When Mencius was residing in the state of Zou, Ji Ren was acting as the regent of the state of Ren. Ji Ren sent gifts to establish a relationship with Mencius; Mencius accepted the gifts but did not return the visit. Later, when Mencius was residing in Pinglu, Chu Zi was serving as the prime minister of the state of Qi. Chu Zi also sent gifts to establish a relationship with Mencius; Mencius accepted these gifts as well but did not return the visit.
Some days later, when Mencius traveled from Zou to Ren, he specifically visited Ji Ren; but when he traveled from Pinglu to the capital of Qi, he did not visit Chu Zi. Wulu Zi, a disciple of Mencius, rejoiced and said, “I have finally found an opportunity to question my teacher.”
Wulu Zi asked, “Master, you visited Ji Ren when you went to Ren, but did not visit Chu Zi when you went to Qi. Is this because Chu Zi holds the high position of prime minister?”
Mencius replied, “No. The Book of Documents says, ‘In presenting offerings, the emphasis is on the rites. If the rites do not match the gifts, it is as if no offering was made, for one has not dedicated one’s mind to the offering.’ I did not visit Chu Zi because his conduct did not constitute a true offering.”
Wulu Zi was delighted. When someone else asked about the reason, Wulu Zi explained, “Ji Ren could not travel to Zou due to his duties as regent; whereas Chu Zi, as prime minister, could easily have traveled to Pinglu to visit the Master (but chose not to).”
Note
This passage from the Gaozi II chapter of the Mencius reveals Mencius’ profound concept of ritual propriety, which values “sincerity of heart” over “material objects,” through his contrasting attitudes toward two gift-givers (Ji Ren and Chu Zi). Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- “If the Rites Do Not Match the Gifts, It Is Not an Offering”: The Core of Ritual is Sincerity, Not Form
By quoting the famous line from the Book of Documents, Mencius hit the nail on the head regarding the essence of ritual. In the Confucian view, gifts are merely a vehicle for expressing respect; the true core is the sincerity and reverence accompanying them. If there are only lavish gifts without corresponding etiquette and sincerity, the interaction loses its soul and cannot be called a true “offering.” Mencius used this to critique the hypocritical social trend of his time that valued material wealth over genuine sincerity. - Judging Actions vs. Judging Intentions: The Flexible Grasp of “Expediency” and “Principles”
Why was Ji Ren’s unreciprocated gift considered a valid relationship, while Chu Zi’s was not? Wulu Zi’s explanation reveals the Confucian empathy of “putting oneself in another’s shoes.” As the acting ruler, Ji Ren bore heavy state responsibilities and could not leave his post to visit Mencius in Zou; his sending of gifts represented his utmost sincerity (expedient flexibility). Conversely, as the prime minister of Qi, it was entirely feasible for Chu Zi to visit Mencius in Pinglu. His choice to only send gifts indicated a lack of genuine respect for the worthy. Mencius saw through the objective constraints and subjective motivations behind their actions, achieving true “judgment of intent.” - The Integrity of the Intellectual: Dignified and Equal Interaction
Mencius’ attitude toward the powerful prime minister (Chu Zi) and the regent of a minor state (Ji Ren) was completely unaffected by secular political status. His refusal to visit Chu Zi stemmed not from arrogance toward power, but from his steadfast adherence to “ritual.” This reflects Mencius’ independent personality as a great Confucian scholar: before morality and truth, all are equal. True relationships must be built on mutual respect and sincerity, and one must never compromise their principles simply because of another’s power or status.
孟子居邹，季任为任处守，以币交，受之而不报。处于平陆，储子为相，以币交，受之而不报。他日由邹之任，见季子；由平陆之齐，不见储子。屋庐子喜曰：“连得间矣。”
问曰：“夫子之任见季子，之齐不见储子，为其为相与？”
曰：“非也。书曰：‘享多仪，仪不及物曰不享，惟不役志于享。’为其不成享也。”
屋庐子悦。或问之。屋庐子曰：“季子不得之邹，储子得之平陆。”
Leave a Reply