by Confucius
People cannot live without water and fire, yet humaneness is even more vital to them than water and fire—this is Confucius’ first point. He then observes that water and fire, but not humane action, can kill. Most people would agree with what he says about water and fire, but his statement about humane action is easy to refute because history never lacks examples of men and women who chose to die in order to fulfill their humaneness. Scholars over the years brooded about this problem and tried to come up with a reasonable explanation, and the best they could offer was that those who gave their life for humaneness did not really die because, though their physical bodies perished, their heart and spirit remained alive.
15.36 The Master said, “When encountering matters that involve the question of humaneness, do not yield even to your teacher.”
What this statement implies is that in matters involving the question of humaneness you should not yield to anyone, not your teacher, your parents, your superiors, and not even your ruler. This is a dangerous pronouncement, since many people would understand it to mean that one’s own heart has the highest moral authority, but that is not a position Confucius would have supported. Confucius is cautious about letting the heart handle moral questions because it tends to overreact and override sound judgment. This was the advice he gave Zizhang in 12.6 and Zilu in 7.11 and 17.8. Still, he felt, there are occasions when a person should trust only his sense of humaneness to help him see clearly and act correctly. And what might those occasions be? The Han thinker Dong Zhongshu offers a powerful example from a well-known story in the history of the Spring and Autumn period. The army of Chu laid a siege on the capital of Song in the year 594 BC, the early records say. After nearly eight months, the soldiers were exhausted, and as they were running out of provisions, the ruler of Chu sent his commanding general to the capital of Song, to see if the people of Song had the strength to hold on to their city. What the general found out was that the people of Song were so hungry that they were forced to eat the children of strangers, with whom they had exchanged their own children. The sight so horrified him that he told the enemy the truth about the situation back at his camp—that they were coming to the end of their provisions and were ready to abandon the siege. The question people asked over the years was whether the general had betrayed the trust of his ruler when he sided with the enemy, to which Dong Zhongshu responded that the commander simply “could not bear the sight of extreme suffering.” He said, “Those who are humane are guided by what is natural. [The commander] Zifan was simply responding to the promptings of his heart when he sympathized with the people of Song, and so he gave no thought to the possibility that other people might perceive his action as a form of usurpation.” This, in Dong’s view, was what Confucius meant when he said, “When encountering matters that involve the question of humaneness, do not yield even to your teacher.”
15.37 The Master said, “The gentleman is true [to what is right] but does not commit himself to the small idea of trust.”
Much of the discussion in the commentaries is about the difference between zhen (being true to what is right) and liang (small idea of trust). Liu Baonan says, “The gentleman carries out things in accordance with what is right. Everything he handles complies with the correct way. His actions are not driven by any small idea of trust.” Qian Mu says, “A person who is true [to what is right] is true to himself, and he is constant. A person who is committed to the small idea of trust seeks to be trustworthy to others.” The Qing scholar Jiao Xun uses Confucius’ statement here to explain why Mencius felt that “those who held on to one point or one extreme were crippling the Way.” Finally, Confucius himself characterizes liang in 14.17 as “the petty loyalty of a common man or a common woman.” This type of loyalty also fits his description in 13.20 of those men who have “little pebbles for brains” because they “insist on keeping their word and seeing their action through to the end.”
15.38 The Master said, “In serving your lord, carry out your duties with respect before giving thought to a salary.”
Qian Mu says, “To carry out one’s duties with respect is to give full attention and complete effort to the task at hand.” What this means, the Book of Rites says, is that “if you are in the military, you should not dodge difficult assignments, and if you are at the court, you should not avoid menial jobs.” If this is how you approach your responsibilities, you will not be brooding about a salary.
