time the people of the realm wished to give the realm to a son, then even if Yu had wished to transmit it to a worthy person, it would likewise have been impossible. Therefore, when the times called for giving it to a worthy person, the sage inevitably gave it to a worthy person; when the times called for giving it to a son, the sage could not help but give it to a son. The sage's transmission of the realm was merely following the times, destiny, and human affairs. How could it be said that out of anxiety or concern, he forcibly devised schemes for later generations and differed in his transmission of the realm? Yao said to Shun: 'The calendaric calculations of Heaven rest upon your person.' Shun likewise enjoined Yu with this. The Rites say: 'Yao conferred it on Shun, Shun conferred it on Yu, Tang banished Jie, and King Wu attacked Zhou—these were matters of timeliness.' Therefore the Book of Changes says: 'Great indeed is the timeliness of the meaning of Following!' Master Han's theory lacks foundation; how did it ever grasp the slightest intention behind the transmissions of Shun and Yu? Alas, how erroneous!

15.19

Part Ten

15.20

After Master Han was exiled to Chaozhou, he presented a memorial thanking the Son of Heaven, in which he subtly urged the Son of Heaven to perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices, claiming that his own writings could extol achievements and virtues and be compiled alongside the Odes and Documents without yielding to the ancients. I privately laugh at Master Han's rashness and how his actions lacked foundation. In antiquity, the Feng and Shan sacrifices were great state ceremonies and majestic undertakings of emperors and kings. Even in ordinary times, ministers and subjects could not lightly prompt the sovereign to perform them; how much less should one speak of them while being banished and out of favor! Could Master Han be said to know how to comport himself fittingly? For instance, when Lu Zhi was demoted from grand councilor to Zhongzhou for ten years, he shut his doors, cut off human affairs, and wrote no more private letters. Lu was not only able to be prudent, but also knew that he ought not to meddle in court affairs. Duke Lu can truly be said to have understood the larger picture. As for the Feng and Shan sacrifices, they were not the affair of the Two Emperors and Three Kings. They began with the First Emperor of Qin and were carried to excess by Emperor Wu of the Han. Their ostentation, extravagance, and costs amounted to hundreds of millions. How could their ritual norms ever be compared to what antiquity termed 'presenting a sacrifice to the Sovereign on High' and 'gazing in sacrifice upon the mountains and rivers'? Although the Confucians of that time cited the chapter 'Canon of Shun', where it says 'he went to Mount Tai, made a burnt offering, and gazed in sacrifice in proper order upon the mountains and rivers', in order to stretch their theories to fit, this was merely specious and completely missed the reality. They further cited Guan Yiwu's words on the Feng and Shan sacrifices in response to Duke Huan of Qi, which also did not originate from the books of the Two Emperors and Three Kings. The Book of Han states, concerning Ni Kuan's deliberation on the Feng and Shan sacrifices: 'Yet the meaning of its offerings and sacrifices is not recorded in the classics.' This is indeed so. In the past, although the Grand Astrologer wrote a treatise on it, he merely avoided the ambiguities of his day, not daring to declare explicitly what was right and wrong; he only said: 'I followed the imperial progress, offering sacrifices to Heaven, Earth, the various spirits, and the famous mountains, and performing the Feng and Shan sacrifices. Retiring, I discussed and arranged in sequence those who had made offerings to ghosts and spirits since antiquity, presenting both the inside and outside of the matter, so that future gentlemen may peruse it.' As for Ban Gu's discussion of suburban sacrifices up to the Feng and Shan, vacillating on whether they were permissible or not, he likewise did not explicitly deem them right or wrong, but merely took Gu Yong's memorial as correct. Later generations should have had an eminent and worthy person of penetrating insight who would resolutely promote the system of the Two Emperors and Three Kings, strike a balance with the precedents of Qin and Han, and thereby await future rulers who would perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices. I have often lamented that former Confucians, such as the likes of Yang Ziyun, merely excelled at writing books to pronounce upon past and present, yet over ten thousand generations ultimately never addressed this. Although Wenzhongzi somewhat disputed it, wishing to warn against the Sui dynasty's Feng and Shan sacrifices, his statements were extremely brief and unelaborated. If in later generations there were those whose merit and virtue were deficient and auspicious portents had not arrived, yet they rashly followed that method and performed them carelessly, with what could they be corrected? Master Han took pride in himself throughout his life, claiming to be devoted exclusively to the Way of the Two Emperors and Three Kings and adept at repudiating the absurdities of the hundred schools throughout history; how could it be that, upon being demoted for a time, he degenerated into such error, conversely using the extravagant and boastful ways of the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of the Han to serve his sovereign? What kind of principles did Master Han maintain? Even granting that his sovereign possessed some merit and virtue that warranted the Feng and Shan sacrifices, he should still have weighed and compared them with the era of Taizong before proposing them. Emperor Wen of the Tang quelled the accumulated turmoil of several centuries and single-handedly revitalized the Kingly Way; his merit and virtue were so lofty and magnificent that they deserved comparison to Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu, and even Emperors Wen and Jing of the Han were feared to fall short of what he attained—yet even so, Taizong did not dare discuss the Feng and Shan sacrifices. Thus he said: 'According to my original intent, if the realm is only made peaceful, even without the Feng and Shan sacrifices my virtue can be compared to Yao and Shun. If the common people lack sufficiency, even if we perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices, how would it differ from Jie and Zhou? In the past, the First Emperor of Qin ascended and performed the Feng sacrifice on Mount Tai, full of luxury and boastfulness, whereas Emperor Wen of the Han ultimately did not ascend to perform the sacrifice, personally practicing frugality. Today all regard the First Emperor as a tyrannical ruler and Emperor Wen as a virtuous sovereign. Judging from this, there is no need for the Feng and Shan sacrifices.' Tang Taizong can truly be called a sage, worthy, and principled sovereign! Now during the Zhangwu era (Emperor Xianzong), were his statecraft, merit, virtue, and auspicious portents superior to those of Taizong? Not only were they not superior, but it is also feared they fell far short of the ethos of the Zhenguan reign. Yet Master Han wished him to perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices; how utterly unthinking he was! Furthermore, when the emperors of Qin and Han performed the Feng and Shan sacrifices, did they do so solely to report their success to Heaven and Earth? It was actually because they admired immortals and sought longevity and everlasting life that they performed them. Therefore, their books say: 'Those who perform the Feng and Shan sacrifices do not die; the Yellow Emperor was one such.' They also say: 'Ascending to perform the Feng sacrifice enables one to become an immortal and ascend to heaven.' Toward the end of the Yuanhe era, the Son of Heaven was infatuated with theories of immortals and longevity, bringing in the occultist Liu Mi and consuming his golden elixir, which caused extreme harm. How much worse, then, to invoke the First Emperor of Qin and Emperor Wu of the Han, wishing him to place weight on this! When Master Han raised this matter, did he perceive the subtle signs of things? Could it be that, having met with banishment and distress, he wished to flatter the sovereign in order to secure his own pardon? The Doctrine of the Mean says: 'The gentleman acts in accordance with his station, and does not wish for what is outside it. In wealth and honor, he acts as becomes wealth and honor; in poverty and low station, he acts as becomes poverty and low station; among barbarian tribes, he acts as becomes barbarian tribes; in sorrow and difficulty, he acts as becomes sorrow and difficulty. There is no situation into which the gentleman enters where he does not find self-possession.' This means that as long as what he pursues does not depart from principle, he can rest content with all things, without letting favor, disgrace, misfortune, or fortune disturb his mind. It makes clear that the gentleman is able, through the Mean, to differ from the petty man. Formerly, Sunshu Ao served as chancellor of Chu; he was promoted three times and dismissed three times without showing any signs of joy or anger. Bai Juyi was banished to Xunyang, yet did not let his exile trouble his mind. These two gentlemen acted thus because they conducted themselves in accordance with the Mean. Master Han, having been bold in remonstrating on state affairs, as soon as he was demoted to a prefectural official, acted rashly and recklessly, boasting and lamenting, unable to remain calm for even a moment. He falls far short of Master Sun and Bai Letian!

15.21

Part Eleven

15.22

In his letter discussing literature with Feng Su, Master Han said that people did not understand his writing, and he subsequently compared himself to Yang Ziyun. Regarding the time when [Yang Ziyun] composed the *Taixuan*, he quoted Xiong's words, saying: 'It does no harm that the world does not understand me. If there is another Yang Ziyun in later ages, he will surely love it.' He then remarked: 'Ziyun has been dead for nearly a thousand years, yet lamentably there has never been another Yang Ziyun. At that time, Huan Tan also considered Xiong's book to surpass Laozi. Laozi is not even worth mentioning; did Ziyun merely contend for supremacy with Laozi? This is not truly knowing Xiong. His disciple Hou Ba knew him quite well, considering his master's book to surpass the *Zhouyi*. However, Hou's other writings are not seen in the world, and it is unknown what kind of person he actually was. Judging from this, it is clear that authors do not seek to be understood by men.' (The above are all Tuizhi's words.) Whenever I look upon this, I cannot help but stroke the book and sigh deeply for him. Can Master Han be deemed worthy? How careless he was in uttering such words! As for why sages and worthies write books, how could it be that they wish to contend for supremacy with others? The sages and worthies only feared that the Way would not be illumined and the people would not be well governed; thus they made their books wishing to transmit their Way. How could their intention be to contend for supremacy with others? They acted precisely without contention. Yet to use one's work to contend for supremacy and vie for victory with others—this is merely what vulgar and impetuous failures esteem. If sages and worthies were like this, how far would they be from the common crowd? When their Way is consummate, it naturally manifests the shortcomings of others; when their words are right, they naturally manifest the errors of others. When someone has understanding, they then naturally submit and venerate its beauty. Could one ever obtain people's veneration and esteem by contending for it? Since antiquity, of those who wrote books whose writings were luminous and glorious, who was like Confucius? Yet Confucius said: 'In literary attainments, perhaps I am not yet equal to other men.' Could a sage ever improperly seek victory through his Way? The *Zhongyong* says: 'To teach with broad-mindedness and gentleness, and not to avenge wrongdoing—this is the strength of the South, and the gentleman dwells in it.' Is this ever taking contention as strength? The *Analects* says: 'You has the energy of two men; therefore I held him back.' Would the sage ever wish a Confucian to contend for supremacy with others? Master Han took Confucianism as his model, yet what he said did not conform to its principles; does this not also mislead the scholars of later generations? As for the book of Laozi, it is that which brought to light the Way and virtue of the Three Sovereigns and the Five Emperors. Its text is concise yet detailed, its principles simple yet consummate. The methods of governing the state, regulating the family, cultivating the person, and nurturing the spirit; the rules of dispatching armies and employing troops; the Way of the transformations of heaven and earth—all are fully provided within it. Confucius once attended upon him, taking him as a master and inquiring of him; was it not because he was like this? Could Laozi be easily surpassed? Moreover, what he esteemed was taking non-contention as virtue. Throughout his life, Ziyun studied under Yan Zun (Junping) of Shu; thus in his *Fayan*, he lavishly praised Junping. Junping was one who studied Laozi. When Ziyun composed the *Taixuan*, he took 'the One gives birth to the Three' as the fundamental basis of his original creation; this was also an exploration of what Laozi called 'the One gives birth to the Two, the Two gives birth to the Three' (this explanation appears in the *Taixuan jieyi*). Thus Ziyun said: 'Regarding Laozi's words on the Way and virtue, I have taken something from them.' Since the fundamental source of Xiong's book derived from Laozi, to say that the *Taixuan* surpasses Master Lao is also to have not thought it through. Yet how could Huan Tan be one capable of understanding Ziyun? And for Master Han to cite Huan Tan's words is already laughable. Furthermore, he said: 'His disciple Hou Ba knew him quite well, considering his master's book to surpass the *Zhouyi*.' This is yet another great blunder of Master Han. As for Xiong's *Taixuan*, setting up the four positions of Region, Province, Department, and Family is merely the four images and six lines of the *Yijing*. Deploying eighty-one Heads corresponds to the sixty-four hexagrams of the *Yijing*. Preserving two hundred and forty-two Appraisals without writing them all out relies on the oral formula of King Wu of Zhou. Unfolding seven hundred