Ganlei — Response Between Like Things感類篇

When yin and yang are not in harmony and calamities and strange changes arise, it is at times a fault left over from former ages, and at times the breath being so of itself. The worthy and the sage are moved by the kind and hold themselves wanting and afraid, and they think to themselves, why have these calamities and evil signs come? They draw the fault to themselves and blame themselves, fearing that there is guilt. This is the intent of caution and dread, and there is not necessarily any real matter behind it. How is this made clear? By Tang meeting a drought and blaming himself for five faults. The sage is pure and complete, and in conduct he has nothing lacking or lost. Why then did he blame himself as having five faults? Yet the Documents says, "Tang blamed himself, and Heaven answered with rain."

Tang had no fault to begin with, and he blamed himself for five faults. For what reason then did Heaven send rain? If faults brought the drought on, then one who did not know to blame himself could get rain as well. Speaking from this, the drought did not come for Tang's sake, and the rain was not an answer to his blaming himself. That there was drought before and rain after is the breath being so of itself. This is to speak of the words of the Documents. An objection says, "The great rain sacrifice of the Chunqiu, and the earthen dragon that Dong Zhongshu set up, were both for one season. When there is no rain for a season, men are afraid and hold the rain sacrifice, and their seeking and asking for blessing is their anxious thought for the people."

Tang met a drought for seven years and blamed himself for five faults. Which time is meant? Did he blame himself at once when he met the drought for one season? Or did he blame himself only when the drought reached seven years? If it is said that he blamed himself at once in that one season and rain came only in the seventh year, how slow was Heaven's answer to his sincerity! If it is said that he blamed himself only in the seventh year, how late was his anxious thought for the people! It does not fit the rule of the rain sacrifice, and it does not satisfy the duty of grieving for the people. The words of the Documents cannot be believed.

Discussing from this, the thunder and wind that arose in the time of King Cheng of Zhou are also of this kind. The Jin teng says, "In autumn the crop was fully ripe and not yet harvested. Heaven thundered greatly and lightened, with wind. The grain all lay flat and great trees were pulled up, and the men of the land were greatly afraid."

At this time the Duke of Zhou died, and the Confucian scholars explain it thus. King Cheng wavered over burying the Duke of Zhou. He wished to bury the duke with the rites of the Son of Heaven, but the duke was a subject; he wished to bury the duke with the rites of a subject, but the duke had the merit of a king. While he wavered over burying the Duke of Zhou, Heaven thundered and rained greatly, stirring its anger and showing a strange change, and so made plain the sage's merit.

The scholars of the old text say that when King Wu died and the Duke of Zhou held the regency, Guan and Cai spread rumors, and the king's mind came to doubt the Duke of Zhou, so that the Duke of Zhou fled to Chu. Therefore Heaven thundered and rained, to awaken King Cheng.

Now the strange change of one thunder and one rain is called by some the doubt over the burial and by others the believing of slander, and the two schools cannot be made out. Further, to correct the explanation about the doubt over the burial: at the season of autumn and summer the breath of yang is still full, and thunder and rain have never been wanting; only that here the pulling up of trees and the laying flat of the grain was rather mighty. When the thunder and rain came, King Cheng felt it and was afraid. He opened the writing of the Jin teng, saw the merit of the duke, held the writing and wept over his fault, and his self-blame was deep. Just as his self-blame ended, Heaven happened to turn the wind back, and so the school of the Documents said that Heaven was angry for the sake of the Duke of Zhou. Through a thousand autumns and ten thousand summers thunder and rain do not cease. If thunder and rain are truly Heaven's anger, then high Heaven is angry year after year. In the first month the breath of yang leaks out and the sound of thunder first stirs; in autumn and summer yang reaches its utmost and the thunder breaks off. If the thunder of autumn and summer is truly Heaven's great anger, is the thunder of the first month Heaven's small anger? Thunder is Heaven's anger, and rain is the bestowing of favor. If Heaven was angry for the sake of the Duke of Zhou, it ought only to have thundered and not to have rained. Now thunder and rain came together. Was Heaven angry and glad at once? "Confucius, on such a day, if he wailed then did not sing." The Zhou li says, "On the zi and the mao days one eats millet and a soup of herbs." So grief and joy do not go on together. Grief and joy do not go on together, and shall anger and gladness come together instead!

