|
問孔篇
世儒學者，好信師而是古，以為賢聖所言皆無非，專精講習，不知難問。夫賢聖下筆造文，用意詳審，尚未可謂盡得實，況倉卒吐言，安能皆是？不能皆是，時人不知難；或是，而意沉難見，時人不知問。案賢聖之言，上下多相違；其文，前後多相伐者。世之學者，不能知也。
論者皆雲：“孔門之徒，七十子之才，勝今之儒。”此言妄也。彼見孔子為師，聖人傳道，必授異才，故謂之殊。夫古人之才，
今人之才也。今謂之英傑，古以為聖神，故謂七十子曆世稀有。
使當今有孔子之師，則斯世學者，皆顏、閔之徒也；使無孔子，則七十子之徒，今之儒生也。何以驗之？以學於孔子，
不能極問也。聖人之言，不能盡解；說道陳義，不能輒形。不能輒形，宜問以發之；不能盡解，宜難以極之。
皋陶陳道帝舜之前，淺略未極。禹問難之，淺言複深，略指複分。蓋起問難此說激而深切、觸而著明也。
孔子笑子遊之弦歌，子遊引前言以距孔子。自今案《論語》之文，孔子之言多若笑弦歌之辭，弟子寡若子遊之難，故孔子之言遂結不解。以七十子不能難，世之儒生，不能實道是非也。
凡學問之法，不為無才，難於距師，核道實義，證定是非也。問難之道，非必對聖人及生時也。世之解說說人者，非必須聖人
教告，乃敢言也。苟有不曉解之問，〔追〕難孔子，何傷於義？誠有傳聖業之知，伐孔子之說，何逆於理？
謂問孔子之言，難其不解之文，世間弘才大知生，能答問、解難之人，必將賢吾世間難問之言是非。
孟懿子問孝。子曰：“毋違。”樊遲禦，子告之曰：“孟孫問孝於我，我對曰‘毋違’。”
樊遲曰：“何謂也？”子曰：“生，事之以禮；死，葬之以禮。”
問曰：孔子之言毋違，毋違者，禮也。孝子亦當先意承志，不當違親之欲。孔子言毋違，不言違禮。
懿子聽孔子之言，獨不為嫌於毋違志乎。樊遲問何謂，孔子乃言“生，事之以禮；死，葬之以禮，祭之以禮。”使樊遲不問，毋違之說，遂不可知也。
懿子之才，不過樊遲，故《論語》篇中不見言行。樊遲不曉，懿子必能曉哉？
孟武伯問孝，子曰：“父母，唯其疾之憂。”武伯善憂父母，故曰“唯其疾之憂”。
武伯憂親，懿子違禮。攻其短，答武伯雲“父母，唯其疾之憂”，對懿子亦宜言唯水火之變乃違禮。
周公告小才敕，大材略。子遊之大材也，孔子告之敕；懿子小才也，告之反略。違周公之志，攻懿子之短，失道理之宜。弟子不難，
何哉？
如以懿子權尊，不敢極言，則其對武伯亦宜但言毋憂而已。俱孟氏子也，權尊鈞同，敕武伯而略懿子，未曉其故也。使孔子對
懿子極言毋違禮，何害之有？
專魯莫過季氏，譏八佾之舞庭，刺太山之旅祭，不懼季氏增邑不隱諱之害，獨畏答懿子極言之罪，何哉？且問孝者非一，皆有禦者，對懿子言，不但心服臆肯，故告樊遲。
孔子曰：“富與貴，是人之所欲也，不以其道得之，不居也；貧與賤，是人之所惡也，不以其道得之，不去也。”
此言人當由道義得，不當苟取也；當守節安貧，不當妄去也。
夫言不以其道，得富貴不居，可也；不以其道，得貧賤如何？富貴顧可去，去貧賤何之？去貧賤，得富貴也。不得富貴，不去貧賤。如謂
得富貴不以其道，則不去貧賤邪？則所得富貴，不得貧賤也。貧賤何故當言得之？
顧當言貧與賤是人之所惡也，不以其道去之，則不去也。
當言去，不當言得。得者，施於得之也。今去之，安得言得乎？獨富貴當言得耳。何者？得富貴，乃去貧賤也。
是則以道去貧賤如何？修身行道，仕得爵祿、富貴。得爵祿、富貴，則去貧賤矣。不以其道去貧賤如何？毒苦貧賤，起為奸盜，
積聚貨財，擅相官秩，是為不以其道。
七十子既不問，世之學者亦不知難。使此言意不解而文不分，是謂孔子不能吐辭也；
使此言意結文又不解，是孔子相示未形悉也。弟子不問，世俗不難，何哉？
孔子曰：“公冶長可妻也，雖在縲絏之中，非其罪也。”以其子妻之。
問曰：孔子妻公冶長者，何據見哉？據年三十可妻邪，見其行賢可妻也？如據其年三十，不宜稱在縲絏；如見其行賢，亦不宜稱在縲絏。何則？諸入孔子門者，皆有善行，故稱備徒役。徒役之中無妻，則妻之耳，不須稱也。如徒役之中多無妻，公冶長尤賢，故獨妻之，則其稱之宜列其行，不宜言其在縲絏也。何則？世間強受非辜者多，未必盡賢人也。恆人見枉，眾多非一，必以非辜為孔子所妻，則是孔子不妻賢，妻冤也。案孔子之稱公冶長，有非辜之言，無行能之文。實不賢，孔子妻之，非也；實賢，孔子稱之不具，亦非也。誠似妻南容雲，國有道不廢，國無道免於刑戮，具稱之矣。
子謂子貢曰：“汝與回也，孰愈？”曰：“賜也，何敢望回？回也，聞一以知十；賜也，聞一以知二。”子曰：“弗如也，吾與汝
俱不如也。”
是賢顏淵試以問子貢也。
問曰：孔子所以教者，禮讓也。子路，為國以禮，其言不讓，孔子非之。使子貢實愈顏淵，孔子問之，猶曰不如，
使實不及，亦曰不如，非失對欺師，禮讓之言宜謙卑也。
今孔子出言，欲何趣哉？使孔子知顏淵愈子貢，則不須問子貢。使孔子實不知，以問子貢，子貢謙讓亦不能知。使孔子徒欲表善
顏淵，稱顏淵賢，門人莫及，於名多矣，何須問於子貢？
子曰：“賢哉，回也！”又曰：“吾與回言終日，不違如愚。”又曰：“回也，其心三月不違仁。”三章皆直稱，不以他人激。至是一章，獨以子貢激之，何哉？
或曰：欲抑子貢也。當此之時，子貢之名淩顏淵之上，孔子恐子貢志驕意溢，故抑之也。
夫名在顏淵之上，當時所為，非子貢求勝之也。實子貢之知何如哉？使顏淵才在己上，己自服之，不須抑也。使子貢不能自知，孔子雖言，將謂孔子徒欲抑已。由此言之，問與不問，無能抑揚。
宰我晝寢。子曰：“朽木不可雕也，糞土之牆不可圬也，於予予何誅。”是惡宰予之晝寢。
