廣弘明集 18.25

18.25

難曰。安于懷仁不沒其身。臧會以僭有後魯國。則分命所鍾於何而審。玄明之唱更為疑府矣。答曰。斯乃所以明善惡之有定不由於積行也。若夫仁者為善之嘉行。安于懷之而受福。僭者反理之邪事。臧會為之而獲後。良由分應沒身非履仁之所移命當為後非行僭之能罰。豈異比干忠正而嬰剖心之戮。張湯酷吏而獲七世之祜哉。苟斯理之不殊。則知分命之先定矣。乃同玄明之有分。非為成疑府也。

The critique states: "When Dong Anyu harboured benevolence his person was not spared, while Zang Hui, through usurpation, had descendants in the state of Lu—then in what can the allotment of destiny be discerned? The proclamation of 'mystic clarity' would then turn out to be a repository of doubts!" I reply: this is precisely what illuminates that good and evil are fixed and do not stem from accumulated practice. Benevolence is the admirable practice of goodness: Anyu harboured it yet suffered calamity; usurpation is a perverse affair contrary to principle: Zang Hui committed it yet obtained descendants. This truly was because by allotment his person was destined to perish, which walking in benevolence could not alter, while by destiny he was to have descendants, which the act of usurpation could not punish. How is this different from Bi Gan being loyal and upright yet suffering the execution of having his heart cut out, or Zhang Tang being a cruel official yet securing blessings for seven generations? If this principle does not differ, then we know that allotted destiny is predetermined. Thus it accords with mystic clarity having an allotment; it does not become a repository of doubts.