三教平心論 2.13

2.13

原道謂。老子道其所道。非吾之所謂道。其師說乃謂。孔子師老聃。審如是則孔子之道。乃出於老氏之道。亦可謂之道其所道也。與孟簡書謂。群聖之道大壞。其禍出於楊墨其讀墨子乃謂。孔墨相為用。審如是則孔子之道。本同乎墨子之道。亦可謂之壞群聖之道也。夫老也墨也異端之道也。愈既詆排之矣。而乃指孔子以為老。又指孔子以為墨。不亦叛孔子之甚乎。學孔子而叛孔子。猶陳相之背師逢蒙之射羿也。後世經生學士。以愈詆佛為可傚。則愈之叛孔子亦可傚乎。抑愈雖詆佛。而又取於佛。其交大顛也。則取其聰明識道理。其送高閑也。則取其一生死解外膠。其作馬彙行狀也則取其刺血寫佛經。且詆之而且取之。既非之而又是之愈可謂不常其德者矣。蓋愈之中心。初無定見。是非取捨莫知適從。故肆口所言隨時遷就前不顧後後不顧前。而不復慮其遺臭於萬世也。識者於此毋以私心論。毋以愛憎之心論。試平其心而評之。則愈之為人也。果君子乎抑小人乎。果儒者乎抑非真儒乎。

In *Origins of the Way*, he says: 'Laozi spoke of what he called the Way, which is not what I call the Way.' Yet in his 'On Teachers', he claims: 'Confucius took Lao Dan as a teacher.' If it were truly like this, then Confucius's Way originated from Laozi's Way, and can also be called speaking of what he called the Way! In his letter to Meng Jian, he says: 'The Way of the flock of sages fell into great ruin, and the disaster originated from Yang [Zhu] and Mo [Di].' Yet in his 'Reading Mozi', he claims: 'Confucius and Mozi complemented each other.' If it were truly like this, then Confucius's Way was originally the same as Mozi's Way, and could also be said to have ruined the Way of the flock of sages! Now Lao[zi] and Mo[zi] are the ways of heterodox traditions; Yu already denounced and rejected them, yet he then identified Confucius with Laozi and also identified Confucius with Mozi. Is this not an extreme betrayal of Confucius? To learn from Confucius and yet betray Confucius is like Chen Xiang turning his back on his master, or Feng Meng shooting Yi. When later classical scholars and men of letters take Yu's denunciation of Buddhism as something worthy of imitation, is Yu's betrayal of Confucius also worthy of imitation? Furthermore, although Yu denounced Buddhism, he also drew upon Buddhism. In his association with Dadian, he drew upon his intelligence and understanding of principle; in seeing off Gaoxian, he drew upon his viewing life and death as one and freeing himself from external entanglements; in composing the biographical account for Ma Hui, he drew upon his pricking his blood to write Buddhist sūtras. He both denounced it and drew upon it; he both condemned it and affirmed it—Yu can indeed be called one whose virtue was inconstant! Truly, in Yu's heart, there was originally no settled view; between right and wrong, accepting and rejecting, he did not know what to follow. Thus, whatever he let out from his mouth compromised according to the moment, with the front not looking to the back and the back not looking to the front, no longer caring whether he would leave a foul reputation for myriad generations. Men of discernment, in evaluating this, must not judge with private partiality, nor judge with feelings of love and hatred; try to evaluate him with an impartial mind: as for Yu's character, was he ultimately a gentleman or a petty man? Was he ultimately a Confucian or not a true Confucian?