| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「主道利周。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "The way of the ruler is advantageous in being all-encompassing."
|
| | 正論: |
是不然。主者、民之唱也，上者、下之儀也。彼將聽唱而應，視儀而動；唱默則民無應也，儀隱則下無動也；不應不動，則上下無以相有也。若是，則與無上同也！不祥莫大焉。故上者、下之本也。上宣明，則下治辨矣；上端誠，則下愿愨矣；上公正，則下易直矣。治辨則易一，愿愨則易使，易直則易知。易一則彊，易使則功，易知則明，是治之所由生也。上周密，則下疑玄矣；上幽險，則下漸詐矣；上偏曲，則下比周矣。疑玄則難一，漸詐則難使，比周則難知。難一則不彊，難使則不功，難知則不明，是亂之所由作也。故主道利明不利幽，利宣不利周。故主道明則下安，主道幽則下危。故下安則貴上，下危則賤上。故上易知，則下親上矣；上難知，則下畏上矣。下親上則上安，下畏上則上危。故主道莫惡乎難知，莫危乎使下畏己。傳曰：「惡之者眾則危。」《》曰：「克明明德。」《》曰：「」故先王明之，豈特玄之耳哉！ |
| | This is not correct. The ruler is the leader of the people, and the superior is the model for the inferior. They will listen to the lead and respond, observe the example and act accordingly; If the leader is silent, then the people have no response; if the model is hidden, then the inferior has no action. Without response and without action, there will be no mutual existence between ruler and subject. If this is the case, then it would be the same as having no superior at all! There could not be a greater misfortune. Therefore, the superior is the root of the inferior. When the superior proclaims clarity, then the subordinates will be well-ordered and discerning; If the superior is upright and sincere, then the inferiors will be loyal and respectful; When the superior is just and impartial, then the subordinates become easygoing and straightforward. If well-ordered and discerning, they are easier to unify; if loyal and respectful, they are easier to command; if easygoing and straightforward, they are easier to understand. When it is easier to unify, strength arises; when it is easier to command, achievements follow; when it is easier to understand, clarity emerges—this is the source of good governance. When the superior is thorough and meticulous, then the subordinates are doubtful and confused; If the superior is secretive and treacherous, then the inferiors become gradually deceitful; When the superior is biased and crooked, then the subordinates form factions and collude. Doubt and confusion make unification difficult; gradual deceit makes command difficult; factionalism makes understanding difficult. When unification is difficult, strength does not arise; when command is difficult, achievements do not follow; when understanding is difficult, clarity does not emerge—this is how disorder originates. Therefore, the way of rulership benefits from clarity rather than secrecy, and from openness rather than being all-encompassing. When a ruler's way is clear, then the people are at peace; when a ruler's way is obscure, then the people face danger. Therefore, when the people are at peace, they honor their superiors; when the people face danger, they look down upon their superiors. When a superior is easy to understand, then subordinates will grow close to him; When a superior is difficult to understand, then the subordinates fear him. When subordinates grow close to their superiors, the rulers are at peace; when subordinates fear their superiors, the rulers face danger. Therefore, for a ruler, nothing is more harmful than being difficult to understand, and nothing is more dangerous than causing his subordinates to fear him. The Commentary says: "When many people hate him, he faces danger." The Book of Documents says: "Strive to clarify the bright virtue." The Book of Songs says: "Clarity and brightness are present below." Therefore, the former kings understood this clearly; it was not merely something they kept obscure!
|
| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「桀紂有天下，湯武篡而奪之。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "Jie and Zhou possessed the empire, but Tang and Wu usurped it from them."
|
| | 正論: |
是不然。以桀紂為常有天下之籍則然，親有天下之籍則不然，天下謂在桀紂則不然。 |
| | This is not correct. If one assumes that Jie and Zhou were the perpetual rightful possessors of the empire, then this statement would be true; but if one considers the actual right to rule, it is not so. To say that the Mandate of Heaven was with Jie and Zhou is also incorrect.
