[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [北山錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113) › 5.2.4 # 北山錄 5.2.4 北山錄 5.2.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.5.2.4) 方肆勇乎（老子以定王時生中國。 自為戎狄所逼何不服之。 而云往天竺服彼胡人者哉）又自古聖王皆遠者懷之何有陰期殄胤矯誡人道（遠人不服則脩文德以來之。 又云。 惟德動天。 無遠弗屆。 又無怠無荒。 四夷來王。 豈假絕其嗣胤矯為制誡者也）詳夫三苗弘酷商鞅極法未甚於此者也（舜時。 三苗之國左洞庭右彭䗍。 在荒服之外。 數千王誅不循王道也。 秦孝公時。 嬖臣景監進衛人商鞅。 以酷而佐秦。 後孝公卒惠王立。 發使捕之。 商君奔至關下欲舍客舍。 客人不知其是商君也。 曰商君之令舍人無驗者坐之。 商君曰。 嗟乎為法之弊。 一至此哉。 遂被攻裂而殺之。 今釋子非三苗之徒。 老聖非商鞅之類。 何至於此也）而老聖言常善救物。 豈其然歟（若爾則言與行違也）賓曰。 違父命貽母戚。 輕畏就險。 可謂孝乎（太子悉達欲出家父王不許加婇女以虞之太子半夜潛去逾城是違父命也。 令姨母悲泣肝腸摧裂。 是貽母戚也。 居儲副之位而獨處山谷。 是輕畏也。 在雪嶺之中是就險也。 如此可得名孝乎）為瓶沙王師。 處迦毘羅族。 阿闍逆害。 琉璃攻伐。 既不果救。 可得仁乎（瓶沙王。 則頻婆娑羅也。 住王舍城。 阿闍世王父。 闍王囚之以至餓死。 佛不能救。 又波斯匿之子琉璃王。 未利夫人生。 則釋種之外甥也。 以婢子之言乃加兵。 盡殺釋族。 佛知其宿業相對。 而皆不能救也）調達天倫（調達。 斛飯王之子。 佛之堂弟也）善星至性。 生被黜辱。 死嬰塗炭。 可謂義乎（調達善星俱陷地獄）踞寶玉之床。 受君父之拜。 言大違謙。 色高象傲。 可謂禮乎。 懸弧未旬。 母后窮年。 罔極之禍愆莫大焉。 可謂福乎（太子生。 以桑弧蓬矢懸於門也。 昔佛為太子。 生才七日而摩耶亡也）夫如是其利安在欲使中國行之者也。 主人曰。 愛惡之論。 譽辱何定。 古有罪三皇而毀五帝者。 有譽漢陰而抑仲尼者（莊子。 漢陰丈人抱甕入井。 取水以灌園。 子貢教之作𣚃橰。 漢陰丈人盛抑仲尼之巧偽也）有強漁父而責三閭者（三閭大夫屈原。 遭靳尚所讚。 懷王疑之。 遂貶長沙。 獨行江畔。 見漁父問之。 故曰。 舉世皆醉唯我獨醒。 舉世皆濁唯我獨清。 漁父勉之不可。 遂沈水而卒）有劇秦法而美新室者（秦始王莾法殘虐。 後世有揚雄著美新一篇。 劇秦始而美王莽）討其向背。 壞壁穿墉。 為雀鼠之功矣（有習古人槽柏更增穿窬以鼓是非者。 若王充劉子玄等。 唯事雌黃也）禮曰。 大孝嚴親。 其次不辱。 其次能養（嚴親謂使尊其祖考也。 不辱脩身持行也）若夫化家為國。 天下稱之為大化。 凡為聖天下孰謂之小哉。 故雖邇失嚴愛遐蹈山林。 而使天下之人知父為大聖之父。 知母為大聖之母。 既知之而尊之。 既尊之而安之。 孝子之義真曰不匱（匱乏也。 此乃嚴親之道也。 詩云。 孝子不匱。 永錫爾類）曾是以為不孝。 則孰能為之孝乎。 曾子曰。 養可能也敬為難（至於犬馬皆能有養。 不敬何以別乎）敬可能也安為難。 安可能也卒為難。 父母既沒。 慎行其身。 不遺父母惡名。 可謂能終也（始於毘嵐。 終於鶴樹。 有善皆稱。 無惡可謗。 實謂孝之終也）而大聖豈不篤其備耶。 若乃聖人有作不違。 兩曜昏旦不違四時。 榮落所可違者。 暫化而已矣。 化久則愆於物性。 恢怪詭譎生焉（雖聖人不能違宿業也）至若幽囚餒喪坑骸刃肌。 蓋酬因於往世（瓶沙為無子。 占云。 山中仙人當作子。 遂殺之令急受生。 又未生更作白兔亦殺之。 故今被闍王幽囚而死也。 釋種又以宿殺摩竭大魚故也）報應前緣。 非聖人不能使暫違之。 但非業理之長謝也（經云。 假使經百劫。 所作業不亡。 因緣會遇時。 果報還自受）夫后稷善播順天時也。 > Did \[Laozi\] only then vent his bravery? (Laozi was born in the Central Realm during the reign of King Ding. Since he was hard-pressed by the Rong and Di, why did he not subdue them, yet claimed to go to Tianzhu to subdue those barbarians?) Furthermore, since antiquity, sage-kings have always cherished those from afar. Why would he secretly scheme to wipe out descendants and falsely formulate precepts against human relations? (When distant peoples do not submit, one cultivates civil virtue to attract them. It is also said: “Virtue alone moves Heaven; there is no distance it does not reach.” And: “Without negligence, without idling, the four barbarians come to acknowledge kingship.” Why would he resort to severing their lineages and falsely creating rules and precepts?) Looking into it carefully, the great cruelties of the Sanmiao and Shang Yang's extreme laws were no worse than this. (In the time of Shun, the state of the Sanmiao lay with Lake Dongting on its left and Lake Pengli on its right, outside the wild frontiers; several thousand kings were punished for not following the kingly way. In the time of Duke Xiao of Qin, the favored minister Jing Jian recommended Shang Yang of Wey, who aided Qin through harsh severity. Later, Duke Xiao passed away and King Hui was enthroned; he sent emissaries to arrest him. Lord Shang fled to the pass and wished to lodge at an inn. The innkeeper, not knowing it was Lord Shang, said: “According to Lord Shang's laws, lodging someone without identification warrants prosecution.” Lord Shang sighed: “Alas, has the harm of lawmaking reached such an extreme as this!” Thereupon he was attacked, torn apart by chariots, and killed. Now, the sons of Śākya are not followers of the Sanmiao, and the Old Sage is not of Shang Yang's ilk; why would it come to this?) Yet the Old Sage said that he is ‘always good at saving beings’—could that truly be so? (If it were so, then his words contradict his actions.) The Guest asked: “Disobeying his father's command