北山錄 5.2.4

5.2.4

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.