Mencius said:
“Bo Yi would not serve a ruler he did not approve of, nor befriend anyone he deemed unworthy.”
“He refused to serve in the court of a bad ruler or even speak with someone of bad character.
To him, doing so would be like wearing formal court robes and a ceremonial cap while sitting in mud and ashes – utterly defiling.
He took this aversion to evil so far that if he stood beside a villager whose hat was crooked (a sign of impropriety), he would immediately turn away in disgust, as if afraid of being contaminated.
Thus, even when feudal lords sent envoys with flattering words to invite him into office, he refused.
His refusal wasn’t out of arrogance – it was because he considered such positions beneath his dignity.
Liuxia Hui (Hui of Liuxia, Zhan Qin), by contrast, was unashamed to serve a morally flawed ruler and didn’t feel degraded by holding a minor post.
When in office, he never hid his talents but always acted according to his principles.
Even when dismissed and forgotten, he bore no resentment; even in poverty and hardship, he felt no self-pity.
He famously said: ‘You are you; I am I. Even if you stood naked beside me, how could you possibly defile me?’
Therefore, he could mingle freely with all kinds of people yet never lose his moral grounding.
If someone asked him to stay, he stayed; if asked to leave, he left.
He complied not out of weakness, but because he didn’t feel the need to flee – he saw no necessity in dramatic withdrawal.”
Finally, Mencius concluded:
“Bo Yi was too narrow-minded; Liuxia Hui was too lax.
Narrowness and laxity – neither is the path of a true noble person.”
孟子曰：「伯夷，非其君不事，非其友不友。不立於惡人之朝，不與惡人言。立於惡人之朝，與惡人言，如以朝衣朝冠坐於塗炭。推惡惡之心，思與鄉人立，其冠不正，望望然去之，若將浼焉。是故諸侯雖有善其辭命而至者，不受也。不受也者，是亦不屑就已。柳下惠，不羞汙君，不卑小官。進不隱賢，必以其道。遺佚而不怨，阨窮而不憫。故曰：『爾為爾，我為我，雖袒裼裸裎於我側，爾焉能浼我哉？』故由由然與之偕而不自失焉，援而止之而止。援而止之而止者，是亦不屑去已。」
孟子曰：「伯夷隘，柳下惠不恭。隘與不恭，君子不由也。」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Gongsun Chou I contrasts two famed recluses – Bo Yi and Liuxia Hui – to explore Confucian ideals of ethical engagement, ultimately advocating a middle way.
Bo Yi: Moral Purity to the point of isolation
Bo Yi, who starved himself rather than eat grain from the Zhou dynasty he deemed illegitimate, embodied absolute moral integrity. Yet Mencius critiques he was too strait-laced – his rigid rejection of any contact with moral impurity made him ineffective in the real world, bordering on self-righteous isolation.
Liuxia Hui: Flexible integrity without self-respect
Hui of Liuxia (Zhan Qin), a Lu state official praised by Confucius, remained in service despite repeated demotions, maintaining inner virtue amid external chaos. But Mencius faults his “lack of reverence” (self-respect) – his excessive ease risked blurring ethical boundaries and diminishing the dignity of the scholar-official role.
Mencius’s middle path: Principled engagement
Mencius does not reject either figure but warns against extremes. The true gentleman, like Confucius (“I have no preconceptions about what is permissible or impermissible”), balances moral steadfastness with practical adaptability – engaging society without being corrupted, as articulated in the Doctrine of the Mean: “The noble person is harmonious but not conformist.”
Political relevance in the Warring States Era
Amid chaotic power struggles, scholars faced a dilemma: withdraw like Bo Yi or cooperate like Liuxia Hui? Mencius offers a third way: enter public life to implement benevolent governance when possible; retreat to cultivate virtue when not – but always with purpose, not dogma or indifference.
Thus, his critique establishes a Confucian ideal of responsible, flexible, and principled action in a flawed world.
Leave a Reply