|<Previous Section>||<Next Section>|
此言人當由道義得，不當苟取也；當守節安貧，不當妄去也。 夫言不以其道，得富貴不居，可也；不以其道，得貧賤如何？富貴顧可去，去貧賤何之？去貧賤，得富貴也。不得富貴，不去貧賤。如謂 得富貴不以其道，則不去貧賤邪？則所得富貴，不得貧賤也。貧賤何故當言得之？
且論人之法，取其行則棄其言，取其言則棄其行。 今宰予雖無力行，有言語。用言，令行缺，有一概矣。今孔子起宰予晝寢，聽其言，觀其行，言行相應，則謂之賢。是孔子備取人 也。毋求備於一人之義，何所施？
問曰：子文舉子玉，不知人也。智與仁，不相干也。有不知之性，何妨為仁之行？五常之道，仁、義、禮、智、信也。五者各別 ，不相須而成。故有智人、有仁人者，有禮人、有義人者。人有信者未必智，智者未必仁，仁者未必禮，禮者未必義 。子文智蔽於子玉，其仁何毀？謂仁，焉得不可？
子路引孔子往時所言以非孔子也。往前孔子出此言，欲令弟子法而行之，子路引之以諫，孔子曉之，不曰“前言戲”，若非 而不可行，而曰“有是言”者，審有當行之也。“不曰堅乎？磨而不磷；不曰白乎？涅而不淄”，孔子言此言者，能解子路難 乎？“親於其身為不善者，君子不入也”，解之，宜〔曰〕：佛肸未為不善，尚猶可入。而曰“ 堅磨而不磷，白涅而不淄”。如孔子之言，有堅白之行者可以入之，君子之行軟而易汙邪，何以獨不入也？
“吾豈匏瓜也哉，焉能系而不食”？自比以匏瓜者，言人當仕而食祿。我非匏瓜系而不食，非子路也。孔子之言，不解子路 之難。子路難孔子，豈孔子不當仕也哉？當擇善國而入之也。孔子自比匏瓜，孔子欲安食也。且孔之言，何其鄙也！何彼仕為食哉？ 君子不宜言也。
匏瓜系而不食，亦系而不仕等也。距子路可雲： “吾豈匏瓜也哉，系而不仕也”？今吾“系而不食”，孔子之仕， 不為行道，徒求食也。人之仕也，主貪祿也。禮義之言，為行道也。猶人之娶也，主為欲也，禮義之言，為供親也。仕而直言食，娶可直言欲乎？
公山弗擾以費畔，召，子欲往。子路曰：“未如也已，何必公山氏之之也？” 子曰：“夫召我者，而豈徒哉？如用我， 吾其為東周乎。” 為東周，欲行道也。
Chapter XXXIII. Criticisms on Confucius (Wên K`ung).
The students of Confucianism of the present day like to swear in verba magistri, and to believe in antiquity. The words of the Worthies and Sages are to them infallible, and they do their best to explain and practise them, but they are unable to criticize them. When the Worthies and Sages take the pencil, and commit their thoughts to writing, though they meditate, and thoroughly discuss their subject, one cannot say that they always hit the truth, and much less can their occasional utterances all be true. But although they cannot be all true, the scholars of to-day do not know, how to impugn them, and, in case they are true, but so abstruse that they are difficult to understand, those people do not know how to interpret their meaning. The words of the Sages on various occasions are often contradictory, and their writings at different times very often mutually clash. That however is, what the scholars of our time do not understand.
One always hears the remark that the talents of the Seventy Disciples of the school of Confucius surpassed those of the savants of our days. This statement is erroneous. They imagine that Confucius acting as teacher, a Sage propounding the doctrine, must have imparted it to exceptionally gifted men, whence the idea that they were quite unique. The talents of the ancients are the talents of the moderns. What we call men of superior genius now-a-days, were regarded by the ancients as Sages and supernatural beings, hence the belief that the Seventy Sages could not appear in other generations.
If at present there could be a teacher like Confucius, the scholars of this age would all be like Yen and Min,1 and without Confucius, the Seventy Disciples would be only like the Literati of the present day. For though learning from Confucius, they could not thoroughly inquire. The words of the Sage they did not completely understand, his doctrines and principles they were unable to explain. Therefore they ought to have asked to get a clearer conception, and not understanding thoroughly, they ought to have raised objections in order to come to a complete understanding.
