鐔津文集 15.6

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.