<Previous Section>
<Next Section>

《福虛篇》

世論行善者福至,為惡者禍來。福禍之應,皆天也,人為之,天應之。陽恩,人君賞其行;陰惠,天地報其德。 無貴賤賢愚,莫謂不然。〔不〕徒見行事有其文傳,又見善人時遇福,故遂信之,謂之實然。斯言或時賢聖欲勸人為善,著必然之語,以明德報;或福時適,遇者以為然。如實論之,安得福祐乎?

楚惠王食寒葅而得蛭,因遂吞之,腹有疾而不能食。令尹〔入〕問〔曰〕:「王安得此疾也?」王曰:「我食寒葅而得蛭,念譴之而不行其罪乎?是(廢法)〔法廢〕而威不立也,非所以使國人聞之也。譴而行誅乎?則庖廚監食者,法皆當死,心又不忍也。吾恐左右見之也,因遂吞之。」

令尹避席再拜而賀曰:「臣聞天道無親,唯德是輔。王有仁德,天之所奉也,病不為傷。」

是夕也,惠王之後而蛭出,及久患心腹之積皆愈。故天之親德也,可謂不察乎? 曰:此虛言也。

案惠王之吞蛭,不肖之主也。有不肖之行,天不祐也。何則?惠王不忍譴蛭,恐庖廚監食,法皆誅也。一國之君,專擅賞罰; 而赦,人君所為也。惠王通譴葅中何故有蛭,庖廚監食皆當伏法,然能終不以飲食行誅於人,赦而不罪,惠莫大焉。庖 廚罪覺而不誅,自新而改後;惠王赦細而活微,身安不病。今則不然,強食害己之物,使監食之臣不聞其過,失御下之威,無禦非之心, 不肖一也。

使庖廚監食失甘苦之和,若塵土落於葅中,大如蟣虱,非意所能覽,非目所能見,原心定罪,不明其過,可謂惠矣。 今蛭廣有分數,長有寸度,在寒葅中,眇目之人,猶將見之。臣不畏敬,擇濯不謹,罪過至重,惠王不譴,不肖二也。

葅中不當有蛭,不食投地;如恐左右之見,懷屏隱匿之處,足以使蛭不見,何必食之?如不可食之物,誤在葅中, 可復隱匿而強食之?不肖三也。

有不肖之行,而天祐之,是天報祐不肖人也。 不忍譴蛭,世謂之賢,賢者操行,多若吞蛭之類,吞蛭、天除其病,是則賢者常無病也。賢者德薄,未足以言。聖人純道,操行少非,為推不忍之行,以容人之過,必眾多矣。然而武王不豫,孔子疾病,天之祐人,何不實也?

或時惠王吞蛭,蛭偶自出。食生物者,無有不死,腹中熱也。初吞,蛭時未死,而腹中熱,蛭動作,故腹中痛。須臾,蛭死腹中, 痛亦止。

蛭之性食血,惠王心腹之積,殆積血也。故食血之蟲死,而積血之病愈。猶狸之性食鼠,人有鼠病,吞狸自愈,物類相勝, 方藥相使也。食蛭蟲而病愈,安得怪乎?食生物無不死,死無不出,之後蛭出,安得祐乎?

令尹見惠王有不忍之德,知蛭入腹中必當死出,臣因再拜,賀病不為傷,著己知來之德,以喜惠王之心,是與子韋之言星徙, 太卜之言地動,無以異也。

宋人有好善行者,三世不解,家無故黑牛生白犢,以問孔子。孔子曰:「此吉祥也,以享鬼神。」即以犢祭。一年,其父無故而盲。〔其〕牛又生白犢,其父又使其子問孔子。孔子曰:「吉祥也,以享鬼神。」復以犢祭。一年,其子〔又〕無故而盲。其後楚攻宋,圍其城。當此之時,易子而食之,()〔析〕骸而炊之,此獨以父子俱盲之故,得毋乘城。軍罷圍解,父子俱視。此脩善積行神報之效也。 曰:此虛言也。

夫宋人父子脩善如此,神報之,何必使之先盲後視哉?不盲常視,不能護乎?此神不能護不盲之人,則亦不能以盲護人矣。

使宋、楚之君合戰頓兵,流血僵尸,戰夫禽獲,死亡不還,以盲之故,得脫不行,可謂神報之矣。今宋、楚相攻, 兩軍未合,華元、子反結言而退,二軍之眾,並全而歸,兵矢之刃無頓用者。雖有乘城之役,無死亡之患。為善人報者,為乘城之間乎?

