This article arose from the explanation in the previous post. Of course, apart from taking issue with one particular junior classmate, my more important intention is to emphasize that interpretations of the Confucian classics are plural, and the Mao left can forget about monopolizing the right to interpret the Confucian classics.
When I was a freshman, under Yang Zi’s influence, I read some chapters of the Mencius. Though I have little recollection of them now, I did come away with a rough impression: even though the Mencius is not as invigorating to read as the Analects, it still felt pretty good.
The night before last I dug it out and skimmed it again. This time I focused more on the parts discussing the state and the people, referring to Shi Ciyun’s annotated and translated edition. Naturally I read it much more roughly than before, but it was still fine to use for snark.
Of course, I do not expect to dig individualism, liberalism, or other things from the Western tradition out of Mencius. But Mencius clearly has no narrow-minded nationalism. If you put Mencius in today’s world, he probably would not stress some distinction between China and the West; rather, he might quite possibly become a “guide party.”
Below is the format of quotation plus snark:
Mencius came to see King Hui of Liang. The king said, “Sir, since you have come from so many li away, will you also have something to profit my state?” Mencius replied, “Why must Your Majesty speak of profit? There is benevolence and righteousness, and that is all. If the king says, ‘How can I profit my state?’ the great officers say, ‘How can I profit my family?’ and the scholar-officials and common people say, ‘How can I profit myself?’ then superiors and inferiors will all contend with one another for profit, and the state will be in peril! …” (King Hui of Liang)
Who is it that keeps talking at length about “national interests”? Clearly it is the left. For example, Hu Xijin with “earnestly safeguarding national interests,” Sima Nan with “writing for the sake of national interests.” Is the right constantly talking about personal interests? No. The right talks about the principles of freedom and democracy, while when the left attacks the right, it also likes to bring up “interests”: what interest groups are behind this argument? What if doing this harms national interests? What about the interests of the little people? But what Mencius criticizes is not merely that you should not talk about how to “benefit the state” but should instead talk about how to “benefit the people”; he is saying: do not talk about profit, but about principle. When everyone from top to bottom talks about interests, the state is in danger.
King Hui of Liang said, “In regard to my state, I have done all I could: when there was famine in the territory north of the Yellow River, I moved the people to the east of the Yellow River, and I moved the grain into the territory north of the Yellow River. When there was famine in the territory east of the Yellow River, I did likewise. If one examines the government of the neighboring states, there is none who puts his heart into it like I do. Yet the people of the neighboring states do not increase in number, nor do my people increase in number. Why is this?” Mencius replied, “… laughing at fifty steps because of a hundred steps … When people die, they say, ‘It is not I, it is the harvest.’ How is this different from stabbing someone and killing him, and then saying, ‘It is not I, it is the weapon’? Your Majesty, do not blame the harvest, and the people of the world will come to you.” (King Hui of Liang)
In Mao’s era and in the Kim family dynasty in Korea, there were at most “natural disasters”; tyrants most like to use “It is not I, it is the harvest” to shift responsibility away from themselves. Apart from weather and timing, the excuse most often used now is “the deliberately malicious Western hostile forces are stirring things up too.” In any case, there is always an attempt to shift the contradictions that arise among the people onto something that is “not me.” Mencius emphasizes “Your Majesty should not blame the harvest”: do not, for any reason, even for unavoidable natural disasters, use them to evade the failures of rule.
Mencius came to see King Xiang of Liang. Coming out, he said to someone, “From his appearance one would not take him for a ruler of men; when he approached, there was nothing about him to inspire awe. Suddenly he asked, ‘How can the world be made peaceful?’ I answered, ‘It will be peaceful through unity.’ ‘Who can unify it?’ I answered, ‘One who does not delight in killing men can unify it.’ ‘Who will join him?’ I answered, ‘All under Heaven will join him. Do you know about seedlings? During the seventh and eighth months, if there is a drought, the seedlings shrivel. But when the sky gathers clouds and sends down rain, the seedlings spring up again. If it is like this, who can stop it? Now among the rulers of men under Heaven, there has never been one who did not delight in killing men. If there were one who did not delight in killing men, then all the people of the world would crane their necks and look toward him. If it truly were so, when the people turned to him, it would be like water flowing downward; swelling on and on, who could stop it?’”
Mencius believed that “the benevolent are invincible.” Only unbenevolent rulers would think about schemes for unifying the world; the benevolent would naturally win the allegiance of the people. Things like today’s Taiwan independence, Tibet independence, Xinjiang independence, and so on are, in Mencius’s view, not problems at all. If benevolent government is carried out, the people’s hearts will naturally return. If the common people truly want to turn to foreign forces, that can only show that the ruler has lost virtue. If benevolent government is implemented, the people’s hearts will naturally be stable, and there will naturally be no need to defend against anyone’s treason; if benevolent government is not implemented, the people’s hearts will naturally drift away, and they cannot be defended against either.
He said, “Then a small state cannot on its own resist a large one, the weak cannot resist the strong, and the few cannot resist the many. Of the lands within the seas, there are nine regions each a thousand li square; Qi occupies one of them. With one part to subdue eight parts, how would that differ from Zou’s opposing Chu? One must simply return to the root! If Your Majesty issues policies and extends benevolence, then all those under Heaven who seek office will want to stand in Your Majesty’s court, all the farmers will want to farm in Your Majesty’s fields, all the merchants and traders will want to store their goods in Your Majesty’s markets, all travelers will want to travel on Your Majesty’s roads, and all under Heaven who wish to accuse their rulers will want to rush to Your Majesty and complain. If it were like this, who could stop it?” The king said, “I am confused and cannot advance to this point. I wish, sir, that you would help me pursue this intention and enlighten me, teaching me. Though I am not clever, please let me try it.” He said, “Only the scholars are able to have a constant heart without constant possessions. As for the common people, without constant possessions they have no constant heart; and if they have no constant heart, they will abandon propriety, go astray, and do all sorts of evil. Then when they have fallen into crime, to punish them afterward is to ensnare the people. How could there be a benevolent person in power who would do such a thing as ensnare the people! Therefore a wise ruler regulates the people’s means of livelihood, so that above they have enough to serve their parents and below enough to support wife and children; in good years they are full all their lives, and in bad years they escape death. Only then can he drive them toward goodness, and then the people will follow him with ease.
Here Mencius’s “guide party” essence is fully on display~ We only need ask: today, where are the intellectuals of the world more willing to go, China or America? Where are the peasants more willing to farm, in China or in America? Are merchants more willing to receive China’s protection or America’s protection? Are there more Americans dissatisfied with their own government coming to China to complain, or more Chinese who are forced to go to America to complain? If some people oppose the government and there are mass incidents, even if among them the people have done evil, how can the blame be laid on the people? And Mencius’s so-called “constant possessions” are similar to some basic property that guarantees the possibility of a free life. The key is not whether the property belongs to a few or to the common people; the key lies in guaranteeing the people’s hearts. If the people’s hearts are lost, it is because the ruler is unbenevolent, and then the common people of course ought to submit to another state. Saying anything else is useless.
Mencius came to see King Xuan of Qi and said, “What is called an old state is one that has old trees, or one that has old ministers. But Your Majesty has no intimate ministers! Those promoted in former times, you do not even know whether they are alive today.” The king said, “How am I to recognize those who are unfit and dismiss them?” He replied, “A ruler should promote the worthy as though unable to avoid it, and in doing so should make the low surpass the high and the distant surpass the near. This must be done with caution! If all those around him say, ‘He is worthy,’ it will not do; if all the great officers say, ‘He is worthy,’ it will not do; if all the men of the state say, ‘He is worthy,’ then examine him; when you see that he is worthy, then use him. If all those around him say, ‘He is not fit,’ do not listen; if all the great officers say, ‘He is not fit,’ do not listen; if all the men of the state say, ‘He is not fit,’ then examine him; when you see that he is not fit, then dismiss him. If all those around him say, ‘He should be killed,’ do not listen; if all the great officers say, ‘He should be killed,’ do not listen; if all the men of the state say, ‘He should be killed,’ then examine him; when you see that he should be killed, then kill him. Thus it is said, ‘The men of the state killed him.’ Only in this way can one be the parent of the people.”
Mencius stresses that selecting the worthy and appointing the capable from the top down must be based on the will of the people from the bottom up. Then how is it possible for a ruler to hear the words “all the men of the state say”? Mencius did not provide a design, but this is precisely the foundation of modern democracy: to allow the opinions of all the people to be expressed through some reliable channel.
The people of Qi attacked Yan and defeated it. King Xuan asked, “Some say I should not take it; others say I should. With a state of ten thousand chariots attacking another state of ten thousand chariots, and subduing it in fifty days, human effort could not have brought this about. If I do not take it, there will surely be a heavenly punishment. If I do take it, how about that?” Mencius replied, “If you take it and the people of Yan are pleased, then take it: there are men of antiquity who did so, and King Wu was one. If you take it and the people of Yan are not pleased, then do not take it: there are men of antiquity who did so, and King Wen was one. When a state of ten thousand chariots attacks another state of ten thousand chariots, the people greet the king’s army with baskets of food and jars of drink; why would they do anything else? They are escaping water and fire. If water grows deeper and fire grows hotter, they will simply keep moving away!”
