Wenkong — Questioning Confucius問孔篇

The Confucian scholars of the age love to trust their teacher and to hold the old to be right. They take it that nothing the worthies and sages said was ever wrong, and they give themselves wholly to expounding and practicing it, but they do not know how to press a question. Now when worthies and sages set brush to paper and make writings, their use of thought is detailed and searching, and even so it cannot be said that they got the whole truth of things; how much less can words spat out on the spur of the moment all be right? They could not all be right, yet the men of that time did not know how to press them; and where they were right, the meaning lay sunk and hard to see, yet the men of that time did not know how to ask. Consider the words of the worthies and sages: what comes above and what comes below often go against each other, and in their writings what comes before and what comes after often strike at each other. The scholars of the age are unable to know it.

Those who discuss it all say: "The followers of Confucius' school, the talent of the seventy disciples, surpassed the Confucians of today." These words are wild. They see that Confucius was the teacher and that a sage handed down the Way, and they suppose he must have given it to men of rare talent, and so they call them extraordinary. Now the talent of the ancients is the talent of the men of today. What today is called a hero, the ancients took for a sage and a spirit, and so they say that the seventy disciples are rare in all the ages. Let there be a teacher like Confucius today, and the scholars of this age would all be of the sort of Yan Yuan and Min Ziqian; let there have been no Confucius, and the followers among the seventy disciples would be the Confucian scholars of today. How is this proved? By their studying under Confucius and not being able to question him to the end. The words of a sage cannot be explained in full. When he speaks of the Way and sets out its meaning, it cannot all be made plain at once. What cannot be made plain at once ought to be asked about and drawn out; what cannot be explained in full ought to be pressed and carried through. Gao Yao set out the Way before Emperor Shun, and it was shallow and brief and did not go to the end. Yu asked and pressed him, and the shallow words grew deep again, and the brief pointing was divided out again. When pressing questions are raised, the saying is stirred and becomes deep and keen, it is struck and becomes clear and bright.

Confucius laughed at Ziyou's strings and singing, and Ziyou drew on what Confucius had said before and stood up to him. Now if we look at the text of the Analects, many of Confucius' sayings are like those words that laughed at the strings and singing, and few among the disciples are like Ziyou's pressing; and so Confucius' sayings were left knotted and never untied. Because the seventy disciples could not press him, the Confucian scholars of the age cannot truly tell right from wrong.

Now the method of learning and asking is not a want of talent, but the difficulty of standing up to one's teacher: it is to test the Way and make its meaning true, and to prove and settle what is right and what is wrong. The way of pressing questions does not require that one face the sage and live in his time. Those who explain and expound to men in the world do not wait to be taught and told by a sage before they dare to speak. If there is truly a question one cannot make out, what harm is done to the meaning by following after Confucius and pressing him? If one truly has the knowledge that carries on a sage's work, what is against reason in striking at Confucius' sayings? When a man asks about Confucius' words and presses the writings that were never untied, the men of broad talent and great knowledge in the world, those able to answer questions and untie what is pressed, will surely hold the pressing words of our age to be worthy.

Meng Yizi asked about filial conduct. Confucius said: "Do not go against it." Fan Chi was driving, and Confucius told him: "Mengsun asked me about filial conduct, and I answered him, 'Do not go against it.'"

Fan Chi said: "What does that mean?" Confucius said: "While they live, serve them by the rites; when they die, bury them by the rites." I ask: Confucius said not to go against, and what is not to be gone against is the rites. But a filial son ought also to know his parent's mind before it is spoken and to carry out his will, and ought not to go against what his parent wishes. Confucius said not to go against; he did not say not to go against the rites. When Yizi heard Confucius' words, would he alone not have taken it to mean not going against his parent's will? Fan Chi asked what it meant, and only then did Confucius say, "While they live, serve them by the rites; when they die, bury them by the rites and sacrifice to them by the rites."

Had Fan Chi not asked, the saying "do not go against" could never have been known. Yizi's talent did not go beyond Fan Chi's, and so his words and deeds do not appear in the chapters of the Analects. Fan Chi did not understand; could Yizi be sure to understand?

Meng Wubo asked about filial conduct, and Confucius said: "For father and mother, be anxious only about their illness." Wubo was good at being anxious for his parents, and so Confucius said, "Be anxious only about their illness." Wubo was anxious for his parents; Yizi went against the rites. If it was their shortcomings that he struck at, then, having answered Wubo with "For father and mother, be anxious only about their illness," in facing Yizi he ought likewise to have said that to make a trouble of the calamities of water and fire is to go against the rites. The Duke of Zhou told those of small talent in detail and those of great talent in brief. Ziyou was of great talent, and Confucius told him in detail; Yizi was of small talent, and he told him, on the contrary, in brief. He went against the Duke of Zhou's intent and struck at Yizi's shortcoming, and so lost what reason makes fitting. Why did no disciple press him? If it was that Yizi's power and rank were high and Confucius did not dare speak to the end, then in answering Wubo too he ought to have said no more than "do not be anxious." They were both sons of the Meng house, and their power and rank were evenly the same; yet he was detailed with Wubo and brief with Yizi, and I do not understand the reason. Had Confucius told Yizi to the end not to go against the rites, what harm would there have been? None monopolized Lu more than the Ji clan, yet he blamed their dance of eight rows in the courtyard and pierced their journey sacrifice on Mount Tai; he did not fear the harm of not hiding the Ji clan's enlarging of their towns, and yet he alone feared the crime of speaking to the end to Yizi. Why? Moreover, those who asked about filial conduct were not one man, and all of them had drivers; it was because what he said to Yizi was only not submitted to in the heart and not assented to in the breast that he told Fan Chi.