When the First Emperor of Qin went east and made the offering at Mount Dai, thunder and rain came violently. When Liu Ao rested at the great marsh, thunder and rain made it dark. The First Emperor was without the Way, and yet he held himself the equal of the sages before him; he governed disorder and called it Great Peace. That Heaven should be angry is proper. Liu Ao rested at the great marsh and met a spirit in a dream, and so bore Gaozu. Why be angry at the bearing of a sage and make thunder and rain? In the time of Yao a great wind did harm, and Yao shot the great wind down with a corded arrow in the field of Qingqiu. Shun entered the great forest, and there were fierce wind and thunder and rain. Yao and Shun were the high rulers of their age. What did they do wrong toward Heaven, that Heaven made wind and rain? In a great drought the Chunqiu held the rain sacrifice, and Dong Zhongshu further set up an earthen dragon to call the breath by its kind. If Heaven answers the rain sacrifice and the dragon, it must make thunder and rain. Why? Because the rain of autumn and summer goes together with thunder. If one must follow the arts of the Chunqiu and of Zhongshu, then the great rain sacrifice and the dragon are a seeking to make Heaven angry! Shi Kuang played the tune Baixue, and thunder and lightning struck down; he struck up the notes of Qingjue, and wind and rain came violently. If thunder and rain are truly Heaven's anger, what did Heaven hate in Baixue and in Qingjue, that it was angry at Shi Kuang for making them! This is the objection concerning thunder and rain.

Again a question is put. "King Cheng did not bury the Duke of Zhou with the rites of the Son of Heaven, and Heaven made thunder and wind, laying the grain flat and pulling up the trees. King Cheng awoke, held the writing and wept over his fault, and Heaven then turned the wind back, and the fallen grain rose again. Why did it not turn the wind back quickly so as to set up the great trees, but had to wait for the men of the land to raise them and bank them?" The answer is, "Heaven cannot." One says, "Then is there something Heaven cannot do?" The answer is, "So it is."

An objection says, "When Meng Ben pushed a man, the man fell over; when he took hold of a man, the man stood. If Heaven can pull up a tree and cannot set it up again, then Heaven's strength is not the equal of Meng Ben's. In the time of Qin three mountains were lost, and still it is said that Heaven moved them. Now for lightness and heaviness, which is the greater, a tree or three mountains? To be able to move three mountains and not to be able to raise a great tree is no fitting use of strength for Heaven. If it is said that the three mountains were not lost by Heaven's doing, then were the thunder and rain alone Heaven's doing?"

A question is put. "That Heaven wished King Cheng to bury the Duke of Zhou with the rites of the Son of Heaven was because the duke had the virtue of a sage and the merit of a king. The Classic says, 'The king then found the words in which the Duke of Zhou had taken it on himself as his own task to stand in the place of King Wu.' Now Heaven stirred its majesty and made plain the virtue of the Duke of Zhou."

An objection says, "Yi Yin aided Tang in attacking Xia, raised up profit and took away harm for the people, and brought Great Peace to the world under Heaven. When Tang died he aided Taijia in turn, and when Taijia grew loose and idle he put him out to the Tong palace; he held the government for three years and then withdrew and gave back the seat. The Duke of Zhou said, 'Yi Yin reached up to high Heaven.' He was one whom Heaven ought to have made plain. When Yi Yin died, by what reason did Heaven not make thunder and rain?" The answer is this. "The Bai liang pian says, 'When Yi Yin died, a great fog lay for three days.'

A great fog for three days is a disordered breath, not a strange change of Heaven's anger. Zhang Ba of Donghai made the Bai liang pian, and though his words cannot be believed, let us borrow them and ask. "Heaven made thunder and rain to awaken King Cheng. Did the thunder stop before King Cheng opened the golden chest? Or did the thunder and rain stop only after he had opened the golden chest?" The answer is this. "The thunder stopped before he opened the golden chest. He opened the chest and got the writing, saw the merit of the duke, awoke, wept over his fault, and decided to bury the duke with the rites of the Son of Heaven. He went out to the open country and looked at the strange change, and Heaven stopped the rain and turned the wind back, and the grain all rose up."