|
| | 正論: |
古者天子千官，諸侯百官。以是千官也，令行於諸夏之國，謂之王。以是百官也，令行於境內，國雖不安，不至於廢易遂亡，謂之君。聖王之子也，有天下之後也，埶籍之所在也，天下之宗室也，然而不材不中，內則百姓疾之，外則諸侯叛之，近者境內不一，遙者諸侯不聽，令不行於境內，甚者諸侯侵削之，攻伐之。若是，則雖未亡，吾謂之無天下矣。聖王沒，有埶籍者罷不足以縣天下，天下無君；諸侯有能德明威積，海內之民莫不願得以為君師；然而暴國獨侈，安能誅之，必不傷害無罪之民，誅暴國之君，若誅獨夫。若是，則可謂能用天下矣。能用天下之謂王。湯武非取天下也，脩其道，行其義，興天下之同利，除天下之同害，而天下歸之也。桀紂非去天下也，反禹湯之德，亂禮義之分，禽獸之行，積其凶，全其惡，而天下去之也。天下歸之之謂王，天下去之之謂亡。故桀紂無天下，湯武不弒君，由此效之也。湯武者，民之父母也；桀紂者、民之怨賊也。今世俗之為說者，以桀紂為君，而以湯武為弒，然則是誅民之父母，而師民之怨賊也，不祥莫大焉。以天下之合為君，則天下未嘗合於桀紂也。然則以湯武為弒，則天下未嘗有說也，直墮之耳。 |
| | In ancient times, the Son of Heaven had a thousand officials, and each feudal lord had one hundred officials. With these thousand officials, if commands were carried out in the various states of Zhonghua, it was called a "king." With these one hundred officials, if commands were carried out within the realm, even though the state might not be at peace, it would not reach a point of collapse or destruction; this was called being a "ruler." The son of a sage king, who inherits the empire after his father's death, holds the position and right to rule by birth, being part of the imperial clan. However, if he is unqualified and unworthy, within the realm the people resent him, and beyond its borders the feudal lords rebel against him. Nearby, the territory does not remain unified; far away, the feudal lords do not obey. Commands cannot be carried out within his domain; in severe cases, the feudal lords encroach upon and attack him. If this is so, then even though he has not yet perished, I would say that he no longer possesses the empire. When a sage king passes away and those who inherit his position lack the ability to govern, they are insufficient to hold the empire together; thus, the world is without a ruler. The feudal lords who possess virtue, clarity, and accumulated authority find that all the people within the seas long to have them as their ruler and teacher; Yet, the tyrannical states act with arrogance. How can they be punished? One must certainly not harm innocent people; to punish the ruler of a violent state is like punishing a solitary despot. If this is done, then one may truly be said to have the ability to rule over the empire. To have the ability to govern the empire is called being a "king." Tang and Wu did not seize the empire; they cultivated their way, practiced righteousness, promoted what was universally beneficial to all under heaven, removed what was universally harmful to all under heaven—and thus the world came to them. Jie and Zhou did not lose the empire by themselves; they opposed the virtue of Yu and Tang, disrupted the distinctions of propriety and righteousness, acted with beastly conduct, accumulated violence, and perfected their wickedness—thus the world abandoned them. The world coming to one is called being a "king"; the world abandoning one is called losing the empire. Therefore, Jie and Zhou did not possess the empire, and Tang and Wu did not commit regicide; this is evident from what has been explained. Tang and Wu were the parents of the people; Jie and Zhou were resentful bandits to the people. The common people who make arguments today regard Jie and Zhou as legitimate rulers, and Tang and Wu as regicides. If this is so, then they are punishing the parents of the people while following the example of those who have wronged them—there could not be a greater inauspiciousness. To regard as ruler one whom the people of the world unite behind, then the people of the world have never united behind Jie and Zhou. Therefore, to call Tang and Wu regicides is to say that the world has never had a legitimate ruler—this is merely a baseless claim.
|
| | 正論: |
故天子唯其人。天下者，至重也，非至彊莫之能任；至大也，非至辨莫之能分；至眾也，非至明莫之能和。此三至者，非聖人莫之能盡。故非聖人莫之能王。聖人備道全美者也，是縣天下之權稱也。桀紂者、其志慮至險也，其志意至闇也，其行為至亂也；親者疏之，賢者賤之，生民怨之。禹湯之後也，而不得一人之與；刳比干，囚箕子，身死國亡，為天下之大僇，後世之言惡者必稽焉，是不容妻子之數也。故至賢疇四海，湯武是也；至罷不能容妻子，桀紂是也。今世俗之為說者，以桀紂為有天下，而臣湯武，豈不過甚矣哉！譬之，是猶傴巫跛匡大自以為有知也。 |
| | Therefore, the Son of Heaven depends solely on the person. The empire is of utmost importance; only one of supreme strength can bear such a responsibility; It is the greatest of all things; only one of ultimate discernment can manage its divisions; It encompasses the multitude beyond count; only one of absolute clarity can harmonize it. These three supreme qualities—strength, discernment, and clarity—can be fully possessed by none other than a sage. Therefore, only a sage can become a king. A sage is one who possesses the complete way and perfect virtue; this is what establishes him as the rightful holder of authority over the empire. Jie and Zhou had minds so treacherous, intentions so dark, and conduct so chaotic; They alienated those close to them, devalued the virtuous, and thus incited resentment among the people. As descendants of Yu and Tang, they found not a single person supporting them; They had Bi Gan's chest 剖 ed open, imprisoned Ji Zi, and ultimately perished with the destruction of their states. They became a great disgrace to all under heaven; in later generations, when people speak of wickedness, they inevitably refer to them—this is an example that not even wife and children can tolerate. Therefore, the most virtuous are revered throughout the four seas; Tang and Wu are such examples; The utterly incompetent cannot even find acceptance from wife and children—Jie and Zhou are such examples. The common people who make arguments nowadays claim that Jie and Zhou possessed the empire while Tang and Wu were their subjects—how greatly mistaken this is! This is like saying a hunchback, a witch, a lame man, or someone with crooked limbs consider themselves wise simply because of their own distorted perspectives.