15.39 The Master said, “In educating others, [one should] let go all preconceptions of class and categories.”
Most scholars say that when Confucius made this remark he was thinking about the way of a teacher—that in teaching, one should let go all distinctions based on class, wealth, and degree of intelligence and accept all who are willing to learn. That is the reason why, when considered together, his disciples seem like a hodgepodge of all sorts: from the rich (Ran Qiu and Zigong) to the poor (Yan Hui and Zhonggong), from the aristocratic (Meng Yizi) to the rustic (Zilu), from the quick (Zizhang) to the slow (Zengzi). And since Confucius thought that everyone could be taught, a few scholars argue that the present statement is really a reflection of his view of human nature. This, I feel, is a stretch, because Confucius was not interested in offering a theory on human nature—he left that to his followers Mencius and Xunzi, several generations later—and he did not really speak about the subject, apart from making this brief comment in 17.2: “People are similar by nature; they become distinct through practice.”
15.40 The Master said, “When your paths [dao] are different, there is no point in seeking advice from one another.”
The Qing scholar Wu Jiabin says, “Several people could all be pursuing the same goal of realizing the good, but there would be differences among them. They all know in their hearts good and bad, gain and loss, but they are not able to seek advice from one another.” Mencius’ description of Bo Yi, Yi Yin, and Luixia Hui illustrates the point. All three men pursued the good, but their paths were different: Bo Yi had an immaculate character and would keep himself immaculate at all costs; Yi Yin had such a strong sense of responsibility that he felt he was to blame for any man or woman “who could not enjoy the benefits” of a good rule; Liuxia Hui “harbored no grudge,” no matter what circumstances he found himself in, and he could inspire others to be generous and tolerant. Yet Liu Baonan observes, toward the end of his commentary, “Followers of Confucius in later times would hold up one idea and trash a hundred others. As soon as similar and different views arise, they herald theirs as the correct one. They rebuke and strike at each other, which shows that they do not possess the hefty spirit of the sages and that they do not at all understand what Confucius meant when he said, ‘there is no point in seeking advice from one another.’”
15.41 The Master said, “Get your point across, and that would be enough.”
In speech or in argument, as long as you clearly express the point you want to make, that is enough, and there is no need for embellishment. The Book of Etiquette gives similar advice to those sent abroad on a mission: “If you say too much, you will seem pedantic. If you say too little, you will not get your point across. If what you say is just enough to convey your point, then you will have hit the mark.”
15.42 The Master Musician Mian came to call. As he approached the steps, the Master said, “Here are the steps.” As they reached the seating mats, the Master said, “Here are the mats.” When everyone was seated, the Master told him, “So-and-so is over here. So-and-so is over there.”
After the Master Musician Mian had gone, Zizhang asked, “Is this the way to talk to a music teacher [shi]?” Confucius replied, “Yes, this is the way to assist a music teacher.”
In his commentary, Liu Baonan puts emphasis on the last statement, “this is the way [dao] to assist a music teacher.” Court musicians in early China were blind, the assumption being that blind people possessed a sharper sense of hearing and keener cognizance of the nuances in sound and music. And just as there were different ways (dao) of living a mor
al life (15.40), there was a particular way of assisting a master musician, which Confucius showed as he guided Mian down the steps and to his seat and then introduced him to the guests sitting on the mats. Scholars like to stress Confucius’ generosity and kindness, which make this episode especially memorable, but the source of his generosity and kindness was not sentimentalism but respect—the respect Confucius had for a master musician.
BOOK SIXTEEN
Book Sixteen is an anomaly—several scholars have raised this point—because Confucius is referred to not as “Master” but by his official title, “Master Kong” (Kongzi or, in Latinization, Confucius), throughout and he speaks in a manner that is unlike the one we have come to associate with him. This is not how he talks, one might say, or how he articulates his ideas. And in a number of the entries, his natural way of expressing himself is replaced by lists of dos and don’ts, and his descriptions of human character have been parsed into categories. This type of deliberation resembles that of the Warring States thinkers, and since the Analects is an accrued text, it is possible that the writings in Book Sixteen are interpolations from this later period.