Confucius said: "Wealth and honor are what men desire; but if they are got not by the Way, he does not dwell in them. Poverty and lowliness are what men hate; but if they are got not by the Way, he does not leave them." These words mean that a man ought to get by the Way and rightness and ought not to take by any shift, and that he ought to keep his integrity and be at ease in poverty and ought not to leave it wildly.

Now to say that if wealth and honor are got not by the Way one does not dwell in them is allowable; but what is it to get poverty and lowliness not by the Way?

Wealth and honor can indeed be left; but if one leaves poverty and lowliness, where does one go? To leave poverty and lowliness is to get wealth and honor. If one does not get wealth and honor, one does not leave poverty and lowliness. If he means that when wealth and honor are got not by the Way one does not leave poverty and lowliness, then what is got is wealth and honor, and it is not poverty and lowliness that is got. For what reason should one say that poverty and lowliness are got? Rather one ought to say: poverty and lowliness are what men hate; but if they are left not by the Way, he does not leave them. One ought to say "leave," and ought not to say "get." "Get" is applied to what is got. Now one leaves the thing; how can that be called getting? Only of wealth and honor may one say "get." Why? Because it is by getting wealth and honor that one leaves poverty and lowliness. Then what is it to leave poverty and lowliness by the Way? One cultivates oneself and walks in the Way, serves in office and gets rank and salary, wealth and honor; and getting rank and salary, wealth and honor, one leaves poverty and lowliness. And what is it to leave poverty and lowliness not by the Way? One is bitterly galled by poverty and lowliness and rises up to be a crooked robber, heaps up goods and money and seizes office and grade at will: this is what is not by the Way. The seventy disciples never asked, and the scholars of the age too do not know how to press. If the meaning of these words is not untied and the writing is not divided, then it is to say that Confucius could not bring words out; and if the meaning of these words is knotted and the writing too is not untied, then what Confucius showed men was not made wholly plain. The disciples did not ask, and the common world does not press. Why?

Confucius said: "Gongye Chang may be given a wife. Though he was in bonds, it was not his crime." And he gave him his daughter to wife.

I ask: When Confucius gave Gongye Chang a wife, on what did he see and go? Did he go on his being thirty and fit to be given a wife, or did he see that his conduct was worthy and that he was fit to be given a wife? If he went on his being thirty, it was not fitting to speak of his having been in bonds; and if he saw that his conduct was worthy, it was likewise not fitting to speak of his having been in bonds. Why? All who entered Confucius' gate had good conduct, and so they are spoken of as counted among his followers. If among the followers there was one without a wife, he simply gave him a wife, and there was nothing that needed to be said. If among the followers there were many without wives, and Gongye Chang was the more worthy and so was alone given a wife, then in speaking of him he ought to have set out his conduct, and it was not fitting to say that he had been in bonds. Why? In the world there are many who are forced to bear what is no fault of theirs, and they are not all worthy men. Ordinary men are wronged, and they are many and not one; if a man must be given a wife by Confucius because he was guiltless, then Confucius did not give a wife to the worthy but gave a wife to the wronged.

Consider how Confucius spoke of Gongye Chang: there are words about his being guiltless, but no writing about his conduct and ability. If he was in truth not worthy and Confucius gave him a wife, that was wrong; and if he was in truth worthy and Confucius' account of him was not complete, that too was wrong. Truly, had it been like his giving Nanrong a wife, of whom he said that when the state had the Way he would not be cast aside and when the state was without the Way he would escape punishment and death, then he would have spoken of him completely.

Confucius said to Zigong: "Which is the better, you or Hui?" He said: "How should Ci dare look as high as Hui? Hui hears one thing and knows ten; Ci hears one thing and knows two." Confucius said: "You do not come up to him. Neither you nor I come up to him."

This was to hold Yan Yuan worthy and to try Zigong with the question.

I ask: What Confucius taught was the rites and yielding. When Zilu said that a state is ordered by the rites, his words were not yielding, and Confucius held him wrong. If Zigong were in truth better than Yan Yuan and Confucius asked him, he would still have said "I do not come up to him"; and if he were in truth not up to him, he would likewise have said "I do not come up to him." This is not answering falsely and deceiving his teacher: words of rites and yielding ought to be humble and low. Now what did Confucius mean to get at by bringing out those words? If Confucius knew that Yan Yuan was better than Zigong, there was no need to ask Zigong. If Confucius in truth did not know and asked Zigong, then, Zigong being yielding and humble, he could not know from that either. If Confucius merely wished to set forth Yan Yuan's goodness, the praise that Yan Yuan was worthy and that none of the disciples came up to him is abundant in his fame; what need was there to ask Zigong? Confucius said: "Worthy indeed is Hui!" And he said: "I speak with Hui all day, and he never goes against me, as though he were a fool." And he said: "As for Hui, his heart for three months does not go against benevolence."

