--- title: "Taishang Ganying Pian 太上感應篇 – Vol. 14 | Daozang" url: "https://daozang.app/en/text/KR5f0001/juan/14/" canonical: "https://daozang.app/en/text/KR5f0001/juan/14/" lang: "en" source: "Kanripo 漢籍リポジトリ（京都大学）" license: "CC BY-SA 4.0" --- # 《太上感應篇》Vol. 14 Taiqing 太清部 · Vol. 14 / 30 · 3,064 characters ## Vol. 14 / 30 太上感應篇卷之十四廉三 李昌齡傳鄭清之賛竊人之能 傳曰碧陵迦婆蹉過河忽聞蓮香河神責 之曰尊者爲阿羅漢何故偷我香蹉曰香 自至鼻何名爲偷竊甞三復斯言大有深 旨大抵香塵自如以我鼻根起諸齅識分 别曰香按如佛法即名爲偷當知𥨸人之 能以爲已能真爲偷也昔髙齡晚而祭酒 道氣不交靈助無主是以羣邪纒互急行 其禍保命真君謂許長史曰髙齡之無德 也久矣鬼訟之紛錯也積矣又甞鑿敗古 人碑銘以爲已文水官譴其蔽善以自操 隂賊於鬼神特列于訟事之首以告其罪 必不免矣末幾果卒然則他人之能是可 竊乎不聞石曼卿之事乎曼卿死後數年 夢其友關詠曰吾平生作詩多矣自以陽 平代意一篇詞意深美最爲得意然世人 空有稱之能令此詩盛傳於世在永言耳 詠覺頭爲増演其詞隱度人迷仙引使人 歌之他日復夢曼卿來謝嗚呼詩不得彰 尚以爲請况竊一以爲己能者乎 賛曰 見賢思齊見聖克由萬善備足 在人反求思不如舜以爲巳憂 安有羊質傳以貔貅欺人自欺 亦孔之羞蔽人之善 傳曰自古以來技而知名後世者未有不 因於人如滕王元嬰之工蛺蝶公孫大娘 之舞劒曹剛之琵琶米嘉榮之歌但以主 建宫詞及唐賢詩句偶及之耳所謂善者 **Interpretation** This scripture uses several parables to warn against appropriating others' talents. It first recounts how the ascetic Bilongajiaposuo, while crossing a river, smelled lotus blossoms. The river deity accused him of stealing the fragrance. The ascetic argued that the scent came naturally—how could this be theft? Yet according to Buddhist dharma, such possessive desire constitutes stealing. Next, it describes the misdeeds of Gao Ling, an official: in his later years as Sacrificial Wine (a ritual officiant), his virtue deteriorated, and he plagiarized ancient stele inscriptions, passing them off as his own. The Water Official (a water deity) recorded his transgressions, and he soon died. Another account tells how Shi Manqing, after death, appeared in a dream to his friend Guan Yong, lamenting that his most cherished poem remained unknown and requesting its dissemination. Upon waking, Guan promoted the verse widely. Zheng Qingzhi's concluding praise states: When seeing the virtuous, aspire to emulate them; when encountering sages, seek to follow their example. If one's own abilities prove inadequate, introspection is required. Like "a sheep clad in tiger skin" (a metaphor for false pretenses), such deception ultimately brings self-inflicted disgrace. Regarding "obscuring others' goodness," the text cites historical figures whose talents became known through others' records: Prince Teng Li Yuanying's butterfly paintings, Gongsun Daniang's sword dances, Cao Gang's pipa mastery, and Mi Jiarong's captivating songs—all preserved because literati immortalized their skills in poetry. The core teaching is twofold: neither covet others' talents as your own, nor suppress their virtuous deeds. True cultivation means admiring excellence while honestly confronting one's limitations. 