Notice that Mencius never says whether something is “for the people’s benefit,” but always takes the people’s “pleasure” rather than the people’s benefit as the criterion. Of course, whether the people are pleased has to do with whether the people’s benefits are secured, but the key is that the standard of judgment lies in the people’s “pleasure,” in public opinion. If the people are not pleased, no amount of explaining that one has put in effort and gone through hardship will work. And how is public opinion expressed? In Mencius’s text, after all the talk, the main scenario is that of leading the enemy on; modern democracy provides a more complete way of expressing public opinion, so there is no need to wait until foreign enemies invade before the truth becomes clear.
The state of Zou and the state of Lu were in conflict. Duke Mu asked, “Of my officials, thirty-three have died, yet the people have not died for them. To punish them, I could not finish punishing them; not to punish them, I see them gaze coldly at the death of their superiors and not come to their aid. What is to be done?” Mencius replied, “In years of famine and hunger, your people’s old and weak have stumbled into ditches and gullies, and your strong have scattered in all directions; there were nearly a thousand such people. Yet your granaries were full and your storehouses were stocked, and your officials did not report it. This was the superiors being negligent and cruel to those below. Zengzi said, ‘Be warned, be warned! What comes out from you will return to you.’ The people have now at last gotten the chance to return it! Do not blame them! If you practice benevolent government, then the people will be close to those above them and will die for their superiors.”
If the common people do not show loyalty to the government, what should be done? Punish them? Mencius says: don’t blame the people! This is surely retribution.
Even if by doing one unjust act and killing one innocent person one could gain the world, I would not do it. (Gongsun Chou)
Mencius believed that means matter more than ends. You say you are doing it for the sake of the world, you say that after you gain the world you will benefit all the people, but if to do so you must do unbenevolent and unrighteous things, then you should not do it. In analyzing principles, one should not use “whether the common people finally gain or lose benefit” as the measure of a course of action.
One who uses force and borrows benevolence becomes hegemon; a hegemon must have a great state. One who uses virtue and practices benevolence becomes king; kings do not wait for great states. Tang did so with seventy li, and King Wen did so with a hundred li. One who subdues others by force does not win their hearts; it is because force is not enough. One who subdues others by virtue wins them with their hearts pleased and their sincere submission.
This says that a state of benevolence and righteousness surely does not need centralization of power. Reduce the concentration of power, decentralize outward, and the people’s hearts can naturally submit sincerely. If strong force is removed and the people’s hearts become chaotic, society loses control, and the system collapses, then it must be because the ruler has lost virtue; there is nothing to argue about.
Wan Zhang asked: “Song is a small state. If it is now to carry out kingly government, and Qi and Chu resent this and attack it, what then?”
‘”Tang first campaigned from Ge,’ and in eleven campaigns he had no rival under Heaven. Campaigning eastward, the western barbarians complained; campaigning southward, the northern tribes complained, saying, ‘Why did he leave us behind?’ The people looked to him, as if in great drought they looked to rain.
If kingly government is practiced, then all within the seas will lift their heads and look to him, desiring him as their ruler. Though Qi and Chu are great, what should one fear?’
On the one hand, why are the benevolent invincible? — Because the benevolent must have a “guide party.” On the other hand, if one wants reform, must one worry about great powers surrounding one? No need. If the hearts of the people are with you, the people of the whole world can see it plainly; why fear great powers? You may say that now the majority of countries in the world are Western countries, and they all have broken rites and collapsed music, all with Western values. But in Mencius’s view, the various hegemonic states of the Warring States period likewise all had broken rites and collapsed music, and because the people had no constant possessions they also had no constant heart toward goodness. Even so, Mencius still firmly recognized the authority of public opinion and the power of public opinion.