In all three passages he speaks straight out and does not stir him up by another man. When it comes to this one passage, he alone stirs him up by Zigong. Why?

Someone says: He wished to hold Zigong down. At that time Zigong's name rode above Yan Yuan's, and Confucius feared that Zigong's will would grow proud and his mind overflow, and so he held him down. Now his name being above Yan Yuan's was the doing of the men of that time; it was not that Zigong sought to overcome him. What in truth was Zigong's knowing? If Yan Yuan's talent were above his own, he would submit to it of himself, and there would be no need to hold him down. If Zigong could not know it of himself, then though Confucius spoke he would take it that Confucius merely wished to hold him down. Speaking from this, whether he asked or did not ask, he could neither hold down nor raise up.

Zai Wo slept by day. Confucius said: "Rotten wood cannot be carved; a wall of dung earth cannot be plastered. What am I to reproach in Yu?" This was hating Zai Yu's sleeping by day.

I ask: The evil of sleeping by day is a small evil; rotten wood and dung earth are things broken and ruined that cannot be made again, and that is a great evil. To reproach a small fault with a great evil, how can that make a man submit? If Zai Wo's nature was not good, like rotten wood and dung earth, it was not fitting that he should have got into Confucius' gate and been ranked in the list of the four studies. If his nature was good and Confucius hated him, then his hatred was far too much, and that is a fault; and when a man is not benevolent, to hate him too much is disorder. Confucius' hatred of Zai Yu may be called too much. If a man of the lowest folly falls into an offense punished by shaving, and the prison officer deals with him by the law of death, will he surely feel wronged and resent it, or will he submit and blame himself? If Zai Wo was a fool, then his mind was the same as that man's who fell into the shaving offense; and if Zai Wo was worthy, he knew how Confucius reproached men and would have mended himself at the first faint sign. To make the writing clear so that he marks it, and to let a word go abroad so that he is found at fault, is only to show him the thread by those words, and he mends himself. Mending oneself does not lie in the lightness or weight of the words; it lies in whether Zai Yu could change or not.

The meaning of the Chunqiu is to gather up goodness fine as a hair and to cut down evil small as a mote. To praise what is fine as a hair as though it were huge, and by what is huge to cut down what is small as a mote: look at the meaning of the Chunqiu, would it hold this right? If it is not right, then Zai Wo did not accept it; and if he did not accept it, then Confucius' words were thrown away. A sage's words and his writings match each other: the words come out of his mouth, the writing stands on the tablets, and both issue from the heart, and their substance is one. When Confucius made the Chunqiu he did not cut down the small with the great. In holding Zai Yu wrong, he hated the small with the great; his writing and his speech go against each other, and how is a man to be made to submit?

Confucius said: "At first, with men, I listened to their words and trusted their deeds. Now, with men, I listen to their words and watch their deeds. It is in Yu that I have changed this."

It was from Zai Yu's sleeping by day that he changed his art of knowing men.

I ask: How is a man's sleeping by day enough to ruin his conduct? And how is a man who ruins his conduct, by not lying down day or night, enough to make his goodness? If one watches a man's good and evil by his sleeping by day, can one get at the truth of him? Consider that Zai Yu was in Confucius' gate, ranked in the four studies, and listed above Ci. If his nature and feeling were idle and he could not be carved and polished, by what did he come to this? If Zai Wo came to this by sleeping by day, then his talent again went far beyond other men's. If he had not yet come through and thought himself already sufficient and could not know himself, then his knowing was not clear, and that is not evil conduct. One had only to instruct him plainly; there was no cause to change one's art. If he knew of himself that he was not yet sufficient and slept by day from utter weariness, then his spirit was spent. When the spirit is spent it comes to death; how should it be sleep alone?

Moreover, the method of judging men is this: take his deeds and you let go his words; take his words and you let go his deeds. Now Zai Yu, though he had no strength in deeds, had speech. Use his speech, and though his deeds are wanting, there is still the one thing. Now Confucius, from Zai Yu's sleeping by day, listens to a man's words and watches his deeds, and only when words and deeds answer each other does he call him worthy. This is Confucius taking men complete. Then where is the meaning of not requiring all things of one man to be applied?

Zizhang asked: "Ziwen, the chief minister, three times took office as chief minister with no look of joy, and three times was put out of it with no look of anger; and the government of the old chief minister he always told to the new chief minister. What of him?" Confucius said: "He was loyal." He said: "Was he benevolent?" He said: "I do not know. How should that be benevolent?" Ziwen once raised up Ziyu of Chu to take his own place, and Ziyu attacked Song and with a hundred chariots was beaten and lost his host; not to know a thing like this, how could that be benevolent? Such was his meaning.