但凡稍有所長皆爲善也使不得彰即蔽 之也不聞許君晉公之事乎昔許真君在 世日嘗修一觀欲記其事偶得一片古碑 文巳磨滅因剗去舊文勒其新記自是即 恍惚不安一日徐步庭際忽聞空中有聲 曰許君許君速詣水官求救不然恐有不 測之舋許愕然炷香䖍祝願聞求救之由 良久復聞曰所剗舊碑雖巳磨滅而當時 作文之人見詣水官訴君奪彼之名顯君 之名由是水官將有執對之命冝早圖之 許君於是訪㝷舊文别爲立石刻之是夕 復夢一神謝曰蒙君再顯吾名無以相報 請作水陸大醮普告萬靈庶得三官舉名 可以證道許君如戒修之後果得道蔡州 旣平憲宗命道士至境設醮於紫極宫宫 本呉少誠生祠裴晉公廢以爲宫設醮之 日霹靂大震韓公所作平准西碑其石本 少誠德政舊碑是日流汗成泥旬餘即有 中使至磨去韓公平淮之作復刻少誠德 政之文蓋上於夢中了有所見也嗚呼文 字尚爾况其善又甚於文字者乎 賛曰 蔽賢之罪是謂不祥原其初心 忌人所長玉在木潤珠生夜光 物有良貴猶難掩藏嫉能壅善 欲蓋而章形人之醜 傳曰醜也者乃妍醜之醜也形也者形容 之形也如聶崇儀之好嘲章齊一之喜謗 是也崇儀能詩好嘲雖僚友亦所不問竟 **Interpretation** This passage recounts a cautionary tale about how obscuring others' virtuous deeds invites misfortune. When Xu Zhenjun (one of Daoism's Four Great Celestial Masters) was constructing a temple, he discovered an ancient stele with faded inscriptions. He ground away the old text to carve new content. That very day, a voice from the heavens warned him that the original author had petitioned the Water Official (one of Daoism's Three Officials who govern aquatic domains) to accuse him of erasing predecessors' merits. Xu Zhenjun urgently retrieved the original inscription and re-engraved the stele. That night, he dreamed of a deity expressing gratitude. Later, after suppressing a rebellion in Caizhou, Emperor Xianzong of Tang ordered a grand Zhaijiao (Daoist purification ritual) at Ziji Palace—originally the converted shrine of rebel leader Wu Shaocheng. During the ritual, thunder roared because Han Yu's commemorative stele about quelling the rebellion had been carved over Wu Shaocheng's former "Virtuous Governance Stele." The inscription became corroded by sweat-like liquid. Soon, imperial envoys erased Han Yu's text and re-engraved Wu's original content. The author reflects: If even stone inscriptions cannot be arbitrarily erased, how much more so for virtuous deeds that transcend written words? The passage employs metaphors—"Jade moistens wood, pearls glow at night"—to illustrate how true virtue, like precious jade and pearls, cannot be concealed. Those who envy others' merits and obscure good deeds, like mockers Nie Chongyi and Zhang Qiyi, ultimately bring shame upon themselves. At its core, this exemplifies Daoism's karmic principle of "virtue begets rewards," emphasizing that obscuring others' merits invites divine retribution. The "Three Officials" (Tian Guan, Di Guan, Shui Guan) mentioned are key Daoist deities who regularly assess human conduct, overseeing celestial records of merits and faults. 坐謗政竄死登州藁𦵏道傍無不罵者章 齊一能詩好嘲人有醜行必形于詩由是 盛傳不復可掩其間不無溢惡甚至破人 婚姻隔人眷屬竟以此故晚得惡疾嚼舌 而卒然則人之有醜是可形乎惜其不聞 黄坑之事聞必戒也武弁有叚遘者甞過 黄坑從者於馬前拾取數片髑髏中有一 片其上隱隱有逃走奴字蓋黥蹤入骨也 是夕從者即夢一人以手障面從而索骨 且曰我羞甚切急爲我深藏無令人見我 當有以報君從者驚覺立爲瘗之他日再 過黄坑復夢前索骨者告曰曏感君恩去 此數歩地下大有伏藏聊以爲謝如戒掘 之果獲財至十餘萬然則形人之醜安知 異日亦無其報戒哉 賛曰 羙如昭君圖畫故錯矧兹利口 遇於丹臒所謂形容巧於描摸 衆旣喧播終難洗濯以我片言 陷人大惡訐人之私 傳曰訐也者不但形容直訐之也如吕吉 甫輩是也曽子宣之爲司農卿也吕吉甫 代之遽乞令天下言司農未盡未便等事 張粹明之爲司農卿也舒亶代之盡納丞 簿言司農不了事件周師厚爲湖北提舉 有供給酒數十瓶託監鹽張商英賣之商 英以告察訪蒲宗孟宗孟劾奏其事師厚 坐此降官張商英爲館職囑舉子於判監 舒亶亶繳奏其簡商英亦坐此奪官夫豈 不知子貢所謂惡訐爲直之說乎厚德之 **Interpretation** The text recounts several karmic retribution stories warning against exposing others' private matters and shames. Qi Yi, a skilled poet who enjoyed satirizing people's scandals in verse, developed a strange illness in old age and died biting off his own tongue. This demonstrates how exposing others' shames invites retribution. When military officer Duan Gou passed Huangkeng (an ancient burial ground for paupers), his attendant found several skull fragments, one bearing the inscription "escaped slave" (referring to the ancient punishment of facial tattooing for fugitives). That night, the attendant dreamed of