The sentiments which Kao Yao2 uttered before the Emperor Shun were shallow and superficial, and not to the point. Yü asked him to explain himself, when the shallow words became deeper, and the superficial hints more explicit, 3 for criticisms animate the discussion, and bring out the meaning, and opposition leads to greater clearness.
Confucius ridiculed the guitar-playing and singing of Tse Yu,4 who, however, retorted by quoting what Confucius had said on a previous occasion. If we now take up the text of the Analects, we shall see that in the sayings of Confucius there is much like the strictures on the singing of Tse Yu. But there were few disciples able to raise a question like Tse Yu. In consequence the words of Confucius became stereotyped and inexplicable, because the Seventy could not make any objection, and the scholars of the present time are not in a position to judge of the truth of the doctrine.
Their scientific methods do not arise from a lack of ability, but the difficulty consists in opposing the teacher, scrutinizing his doctrine, investigating its meaning, and bringing evidence to ascertain right and wrong. Criticism is not solely permitted vis-à-vis to sages, as long as they are alive. The commentators of the present day do not require the instruction of a sage, before they dare to speak.
If questions be asked on things which seem inexplicable, and Confucius be pressed hard, how can this be deemed a violation of the moral laws, and if those who really are able to hand down the holy teachings, impugn the words of Confucius, why must their undertaking be considered unreasonable? I trust that, as regards those inquiries into the words of Confucius and those remarks on his unintelligible passages, men of genius of all ages, possessing the natural gift of answering questions and solving difficulties, will certainly appreciate the criticisms and investigations made in our time.
"Mêng I Tse5 asked, what filial piety was. The Master said, `To show no disregard.' Soon after, as Fan Chih6 was driving him, the Master told him saying, "Mêng Sun7 asked me, what filial piety was, and I answered him, `To show no disregard.' "
Fan Chih said, `What does that mean?' The Master replied, `That parents, while alive, should be served according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety.' " 8
Now I ask, Confucius said that no disregard is to be shown viz. no disregard to propriety. But a good son also must anticipate his parents' thoughts, conform to their will, and never disregard their wishes. Confucius said "to show no disregard," but did not speak of disregard for propriety. Could Mêng I Tse, hearing the words of Confucius, not imagine that he meant to say, "no disregard for (the parents) wishes?" When Fan Chih came, he asked, what it meant. Then Confucius said, "That parents while alive should be served according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety." Had Fan Chih not inquired, what the words "no disregard" meant, he would not have understood them.
Mêng I Tse's talents did not surpass those of Fan Chih, therefore there is no record of his sayings or doings in the chapters of the Analects. Since Fan Chih could not catch the meaning, would Mêng I Tse have done so?
Mêng Wu Po asked what filial piety was. The Master replied "If the only sorrow parents have, is that which they feel, when their children are sick." 9
Mêng Wu Po used to cause his parents much sorrow, therefore Confucius spoke the afore-mentioned words. Mêng Wu Po was a cause of sorrow to his parents, whereas Mêng I Tse disregarded propriety. If in reproving this fault Confucius replied to Mêng Wu Po "If the only sorrow parents have is that which they feel, when their children are sick," he ought to have told Mêng I Tse that only in case of fire or inundation might propriety be neglected.
Chou Kung says that small talents require thorough instructions, whereas for great ones a hint is sufficient. Tse Yu possessed great talents, yet with him Confucius went into details. The talents of Mêng I Tse were comparatively small, but Confucius gave him a mere hint. Thus he did not fall in with Chou Kung's views. Reproving the shortcomings of Mêng I Tse, he lost the right principle. How was it that none of his disciples took exception?
If he did not dare to speak too openly owing to the high position held by Mêng I Tse, he likewise ought to have said to Mêng Wu Po nothing more than `not to cause sorrow (is filial piety),' for both were scions of the Mêng family, and of equal dignity. There is no apparent reason, why he should have spoken to Mêng Wu Po in clear terms and to Mêng I Tse thus vaguely. Had Confucius freely told Mêng I Tse not to disregard propriety, what harm would there have been?
