有秦客問於東野主人曰：「聞之前論曰：『治世之音安以樂，亡國之音哀以思。』夫治亂在政，而音聲應之；故哀思之情，表於金石；安樂之象，形於管弦也。又仲尼聞韶，識虞舜之德；季札聽弦，知眾國之風。斯已然之事，先賢所不疑也。今子獨以為聲無哀樂，其理何居？若有嘉訊，今請聞其說。」
There was a guest from Qin who asked the host of Dongye: I have previously heard the following said: The notes of a well-governed kingdom are peaceful and joyous, and the kingdom in peril has notes that are grievous and longing. Orderliness and chaos depend on governance and music is reflective of this. Thus, feelings of grief and longing are expressed in metal and stone; those symbolizing peace and joy are formed in pipes and strings. When Confucius heard the Shao, he knew of the virtue of Yu and Shun; when Ji Zha listened to stringed instruments, he would know the manners of all the kingdoms. Since these matters have already come to be, the worthies of the past did not doubt them. Now you alone believe sound is without grief and joy. What is the reason for this? If you have a masterly argument to make, please let me hear it.
主人應之曰：「斯義久滯，莫肯拯救，故令歷世濫於名實。今蒙啟導，將言其一隅焉。夫天地合德，萬物貴生，寒暑代往，五行以成。故章為五色，發為五音；音聲之作，其猶臭味在於天地之間。其善與不善，雖遭遇濁亂，其體自若而不變也。豈以愛憎易操、哀樂改度哉？
The host responded: Understanding of this issue has been stagnant for a long time, with no one coming to the rescue, thus previous generations have gotten away with abusing the use of names and reality. I will guide you out of ignorance but will speak of just one corner. When heaven and earth combined their virtue, the myriad things were endowed with life; cold and hot then appeared in succession, and the five elements were completed. These were then expressed as the five colors, which were expressed as the five notes. The production of music is like the scents and odors found in the world. Its quality may be good or bad, and although it encounters a turbid and chaotic world, its body remains composed and unchanging. How can love and hate alter the tune, or grief and joy change the tempo?
及宮商集比，聲音克諧，此人心至願，情慾之所鍾。故人知情不可恣，欲不可極，故因其所用，每為之節，使哀不至傷，樂不至淫，斯其大較也。然樂云樂云，鐘鼓云乎哉？哀云哀云，哭泣云乎哉？因茲而言，玉帛非禮敬之實，歌舞非悲哀之主也。
Gathering together gong and shang, this is the harmony of music. This is what the human heart-mind desires the most, and is what the feelings and passions crave. The people of antiquity knew that feelings should not be indulged and that desires should not be allowed to go unchecked, hence they relied on what could be used and each came to have its own traits. They made sure that grief did not reach the level of injury, or joy the level of obscenity. Relying on affairs to bestow names, things came to have their designations. To refer to crying as grief, and singing as joy, this is merely a rough outline. To say music, music, is there nothing more to it than bells and drums? To say grief, grief, is there nothing more to it than crying and sobbing? To speak from this position, jade and silk are not the genuine reality of ritual and honor, and singing and crying are not the core of grief and joy.
何以明之？夫殊方異俗，歌哭不同。使錯而用之，或聞哭而歡，或聽歌而戚，然而哀樂之情均也。今用均同之情，而發萬殊之聲，斯非音聲之無常哉？然聲音和比，感人之最深者也。勞者歌其事，樂者舞其功。夫內有悲痛之心，則激切哀言。言比成詩，聲比成音。雜而詠之，聚而聽之，心動於和聲，情感於苦言。嗟歎未絕，而泣涕流漣矣。夫哀心藏於苦心內，遇和聲而後發。和聲無象，而哀心有主。夫以有主之哀心，因乎無象之和聲，其所覺悟，唯哀而已。豈復知『吹萬不同，而使其自已』哉。
How can I explain this? Different places have different customs, and singing and crying are not the same; if a person mistakes one for the other, hearing someone cry will be taken for joy, and listening to someone sing will be taken for sadness. However, the feelings of grief and joy are equal. If one uses feelings that are equal, and expresses a myriad of different sounds, is this not due to the irregularity of music? What is more, if music is harmonious and orderly, it will move people in the most profound manner. Laborers sing about their affairs and the joyous dance to their accomplishments. If the heart-mind contains sorrow and pain, a person’s words will be severely aggrieved. Orderly words become poems while orderly sounds become notes. When blended together and sung, people will come together and listen to them. The heart-mind is hence moved by harmonious sound while feelings are affected by bitter words. With people’s sighs not yet over, crying and tears issue forth in a torrent. When the grieved heart-mind is concealed within, it will be released after encountering harmonious sounds; even though harmonious sounds are imageless, the grieved heart-mind has its core. To take the core of a grieving heart-mind and make it rely on imageless harmonious sounds, the only thing one will be aware of is grief. How is someone to know what blows a myriad of different ways but allows each thing to remain itself?
風俗之流，遂成其政；是故國史明政教之得失，審國風之盛衰，吟詠情性以諷其上，故曰『亡國之音哀以思』也。夫喜、怒、哀、樂、愛、憎、慙、懼，凡此八者，生民所以接物傳情，區別有屬，而不可溢者也。夫味以甘苦為稱，今以甲賢而心愛，以乙愚而情憎，則愛憎宜屬我，而賢愚宜屬彼也。可以我愛而謂之愛人，我憎而謂之憎人，所喜則謂之喜味，所怒而謂之怒味哉？由此言之，則外內殊用，彼我異名。
The transmission of manners and customs is what a successful government follows. It is why the court scribes understood where government teachings are won and lost, and by examining the rise and fall of stately customs, they express their feelings in song so as to satirize their superiors. Thus, it is said: The music of a kingdom in peril conveys thoughts of grief. As for delight, anger, grief, and joy, as well as love, hate, shame, and fear, these eight are how the common people get along with one another and convey their feelings. However, since they belong to different classes, they cannot intermingle. As for the flavors we call sweet and bitter, we can compare them to a person who is worthy and whom I love, and another person who is stupid and whom I hate. Such being the case, love and hate belong to me while worthy and stupid belong to them. Can my love be called a love of all men, and my hate a hatred of all men? Can the delight I feel be called a flavor of delight, and my anger a flavor of anger? To speak from this point of view, outer and inner have different uses and what belongs to me and others have different names.