I ask: Ziwen's raising up Ziyu was a failure to know men. Wisdom and benevolence have nothing to do with each other. Though one has a nature that does not know, what does it hinder in doing benevolent deeds? The way of the five constants is benevolence, rightness, the rites, wisdom, and good faith. The five are each apart, and they are not made by waiting upon each other. Therefore there are wise men and there are benevolent men, there are men of the rites and there are righteous men. A man of good faith is not surely wise, a wise man is not surely benevolent, a benevolent man is not surely a man of the rites, a man of the rites is not surely righteous. Though Ziwen's wisdom was blinded in the matter of Ziyu, what is ruined in his benevolence? If one calls him benevolent, how should it not be allowed? Moreover loyalty is thickness, and to be thick toward men is benevolence. Confucius said: "Look at a man's faults and you know his benevolence." Ziwen had the substance of benevolence. For Confucius to say that loyalty is not benevolence is to say that father and mother are not the two parents, and that a matched pair are not husband and wife.

Duke Ai asked: "Which of your disciples do you call a lover of learning?" Confucius answered: "There was one Yan Hui who did not shift his anger and did not repeat a fault. Unhappily his span was short and he died. Now there is none, and I have not heard of a lover of learning."

Now the reason Yan Yuan died, what in truth was it by? If it is taken that his span was short of itself, it is like Boniu's having a sickness. When men are born and receive their decree, all ought to be whole and clean. Now Boniu had an evil sickness, and so it was said that he had no decree. Men at birth ought all to receive from Heaven a long decree; now Yan Hui got a short decree, and so it too ought to be said that he had no decree. If the decree has short and long, then it has good and evil as well. If it is said that Yan Yuan's decree was short, then it ought to be said that Boniu's decree was evil; and if it is said that Boniu had no decree, then it ought to be said that Yan Yuan had no decree.

The one died and the other sickened, and over both he grieved and spoke of the decree. What they received was not different, yet his writing and his speech are not the same. I do not understand the reason.

Duke Ai asked Confucius who was a lover of learning. Confucius answered: "There was one Yan Hui who loved learning, and now there is none. He did not shift his anger and did not repeat a fault." Why? I answer: it was to strike at Duke Ai's nature along with it, because the duke shifted his anger and repeated his faults. He followed the duke's question and answered it, and at the same time struck at his lord's shortcoming without falling under his punishment.

I ask: Kangzi too asked about the love of learning, and Confucius too answered him with Yan Yuan. Kangzi too had shortcomings; why did he not answer so as to strike at Kangzi along with it? Kangzi was no sage, and there was still something amiss in his conduct. As a matter of record, Kangzi was troubled by robbers, and Confucius answered: "If only you yourself did not desire, they would not steal though you rewarded them for it." Speaking from this, Kangzi's shortcoming was desire. He did not strike at it. Why?

Confucius saw Nanzi, and Zilu was not pleased.

Confucius said: "If I have done what is base, may Heaven loathe me! May Heaven loathe me!" Nanzi was the wife of Duke Ling of Wei. She invited Confucius, and Zilu was not pleased and took Confucius to be loose and disorderly. Confucius untied it by saying: "If what I have done is base and mean, may Heaven loathe me and kill me." With utmost sincerity he swore for himself and did not fail Zilu.

I ask: Confucius untied it himself, but how could that untie anything? If a man of the world had base and mean conduct and Heaven had ever loathed and killed him, it could be cited in an oath, and Zilu, hearing it, could trust it and be untied. But there has never yet been one whom Heaven loathed; and when he says "may Heaven loathe me," would Zilu be willing to trust it? As things go, thunder strikes men dead, water and fire burn and drown men, walls and houses press men down and bury them. Had he said, "May thunder strike me dead, may water and fire burn and drown me, may walls and houses press me down and bury me," Zilu would have trusted him well enough. Now he cites a calamity that has never yet been and swears by it to Zilu; how would Zilu be willing to understand it and trust it? As things go, there are men who lie crushed in sleep and do not wake; shall we call this being loathed by Heaven? Consider that those who lie crushed in sleep and do not wake are not all base and mean. Though Zilu had entered the Way but shallowly, he still knew the truth of things. The thing was not true, and Confucius swore by it, and Zilu surely was not untied.

Confucius declared: "Death and life have their decree; wealth and honor lie with Heaven." If it is so, men's death and life have their own long and short and do not lie in the good or evil of their conduct. As a matter of record, Yan Yuan died early, and Confucius said that his span was short. From this we know that a man whose decree is short and who dies young must have had crooked conduct. Though Zilu had entered the Way but shallowly, he had heard Confucius' words and knew the truth of death and life.