a face-covering figure demanding the bones back, saying they were ashamed to be seen. After reburying them, the spirit guided him to unearth over 100,000 coins as reward. This shows even exposing the dead's humiliation brings consequences. The commentator observes: Just as the painter deliberately uglified Wang Zhaojun's portrait, verbally exposing private matters is like painting shame with pigments (danqing) - once circulated, it becomes indelible. Such "exposing faults" may appear righteous but constitutes grave malice. The text concludes with cases like Lü Jifu and Shu Dan who, upon assuming office, deliberately compiled their predecessors' faults for impeachment, causing multiple demotions. The author asks: Did they not know Zigong's teaching - "To detest those who expose others while considering themselves upright"? (Notes: "Huangkeng" was a paupers' graveyard; "qingzong" refers to facial tattooing punishment; "danhuo" means painting pigments; "Sinong Qing" was the ancient grain administration official title.) 士其肯然乎韓魏公𤦺爲相毎見文字有 攻人隱惡處必手自封記不令人見陳忠 肅瓘在言路知無不言然彈擊不以細故 未甞及人之私蘇丞相頌在杭州日有要 人以私事囑公公不聽其人後當言路乃 懷忿極口詆公或勸公上其曩日請託書 札公笑曰訐人之私吾豈爲之胡公宿知 洞州前守滕公大興學校費錢數千萬未 訖罷去羣小斐然興謗皆以滕公費錢不 明自通判以下皆不肯書其簿公於坐中 折之曰諸君佐滕侯幾時矣假有不臧奚 不早告隂拱以觀俟其去乃書字之豈羙 事乎一坐大慚乃書為人至其於厚涼薄 其相距便萬萬逺矣 賛曰 訐異於直聖人惡之謂其隂嶮 乗機抵𡾟指天信誓握手笑嬉 利害小及反眼相持匪兕匪虎 彼何人斯耗人貨財 傳曰耗人貨財使之門户彫零子孫狼狽 爲彼人者其爲罪也豈爲小哉文竒之事 便可見也文竒以燒煉游于兩蜀諸貴之 門凡留意於爐火者無不爲其所欺冨商 有李十五郎者積貨累萬惑竒之術三年 之間掃地殆盡爲識者所笑遂至自經竒 乃捨去復於劒州僦一屋於中煆藥無何 火發延燒一坊竒倉皇走避迷入林中遽 爲鷙獸所逐旣而深入溪谷復爲鷙獸所 隨俄頃天明巳爲捕者所獲獄具斬于燒 藥之所以謝居民然則他人貨財是可耗 **Interpretation** This passage recounts how several ancient officials handled matters of personal privacy and property, embodying the Daoist concept of karmic retribution for good and evil deeds. When Han Qi (Duke of Wei of Han) served as prime minister, he would personally seal any documents exposing others' private affairs to prevent their disclosure. Though Chen Guan (Chen Zhongsui) as a remonstrance official spoke frankly on all matters of governance, he never impeached colleagues over trivial matters nor involved himself in personal scandals. During Su Song's tenure as magistrate of Hangzhou, someone whose private request he had denied later became a remonstrance official and maliciously slandered him. When advised to produce evidence of the man's earlier improper request, Su Song smiled and said, "How could I ever expose another's private affairs?" As prefect of Dongzhou, Hu Su encountered a situation where his predecessor Teng had invested heavily in establishing schools but left office before completion. Petty men seized this opportunity to slander Teng's accounts, with even deputy officials refusing to certify their validity. Hu Su confronted them: "Having assisted Teng for so long, why didn't you voice concerns earlier? Only after his departure do you make accusations—is this righteous conduct?" The ashamed officials then signed the certification. The narrative concludes with the cautionary tale of Wen Qi, who exploited alchemical pretenses to swindle the wealthy merchant Li Shiwulang out of his entire fortune in