而陶淵明這首詩完全是用《伯夷列傳》裏邊的話，它所要表達的也正是與司馬遷相同的感慨。所以他說「積善云有報，夷叔在西山」，接下來一轉，他又說「善惡苟不應，何事立空言」。「苟」是假如的意思。他說雖說「積善云有報」，但事實上，「積仁潔行」者被餓死，「日殺不辜，肝人之肉」者卻享盡天年，這些足以說明善惡有報的說法是靠不住的。
可是假如善惡真的是沒有報應的話，那麼古人古書裏又「何事空立言」，為什麼明知善惡沒有報應，卻還要用這「積善之家必有餘慶，……」，「天道無親，常與善人」的「空言」來勉勵我們為善呢！古人先賢所說的那些勸人為善的話，豈不都是言之不實的空談嗎？本來如果司馬遷的文章停止在剛才的那句話，「倘所謂天道，是邪？非邪？」；如果陶淵明的詩也停在這句「善惡苟不應，何事空立言」處，那好了，大家什麼惡都可以去做了。可是司馬遷的文章並沒有停止在那裏，陶淵明的詩歌也沒有停止在這一句，他們下面將要說的是什麼呢？
司馬遷在問完了「倘所謂天道，是耶？非耶？」之後，緊接著就自己給自己一個回答：天道雖然是不可知的，可是人道卻是你可以去持守的。天道是否能夠給你一個善惡相應的回報，你也許不知道，當然佛教對此是有明確解釋的。佛教說「欲知今生事，前世做者是；欲知來世事，今生做者是。」現在的一切都是你前生做事的結果的報應，這是佛家對天道報應問題的回答。因為佛教是相信前生與來世的，所以他認為報應的顯現並不局限在一生一世之中。可是儒家對於沒有看到的前生與來世是不隨便妄談的。所以儒家說天道雖然不可知，可是人道總是可以持守的。所以司馬遷在問完了「天道」、「是耶？非耶？」之後就引了儒家聖人孔子的話：「道不同不相為謀，亦各從其志也。」孔子這句話是在教育他的學生時說的，孔子的意思是說，你們各自所走的路，所行的「道」是不一樣的，因此是不能互相商量的。他要走這條路，你要走那條路。既然你們各自選擇的目標，途徑不同，當然就沒必要相互協商了，只好「各從其志也」，每個人各自按照你自己的心意，自己的理想願望去實行好了。
引了孔子這段之後，司馬遷繼續說：「舉世混濁，清士乃見，豈不以其重若彼，其輕若此哉！」舉世就是「全世界」，他說當整個世界的人都是混濁，大家都為非作惡，貪贓枉法的時候，那其中的一個清白高潔，不肯做同流合污的事情的人，才會因其與眾不同而被大家所認識。那為什麼很多人都去走這條混濁的道路，而有的清士不肯走這條混濁的道路，而要自行選擇一條清白之路呢？是「道不同，不相為謀」，是因為他們「其重若彼，其輕若此」的緣故。也就是說那些「清士」們所看重的，所認為最首要的，是「彼」，是那，品德的美好與高潔；他們所看輕的，是「若此」，是像這些諸如眼前的富貴榮華，功名利祿之類的事情。這就正是因為每個人的「道」不同所產生的分歧所在。
伯夷、叔齊餓死了，在一般人看來，他真的是很傻，是一種沒有得到善報的結果，所以有人間孔子說，伯夷、叔齊餓死在西山上，他們有沒有怨恨與不滿呢？孔子回答說：「求仁得仁，又何怨乎？」伯夷、叔齊他們二人所追求，所看重的是品德的完美，而最終他們果然得保持住了自己的美好品德，沒有因為飢餓就放棄自己所追求的「仁」。他們最終實現了自己的追求，得到了他們想要得到的東西，那麼他們怎麼會有怨恨呢！
待續
|
|
This poem of Tao Yuanming is based completely upon Sima Qian's "A Biographical Sketch of Boyi," and it expresses the same lamentation that Sima Qian voiced. Therefore, the lines "It is said that accumulated good brings a reward, / Yet there were Yi and Shu in the western mountains" are followed by: "If good and evil are of no consequence, / Why bother to utter hollow maxims? " Though it's said that good is rewarded, humane and incorruptible men starved to death, and a man who murdered innocent people and feasted on their flesh lived out his natural years. These stories seem to discount the theory that good and evil deeds reap corresponding consequences.
However, if there really are no consequences for good and evil, then why was this discussed by the ancients and "how did our ancient maxims come to be? " If the ancients obviously knew that there were no consequences for good or evil deeds, why did they use such maxims as "A family that does many good deeds will have blessings to spare" and "Heaven shows no partiality, yet always aids the virtuous " to encourage us to be good? Aren't those sayings by ancient worthies and sages urging us to be good nothing but hollow words?
Now, if Sima Qian had ended his article with the line "If that is divine justice, is it reliable or not?" and Tao Yuanming had stopped with, "If good and evil are of no consequence, / Why bother to utter hollow maxims? " then, we could all go ahead and do bad things. In fact, Sima Qian did not end his article thus, nor Tao Yuanming end his poem there. What were they going to say next?
Right after asking the question "If that is divine justice, is it reliable or not? " Sima Qian answered himself, saying, "Although divine justice is uncertain, one can still uphold human justice." You may not know whether divine justice will ensure a corresponding retribution for good and evil deeds. Buddhism, of course, has a clear explanation of this issue: "If you want to know what you will experience in this life, it will depend on what you did in previous lives. If you want to know what you will experience in future lives, it depends on what you do in this life." This is the Buddhist answer, because Buddhists believe in previous and future lives and thus retributions need not occur in a single lifetime.
However, Confucianists don't acknowledge the idea of previous and future lives. They think that although divine justice is uncertain, one can still uphold human justice. That is why, after asking the question, "If that is divine justice, is it reliable or not? " Sima Qian quoted Confucius, the Great Sage, who said, "Since the paths you choose are different, you need not consult with one another. Simply follow your own resolution. " Confucius said this when teaching his students. He said, "Since you will take different paths, you don't have to discuss among yourselves." He wants to take that path, while you select this path. Since you choose different goals and paths, you don't really have to consult with each other; you should each 'simply follow your own resolution.' Each of you should pursue your own intentions and realize your own ideals and aspirations.
After quoting Confucius, Sima Qian continues: "When the whole world is corrupt, a righteous man can be recognized. Is it not because he esteems values other than the common ones? " When everyone in the world is doing evil, accepting bribes and twisting the laws, but there is only one pure and lofty individual who refuses to go along with the corruption, then that person can be recognized by others as being uncommon. Why do righteous individuals refuse to follow the others into defilement and corruption, but choose instead a clear and noble way to walk? The reason is, as Confucius said, "Since the paths you choose are different, you need not consult with one another. " It is because such individuals "esteem values other than the common ones." Those righteous individuals esteem "other values"—those of fine character and pure virtue. They look down upon the things that common people value, such as wealth, honor, fame, and prosperity. This separation occurs because each person's chosen path is different.
Most people would regard Boyi and Shuqi as being pretty foolish for choosing to starve to death. They would consider their case to be one of not receiving a good retribution. Someone once asked Confucius, "Didn't Boyi and Shuqi feel wronged for starving to death in the western mountains?" Confucius answered, "They pursued the perfection of humaneness, and they achieved it. Why should they feel wronged?" What Boyi and Shuqi pursued and valued was a perfect virtue. And in the end, they were able to maintain perfect virtue and not give up the humaneness they strove for in the face of starvation. They ultimately realized their goal, so how could they harbor any enmity?
To be continued
|