Confucius swore, "If I have done what is base, may Heaven loathe me!" Yet to Zilu alone he could not say: the Master's decree is not yet due for death, so how could Heaven loathe and kill him? If so, swearing to Zilu by Heaven's loathing would in the end not be trusted; and not being trusted, Confucius' untying of it himself is in the end no untying. The Shangshu says: "Be not like the proud Danzhu, who loved only idle roaming." This is Emperor Shun charging Yu not to be partial to an unworthy son. He held Heaven's decree heavy and feared that Yu would be partial to his son, and so he cited Danzhu to charge and warn him. Yu said: "I took a wife, and on the days xin, ren, gui and jia, Qi was born and wailed and cried, and I did not treat him as my son."

He set out what he had already done, pushing from what was past to what was to come and seeing the hidden by what was shown, to prove that he did not dare be partial to an unworthy son. He did not say "may Heaven loathe me," because he knew that common men love to cite Heaven in their oaths. When Confucius was suspected by Zilu, he did not cite what he had done to prove that he was not base, but said "may Heaven loathe me"; and how does this differ from common men citing Heaven and calling down curses when they clear themselves of a suspicion?

Confucius said: "The phoenix does not come, the River gives forth no chart. It is all over with me." The Master grieved that he himself was not made king. Had he been king he would have brought about the Great Peace; and with the Great Peace the phoenix would come and the River give forth its chart. Now he did not get to be king, and so the auspicious answers did not come; with a grieving heart he grieved for himself, and so he said, "It is all over with me."

I ask: The phoenix and the River chart, on what in truth do they first arise? At the time of their first arising, neither bird nor chart had yet come; and if they rest on the Great Peace, the emperors of the Great Peace did not surely always bring the phoenix and the River chart. The Five Emperors and the Three Kings all brought about the Great Peace. Consider their auspicious answers: the phoenix was not in every case the omen that must be so; for the Great Peace, the phoenix is an answer that is not surely so. Confucius was a sage, and he grieved for himself over what is not surely so; in the end it does not answer.

Someone says: Confucius did not grieve that he himself did not get to be king; he grieved that the age had no enlightened king and so he himself was not used. The phoenix and the River chart are the omens of an enlightened king. The auspicious answers did not come, so the age had no enlightened king; and since no enlightened king was there, he himself in the end was not used.

Now the bringing of auspicious answers, by what are they brought? By charging the worthy and employing the able, so that rule is settled and merit achieved; and when rule is settled and merit achieved, the auspicious answers come. And after the auspicious answers have come, Confucius is not needed either. How far out at the tip was what Confucius hoped for! He did not think of the root and hoped for the tip.

To take no account of the ruler and to name his creatures, when rule has something not yet settled and creatures something that has not come, and to prove an enlightened king by what has come, must go wrong. Emperor Xiaowen may be called enlightened, yet consider his annals and neither the phoenix nor the River chart appears. Had Confucius been in the age of Xiaowen, he would still have said, "It is all over with me."

Confucius wished to dwell among the Nine Yi. Someone said: "They are mean; what of that?" Confucius said: "If a gentleman dwells among them, what meanness will there be?" Confucius hated that the Way was not practiced in the Middle Kingdom; his will was full of regret and his hopes were lost, and so he wished to go to the Nine Yi. Someone pressed him, saying: "The Yi and Di are base and mean and without rites and rightness; what of that?" Confucius said: "If a gentleman dwells among them, what meanness will there be?" He meant: dwell there by the way of a gentleman and teach them, and how should it be mean?

I ask about it: Confucius' wishing to go to the Nine Yi, where did it arise? It arose from the Way's not being practiced in the Middle Kingdom, and so he wished to go to the Nine Yi. Now if it is not practiced even in the Middle Kingdom, how can it be practiced among the Yi and Di? "The Yi and Di with their rulers are not equal to the Xia states without them." This says that the Yi and Di are hard and the Xia states easy. If he could not practice it where it is easy, could he practice it where it is hard? Moreover, when Confucius said that a gentleman should dwell there, what did he call mean? Did he mean cultivating the way of a gentleman and so finding room for himself, or did he mean teaching them by the way of a gentleman? If it is cultivating the way of a gentleman and by any shift finding room for himself, the Middle Kingdom would do as well; why must he go to the Yi and Di? And if it is teaching them by the way of a gentleman, how can the Yi and Di be taught? When Yu entered the Country of the Naked, he went in naked and came out clothed: the institution of clothing does not pass to the Yi and Di. Yu could not teach that country clothing; how could Confucius make gentlemen of the Nine Yi? Or else Confucius in truth did not wish to go, and being troubled that the Way was not practiced he was stirred and brought out these words. Someone pressed him, and Confucius, knowing their meanness, still said "what meanness will there be?" because he wished to carry through what he had already said and to fend off the man's remonstrance.

If he in truth did not wish to go, and his will was stirred and brought the words out, then these are false words. A gentleman is never careless in his words. If he knew their meanness and by any shift wished to carry himself through, this is Zilu answering Confucius about Zigao. Zilu made Zigao steward of Bi, and Confucius said: "You are harming another man's son." Zilu said: "There are the altars of soil and grain there, and there are the people there. Why must one read books, and only then be held to be learning?"

