三教平心論 2.8

2.8

孔子曰。鄙夫可以事君也與哉。其未得之也患得之。愈之光範三書以自售是也。既得之患失之。愈之陷事于頔以取容是也。苟患失之無所不至矣。愈之請封禪求仙翁禱二妃是也。愈之操履若此。雖其文章高天下。何足道乎。周子通書曰。不知務道德。而以文辭為能者。藝為而已矣。由是言之。則愈與奕等皆藝者耳。孰謂愈得為儒哉。況愈之為文。尤不能無可議者。原道之作。謂博愛之謂仁行而宜之之謂叉。由是而之焉之謂道。抑不思。無極而太極斯其所謂道也。斯時也安有所謂愛之博行之宜者也。愛之博行之宜。無非斯道之流行發見也。而愈乃謂道曰博愛行宜而出。母乃顛倒之甚乎。愈之不知道也如此。

Confucius said: 'Can a petty man serve the prince? When he has not got [his post], he worries about getting it'—this is Yu's offering himself through the 'Three Memorials to the Guangfan Pavilion'. 'Once he has got it, he worries about losing it'—this is Yu's degrading himself to serve Yu Di to gain favor. 'If he worries about losing it, there is nothing he will not do'—this is Yu's petitioning for the Feng and Shan sacrifices, consulting Immortal Mao, and praying to the Two Consorts. With Yu's conduct being such, even if his writings were celebrated throughout the realm, how would they be worth mentioning? Master Zhou's *Tongshu* says: 'Those who do not apply themselves to virtue, but take literary skill as their mastery, are merely artisans of art.' Judged from this, then Yu, [Fu] Yi, and their like were all mere artisans. Who would say that Yu can be counted a Confucian? Moreover, in Yu's compositions, there are aspects that are especially open to criticism. In his *Origins of the Way*, he says: 'Universal love is called humaneness; acting in accordance with what is fitting is called righteousness; proceeding along this path is called the Way.' Yet he did not reflect that the Supreme Ultimate that is without ultimate is precisely what is called the Way. At that moment, how could there be the so-called universality of love or the fittingness of actions? The universality of love and the fittingness of actions are nothing other than the outflow and manifestation of this Way. Yet Yu asserted that the Way arises from universal love and fitting actions; is this not an extreme inversion? Yu's ignorance of the Way is like this.