No other family was more powerful in Lu than the Chi family, yet Confucius blamed them for having eight rows of pantomimes in their court, 10 and objected to their performing a sacrifice on Mount T`ai.11 He was not afraid of the evil consequences, which this lack of reserve in regard to the usurpation of territorial rights by the Chi family might have for him, but anticipated bad results from a straightforward answer given to Mêng I Tse? Moreover, he was questioned about filial piety more than once, and he had always his charioteer at hand. 12 When he spoke to Mêng I Tse, he was not merely in a submissive mood, 13 therefore he informed Fan Chih.
Confucius said 14 "Riches and honour are what men desire. If they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be avoided." 15
The meaning is that men must acquire riches in a just and proper way, and not take them indiscriminately, that they must keep within their bounds, patiently endure poverty, and not recklessly throw it off. To say that riches and honour must not be held, unless they are obtained in the proper way, is all right, but what is poverty and meanness not obtained in a proper way? Wealth and honour can, of course, be abandoned, but what is the result of giving up poverty and meanness? By giving up poverty and meanness one obtains wealth and honour. As long as one does not obtain wealth and honour, one does not get rid of poverty and meanness. If we say that, unless wealth and honour can be obtained in a proper way, poverty and meanness should not be shunned, then that which is obtained is wealth and honour, not poverty and meanness. How can the word "obtaining" be used with reference to poverty and meanness? Therefore the passage ought to read as follows:
"Poverty and meanness are what people dislike. If they cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided."
Avoiding is the proper word, not obtaining. Obtaining is used of obtaining. Now there is avoiding, how can it be called obtaining? Only in regard to riches and honour we can speak of obtaining. How so? By obtaining riches and honour one avoids poverty and meanness. Then how can poverty and meanness be avoided in the proper way?---By purifying themselves and keeping in the proper way officials acquire rank and emoluments, wealth and honour, and by obtaining these they avoid poverty and meanness.
How are poverty and meanness avoided not in the proper way?---If anybody feels so vexed and annoyed with poverty and meanness, that he has recourse to brigandage and robbery for the purpose of amassing money and valuables, and usurps official emoluments, then he does not keep in the proper way.
Since the Seventy Disciples did not ask any question regarding the passage under discussion, the literati of to-day are likewise incapable of raising any objection.
If the meaning of this utterance is not explained, nor the words made clear, we would have to say that Confucius could not speak properly. As long as the meaning continues unravelled, and the words unexplained, the admonition of Confucius remains uncomprehensible. Why did his disciples not ask, and people now say nothing?
"Confucius said of Kung Yeh Ch`ang that he might be wived and that, although he was put in bonds, he was not guilty. Accordingly he gave him his daughter to wife." 16
I ask what was the idea of Confucius, when he gave a wife to Kung Yeh Ch`ang. Did he think him fit to marry, because he was thirty years old, or on account of his excellent conduct? If he had his thirty years in view, he should not have spoken of his being in fetters, and if he looked upon his conduct, there was no occasion either for mentioning his imprisonment. Why? Because all who joined the school of Confucius were well-behaved. Therefore they were called accomplished followers. If among these followers one or the other was unmarried, he might have been married, but it need not be mentioned. If among the disciples many unmarried ones existed and Kung Yeh Ch`ang was the most virtuous of them, and should therefore Confucius have given him a wife alone, then in praising him Confucius ought to have enumerated his deeds instead of speaking of his imprisonment. There are not a few persons in the world, who suffer violence without being guilty, but they are not perfect sages therefore. Of ordinary people who are wronged, there are a great many, not only one. If Confucius made an innocent man his son-in-law, he selected not a virtuous man, but one who had suffered injustice. The only praise Confucius had for Kung Yeh Ch`ang was his innocence; of his doings or his qualities he said not a word. If in fact he was not virtuous, and Confucius made him his son-in-law, he did wrong, and if he was virtuous indeed, but Confucius in praising him did not mention it, he was wrong likewise. It was like his giving a wife to Nan Yung,17 of whom he said that `if the country were well-governed, he would not be out of office, and if it were ill-governed, he would escape punishment and disgrace,' 18 a praise which left nothing to be desired. 19
The Master said to Tse Kung, "Which of you two, yourself or Hui is superior?" Tse Kung replied, "How dare I compare myself with Hui? If Hui hears one point, he knows therefrom ten others. If I hear one, I know but two." The Master said "Not equal to him. I and you together cannot compare with him." 20
Thus with a view to setting forth the excellence of Yen Hui this question was put to Tse Kung. This calls for the following remark:
That which Confucius propounded was propriety and modesty. Tse Lu would govern a State with propriety, but his words were not modest, therefore Confucius criticized him. 21 Had Tse Kung really been superior to Hui, he would, on being asked by Confucius, have replied nevertheless that he was not equal to him, and had he been inferior in fact, he would likewise have owned to his inferiority. In the first case the answer would not have been wrong or a deception of the Master, for propriety and modesty require depreciatory and humble words.