問曰：晝寢之惡也，小惡也；朽木糞土，敗毀不可複成之物，大惡也。責小過以大惡，安能服人？使宰我性不善，如朽木糞土，
不宜得入孔子之門，序在四科之列。使性善，孔子惡之，惡之太甚，過也；
人之不仁，疾之已甚，亂也。孔子疾宰予，可謂甚矣。使下愚之人涉耐罪，獄吏令以大辟之罪，必冤而怨邪？將服而自咎也？使宰我愚，則與涉耐罪之人同志；使宰我賢，知孔子責人，幾微自改矣。明文以識之，流言以過之，以其言示端而已自改。自改不在言之輕重，在宰予能更與否。
《春秋》之義，采毫毛之善，貶纖介之惡，褒毫毛以巨大，以巨大貶纖介。觀《春秋》之義，肯是之乎？不是，則宰我不受；
不受，則孔子之言棄矣。
聖人之言與文相副，言出於口，文立於策，俱發於心，其實一也。孔子作《春秋》，不貶小以大。其非宰予也，以大惡細，文語相違，服人如何？
子曰：“始吾於人也，聽其言而信其行；今吾於人也，聽其言而觀其行。於予予改是。”蓋起宰予晝寢，更知人之術也。
問曰：人之晝寢，安足以毀行？毀行之人，晝夜不臥，安足以成善？以晝寢而觀人善惡，能得其實乎？
案宰予在孔子之門，序於四科，列在賜上。如性情怠，
不可雕琢，何以致此？使宰我以晝寢自致此，才複過人遠矣。如未成就，自謂已足，不能自知，知不明耳，非行惡也。曉敕而已，無為改術也。
如自知未足，倦極晝寢，是精神索也。精神索至於死亡，豈徒寢哉？
且論人之法，取其行則棄其言，取其言則棄其行。
今宰予雖無力行，有言語。用言，令行缺，有一概矣。今孔子起宰予晝寢，聽其言，觀其行，言行相應，則謂之賢。是孔子備取人
也。毋求備於一人之義，何所施？
子張問：“令尹子文三仕為令尹，無喜色；三已之，無慍色；舊令尹之政，必以告新令尹。何如？”子曰：“忠矣。”曰：“仁矣乎？”曰：“未知，焉得仁？”子文曾舉楚子玉代己位而伐宋，以百乘敗而喪其眾，不知如此，安得為仁？
問曰：子文舉子玉，不知人也。智與仁，不相干也。有不知之性，何妨為仁之行？五常之道，仁、義、禮、智、信也。五者各別
，不相須而成。故有智人、有仁人者，有禮人、有義人者。人有信者未必智，智者未必仁，仁者未必禮，禮者未必義
。子文智蔽於子玉，其仁何毀？謂仁，焉得不可？
且忠者，厚也。厚人，仁矣。孔子曰：“觀過，斯知仁矣。”子文有仁之實矣。孔子謂忠非仁，是謂父母非二親，配匹非夫婦也。
哀公問：“弟子孰謂好學？”孔子對曰：“有顏回者，不遷怒，不貳過，不幸短命死矣。今也則亡，未聞好學者也。”
夫顏淵所以死者，審何用哉？令自以短命，猶伯牛之有疾也。人生受命，皆全當潔。今有惡疾，故曰無命。人生皆當受天長命，今得短命，亦宜曰無命。如〔命〕有短長，則亦有善惡矣。言顏淵短命，則宜言伯牛惡命；言伯牛無命，則宜言顏淵無命。一死一病，皆痛雲命。所稟不異，文語不同。未曉其故也。
哀公問孔子孰為好學。孔子對曰：“有顏回者好學，今也則亡。不遷怒，不貳過。”何也？
曰：並攻哀公之性，遷怒、貳過故也。因其問則並以對之，兼以攻上之短，不犯其罰。
問曰：康子亦問好學，孔子亦對之以顏淵。康子亦有短，何不並對以攻康子？康子，非聖人也，操行猶有所失。成事，康子患盜，孔子對曰：“苟子之不欲，雖賞之不竊。”由此言之，康子以欲為短也。不攻，何哉？
孔子見南子，子路不悅。子曰：“予所鄙者，天厭之！天厭之！”
南子，衛靈公夫人也，聘孔子，子路不說，謂孔子淫亂也。孔子解之曰：我所為鄙陋者，天厭殺我。至誠自誓，不負子路也。
問曰：孔子自解，安能解乎？使世人有鄙陋之行，天曾厭殺之，可引以誓；子路聞之，可信以解；今未曾有為天所厭者也，
曰天厭之，子路肯信之乎？
行事，雷擊殺人，水火燒溺人，牆屋壓填人。如曰雷擊殺我，水火燒溺我，牆屋壓填我，子路
頗信之；今引未曾有之禍，以自誓於子路，子路安肯曉解而信之？
行事，適有臥厭不悟者，謂此為天所厭邪？案諸臥厭不悟者，未皆為鄙陋也。子路入道雖淺，猶知事之實。事非實，孔子以誓，子路必不解矣。
孔子稱曰：“死生有命，富貴在天。”若此者，人之死生自有長短，不在操行善惡也。成事，顏淵蚤死，孔子謂之短命。
由此知短命夭死之人，必有邪行也。
子路入道雖淺，聞孔子之言，知死生之實。孔子誓以“予所鄙者，天厭之”！獨不為子路言：夫子惟命未當死，天安得厭殺之乎？
若此，誓子路以天厭之，終不見信。不見信，則孔子自解，終不解也。
《尚書》曰：“毋若丹硃敖，惟慢遊是好。”謂帝舜敕禹毋子不肖子也。重天命，恐禹私其子，故引丹硃以敕戒之。禹曰：“予娶若時，
辛壬癸甲，開呱呱而泣，予弗子。”陳已行事以往推來，以見蔔隱，效己不敢私不肖子也。不曰天厭之者，知俗人誓，好引天也。
孔子為子路所疑，不引行事，效己不鄙，而雲天厭之，是與俗人解嫌引天祝詛，何以異乎？
孔子曰：“鳳鳥不至，河不出圖，吾已矣夫。”
夫子自傷不王也。己王，致太平；太平則鳳鳥至，河出圖矣。今不得王，故瑞應不至，悲心自傷，故曰“吾已矣夫”。
問曰：鳳鳥、河圖，審何據始起？始起之時，鳥、圖未至；如據太平，太平之帝，未必常致鳳鳥與河圖也。
五帝、三王，皆致太平。案其瑞應，不皆鳳皇為必然之瑞；於太平，鳳皇為未必然之應。孔子，聖人也，思未必然以自傷，終不應矣。
或曰：孔子不自傷不得王也，傷時無明王，故己不用也。鳳鳥、河圖，明王之瑞也。瑞應不至，時無明王；明王不存，己遂不用矣。
夫致瑞應，何以致之？任賢使能，治定功成；治定功成，則瑞應至矣。瑞應至後，亦不須孔子。孔子所望，何其末也！