and twenty-nine Appraisals is merely the three hundred and sixty lines of the *Yijing*. Its origin does not go beyond the two poles of yin and yang; its generation and overcoming do not go beyond the numbers seven, eight, nine, six, and the Five Elements; its guiding principles do not go beyond the Way of the Three Extremities. Xiong's book was fundamentally completed merely by drawing upon the *Yijing*. His *Fayan* says: 'Its matters are transmitted; its text is created.' The *Hanshu* also states of Xiong: 'Considering that among the classics none was greater than the *Yijing*, he therefore composed the *Taixuan*, in all cases deliberating on its origins, emulating, relying on it, and ranging freely.' I once studied the *Yijing* and grasped the numbers of its four images and eight trigrams. Everything preserved in the *Taixuan*—the six qi, the five elements, the three realms, the seven governors, the four seasons, the twelve months, the twenty-four solar terms, the seventy-two micro-seasons, the five markers, the five directions, the five spirits, the five musical tones, the twelve pitch-pipes, the nine palaces, the ten stems, and the twelve branches—all are unified and threaded through by it. It was simply that the sages contained its brilliance, keeping heaven's mystery secret without disclosing it. When it came to the Han dynasty, the likes of Jiao Gan and Jing Fang arbitrarily allocated the lines to rule over the days, and the Way of the *Yijing* was thereby exposed. Ziyun presumably gained inspiration from Master Jiao's allocation of lines; he further combined it with the methods of the celestial sphere. Yet with his ingenious thought and calculation of numbers, he established the beginnings himself, making positions, heads, and appraisals to encompass a whole year, emulating the *Yijing* to divine the affairs of heaven and humanity—in this lay his worthiness. Now, the *Yijing* was completed by drawing upon the River Chart and the Luo Writing; it is fundamentally the most spiritual method of heaven and earth's nature, not an original creation of sages. Yet had there been no sages, they would also not have been able to elucidate it. Although its eras spanned the Three Antiquities and nine sages were relied upon to unfold it, only Fuxi, King Wen, and Confucius achieved especially illustrious deeds. As for Ziyun's book, whence did it originally arise, and how was it attained? How can the person who made that book compare to Fuxi, King Wen, and Zhongni? The method of the *Taixuan* fundamentally resulted merely from the deliberate contrivance of human intellect. Compared to the natural Way of heaven and earth, it certainly cannot be mentioned in the same breath! That Ziyun's worthiness did not reach that of Fuxi, King Wen, and Confucius is something that even an ignorant child knows to be so. Yet Master Han considered Hou Ba to have known him quite well and asserted that the *Taixuan* surpassed the *Yijing*; how could his delusion be so severe? The *Jinshu* states that Wang Changwen once wrote a book entitled *Tongxuan*, which possessed textual commentary and hexagram images that could be used for divination; people of the time compared it to Yang Xiong's *Taixuan*. Could this also be said to surpass the *Yijing*? That Hou Ba did not even know what his master took as his ancestral model; why did he make reckless claims that eclipsed and suppressed the scriptures of the sages, confusing the aspirations of later scholars? This was no minor matter. This is sufficient to recognize Hou Ba's madness; how could anyone be so extremely foolish? There is no need to wait to see his other writings to know what kind of man he was. Master Han should have refuted and denounced this, so as to venerate and verify the Way of the sages; yet instead he followed Hou Ba's claim, improperly using it to assist his own boastfulness. Is this truly how a Confucian should act? I fear that contending for supremacy through writing will cause later generations to practice flippancy and shallowness, so that no one possesses the virtue of humility and reverence; this might well have originated with Master Han. I have often said: Master Yang completed his book by relying on the *Yijing*; it would be acceptable to say he transmitted it, but he should not have composed a classic, setting up his own school to stand as an equal alongside the Great *Yijing*. Confucius transmitted and did not create; he was faithful to and loved antiquity, quietly comparing himself to our Old Peng. Even Zhongni dared not create; did Ziyun actually create? The *Hanshu* states that the various Confucians mocked Master Yang for not being a sage yet creating a classic, presumably also because he was unable to venerate the root. Why should one further use his book's surpassing of the *Yijing* to redouble the mutual censure among Confucians?

First 22 of 28 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

鐔津文集 — Classical Chinese