三教平心論 1.24

1.24

Yu further said: 'Shun and Yu were on the throne for a hundred years; at this time, there was no Buddha in China. In the time of Emperor Ming of the Han, the Buddha-Dharma first appeared, and he was on the throne for only eighteen years.' Little did he know that the span of longevity and shortness of life depends on good and evil, and the retribution of good and evil extends through the three time periods. Therefore it is said: 'If you wish to know the causes of past lives, look at what you experience in this life; if you wish to know the fruits of future lives, look at what you do in this life.' From this we know that the longevity or brevity of this life originates from the good and evil of past lives, and the good and evil of this life in turn lays the foundation for the longevity or brevity of future lives. The longevity of a sovereign's reign is caused by the good of past lives; the brevity of a dynastic fortune is caused by the evil of past lives. How can one judge merely by what is before one's eyes? And how could it be caused by the presence or absence of the Buddha? Confucius said: 'The benevolent are long-lived.' If so, then the benevolent must have long years, and the unbenevolent must die prematurely. Yet Yan Hui, who 'subdued himself and returned to propriety', can be called benevolent, and yet Hui died young. Robber Zhi, who fed on the livers of men, can be called unbenevolent, and yet Zhi lived long. Can one say that Confucius's statement lacked verification and therefore refuse to follow his teaching? The Great Plan instructs people through the royal standard, the five blessings, and the six extremes. Conforming to the standard brings blessing and longevity; opposing the standard brings disaster and misfortune. In premature death, Emperors Wen and Jing of the Han were rulers of the highest virtue, and regarding the sovereign establishing the standard, the two monarchs should have had no shame. Yet Filial Wen was on the throne for only twenty-three years and his age reached only forty-seven; Filial Jing was on the throne for only sixteen years and his age reached only forty-eight. Their reigns did not even reach a single generation, and their spans of life did not even reach lower longevity. Can one say that the statement of the Great Plan is false and burn its book? Only by verifying it with the doctrine of cause and effect and examining it across the span of the three periods can one become clear and free of doubt. If one must insist that without the Buddha one enjoys long life, Shun and Yu were indeed on the throne for a hundred years; but Emperor Wuzong of the Tang destroyed Buddhism—why was he on the throne for only six years, and his lifespan reached only thirty-three? If one must insist that with the Buddha one's years are cut short, Emperor Ming of the Han reigned for only eighteen years; but Emperor Wu of the Liang was an adherent of Buddhism—why was he on the throne for forty-eight years, and his lifespan reached eighty-six?