Speaking from this, the thunder and rain stopped before King Cheng awoke. An objection says, "When Yi Yin died the fog lasted three days. Why did Heaven not make thunder and rain for three days, waiting for King Cheng to awake and only then stopping? In the time of Taiwu, mulberry and paper mulberry grew up in the court, and in seven days they were a great armful. Taiwu thought on his government, and the mulberry and the paper mulberry withered away. In the time of Duke Jing of Song, Yinghuo stayed in the Xin lodge, and when the duke brought out three good words Yinghuo shifted its station. Had Taiwu not thought on his government, and had the duke not had his three good words, the mulberry and the paper mulberry would not have withered and Yinghuo would not have shifted. Why? Calamities and strange changes are the means of reproof and warning, and when the one reproved and warned has not awakened, the calamity and the strange change are not taken away. This is Heaven's utmost intent. Now Heaven was angry and made thunder and rain to blame King Cheng, and King Cheng had not awakened. Why then did the rain and the thunder stop so early?"

Again a question is put. "By the rites, the son of a feudal lord is called gongzi and the grandson of a feudal lord is called gongsun, and both eat of a fief, which sets them apart from the common crowd. Why? The gongzi and the gongsun are close in kin and also honored, and so they get the title of gong, and they also eat of a fief; name and substance match each other, as pattern and substance are matched. Heaven made plain the merit of the Duke of Zhou and would have King Cheng bury him with the rites of the Son of Heaven. Why did it not have King Cheng call the Duke of Zhou the King of Zhou, to match the rites of the Son of Heaven?" The answer is, "King is an honored title of a name, and a subject may not be so named."

An objection says, "Is it by the rites that a subject may still be named king? When King Wu attacked King Zhou (紂), he came down from his carriage and raised Great King, King Ji and King Wen to the title of king. Those three were feudal lords, and so subjects too, and yet the title of king was added to them. Why is it allowed for the three kings alone and not allowed for the Duke of Zhou? If Heaven's intent was to make the Duke of Zhou plain, how could it not make him plain! Was it because the traces of kingship arose from those three men! Yet the merit of kingship was also completed by the Duke of Zhou. The Yangzi (江) rises in Mount Min and flows on to become billows and rapids. If one looks at the flow of the billows and the rapids, which is the greater, that or the source where it first rose? The fragrant wine that came and the white pheasant that was brought, were they for the three kings? Or for the Duke of Zhou? The merit and virtue of the Duke of Zhou were fuller than those of the three kings, and yet the title of king was not added to him. How could that be because Heaven hates men naming him idly! When Zhou declined, the six states called themselves kings and Qi and Qin took the title of emperor by turns, and at that time there was no strange change in Heaven to forbid or to show anger. Yet when the Duke of Zhou was not buried with the rites of the Son of Heaven, Heaven made thunder and rain to blame King Cheng. How is it that Heaven's liking and hating are not all of one piece?"

Again a question is put. "Jisun of Lu gave Zengzi a mat, and Zengzi, being ill, lay on it. A boy said, 'It is showy and smooth. This is a great officer's mat.'

Zengzi felt it and was ashamed, and he ordered Yuan to change the mat. It seems that by the rites a scholar may not lie on a great officer's mat. Now the Duke of Zhou was a subject, and if he is buried with the rites of the Son of Heaven, then even if his soul has its spirit, will he be at ease, or will he not?" The answer is, "What King Cheng did was what Heaven gave. Why would he not be at ease?"

An objection says, "The great officer's mat that Jisun gave, how could that be something Zengzi made himself? And yet why was he alone not at ease? When Confucius was ill, Zilu had his disciples act as retainers. When the illness eased he said, 'How long You has been at this false doing! To have retainers where there are no retainers, whom do I deceive? Do I deceive Heaven?'

This was Confucius holding Zilu guilty. He himself was not a ruler, and for Zilu to have his disciples act as retainers was to do idly what was not Heaven's mind, and this is to deceive Heaven. The Duke of Zhou too was not the Son of Heaven, and if we measure the Duke of Zhou by the mind of Confucius, the Duke of Zhou would surely not have been at ease. When the Ji clan offered the lü sacrifice on Mount Tai, Confucius said, 'Would one ever say that Mount Tai is less than Lin Fang?'