|
| | 正論: |
故可以有奪人國，不可以有奪人天下；可以有竊國，不可以有竊天下也。可以奪之者可以有國，而不可以有天下；竊可以得國，而不可以得天下。是何也？曰：國、小具也，可以小人有也，可以小道得也，可以小力持也；天下者、大具也，不可以小人有也，不可以小道得也，不可以小力持也。國者、小人可以有之，然而未必不亡也；天下者，至大也，非聖人莫之能有也。 |
| | Therefore, one may be capable of seizing another's state, but not the empire as a whole; One may be able to steal a kingdom, but cannot steal the entire world. Those who can seize a state may possess a country, but not the whole empire; Stealing may allow one to obtain a kingdom, but never the entire world. Why is this so? It is said: a state is a small possession, which can be held by an unworthy person, obtained through minor means, and maintained with limited strength; The empire is a great possession; it cannot be held by an unworthy person, cannot be obtained through minor means, and cannot be maintained with limited strength. A state may be possessed by an unworthy man, but it is not necessarily guaranteed to endure; The empire is the greatest of all; only a sage can possess it.
|
| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「治古無肉刑，而有象刑：墨黥，慅嬰，共、艾畢，剕、枲屨，殺、赭衣而不純。治古如是。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "In the well-governed ancient times, there were no corporal punishments, but instead symbolic punishments: mo qing (branding), cao ying (binding with ropes around the neck), gong and ai bi (covering the head and face), fei (amputation of feet), xi ju (wearing rough hemp shoes), sha (execution) in red clothing without a full robe. The well-governed ancient times were like this."
|
| | 正論: |
是不然。以為治邪？則人固莫觸罪，非獨不用肉刑，亦不用象刑矣。以為人或觸罪矣，而直輕其刑，然則是殺人者不死，傷人者不刑也。罪至重而刑至輕，庸人不知惡矣，亂莫大焉。凡刑人之本，禁暴惡惡，且懲其未也。殺人者不死，而傷人者不刑，是謂惠暴而寬賊也，非惡惡也。故象刑殆非生於治古，並起於亂今也。 |
| | This is not correct. Is this considered good governance? If it is considered good governance, then people would naturally refrain from committing crimes; not only would corporal punishments not be used, but symbolic punishments would also be unnecessary. If one assumes that people might still commit crimes and merely lighten the punishment, then this would mean that murderers are not put to death and those who injure others do not receive any penalty. When a crime is grave but the punishment is light, ordinary people will not recognize evil; there could be no greater disorder than this. The fundamental purpose of punishing criminals is to prevent violence and eliminate wickedness, as well as to serve as a warning to others who might commit similar acts. If murderers are not executed and those who injure people receive no punishment, this is called showing favor to the violent and leniency toward thieves—it is not opposing wickedness. Therefore, symbolic punishments were probably not born in well-governed ancient times; they likely arose together with the chaos of the present age.
|
| | 正論: |
治古不然。凡爵列、官職、賞慶、刑罰，皆報也，以類相從者也。一物失稱，亂之端也。夫德不稱位，能不稱官，賞不當功，罰不當罪，不祥莫大焉。昔者武王伐有商，誅紂，斷其首，縣之赤旆。夫征暴誅悍，治之盛也。殺人者死，傷人者刑，是百王之所同也，未有知其所由來者也。 |
| | In well-governed ancient times it was not like this. All ranks, official positions, rewards, and punishments are forms of recompense; they follow the principle of corresponding to one's deeds. If even one aspect is improperly balanced, it becomes the beginning of disorder. When virtue does not match rank, ability does not match office, rewards do not correspond to merit, and punishments do not fit the crime, there could be no greater inauspiciousness. In ancient times, King Wu attacked the Shang dynasty, killed Zhou, cut off his head, and displayed it on a red flag. To punish violence and eliminate brutality is the height of good governance. Murderers are executed, and those who injure others receive punishment—this has been the common practice of all past rulers; no one knows its exact origin.
|
| | 正論: |
刑稱罪，則治；不稱罪，則亂。故治則刑重，亂則刑輕，犯治之罪固重，犯亂之罪固輕也。《》曰：「」此之謂也。 |
| | When punishments correspond to crimes, order is achieved; If punishments do not match the crime, disorder results. Therefore, in times of order, punishments are severe; in times of chaos, punishments are lenient. Crimes committed during a well-governed era are naturally grave, while those committed during disorderly times are inherently less serious. The Book of Documents says: "Punishments and penalties vary in severity according to the age." This is what it refers to.
|
| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「湯武不善禁令。」曰：「是何也？」曰：「楚越不受制。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "Tang and Wu were not good at enforcing prohibitions." It is asked: "Why is this so?" They say: "The states of Chu and Yue did not accept regulation."
|
| | 正論: |
是不然。湯武者、至天下之善禁令者也。湯居亳，武王居鄗，皆百里之地也，天下為一，諸侯為臣，通達之屬，莫不振動從服以化順之，曷為楚越獨不受制也！ |
| | This is not correct. Tang and Wu were the most exemplary enforcers of prohibitions in the world. Tang resided in Bo, and King Wu dwelled in Hao; both were rulers of territories no larger than a hundred li. Yet the world became unified, and all feudal lords became his subjects. Among those who could understand and accept governance, none failed to be moved into submission and transformation under their rule—why then should Chu and Yue alone have refused regulation!