Confucius said: "This is why I hate the glib." Zilu knew that it would not do and yet by any shift answered so as to carry himself through, and Confucius hated it and likened him to the glib. Confucius too knew that it would not do and yet by any shift answered the man. Confucius and Zilu were both glib.

Confucius said: "Ci does not receive the decree, yet he makes his goods grow; when he reckons, he often hits the mark." What is it not to receive the decree? The explanation says: he did not receive the decree that he should be rich, and of himself, by his art and his knowing, he reckoned and hit the times.

Now do a man's wealth and honor lie in Heaven's decree, or in a man's knowing? If they lie in Heaven's decree, they cannot be got by seeking them with knowing and art; and if they lie in the man, why did Confucius say, "Death and life have their decree; wealth and honor lie with Heaven"? If one says that wealth is got without receiving the decree, by one's own knowing and art, then honor too may be sought by one's own effort without receiving the decree. In the world there is no one who has got honor of himself without receiving the decree of honor; and from that we know too that there is no one who has got wealth of himself without receiving the decree of wealth. As a matter of record, Confucius did not get wealth and honor. He went about everywhere answering invitations and travelled persuading the feudal lords, until his wisdom was at an end and his plans were spent; then he went back and settled the Shi and the Shu, and his hopes were cut off and he had no wings, and he declared "It is all over," knowing of himself that he had no decree of honor and that going about everywhere was of no help. Confucius knew that he himself had not received the decree of honor and that going about to seek it could not get it, and yet he said that Ci had not received the decree of wealth and got wealth by his art and his knowing. His words and his deeds go against each other, and I do not understand the reason.

Someone says: He wished to strike at Zigong's shortcoming. Zigong did not love the Way and virtue and merely loved making his goods grow, and so he struck at his shortcoming, wishing to drive him to submit and to change his conduct and his bearing. Now to strike at Zigong's shortcoming he might have said that Ci did not love the Way and virtue and made his goods grow. Why must he set up that Ci did not receive the decree, and go clean against his own earlier words that wealth and honor lie with Heaven?

When Yan Yuan died, Confucius said: "Alas! Heaven has bereft me!" These words mean that when a man is about to rise, Heaven gives him a helper, and when a man is about to fall, Heaven takes away its help. Confucius had four friends and wished to rise through them; Yan Yuan died young, and so he said, "Heaven has bereft me."

I ask: Yan Yuan's death, was it Heaven taking him away so that Confucius should not be king, or was his decree unhappily short so that he died of himself? If his decree was short and unhappy and he could not but die, then though Confucius were king he still could not have kept him alive. A helper to a man is like a staff propping up a sick man. When a man is sick he must have a staff to walk; if the staff was cut at the root and came out short, can one say that Heaven kept the sick man from walking? And if he can rise and walk, can a short staff be made long? Now Yan Yuan's short decree is like a staff's short measure. Moreover, Confucius said "Heaven has bereft me" because Yuan was worthy. Consider: a worthy man in the world is not surely made a helper. That a worthy man is not surely made a helper is like a sage's not surely receiving the decree. There are those who become emperor and are not sages, and those who become helpers and are not worthy. Why? Because the decree of salary and the bone pattern are other than talent. Speaking from this, had Yan Yuan lived he would not surely have been a helper, and in his dying there is not surely a bereavement. On what did Confucius see, when he said "Heaven has bereft me"? Moreover, when Heaven did not let Confucius be king, what was its intent at root? At the root, when he received his nature and decree, did it not let him be king; or was it going to let him be king and then repent of it midway? If at root it did not let him be king, what was bereft when Yan Yuan died? If at root it was going to let him be king and then repented of it midway, then this kingship has no bone pattern and lies with Heaven to suit its convenience. And at root, what good did it see that it should let him be king? And afterward what evil did it hear that it should repent midway and not decree it? The reasoning of the spirit of Heaven is wrong and not exact.

Confucius went to Wei and met with the funeral of the man who had been his host at the old lodging. He went in and wailed for him, and when he came out he had Zigong take off the outer horse and give it toward the funeral. Zigong said: "At the funerals of your disciples you have never taken off an outer horse. To take off an outer horse for an old host, is it not too much?" Confucius said: "When I went in just now and wailed for him, I met with a grief and my tears came, and I hate it that my tears should have nothing to follow them. Do it, my boy."

Confucius' taking off the outer horse to give toward the old host's funeral was his hatred of feeling not matched by rite. To perform the rite to match the feeling, so that when feeling rises kindness moves and rite and feeling answer each other, is what a gentleman does. When Yan Yuan died, Confucius wailed for him and was shaken with grief. The disciples said: "Master, you are shaken with grief." "If I am not shaken with grief for this man, for whom shall I be?"