使時不盲,亦猶不死。盲與不盲,俱得脫免,神使之盲,何益於善? 當宋國乏糧之時也,盲人之家,豈獨富哉?俱與乘城之家易子()〔析〕骸,反以窮厄獨盲無見,則神報祐人,失善惡之實也。

宋人父子,前偶自以風寒發盲,圍解之後,盲偶自愈。世見父子修善,又用二白犢祭,宋、楚相攻,獨不乘城,圍解之後,父子皆視,則謂修善之報,獲鬼神之祐矣。

楚相孫叔敖為兒之時,見兩頭,殺而埋之,歸,對其母泣。母問其故,對曰:「我聞見兩頭 〔者〕死。向者,出見兩頭,恐去母死,是以泣也。」其母曰:「今何在?」對曰:「我恐後人見之,即殺而埋之。」

其母曰:「吾聞有陰德者,天必報之。汝必不死,天必報汝。」叔敖竟不死,遂為楚相。埋一,獲二祐,天報善,明矣。 曰:此虛言矣。

夫見兩頭輒死者,俗言也;有陰德天報之福者,俗議也。叔敖信俗言而埋,其母信俗議而必報,是謂死生無命,在一之死。

齊孟嘗君田文以五月五日生,其父田嬰讓其母曰:「何故舉之?」〔文〕曰:「君所以不舉五月子〔者〕,何也?」嬰曰: 「五月子〔者〕,長與戶同,殺其父母。」曰:「人命在天乎?在戶乎?如在天,君何憂也?如在戶,則宜高其戶耳,誰而及之者?」

後文長與一戶同,而嬰不死。是則五月舉子之忌,無效驗也。夫惡見兩頭,猶五月舉子也。五月舉子,其父不死,則知見兩頭者, 無殃禍也。

由此言之,見兩頭自不死,非埋之故也。埋一,獲二福,如埋十,得幾祐乎? 埋惡人復見,叔敖賢也。賢者之行,豈徒埋一事哉?前埋之時,多所行矣。稟天善性,動有賢行,賢行之人,宜見吉物,無為乃見殺人之。 豈叔敖未見之時有惡,天欲殺之,見其埋,除其過,天活之哉?

石生而堅,蘭生而香,如謂叔敖之賢在埋之時,非生而稟之也。

儒家之徒董無心,墨家之役纏子,相見講道。纏子稱墨家佑鬼神,是引秦穆公有明德,上帝賜之(九十)〔十九〕年。

(纏)〔董〕子難以堯、舜不賜年,桀、紂不夭死。 堯、舜、桀、紂猶為尚遠,且近難以秦穆公、晉文公。

夫謚者、行之也,生時行,以為死謚。穆者、誤亂之名,文者、德惠之表。有誤亂之行,天賜之年;有德惠之操,天奪其命乎?

案穆公之霸,不過晉文;晉文之謚,美於穆公。天不加晉文以命,獨賜穆公以年,是天報誤亂,與穆公同也。

天下善人寡,惡人眾。善人順道,惡人違天。然夫惡人之命不短,善人之年不長。天不命善人常享一百載之壽,惡人為殤子惡死,何哉?

Chapter XI. Wrong Notions about Happiness (Fu-hsü).

People universally believe that he who does good, meets with happiness, and that the evil-doers are visited with misfortune. That Heaven sends down happiness or misfortune in response to man's doings. That the rewards graciously given by the sovereigns to the virtuous, are visible, whereas the requital of Heaven and Earth is not always apparent. There is nobody, high or low, clever or imbecile, who would disagree with this view. Only because people see such deeds recorded in books, and witness that sometimes the good really become happy, they come to believe this, and take it as self-evident. Sometimes also sages and wise men, with a view to inducing people to do good, do not hesitate to assert that it must be so, thus showing that virtue gets its reward. Or those who hold this view, have themselves experienced that felicity arrived at a certain juncture. A thorough investigation, however, will convince us that happiness is not given by Heaven as a favour.

King Hui of Ch`u,1 when eating salad, found a leech upon his plate, and forthwith swallowed it. He thereupon felt a pain in his stomach, and could eat nothing. On his premier asking him, how he had got this disease, he replied:---"Eating salad, I found a leech. I thought that, if I scolded those responsible for it, but did not punish them, I would disregard the law, and not keep up my dignity. Therefore, I could not allow my subjects to get wind of the matter. Had I, on the other hand, reproved and chastised the defaulters, strict law would have required the death of all the cooks and butlers. To that I could not make up my mind. Fearing, lest my attendants should perceive the leech, I promptly swallowed it."