16.1 The Jisun family was about to send an army to attack Zhuanyu. Ran Qiu and Zilu came to see Master Kong [Confucius], and they told him, “The Jisun family is going to take action against Zhuanyu.”
Confucius said, “Qiu, [should this happen,] is it not your fault? A former king in the past gave the rulers of Zhuanyu the responsibility of sacrificing to Mount Dongmeng. Moreover, Zhuanyu lies within the boundaries of the territory that was enfeoffed to Lu, and her ruler is a subject of our altars of soil and grain. So what reason could there be to attack Zhuanyu?”
Ran Qiu replied, “This is what our lord wished, not what the two of us wanted.”
Confucius said, “Qiu, [the historian] Zhou Ren said: ‘Assess your ability and see if you are able to take on the responsibilities of your position. If you are not able, then you should resign. What use would an assistant be [to a blind person] if he did not give him support when the man tottered and did not hold him up when he fell?’ Besides, what you’ve said is wrong. Whose fault is it when the tiger or the rhinoceros escapes from his cage, when the tortoise shell or the jade is smashed in its coffer?”
Ran Qiu said, “But Zhuanyu is well fortified, and it is situated near the Jisun family’s stronghold, Bi. If the Jisuns do not take Zhuanyu now, then it will be a source of worries for their descendants later on.”
Confucius said, “The gentleman despises those who do not come out and say what they want but instead find some other way to make the same pitch. I have heard that the head of a state and the head of a hereditary family should not worry about poverty but should worry about inequity in the distribution of wealth. They should not worry about a lack of population but should worry about discontentment and unrest. When there is equity in the distribution of wealth, there will not be poverty. When there is concordance [in a society], there will not be a lack of population. When people are content, there will not be any threat of [the state or the family] being toppled. This being the case, when people from a distance are unwilling to yield to your influence and rule, improve your ways and cultivate your virtue in order to attract them. Once they are attracted to you, see to it that they are content. Now the two of you are meant to be assistants to your lord. Yet when people from a distance are unwilling to yield to his influence and rule, you are unable to help him attract them, and when the state is falling apart and is on the verge of collapse, you are unable to help him ensure its survival. Instead, you work with him on getting his men armed [and ready to attack those who live] within the state. I fear that the worries of the Jisun family do not lie in Zhuanyu but lie within the walls of their own home.”
This is the longest entry in the Analects, and it contains a sustained dialogue between Confucius and Ran Qiu. It is difficult to determine whether this account has any historical credibility. The history in the Zuo Commentary makes no mention of a conflict between Zhuanyu and the Jisun family, but what it does say is that in the year 639 BC the ruler of Zhuanyu together with the rulers of three other minor states “presided over the sacrifices to Taihao and the spirit of the Ji River.” Thus there is a discrepancy between this record and the Analects regarding the ritual responsibility Zhuanyu was assigned—whether its rulers were to sacrifice to Mount Dongmeng or to Taiho and the spirit of the Ji River. Most of the traditional commentaries follow Kong Anguo’s gloss regarding the history of Zhuanyu. According to this Han scholar, the rulers of Zhuanyu, with the surname of Feng, were descendants of the legendary figure Fu Xi, who was regarded as the inventor of fire and writing; Zhuanyu was a vassal state of Lu, and so was a subject and a dependent of Lu, and since the beginning of the Zhou dynasty, its rulers were given the prerogative of offering sacrifices to the spirit of Mount Dongmeng, which was situated in the eastern part of Lu, in what is the present-day Yi prefecture in Shandong province.