Now to be shaken with grief is grief at its utmost. To wail for Yan Yuan and be shaken with grief was to set him apart from the other followers, his grief and pain being extreme. At his death there was a coffin but no outer coffin, and Yan Lu asked for the carriage to make the outer coffin, and Confucius would not give it, because a great officer cannot go on foot. In mourning the old host he took off the outer horse to give toward the funeral, hating that his tears should have nothing to follow them; in wailing for Yan Yuan he was shaken with grief, yet when asked for the carriage he did not give it, so that his grief had nothing to match it. Are tears and shaken grief so different, and a horse and a carriage so unlike? There rite and feeling matched each other; here kindness and rightness are not in keeping. I do not understand the intent with which Confucius performed the rites.

Confucius said: "When Li died there was a coffin and no outer coffin, and I did not go on foot to make him an outer coffin." His kindness toward Li was deeper than toward Yan Yuan, and when Li died there was no outer coffin, because the observance of a great officer is that he cannot go on foot. Li was his son; Yan Yuan was of another surname. If he did not perform the rite even when his son died, how much less would he perform it for a man of another surname?

I answer: this is in truth the proof of Confucius' kindness. He matched the feeling toward the old host and was not in keeping with his kindness toward his son; can it be that earlier he was a knight and later a great officer? If he was earlier a knight, a knight rides with two horses; and if he was a great officer, a great officer rides with three horses.

If a great officer cannot leave his carriage and go on foot, why did he not cut off two of the horses and sell them to make the outer coffin, and ride with the one? When he was a knight he rode with two horses and cut off one to give toward the old host's funeral; now why did he not likewise cut off two of them to match his kindness, and ride with one to be quit of going on foot? Not to take off a horse to give toward the old host's funeral would not surely have thrown the institutions into disorder. To bury a son with a coffin and no outer coffin is to abolish the rite and injure the law. Confucius held heavy the kindness of giving toward an old acquaintance's funeral and lightly abolished the rite of burying his son. This is getting the rite right with another man and losing the institution with his own son. That being so, how is Confucius' not selling his carriage to make Li an outer coffin to be cleared of coveting office and loving to serve and fearing to be without a carriage? And when he says himself, "A gentleman kills himself to make benevolence complete," what difficulty is there in stepping down from office to make the rite complete?

Zigong asked about government, and Confucius said: "Enough food, enough soldiers, and the people trust him." He said: "If one must give something up, which of these three comes first?"

He said: "Give up the soldiers." He said: "If one must give something up, which of these two comes first?" He said: "Give up the food. From of old all men have died, but without the people's trust there is no standing." This is that trust is heaviest.

I ask: Suppose that in ruling a state there is no food, and the people starve and cast off rites and rightness; and when rites and rightness are cast off, where is trust to stand? A tradition says: "When the granaries are full men know the rites and measures; when clothing and food are enough men know honor and shame. Yielding is born of abundance, and strife is born of want." Now he says to give up food; how is trust to be made? In the time of the Spring and Autumn the warring states starved; men exchanged their children and ate them and split bones for fuel. When the mouth is starving and does not eat, there is no leisure to look to kindness and rightness. Now the kindness between father and son is trust. Starving, men cast off trust and make food of their children. Confucius taught Zigong to give up food and keep trust; what of that? Now give up trust and keep food, and though one would not have trust, trust is born of itself; give up food and keep trust, and though one would make trust, trust does not stand.

Confucius went to Wei, and Ranzi was driving. Confucius said: "How many they are!" He said: "They are many already; what more shall be added?" He said: "Make them rich." He said: "They are rich already; what more shall be added?" He said: "Teach them." To Ranzi he said, first make them rich and after that teach them; to Zigong he taught, give up food and keep trust. What difference is there between food and riches? What difference between trust and teaching? He taught the two men differently, and what he held high was not the same. When Confucius ruled a state, where was his intent settled?

Qu Boyu sent a man to Confucius, and Confucius said: "What is your master doing?" He answered: "My master wishes to make his faults few, but he is not yet able." When the messenger had gone out, Confucius said: "A messenger! A messenger!" This was holding him wrong. Those who explain the Analects say: "His holding him wrong was holding it wrong that he was humble on another man's behalf."

Now when Confucius asked the messenger, "What is your master doing?" he asked what he was managing and doing; he did not ask about his conduct. By Confucius' question the messenger ought to have answered, "My master is doing such a work and managing such a government"; and instead he said, "He wishes to make his faults few, but he is not yet able." How do we know that his answer missed the point and that Confucius held him wrong? And in truth, on what did Confucius hold the messenger wrong? Was it that he was humble on another man's behalf, or was it that his answer missed the point? What he held wrong must still have had one true substance; yet he did not make the fault clear and merely said, "A messenger, a messenger!" so that later ages are in doubt and do not know wherein the messenger was at fault. Hanzi said: "When the writing is spare, the disciples wrangle." Confucius' words "A messenger!" — how spare they are!

Someone says: "It is the meaning of the Chunqiu to hide things for the sake of the worthy. Qu Boyu was worthy, and so he hid his messenger." Now to know a man's son, look at his friends; to know a ruler, look at those he sends. Boyu was not worthy, and so the man he sent was at fault. The meaning of the Chunqiu is to hide things for the sake of the worthy, but it also cuts down evil small as a mote. Now if he does not hold him wrong but hides it, where is the cutting down of what is small as a mote to be applied? Had Confucius hidden it for Boyu's sake, he ought only to have kept silent. He raised his voice and said, "A messenger, a messenger!" and the men of that time all knew that Confucius held him wrong. To bring out words like this, what does it add to the hiding?