What was the purport of this inquiry of Confucius? If he was aware that Yen Hui surpassed Tse Kung, he did not need to ask the latter, and if he really did not know, and therefore asked Tse Kung, he would not have learned it in this way either, for Tse Kung was bound to give a modest and humble reply. If Confucius merely wanted to eulogise Hui and praise his virtue, there were many other disciples not enjoying the same fame, why must he just ask Tse Kung?
The Master said, "Admirable indeed was the virtue of Hui!" 22 and further, "I have talked with Hui for a whole day, and he has not made any objection, as if he were stupid" 23 and, "Such was Hui, that for three months there would be nothing in his mind contrary to perfect virtue." 24 In all these three chapters Hui is praised directly, but not at the cost of any other person, why then must Tse Kung in one chapter serve to him as a foil?
Somebody might think that Confucius wanted to snub Tse Kung. At that time the fame of Tse Kung was greater than that of Yen Hui. Confucius apprehensive, lest Tse Kung should become too conceited and overbearing, wanted to humble him.
If his name ranked above that of Hui, it was a simple fact at that time, but not brought about by Tse Kung's endeavours to supersede his rival. How could the judgment of Tse Kung have affected the case? Even supposing that, in case Yen Hui's talents were superior to his, he had submitted of his own accord, there was no necessity for any snubbing. If Tse Kung could not know it himself, he would, nothwithstanding anything Confucius might have said, have been convinced that the latter only wanted to humble him, and in that case questioning or no questioning would have neither humbled nor elated him.
Tsai Wo being asleep during the day time, the Master said, "Rotten wood cannot be carved; a wall of dirty earth will not receive the trowel. But what is the use of my reproving Tsai Wo!" 25 ---For sleeping during the day Tsai Wo was reprimanded in this way.
Sleeping during day time is a small evil. Rotten wood and dirty earth are things in such a state of decay, that they cannot be repaired, and must be regarded as great evils. If a small evil is censured, as though it were a great one, the person in question would not submit to such a judgment. If Tsai Wo's character was as bad as rotten wood or dirty earth, he ought not to have been admitted to the school of Confucius nor rank in one of the four classes of disciples. 26 In case his character was good however, Confucius dealt too harshly with him.
"If a man is not virtuous, and you carry your dislike of him to extremes, he will recalcitrate." 27 The dislike shown by Confucius for Tsai Wo has been, so to say, too strong. Provided that common and ignorant people had committed some smaller punishable offence, and the judge condemned them to capital punishment, would they suffer the wrong, and complain of the injustice, or would they quietly submit, and consider themselves guilty? Had Tsai Wo been an ignorant man, his feelings would have been the same with those people guilty of some offence; being a worthy, he must have understood a reproof of Confucius, and have reformed at the slightest remark. An open word was sufficient to enlighten him, whereas an exaggeration would have missed its mark. At the first allusion he would already have reformed. That however did not depend on the strength of the language used, but on Tsai Wo's ability to change.
The scheme of the "Ch`un Ch`iu" is to point out any small goodness, and to censure small wrongs. 28 But if Confucius praised small deserts in high terms, and censured trifling wrongs immoderately, would Tsai Wo having the scheme of the Ch`un Ch`iu in view agree with such criticism? If not, he would not accept it, and the words of Confucius would be lost.
The words of a Sage must tally with his writings. His words come from his mouth, and his writings are in his books, but both flow from the heart, and are the same in substance. When Confucius composed the "Ch`un Ch`iu" he did not censure small things, as if they were very important, but in reproving Tsai Wo he condemned a small offence in the same manner as an enormous crime. His words and his writings disagree. How should they convince a man?
