廣弘明集 18.25

18.25

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.