Fourteen, "The Already Completed" · "Great Image" "To think of possible troubles and to prepare for them in advance."

童子問曰：“《既濟》之《象》曰‘君子思患而豫防之’者，何謂也？”曰：“人情處危則慮深，居安則意怠，而患常生於怠忽也，是以君子既濟，則思患而豫防之也。”

A young man asked, "The Great Image of the Hexagram of Completion says, 'The superior man thinks of possible troubles and prepares against them in advance.' What does this mean?" Ouyang Xiu answered, "This is the usual state of human nature: when people are in a dangerous situation, their thinking becomes more careful and detailed. But once they are secure and at ease, their minds become slack. Yet calamities especially tend to arise when one is careless and negligent. The Hexagram of Completion represents a situation where things have already been accomplished and the situation is stable. This is precisely the moment when people are most likely to relax their vigilance. Therefore, the superior man at this time should think of possible troubles and take precautions in advance—when success is achieved, it is also the time to be on guard."

童子問曰：“‘火在水上，未濟。君子以慎辨物居方’，何謂也？”曰：“《未濟》之《象》，火宜居下而反居上，水宜居上而反居下，二物各失其所居，而不相濟也，故君子慎辨其物宜，而各置其物於所宜居之方，以相為用，所以濟乎未濟也。”

A young man asked, "The Great Image says, 'Fire on water, not yet completed; the superior man uses this to be cautious in distinguishing things and placing them in their proper positions.' What does this mean?" Ouyang Xiu answered, "The hexagram 'Not Yet Completed' consists of the trigram Kan (Water) below and Li (Fire) above. Normally, water should be below and fire above to cook rice, so that water is heated by fire and they can work together. Now, fire is above and water is below, each has left its proper place, so they cannot work together, hence it is called 'Not Yet Completed'—the matter is not accomplished. Seeing this image, the superior man understands the importance of carefully distinguishing the proper places for each thing and placing them in their suitable positions so that they can cooperate and achieve each other. This is how 'Not Yet Completed' can be transformed into 'Already Completed.'"

童子問曰：“《繋辭》非聖人之作乎？”曰：“何獨《繋辭》焉，《文言》、《說卦》而下，非聖人之作，而眾說淆亂，亦非一人之言也。昔之學《易》者，雜取以資其講說，而說非一家，是以或同或異，或是或非，其擇而不精，至使害經而惑世也。然有附托聖經，其傳已久，莫得究其所從來而核其真偽。故雖有明智之士，或貪其雜博之辯，溺其富麗之辭，或以為辯疑是正，君子所慎，是以未始措意於其間。若餘者可謂不量力矣，邈然遠出諸儒之後，而學無師授之傳，其勇於敢為而決於不疑者，以聖人之經尚在，可以質也。”

A young man asked, "Is the Great Treatise not composed by the sage?" Ouyang Xiu replied, "Not only the Great Treatise. From the Wenyan and Shu gua downwards, all these explanatory texts were not composed by the sages. Moreover, within them there are conflicting views, and they do not even originate from a single person. In former times, those who studied the Book of Changes would take a view from here and another from there, using them to enrich their own lectures. Since they did not come from a single school, there were both similar and different views, correct and incorrect ones. Their selection was not precise, and over time, they even harmed the original text and confused scholars throughout the land. However, since these views have been attached to the name of the sage's classic and have been passed down for a long time, no one can trace their origins or verify their authenticity. Therefore, even the wise men among us, some are attracted by their elaborate and varied expressions, some are fascinated by their rich and ornate language, and some believe that 'distinguishing doubts and correcting errors' is something a gentleman should take seriously. Thus, they simply do not pay attention to these matters. For me to speak out now is truly an act of overstepping my limits: the times are far behind those of the scholars of the Han and Tang dynasties, and my learning lacks the evidence of a scholarly lineage. I dare to act boldly and decide without hesitation only because the sages' text still exists—the Taijiao and Xiang can be used for verification, and the truth and falsehood will naturally become clear."