The premier rose from his seat, bowed twice, and congratulated the king, saying, "I have been told that Heaven is impartial, and that virtue alone is of any avail. You have benevolence and virtue, for which Heaven will reward you. Your sickness will do you no great harm."

The same evening, when the king withdrew, the leech came out, and an ailment of the heart and stomach of which he had been suffering for a long while, was cured at the same time. Could not this be considered an evidence of Heaven's partiality for virtue?---No. This is idle talk.

If King Hui swallowed the leech, he was far from being what a sovereign should be, and for unbecoming deeds Heaven does not give marks of its favour. King Hui could not bear to reproach the guilty with the leech for fear, lest his cooks and butlers should all have to suffer death according to law. A ruler of a State can mete out rewards and punishments at pleasure, and pardoning is a prerogative of his. Had King Hui reprimanded all for the leech found in his salad, the cooks and butlers would have had to submit to law, but afterwards the king was at liberty not to allow that the lives of men were taken merely for a culinary offence. Thus to forgive, and to remit the penalty, would have been an act of great mercy. If the cooks had received their punishment, but were not put to death, they would have completely changed for the future. The king condoning a small offence, and sparing the lives of the poor devils, would have felt all right, and not been sick. But he did nothing of that sort. He ate perforce something obnoxious to his health. Allowing his butlers to remain ignorant of their fault, he lost his royal dignity, because he did not repress their bad conduct. This was objectionable in the first place.

If cooks and butlers in preparing a dish do not make it sweet or sour enough, or if an atom of dust no bigger than a louse, hardly perceptible or visible to the eye, falls into the salad, if in such a case a sovereign in fixing a penalty takes into consideration the mind of the offender, and therefore abstains from divulging his fault, one may well speak of clemency. Now, a leech is an inch or more long and 1/10 of an inch or more broad. In a salad a one-eyed man must see it. The servants of the king showed an utter want of respect, taking no care to cleanse the salad. Theirs was a most serious offence. For King Hui not to reprimand them was a second mistake.

In a salad there must be no leech. If so, one does not eat it, but throws it to the ground. Provided one is anxious, lest the attendants should discover it, he may hide it in his bosom. Thus the leech can escape observation. Why must one eat it coûte-que-coûte? If something uneatable is by inadvertence in a salad so, that it can be concealed, to eat it by force is a third mistake.

If Heaven had rewarded an unbecoming act, an unworthy person would have been the recipient of Heaven's grace. The inability to reprove for the sake of a leech is, in the eyes of the world, something very excellent. Now, there is many an excellent man, whose deeds are similar to the swallowing of a leech. If for swallowing a leech Heaven grants liberation from sickness, excellent men must always be without ailings. The virtue of this kind of men is, however, small only and not to be compared with the perfect character of the true sages and their guileless demeanour. There are many sages who would push their kindness of heart so far as to put up with human faults. Yet the Emperor Wu Wang was of a weak health, and Confucius seriously ill. Why has Heaven been so inconsistent in the distribution of its favour?

It may be that after King Hui had swallowed the leech, it came out again in a natural way of itself. Whenever anybody eats a living thing, it will inevitably die. The stomach is hot inside. When the leech is gulped down, it does not die instantaneously, but owing to the high temperature of the stomach it begins to move. Hence the pain in the stomach. After a short while, the leech dies, and the pain in the stomach ceases also.

It is in the nature of leeches to suck blood. King Hui's heart and bowel complaint was probably nothing but a constipation of blood. Therefore this constipation was cured along with the death of the blood-sucking animal, just as a men suffering from the skin disease known as "rat" can be cured by eating a cat, because it is natural to cats to eat rats. The various things overcome one another. Remedies and antidotes are given on the same principal. Therefore it cannot be a matter for surprise that by eating a leech a disease should be removed. Living things, when eaten, will die. Dead, they invariably come out in a natural way. Consequently, the re-appearance of the leech cannot be an act of special grace.

The premier seeing the kindheartedness of King Hui and knowing that the leech after entering the stomach must come forth again, when dead, therefore bowed twice, and congratulated the king upon his not being injured by his disease. He thereby showed his power of forethought, and pleased his sovereign. His utterance is in the same style as that of Tse Wei,2 who said that a star would shift its place, 3 and of the "Great Diviner," 4 who asserted that the earth was going to move.

