Fuxu — False Tales of Reward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。徒見行事有其方傳，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，安得福佑乎？
The world argues that good fortune comes to the one who does good, and that disaster comes to the one who does evil. The response of fortune and disaster is all Heaven's: a man acts, and Heaven answers him. Open kindness, the ruler rewards that conduct; hidden kindness, Heaven and earth repay that virtue. Noble or base, wise or foolish, there is no one who says it is not so. They merely see that in the doing of affairs there are such methods handed down, and they see that good men now and then meet with fortune, and so at last they believe it and call it truly so. These words were perhaps made by the worthy and the sage, who wished to urge men to do good and set down words of certainty to make plain the repayment of virtue; or those who happened to meet with fortune at the time took them for so. If the matter is argued as it really is, how can fortune and help be gained?
禁惠王食寒而得蛭，因遂吞之，腹有疾而不能食。令尹問：「王安得此疾也？」王曰：「我食寒而得蛭，念譴之而不行其罪乎？是廢法而威不立也，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，天不佑也。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，無御非之心，不肖一也。使庖廚監食失甘苦之和，若塵土落於中，大如虮虱，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。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，誤在中，可復隱匿而強食之，不肖三也。有不肖之行，而天佑之，是天報佑不肖人也。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，天之佑人，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〔蛭〕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，方葯相使也。食蛭蟲而病愈，安得怪乎？食生物無不死，死無不出，之後蛭出，安得佑乎？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。
King Hui of Chu was eating cold food and found a leech in it, and he swallowed it down. His belly fell ill and he could not eat. The prime minister asked, "How did my lord come by this illness?" The king said, "I was eating cold food and found a leech. I thought of rebuking them and not carrying out their punishment, but that would set the law aside and my authority would not stand, and it is not a thing to let the people of the state hear. Should I rebuke them and carry out the killing? Then the cooks and the officer over the food must all die by the law, and again my heart could not bear it. I feared that those at my side would see it, and so I swallowed it down." The prime minister left his mat, bowed twice, and offered his congratulations, saying, "Your servant has heard that the way of Heaven has no kin and helps virtue alone. My lord has benevolent virtue, and Heaven upholds him. The illness will not turn to harm." That evening the king relieved himself and the leech came out, and the long-standing mass in his heart and belly was wholly cured. Therefore, they say, it cannot be said that Heaven's kinship with virtue is not plain to see.
I answer: these are empty words. Look at it: King Hui in swallowing the leech was an unworthy lord. Where there is unworthy conduct, Heaven does not help. Why so? King Hui could not bear to rebuke them over the leech because he feared that the cooks and the officer over the food would all be put to death by the law. The lord of a whole state holds reward and punishment in his own hand, and pardon is what a ruler does. Had King Hui rebuked them sharply and asked why there was a leech in the food, the cooks and the officer over the food would all have had to submit to the law; yet if in the end he did not carry out a killing upon men over food, but pardoned them and did not punish them, no kindness could be greater. When a cook's guilt is brought to light and he is not killed, he renews himself and mends his ways after. Had King Hui pardoned the small thing and let the slight thing live, his own body would have been at ease and he would not have fallen ill. Now it was not so. He forced down a thing that harmed himself and kept the servant over the food from hearing of his fault. He lost the authority that governs those below and had no mind to govern what is wrong. This is the first unworthiness. Suppose the cooks and the officer over the food lost the harmony of sweet and bitter, or that dust fell into the food as big as a nit or a louse, which the thought cannot examine and the eye cannot see. Then to trace the heart in fixing the guilt, and not to bring the fault to light, may be called kindness. But a leech has a breadth of tenths of an inch and a length of inches, and in cold food even a one-eyed man would see it. The servant was not in awe and reverent, and was not careful in picking over and washing. The guilt and the fault are of the heaviest. King Hui did not rebuke him. This is the second unworthiness. There ought not to be a leech in the food; he should not have eaten it, but thrown it on the ground. If he feared that those at his side would see, there were places enough to hold it in his bosom or hide it behind a screen so that the leech would not be seen. Why must he eat it? A thing that could not be eaten was in the food by mistake, and he could have hidden it again, yet he forced it down. This is the third unworthiness. To have unworthy conduct and yet be helped by Heaven would be Heaven repaying and helping an unworthy man.