|
| | 正論: |
彼王者之制也，視形埶而制械用，稱遠邇而等貢獻，豈必齊哉！故魯人以榶，衛人用柯，齊人用一革，土地刑制不同者，械用、備飾不可不異也。故諸夏之國同服同儀，蠻、夷、戎、狄之國同服不同制。封內甸服，封外侯服，侯衛賓服，蠻夷要服，戎狄荒服。甸服者祭，侯服者祀，賓服者享，要服者貢，荒服者終王。日祭、月祀、時享、歲貢、終王，夫是之謂視形埶而制械用，稱遠近而等貢獻；是王者之制也。 |
| | The system of a sage ruler adjusts restraints and implements according to circumstances, establishes tribute grades in accordance with distance near or far—why should they necessarily be uniform! Therefore, the people of Lu used zhe, those of Wei employed ke, and those of Qi used one ge—because landforms and legal systems differ, restraints, implements, and ceremonial adornments cannot but vary. Therefore, among the Central States, there was uniform dress and identical rituals; whereas for the states of the southern barbarians, eastern barbarians, western nomads, and northern nomads, there was similar attire but different systems. Within the feng boundaries were the dian territories; beyond them, the marquis territories; further still, the guest territories of vassal states; then came the key territories of southern and eastern barbarians; and finally, the remote territories of western nomads and northern nomads. The dian territories offered sacrifices; the marquis territories performed ancestral rites; the guest territories presented banquets; the key territories of barbarians paid tribute; and the remote territories of nomads submitted to the Son of Heaven in the end. Daily sacrifices, monthly ancestral rites, seasonal banquets, annual tribute, and ultimate submission to the Son of Heaven—this is what is meant by adjusting restraints and implements according to circumstance, and establishing tribute grades in accordance with proximity or distance; This is the system of a sage ruler.
|
| | 正論: |
彼楚越者，且時享、歲貢，終王之屬也，必齊之日祭月祀之屬，然後曰受制邪？是規磨之說也。溝中之瘠也，則未足與及王者之制也。語曰：「淺不足與測深，愚不足與謀智，坎井之蛙，不可與語東海之樂。」此之謂也。 |
| | As for the states of Chu and Yue, they already belonged to the category of those who offered seasonal banquets and annual tribute, ultimately submitting to the Son of Heaven. Must they necessarily conform to the daily sacrifices and monthly ancestral rites before it can be said that they accepted regulation? This is an argument based on rigid conformity. Those who hold narrow and limited views are not qualified to discuss the system of a sage ruler. The saying goes: "Shallowness is not sufficient to measure depth, foolishness is not sufficient to deliberate with wisdom; a frog in a shallow well cannot discuss the joy of the East Sea." This is what it refers to.
|
| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「堯舜擅讓。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "Yao and Shun arbitrarily abdicated."
|
| | 正論: |
是不然。天子者，埶位至尊，無敵於天下，夫有誰與讓矣？道德純備，智惠甚明，南面而聽天下，生民之屬莫不震動從服以化順之。天下無隱士，無遺善，同焉者是也，異焉者非也。夫有惡擅天下矣。 |
| | This is not correct. The Son of Heaven holds the highest position and authority, unmatched by anyone in the world—then who could there possibly be to abdicate to? With complete virtue and moral integrity, with wisdom and insight most profound, sitting in the southern direction to govern the world, all living people without exception are moved into submission and transformed by his influence. There were no hidden scholars in the world, no good deeds left unrecognized—those who conformed were correct; those who differed were wrong. To arbitrarily seize dominion over the world is an evil act indeed.
|
| | 正論: |
曰：「死而擅之。」 |
| | It is said: "To usurp power after death."
|
| | 正論: |
是又不然。聖王在上，決德而定次，量能而授官，皆使民載其事而各得其宜。不能以義制利，不能以偽飾性，則兼以為民。聖王已沒，天下無聖，則固莫足以擅天下矣。天下有聖，而在後子者，則天下不離，朝不易位，國不更制，天下厭然，與鄉無以異也；以堯繼堯，夫又何變之有矣！聖不在後子而在三公，則天下如歸，猶復而振之矣。天下厭然，與鄉無以異也；以堯繼堯，夫又何變之有矣！唯其徙朝改制為難。故天子生則天下一隆，致順而治，論德而定次，死則能任天下者必有之矣。夫禮義之分盡矣，擅讓惡用矣哉！ |
| | This, too, is not correct. When a sage ruler was in power, virtue was assessed to determine rank, ability measured to assign office; all were made to bear their duties and each received what suited them appropriately. If one cannot regulate profit with righteousness, or adorn nature with artifice, then both must be combined for the sake of the people. After the sage kings had passed away and there were no more sages in the world, then indeed no one was sufficiently qualified to usurp dominion over all under heaven. If there were a sage in the world who happened to be the heir, then the realm would not depart from its course, the court would not change its position, and the state would not alter its system; all under heaven would remain tranquil, no different from before. To have Yao succeed Yao—what change could there possibly be! If the sage was not in the position of heir but among the Three Dukes, then all under heaven would return as if to a home, and once again be revived and restored. All under heaven would remain tranquil, no differently than before; To have Yao succeed Yao—how could there be any change at all! Only when the court is moved and the system altered does difficulty arise. When the Son of Heaven was alive, all under heaven was unified in reverence and harmony, with order achieved through proper submission and governance, rank determined by virtue. Upon his death, there must necessarily be someone capable who could assume dominion over the realm. The distinctions of rites and righteousness have been fully established—how then could arbitrary abdication ever be necessary!
|
| | 正論: |
曰：「老衰而擅。」 |
| | It is said: "To usurp power due to old age and decline."
|
| | 正論: |
是又不然。血氣筋力則有衰，若夫智慮取舍則無衰。 |
| | This, too, is incorrect. Blood, qi, sinews, and strength may indeed decline with age, but as for wisdom, deliberation, judgment, and decision-making—these do not wane.
|
| | 正論: |
曰：「老者不堪其勞而休也。」 |
| | It is said: "The elderly are unable to bear the burdens of labor and thus must rest."
|
| | 正論: |
是又畏事者之議也。天子者埶至重而形至佚，心至愉而志無所詘，而形不為勞，尊無上矣。衣被則服五采，雜間色，重文繡，加飾之以珠玉；食飲則重大牢而備珍怪，期臭味，曼而饋，伐皋而食，雍而徹乎五祀，執薦者百餘人，侍西房；居則設張容，負依而坐，諸侯趨走乎堂下；出戶而巫覡有事，出門而宗祝有事，乘大路趨越席以養安，側載睪芷以養鼻，前有錯衡以養目，和鸞之聲，步中武象，趨中韶護以養耳，三公奉軶、持納，諸侯持輪、挾輿、先馬，大侯編後，大夫次之，小侯元士次之，庶士介而夾道，庶人隱竄，莫敢視望。居如大神，動如天帝。持老養衰，猶有善於是者與？不老者、休也，休猶有安樂恬愉如是者乎？故曰：諸侯有老，天子無老。 |
| | This, too, is the argument of those who fear responsibility. The Son of Heaven holds a position of supreme authority and enjoys the utmost ease in his physical existence; his heart is deeply at peace, his will untroubled, and his body does not labor—his dignity has no equal. His garments were of five-colored silk, interwoven with varied hues, richly embroidered and further adorned with pearls and jade; His food and drink were of the grandest sacrificial offerings, filled with rare delicacies; fragrances and flavors were carefully selected. Meals were served in a leisurely manner, with dishes brought from distant regions, presented in harmony with the five ancestral rites. Over one hundred attendants offered sacrifices, standing by on the western side; When at rest, he would sit with cushions and canopies arranged around him, leaning against a backrest, while feudal lords hurried about beneath the hall; When exiting the gate, shamans and diviners performed their rites; when passing through the main entrance, ancestral priests conducted ceremonies. He rode in a grand carriage on soft mats for comfort, with fragrant orchids and zhi placed beside to please his nose; before him were ornate crossbars to delight his eyes. The harmonious sounds of he and luan accompanied each step, matching the rhythm of Wu Xiang when walking slowly and Shao Hu when moving briskly—thus nourishing his ears. The Three Dukes held the reins and assisted in entering the carriage; feudal lords supported the wheels, flanked the chariot, and led the horses. Great marquises formed the rear guard, followed by high-ranking officials, then minor marquises and common scholars who walked on both sides with formal decorum, while commoners hid and fled, daring not to look up or gaze upon him. When at rest, he was like a great deity; when in motion, he was as the Heavenly Emperor himself. To hold on to old age and indulge decline—could there be anything more inappropriate than this? One who does not grow old is at rest, but could there truly be a peace and joy as complete as this for one in repose? Therefore it is said: feudal lords may grow old, but the Son of Heaven does not.
|
| | 正論: |
有擅國，無擅天下，古今一也。夫曰堯舜擅讓，是虛言也，是淺者之傳，陋者之說也，不知逆順之理，小大、至不至之變者也，未可與及天下之大理者也。 |
| | There can be usurpation of a state, but none of all under heaven—this has been true from ancient to modern times. To say that Yao and Shun arbitrarily abdicated is a false statement, a transmission of shallow minds and an argument from the ignorant. Such people do not understand the principles of order and disorder, nor can they grasp the transformations between small and great, presence and absence—they are not qualified to speak on the grand principles governing all under heaven.
|
| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「堯舜不能教化。」是何也？曰：「朱象不化。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "Yao and Shun were unable to educate and transform." Why is this so? It is said: "Zhu Danfu and Xiang were not transformed."