Sichuan. Later in Jianzhou, Wen Qi's rented premises for alchemical experiments caught fire; while fleeing, he was chased by wild beasts and ultimately captured and executed. The author illustrates how harming others' property—far from being trivial—inevitably brings retribution. The commentary observes: Those who expose private matters appear righteous but harbor malice—all smiles and handshakes until conflicts arise. As for those who impoverish families and bring calamity upon descendants by appropriating wealth, is their offense not grave? Wen Qi's fate stands as clear testament. 乎他人貨財不可耗已之貨財亦可耗乎 請爲更舉一事庶幾爲子弟者皆知所戒 王祖德紹興乙丑死于秦州一日其妻與 其子暮坐堂中恍見祖德從外歸責曰吾 聞家中巳議賣宅宅乃祖業安可輙以又 曰吾平生所寳黄筌郭熈山水李成寒杖 凡十軸聞亦持出令人議價吾下世未幾 家不至貧何至如是吾思家甚切無計可 歸幸值中元得暫歸耳若不速改吾將禍 汝其妻大懼不復議賣以此觀之他財我 財皆不可耗 賛曰 女魃致貧窮鬼疾富爲妖爲孽 理不可究人性至貴族親黨友 亦獨何心妬人所有公劉好貨 惟民之厚離人骨肉 傳曰骨肉者血屬也此皆人之大倫何可 離間不聞張嵩山之事乎昔張孝基爲同 郡一富人婿冨人止有一子偶有微過家 人共嫉因逐出之未幾冨人病臨死盡以 家財付孝基後數年孝基見冨人之子乞 丐于路因召問曰能灌園乎曰如得就養 幸甚旣而有餘復召問曰能管庫乎曰得 灌園已自幸得管庫尤厚幸也於是使之 管庫久而其子益馴謹無復故熊孝基念 言彼實父子我其可但利其財使此一段 羙事因循蹉過乎於是盡舉家財還之時 人莫不稱嘆以爲古所未有孝基死後其 友數人因遊嵩山道逢一貴人旌旗滿野 騶御聮翩如守土大臣新上任狀竊視專 **Interpretation** Concerning wealth and possessions, one should never squander them carelessly, whether they belong to others or oneself. Here is another story to serve as a warning to the young. During the Shaoxing era of the Southern Song Dynasty, a man named Wang Zude died in Qinzhou. One evening, his wife and son were sitting in the main hall when they suddenly saw Wang Zude’s spirit return from outside. He scolded them, saying, "I heard the family plans to sell the ancestral home? This house is the foundation passed down by our ancestors—how can you casually dispose of it?" He also said, "I’ve heard that the ten paintings I treasured in life—landscapes by Huang Quan (a Five Dynasties painter) and Guo Xi (a Northern Song painter), as well as Li Cheng’s (a Northern Song painter) wintry forest scenes—are also being appraised for sale. I have only just passed away, and the family is not yet in such dire straits that we must resort to this. Why act so hastily? I miss home terribly and could only return briefly during the Zhongyuan Festival (the Daoist Day of Pardon by the Earth Official). If you do not correct this quickly, I will bring misfortune upon you!" Terrified, his wife never dared mention selling anything again. This shows that one must not waste possessions, whether they belong to others or oneself. Here is another story about Zhang Xiaoji. He became the son-in-law of a wealthy man from his hometown. The rich man had only one son, who was driven out of the family for a minor fault. On his deathbed, the wealthy man entrusted all his property to Zhang Xiaoji. Years later, Zhang encountered the man’s son, now reduced to begging on the streets. Zhang first put him in charge of the vegetable garden, and when he proved diligent, promoted him to oversee the warehouse. Eventually, Zhang thought, "After all, they are father and son by blood—how can I covet this wealth and keep them apart?" So he returned all the property to the son. People at the time praised this as an