With the smallness of Zengzi he still put away what was not according to the rites, and the Duke of Zhou was a sage of the utmost sort. How would he be at ease with the burial of a Son of Heaven? Would one ever say that the Duke of Zhou is less than Zengzi? Tracing it from this, the Duke of Zhou is not at ease. The great man joins his virtue with Heaven and Earth. If the Duke of Zhou is not at ease, Heaven too is not at ease. For what reason then did it make thunder and rain to blame King Cheng?"

Again a question is put. "Death and life have their allotment, and wealth and honor lie with Heaven. How could the allotment of King Wu be taken over by another?"

The answer is, "The dream of the nine years was Heaven taking away the years of King Wen to add them to King Wu. At the time of the second year after the conquest of Yin, the years of the nine were not yet spent, and when King Wu was unwell the duke then asked for them. A man's allotment cannot be asked for, but for King Wu alone it was allowed. It was not a constant rule of the world, and so it was hidden in the golden chest; it could not be done again, and so it was covered and not shown."

An objection says, "In the dream of the nine years, had King Wu already got the years of King Wen, or not?" The answer is, "He had already got them."

An objection says, "If he had already got the years of King Wen, his allotment ought to have lengthened of itself. In the second year after the conquest of Yin, though he was ill he still would not have died. Why then did the Duke of Zhou ask to stand in his place?" The answer is, "When a ruler gives a man an office, even when the deliberation is settled it is not handed over at once; only after the bureau has looked over the list can it be granted. Though Heaven took away the years of King Wen and added them to King Wu, still it had to wait for the Duke of Zhou's asking before they could be got. The number of an allotment is fine and subtle, and it is not something a single dream in one lying down can obtain."

An objection says, "In the dream of the nine years, King Wen in a dream gave King Wu nine years, and King Wu in a dream had the Emperor give him those nine years. Then Heaven had already given them and King Wu had already got them. Why must there be a further asking? When a man is about to get an office, he first dreams of getting the rank, and afterward, though no one puts him forward, he still gets the office of himself. Why? Because when the sign and the image are seen beforehand, their proving must come. In old times a year was called ling, and to have got nine ling already is like a man dreaming of getting a rank. The Duke of Zhou, on the strength of a dream that was bound to prove true, asked it of Heaven. How can the merit in that be great?"

Again a question is put. "Merit has no great or small and virtue has no much or little, and if it is something men must look up to and lean on, then it is fine. If the Duke of Zhou had not stood in King Wu's place, and King Wu had fallen ill and died, would the Duke of Zhou together with King Cheng have brought Great Peace to the world under Heaven?"

The answer is, "In what has come to pass, the Duke of Zhou aided King Cheng and the world under Heaven was not in disorder. Had King Wu not had his place taken, and had he gone on to die of his illness, what doubt is there that the Duke of Zhou would have brought Great Peace?"

An objection says, "If it is so, then King Wu's living was no gain and his dying no loss, and it had to wait for the merit of the Duke of Zhou to be accomplished. When Zhou declined, the feudal lords turned their backs and rebelled, and Guan Zhong brought the lords together nine times and set the world under Heaven right at one stroke. Confucius said, 'Without Guan Zhong I would be wearing my hair loose and folding my coat to the left.'

Had there been no Guan Zhong, the lords would not have been brought together, the Yi and the Di would have invaded in turn, and the Middle Kingdom would have been cut off and destroyed. This is the harm there would have been without Guan Zhong. Measuring the gain, the merit of Guan Zhong matches that of the Duke of Zhou. When Guan Zhong died, Duke Huan did not bury him with the rites of a feudal lord. Measuring by the Duke of Zhou, Heaven ought to have been angry too. Why then did not even a slight thunder or a thin rain come? Was it because the Duke of Zhou was a sage and Guan Zhong was not a worthy man? Now Guan Zhong made a fandian and had the sangui, and Confucius blamed him for it and held him not worthy.

A fandian and the sangui are the rites of a feudal lord, and burial with the rites of the Son of Heaven is the institution of a king; both are what a subject may not do. The great man joins his virtue with Heaven and Earth. Confucius was a great man, and he blamed Guan Zhong for overstepping the rites, and yet high Heaven wished the Duke of Zhou to encroach on the institution. This is no proof of joined virtue.

The explanation of the school of the Documents cannot be held so.

