A Refutation of Liu Zihou's (柳子厚) 「Treatise on Keeping the Way」 (守道論)反柳子厚守道論
柳子厚著論曰。守道不如守官。是非聖人之言。傳之者誤也。皮冠者。虞人之物也。物者。道之準也。守其物由其準。而後其道存焉。苟舍之。是失道也。官者。道之器。未有守道而失官者。而曰守道不如守官。蓋亦喪其本矣。柳子之此說。誠然矣。然予以爲此特極於上智者而論之耳。非聖人所以汎爲人而論之者也。何則。苟曰守官不如守道。則其若上智之人。能知道之爲守官之本。官之爲行道之器。而得守其本。則所謂器者。亦從而不喪。如柳子之說矣。若中下人者。未知道之爲守官之本。妄求道之所在。自以爲能守其道。而忽於守官。因以隳職喪局。則不旋踵蹈其禍矣。官可守歟。是喩人而陷於不義。烏在其爲聖人之言耶。苟以爲守道不如守官。而努力恪謹。能守其官。則亦庶幾於道矣。道豈不存乎。聖人言守道不如守官。是乃言守道者也。但言有先後耳。其意未始不同矣。是聖人所以優而柔之。使自求之之義也。何謂傳之者誤歟。
Liu Zihou made a treatise and said: That 「keeping the Way is not so good as keeping one's office」 is no saying of the sage, but a fault of the one who handed it down. The leather cap is the thing proper to the forester (虞人). A thing is the standard of the Way. Only when one keeps the thing and follows its standard does the Way come to be there. If one throws this away, that is to lose the Way. Office is the vessel of the Way. There has never been one who kept the Way and lost his office. Yet to say 「keeping the Way is not so good as keeping one's office」 is likewise to lose the root of it.
This saying of Master Liu is indeed so. But as I consider it, this is argued only with reference to the utterly wise, and is not what the sage argued broadly for all men. Why so? If it were said that 「keeping one's office is not so good as keeping the Way」, then that utterly wise man, knowing that the Way is the root of keeping office and that office is the vessel for carrying out the Way, is able to keep that root; and so what is called the vessel will not be lost along with it either. It is as Master Liu says.
But the middling sort of men and the lower do not know that the Way is the root of keeping office; they seek out at random where the Way may be, and reckoning that they can keep that Way of themselves, they grow careless of keeping their office. And when through this they ruin their duties and lose their footing in affairs, they tread upon the disaster of it before they can turn on their heel. Can they keep their office then? This is to instruct men and so sink them in unrighteousness; where in it is there anything that could be a saying of the sage?
But if a man, saying 「keeping the Way is not so good as keeping one's office」, strives to be careful and wary and so is able to keep his office, then he too is very near the Way. How should the Way not be there? When the sage said 「keeping the Way is not so good as keeping one's office」, this was precisely to speak of keeping the Way. There is only a before and an after in the words; their sense has never been different. This is the sage's way of being ample and gentle and letting men seek it out for themselves. How then is it to be said that the one who handed it down was at fault?