act of righteousness unparalleled in history. After Zhang Xiaoji’s death, several friends traveling on Mount Song saw a grand procession of officials. Upon closer inspection, they realized it was Zhang Xiaoji—he had become a deity due to his accumulated virtue. This story teaches us: disrupting family bonds invites divine retribution, while upholding human relationships brings blessings. Just as the ancient Duke Liu (ancestor of the Zhou clan) cherished the people’s wealth and thus won their devotion, family ties are the most sacred bonds—how can they be carelessly severed? 車者乃孝基也相與前揖請問所以𦤺此 之由孝基曰即還財事也語脉未終忽已 不見噫嘻爲人婿而如孝基者世間有㡬 人耶他人處此能如是耶昔杭州有一士 子亦爲冨人婿冨人病且死念其子方三 歳乃命其婿主其貲作遺書付之曰他日 分財以十之三與子七與婿及其子長成 乃訴于官時張忠定爲郡守閱遺書以酒 酹地曰汝之婦翁真智人也爲其子幼故 作此計使汝勤加撫育耳苟或不然其子 不免死於汝手乃命以七與子以三與婿 二皆泣謝而去嗚呼以此婿而望嵩山則 嵩山脚踏實處固已逺在天上安得不爲 神仙以此婿而求之他則此婿一折而伏 尚爲知義豈不愈於狼戾不情不足倚伏 者乎其望嵩山尤天逺矣 賛曰 古有太宗輯正昭穆姫典之訓 亦聮宗族後世義聚重其親睦 聖如 **Interpretation** This passage recounts two contrasting stories about sons-in-law, illustrating the Daoist principle of karmic retribution from the *Taishang Ganying Pian* (Treatise of the Exalted One on Response and Retribution). The first tells of Xiaoji, a paragon of filial virtue. When someone bowed and asked how he maintained such moral excellence, Xiaoji began explaining his act of returning inherited property—only to vanish mid-sentence. Alas, how rare are sons-in-law of such virtue! Could others act likewise in similar circumstances? The second story concerns a Hangzhou scholar who married into wealth. On his deathbed, the father—mindful of his three-year-old son—bequeathed 70% of the estate to the son-in-law and 30% to the child. When disputes arose years later, Magistrate Zhang Yong (a famed Song official) poured libations and declared: "Your father-in-law was wise! By giving you more, he ensured you'd nurture the boy. Had he divided it equally, the child would have perished by your hand." The court reversed the shares to 70% for the son and 30% for the son-in-law, leaving both in tears of gratitude. The contrast is striking: Xiaoji's virtue towers like sacred Mount Song, worthy of immortality (xian), while the Hangzhou scholar—though better than outright villains—pales in comparison like earth beneath heaven. The conclusion cites historical parallels: Emperor Taizong of Tang compiled clan genealogies, and the Duke of Zhou established kinship rites. Yet even this sage suffered slander from his brothers Guan and Cai—a venomous sting reminding us that while slander may temporarily harm the virtuous, cosmic justice (tianli) ultimately prevails. (Through these paired narratives, the text expounds the *Taishang Ganying Pian*'s core tenet: celestial retribution for good and evil deeds. It extols Xiaoji's righteousness over profit while acknowledging that even sages face calumny—yet Heaven's justice shines forth in the end.) 周公間于二叔長舌諞言 慘彼螫毒太上感應篇卷之十四 --- 原文底本：Kanripo 漢籍リポジトリ（京都大学），CC BY-SA 4.0。 Source text: Kanripo Chinese Classics Repository (Kyoto University), CC BY-SA 4.0. HTML version: https://daozang.app/en/text/KR5f0001/juan/14/