弘明集 4.40

4.40

釋曰。知謂報應之義緘羲周之世。以此推求為不符之證。羲唐邈矣。人莫之詳。尚書所載不過數篇。方言德刑之失。遑記禍福之源。今帝典王策。猶不書性命之事。而徵闕文以為古必無之。斯亦師心之過也。且信順殃慶咸列姬孔之籍。謂之埋閉。如小逕乎。但言有遠近教有淺深。故使智者與此而奪彼耶。夫生必有欲。欲必有求。欲嗛則爭。求給則恬。爭則相害。恬則相安。網罟之設。將蠲害以取安乎。且畋漁牲牢其事不異。足下前答。已知牲牢不可頓去於今世。復畋漁不可獨棄於古。未為通類矣。好生惡死惠下愈篤。故有其死者順其情。奪其生者逆其性。至人尚矣。何為犯順而居逆哉。是知不能頓奪所滯。故因為之制耳。聖靈雖茂。無以叡懞惛之心。弱喪之民何可勝論。罪罰之來將物自取之。事遠難致。不由天厨見遺物。近易耽故常芻豢是甘。拯溺出隍眾哲所共。但化物不同。非道之異。不盡之讓亦如遇當。子長愛奇本不類此。

[Zheng Daozi] explains: You point out that the principle of retribution was locked away in the ages of Fuxi and the Zhou dynasty, and you use this deduction as proof of its inconsistency. Fuxi and Tang Yao are remote; no one knows them in detail. What is recorded in the *Classic of Documents* does not exceed a few chapters: they merely speak of lapses in virtue and punishment, having no leisure to record the origin of calamity and fortune. Even today's imperial records and royal canons do not record matters concerning nature and destiny; yet you cite the absence of text as proof that antiquity certainly lacked it—this too is the error of following one's own biases. Furthermore, matters of faithfulness, obedience, misfortune, and blessings are all listed in the texts of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius; to call them buried and closed—is that not narrow-minded? It is simply that words vary in their immediacy and teachings differ in their depth; does that warrant the wise accepting this while rejecting that? Now, where there is life there must be desire, and where there is desire there must be seeking. When desire is deficient there is contention; when seeking is fulfilled there is tranquility. Contention leads to mutual harm; tranquility leads to mutual peace. Was not the establishment of nets intended to eliminate harm and obtain peace? Moreover, hunting, fishing, and sacrificial beasts are no different in nature. In your previous answer, you already recognized that sacrificial animals could not be eliminated at once in the present world; yet to demand that hunting and fishing should have been uniquely discarded in antiquity is not a consistent categorization. To love life and abhor death makes the benevolence shown to those below all the more earnest. Therefore, to allow them to die follows their disposition; to rob them of life goes against their nature. The utmost persons hold this in esteem—why would they violate what is compliant and dwell in what is contrary? Thus we know they could not suddenly strip away people's clingings, and so merely instituted regulations accordingly. Although the spirit of the sages was magnificent, it could not enlighten minds that were ignorant and confused; how could one ever finish discussing people who have wandered since childhood? The coming of guilt and punishment is something things bring upon themselves. Spiritual matters are distant and hard to attain, not because the heavenly kitchen was neglected; material things are near and easy to indulge in, which is why people regularly relish fed-and-grain-fed animals. Rescuing the drowning and pulling them out of the moat is common to all the wise; it is only that transforming things varies, not that the Dao is different. Your concession of their “imperfection” is quite fitting; yet Sima Qian's fondness for the extraordinary was fundamentally not of this kind.