不思其本而望其末也。不相其主而名其物，治有未定，物有不至，
以至而效明王，必失之矣。孝文皇帝可謂明矣，案其《本紀》，不見鳳鳥與河圖。使孔子在孝文之世，猶曰“吾已矣夫”。
子欲居九夷，或曰：“陋，如之何？”子曰：“君子居之，何陋之有！”
孔子疾道不行於中國，志恨失意，故欲之九夷也。或人難之曰：“夷狄之鄙陋無禮義，如之何？”孔子曰：“君子居之，何陋之有？”言以君子之道，居而教之，何為陋乎？
問之曰：孔子欲之九夷者，何起乎？起道不行於中國，故欲之九夷。夫中國且不行，安能行於夷狄？“夷狄之有君，
不若諸夏之亡”。言夷狄之難，諸夏之易也。不能行於易，能行於難乎？
且孔子雲：“以君子居之者，何謂陋邪？”謂修君子之道自容乎？謂以君子之道教之也？如修君子之道苟自容，中國亦可，何必之夷狄？
如以君子之道教之，夷狄安可教乎？
禹入裸國，裸入衣出，衣服之制不通於夷狄也。禹不能教裸國衣服，孔子何能使九夷為君子？
或：“孔子實不欲往，患道不行，動發此言。或人難之，孔子知其陋，然而猶曰‘何陋之有’者，欲遂已然，距或人之諫也。”
實不欲往，志動發言，是偽言也。君子於言無所苟矣。如知其陋，苟欲自遂，此子路對孔子以子羔也。
子路使子羔為費宰，子曰：“賊夫人之子。”子路曰： “有社稷焉，有民人焉，何必讀書，然後為學？”子曰：“是故惡夫佞者。”
子路知其不可，苟欲自遂，孔子惡之，比夫佞者。孔子亦知其不可，苟應或人。孔子、子路皆以佞也。
孔子曰：“賜不受命而貨殖焉，億則屢中。
”何謂不受命乎？說曰：受當富之命，自以術知數億中時也。
夫人富貴，在天命乎？在人知也？如在天命，知術求之不能得；如在人，孔子何為言“死生有命，富貴在天
”？夫謂富不受命，而自知術得之，貴亦可不受命，而自以努力求之。世無不受貴命而自得貴，亦知無不受富命而自得富得者。
成事，孔子不得富貴矣，周流應聘，行說諸侯，智窮策困，還定《詩》、《書》，望絕無翼，稱“已矣夫”自知無貴命，周流無
補益也。孔子知己不受貴命，周流求之不能得，而謂賜不受富命，而以術知得富，言行相違，未曉其故。
或曰：“欲攻子貢之短也。子貢不好道德而徒好貨殖，故攻其短，欲令窮服而更其行節。”夫攻子貢之短，可言賜不好道德而貨殖焉，何必立不受命，與前言富貴在天相違反也？
顏淵死，子曰：“噫！天喪予！”
此言人將起，天與之輔；人將廢，天奪其佑。孔子有四友，欲因而起，顏淵早夭，故曰“天喪予”。
問曰：顏淵之死，孔子不王，天奪之邪？不幸短命自為死也？如短命不幸，不得不死，孔子雖王，猶不得生。
輔之於人，猶杖之扶疾也。人有病，須杖而行；如斬杖本得短，可謂天使病人不得行乎？如能起行，杖短能使之長乎？夫顏淵之短
命，猶杖之短度也。
且孔子言“天喪予”者，以顏淵賢也。案賢者在世，未必為輔也。夫賢者未必為輔，猶聖人未必受命也。為帝有不聖，為輔有
不賢。何則？祿命骨法，與才異也。由此言之，顏淵生未必為輔，其死未必有喪。孔子雲“天喪予”，何據見哉？
且天不使孔子王者，本意如何？本稟性命之時，不使之王邪，將使之王，複中悔之也？如本不使之王，顏淵死，何喪？如本使之王，複中悔之，此王無骨法，便宜自在天也。且本何善所見，而使之王？後何惡所聞，中悔不命？天神論議，誤不諦也？
孔子之衛，遇舊館人之喪，入而哭之。出使子貢脫驂而賻之。子貢曰：“於門人之喪，未有所脫驂。脫驂於舊館，毋乃已重乎？”孔子曰：“予鄉者入而哭之，遇於一哀而出涕，予惡夫涕之無從也，小子行之。”
孔子脫驂以賻舊館者，惡情不副禮也。副情而行禮，情起而恩動，禮情相應，君子行之。
顏淵死，子哭之慟。門人曰：“子慟矣。”“吾非斯人之慟而為？”
夫慟，哀之至也。哭顏淵慟者，殊之眾徒，哀痛之甚也。死有棺無槨，顏路請車以為之槨，孔子不予，為大夫不可以徒行也。吊舊館，脫驂以賻，惡涕無從；哭顏淵慟，請車不與，使慟無副。豈涕與慟殊，馬與車異邪？於彼則禮情相副，於此則恩義不稱，未曉孔子為禮之意。
孔子曰：“鯉也死，有棺無槨，吾不徒行以為之槨。”鯉之恩深於顏淵，鯉死無槨，大夫之儀，不可徒行也。鯉，子也；顏淵，他姓也。子死且不禮，況其禮他姓之人乎？
曰：是蓋孔子實恩之效也。副情於舊館，不稱恩於子，豈以前為士，後為大夫哉？如前為士，士乘二馬；如為大夫，大夫乘三馬。大夫不可去車徒行，何不截賣兩馬以為槨，乘其一乎？為士時乘二馬，截一以賻舊館，今亦何不截其二以副恩，乘一以解不徒行乎？不脫馬以賻舊館，未必亂制。葬子有棺無槨，廢禮傷法。孔子重賻舊人之恩，輕廢葬子之禮。此禮得於他人，制失〔於〕親子也。然則孔子不粥車以為鯉槨，何以解於貪官好仕恐無車？而自雲“君子殺身以成仁”，何難退位以成禮？
子貢問政，子曰：“足食，足兵，民信之矣。”
曰：“必不得已而去，於斯三者何先？”曰：“去兵。”
曰：“必不得已而去，於斯二者何先？”
曰：“去食。自古皆有死，民無信不立。”信最重也。
問：使治國無食，民餓，棄禮義禮義棄，信安所立？
傳曰：“倉稟實，知禮節；衣食足，知榮辱。”讓生於有餘，爭生
於不足。今言去食，信安得成？
春秋之時，戰國饑餓，易子而食析，骸而炊，口饑不食，不暇顧恩義也。夫父子之恩，信矣。饑餓棄信，以子為食。孔子教子貢去食存信，如何？夫去信存食，雖不欲信，信自生矣；去食存信，雖欲為信，信不立矣。
子適衛，冉子仆，子曰：“庶矣哉！”曰：“既庶矣，又何加焉？”曰：“ 富之。”曰：“既富矣，又何加焉？”曰：“教之。”語冉子先富而後教之，教子貢去食而存信。食與富何別？信與教何異？二子殊教，所尚不同，孔子為國，意何定哉？
