鐔津文集 15.22

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?