Mencius said: “When the world has the Way, the small serves the great in virtue, the inferior serves the superior in wisdom; when the world lacks the Way, the small serves the great, the weak serves the strong. These two things are of Heaven. Those who follow Heaven survive; those who oppose Heaven perish. Duke Jing of Qi said, ‘If one cannot command, and one does not accept orders, then one is cut off from things.’ And he wept and gave his daughter in marriage to Wu. Now, when small states imitate great states and are ashamed to accept orders, this is like a disciple being ashamed to accept orders from a former teacher. If one is ashamed of this, one might as well imitate King Wen. If one imitates King Wen, in five years for a great state and seven years for a small state, one will surely hold the government of the world. The Poetry says: ‘The descendants of Shang, how numerous beyond counting! The Lord on High had already given the mandate, and the lords submitted to Zhou. The lords submitted to Zhou, for Heaven’s mandate is not constant. The nobles and gentlemen of Yin, quick and skilled, came bearing libations to the capital.’ Confucius said: ‘Benevolence cannot be done in the multitude. If a ruler loves benevolence, there will be no enemy under Heaven.’ Now to wish to have no rival under Heaven without using benevolence is like holding something hot and not washing it off. The Poetry says: ‘Who can hold what is hot and not immediately wash it off?’”
Mencius says that if the world lacks the Way and the state is weak, then one has no choice but to obey strong states; there is nothing to complain about. Stop always thinking about blaming foreign hostile forces, stop always saying whether one is a Western lackey or not a Western lackey, and just reflect on one’s own domestic affairs.
Wan Zhang said: “Did Yao give the world to Shun? Is there such a thing?”
Mencius said: “No. The Son of Heaven cannot give the world to another.”
“Then who gave Shun the world?”
“Heaven gave it.”
“When Heaven gave it, did it issue repeated commands to him?”
“No. Heaven does not speak; it simply shows it through conduct and affairs.”
“What is meant by showing it through conduct and affairs?”
“The Son of Heaven can recommend a man to Heaven, but cannot make Heaven give him the world; the feudal lords can recommend a man to the Son of Heaven, but cannot make the Son of Heaven give him a state; the great officers can recommend a man to the feudal lords, but cannot make the feudal lords give him an office. In the past, Yao recommended Shun to Heaven and Heaven accepted him; he exposed him to the people and the people accepted him. Therefore it is said: Heaven does not speak; it simply shows it through conduct and affairs.”
“I venture to ask, when one recommends him to Heaven and Heaven accepts him, and exposes him to the people and the people accept him, what does that mean?”
“It means making him preside over sacrifices and the hundred spirits enjoy him; that is Heaven accepting him. It means making him preside over affairs and the affairs are well governed, and the hundred surnames are at peace; that is the people accepting him. Heaven gave it, and the people gave it. Therefore it is said: the Son of Heaven cannot give the world to another. Shun assisted Yao for twenty-eight years, something no human being could have done; it was Heaven. When Yao died, after the three-year mourning period had ended, Shun withdrew to the south of the South River to make way for Yao’s son. The feudal lords who came to court from all under Heaven did not go to Yao’s son but went to Shun; those who brought lawsuits did not go to Yao’s son but went to Shun; those who sang songs did not sing songs of Yao’s son but sang songs of Shun. Therefore it was Heaven. Only after that did he go to the Central Kingdom and ascend the position of Son of Heaven. If he had remained in Yao’s palace and pressed close upon Yao’s son, that would have been usurpation, not being given by Heaven. The Great Declaration says: ‘What Heaven sees is as my people see; what Heaven hears is as my people hear.’ This is what it means.” (Wan Zhang)
This long passage is extremely important, and can be understood as Mencius’s democratic thought—did Shun become ruler because Emperor Yao abdicated to him? No! It was Heaven that gave it to him. How did Heaven give it? In fact, Shun’s status was obtained through “exposing him to the people and the people accepting him.” That is to say, Shun had to expose his way of conducting himself before the people, and then the people chose to accept him, and only then did he obtain his position. Mencius presents a model of “people’s election”: Yao’s son and Shun lived in two different places, and one watched whom the people sang praises for; whoever that was had the right to rule. In fact, Mencius explains all so-called “abdication” as “popular election.” In the end, Yu did not in fact abdicate either; it was simply that his successor Yi was not chosen by the people. Of course, now that there are new media, the way of operating “exposing to the people” and “the people accepting it” is somewhat different; there is no longer any need for two candidates to live in different places and receive audiences, but Mencius’s basic principle still holds. How to bring a candidate’s deeds before the people; how to let the people choose among multiple potential successors? These are questions of practical operation. But that a ruler must first be exposed to the people and chosen by the people before truly having the qualification to govern—that is a matter of principle.
“What Heaven sees is what my people see; what Heaven hears is what my people hear.” The people’s gaze is the standard by which rule is measured; blocking the people’s eyes and ears is no different from severing the legitimacy of political power.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply