廣弘明集 22.40

22.40

請疑公子致言於通敏先生曰。夫二儀始判則庶類是依。七曜既懸。則兆民斯仰。但生前死後繫象之所未明。古往今來賢聖於焉莫究。而希玄君子互騁鑽求。慕理名人競加穿鑿。㝢茲所說則盛辨自然。假氏所明則高陳報應。雖自然鋒鏑克勝於前。報應干戈敗績於後。而愚心難啟暗識易迷。二理交加未知孰是。通敏先生乃抵掌而對曰。省二君之清論。實各擅於偏隅。自然則依傍於老莊。報應則祖述於周孔。可謂楚則已失而齊亦未為得也。今為吾子揚搉而陳之。夫三墳五典。善惡之理未彰。八索九丘。幽明之路猶擁。況復漆園傲吏怳忽狂生。獨稱造化之宗。偏據自然之性。乃為一時之矯俗。非關契理之玄謀。今請問。自然之本為何所趣。有因果耶無因果乎。若謂自然尚論因果。則事同牟盾。兩言相食愚人所笑。智者所悲。直置已傾不煩多難。若謂永無報應頓絕因果。則君臣父子斯道不行。仁義孝慈此言何用。便當造惡招慶為善致殃。亦應鑽火得氷種豆生麥。未見聲和響戾形曲影端者也。若以放勳上聖而誕育於丹朱。重華至德而出生於瞽叟。便為自然而然者。竊為足下不取焉。夫至親之道。乃曰天性。而各隨行業曾不相關。堯舜樹德於往生。故稟茲靈智。𩨬叟興惡乎前世。故致此頑嚚。而復共結重緣還相影發。乃欲因凡顯聖以智化愚。若無瞽叟之凶。豈知克諧之美。自非放勳之聖。誰化慢遊之惡。故阿難調達並為世尊之弟。羅睺善星同是如來之胤。而阿難常親給侍。調達每興害逆。羅睺則護珠莫犯。善星則破器難收。以此而觀。諒可知矣。若云各有自性不可遷貿者。此殊不然。至如鷹化為鳩本心頓盡。橘變成枳前味永消。昔富今貧。定性之理難奪。先貴後賤。賦命之言何在。呂望屠牛之士。終享太師。伊尹負鼎之人。卒登丞相。戴淵四隣所患。後著高名。周處三害之端。晚稱令德。闍王無間之罪。翻然改圖。育王莫大之愆。忽能尊善。若依自性之理。豈容得有斯義。善人唯應修善。不可片時起惡。惡人恒自起惡。無容一念生善。是則榮枯寵辱皆守必然。愚智尊卑永無悛革。豈其然乎。決不然也。又若以修德之人翻感憂戚。行善之者反致沈淪。以為自然之命。亦不然也。若行善而望報去善更遙。修德以邀名。離德逾遠。若必挺珪璋之性。懷琬琰之心。本無意於名聞。曾不欣乎富貴。而英聲必孱雅慶方臻。或可未值知音便同散木。不逢別玉遂等沈泥。暫且龍潛無虧。鳳德豈容。區區於天壤。擾擾於世間。自可固窮無煩殞穫。至如太伯高讓而流芳千祀。仲尼窮厄而傳名萬代。顏稱早世特是命。業不長。冉致斯疾。當由病因未斷。二子伏誅。彌顯衛靈之惡。三仁受戮。方見殷紂之愆。首山之餓。不免求名之責。汨水之沈。尚貽懷怨之咎。且夫決定之業。非神力之所救。必應受報。豈聖智而能禳。並起昔因非今造也。若謂屠割為務而永壽百齡。盜竊居懷而豐財巨億。以為定性而然者。亦所未喻也。斯由曩生片善感此命財。今世重殃未招果報。以其為罪既大受苦宜多。所以且緩其誅宜縱其惡。一朝禍盈釁積。則便覆巢碎卵。長歸鬲子泥犁。永處無間地獄。故書云。惡不積無以滅身。此之謂矣。亦有見招果報事接見聞。至如王莽篡逆則懸首漸臺。董卓凶殘則曝屍都市。晉侯殺趙朔。感陷廁之悲。齊主害彭生。有墜車之痛。夏祚顛覆桀之罪也。殷宗殄喪紂之過焉。故知因果之義陸離難准。業報之理參差不定。所謂生報現報及後報也。

The doubting gentleman addressed the Master of Penetrating Keenness, saying: 'When the two cosmic forces were first divided, all categories of beings came to depend upon them; once the seven luminaries were hung, the myriad people looked up to them. Yet what lies before birth and after death was left unclarified by the diagrams of the Changes; through antiquity and down to the present, sages and worthies have failed to fathom it. Thus gentlemen aspiring to the dark mystery vie in pursuing their inquiries, and famed men cherishing underlying principles compete in far-fetched analyses. In what Master Yu expounded, spontaneity was profusely defended; in what Master Jia made clear, retribution was loftily proclaimed. Although the spears and arrows of spontaneity were victorious at first, the shields and lances of retribution suffered defeat later. Still, the foolish mind is difficult to awaken and clouded consciousness easily goes astray. When the two principles intersect, it is unknown which is right.' The Master of Penetrating Keenness clapped his hands and replied: 'Examining the pure treatises of the two gentlemen, each indeed commands only a partial corner. Spontaneity relies on Laozi and Zhuangzi, while retribution takes its ancestry from the Duke of Zhou and Confucius. It can be said that Chu has already lost it, yet Qi has not gained it either. Now I shall weigh and present it for you, sir. In the Three Graves and the Five Canons, the principles of good and evil are not made manifest; in the Eight Cords and Nine Hills, the pathways between the hidden and manifest remain obstructed. How much more so for the arrogant clerk of the lacquer garden, who in bewildered madness alone claimed to capture the ancestor of creation and partiality based himself upon spontaneous nature! That was merely an expedient to correct the vulgarities of his era, not a profound design in accord with ultimate truth. Now permit me to ask: toward what does the root of spontaneity tend? Does it possess cause and effect, or is it devoid of cause and effect? If one says that spontaneity still allows discussion of cause and effect, this is like spear and shield countering each other: two statements consuming each other, laughed at by fools and lamented by