Bi Xi called him, and Confucius wished to go. Zilu was not pleased and said: "In the past You heard from the Master: 'Into a man who does what is not good in his own person, a gentleman does not go.' Bi Xi has revolted with Zhongmou; how is it that the Master should go?" Confucius said: "There is such a saying. Is it not said to be hard? It is ground and is not made thin. Is it not said to be white? It is dyed and is not made black. Am I a bitter gourd, that I should be hung up and not eaten?"

Zilu drew on what Confucius had said in the past to hold Confucius wrong. In the past Confucius brought out those words wishing his disciples to take them as a rule and act on them, and Zilu drew on them to remonstrate. Confucius set him right, and he did not say "my earlier words were in jest," nor that they were wrong and could not be acted on, but said "there is such a saying"; so there is in truth something in them that ought to be acted on. "Is it not said to be hard? It is ground and is not made thin. Is it not said to be white? It is dyed and is not made black." Can Confucius, by saying this, untie what Zilu pressed? To untie "into a man who does what is not good in his own person, a gentleman does not go," he ought to have said: Bi Xi has not yet done what is not good, so one may still go in.

Instead he said, "It is hard: ground, it is not made thin; it is white: dyed, it is not made black." By Confucius' words, one who has the conduct of hardness and whiteness may go in; is the conduct of a gentleman then soft and easily soiled, that he alone should not go in? Confucius would not drink the water of Robber's Spring, and Zengzi would not enter the gate of Mother-Conqueror: they shunned evil and put away filth and would not disgrace their names with what is not right. Robber's Spring and Mother-Conqueror have an empty name only, and Confucius and Zengzi were ashamed of them; Bi Xi had the substance of evil, and Confucius wished to go to him. If not drinking from Robber's Spring is right, then wishing to answer Bi Xi is wrong. "Wealth and honor got by what is not right are to me as a floating cloud." Is eating the salary of a usurper and rebel by bending the Way not the very thing called "a floating cloud"? Or was it that he wished to weigh the moment and practice the Way? If it was weighing the moment and practicing the Way, then when Zilu pressed him he ought to have said "to practice the Way," and ought not to have spoken of eating. There is weighing the moment to practice the Way; there is no weighing the moment to seek food. "Am I a bitter gourd, that I should be hung up and not eaten?" Likening himself to a bitter gourd, he means that a man ought to serve in office and eat his salary. To say "I am no bitter gourd, to be hung up and not eaten" is to hold Zilu wrong. Confucius' words do not untie what Zilu pressed. When Zilu pressed Confucius, was it that Confucius ought not to serve at all? It was that he ought to choose a good state and go into it. Confucius likened himself to a bitter gourd: Confucius wished to eat in comfort. And how base are Confucius' words!

How should serving in office be for the sake of eating? A gentleman ought not to say it. A bitter gourd hung up and not eaten is the same as one hung up and not serving in office. To fend off Zilu he might have said, "Am I a bitter gourd, to be hung up and not serve?" Now he said, "hung up and not eaten," and so Confucius' serving was not for practicing the Way but merely for seeking food. When a man serves in office, it is chiefly that he covets the salary; the words of rites and rightness say that it is for practicing the Way. It is like a man's taking a wife: it is chiefly for desire, and the words of rites and rightness say it is to provide for his parents. If in serving he says straight out that it is for food, may he in marrying say straight out that it is for desire? Confucius' words let his feeling out and have no sense of leaning and turning aside, and they borrow no name of right and reason: this then is a common man, not a gentleman. When the Confucians say that Confucius went about everywhere, answered invitations and did not succeed, and grieved that the Way was not practiced, they miss Confucius' feeling.

Gongshan Furao revolted with Bi and called him, and Confucius wished to go. Zilu said: "If there is nowhere to go, let it be; why must it be to the Gongshan house that you go?" Confucius said: "Would the man who calls me do it for nothing? If he uses me, I shall make an Eastern Zhou."

To make an Eastern Zhou is to wish to practice the Way.

Gongshan and Bi Xi were both rebels; with Gongshan he practices the Way and with Bi Xi he seeks food, so that Confucius' words have no settled bent. When words have no settled bent, deeds have nothing they steadily work at. Was there no cause, then, for his going about everywhere and not being used? Yang Hu wished to see him and he would not be seen; he called him to office and he would not serve: how clean that is! Gongshan and Bi Xi called him and he wished to go: how muddy that is! Gongshan Furao revolted together with Yang Hu and seized Ji Huanzi; the two men were alike in evil, and the courtesy of their calls was equal. That he faced Gongshan alone and would not see Yang Hu, can it be that Gongshan would still do and Yang Hu would not? When Zilu pressed him about Gongshan's call, Confucius ought to have untied it, as with Bi Xi, by the plea that he was not yet greatly evil.