蘧伯玉使人於孔子，孔子曰：“夫子何為乎？”對曰：“夫子欲寡其過而未能也。”使者出，孔子曰：“使乎！使乎！”
非之也。說《論語》者，曰：“非之者，非其代人謙也。”
夫孔子之問使者曰：“夫子何為”，問所治為，非問操行也。如孔子之問也，使者宜對曰“夫子為某事，治某政”，今反言“
欲寡其過而未能也”，何以知其對失指，孔子非之也？且實孔子何以非使者？非其代人謙之乎？其非乎對失指也？
所非猶有一實，不明其過，而徒雲“使乎使乎！”後世疑惑，不知使者所以為過。韓子曰：“書約則弟子辨。”孔子之言“使乎”，何其約也？
或曰：“《春秋》之義也，為賢者諱。蘧伯玉賢，故諱其使者。”
夫欲知其子視其友，欲知其君，視其所使。伯玉不賢，故所使過也。《春秋》之義，為賢者諱，亦貶纖介之惡。今不非而諱，貶纖介安所施哉？使孔子為伯玉諱，宜默而已。揚言曰“使乎！使乎！”，時人皆知孔子之非也。出言如此，何益於諱？
佛肸召，子欲往。子路不說，曰：“昔者，由也聞諸夫子曰：‘親於其身為不善者，君子不入也。’佛肸以中牟畔，子之往也如之何？”子曰：“有是〔言〕也。不曰堅乎？磨而不磷；不曰白乎？涅而不淄。吾豈匏瓜也哉，焉能系而不食也？”
子路引孔子往時所言以非孔子也。往前孔子出此言，欲令弟子法而行之，子路引之以諫，孔子曉之，不曰“前言戲”，若非
而不可行，而曰“有是言”者，審有當行之也。“不曰堅乎？磨而不磷；不曰白乎？涅而不淄”，孔子言此言者，能解子路難
乎？“親於其身為不善者，君子不入也”，解之，宜〔曰〕：佛肸未為不善，尚猶可入。而曰“
堅磨而不磷，白涅而不淄”。如孔子之言，有堅白之行者可以入之，君子之行軟而易汙邪，何以獨不入也？
孔子不飲盜泉之水，曾子不入勝母之閭，避惡去汙，不以義恥辱名也。盜泉、勝母有空名，而孔、曾恥之；
佛肸有惡實，而子欲往。不飲盜泉是，則欲對佛肸非矣。
“不義而富且貴，於我如浮雲”，枉道食篡畔之祿，所謂“浮雲”者非也？
或：“權時欲行道也即權時行道，子路難之，當雲“行道”，不〔當〕言食。有權時以行道，無權時以求食。
“吾豈匏瓜也哉，焉能系而不食”？自比以匏瓜者，言人當仕而食祿。我非匏瓜系而不食，非子路也。孔子之言，不解子路
之難。子路難孔子，豈孔子不當仕也哉？當擇善國而入之也。孔子自比匏瓜，孔子欲安食也。且孔之言，何其鄙也！何彼仕為食哉？
君子不宜言也。
匏瓜系而不食，亦系而不仕等也。距子路可雲： “吾豈匏瓜也哉，系而不仕也”？今吾“系而不食”，孔子之仕，
不為行道，徒求食也。人之仕也，主貪祿也。禮義之言，為行道也。猶人之娶也，主為欲也，禮義之言，為供親也。仕而直言食，娶可直言欲乎？
孔子之言，解情而無依違之意，不假義理之名，是則俗人，非君子也。儒者說孔子周流應聘不濟，閔道不行，失孔子情矣。
公山弗擾以費畔，召，子欲往。子路曰：“未如也已，何必公山氏之之也？” 子曰：“夫召我者，而豈徒哉？如用我，
吾其為東周乎。”
為東周，欲行道也。
公山、佛肸俱畔者，行道於公山，求食於佛肸，孔子之言無定趨也。言無定趨，則行無常務矣。周流不用，豈獨有以乎？
陽貨欲見之，不見；呼之仕，不仕，何其清也？公山、佛肸召之欲往，何其濁也？公山不擾與陽虎俱畔，執季桓子，二人同惡，呼召禮等。獨對公山，不見陽虎，豈公山尚可，陽虎不可乎？子路難公山之〔召〕，孔子宜解以尚及佛肸未甚惡之狀也。
|
|
Chapter XXXIII. Criticisms on Confucius (Wên K`ung).
The students of Confucianism of the present day
like to swear in verba magistri, and to believe in
antiquity. The words of the Worthies and Sages are to them infallible, and they
do their best to explain and practise them, but they are unable to criticize
them. When the Worthies and Sages take the pencil, and commit their thoughts to
writing, though they meditate, and thoroughly discuss their subject, one cannot
say that they always hit the truth, and much less can their occasional
utterances all be true. But although they cannot be all true, the scholars of
to-day do not know, how to impugn them, and, in case they are true, but so
abstruse that they are difficult to understand, those people do not know how to
interpret their meaning. The words of the Sages on various occasions are often