That he could not bear to rebuke them over the leech, the world calls worthy. The conduct of worthy men is often of the same kind as swallowing a leech. If Heaven took away his illness because he swallowed a leech, then worthy men should never be ill. Worthy men are thin in virtue, and are not enough to speak of. The sage is pure in the Way, and in his conduct there is little that is wrong, and he pushes out the conduct of what he cannot bear to do in order to hold the faults of others; such things must be many in him. Yet King Wu fell ill and Confucius fell sick. How is Heaven's help to men so far from the truth? Perhaps King Hui swallowed the leech and the leech came out of itself. Nothing swallowed alive fails to die, because the belly is hot within. When he first swallowed it the leech was not yet dead, and as the belly was hot the leech stirred, and so the belly hurt. In a little while the leech died, and the pain in the belly stopped as well. It is the nature of the leech to feed on blood, and the mass in King Hui's heart and belly was most likely gathered blood. Therefore, when the worm that feeds on blood died, the illness of gathered blood was cured. It is like the wildcat, whose nature is to eat rats: when a man has the rat illness he swallows a wildcat and is cured of himself. Kinds of things overcome one another, and prescriptions and drugs set one another to work. He ate a leech worm and his illness was cured. What is there to wonder at? Nothing swallowed alive fails to die, and nothing dead fails to come out. The leech came out after he relieved himself. How is that help from Heaven? The prime minister saw that King Hui had the virtue of what he could not bear to do, and knew that a leech going into the belly must die and come out, and so he bowed twice and gave joy that the illness would not turn to harm.
著已知來之德，以喜惠王這心，是與子韋之言星徙、大卜之言地動無以異也。
He displayed the virtue of already knowing what was to come, and so gladdened the heart of King Hui. In this there is nothing to tell apart from Zi Wei saying that the star would move and the Grand Diviner saying that the earth would move.
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。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，其子無故而盲。其後楚攻宋，圍其城。當此之時，易子而食之，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。此修善積行神報之效也。曰：此虛言也。夫宋人父子修善如此，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，并全而歸，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？俱與乘城之家易子骸，反以窮厄獨盲無見，則神報佑人，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、獲鬼神之佑矣。
There was a man of Song who loved to do good, and for three generations they did not slacken. In his house, for no cause, a black ox bore a white calf. He asked Confucius about it, and Confucius said, "This is an auspicious sign. Offer it to the ghosts and spirits." So he sacrificed with the calf. Within a year his father, for no cause, went blind. The ox bore another white calf. The father again sent his son to ask Confucius, and Confucius said, "It is an auspicious sign. Offer it to the ghosts and spirits." Again he sacrificed with the calf. Within a year the son, for no cause, went blind. After that Chu attacked Song and laid siege to its city. At that time they traded their children and ate them, and split the bones for firewood. These two alone, because father and son were both blind, could keep from going up on the wall. When the army withdrew and the siege was lifted, father and son both saw again. This, they say, is the proof of cultivating good and heaping up conduct, and of the spirits repaying it.
I answer: these are empty words. Now if the father and son of Song cultivated good like this, and the spirits repaid them, why must the spirits first make them blind and then make them see? If they were not blind and saw as always, could the spirits not protect them? If these spirits cannot protect a man who is not blind, then neither can they protect a man by blinding him. Suppose the lords of Song and Chu had joined battle and broken their arms, blood flowing and corpses stiff, the fighting men taken captive, the dead never returning, and these two because of blindness had escaped and not gone. Then it could be said that the spirits repaid them. But when Song and Chu attacked one another, the two armies had not yet met. Hua Yuan and Zifan bound their words and drew back, and the hosts of both armies went home whole together, and no blade of weapon or arrow was blunted in use. Though there was the labor of going up on the wall, there was no danger of death. Was the repayment made for good men no more than the span of going up on the wall? Had they not been blind at that time, they would still not have died. Blind or not blind, both alike could escape and be spared. The spirits made them blind. What good did that do to their goodness? At the time when the state of Song lacked grain, was the house of the blind men rich all by itself? They too, with the houses that went up on the wall, traded their children and split the bones. On the contrary, on top of want and hardship they alone were blind and could not see. Then in the spirits' repaying and helping men, the true measure of good and evil is lost. The father and son of Song happened earlier to go blind of themselves from wind and cold, and after the siege was lifted their blindness happened to heal of itself. The world saw the father and the son cultivating good, and using two white calves for sacrifice, and alone not going up on the wall when Song and Chu attacked one another, and father and son both seeing after the siege was lifted, and so it said this was the repayment of cultivating good, and the winning of help from the ghosts and spirits.
楚相孫叔敖為兒之時，見兩頭蛇，殺而埋之，歸對其母泣。母問其故，對曰：「我聞見兩頭蛇死。向者出，見兩頭蛇，恐去母死，是以泣也。」其母日：「今蛇何在？「對日：「我恐後人見之，即殺而埋之。」
When Sun Shu'ao, the prime minister of Chu, was a boy, he saw a two-headed snake, killed it and buried it, and came home and wept before his mother. His mother asked the reason, and he answered, "I have heard that one who sees a two-headed snake dies. A while ago I went out and saw a two-headed snake, and I fear I shall leave my mother and die. That is why I weep." His mother said, "Where is the snake now?" He answered, "I feared that a later man would see it, and so I killed it and buried it at once."