The gist of the conversation here, like the discussions Confucius has with Ran Qiu in 3.6 and 11.17, is again about the responsibilities of a political advisor. Thus when Ran Qiu tries to place the blame on his employer, the head of the Jisuns, for wishing to attack the people of Zhuanyu, Confucius shoots him down, saying, If you were unable to lead him to the right path, then you should resign. And when Ran Qiu tries to defend the action of his lord, Confucius becomes even more angry, saying, “The gentleman despises those who do not come out and say what they want but instead find some other way to make the same pitch.” But he also offers Ran Qiu this advice: Ask your lord to address the extreme unfairness in the distribution of wealth and the discontent people feel toward their government; get him to cultivate his character and not to resort to the use of arms when he is dealing with his own subjects. Song scholars, who like to exaggerate the weight of Confucius’ political influence in Lu, say that Confucius, through Ran Qiu, “must have dissuaded” the Jisuns from taking up arms against Zhuanyu, and that this is why we cannot find any record of such a conflict in the early histories. Their argument, for lack of evidence, reads a bit like wishful thinking.
16.2 Confucius said, “When the moral way prevails in the world, it is the Son of Heaven who orchestrates rites and music, and punitive expeditions. When the moral way does not prevail in the world, it is the regional rulers who orchestrate rites and music, and punitive expeditions. When the regional rulers are in charge, it is unlikely for them to hold on to their authority for more than ten generations. When the hereditary counselors are in charge, it is unlikely for them to hold on to their authority for more than five generations. When the family retainers are in charge, it is unlikely for them to hold on to their authority for more than three generations. When the moral way prevails in the world, affairs of government do not rest with the hereditary counselors. When the moral way prevails in the world, the common people do not find themselves joining in the discussion and the planning [of their government’s policies].”
Many scholars regard Confucius’ statement as a concise outline of the history of the Spring and Autumn period, beginning with the “Son of Heaven,” King Ping, after he ceded most of his authority to the regional rulers who had helped him to move his court to the east in the aftermath of a major debacle in the dynasty’s western capital. This, in Confucius’ mind, marked the start of a political course that was dominated at first by the regional rulers, and then in turn by the hereditary counselors and the family retainers—a course he characterized as one in which the moral way did not prevail because the Zhou king was no longer in charge of rites and music, and punitive expeditions. Most commentators do not dwell on this point. Instead, they are interested in what Confucius said regarding the length of time these political players were able to hold on to power. Scholars such as Kong Anguo and Ma Rong from the Han and Liu Fenglu and Feng Lihua from the Qing enumerate their own lists of ten generations of regional rulers, followed by the five generations of hereditary counselors, and then the three generations of family retainers.
Some focus only on the history of the Lu, while others include the histories of many other regional states. What Confucius said at the end also caught the scholars’ attention. Just what did he mean, they ask, when he said that “the common people do not find themselves joining in the discussion and the planning” of their government policies “when the moral way prevails in the world”? One scholar puts it this way: “A state has big plans and the right counselors in charge of them. When [the common people, who are like] children begin to voice their views, these plans will get botched.”
16.3 Confucius said, “It has been five generations since the ducal house lost the authority to determine ranks and salaries at court. It has been four generations since the [Lu] government has been under the control of the hereditary counselors. This is the reason why the descendents of the Three Families are on the decline.”
Ever since the hereditary counselor Xiangzhong of the East Gate had the legitimate heir of Duke Wen, a son by his principal wife, killed and put in his place the son of a secondary wife, “the rulers of Lu no longer had control of their state.” This, the Zuo Commentary says, marked the rise of the hereditary families with the Jisuns at the forefront. The “five generations” of the ducal house, which Confucius mentions here, refers to the ducal reigns of Xuan, Cheng, Xiang, Zhao, and Ding, while the “four generations” of hereditary counselors refers to the four consecutive heads of the Jisun family, Wenzi, Wuzi, Huanzi, and Pingzi. And since Confucius has already made it known in 16.2 that the hereditary counselors would not be able to hold on to their power for more than five generations, he feels that it is reasonable to say that “the descendents of the Three Families are on the decline.” And indeed they were slipping as their family retainers—men like Yang Hu and Gongshan Furao—were becoming more hostile and presumptuous, behaving as if they, too, could become rulers.