contradictory, and their writings at different times very often mutually clash.
That however is, what the scholars of our time do not understand.
One always hears the remark that the talents of the
Seventy Disciples of the school of Confucius surpassed
those of the savants of our days. This statement is erroneous. They imagine
that Confucius acting as teacher, a Sage propounding the
doctrine, must have imparted it to exceptionally gifted men, whence the idea
that they were quite unique. The talents of the ancients are the talents of the
moderns. What we call men of superior genius now-a-days, were regarded by the
ancients as Sages and supernatural beings, hence the belief that the Seventy
Sages could not appear in other generations.
If at present there could be a teacher like
Confucius, the scholars of this age would all be like
Yen and Min,1 and without Confucius, the Seventy Disciples would be only like the
Literati of the present day. For though learning from Confucius, they could not thoroughly inquire. The words of
the Sage they did not completely understand, his doctrines and principles they
were unable to explain. Therefore they ought to have asked to get a clearer
conception, and not understanding thoroughly, they ought to have raised
objections in order to come to a complete understanding.
The sentiments which Kao Yao2 uttered before the Emperor
Shun were shallow and superficial, and not to the point.
Yü asked him to explain himself, when the shallow words
became deeper, and the superficial hints more explicit,
3 for criticisms animate the
discussion, and bring out the meaning, and opposition leads to greater
clearness.
Confucius ridiculed the
guitar-playing and singing of Tse Yu,4 who, however, retorted by quoting what Confucius had said on a previous occasion. If we now take up
the text of the Analects, we shall see that in the
sayings of Confucius there is much like the strictures
on the singing of Tse Yu. But there were few disciples
able to raise a question like Tse Yu. In consequence the
words of Confucius became stereotyped and inexplicable,
because the Seventy could not make any objection, and the scholars of the
present time are not in a position to judge of the truth of the doctrine.