|
| | 正論: |
是不然也：堯舜至天下之善教化者也。南面而聽天下，生民之屬莫不振動從服以化順之。然而朱象獨不化，是非堯舜之過，朱象之罪也。堯舜者、天下之英也；朱象者、天下之嵬，一時之瑣也。今世俗之為說者，不怪朱象，而非堯舜，豈不過甚矣哉！夫是之謂嵬說。羿蜂門者、天下之善射者也，不能以撥弓曲矢中微；王梁造父者、天下之善馭者也，不能以辟馬毀輿致遠。堯舜者、天下之善教化者也，不能使嵬瑣化。何世而無嵬？何時而無瑣？自太皞燧人莫不有也。故作者不祥，學者受其殃，非者有慶。《》曰：「」此之謂也。 |
| | This is incorrect: Yao and Shun were the most exemplary educators and transformers in all under heaven. Sitting facing south to govern the world, there was not a single living person who did not feel moved into submission and be transformed by their influence. Yet Zhu Danfu and Xiang alone remained untransformed—this was not the fault of Yao and Shun, but rather the guilt of Zhu Danfu and Xiang themselves. Yao and Shun were the outstanding figures of all under heaven; Zhu Danfu and Xiang—these were the scoundrels of the world, petty men of their time. The common people who make such arguments today do not blame Zhu Danfu and Xiang, but instead criticize Yao and Shun—how greatly mistaken they are! This is what is called a baseless argument. Yi Fengmen was the finest archer in all under heaven, yet he could not shoot straight with a bent bow and crooked arrows to hit a small target; Wang Liang and Zhao Fu were the finest charioteers in all under heaven, yet they could not drive a broken horse or a ruined carriage to reach distant destinations. Yao and Shun were the finest educators and transformers in all under heaven, yet could not transform scoundrels and petty men. What age is without scoundrels? What time is without petty men? Since Taihao and Suiren, there have always been such people. Therefore, those who fabricate false accounts bring misfortune; those who study them suffer the consequences, while those who criticize them are blessed. The Book of Songs says: "The disasters among the people below do not descend from heaven." "The spreading of slander and hatred, the strife and competition—these are all caused by human beings themselves." This is what it refers to.
|
| | 正論: |
世俗之為說者曰：「太古薄揹，棺厚三寸，衣衾三領，葬田不妨田，故不掘也；亂今厚葬飾棺，故抇也。」 |
| | The common people who make arguments say: "In the most ancient times, coffins were thin and only three cun thick, with only three layers of clothing and shrouds. Graves did not encroach on farmland, so they were never robbed; In our chaotic present times, burials are lavish and coffins elaborately adorned, hence why graves are dug up."
|
| | 正論: |
是不及知治道，而不察於抇不抇者之所言也。凡人之盜也，必以有為，不以備不足，則以重有餘也。而聖王之生民也，皆使富厚優猶知足，而不得以有餘過度。故盜不竊，賊不刺，狗豕吐菽粟，而農賈皆能以貨財讓。風俗之美，男女自不取於涂，而百姓羞拾遺。故孔子曰：「天下有道，盜其先變乎！」雖珠玉滿體，文繡充棺，黃金充槨，加之以丹矸，重之以曾青，犀象以為樹，琅玕、龍茲、華覲以為實，人猶莫之抇也。是何故也？則求利之詭緩，而犯分之羞大也。 |
| | This is due to a lack of understanding of the principles of good governance and an ignorance of what causes graves to be robbed or not. Whenever people commit theft, it is always for a reason: either because they lack necessities and are unprepared, or because there is an excess that entices them. And when sage kings governed the people, they ensured all were affluent and content with sufficient means, so that no one could possess excessive wealth beyond their needs. Therefore, thieves did not steal and bandits did not attack; even dogs and pigs would not waste beans or grains, while farmers and merchants were all able to share goods and wealth. The beauty of customs was such that men and women did not take each other from the road, and common people were ashamed to pick up lost items. Therefore Confucius said: "When there is order in the world, thieves will be the first to change!" Even if the body were covered with pearls and jade, coffins filled with embroidered silk, caskets brimming with gold, further adorned with red ochre and verdant blue pigments, with trees made of ivory and rhinoceros horn, and fruits represented by langgan, longzi, and huajian—no one would still dare to rob such a grave. What is the reason for this? It is because the devious pursuit of profit becomes sluggish, and the shame of transgressing one's proper role becomes great.
|
| | 正論: |
夫亂今然後反是。上以無法使，下以無度行；知者不得慮，能者不得治，賢者不得使。若是，則上失天性，下失地利，中失人和。故百事廢，財物詘，而禍亂起。王公則病不足於上，庶人則凍餧羸瘠於下。於是焉桀紂群居，而盜賊擊奪以危上矣。安禽獸行，虎狼貪，故脯巨人而炙嬰兒矣。若是則有何尤抇人之墓，抉人之口而求利矣哉！雖此裸而薶之，猶且必抇也，安得葬薶哉！彼乃將食其肉而齕其骨也。 |
| | Only in our present age of disorder does this situation reverse. The rulers govern without law, and the people act without standards; Those with wisdom cannot deliberate, those capable cannot govern, and the virtuous cannot be entrusted. In such a situation, rulers lose their natural virtue, the people fail to utilize the advantages of land, and society loses human harmony. Therefore, all affairs fall into disarray, wealth dwindles, and calamities and disorder arise. $$ The dukes and princes suffer from insufficiency imposed by those above, while common people freeze and starve in destitution below. In such times, tyrants like Jie and Zhou gather together, and thieves and bandits attack and seize, endangering the rulers. In such an age of peace, the conduct of beasts prevails; tigers and wolves grow greedy, so they roast giants as meat and grill infants. If this is the case, then how could anyone dig up people's graves or pry open their mouths in search of profit? Even if they were buried naked, the graves would still surely be dug up; how then could one hope for a proper burial? They will even eat their flesh and gnaw their bones.