the wise. Collapsing on its own, it needs no further refutation. If one says that there is never retribution and that cause and effect are completely cut off, then the way between ruler and subject, father and son, would no longer function; what use would there be in words like benevolence, righteousness, filial piety, and compassion? One would then commit evil and invite blessings, or do good and bring about calamity. Drilling for fire would yield ice, and planting beans would grow wheat! One has never seen a harmonious sound produce an unruly echo, or a bent form cast an upright shadow. If you consider Fangxun, a supreme sage, having bred a Danzhu, and Chonghua, possessing utmost virtue, having been born to Gu Sou, as being so purely through spontaneity, I would quietly not accept that from you. The way of closest kin is called heavenly nature, yet each individual follows their own karmic deeds without any mutual bearing. Yao and Shun cultivated virtue in past lives, and thus received this spiritual wisdom; Gu Sou harbored evil in previous existences, and thus incurred this stubborn stupidity. Yet they bound heavy ties together and reciprocally brought them to manifestation, wishing to reveal the sage by means of the commoner and transform the foolish by means of the wise. Without the wickedness of Gu Sou, how could one know the beauty of harmonious reconciliation? Were it not for the sage Fangxun, who could have transformed the evil of unrestrained arrogance? Thus Ānanda and Devadatta were both cousins of the World-Honoured One, and Rāhula and Sunakṣatra were both descendants of the Tathāgata. Yet Ānanda was constantly in close attendance, whereas Devadatta repeatedly plotted harm and treason; Rāhula protected the jewel and never violated it, whereas Sunakṣatra was like a broken vessel impossible to mend. Viewed from this, it may surely be known! If one says that each has an innate self-nature that cannot be altered or exchanged, this is utterly untrue. Consider when a hawk transforms into a dove, its original nature is completely gone; when a sweet orange changes into a bitter trifoliate orange, its prior flavor is forever lost. In poverty today after being wealthy in the past, how can the principle of a fixed nature hold sway? Noble before and base later, where is the doctrine of an endowed destiny? Lü Wang was a butcher of cattle, yet ultimately enjoyed the position of Grand Tutor; Yi Yin was a man carrying cooking vessels, yet finally ascended to Prime Minister. Dai Yuan was a menace to his four neighbors, but later gained an illustrious name; Zhou Chu was the foremost of the three perils, yet in his later years was praised for splendid virtue. King Ajātaśatru committed sins deserving Avīci, yet turned about and changed his ways; King Aśoka committed the gravest of transgressions, yet suddenly could honor the good. If one relied on the principle of self-nature, how could such meaning ever be admitted? Good people should only cultivate good, incapable of generating evil for a single instant; evil people should constantly generate evil on their own, with no room to give rise to good even in a single thought. This would mean that flourishing and withering, favor and disgrace, would all be bound to inevitability, and that the foolish and wise, noble and base, could never reform. Could this truly be so? It is decidedly not so! Furthermore, if one considers that a person cultivating virtue contrarily incurs sorrow and distress, or that one practicing good conversely meets ruin, and takes this to be spontaneous destiny, this too is not so. If one practices good while expecting a reward, one is all the farther from goodness; if one cultivates virtue to seek renown, one strays even more distantly from virtue. If one indeed displays the nature of ceremonial jade and harbors the heart of precious jade, originally having no intention toward fame and renown and never delighting in wealth and honor, then a distinguished reputation will certainly be modest while elegant blessings only then arrive. Or perhaps, not yet encountering one who understands their worth, they are like useless timber; failing to meet one who recognizes jade, they remain like sunken mud. Temporarily lying dormant like a dragon, there is no flaw in their phoenix-like virtue. How could they allow themselves to be agitated in the realm of heaven and earth or tossed about in the secular world? Naturally they can adhere firmly to poverty without falling into dejection. Take Taibo, whose lofty yielding diffused fragrance for a thousand generations; or Zhongni, whose destitution transmitted his name for myriad ages. Yan Hui was said to have died young merely because the lifespan resulting from his karmic deeds was not long. Ran Geng contracted that disease surely because the causes of the sickness were not yet severed. The execution of the two sons brought further to light the wickedness of Duke Ling of Wei; the murder of the three benevolent men only then made visible the transgression of King Zhou of Yin. Starvation on Shouyang Mountain could not escape the blame of seeking renown; drowning in the Mi River still left the fault of harboring resentment. Moreover, determinate karma cannot be rescued by spiritual powers; when retribution must be received, how could holy wisdom avert it? All arise from past causes, not from present deeds. If one claims that those who make butchery their occupation live to a hundred years, or that those who harbor thievery amass wealth by the hundreds of millions, and regards this as being so by fixed nature, this too is something I have not understood. This is because a sliver of goodness in a past life induced such lifespan and wealth, while the grave calamities of their present life have not yet invited their fruition. Because their guilt is already great, the suffering they must receive should be manifold; therefore their punishment is temporarily deferred and their evil is allowed to run its course. Once their misfortune is full and their offenses have accumulated, the nest will be overturned and the eggs smashed; they will forever return to the boiling cauldrons of Niraya and eternally abide in the Avīci hell. Thus the classic says: 'Unless evil is accumulated, it is insufficient to destroy one's person.' This is what it refers to. There are also instances where fruit and retribution are manifestly invited, matters immediately evident to seeing and hearing. When Wang Mang usurped and rebelled, his head was hung from the Gradual Terrace; when Dong Zhuo was fierce and cruel, his corpse was exposed in the city market. The Marquis of Jin murdered Zhao Shuo and suffered the sorrow of falling into the latrine; the Lord of Qi harmed Pengsheng and bore the agony of tumbling from his chariot. The overthrow of the Xia mandate was the sin of Jie; the destruction and loss of the Yin dynasty was the fault of Zhou. Therefore know that the principle of cause and effect is complex and hard to gauge; the law of karmic retribution is uneven and unfixed. These are what are called retribution in the next life, retribution in the present life, and retribution in subsequent lives.'