聲音自當以善惡為主，則無關於哀樂；哀樂自當以情感，則無係於聲音。名實俱去，則盡然可見矣。且季子在魯，采《詩》觀禮，以別《風》、《雅》，豈徒任聲以決臧否哉？又仲尼聞《韶》，嘆其一致，是以咨嗟，何必因聲以知虞舜之德，然後歎美邪？今粗明其一端，亦可思過半矣。」
If music should naturally take good or bad as its core, it will have no connection to grief or joy. If grief and joy should naturally take emotions as their releasement, they will have no relation to music. When names and reality are kept apart, everyone notices. What is more, when Jizi visited Lu, he gathered its poems and observed its rituals to separate the Airs and Hymns. Did he actually rely on their sounds to decide if they were good or bad? When Confucius listened to the Shao and praised its singular moderation, causing him to sigh, how was he, based on its sound alone, able to know the virtue of Yu and Shun before praising its beauty? I have roughly revealed one part of this issue and leave the rest for you to think through on your own.
秦客難曰：「八方異俗，歌哭萬殊，然其哀樂之情，不得不見也。夫心動於中，而聲出於心。雖託之於他音，寄之於餘聲，善聽察者，要自覺之不使得過也。昔伯牙理琴而鍾子知其所志、隸人擊磬而子產識其心哀、魯人晨哭而顏淵審其生離。夫數子者，豈復假智於常音，借驗於曲度哉？
The guest from Qin refuted this: The eight regions have different customs, just as singing and crying have their myriad differences, yet when it comes to feelings of grief and joy, one cannot avoid seeing them. The heart-mind is moved from within and sounds arise from the heart-mind. Although it can support other notes, and express a surplus of sounds, the good examine it via listening so as to comprehend it and avoid errors. In antiquity Bo Ya played his qin and Zhongzi knew what he longed for. The slave-attendant struck the stone chimes and [Zhong] Ziqi understood the grief he was feeling. The people of Lu cried in the morning and Yan Hui knew it was a sign of life departing. On account of these persons, how can someone depend on knowledge gained in the regularity of notes, or test their evidence in a tune’s tempo?
心戚者則形為之動，情悲者則聲為之哀。此自然相應，不可得逃，唯神明者能精之耳。夫能者不以聲眾為難，不能者不以聲寡為易。今不可以未遇善聽，而謂之聲無可察之理；見方俗之多變，而謂聲音無哀樂也。」又云：「賢不宜言愛，愚不宜言憎。然則有賢然後愛生，有愚然後憎成，但不當共其名耳。
When the heart-mind is sad the body is moved, and when feelings are grieved the sounds that result are sorrowful. This is a natural response which cannot be avoided, hence only a person with spiritual clarity can grasp its essence. Being able to do so, not even an abundance of sound poses a challenge; not being able to do so, not even a scarcity of sound makes it easy. One cannot say, having not met a good listener, that sound lacks an observable principle, or because a place’s customs go through many changes, that music lacks grief and joy. You also say it is inappropriate to speak of the worthy person in terms of love and the stupid person in terms of hate. However, the worthy person gives birth to love and the stupid person completes hate, yet it is improper for them both to share the same name.
哀樂之作，亦有由而然。此為聲使我哀，音使我樂也。苟哀樂由聲，更為有實，何得名實俱去邪？」又云：「季子采《詩》觀禮，以別《風》、《雅》；仲尼歎《韶》音之一致，是以咨嗟。是何言歟？且師襄奏操，而仲尼覩文王之容；師涓進曲，而子野識亡國之音。寧復講詩而後下言，習禮然後立評哉？斯皆神妙獨見，不待留聞積日，而已綜其吉凶矣；是以前史以為美談。今子以區區之近知，齊所見而為限，無乃誣前賢之識微，負夫子之妙察邪？」
What produces grief and joy also has that which it must follow. This results in some sounds making me feel grieved, and some notes making me feel joyous. If grief and joy both come from sound, making them all the more real, how is someone supposed to keep name and reality apart? You also said this: Ji Zha gathered poems and observed rituals to separate the Airs and Hymns, while Confucius listened to the Shao and praised its singular consistency, making him sigh. What words are these? Moreover, when master Xiang played his zither, Confucius envisioned the form of king Wen; when master Juan played his tune, Ziye recognized its notes as those of a kingdom in peril. Would you rather they discussed poetry before reciting it, or studied the rites before offering their opinions? These are instances of a marvelously unique vision that does not rely on prolonged listening to decide if music will bring good or bad fortune, hence previous scribes took them as stories to be passed on with approval. Yet here you are with your trivial modern knowledge, equalizing the visible by setting its limits. Is this not defaming the previous worthies’ understanding of the subtle and rejecting the marvelous vision of Confucius?
主人答曰：「難云：雖歌哭萬殊，善聽察者要自覺之，不假智於常音，不借驗於曲度，鍾子之徒云云是也。此為心悲者，雖談笑鼓舞，情歡者，雖拊膺咨嗟，猶不能御外形以自匿，誑察者於疑似也。以為就令聲音之無常，猶謂當有哀樂耳。又曰：季子聽聲，以知眾國之風；師襄奏操，而仲尼覩文王之容。案如所云，此為文王之功德，與風俗之盛衰，皆可象之於聲音：
The host responded: In your refutation you said: Although singing and crying have a myriad of differences, the good listen to and examine them in order to comprehend them. They do not depend on knowledge gained in regular notes or test their evidence in the tempo of a tune. The followers of Zhongzi and others like them are examples of this. This shows that when a person’s heart-mind is grieved, although they might talk, laugh, clap, and dance with others, or when a person feels joyous and slaps his chest and gasps in admiration, their outward forms of expression cannot conceal what lies within, and in doing so, deceive all who observe them by sowing doubts into what they see. You think that just because sound is irregular you can still say when it has grief or joy. You also said: When Jizi listens to sounds, he knows the Airs of the many kingdoms; when master Xiang plays tunes on his zither, Confucius sees the form of king Wen. Given everything you have said, this shows that king Wen’s merit, along with the rise and decline of manners and customs, can be reflected in music.
聲之輕重，可移於後世；襄涓之巧，能得之於將來。若然者，三皇五帝，可不絕於今日，何獨數事哉？若此果然也。則文王之操有常度，韶武之音有定數，不可雜以他變，操以餘聲也。則向所謂聲音之無常，鍾子之觸類，於是乎躓矣。若音聲無常，鍾子觸類，其果然邪？則仲尼之識微，季札之善聽，固亦誣矣。此皆俗儒妄記，欲神其事而追為耳，欲令天下惑聲音之道，不言理以盡此，而推使神妙難知，恨不遇奇聽於當時，慕古人而自歎，斯所以大罔後生也。
The significance of sound can be shared with later generations, and with the skill of masters Xiang or Juan, persons in the future can obtain it. Thus, the three sovereigns and five emperors are not disconnected from the present, so why should it be the case for this matter alone? Such being the case, the tunes of king Wen have regular rhythm and the notes of the Shao and Wu are fixed in number; they cannot be randomly changed or played with surplus sounds. This means that your previous claims about music being irregular, and how Zhongzi could be moved through supposition, are now proven wrong. Is music’s lack of regularity and Zhongzi’s being moved through supposition in fact true? If not, then Confucius’ understanding of the subtle and Ji Zha’s careful listening must also be wrong. These are simply the absurd records of vulgar scholars wishing to sanctify their affairs so that others will follow them. Their desire was to mislead the world about the Dao of music hence they did not discuss the principle of what is self-exhausting, turning it instead into something marvelous and hard to know. They resented the fact that they did not meet a unique listener in their time, all the while pining after the men of antiquity in order to make sighs of admiration. This is how they entrapped later generations.
夫推類辨物，當先求之自然之理；理已定，然後借古義以明之耳。今未得之於心，而多恃前言以為談證，自此以往，恐巧曆不能紀。又難云：哀樂之作，猶愛憎之由賢愚，此為聲使我哀而音使我樂；苟哀樂由聲，更為有實矣。夫五色有好醜，五聲有善惡，此物之自然也。至於愛與不愛，喜與不喜，人情之變，統物之理，唯止於此；然皆無豫於內，待物而成耳。
If a person wants to extend categories and discriminate things, they must first seek its natural principle. Once this principle has been fixed, ideas of old can be used to clarify it. However, if a person has not yet embodied it in their heart-mind but instead uses the words of the ancients to verify their claims, then proceeding from this, even a skilled mathematician will not be able to keep track of things. You also refuted me saying: the feelings of grief and joy are like love and hate and their ties to the worthy and foolish. This is why, you say, some sounds make you feel grieved while other notes make you feel joyous. If grief and joy come from music, then music is all the more real. As for the five colors being beautiful or ugly, and the five sounds being good or bad, this is the naturalness of things. As for whether to love or not, the changes in human feelings, and the principle common to all things, everything comes down to these alone. However, these do not exist internally but wait upon things to become realized.
至夫哀樂自以事會，先遘於心，但因和聲以自顯發。故前論已明其無常，今復假此談以正名號耳。不為哀樂發於聲音，如愛憎之生於賢愚也。然和聲之感人心，亦猶酒醴之發人情也。酒以甘苦為主，而醉者以喜怒為用。其見歡戚為聲發，而謂聲有哀樂，不可見喜怒為酒使，而謂酒有喜怒之理也。」
Turning to grief and joy, they arise from the gathering of events and first meet in the heart-mind, but due to harmonious sound, they naturally emit themselves. Thus, in my previous discussion, I illuminated their irregularity and now return to this point to rectify their name and signification. One cannot say that the issuing forth of grief and joy because of music resembles the creation of love and hate by those who are worthy and stupid. If this were so, then harmonious sound affects people’s heart-mind in a manner similar to sweet wine releasing people’s nature. Wine takes sweet and bitter as its core, and drunkenness takes delight and anger as its application. To notice that happiness and sorrow arise from sound and then claim that sound contains grief and joy, this is akin to not being able to see that delight and anger are caused by wine yet declare wine contains the principles of delight and anger.
秦客難曰：「夫觀氣采色，天下之通用也。心變於內而色應於外，較然可見，故吾子不疑。夫聲音，氣之激者也。心應感而動，聲從變而發。心有盛衰，聲亦隆殺。同見役於一身，何獨於聲便當疑邪！
The guest from Qin objected: As for observing breath and its expression, this is a common practice in the world. When the heart-mind changes inwardly, a person’s outward expression reflects this. This is evident to see hence you do not doubt it. As for music, it arouses breath and the heart-mind is moved to respond, hence sound is released from this change. The heart-mind has its rising and falling and sound also has its ascent and descent. One can see they both serve the same body; how is it that sound alone gives you doubt?
夫喜怒章於色診，哀樂亦宜形於聲音。聲音自當有哀樂，但暗者不能識之。至鍾子之徒，雖遭無常之聲，則穎然獨見矣，今蒙瞽面牆而不悟，離婁昭秋毫於百尋，以此言之，則明暗殊能矣。不可守咫尺之度，而疑離婁之察；執中痛之聽，而猜鍾子之聰；皆謂古人為妄記也。」
If delight and anger can be seen in a person’s expression and looks, then grief and joy should also take form in their music. Music itself must have grief and joy but those who are dim [in hearing] do not recognize it. As for Zhongzi’s followers, although they encounter irregular sounds, they cleverly employ their unique vision [to hear past them]. If the blind musician faces a wall, he will see nothing; however, Li Lou was able to make out the tip of an autumn hair at one hundred xun and from this, we can say the bright and dim have their special abilities. One cannot doubt Li Lou’s observations by way of their own small measurements, nor guess Zhongzi’s intelligent hearing by way of their own common listening, and say these are all the false records of the ancients.
主人答曰：「難云：心應感而動，聲從變而發，心有盛衰，聲亦降殺，哀樂之情，必形於聲音，鍾子之徒，雖遭無常之聲，則穎然獨見矣。必若所言，則濁質之飽，首陽之飢，卞和之冤，伯奇之悲，相如之含怒，不占之怖祗，千變百態，使各發一詠之歌，同啟數彈之微，則鍾子之徒，各審其情矣。爾為聽聲者不以寡眾易思，察情者不以大小為異，同出一身者，期於識之也。設使從下，則子野之徒，亦當復操律鳴管，以考其音，知南風之盛衰，別雅、鄭之淫正也？
The host replied: In your refutation you said the heart-mind responds to what moves it, and sound is released as a result of this change, hence the heart-mind has its rising and falling just as sound has its ascending and descending. Feelings of grief and joy must, therefore, take shape in music. Although Zhongzi’s followers encounter irregular sounds, they cleverly employ their unique vision [to move past them]. If things are as you say, then Zhuo and Zhi’s satisfaction, the hunger at Shouyang, Bian He’s grievance, Boqi’s sadness, Xiangru’s hidden anger, and Buzhan’s frightened reverence, will all have thousands of changes and hundreds of different attitudes. If we let each issue forth one chord from a song, or together pluck a few subtle notes on the qin, then in each case, Zhongzi’s followers would discover their feelings. If a p erson listens to sound, is it enough to only hear a few notes instead of many to change their thinking? If a person examines feelings, do they view the great and small as having any real difference? Coming from the same body, one hopes to know them all. However, if sounds come from a whole region, then even Ziye’s followers will have to repeatedly play their bamboo pitch pipes and tuning tubes in order to check their notes and know from the southern Airs which kingdoms will flourish and decline, thereby separating the proper Hymns from the licentious songs of Zheng.