Their scientific methods do not arise from a lack
of ability, but the difficulty consists in opposing the teacher, scrutinizing
his doctrine, investigating its meaning, and bringing evidence to ascertain
right and wrong. Criticism is not solely permitted vis-à-vis to sages, as long as they are alive. The
commentators of the present day do not require the instruction of a sage,
before they dare to speak.
If questions be asked on things which seem
inexplicable, and Confucius be pressed hard, how can
this be deemed a violation of the moral laws, and if those who really are able
to hand down the holy teachings, impugn the words of Confucius, why must their undertaking be considered
unreasonable? I trust that, as regards those inquiries into the words of
Confucius and those remarks on his unintelligible
passages, men of genius of all ages, possessing the natural gift of answering
questions and solving difficulties, will certainly appreciate the criticisms
and investigations made in our time.
"Mêng I Tse5 asked, what filial piety was. The Master
said, `To show no disregard.' Soon after, as Fan Chih6 was driving him, the Master told him
saying, "Mêng Sun7 asked me, what filial piety was, and I answered him, `To
show no disregard.' "
Fan Chih said, `What does
that mean?' The Master replied, `That parents, while alive, should be served
according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to
propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety.' "
8
Now I ask, Confucius said
that no disregard is to be shown viz. no disregard to
propriety. But a good son also must anticipate his parents' thoughts, conform
to their will, and never disregard their wishes.
Confucius said "to show no disregard," but did not speak of disregard for
propriety. Could Mêng I Tse, hearing the words of
Confucius, not imagine that he meant to say, "no
disregard for (the parents) wishes?" When Fan Chih came,
he asked, what it meant. Then Confucius said, "That
parents while alive should be served according to propriety; that, when dead,
they should be buried according to propriety; and that they should be
sacrificed to according to propriety." Had Fan Chih not
inquired, what the words "no disregard" meant, he would not have understood
them.
Mêng I Tse's talents did not
surpass those of Fan Chih, therefore there is no record
of his sayings or doings in the chapters of the Analects. Since Fan Chih could not
catch the meaning, would Mêng I Tse have done so?
Mêng Wu Po asked what filial
piety was. The Master replied "If the only sorrow parents have, is that which
they feel, when their children are sick."
9
Mêng Wu Po used to cause his
parents much sorrow, therefore Confucius spoke the
afore-mentioned words. Mêng Wu Po was a cause of sorrow
to his parents, whereas Mêng I Tse disregarded
propriety. If in reproving this fault Confucius replied
to Mêng Wu Po "If the only sorrow parents have is that
which they feel, when their children are sick," he ought to have told
Mêng I Tse that only in case of fire or inundation might
propriety be neglected.
Chou Kung says that small
talents require thorough instructions, whereas for great ones a hint is
sufficient. Tse Yu possessed great talents, yet with him
Confucius went into details. The talents of
Mêng I Tse were comparatively small, but
Confucius gave him a mere hint. Thus he did not fall in
with Chou Kung's views. Reproving the shortcomings of
Mêng I Tse, he lost the right principle. How was it that
none of his disciples took exception?
If he did not dare to speak too openly owing to the
high position held by Mêng I Tse, he likewise ought to
have said to Mêng Wu Po nothing more than `not to cause
sorrow (is filial piety),' for both were scions of the Mêng family, and of equal dignity. There is no apparent
reason, why he should have spoken to Mêng Wu Po in clear
terms and to Mêng I Tse thus vaguely. Had
Confucius freely told Mêng I Tse
not to disregard propriety, what harm would there have been?
No other family was more powerful in
Lu than the Chi family, yet
Confucius blamed them for having eight rows of
pantomimes in their court,
10 and objected to their performing a sacrifice on Mount
T`ai.11 He was not afraid
of the evil consequences, which this lack of reserve in regard to the
usurpation of territorial rights by the Chi family might
have for him, but anticipated bad results from a straightforward answer given
to Mêng I Tse? Moreover, he was questioned about filial
piety more than once, and he had always his charioteer at hand.
12
When he spoke to Mêng I Tse, he was not merely in a
submissive mood,
13 therefore he informed
Fan Chih.
Confucius said
14 "Riches and honour are what men desire. If they cannot be
obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are
what men dislike. If they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not
be avoided."
15
The meaning is that men must acquire riches in a
just and proper way, and not take them indiscriminately, that they must keep
within their bounds, patiently endure poverty, and not recklessly throw it off.
To say that riches and honour must not be held, unless they are obtained in the
proper way, is all right, but what is poverty and meanness not obtained in a
proper way? Wealth and honour can, of course, be abandoned, but what is the
result of giving up poverty and meanness? By giving up poverty and meanness one
obtains wealth and honour. As long as one does not obtain wealth and honour,
one does not get rid of poverty and meanness. If we say that, unless wealth and
honour can be obtained in a proper way, poverty and meanness should not be
shunned, then that which is obtained is wealth and honour, not poverty and
meanness. How can the word "obtaining" be used with reference to poverty and
meanness? Therefore the passage ought to read as follows:
"Poverty and meanness are what people dislike. If
they cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should
not be avoided."
Avoiding is the proper word, not obtaining.
Obtaining is used of obtaining. Now there is avoiding, how can it be called
obtaining? Only in regard to riches and honour we can speak of obtaining. How
so? By obtaining riches and honour one avoids poverty and meanness. Then how
can poverty and meanness be avoided in the proper way?---By purifying
themselves and keeping in the proper way officials acquire rank and emoluments,
wealth and honour, and by obtaining these they avoid poverty and meanness.
How are poverty and meanness avoided not in the
proper way?---If anybody feels so vexed and annoyed with poverty and meanness,
that he has recourse to brigandage and robbery for the purpose of amassing
money and valuables, and usurps official emoluments, then he does not keep in
the proper way.
Since the Seventy Disciples did not ask any
question regarding the passage under discussion, the literati of to-day are
likewise incapable of raising any objection.
If the meaning of this utterance is not explained,
nor the words made clear, we would have to say that Confucius could not speak properly. As long as the meaning
continues unravelled, and the words unexplained, the admonition of
Confucius remains uncomprehensible. Why did his
disciples not ask, and people now say nothing?
"Confucius said of
Kung Yeh Ch`ang that he might be wived and that,
although he was put in bonds, he was not guilty. Accordingly he gave him his
daughter to wife."
16
I ask what was the idea of Confucius, when he gave a wife to Kung Yeh
Ch`ang. Did he think him fit to marry, because he was thirty years old, or
on account of his excellent conduct? If he had his thirty years in view, he
should not have spoken of his being in fetters, and if he looked upon his
conduct, there was no occasion either for mentioning his imprisonment. Why?
Because all who joined the school of Confucius were
well-behaved. Therefore they were called accomplished followers. If among these
followers one or the other was unmarried, he might have been married, but it
need not be mentioned. If among the disciples many unmarried ones existed and
Kung Yeh Ch`ang was the most virtuous of them, and
should therefore Confucius have given him a wife alone,
then in praising him Confucius ought to have enumerated
his deeds instead of speaking of his imprisonment. There are not a few persons
in the world, who suffer violence without being guilty, but they are not
perfect sages therefore. Of ordinary people who are wronged, there are a great
many, not only one. If Confucius made an innocent man
his son-in-law, he selected not a virtuous man, but one who had suffered
injustice. The only praise Confucius had for
Kung Yeh Ch`ang was his innocence; of his doings or his
qualities he said not a word. If in fact he was not virtuous, and
Confucius made him his son-in-law, he did wrong, and if
he was virtuous indeed, but Confucius in praising him
did not mention it, he was wrong likewise. It was like his giving a wife to
Nan Yung,17 of whom he said that `if the country were well-governed, he
would not be out of office, and if it were ill-governed, he would escape
punishment and disgrace,'
18 a praise which left nothing to be desired.
19
The Master said to Tse Kung,
"Which of you two, yourself or Hui is superior?"
Tse Kung replied, "How dare I compare myself with
Hui? If Hui hears one point, he
knows therefrom ten others. If I hear one, I know but two." The Master said
"Not equal to him. I and you together cannot compare with him."
20
Thus with a view to setting forth the excellence of
Yen Hui this question was put to Tse
Kung. This calls for the following remark:
That which Confucius
propounded was propriety and modesty. Tse Lu would
govern a State with propriety, but his words were not modest, therefore
Confucius criticized him.
21 Had Tse Kung really been superior to
Hui, he would, on being asked by Confucius, have replied nevertheless that he was not equal
to him, and had he been inferior in fact, he would likewise have owned to his
inferiority. In the first case the answer would not have been wrong or a
deception of the Master, for propriety and modesty require depreciatory and
humble words.
What was the purport of this inquiry of
Confucius? If he was aware that Yen
Hui surpassed Tse Kung, he did not need to ask the
latter, and if he really did not know, and therefore asked Tse Kung, he would not have learned it in this way either,
for Tse Kung was bound to give a modest and humble
reply. If Confucius merely wanted to eulogise
Hui and praise his virtue, there were many other
disciples not enjoying the same fame, why must he just ask Tse Kung?
The Master said, "Admirable indeed was the virtue
of Hui!"
22 and further, "I have talked with Hui for
a whole day, and he has not made any objection, as if he were stupid"
23 and, "Such was Hui, that for three
months there would be nothing in his mind contrary to perfect virtue."
24 In all these three chapters Hui is
praised directly, but not at the cost of any other person, why then must
Tse Kung in one chapter serve to him as a foil?
Somebody might think that Confucius wanted to snub Tse Kung. At
that time the fame of Tse Kung was greater than that of
Yen Hui. Confucius apprehensive, lest Tse Kung should become too conceited and overbearing, wanted
to humble him.
If his name ranked above that of Hui, it was a simple fact at that time, but not brought
about by Tse Kung's endeavours to supersede his rival.
How could the judgment of Tse Kung have affected the
case? Even supposing that, in case Yen Hui's talents
were superior to his, he had submitted of his own accord, there was no
necessity for any snubbing. If Tse Kung could not know
it himself, he would, nothwithstanding anything Confucius might have said, have been convinced that the
latter only wanted to humble him, and in that case questioning or no
questioning would have neither humbled nor elated him.
Tsai Wo being asleep during
the day time, the Master said, "Rotten wood cannot be carved; a wall of dirty
earth will not receive the trowel. But what is the use of my reproving
Tsai Wo!"
25 ---For sleeping during the day Tsai Wo
was reprimanded in this way.
Sleeping during day time is a small evil. Rotten
wood and dirty earth are things in such a state of decay, that they cannot be
repaired, and must be regarded as great evils. If a small evil is censured, as
though it were a great one, the person in question would not submit to such a
judgment. If Tsai Wo's character was as bad as rotten
wood or dirty earth, he ought not to have been admitted to the school of
Confucius nor rank in one of the four classes of
disciples.
26 In case his character was
good however, Confucius dealt too harshly with him.
"If a man is not virtuous, and you carry your
dislike of him to extremes, he will recalcitrate."
27 The dislike shown by Confucius for
Tsai Wo has been, so to say, too strong. Provided that
common and ignorant people had committed some smaller punishable offence, and
the judge condemned them to capital punishment, would they suffer the wrong,
and complain of the injustice, or would they quietly submit, and consider
themselves guilty? Had Tsai Wo been an ignorant man, his
feelings would have been the same with those people guilty of some offence;
being a worthy, he must have understood a reproof of Confucius, and have reformed at the slightest remark. An
open word was sufficient to enlighten him, whereas an exaggeration would have
missed its mark. At the first allusion he would already have reformed. That
however did not depend on the strength of the language used, but on
Tsai Wo's ability to change.
The scheme of the "Ch`un
Ch`iu" is to point out any small goodness, and to censure small wrongs.
28 But if Confucius praised small
deserts in high terms, and censured trifling wrongs immoderately, would
Tsai Wo having the scheme of the Ch`un
Ch`iu in view agree with such criticism? If not, he would not accept it,
and the words of Confucius would be lost.
The words of a Sage must tally with his writings.
His words come from his mouth, and his writings are in his books, but both flow
from the heart, and are the same in substance. When Confucius composed the "Ch`un Ch`iu"
he did not censure small things, as if they were very important, but in
reproving Tsai Wo he condemned a small offence in the
same manner as an enormous crime. His words and his writings disagree. How
should they convince a man?
The Master said, "At first my way with men was to
hear their words, and to give them credit for their conduct. Now my way is to
hear their words, and look at their conduct. It is from Tsai
Wo that I have learnt to make this change."
29 That is from the time, when Tsai Wo was
asleep in the day time, he changed his method of studying men. But one may well
ask, how can a man's sleeping during the day time spoil his character, and how
can a man of bad conduct become good by not sleeping day or night? Is it
possible to learn anything about people's goodness or badness from their
sleeping during the day time?
Amongst the disciples of Confucius in the four classes Tsai Wo
took precedence over Tse Kung. If he was so lazy, that
nothing could be made out of his character, how could he advance so far? If
Tsai Wo reached such a degree of perfection
notwithstanding his sleeping during the day, his talents must have been far
superior to those of ordinary people. Supposing that he had not yet reached the
goal, but was under the impression that he had done enough, he did not know
better himself. That was a lack of knowledge, but his conduct was not bad. He
only wanted some enlightenment, but to change the method of studying men for
that reason was superfluous.
Let us assume that Tsai Wo
was conscious of his deficiencies, but felt so exhausted, that he fell asleep
during day time. That was a relaxation of his vital force. This exhaustion may
increase to such a degree, that death ensues and not only sleep.
30
As regards the method of judging human character by
taking into consideration the actions, the words are disregarded, and by laying
all stress on words, the conduct is left out of consideration. Now although
Tsai Wo was not very energetic in his actions, his words
were well worth hearing. There is a class of men who speak very well, but whose
deeds are not quite satisfactory. From the time that Tsai
Wo slept during the day, Confucius began to hear
the words, and look at the conduct, and only in case they both corresponded,
called a man virtuous. That means to say, he wanted a perfect man, but how does
that agree with his principle that perfection must not be expected from one
man?
31
Tse Chang asked saying, "The
minister Tse Wên32 thrice took office, and manifested
no joy in his countenance. Thrice he retired from office, and manifested no
displeasure. He made it a point to inform the new minister of the way in which
he had conducted the government;---what do you say of him?" The Master replied,
"He was loyal."---"Was he benevolent?"---"I do not know. How can he be
pronounced benevolent?
33Tse Wên recommended
Tse Yü of Ch`u as his successor.
Tse Yü attacked Sung with a
hundred warchariots, but was defeated and lost most of his men.
34 If Tse Wên was ignorant like that,
how could he be considered benevolent?"
My question is this. When Tse
Wên recommended Tse Yü, he did not know him, but
wisdom has nothing to do with virtue. Ignorance does not preclude benevolent
deeds. There are the five virtues:---benevolence, justice, propriety,
intelligence, and truth, but these five are separate, and not necessarily
combined. Thus there are intelligent men, benevolent men, there are the
well-mannered, and the just. The truthful must not always be intelligent, or
the intelligent, benevolent, the benevolent, well-mannered, or the
well-mannered, just. Tse Wên's intelligence was
obfuscated by Tse Yü, but how did his benevolence suffer
therefrom? Consequently it is not right to say, "How can he be pronounced
benevolent?"
Moreover loyal means generous, and generosity is
benevolence. Confucius said, "By observing a man's
faults it may be known that he is benevolent."
35Tse Wên possessed true benevolence. If
Confucius says that loyalty is not benevolence, he might
as well assert that father and mother are not the two parents, or that husband
and wife are not a pair.
The duke Ai36
asked which of the disciples loved to learn. Confucius
replied to him, "There was Yen Hui. He did not vent his
anger on others, nor did he twice commit the same fault. Alas! his fate was
short and he died; and now there is none. I have not yet heard of any one who
loves to learn."
37 ---
What was really the cause of Yen
Hui's death? It is, of course, attributed to his short fate, which would
correspond to Po Niu's sickness.
38 All living men have received their fate, which is complete, and
must be clean.
39 Now there being the evil disease of Po
Niu,40 one
says that he had no fate.
41 Those who
remain alive, must have been endowed with a long fate. If a person has obtained
a short fate, we should likewise say that he has no fate. Provided that
heaven's fate can be short or long, it also must be good or bad. Speaking of
Yen Hui's short fate, one can speak likewise of
Po Niu's bad fate. Saying that Po
Niu had no fate, one must admit that Yen Hui had no
Illegal HTML character: decimal 156
|