The Master said, "At first my way with men was to hear their words, and to give them credit for their conduct. Now my way is to hear their words, and look at their conduct. It is from Tsai Wo that I have learnt to make this change." 29 That is from the time, when Tsai Wo was asleep in the day time, he changed his method of studying men. But one may well ask, how can a man's sleeping during the day time spoil his character, and how can a man of bad conduct become good by not sleeping day or night? Is it possible to learn anything about people's goodness or badness from their sleeping during the day time?
Amongst the disciples of Confucius in the four classes Tsai Wo took precedence over Tse Kung. If he was so lazy, that nothing could be made out of his character, how could he advance so far? If Tsai Wo reached such a degree of perfection notwithstanding his sleeping during the day, his talents must have been far superior to those of ordinary people. Supposing that he had not yet reached the goal, but was under the impression that he had done enough, he did not know better himself. That was a lack of knowledge, but his conduct was not bad. He only wanted some enlightenment, but to change the method of studying men for that reason was superfluous.
Let us assume that Tsai Wo was conscious of his deficiencies, but felt so exhausted, that he fell asleep during day time. That was a relaxation of his vital force. This exhaustion may increase to such a degree, that death ensues and not only sleep. 30
As regards the method of judging human character by taking into consideration the actions, the words are disregarded, and by laying all stress on words, the conduct is left out of consideration. Now although Tsai Wo was not very energetic in his actions, his words were well worth hearing. There is a class of men who speak very well, but whose deeds are not quite satisfactory. From the time that Tsai Wo slept during the day, Confucius began to hear the words, and look at the conduct, and only in case they both corresponded, called a man virtuous. That means to say, he wanted a perfect man, but how does that agree with his principle that perfection must not be expected from one man? 31
Tse Chang asked saying, "The minister Tse Wên32 thrice took office, and manifested no joy in his countenance. Thrice he retired from office, and manifested no displeasure. He made it a point to inform the new minister of the way in which he had conducted the government;---what do you say of him?" The Master replied, "He was loyal."---"Was he benevolent?"---"I do not know. How can he be pronounced benevolent? 33Tse Wên recommended Tse Yü of Ch`u as his successor. Tse Yü attacked Sung with a hundred warchariots, but was defeated and lost most of his men. 34 If Tse Wên was ignorant like that, how could he be considered benevolent?"
My question is this. When Tse Wên recommended Tse Yü, he did not know him, but wisdom has nothing to do with virtue. Ignorance does not preclude benevolent deeds. There are the five virtues:---benevolence, justice, propriety, intelligence, and truth, but these five are separate, and not necessarily combined. Thus there are intelligent men, benevolent men, there are the well-mannered, and the just. The truthful must not always be intelligent, or the intelligent, benevolent, the benevolent, well-mannered, or the well-mannered, just. Tse Wên's intelligence was obfuscated by Tse Yü, but how did his benevolence suffer therefrom? Consequently it is not right to say, "How can he be pronounced benevolent?"
Moreover loyal means generous, and generosity is benevolence. Confucius said, "By observing a man's faults it may be known that he is benevolent." 35Tse Wên possessed true benevolence. If Confucius says that loyalty is not benevolence, he might as well assert that father and mother are not the two parents, or that husband and wife are not a pair.
The duke Ai36 asked which of the disciples loved to learn. Confucius replied to him, "There was Yen Hui. He did not vent his anger on others, nor did he twice commit the same fault. Alas! his fate was short and he died; and now there is none. I have not yet heard of any one who loves to learn." 37 ---
What was really the cause of Yen Hui's death? It is, of course, attributed to his short fate, which would correspond to Po Niu's sickness. 38 All living men have received their fate, which is complete, and must be clean. 39 Now there being the evil disease of Po Niu,40 one says that he had no fate. 41 Those who remain alive, must have been endowed with a long fate. If a person has obtained a short fate, we should likewise say that he has no fate. Provided that heaven's fate can be short or long, it also must be good or bad. Speaking of Yen Hui's short fate, one can speak likewise of Po Niu's bad fate. Saying that Po Niu had no fate, one must admit that Yen Hui had no Illegal HTML character: decimal 156