夫食辛之與甚噱，薰目之與哀泣，同用出淚，使狄牙嘗之，必不言樂淚甜而哀淚苦，斯可知矣。何者？肌液肉汗，踧笮便出，無主於哀樂，猶簁酒之囊漉，雖笮具不同，而酒味不變也。聲俱一體之所出，何獨當含哀樂之理也？且夫《咸池》、《六莖》，《大章》、《韶夏》，此先王之至樂，所以動天地、感鬼神。
Eating bitter food results in hearty laughter while smoke in a person’s eyes results in grieved weeping; both produce tears. Even if Diya tastes them, he cannot say that happy tears are sweet and grieved tears are bitter. Everyone knows this. How? Muscles produce water which the flesh turns into sweat; when squeezed, it simply exits. It is not overseen by grief or joy; rather, it is like straining wine through a cloth sack. Although the tool used to squeeze it is not the same, the flavor of wine does not change. Since sounds emerge from the same body, how does it alone contain the principle of grief and joy? As for the Xianchi, Liujing, Dazhang, Shao, and Xia, they are the perfect music of the former kings. They moved heaven and earth and aroused ghosts and spirits.
今必云聲音莫不象其體而傳其心，此必為至樂不可託之於瞽史，必須聖人理其弦管，爾乃雅音得全也。舜命夔「擊石拊石，八音克諧，神人以和。」以此言之，至樂雖待聖人而作，不必聖人自執也。何者？音聲有自然之和，而無係於人情。克諧之音，成於金石；至和之聲，得於管弦也。夫纖毫自有形可察，故離瞽以明暗異功耳。若乃以水濟水，孰異之哉？」
If it must be said that there is no music that fails to resemble the body or transmit the heart-mind of its creator, this must be taken as perfect music and blind scribes should not be entrusted with it. It is only when the sages play on their strings and tubes that such elegant notes reach completion. When Shun commanded Kui to first strike the chimes, then gently tap them, the eight notes came together in harmony, and spirits and humans were harmonized. To speak from this, although perfect music must wait for a sage to create it, there is no need for the sage himself to handle it. Why? Music has a natural harmony that is distinct from human emotions. Notes that are harmonious reach completion in metal and stone; sounds that are perfect in harmony come from tubes and strings. Fine threads and hair both have a form that can be examined; hence Li Lou and the blind person have different degrees of success with their clear and dark vision. If one simply mixes water with water, who can tell them apart!
秦客難曰：「雖眾喻有隱，足招攻難，然其大理，當有所就。若葛盧聞牛鳴，知其三子為犧；師曠吹律，知南風不競，楚師必敗；羊舌母聽聞兒啼，而審其喪家。凡此數事，皆效於上世，是以咸見錄載。推此而言，則盛衰吉凶，莫不存乎聲音矣。今若復謂之誣罔，則前言往記，皆為棄物，無用之也。以言通論，未之或安。若能明斯所以，顯其所由，設二論俱濟，願重聞之。」
The guest from Qin objected: Although many of my examples might be unclear, which is enough to warrant your criticism, the main principle still has something of merit. It is like when Gelu heard the cries of a cow and knew that three of her offspring had been sacrificed, or when master Kuang blew on his pitch pipes and knew the Airs of the south were not violent and that the Chu army would be defeated. Yangshe’s mother heard the baby crying and knew it would be the family’s downfall. Each one of these affairs took place in former times, thus they appear together in written records. From this we can infer that rising and declining, auspicious and inauspicious fate, can all be found in sounds and notes. Now, if you want to continue calling them false and deceptive, then the words and records of antiquity must all be rejected, for they are no longer of any use. I remain uncomfortable speaking of such thorough discussions in this way. If you can clarify or show the reason for doing so, helping me bring the two theories together, I would greatly like to hear them.
主人答曰：「吾謂能反三隅者，得意而忘言，是以前論略而未詳。今復煩循環之難，敢不自一竭邪？夫魯牛能知犧歷之喪生，哀三子之不存，含悲經年，訴怨葛盧；此為心與人同，異於獸形耳。此又吾之所疑也。且牛非人類，無道相通，若謂鳴獸皆能有言，葛盧受性獨曉之，此為稱其語而論其事，猶譯傳異言耳，不為考聲音而知其情，則非所以為難也。
The host responded: If someone can return with the other three corners, he will grasp the meaning and forget the words. Thus, my previous discussion was merely an outline and had no detail. Now you repeatedly annoy me with your refutations. Why should I not try and exhaust them? If the cow from Lu knew her offspring had been sacrificed, and was grieved that her three children no longer existed, she contained her sorrow for many years before wailing to Gelu. This is to have the same heart-mind as a person, the only difference being her animal form. This is something about which I have my doubts. Cows are not the same species as humans and there is no mutual communication between them. If one were to say that birds and animals can speak, and that Gelu received a unique nature allowing him to understand them, this is to discuss their affairs by way of their language and is akin to translating and transmitting an alien language. This amounts to not knowing a person’s feelings by examining their music and is hence an invalid criticism.
若謂知者為當觸物而達，無所不知，今且先議其所易者。請問：聖人卒人胡域，當知其所言否乎？難者必曰知之。知之之理何以明之？願借子之難以立鑑識之域。或當與關接識其言邪？將吹律鳴管校其音邪？觀氣采色和其心邪？此為知心自由氣色，雖自不言，猶將知之，知之之道，可不待言也。若吹律校音以知其心，假令心志於馬而誤言鹿，察者固當由鹿以知馬也。此為心不繫於所言，言或不足以證心也。若當關接而知言，此為孺子學言於所師，然後知之，則何貴於聰明哉？
If we call a person with knowledge someone who grasps things upon encountering them, there is nothing they will not know. Allow me to first discuss what I find uneasy about this. I would like to ask if a sage suddenly enters the territory of the Hu, will he know their language or not? My opponent will certainly say he will know it. How are we to explain the principle of his knowing it? I wish to use your reply to establish the region of scrutiny and knowing. Will he [the sage] have a continuous relationship with them [the Hu] in order to know their words? Will he blow on the pitch pipes and play the bamboo tuning tubes in order to examine their notes? Will he observe their behavior and examine their complexion in order to know their heart-mind? This is to know the heart-mind from a person’s breath and appearance, and while nothing might be said of them, the sage can still know them. The Dao of knowing does not rely on words. To blow on the pitch pipes and examine its notes is to still know the heart-mind; if the heart-mind is set on a horse but mistakenly calls it a deer, the examiner will certainly know from his saying deer that he meant horse. This is to say, the heart-mind is unrelated to words and words are insufficient to verify what is in the heart-mind. If a person can only know a language by having a continuous relationship with it, this is like a child learning a language from a teacher yet only knowing they have done so later on. What is there to treasure in such intelligence?
夫言，非自然一定之物，五方殊俗，同事異號，舉一名以為標識耳。夫聖人窮理，謂自然可尋，無微不照。理蔽則雖近不見，故異域之言不得強通。推此以往，葛盧之不知牛鳴，得不全乎？」又難云：「師曠吹律，知南風不競，楚多死聲。此又吾之所疑也。請問師曠吹律之時，楚國之風邪，則相去千里，聲不足達；若正識楚風來入律中邪，則楚南有吳、越，北有梁、宋，苟不見其原，奚以識之哉？
Language is not something that is naturally fixed and the five regions have different customs; we simply give identical matters different designations. Choosing one name, we use it on behalf of all others. The sage exhausts principle, saying the natural is all that is searchable, with no detail left unilluminated. Should the principle be hidden, although it is near, one will not see it. Thus, the language of a different region cannot be forcibly accessed. To push this idea forward, can Gelu not knowing the cow’s cry be anything but trusted? You also criticized me, saying: Master Kuang blew on his pitch pipes and knew the Airs of the south were not violent because the sounds of Chu are those of the dead. This is something about which I also have doubts. May I ask, when master Kuang blew on his pitch pipes, was it an Air from Chu? They were separated by a thousand li and sound cannot travel that far. If he truly knew the Air from Chu had entered his pitch pipes, then south of Chu are Wu and Yue, while to the north are Liang and Song. If the source could not be seen, how did he know it?
凡陰陽憤激，然後成風。氣之相感，觸地而發，何得發楚庭，來入晉乎？且又律呂分四時之氣耳，時至而氣動，律應而灰移，皆自然相待，不假人以為用也。上生下生，所以均五聲之和，敘剛柔之分也。然律有一定之聲，雖冬吹中呂，其音自滿而無損也。今以晉人之氣，吹無韻之律，楚風安得來入其中，與為盈縮邪？風無形，聲與律不通，則校理之地，無取於風律，不其然乎？豈獨師曠多識博物，自有以知勝敗之形，欲固眾心而託以神微，若伯常騫之許景公壽哉？」
Where Yin and Yang are frenzied, they turn into wind; with breath moving them both, once they meet the ground they are released. How is what is released in a Chu courtyard able to find its way into Jin? Furthermore, the twelve pitch-pipe tubes divide the breath of the four seasons such that when the time comes, the movement of breath will cause the pitch pipes to respond, dispersing the dust within. All of these are natural dependencies and do not require human input. Rising and declining equally divides the harmony of the five sounds, conveying their division into hard and soft, yet the pitch pipes are fixed in sound. Although one blows the Zhong Lü in winter, its notes are self-fulfilling and do not diminish. Thus, if the breath of a person from Jin is used to blow a tune without diminishment, how can the wind from Chu contribute to its sound? Since wind is formless, and there is nothing in common between sound and pitch pipes, when it comes to checking the principle [of the Dao], nothing will be found in the wind and pitch pipes. Is this not so? Was master Kuang’s broad knowledge, such as knowing how to recognize the form of victory and defeat while wishing to ease the heart-mind of the masses, not reliant upon the spiritual and the subtle in a manner similar to Bo Changqian promising duke Jing a long life?
又難云：「羊舌母聽聞兒啼而審其喪家。復請問何由知之？為神心獨悟暗語而當邪？嘗聞兒啼若此其大而惡，今之啼聲似昔之啼聲，故知其喪家邪？若神心獨悟暗語之當，非理之所得也。雖曰聽啼，無取驗於兒聲矣。若以嘗聞之聲為惡，故知今啼當惡，此為以甲聲為度，以校乙之啼也。夫聲之於音，猶形之於心也。有形同而情乖，貌殊而心均者。何以明之？
You also criticize me, saying: Yangshe’s mother heard the baby crying and knew it would be the family’s downfall. I would like to ask once more how she knew this? Did she use a spiritual heart-mind and singular understanding in order to deal with such obscure language? Did she previously hear a crying child which resulted in great disaster, and based on the similarity of today’s sound of crying to the earlier one, know it would result in the family’s downfall? If her spiritual heart-mind and singular understanding matched this obscure language, it was not something obtained by principle. Although you say she heard the crying, no verification was acquired from the child’s sounds. It is as if her prior experience of hearing an evil sound resulted in her knowing the evilness of the present crying. This is to use sound A as a measure for examining crying B. The relationship of sound to the heart-mind is thus like that of the body to the heart-mind. People might have the same form but they differ in their feelings; people might differ in appearance but they are equal in their heart-mind. How can I explain this?
聖人齊心等德而形狀不同也。苟心同而形異，則何言乎觀形而知心哉？且口之激氣為聲，何異於籟籥納氣而鳴邪？啼聲之善惡，不由兒口吉凶，猶琴瑟之清濁不在操者之工拙也。心能辨理善談，而不能令內籥調利，猶瞽者能善其曲度，而不能令器必清和也。器不假妙瞽而良，籥不因惠心而調，然則心之與聲，明為二物。二物之誠然，則求情者不留觀於形貌，揆心者不借聽於聲音也。察者欲因聲以知心，不亦外乎？今晉母未待之於老成，而專信昨日之聲，以證今日之啼，豈不誤中於前世好奇者從而稱之哉？」
Sages are equal in their heart-mind and virtue but different in their form. If their heart-mind is the same while their form is different, how can we speak of observing their form to know their heart-mind? Furthermore, how is the mouth arousing breath to produce sound different from the lai and yue being filled with breath in order to make them whistle? Whether the sound of crying is good or evil does not depend on the auspicious or inauspicious fate of the child’s mouth. This is like the clear or turbid sounds of the qin and se not relying on the skill or inelegance of the player. The heart-mind can distinguish principles and conduct good dialogue, but its inability to play the flute smoothly is like the musician who is good at measuring his tune but unable to play his instrument in a clear and harmonious manner. The good instrument is not dependent on the subtlety of the musician just as the flute is not harmonious because it follows the clever heart-mind of the performer. Clearly the heart-mind and sound are two things. As they are really two things, to search for another’s feelings without stopping to observe their form and appearance is to examine their heart-mind without relying on hearing their music. If someone wishes to examine sound in order to know the heart-mind, will they not miss the mark? The mother from Jin had yet to see the child grow up but simply believed the sound she heard before was verification of the crying she heard today. How is this not the mistake of the ancients that their admirers follow and report?
秦客難曰：「吾聞敗者不羞走，所以全也。吾心未厭而言，難復更從其餘。今平和之人，聽箏笛琵琶，則形躁而志越；聞琴瑟之音，則聽靜而心閒。同一器之中，曲用每殊，則情隨之變：奏秦聲則歎羨而慷慨；理齊楚則情一而思專，肆姣弄則歡放而欲愜；心為聲變，若此其眾。苟躁靜由聲，則何為限其哀樂，而但云至和之聲，無所不感，託大同於聲音，歸眾變於人情？得無知彼不明此哉？」
The guest from Qin refuted this: I hear the defeated person feels no disgrace in fleeing and so stays complete. My heart-mind is unsatisfied with this and I have returned to this matter in my refutation. I will now proceed to the remainder. If a placid person listens to the zheng, di, or pipa, their form becomes irritable and their will oversteps its bounds. If they hear the notes of the qin and se, their body becomes tranquil and their heart-mind unhurried. Using the same instrument, the effect of each tune differs yet a person’s feelings change accordingly. To play the sounds of Qin, one will sigh with admiration and have a deep feeling of excitement; playing the sounds of Qi and Chu, their feelings become one and their thoughts concentrated. Indulging in a wonderful tune, happiness is released and desires are satisfied. Thus, the heart-mind is changed by sound and there are many cases like this. If restlessness and quietude come from sound, then why impose a limit on grief and joy? To simply say nothing is unmoved by the music of perfect harmony, and that we should rely on the sounds of the great sameness and attribute their numerous changes to human feelings, how is this not a case of not knowing that while also not understanding this?
主人答曰：「難云：琵琶、箏、笛令人躁越。又云：曲用每殊而情隨之變。此誠所以使人常感也。琵琶、箏、笛，間促而聲高，變眾而節數，以高聲御數節，故使人形躁而志越。猶鈴鐸警耳，鍾鼓駭心，故『聞鼓鼙之音，思將帥之臣』，蓋以聲音有大小，故動人有猛靜也。琴瑟之體，間遼而音埤，變希而聲清，以埤音御希變，不虛心靜聽，則不盡清和之極，是以聽靜而心閒也。夫曲用不同，亦猶殊器之音耳。齊楚之曲，多重故情一，變妙故思專。姣弄之音，挹眾聲之美，會五音之和，其體贍而用博，故心侈於眾理；五音會，故歡放而欲愜。然皆以單、復、高、埤、善、惡為體，而人情以躁、靜而容端，此為聲音之體，盡於舒疾。情之應聲，亦止於躁靜耳。
The host replied: Your refutation states the zheng, di, and pipa make people irritable and [their will] oversteps its bounds. You also said the effects of each tune differs and feelings change accordingly. These are i ndeed what causes people to be moved in a consistent manner. The pipa, zheng, di, have small spaces and high sounds, producing many changes and a rapid rhythm. With high sounds managing a rapid rhythm, a person’s body becomes irritable and the will oversteps its bounds. It is similar to wind chimes startling the ear, and bells and drums frightening the heart-mind. Thus, to hear the notes of drums and sheaths is to think of generals and commanders; it appears that music contains the great and small, moving people violently or quietly. When it comes to the body of the qin and se, they have wide gaps and their notes are low with very little change, producing a clear sound. When low notes manage what has very little change, if one does not empty their heart-mind and listen quietly, one will be unable to exhaust the extreme of clear h armony. This is why the body is quiet and the heart-mind calm. The effect of each tune differing is like the notes made by different instruments. As tunes from Qi and Chu contain many repetitions, a person’s feelings become one, and with little changes in the tune, their thoughts concentrate. Notes of a wonderful tune are ladled out in many beautiful sounds and meet the five tones in harmony, having a body that is rich and an effect that is broad. Thus, the heart-mind serves many principles. When the five tones meet, happiness is released and desires are satisfied. All of these, however, show that music’s form is either simple or complex, high or low, good or bad, while human feelings react as restless or quiet, concentrated or dispersed. It is like a person who indulges in sightseeing in the capital: their eyes are overwhelmed and their feelings scattered; however, should they stay behind and examine the tunes, their thoughts turn quiet and their appearance becomes appropriate. This means the body of music is either comfortable or painful. When a person’s feelings respond to sound, they stop at what is restless or quiet.
夫曲用每殊，而情之處變，猶滋味異美，而口輒識之也。五味萬殊，而大同於美；曲變雖眾，亦大同於和。美有甘，和有樂。然隨曲之情，盡於和域；應美之口，絕於甘境，安得哀樂於其間哉？然人情不同，各師所解。則發其所懷；若言平和，哀樂正等，則無所先發，故終得躁靜。若有所發，則是有主於內，不為平和也。以此言之，躁靜者，聲之功也；哀樂者，情之主也。不可見聲有躁靜之應，因謂哀樂者皆由聲音也。且聲音雖有猛靜，猛靜各有一和，和之所感，莫不自發。何以明之？
The effect of a tune differs each time and the position of a person’s feelings change as a result, just like flavors have their different beauty but the mouth always recognizes them. The five flavors have their myriad differences but find great sameness in their beauty; although the changes in a tune are many, they find great sameness in their harmony. Beauty contains what is sweet and harmony contains what is joyous, and although feelings follow a tune, they are exhausted by the region of harmony. The response of the mouth to beauty is thus cut-off from the region of sweetness. Where in their midst does one find grief and joy? The feelings of people, however, are different, with each person learning from their own understanding and then expressing whatever they feel. If one says that peace and harmony, grief and joy, are all appropriate to us, then nothing exists beforehand which can be released, hence one is in the end left with restlessness and quietude. If all one has is released, then the core lies within oneself and is not the result of peace and harmony. Speaking on account of this, restlessness and quietude are the results of sound, and grief and joy are the core of feelings. Since one cannot see the restless and quiet response of sound, one cannot say grief and joy come from music. Furthermore, while music can be violent or quiet, violence and quietude share the same harmony, thus whatever harmony moves will be self-released. How can I explain this?
夫會賓盈堂，酒酣奏琴，或忻然而歡，或慘爾泣，非進哀於彼，導樂於此也。其音無變於昔，而歡戚並用，斯非『吹萬不同』邪？夫唯無主於喜怒，亦應無主於哀樂，故歡戚俱見。若資偏固之音，含一致之聲，其所發明，各當其分，則焉能兼御群理，總發眾情邪？由是言之，聲音以平和為體，而感物無常；心志以所俟為主，應感而發。然則聲之與心，殊塗異軌，不相經緯，焉得染太和於歡戚，綴虛名於哀樂哉？
When guests come together and fill the hall, drunk with wine and playing the qin, some will be joyful and happy while others will be sad and weep. They were not brought close to grief by that, or led to joy by this. No changes were made to the notes being played, yet happiness and sorrow both resulted. Is this not like the wind blowing differently on the myriad things? If we say only delight and anger lack a core, we should also say grief and joy are without a core, hence happiness and sorrow appear together. If one uses notes that are biased and fixed, containing the same type of sounds, then all that is released and illuminated would have its own division. How can a person concurrently manage these collective principles such that there is a complete releasement of the various feelings? Speaking from this, music takes peace and harmony as its body but moves things in an irregular manner. The heart-mind and human will take talent as its core and both will be moved to releasement. Thus, the relationship of sound to the heart-mind is similar to different roads and paths: they do not overlap. How can a person infect the great harmony with happiness and sorrow and link them with the empty names of grief and joy?
秦客難曰：「論云：猛靜之音，各有一和，和之所感，莫不自發，是以酒酣奏琴而歡戚並用。此言偏並之情先積於內，故懷歡者值哀音而發，內戚者遇樂聲而感也。夫音聲自當有一定之哀樂，但聲化遲緩不可倉卒，不能對易。偏重之情，觸物而作，故今哀樂同時而應耳；雖二情俱見，則何損於聲音有定理邪？
The guest from Qin objected: In your discussion you said: Violent and quiet notes each have the same harmony, and of all that is moved by harmony, nothing fails to release itself. Thus, drunk with wine and playing the qin, happiness and sorrow both appear. This is to say strong feelings are biased and first establish themselves internally. One thus carries in their breast thoughts of happiness and values them when hearing sad notes, just as how a person who is internally sad will be moved when encountering a joyful sound. Music itself naturally determines grief and joy but sound changes slowly and cannot be hurried, nor does it change upon meeting its opposite. Strong and biased feelings arise whenever they meet something and is why grief and joy respond at the same time. Although the two feelings are seen together, how does this harm the fixed principle of music?
主人答曰：「難云：哀樂自有定聲，但偏重之情，不可卒移。故懷戚者遇樂聲而哀耳。即如所言，聲有定分，假使《鹿鳴》重奏，是樂聲也。而令戚者遇之，雖聲化遲緩，但當不能使變令歡耳，何得更以哀邪？猶一爝之火，雖未能溫一室，不宜復增其寒矣。夫火非隆寒之物，樂非增哀之具也。理弦高堂而歡戚並用者，直至和之發滯導情，故令外物所感得自盡耳。
The host responded: In your refutation you said: Grief and joy naturally determine their sound but strong feelings that are biased cannot be quickly changed. Thus, someone who carries with them feelings of sorrow will still feel grief when encountering a joyous sound. If all is as you say, then sound has its fixed divisions. Suppose a person repeatedly plays Wailing Deer, a joyful sound, and a sorrowful person encounters it; although the sound changes slowly, it cannot change his feeling into a happy one, so how can it make him feel even more grieved? It is like the heat from a single lamp; although it cannot warm a room, it would not, on the other hand, make the room colder. Fire does not make cold abundant and music is not a tool to increase grief. Plucking strings in a banquet hall, both happiness and sorrow result and this is clearly due to ultimate harmony releasing what is blocked by guiding a person’s feelings. Thus, through the arousal of external things, a person can exhaust their selfhood.
難云：偏重之情，觸物而作，故令哀樂同時而應耳。夫言哀者，或見機杖而泣，或睹輿服而悲，徒以感人亡而物存，痛事顯而形潛，其所以會之，皆自有由，不為觸地而生哀，當席而淚出也。今見機杖以致感，聽和聲而流涕者，斯非和之所感，莫不自發也。」
In your criticism you said: Strong and biased feelings arise whenever they meet something and is why grief and joy respond at the same time. To speak of grief, some see a stool and staff and weep while others see a cart and robes and feel sad. It follows that they were moved by the people they lost while their things continue to exist, and are pained that such events have been made clear while the forms of those lost are now hidden. In all of these instances, everything has its own self-causing and it is not that grief is born when encountering a place, later appearing as tears when one is sitting on the mat. Now without a stool or staff to move them, how are people who listen to harmonious sounds and flow with tears not an example of whatever harmony moves being self-released?
秦客難曰：「論云：酒酣奏琴而歡戚並用。欲通此言，故答以偏情感物而發耳。今且隱心而言，明之以成效。夫人心不歡則戚，不戚則歡，此情志之大域也。然泣是戚之傷，笑是歡之用。蓋聞齊、楚之曲者，唯睹其哀涕之容，而未曾見笑噱之貌。此必齊、楚之曲，以哀為體，故其所感，皆應其度量；豈徒以多重而少變，則致情一而思專邪？若誠能致泣，則聲音之有哀樂，斷可知矣。」
The guest from Qin refuted this: In your discussion you said: Drunk with wine and playing the qin, happiness and sorrow both appear. I wished to penetrate these words and so I said that biased feelings are first moved by things and then released. Now I will speak of what is concealed in my heart-mind and try to explain it. If the heart-mind of a person is not happy then it will be sad, and if it is not sad then it will be happy. This is the vast realm of feelings and the human will. However, crying is the sadness of pain while smiling comes from happiness. When someone listens to the tunes of Qi and Chu, we only see grief and tears on their face and not the appearance of laughter or a smile. This must mean the tunes of Qi and Chu take grief as their body. Thus, whomever is moved by these tunes responds to their measure. How is it simply due to frequent repetition and little change [of notes] that feelings are made one and thoughts are concentrated? If this actually results in tears then music contains grief and joy, which is undeniably knowable.
主人答曰：「雖人情感於哀樂，哀樂各有多少。又哀樂之極，不必同致也。夫小哀容壞，甚悲而泣，哀之方也；小歡顏悅，至樂心喻，樂之理也。何以明之？夫至親安豫，則恬若自然，所自得也。及在危急，僅然後濟，則抃不及儛。由此言之，儛之不若向之自得，豈不然哉？
The host responded: Although human feelings are moved by grief and joy, grief and joy can each amount to a lot or a little. The extreme of grief and joy does not have to reveal itself in the same way. When grief is small it appears as ruin; when sorrow is deep it appears as weeping. This is the domain of grief. When happiness is small it appears as a pleased face; when joy is extreme it results in laughter. This is the principle of joy. How can I explain this? When members of a person’s own family are safe and at ease, tranquility naturally appears, as if everything is self-obtained. However, in a dangerous situation from which they barely escape harm, the clapping cannot keep up with the dancing. To speak on account of this, dancing is not as good as what is self-obtained. How can it be otherwise?
至夫笑噱雖出於歡情，然自以理成又非自然應聲之具也。此為樂之應聲，以自得為主；哀之應感，以垂涕為故。垂涕則形動而可覺，自得則神合而無憂，是以觀其異而不識其同，別其外而未察其內耳。然笑噱之不顯於聲音，豈獨齊楚之曲邪？今不求樂於自得之域，而以無笑噱謂齊、楚體哀，豈不知哀而不識樂乎？」
Although the ultimate of smiles and laughter comes from feelings of happiness, they result from the principle of selfhood and are not tools to naturally respond to music. This means that when joy responds to sound, it takes self-obtainment as its core; when grief merits a response, the result is weeping. In weeping, a person’s form moves and this can be felt. In self-obtaining, the spirit is united and does not change. Thus, one observes the differences but does not know their sameness; one separates the external but has yet to examine the internal. How can smiles and laughter not appearing with music be limited to the tunes of Qi and Chu? You have not sought joy in the region of what is self-obtained, or that the lack of laughter and smiling indicates a body of grief belonging to Qi and Chu. How is this not knowing grief and not understanding joy?
秦客問曰：「仲尼有言：『移風易俗，莫善於樂。』即如所論，凡百哀樂，皆不在聲，即移風易俗，果以何物邪？又古人慎靡靡之風，抑慆耳之聲，故曰：『放鄭聲，遠佞人。』然則鄭衛之音擊鳴球以協神人，敢問鄭雅之體，隆弊所極；風俗稱易，奚由而濟？幸重聞之，以悟所疑。」
The guest from Qin asked: Confucius said: For reforming manners and changing customs, nothing is better than music. If things are as you discussed, and among the hundreds of kinds of grief and joy not one belongs to sound, how are we to succeed in reforming manners and changing customs? The men of antiquity were discrete with their use of resplendent Airs and repressed sounds that were delightful to the ear, hence the saying: discard the sounds of Zheng and stay away from flatterers. These may be the notes of Zheng and Wei84 but we strike the stone chimes to unite spirits and men. I dare ask about the body of Zheng and the Hymns: Do they represent the extreme of abundance and evil, and so are used to successfully reform manners and change customs? I would like to hear more of this to remove my doubts.
主人應之曰：「夫言移風易俗者，必承衰弊之後也。古之王者，承天理物，必崇簡易之教，御無為之治，君靜於上，臣順於下，玄化潛通，天人交泰，枯槁之類，浸育靈液，六合之內，沐浴鴻流，蕩滌塵垢，群生安逸，自求多福，默然從道，懷忠抱義，而不覺其所以然也。和心足於內，和氣見於外，故歌以敘志，儛以宣情。
The host replied: To speak of reforming manners and changing customs, this must be done after a period of decline and evil. The ancient kings received the heavenly principle of things, revered teachings that were simple and easy, and were driven by a style of governance based on non-deliberate action. The ruler was quiet above and his ministers concurred below, things were mysteriously transformed and indiscernibly penetrated, and heaven and humanity united in peace. Species that decay and wither were submersed in a life-giving spiritual fluid, while throughout the six directions, everything bathed in the vast flow and were thereby cleansed of their dirt and dust. The collective forms of life were hence secure and at ease, bringing themselves great fortune. In silence they followed the Dao, cherished loyalty and embraced r ighteousness, unaware of why things were this way. Satisfied by a harmonious heart-mind inside, their harmonious breath was seen on the outside. Thus, they sang to express their will and danced to announce their feelings.
然後文之以采章，照之以風雅，播之以八音，感之以太和，導其神氣，養而就之。迎其情性，致而明之，使心與理相順，氣與聲相應，合乎會通，以濟其美。故凱樂之情，見於金石，含弘光大，顯於音聲也。若以往則萬國同風，芳榮濟茂，馥如秋蘭，不期而信，不謀而誠，穆然相愛，猶舒錦彩，而粲炳可觀也。大道之隆，莫盛於茲，太平之業，莫顯於此。故曰「『移風易俗，莫善於樂。』樂之為體，以心為主。故無聲之樂，民之父母也。
Afterwards they picked sections from texts, illuminated them in the form of Airs and Hymns, transmitted them using the eight notes, and perceived in them the great harmony [of the Dao]. Guiding their spirit and breath, they nourished them, and upon receiving their feelings and inborn nature, caused them to be illuminated. With their heart-mind and principle in mutual accordance, breath and sound responded to one another. United, they came together, which aided their beauty. Thus, happy feelings triumphed and were seen in metal and stone, and so wide comprehension and great illumination was revealed in their music. Continuing from this, the multitude of kingdoms had the same customs and whose fragrant prosperity aided their luxury, giving them the scent of an autumn orchid. Though they did not seek it they were sincere, and though they did not plan it, their affairs reached completion and they majestically loved one another. It was like unfolding a colorful tapestry to observe its glorious presentation. Nothing is more abundant that the flourishing of the great Dao; nothing is more evident that the accomplishments of the great peace. Thus it is said: For reforming manners and changing customs, nothing is better than music. No matter the form music takes, the heart-mind is the core. Thus, the music that is soundless is the father and mother of the people.
至八音會諧，人之所悅，亦總謂之樂，然風俗移易，不在此也。夫音聲和比，人情所不能已者也。是以古人知情之不可放，故抑其所遁；知欲之不可絕，故因其所自。為可奉之禮，制可導之樂。口不盡味，樂不極音。揆終始之宜，度賢愚之中。為之檢則，使遠近同風，用而不竭，亦所以結忠信，著不遷也。故鄉校庠塾亦隨之變，絲竹與俎豆並存，羽毛與揖讓俱用，正言與和聲同發。使將聽是聲也，必聞此言；將觀是容也，必崇此禮。
Arriving at the harmonization of the eight notes, people are pleased by them and we refer to them collectively as music. However, reforming manners and changing customs is not found in this. Music that is harmonious cannot be the result of human feelings. This is why the people of antiquity knew that feelings cannot be freed while repressing those that might escape; they knew that desires should not be allowed to reach their limit, hence they used themselves as examples to be followed. They made rites that can be respected and established music as a guide. Just as the mouth does not exhaust flavor, music does not reach the limit of its notes; estimating the proper beginning and end, they settled on the middle of what is worthy and stupid, taking this as their rule, giving the distant and close the same customs that could be used without exhaustion. From this they connected loyalty and trust, setting them as not to be changed. Thus, village schools and private academies all followed these changes. Silk and bamboo coexisted with dishes and platters, plumes accompanied bowing and retreating, and correct words and harmonious sounds together issued forth. If a person is going to listen to this sound they must hear these words; if a person is about to observe this appearance they must revere this ritual.