童子曰：“敢問其略？”曰：“《乾》之初九曰‘潛龍勿用’，聖人於其《象》曰‘陽在下也’，豈不曰其文已顯而其義已足乎？而為《文言》者又曰‘龍德而隱者也’，又曰‘陽在下也’，又曰‘陽氣潛藏’，又曰‘潛之為言，隱而未見’。

A child said: "Please explain your reasoning briefly." Ouyang Xiu replied: "First look at the line statement of the first line of the Qian hexagram, 'The dragon is hidden and not in use.' The sage in the Small Image Commentary only explains it with four characters: 'Yang is at the bottom.' - Since the Yang line is in the lowest position of the entire hexagram, it is said 'hidden.' The words are clear and the meaning is complete; is there any need for further explanation? However, those who composed the Wenyan went on to explain it repeatedly: first saying 'a dragon with virtue who remains hidden,' then again 'Yang is at the bottom,' then again 'Yang energy is hidden,' then again 'the term 'hidden' means hidden and not yet seen.' The same word 'hidden' is discussed four times, yet it is still only the explanation from the Small Image Commentary. The sage's writing would not be so repetitive. This is exactly the trace of many hands contributing their own views, which were later compiled together."

《繋辭》曰：‘乾以易知，坤以簡能。易則易知，簡則易從。易知則有親，易從則有功。有親則可久，有功則可大。可久則賢人之德，可大則賢人之業。’其言天地之道、乾坤之用、聖人所以成其德業者，可謂詳而備矣，故曰‘易簡而天下之理得矣’者，是其義盡於此矣。俄而又曰：‘廣大配天地，變通配四時，陰陽之義配日月，易簡之善配至德。’又曰：‘夫乾，確然示人易矣。夫坤，隤然示人簡矣。’又曰：‘夫乾，天下之至健也，其德行常易以知險。夫坤，天下之至順也，其德行常簡以知阻。’

Now looking at the passage in the Great Treatise that discusses "easy and simple" (易简): "The乾 (Heaven) is characterized by ease and simplicity and governs knowledge; the坤 (Earth) is characterized by simplicity and can accomplish things. Ease is easy to understand, simplicity is easy to follow; easy to understand brings people close, easy to follow can achieve accomplishments; having people close allows for longevity, being able to achieve accomplishments allows for expansion; longevity is the virtue of the virtuous, expansion is the career of the virtuous." This passage explains the principles of the operation of heaven and earth, the functions of the two trigrams, and the basis for the sage's accomplishment of virtue and career, and it is thorough and complete. Therefore, it concludes with the sentence, "Easy and simple, and the principles of the world are thus attained" — the principle of "easy and simple" is thus fully explained. But soon after, another passage appears: "Greatness matches heaven and earth; change and adaptability match the four seasons; the meaning of yin and yang matches the sun and moon; the goodness of easy and simple matches the highest virtue." Later it says: "The乾 (Heaven), indeed, clearly shows ease to people; the坤 (Earth), gently, shows simplicity to people." Further on it says: "The乾 (Heaven), is the most vigorous in the world; its virtue is always easy and thus knows danger; the坤 (Earth), is the most harmonious in the world; its virtue is always simple and thus knows obstacles." The term "easy and simple" is discussed in four different places, but the meaning does not advance further; it is merely rephrased in different expressions. This is the actual evidence for my claim that it is "proliferating and disorderly."

《繋辭》曰‘六爻之動，三極之道也’者，謂六爻而兼三材之道也。其言雖約，其義無不包矣。又曰：‘《易》之為書也，廣大悉備，有天道焉，有人道焉，有地道焉。兼三材而兩之，故六。六者非他也，三材之道也。’而《說卦》又曰：‘立天之道曰陰與陽，立地之道曰柔與剛，立人之道曰仁與義。兼三材而兩之，故《易》六畫而成卦。分陰分陽，疊用柔剛，故《易》六位而成章。’

The section on "Three Elements" is also like this. The Great Treatise says, "The movement of the six lines encompasses the principles of the three elements." This means that the changes of the six lines include the principles of Heaven, Earth, and Humanity. This statement is very concise, yet it contains everything. Who would think that it goes on to say: "The Book of Changes is vast and comprehensive, containing heavenly ways, human ways, and earthly ways. Each of the three elements is paired with two lines, hence six lines. The number six is not something else, but the principles of the three elements." Later, in the Sayings on the Hexagrams, it repeats this idea: "Establishing the heavenly way is called yin and yang, establishing the earthly way is called flexibility and strength, establishing the human way is called benevolence and righteousness. Each of the three elements is paired with two lines, so the Book of Changes forms a hexagram with six lines. Distinguishing yin and yang positions, alternating flexible and strong lines, so the Book of Changes forms a text with six positions." The same meaning is explained twice in the Great Treatise and again in the Sayings on the Hexagrams. If we say that these are interpretations by different scholars and later additions, it may make sense. But if we say they come from the same person, there is no such verbose author in the world.

《繋辭》曰：‘聖人設卦觀象，繋辭焉而明吉凶。’又曰：‘辨吉凶者存乎辭。’又曰：‘聖人有以見天下之動，而觀其會通，以行其典禮，繋辭焉以斷其吉凶，是故謂之爻。’又曰：‘《易》有四象，所以示也。繋辭焉，所以告也。定之以吉凶，所以斷也。’又曰：‘設卦以盡情偽，繋辭焉以盡其言。’其說雖多，要其旨歸，止於繋辭明吉凶爾，可一言而足也。

The layer of "the Great Treatise is to clarify good fortune and misfortune" is repeated more intensely. The Great Treatise says: "Sages established the structure of hexagrams, observed the images of things, and attached words to clarify good fortune and misfortune." It also says: "To distinguish good fortune and misfortune, one must look at the words." It further says: "Sages saw the changes of all things under heaven, observed their converging and connecting points, based on that to establish rituals and systems, then attached words to determine good fortune and misfortune, hence it is called 'yao' (line)." It also says: "The Book of Changes has four images, used for display; attaching words is for communication; determining good fortune and misfortune is for decision-making." It also says: "Establishing the structure of hexagrams to exhaust truth and falsehood, attaching words to express all that needs to be said." Five times in succession, although the expressions vary, they all reduce to the six characters "attaching words to clarify good fortune and misfortune," which can be summarized in one sentence. Repeating to this extent can only be a heap of conflicting views, certainly not the work of a single author.

凡此數說者，其略也。其餘辭雖小異而大旨則同者，不可以勝舉也。謂其說出於諸家，而昔之人雜取以釋經，故擇之不精，則不足怪也。謂其說出於一人，則是繁衍叢脞之言也。其遂以為聖人之作，則又大繆矣。孔子之文章，《易》、《春秋》是已，其言愈簡，其義愈深。吾不知聖人之作，繁衍叢脞之如此也。

The examples given above are only a few of many similar cases. There are countless other repetitions with slightly different wording but the same meaning. There are three possible explanations for this phenomenon, but only one makes sense: these sayings originally came from different schools and families, and were later collected by earlier scholars to explain the classics. Because they were not carefully selected, they ended up in the same book. This is not surprising, as things naturally develop this way. The second explanation is that they were all written by the same person, but this person would only be considered a verbose and disorganized writer. As for the third explanation, that they were written by the sages, this is completely wrong. The works that Confucius personally edited were the Book of Changes and the Spring and Autumn Annals. The characteristics of these two books are that the fewer words used, the deeper the meaning. I really cannot believe that the writings of the sages would be so verbose and disorganized. Inconsistent style is my first criterion for determining that a work was not written by Confucius.

雖然，辨其非聖之言而已，其於《易》義，尚未有害也。而又有害經而惑世者矣。《文言》曰‘元者善之長也，亨者嘉之會也，利者義之和也，貞者事之乾也’，是謂《乾》之四德。又曰‘乾元者，始而亨者也。利貞者，性情也’，則又非四德矣。謂此二說出於一人乎？則殆非人情也。

Although this is true, what has been mentioned above merely clarifies that it is not the words of a sage. The damage to the meaning of the Yi Jing itself is not very great. However, the following kinds of statements truly harm the text and confuse the people. That is, they contradict themselves. The Wenyan says: "Yuan is the beginning of all goodness, Heng is the gathering of fine things, Li is the harmony of principles and righteousness, and Zhen is the backbone of doing things." This treats "Yuan, Heng, Li, Zhen" as four virtues of the Qian hexagram. But the same Wenyan also says: "Qian Yuan is the beginning and the passage; Li Zhen is the nature and reality." This sentence reads "Yuan Heng" together and "Li Zhen" together, clearly not referring to the four virtues anymore. Now I ask: could these two different interpretations have come from the same person's hand? It is hard to believe that this would be the case.

《繋辭》曰：‘河出圖，洛出書，聖人則之。’所謂圖者，八卦之文也，神馬負之自河而出，以授於伏羲者也。蓋八卦者，非人之所為，是天之所降也。又曰：‘包羲氏之王天下也，仰則觀象於天，俯則觀法於地，觀鳥獸之文與地之宜，近取諸身，遠取諸物，於是始作八卦。’然則八卦者，是人之所為也，河圖不與焉。斯二說者已不能相容矣，而《說卦》又曰‘昔者聖人之作《易》也，幽贊於神明而生蓍，參天兩地而倚數，觀變於陰陽而立卦’，則卦又出於蓍矣。八卦之說如是，是果何從而出也？謂此三說出於一人乎？則殆非人情也。

Where did the Eight Trigrams come from? This book actually presents three mutually conflicting accounts. The Great Treatise says: "When the Yellow River produced a map and the Luo River produced a book, the sage took them as models." According to the traditional view, the "map" refers to the pattern of the Eight Trigrams, which appeared on the back of a divine horse emerging from the Yellow River and was given to Fuxi. In this account, the Eight Trigrams were not made by humans but were bestowed by heaven. However, the Great Treatise also says: "When Fuxi ruled over the world, he looked up to observe the stars in the sky and looked down to study the principles of the earth. He observed the patterns of birds and beasts and the suitability of the land. He took inspiration from things close to himself and from all things in the world, and thus began to create the Eight Trigrams." According to this account, the Eight Trigrams were clearly made by humans, and the River Chart had no role to play. These two accounts cannot both be true. Yet the Sayings on the Trigrams present a third account: "When ancient sages created the Book of Changes, they received divine assistance and thus produced the yarrow stalks. They established numbers based on the principle of Heaven being three and Earth being two, and set up the trigrams by observing the changes of yin and yang." According to this account, the trigrams were derived from the numbers of the yarrow stalks. Thus, there are three different origins for the Eight Trigrams. How can we know from which one they actually came? Could these three accounts have all been written by the same person? That seems unlikely.

人情常患自是其偏見，而立言之士莫不自信，其欲以垂乎後世，惟恐異說之攻之也，其肯自為二三之說以相牴牾而疑世，使人不信其書乎？故曰非人情也。凡此五說者自相乖戾，尚不可以為一人之說，其可以為聖人之作乎？”

I have repeatedly said that this is "not in line with human nature," and there is reason for that. The common flaw of people is to cling to their own views and be self-assured. Anyone who writes a book naturally believes in it; since he wants to pass it on to future generations, he is most afraid that others will criticize it with different opinions. How could he be willing to present several conflicting views himself, causing people to doubt and making no one willing to believe his book? Therefore, this is not in line with human nature. The five examples mentioned above—the four repeated interpretations of "qianlong" in the "Wenyan," the repeated emphasis on "yi jian" in the "Xici," the repeated discussion of "san cai," the five times reiterating "xici ming jixiong," and the contradiction between "sidu" and the origin of the "bagua"—are all contradictory and inconsistent. They are not even fit to be considered the work of a single person, let alone the work of a sage.

童子曰：“於此五說，亦有所取乎？”曰：“《乾》無四德，而洛不出圖書，吾昔已言之矣。若元亨利貞，則聖人於《彖》言之矣。吾知自堯、舜已來，用卜筮爾，而孔子不道其初也，吾敢妄意之乎？”

A young man asked, "Are there no points worth considering among these five views?" Ouyang Xiu replied, "The Qian hexagram does not have the four virtues, and the Luo River does not produce any diagrams or writings. I have already mentioned these two points before. As for how to interpret 'yuan, heng, li, zhen,' the sage has already explained it clearly in the Commentary on the Judgment. Therefore, one should follow the Commentary on the Judgment. As for the origin of the eight trigrams and the yarrow stalks, all I know is that they have been used since the time of Yao and Shun. Confucius did not speak about their origin, so how dare I make up explanations? I reject these three views not because I have better opinions, but because there is no evidence to support them."

童子曰：“是五說皆無取矣，然則繁衍叢脞之言與夫自相乖戾之說，其書皆可廢乎？”曰：“不必廢也。古之學經者皆有《大傳》，今《書》、《禮》之傳尚存。此所謂《繋辭》者，漢初謂之《易大傳》也，至後漢已為《繋辭》矣。語曰：‘為趙、魏老則優，不可以為滕、薛大夫也。’《繋辭》者謂之《易大傳》，則優於《書》、《禮》之傳遠矣。謂之聖人之作，則僭偽之書也。蓋夫使學者知《大傳》為諸儒之作，而敢取其是而舍其非，則三代之末，去聖未遠，老師名家之世學，長者先生之餘論，雜於其間者在焉，未必無益於學也。使以為聖人之作，不敢有所擇而盡信之，則害經惑世者多矣。此不可以不辨也，吾豈好辨者哉！”

A young man asked: "According to your view, these five interpretations are all unacceptable. Then, should these verbose and contradictory statements in these books be entirely discarded?" Ouyang Xiu answered: "They need not be discarded. In ancient times, when scholars studied the classics, each classic had its own 'Great Transmission'. The 'Great Transmission' of the Book of Documents and the Book of Rites still exists today. This so-called 'Great Treatise' was originally called the 'Great Transmission of the Book of Changes' in the early Han dynasty, and it was only renamed 'Great Treatise' during the Eastern Han dynasty. Confucius once said in the Analects: 'One is capable of serving as a minister in the households of the Zhao and Wei families in Jin, but should not serve as a minister in the small states of Teng and Xue.' — the same person, placed in different positions, receives completely different evaluations. This book is also like that: if regarded as the 'Great Transmission of the Book of Changes', it is far superior to the 'Great Transmission' of the Book of Documents and the Book of Rites; but once it is elevated to the status of a work by the sages, it becomes a book that falsely attributes itself to the sages. Only when scholars understand that the 'Great Transmission' was written by scholars of the Han dynasty before it, will they be bold enough to choose the right and discard the wrong. Indeed, part of the learning passed down by great teachers of the late Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties, and the legacy of the teachings of previous scholars, is preserved here, which may still be of some benefit to scholarship. On the contrary, if one insists that it was written by the sages, scholars will be afraid to make choices and accept everything blindly, leading to much harm to the classics and confusion among people. For this reason, it is essential to clarify this issue — am I someone who likes to argue?"

童子曰：“敢問四德？”曰：“此魯穆姜之所道也。初，穆姜之筮也，遇艮之隨，而為‘《隨》，元亨利貞’說也，在襄公之九年。後十有五年，而孔子始生，又數十年而始贊《易》。然則四德非《乾》之德，《文言》不為孔子之言矣。”

A young man said: "Please explain the origin of the concept of the Four Virtues." Ouyang Xiu answered: "This idea originally came from Mu Jiang of Lu State. At that time, Mu Jiang was exiled to the Eastern Palace for her crimes. She cast a divination and obtained the hexagram Gen, which transformed into the hexagram Suo. The historian said she could leave, but she confessed her guilt and interpreted the four characters "Yuan, Heng, Li, Zhen" from the hexagram Suo's statement. She said, "Yuan is the beginning of the body, Heng is the gathering of good things, Li is the harmony of righteousness, and Zhen is the mainstay of affairs." This event is recorded in the "Zuo Zhuan" under the ninth year of Duke Xiang of Lu. Fifteen years later, Confucius was born. Only several decades later did Confucius begin to compile and explain the Book of Changes. The timeline shows that when Mu Jiang made this statement, Confucius had not yet been born. Therefore, first, the Four Virtues originally explained the hexagram Suo, not the hexagram Qian; second, whoever moved this passage directly into the "Wenyan" section of the hexagram Qian could not have been Confucius — thus, the "Wenyan" is not Confucius' words."

