鐔津文集 15.18

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!