A family in Sung had for three generations never swerved from the path of virtue. Without any apparent reason a black cow belonging to this family dropped a white calf. Confucius was asked, and said that it was a lucky omen, and that the calf ought to be sacrificed to the spirits, which was done accordingly. After one year, the father of the family became blind without a reason. The cow then produced a white calf a second time. The father sent his son to ask Confucius, who replied that it was a propitious portent, and that the animal must be immolated, which was done again. After a year, the son lost his eye-sight, nobody knew why. Subsequently, Ch`u attacked Sung, and besieged its capital. At that time the besieged were in such a distress, that they exchanged their sons, and ate them, breaking their bones, which they used as firewood. 5 It was but for their blindness that father and son were not called upon to mount guard on the city wall. When the enemy's army raised the siege, father and son could see again. This is believed to be a proof of how the spirits requited great deserts, but it is idle talk:---

If father and son of that family in Sung did so much good, that the spirits rewarded them, why must they first make them blind, and afterwards restore their sight? Could they not protect them, if they had not been blind and always seeing? Being unable to help men, if not blind, the spirits would also be powerless to protect the blind.

Had the two commanders of Sung and Ch`u made such a furious onslaught, that the weapons were blunted, the dead bodies covered with blood, the warriors captivated, or killed never to come back, then blindness might have afforded an excuse for not going to the front, and that might have been construed as a divine protection. But before the armies of Sung and Ch`u came to blows, Hua Yuan and Tse Fan6 made a covenant, and went back. The two forces returned home unscathed, and the blades of the swords, and the points of the arrows were not blunted by use. The duty of mounting the city wall did not entail death, consequently the two good men could not have obtained the divine protection, while this duty was being performed. In case they had not been blind at that time, they would not have died either. The blind and the not blind all got off. What benefit did those good men derive then from their blindness, for which the spirits were responsible? 7

Were the families of the blind alone well off, when the State of Sung was short of provisions? All had to exchange their sons with the families which mounted guard on the wall, and they split their bones. If in such straits such good people alone were still blind and unable to see, the spirits in giving their aid have failed to discriminate justly between the good and the wicked.

Father and son had probably been blinded by exposure to cold wind, a mere chance. When the siege was over, they owed their cure to chance also. The world knowing that they had done good works, that they had offered two white calves in sacrifice, that during the war between Sung and Ch`u they alone had not mounted the wall, and that after the siege they regained their sight, thought this to be the recompense of virtue, and the protection granted by the spirits.

When the minister of Ch`u, Sun Shu Ao8 was a boy, he beheld a two-headed snake, which he killed and buried. He then went home, and cried before his mother. She asked him, what was the matter. He replied:---"I have heard say that he who sees a two-headed snake must die. Now, when I went out, I saw a two-headed snake. I am afraid that I must leave you and die, hence my tears." Upon his mother inquiring, where the snake was now, he rejoined:---"For fear lest others should see it later, I have killed it outright, and buried it."

The mother said:---"I have heard that Heaven will recompense hidden virtue. You are certainly not going to die, for Heaven must reward you." And, in fact, Sun Shu Ao did not die, but, later on, became prime minister of Ch`u. For interring one snake he received two favours. This makes it clear that Heaven rewards good actions.

No, it is idle talk. That he who sees a two-headed snake, must die, is a common superstition, and that Heaven gives happiness as a reward for hidden virtue, a common prejudice. Sun Shu Ao, convinced of the superstition, buried the snake, and his mother, addicted to the prejudice, firmly relied on the heavenly retaliation. This would amount to nothing else than that life and death were not depending on fate, but on the death of a snake.

T`ien Wên9 of Ch`i, Prince of Mêng Ch`ang, was born on the 5th day of the 5th moon. 10 His father T`ien Ying expostulated with his mother saying, why do you rear him? She replied:---"Why do you not wish to rear a fifth month child?" T`ien Ying said:--- "A fifth month son will become as high as a door, and kill both his father and mother." She rejoined:---"Does the human fate depend on Heaven or on doors? If on Heaven, you have nothing to complain of, if on a door, he must become as high as a door. Who ever attained to that?" 11

Later on, T`ien Wên grew as high as a door, but T`ien Ying did not die. Thus the apprehension to rear a child in the fifth month proved unfounded. The disgust at the sight of a two-headed snake is like the repugnance to rear a child of the fifth month. Since the father of such a child did not die, it follows that a two-headed snake cannot bring misfortune either.

From this point of view, he who sees a two-headed snake, does not die, as a matter of course, but not on account of having buried a snake. If for interring one snake one receives two favours, how many must one obtain for ten snakes? Sun Shu Ao by burying a snake, lest other persons should look at it, showed an excellent character. The works of excellent men do not merely consist in burying snakes. Sun Shu Ao may have accomplished many other meritorious acts, before he buried the snake. Endowed with a good nature by Heaven, people do good under all circumstances. Such well deserving persons ought to see propitious things, instead of that he unexpectedly falls in with a snake that kills man. Was perhaps Sun Shu Ao a wicked man, before he beheld the snake, and did Heaven intend to kill him, but condoned his guilt, and spared his life upon seeing him burying the snake?