|
| | 正論: |
夫曰：太古薄揹，故不抇也；亂今厚葬，故抇也。是特姦人之誤於亂說，以欺愚者而淖陷之，以偷取利焉。夫是之謂大姦。傳曰：「危人而自安，害人而自利。」此之謂也。 |
| | It is said: "In the remote ancient times, burials were shallow, hence graves were not dug up;" In our present age of disorder, deep burials are practiced, hence graves are dug up. This is merely the deception of wicked people who propagate false doctrines to deceive the foolish and drag them into mire, in order to secretly gain profit. Such conduct is called great villainy. The Classic says: "Endangering others to ensure one's own safety, harming others to gain personal benefit." This is what it refers to.
|
| | 正論: |
子宋子曰：「明見侮之不辱，使人不鬥。人皆以見侮為辱，故鬥於也；知見侮之為不辱，則不鬥矣。」 |
| | Zi Songzi said: "To clearly see insult as not being a disgrace prevents people from fighting." People all regard being insulted as a disgrace, hence they fight; Knowing that being insulted is not truly a disgrace would prevent them from fighting."
|
| | 正論: |
應之曰：然則以人之情為不惡侮乎？ |
| | One replies: "Then does this mean people do not dislike being insulted according to human nature?"
|
| | 正論: |
曰：「惡而不辱也。」 |
| | It is replied: "They may resent it, but it is not a disgrace."
|
| | 正論: |
曰：若是，則必不得所求焉。凡人之鬥也，必以其惡之為說，非以其辱之為故也。今俳優、侏儒、狎徒詈侮而不鬥者，是豈鉅知見侮之為不辱哉。然而不鬥者，不惡故也。今人或入其央瀆，竊其豬彘，則援劍戟而逐之，不避死傷。是豈以喪豬為辱也哉！然而不憚鬥者，惡之故也。雖以見侮為辱也，不惡則不鬥；雖知見侮為不辱，惡之則必鬥。然則鬥與不鬥邪，亡於辱之與不辱也，乃在於惡之與不惡也。夫今子宋子不能解人之惡侮，而務說人以勿辱也，豈不過甚矣哉！金舌弊口，猶將無益也。不知其無益，則不知；知其無益也，直以欺人，則不仁。不仁不知，辱莫大焉。將以為有益於人，則與無益於人也，則得大辱而退耳！說莫病是矣。 |
| | It is said: "If this is so, then one's desires will surely remain unfulfilled." People fight only because they resent something, not necessarily because they consider it a disgrace. Now, jesters, midgets, and lowly companions who are insulted and abused yet do not fight—this is surely not because they greatly understand that being insulted is no disgrace. Yet they do not fight because they do not resent it. Now, if someone enters another's courtyard to steal pigs or hogs, the owner will seize sword and spear to pursue them, without avoiding death or injury. This is surely not because losing a pig is considered a disgrace! Yet they are not afraid to fight, precisely because of resentment. Even if one considers being insulted a disgrace, if there is no resentment, there will be no fighting; Even if one knows that being insulted is not a disgrace, if resentment exists, fighting will surely occur. Thus, whether one fights or does not fight depends not on whether something is considered disgraceful or not, but rather on whether it is resented or not. Zi Songzi today cannot resolve people's resentment toward being insulted, yet insists on persuading them not to consider it a disgrace—this is surely excessive! Even with golden-tongued arguments and exhausted speech, such efforts will still be of no benefit. Not knowing that it is of no benefit is ignorance; Knowing it to be of no benefit yet persisting in deceiving others is unkindness. To act without kindness and without knowledge is the greatest disgrace. If one claims it to be beneficial for people, yet in reality it brings no benefit, then they will suffer great disgrace and retreat! No argument is more harmful than this.
|
| | 正論: |
子宋子曰：「見侮不辱。」 |
| | Zi Songzi said: "To be insulted is not to suffer disgrace."
|
| | 正論: |
應之曰：凡議必先立隆正，然後可也。無隆正則是非不分，而辨訟不決，故所聞曰：「天下之大隆，是非之封界，分職名象之所起，王制是也。」故凡言議期命是非，以聖王為師。而聖王之分，榮辱是也。 |
| | One replies: In all discussions, one must first establish a solid and correct principle; only then can it be acceptable. Without a solid and correct principle, right and wrong cannot be distinguished, and disputes cannot be resolved. Hence it is said: "The great foundation of the world, the boundary between right and wrong, the origin of roles, names, and forms—this is the system established by kings." Therefore, in all discussions and debates aiming to determine what is right or wrong, one should take the sage kings as teachers. And the distinctions established by the sage kings are precisely those of honor and disgrace.
