非相

Physiognomy — the ancients did not practice it, and scholars do not discuss it. In antiquity there was Gubu Ziqing, and in the present age Liang has Tang Ju, who read people's physical appearance and coloring to predict their fortune — popular opinion praises them. But the ancients did not practice it, and scholars do not discuss it. Therefore judging by physical form is inferior to evaluating the mind, and evaluating the mind is inferior to examining one's methods. Physical form cannot overcome the mind, and the mind cannot overcome method. When one's method is correct and the mind follows it, then even if one's physical appearance is ugly and one's inner method is good, there is no obstacle to being a gentleman. Even if one's physical appearance is handsome and one's inner method is bad, there is no obstacle to being a petty person. The gentleman is what is called auspicious; the petty person is what is called inauspicious. Therefore height, size, beauty, and ugliness of physical form are not what determine fortune. The ancients did not practice this, and scholars do not discuss it.

What is it that makes humans human? I say: it is their capacity for making distinctions. To desire food when hungry, warmth when cold, rest when weary, to like profit and dislike harm — these are what humans are born with, what requires no effort to be so, and what Yu and Jie share equally. Yet what makes humans human is not merely that they walk on two feet and lack feathers — it is that they have the capacity for distinction. The orangutan also walks on two feet and lacks feathers, yet the gentleman drinks its broth and eats its meat. Therefore what makes humans human is not merely their two-footed, featherless form — it is their capacity for distinction. Animals have parents and offspring but not the bond of parent and child; they have males and females but not the distinctions between man and woman. Therefore in the human way, there is nothing without distinction.

No distinction is greater than social division; no social division is greater than ritual; no ritual is greater than the sage kings. There have been a hundred sage kings — which should I take as my model? I say: written records decay over time, ceremonial customs die out over time, and the officials who guard the regulations and numbers exhaust ritual and strip it bare. Therefore I say: if you wish to observe the traces of the sage kings, look to what is most brilliant and recent — the later kings. The later kings are the rulers of the whole world. To bypass the later kings and discourse on high antiquity is like abandoning your own ruler to serve someone else's.