其母日：「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。埋一蛇，獲二佑，天報善明矣。曰：此虛言矣。夫見兩頭蛇輒死者，俗言也；有陰德天報之福者，俗議也。叔敖信俗言而埋蛇，其母信俗議而必報，是謂死生無命，在一蛇之死。齊孟嘗君田文以五月五日生，其父田嬰讓其母曰：「何故舉之？」曰：「君所以不舉五月子，何也？」嬰曰：「五月子長與戶同，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。夫惡見兩頭蛇，猶五月舉子也。五月舉子，其父不死，則知見兩頭蛇者，無殃禍也。由此言之，見兩頭蛇自不死，非埋之故也。埋一蛇，獲二福，如埋十蛇，得几佑乎？埋蛇惡人復見，叔敖賢也。賢者之行，豈徒埋蛇一事哉？前埋蛇之時，多所行矣。稟天善性，動有賢行。賢行之人，宜見吉物，無為乃見殺人之蛇。豈叔敖未見蛇之時有惡，天欲殺之，見其埋蛇，除其過，天活之哉？石生而堅，蘭生而香。如謂叔敖之賢在埋蛇之時，非生而稟之也。
His mother said, "I have heard that Heaven surely repays the one who has hidden virtue. You will surely not die, and Heaven will surely repay you." Shu'ao in the end did not die, and became prime minister of Chu. He buried one snake and won two helps, so Heaven's repaying of good is plain.
I answer: these are empty words. Now that one who sees a two-headed snake dies at once is the talk of the common world, and that Heaven repays with fortune the one who has hidden virtue is the opinion of the common world. Shu'ao believed the common talk and buried the snake, and his mother believed the common opinion and was sure of repayment. This is to say that dying and living have no destiny, but hang on the death of one snake. Tian Wen, the Lord Mengchang of Qi, was born on the fifth day of the fifth month, and his father Tian Ying rebuked his mother, saying, "Why did you raise him?" She said, "Why is it that my lord does not raise a child of the fifth month?" Ying said, "A child of the fifth month, when he grows as tall as the door, kills his father and mother." She said, "Is a man's destiny in Heaven, or in the door? If it is in Heaven, what has my lord to worry about? If it is in the door, then he need only make the door higher. Who then could reach it?" Later Wen grew as tall as the door, and Ying did not die. This shows that the taboo on raising a child in the fifth month has no proof. Now to shrink from seeing a two-headed snake is like raising a child in the fifth month. If a child is raised in the fifth month and his father does not die, then it can be known that no calamity comes to one who sees a two-headed snake. Speaking from this, one who sees a two-headed snake does not die of himself, and it is not because of burying it. If burying one snake won two blessings, how many helps would burying ten snakes get? He buried the snake because he hated that others should see it again, and so Shu'ao was a worthy man. How could the conduct of a worthy man be only this one matter of burying a snake? Before the time he buried the snake he had done much. He received a good nature from Heaven, and where he moved there was worthy conduct. A man of worthy conduct ought to see auspicious things, and there was no cause for him to see a snake that kills men. Was there evil in Shu'ao before he saw the snake, so that Heaven wished to kill him, and then, seeing him bury the snake, took away his fault and let him live? Stone is born hard, and the orchid is born fragrant. If the worth of Shu'ao is said to lie in the time when he buried the snake, then it was not received at birth.
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。
Dong Wuxin, a follower of the Confucian school, and Chanzi, a servant of the Mohist school, met and discussed the Way. Chanzi declared that the Mohists uphold ghosts and spirits, and drew on how Duke Mu of Qin had bright virtue and the Lord on High granted him nineteen years. Dongzi countered with this: that Yao and Shun were granted no years, and that Jie and Zhou did not die young.
堯、舜、桀、紂猶為尚遠，且近難以秦穆公、晉文公。夫謚者行之跡也，跡生時行以為死謚。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。
Yao, Shun, Jie and Zhou are still far off; let the countering be done nearer, with Duke Mu of Qin and Duke Wen of Jin. Now a posthumous name is the trace of conduct: the conduct of the time when he lived is taken as the trace, and made the posthumous name after death. Mu (穆) is a name for error and disorder, and Wen (文) is the mark of virtue and kindness. Where there is conduct of error and disorder, does Heaven grant years; and where there is a bearing of virtue and kindness, does Heaven take away the destined span? Look at it: the hegemony of Duke Mu did not surpass Duke Wen of Jin, and the posthumous name of Duke Wen of Jin is finer than Duke Mu's. If Heaven added no destined span to Duke Wen of Jin, and granted years to Duke Mu alone, then this is Heaven repaying error and disorder, which is of a piece with the posthumous name "Duke Mu".
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？
In all the world good men are few and evil men are many. Good men follow the Way, and evil men go against Heaven. Yet the destined span of evil men is not short, and the years of good men are not long. Heaven does not ordain that good men shall always enjoy a life of a hundred years, and that evil men shall die as children or die badly. Why is this?