童子曰：“或謂左氏之傳《春秋》也，竊取孔子《文言》以上附穆姜之說，是左氏之過也，然乎？”曰：“不然。彼左氏者胡為而傳《春秋》，豈不欲其書之信於世也？乃以孔子晚而所著之書，為孔子未生之前之說，此雖甚愚者之不為也。蓋方左氏傳《春秋》時，世猶未以《文言》為孔子作也，所以用之不疑。然則謂《文言》為孔子作者，出於近世乎？”

A young man asked: "Some people defend the 'Wenyan' text, saying that when Zuo Qiuming wrote the 'Chunqiu Zhuan', he stole words from Confucius's 'Wenyan' and forced them onto Mu Jiang, so the mistake lies with Zuo Qiuming. Is this correct?" Ouyang Xiu answered: "It is not correct. Think about this: what was Zuo Qiuming trying to achieve by writing the 'Chunqiu Zhuan'? He was simply trying to make the book credible. If he had taken words written by Confucius in his later years and claimed they were spoken by a lady before Confucius was born, that would be an obvious flaw, something even the most foolish person would not do, let alone Zuo Qiuming. The only reasonable explanation is that when Zuo Qiuming wrote the commentary, no one had yet regarded the 'Wenyan' as Confucius's work, so he recorded Mu Jiang's words without hesitation, feeling completely at ease. Conversely, the idea that the 'Wenyan' was written by Confucius must have emerged quite recently."

童子曰：“敢問八卦之說？或謂伏羲已授河圖，又俯仰於天地，觀取於人物，然後畫為八卦爾。二說雖異，會其義則一也，然乎？”曰：“不然。此曲學之士牽合傅會，以苟通其說，而遂其一家之學爾。其失由於妄以《繋辭》為聖人之言而不敢非，故不得不曲為之說也。

A young man asked: "Please explain the origin of the Eight Trigrams. Some people say that after Fuxi received the River Chart, he observed the heavens above and the earth below, and took the forms of people and things as models, and then drew the Eight Trigrams. Although these two accounts are different, when taken together, their meaning is consistent. Is this correct?" Ouyang Xiu answered: "No. This is the work of those who follow perverse and forced interpretations. They force connections and make up explanations to cover up the inconsistencies, just to establish their own system of learning. Their fundamental mistake lies in taking the Great Treatise as the words of the sage, and therefore not daring to point out its flaws. Since they dare not say it is wrong, they have to make every effort to justify and explain it in a roundabout way."

河圖之出也，八卦之文已具乎，則伏羲授之而已，復何所為也？八卦之文不具，必須人力為之，則不足為河圖也。其曰觀天地、觀鳥獸、取於身、取於物，然後始作八卦，蓋始作者前未有之言也。考其文義，其創意造始其勞如此，而後八卦得以成文，則所謂河圖者何與於其間哉？若曰已授河圖，又須有為而立卦，則觀於天地鳥獸、取於人物者皆備言之矣，而獨遺其本始所授於天者，不曰取法於河圖，此豈近於人情乎？考今《繋辭》，二說離絕，各自為言，義不相通，而曲學之士牽合以通其說，而悞惑學者，其為患豈小哉！古之言偽而辨、順非而澤者，殺無赦。嗚呼！為斯說者，王制之所宜誅也。”

These two accounts are actually clashing directly. Let me ask: when the River Chart appeared, were the patterns of the Eight Trigrams already in existence? If they were already there, then Fu Xi simply accepted them as they were, and there would be nothing more to do. If they were not already in existence, and had to be drawn by human effort, then this diagram would not be worthy of the name "River Chart." Now consider another account in the Great Treatise, which says that Fu Xi observed heaven and earth, observed birds and beasts, took images from himself and from all things, and then began to create the Eight Trigrams. The words "began to create" clearly indicate that there was nothing of this kind before. Careful examination of the meaning of this passage shows that the process of thinking and creating was so arduous that the Eight Trigrams finally took shape. Then, how could the River Chart have any role in between? Suppose, on the other hand, that it is indeed as the mediator said, that Fu Xi received the River Chart and had to do something else in order to establish the trigrams. Then why does the Great Treatise mention all the secondary efforts—observing heaven and earth, birds and beasts, taking images from people and things—but completely omits the most fundamental and original gift from heaven, which is taking the River Chart as a model? Is this reasonable? Examining the current version of the Great Treatise, these two accounts are entirely separate, with a clear break in meaning; and those who are biased and perverse force them together, claiming they are one and the same, misleading scholars. How serious is this harm? In ancient times, those who lied and spoke persuasively, and even painted over mistakes, were executed without mercy. Alas! The person who invented this mediating theory should, according to the laws in the Book of Rites: The Imperial System, be put to death.

童子曰：“敢問生蓍立卦之說？或謂聖人已畫卦，必用蓍以筮也，然乎？”曰：“不然。考其文義可知矣。其曰‘昔者聖人之作《易》也’者，謂始作《易》時也。又曰‘幽贊於神明而生蓍，參天兩地而倚數，觀變於陰陽而立卦，發揮於剛柔而生爻’者，謂前此未有蓍，聖人之將作《易》也，感於神明而蓍為之生，聖人得之，遂以倚數而立卦。是言昔之作《易》立卦之始如此爾。

A young man asked: "Please explain the passage in 'Shuo Gua' about 'making the yarrow stalks and setting up the hexagrams'. Some people say it refers to after the sages had drawn the hexagrams, they must use yarrow stalks for divination. Is that correct?" Ouyang Xiu answered: "No. If you read it straightforwardly according to the text, you will understand. It begins by saying 'In the past, when the sages composed the Book of Changes,' which refers to the time when the Book of Changes was first created, not when it was later used. Then it says 'In communion with the divine and bright, the yarrow stalks were born; by taking the heavens as three and the earth as two, and relying on numbers, observing changes in yin and yang to set up the hexagrams, and developing through the strong and the flexible to produce the lines.' This passage explains that before the world had yarrow stalks, when the sages were about to compose the Book of Changes, they connected with the divine and bright, and the yarrow stalks were thus born. The sages obtained the yarrow stalks and used them to count numbers and set up the hexagrams. The whole passage describes the beginning of composing the Book of Changes and setting up the hexagrams, which is entirely different from using yarrow stalks for divination after drawing the hexagrams."

故漢儒謂伏羲畫八卦由數起者，用此說也。其後學者知幽贊生蓍之恠，其義不安，則曲為之說。曰用生蓍之意者，將以救其失也。又以卦由數起之義害於二說，則謂已畫卦而用蓍以筮，欲牽合二說而通之也。然而考其文義，豈然哉？若曰已作卦而用蓍以筮，則大衍之說是已。大抵學《易》者莫不欲尊其書，故務為奇說以神之。至其自相乖戾，則曲為牽合而不能通也。

Because the original meaning of the "Say on the Trigrams" is this, Han dynasty scholars said that Fuxi drew the eight trigrams "from numbers," using exactly this explanation. Later, scholars found the idea that "the sage felt a connection with the divine and thus produced the yarrow stalks" too strange and unsettling, so they reinterpreted it as merely "the intention of using the yarrow stalks," trying to cover up the flaw. Also, since the idea that "the trigrams originated from numbers" conflicts with the earlier accounts of the River Chart and observing phenomena, they changed their statement to say that "the trigrams were first drawn and then the yarrow stalks were used for divination," hoping to reconcile the three accounts. However, examining the text closely, this is not the case. If the trigrams were indeed drawn first and then the yarrow stalks used for divination, then the passage in the "Great Treatise" about "the great derivation number is fifty" would be the one discussing this, and it would have nothing to do with this passage in the "Say on the Trigrams." In the end, those who study the Book of Changes all want to elevate the status of this book, so they compete to create strange explanations to make it seem divine. When their own explanations contradict each other, they have to force a connection, but ultimately they cannot make sense of it.

童子曰：“敢請益。”曰：“夫諭未達者，未能及於至理也，必指事據跡以為言。餘之所以知《繋辭》而下非聖人之作者，以其言繁衍叢脞而乖戾也。蓋略舉其易知者爾，其餘不可以悉數也。

The boy said, "Please explain more." Ouyang Xiu replied, "When explaining to those who have not yet understood, one cannot start with the highest principles. One must point out specific matters and give concrete examples. I concluded that the text following the Great Treatise is not the work of the sage because it is verbose and琐碎 and contradictory. The examples I mentioned before are only a few of the easily noticeable ones; there are countless others. Now I will give a few more traces so that you can know where to look."

其曰‘原始反終，故知死生之說’，又曰‘精氣為物，游魂為變，是故知鬼神之情狀’雲者，質於夫子平生之語，可以知之矣。其曰‘知者觀乎彖辭，則思過半矣’，又曰‘八卦以象告，爻彖以情言’雲者，以常人之情而推聖人可以知之矣。其以《乾》、《坤》之策‘三百有六十，當期之日’，而不知七八九六之數同，而《乾》、《坤》無定策，此雖筮人皆可以知之矣。

The first category is to examine the content it discusses. It says, "By tracing the origin of things and returning to their end, one understands the principles of life and death," and also says, "The essence and qi gather to form things, while the wandering souls disperse and change, thus understanding the nature of ghosts and spirits." Comparing these statements with Confucius's lifelong teachings makes it clear: Confucius said, "How can one understand death if they do not understand life?" and also said, "I do not speak of strange phenomena, bravery, disorder, or ghosts and spirits." How could he speak so confidently about life, death, and ghosts and spirits? The second category is to examine the tone of its speech. It says, "The wise person only needs to look at the '彖辞' and understands most of it," and also says, "The eight trigrams use symbolic images to convey meaning, while the line statements and '彖辞' express things in terms of reality." This is the tone of a teacher guiding students, comparing it to the speech of an ordinary person when measuring against the words of a sage, one immediately recognizes it is not the words of a sage. The third category is to examine its errors in numerology. It combines the numbers of the 'Qian' and 'Kun' hexagrams to make up "three hundred and sixty, corresponding to the number of days in a year," but it does not know that the four numbers seven, eight, nine, and six appear with equal probability. The numbers of the lines in the 'Qian' and 'Kun' hexagrams are not fixed, so how can they add up to a fixed number? This point is even evident to ordinary diviners.

至於‘何謂’、‘子曰’者，講師之言也。《說卦》、《雜卦》者，筮人之占書也。此又不待辨而可以知者。然猶皆跡也，若夫語以聖人之中道而過，推之天下之至理而不通，則思之至者可以自得之。”

As for the frequent use of phrases like "What does this mean?" and "Zi Yu" (the style of "the Master said") in the text, this clearly resembles the record of a teacher giving a lecture. If it were really written by Confucius himself, why would he refer to himself as "the Master"? The "Sayings of the Trigrams" lists various things represented by the eight trigrams, and the "Miscellaneous Trigrams" pairs the names of the trigrams, which clearly appear to be a manual for divination purposes. These two points are so obvious that they don't even need discussion. However, the above examples are still only external clues. The most important point is that when measured by the Middle Way of the sage, it often goes to extremes; when examined by the fundamental principles of the world, it often fails to make sense. This point cannot be demonstrated one by one, and only those who are willing to think deeply can understand it themselves.

童子曰：“既聞命矣，敢不勉！”

The boy said, "I have already received the teachings of the master; how dare I not strive to study diligently!" The whole passage concludes with this sentence: Ouyang Xiu's purpose in distinguishing false writings was not to completely dismiss the chapters following the Great Treatise, but to teach later learners not to abandon their own judgment merely because they are labeled as "composed by the sage"—reading the classics requires the courage to select and choose, which is precisely what he wants the boy to strive to do.