and bringing sorrow to his mother; despising fear and seeking peril—can this be called filial piety? (Crown Prince Siddhārtha wished to leave home, but his royal father did not permit it and sent palace maidens to entertain him; the prince slipped away at midnight and leaped over the city wall, which was disobeying his father's command. Causing his maternal aunt to weep bitterly with a broken heart was bringing sorrow to his mother. Occupying the position of heir apparent yet dwelling alone in mountain valleys was despising fear. Being amid the snowy peaks was seeking peril. Can such conduct be called filial piety?) Being the master of King Bimbisāra, yet when he dwelt among the Kapilavastu clan, Ajātaśatru committed patricide, and Virūḍhaka attacked and slaughtered them; since he failed to save them, can this be called benevolence? (King Bimbisāra—that is, Bimbisāra—dwelt in Rājagṛha and was the father of King Ajātaśatru. King Ajātaśatru imprisoned him until he starved to death, and the Buddha could not save him. Moreover, King Virūḍhaka, the son of Prasenajit born to Lady Mallikā, was thus a maternal nephew of the Śākyas. Prompted by a maidservant's words, he raised troops and slaughtered the entire Śākya clan. The Buddha knew their past karma confronted them, and he could save neither.) Devadatta was his kinsman; (Devadatta was the son of King Droṇodana, a cousin of the Buddha.) Sunakkhatta was of his closest blood. Yet in life they suffered demotion and disgrace, and in death they fell into torment and misery—can this be called righteousness? (Devadatta and Sunakkhatta both sank into hell.) Sitting insolently upon a jeweled couch and receiving the obeisance of his lord and father; his words deeply lacking modesty, his countenance haughty and arrogant—can this be called ritual propriety? Before the bow hung at the door had even reached ten days, his empress mother met the end of her years: no calamity or misfortune could be greater than this—can this be called blessing? (When a prince is born, a mulberry bow and mugwort arrows are hung at the door. Formerly, when the Buddha was a prince, only seven days after his birth, Māyā passed away.) If it is like this, where lies its benefit, that one should wish the Central Realm to practice it?” The Host replied: “In discourses of love and hate, how can praise and blame be fixed? In antiquity, there were those who blamed the Three Sovereigns and reviled the Five Thearchs; there were those who praised the man south of the Han River and belittled Zhongni; (Zhuangzi tells of the old man south of the Han River who carried a pitcher into a well to draw water for his garden; Zigong taught him to make a well sweep, but the old man south of the Han River strongly belittled Zhongni's artifice and deceit.) there were those who favored the fisherman and reproached the Minister of the Three Clans; (Qu Yuan, the Grandee of the Three Clans, suffered slander from Jin Shang; King Huai suspected him, and he was exiled to Changsha. Walking alone along the riverbank, he met a fisherman who questioned him, wherefore he said: ‘The whole world is drunk, I alone am sober; the whole world is muddy, I alone am clean.’ The fisherman tried to urge him otherwise, to no avail, and he drowned himself and died.) there were those who intensified the condemnation of Qin laws while praising the Xin dynasty. (Qin Shihuang and Wang Mang had cruel laws. In later times, Yang Xiong wrote ‘An Eulogy on the Xin Dynasty’, severely criticizing Qin Shihuang while praising Wang Mang.) Examining their inclinations and aversions, they are but breaking walls and boring through fences—the petty exploits of sparrows and rats! (Some take up the dregs of the ancients and add further perforations to stir up right and wrong, like Wang Chong, Liu Zhiji, and their ilk, who only engage in criticism.) The Book of Rites says: ‘The highest filial piety is to venerate one’s parents; next is not to disgrace them; next is to be able to nourish them.’ (Venerating parents means causing their ancestors to be revered; not disgracing them means cultivating oneself and upholding proper conduct.) As for transforming the family into a realm, the world calls this the ‘great transformation’; when one acts as a sage to all under Heaven, who could call it small? Therefore, although he departed nearby from parental love and trod far into mountain forests, he made the people of the world know that his father was the father of a Great Sage, and know that his mother was the mother of a Great Sage. Having known them, they revered them; having revered them, they set them at ease. The filial son's righteousness can truly be called inexhaustible! (Inexhaustible means never lacking. This is indeed the way to venerate one's parents. The Book of Songs says: ‘A filial son is inexhaustible; forever shall he be bestowed with his kind.’) If even this is considered unfilial, then who could ever practice filial piety? Zengzi said: ‘Nourishing is possible, but respect is difficult; (Even dogs and horses are capable of being nourished; without respect, what is there to distinguish them?) respect is possible, but giving peace of mind is difficult; giving peace of mind is possible, but carrying it through to the end is difficult. When parents have passed away, to be cautious in one's conduct so as not to leave an evil name upon one's parents can be called being able to carry it through to the end.’ (Beginning under the blowing wind and ending at the Crane Grove, all his good was praised, and no evil could be slandered; this is truly called the completion of filial piety.) Did the Great Sage not possess this in full measure? When a sage acts, he does not contravene \[the Dao\]; the two luminaries' dusk and dawn do not contravene the four seasons; flourishing and withering can only be contravened through temporary manifestations. If a transformation persists for too long, it offends against the nature of things, and anomalies and deceptions arise. (Even a sage cannot contravene past karma.) As for being imprisoned and starving to death, or having one's bones buried and flesh cut by blades, these are recompenses for causes in past lives. (Because Bimbisāra had no son, a divination said: ‘An immortal in the mountains shall become your son.’ Thereupon he killed him to make him take rebirth quickly; before he was born, he further transformed into a white hare and was killed again; therefore, he was now imprisoned by King Ajātaśatru and died. The Śākyas also suffered because they had formerly killed a great makara fish.) When retributions answer prior conditions, it is not that a sage cannot cause them to be temporarily contravened; it is simply not in accordance with the principle of karma for them to be permanently remitted. (The scripture says: ‘Even after a hundred kalpas, the karma one has made does not perish; when conditions meet, the karmic fruit is still reaped by oneself.’) Lord Millet was good at sowing because he followed the seasons of Heaven. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.5.2.3) - [Next: 5.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.5.2.5) - [Up: 5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.5.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113~en-mt.5.2.4) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.5.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2113.5.2.4) · Pramāṇa