By seeing the tracks of birds he knew to make writing, and by seeing the flying mugwort he knew to make the carriage. Heaven did not command Cang Jie with the tracks of birds, nor set Xi Zhong to work with the flying mugwort; it was Xi Zhong who was moved by the flying mugwort, and Cang Jie who rose up from the tracks of birds. When Duke Wen of Jin returned to his state, he gave the order to put away the mimo, and Jiufan was moved in his heart, gave up his place and went home. Now the duke's putting away of the mimo was not a wish to be rid of Jiufan; it was Jiufan who was moved and ashamed and held himself the same as the mimo. Hua Chen of Song weakened his own kin, and had six household bandits kill Hua Wu with spears in Song, and the order was that they gather behind the Left Master. The Left Master was afraid and said, "This old man has done no wrong."

Afterward the Left Master bore a grudge and laid blame on Hua Chen, and Hua Chen made ready against him. The men of the land were chasing a dog, and the dog went in at Hua Chen's gate, and Hua Chen took it that the Left Master had come to attack him, and he went over the wall and ran. Now Hua Chen himself killed Hua Wu, and the Left Master was afraid; the men of the land themselves were chasing a dog, and Hua Chen himself ran away. King Cheng's fear is of this same kind. In his heart he doubted about not burying the duke with the rites of the Son of Heaven, and at last he met the coming of thunder and rain, and so he was afraid and dreaded his fault. Now at the coming of thunder and rain, Heaven was not necessarily blaming King Cheng. The thunder and rain came, and King Cheng was afraid and blamed himself. Being moved is the mind of Cang Jie and Xi Zhong, and being afraid is the intent of the Left Master and Hua Chen. Holding a plan he had misgivings about, he met a breath that came violently, and as the proof of its kind appeared, the effect of Heaven's anger was accomplished. Men see the proof of a kind in stillness and silence and are still moved and stirred and afraid. How much more with the shaking and rousing sound of thunder and rain: could King Cheng have failed to start with fear?

At swift thunder and fierce wind Confucius would surely change his face. By the rites, when a gentleman hears thunder he puts on his clothes and cap and sits, even at night; this is the way of showing respect to the thunder and of fearing its violent breath. The sage and the gentleman have no misgivings about the Way, and yet they still follow the changes and stirrings of Heaven. How much more King Cheng, who had his doubt about the Duke of Zhou: hearing the strange change of thunder and rain, how could he not shake and be afraid! Then the coming of the thunder and rain was most likely from the breath of Heaven itself, and King Cheng's fear was most likely his being moved by things of a kind. Now the Way of Heaven does nothing. If Heaven blamed and was angry at men with thunder and rain, then it could also kill those without the Way with thunder and rain. In old times there were many without the Way, and Heaven could have cut them down and killed them with thunder and rain, and yet it had to command a sage to raise troops and move armies, wearing out the soldiers and wounding the men. It held it hard to carry out an execution with one thunderclap and light to overcome the enemy with three armies. How is it that Heaven does not shrink from trouble!

Some say, "Di Yi, the father of King Zhou, shot at Heaven and beat the earth, and as he roamed between the Jing and the Wei River (渭), thunder and lightning struck and killed him. This is Heaven cutting down one without the Way by thunder and lightning."

For the evil of Di Yi, which is the worse, his or that of Jie and King Zhou? Zou Boqi argued that the evil of Jie and King Zhou was less than that of the fallen Qin, and that the fallen Qin was less than Wang Mang; and yet the deaths of Jie, of King Zhou, of Qin and of Mang were not by thunder and lightning. When Confucius made the Chunqiu, he picked out good as small as a hair and cut down evil as fine as a thread, but in picking out good he did not go beyond its beauty, and in cutting down evil he did not overflow its fault. To blame a small thing with a great one is what no man does. At King Cheng's small doubt Heaven made great thunder and rain. Had he settled on burying the duke with a subject's rites, in what way could the strange change have gone beyond this! The examining of doubts in the Hongfan is for those who do not understand calamities and strange changes: a man's talent cannot know all, and Heaven does not blame men for completeness in a matter of doubt. To say that King Cheng doubted in his heart and had not decided, and that Heaven blamed him with great thunder and rain, is most likely not the intent of high Heaven. The explanation of the school of the Documents has, it seems, lost the truth of the matter.