|
| | 正論: |
是有兩端矣。有義榮者，有埶榮者；有義辱者，有埶辱者。志意脩，德行厚，知慮明，是榮之由中出者也，夫是之謂義榮。爵列尊，貢祿厚，形埶勝，上為天子諸侯，下為卿相士大夫，是榮之從外至者也，夫是之謂埶榮。流淫汙僈，犯分亂理，驕暴貪利，是辱之由中出者也，夫是之謂義辱。詈侮捽搏，捶笞臏腳，斬斷枯磔，藉靡后縛，是辱之由外至者也，夫是之謂埶辱。是榮辱之兩端也。 |
| | Thus, there are two distinct principles. There is honor derived from righteousness, and there is honor derived from power; There is disgrace resulting from unrighteousness, and there is disgrace resulting from the loss of power. A cultivated will, virtuous conduct, and clear wisdom are sources of honor arising from within; this is called "honor through righteousness." High rank and noble titles, generous official salaries, superior social status—being above as emperors or feudal lords, below as high ministers or scholar-officials—this is honor coming from the outside; this is called "honor through power." Indulgence in licentiousness, moral decay, transgression of proper roles and disorder of principles, arrogance, violence, and greed for profit—these are disgraces arising from within; this is termed "disgrace through unrighteousness." Insults and abuse, being seized and beaten, flogging, footbinding, beheading, dismemberment, trampling, and final binding—these are disgraces coming from the outside; this is termed "disgrace through power." These are the two extremes of honor and disgrace.
|
| | 正論: |
故君子可以有埶辱，而不可以有義辱；小人可以有埶榮，而不可以有義榮。有埶辱無害為堯，有埶榮無害為桀。義榮埶榮，唯君子然後兼有之；義辱埶辱，唯小人然後兼有之。是榮辱之分也。聖王以為法，士大夫以為道，官人以為守，百姓以成俗，萬世不能易也。 |
| | Therefore, a gentleman may suffer disgrace through power but must not suffer disgrace through unrighteousness; A petty person may attain honor through power but can never achieve honor through righteousness. To suffer disgrace through power without moral failure is to be like Yao; to attain honor through power without moral integrity is to be like Jie. Honor through righteousness and honor through power can only be fully possessed by a true gentleman; Disgrace through unrighteousness and disgrace through power are the lot of petty persons alone. This is the distinction between honor and disgrace. The sage kings established this as law, scholar-officials regarded it as the way, officials took it as their duty, and the common people formed customs based on it—this principle has never changed through ten thousand generations.
|
| | 正論: |
今子宋子則不然，獨詘容為己，慮一朝而改之，說必不行矣。譬之，是猶以塼涂塞江海也，以焦僥而戴太山也，蹎跌碎折，不待頃矣。二三子之善於子宋子者，殆不若止之，將恐得傷其體也。 |
| | Now, Zi Songzi is not like this; he alone bends and accommodates for himself, considering a single day's change, so his doctrine will surely never be put into practice. This is like trying to block the rivers and seas with clay, or attempting to carry Mount Tai on one's back with a weak shoulder—stumbling, breaking, and collapsing would occur before even a moment has passed. Those among you who are more virtuous than Zi Songzi had better stop him, for otherwise he may end up harming himself.
|
| | 正論: |
子宋子曰：「人之情，欲寡，而皆以己之情，為欲多，是過也。」故率其群徒，辨其談說，明其譬稱，將使人知情之欲寡也。 |
| | Zi Songzi said: "Human nature desires little, yet people all assume their own desires to be excessive—this is a mistake." Therefore, he leads his followers, argues his doctrines, and clarifies his analogies in an effort to make people understand that human desire is naturally limited.
|
| | 正論: |
應之曰：然則亦以人之情為目不欲綦色，耳不欲綦聲，口不欲綦味，鼻不欲綦臭，形不欲綦佚；此五綦者，亦以人之情為不欲乎？ |
| | One replies: "If this is so, does it mean that human nature holds the eye to desire no extreme colors, the ear to desire no excessive sounds, the mouth to crave no intense flavors, the nose to seek no overpowering scents, and the body to pursue no complete idleness; Are these five extremes also considered as not being desired according to human nature?"
|
| | 正論: |
曰：「人之情，欲是已。」 |
| | It is replied: "Human nature does desire these things."
|
| | 正論: |
曰：若是，則說必不行矣。以人之情為欲，此五綦者而不欲多，譬之，是猶以人之情為欲富貴而不欲貨也，好美而惡西施也。古之人為之不然。以人之情為欲多而不欲寡，故賞以富厚而罰以殺損也。是百王之所同也。故上賢祿天下，次賢祿一國，下賢祿田邑，愿愨之民完衣食。今子宋子以是之情為欲寡而不欲多也，然則先王以人之所不欲者賞，而以人之欲者罰邪？亂莫大焉。今子宋子嚴然而好說，聚人徒，立師學，成文典，然而說不免於以至治為至亂也，豈不過甚矣哉！ |
| | If this is so, then his doctrine will surely not be put into practice. To claim that human nature desires these five things yet does not desire excess is like saying people naturally desire wealth and rank but do not want riches, or find beauty pleasing yet dislike Xi Shi. Ancient people did not act in this way. They understood human nature to desire much rather than little, hence they rewarded with wealth and abundance while punishing through penalties and losses. This was the common practice of all past rulers. Thus, the most virtuous were granted rewards across the realm, the next in virtue received rewards within a single state, those of lesser virtue were given land and fiefs, while diligent and honest commoners had their clothing and food secured. Now, Zi Songzi claims that human nature desires little and not much. If this is so, then did the sage kings reward what people do not desire and punish what they do desire? No greater disorder could exist than this. Zi Songzi appears solemn and fond of discourse, gathers followers, establishes schools with teachers, compiles written canons, yet his teachings cannot escape portraying the highest order as the greatest disorder—this is surely excessive indeed!
|