A stone is hard from the time of its formation, a fragrant flower has its perfume from the time, when it came out. If it be said that Sun Shu Ao's virtue became manifest, when he buried the snake, then he would not have received it from Heaven at his birth.

The Confucianist Tung Wu Hsin and the Mêhist Ch`an Tse12 met, and spoke about Tao. Ch`an Tse extolled the Mêhist theory of the help of the spirits, 13 and as an instance adduced duke Mu of Ch in. His excellent qualities were so brilliant that God granted him an age of ninety years. 14

Ch`an Tse gets into trouble with Yao and Shun, who were not favoured with a long life, and Chieh and Chou, who did not die young. Yao, Shun, Chieh, and Chou belong to remote antiquity, but in modern times likewise duke Mu of Ch`in15 and duke Wên of Chin16 are difficult to account for.

The posthumous name expresses man's actions. What he has done during his life-time, appears in his posthumous title. Mu is an expression for error and disorder, 17Wên means virtue and goodness. Did Heaven reward error and disorder with long years, and take the life of him who practised virtue and benevolence?

The reign of Duke Mu did not surpass that of Duke Wên of Chin, and the latter's posthumous title was better than that of Duke Mu. But Heaven did not extend Wên of Chin's life, he only granted longer years to Duke Mu.18 Thus the retribution of Heaven would appear as capricious and perverse as Duke Mu himself was.

Under heaven the good men are few, and the bad ones many. The good follow right principles, the bad infringe Heaven's commands. Yet the lives of bad men are not short therefore, nor the years of the good ones prolonged. How is it that Heaven does not arrange that the virtuous always enjoy a life of a hundred years, and that the wicked die young, or through their guilt?

Notes

1. 487-430 b.c.

2. Astrologer at the court of Duke Ching of Sung (515-451 b.c.) who venerated him like a god.

3. The planet Mars (cf. p. 127).

4. The "Great Diviner" of Ch`i, on whom vid. p. 112.

5. This fact is mentioned in the Shi-chi chap. 38, p. 14v. The siege took place from 595-594 b.c. The whole story seems to be a quotation from Lieh Tse VIII, 6v. or from Huai Nan Tse XVIII, 6 who narrate it with almost the same words.

6. Hua Yuan was the general of Sung, Tse Fan that of Ch`u. Both armies being equally exhausted by famine, the siege was raised.

7. According to Lieh Tse and Huai Nan Tse the two blind men were, in fact, saved from death by their blindness. Lieh Tse loc. cit. adds that over half of the defenders of the city wall were killed, and Huai Nan Tse says that all except the two blind men were massacred by the besiegers. Wang Ch`ung follows the Shi-chi in his narrative of the salvation of the city.

8. 6th cent. b.c.

9. Died 279 b.c.

10. This day is still now regarded as very unlucky in many respects, although it be the Great Summer Festival or the Dragon Boat Festival. On the reasons cf. De Groot, Les Fêtes annuelles à  Émoui. Vol. I, p. 320.

11. A quotation from the Shi-chi, chap. 75, p. 2v.

12. A scholar of the Han time.

13. Demons and spirits who reward the virtuous, and punish the perverse, play an important part in the doctrine of Mê Ti. (Cf. Faber, Micius, Elberfeld 1877, p. 91.)

14. The parallel passage in chap. XXVII speaks of nineteen extra years, with which the Duke was rewarded.

15. 658-619 b.c.

16. 634-626 b.c.

17. The Mu in the Duke of Ch`in's name ### = does not mean:--- error and disorder, it signifies:--- majestic, grand, admirable. But this Mu is often replaced by the character ###, which has the bad meaning given by Wang Ch`ung. I presume that in the original text of the Lun-hêng the latter character was used, whereas we now read the other. In the parallel passage chap. XXVII ### is actually written, and so it is in the Shi-chi chap. 5, p. 9v. et seq.

18. The Shi-chi knows nothing of such a miracle. Duke Mu was a great warrior as was Duke Wên, but the latter's rule is described by Sse Ma Ch`ien as very enlightened and beneficial. (Cf. on Duke Mu: --- Chavannes, Mém. Historiques. Vol. II, p. 25-45, and on Duke Wên. Vol. IV, p. 291-308.)

<Previous Section>
<Next Section>
IATHPublished by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia