Wan Zhang asked Mencius, “May I ask what mindset one should have when interacting and socializing with others?”
Mencius replied, “Reverence.”
Wan Zhang asked, “If repeatedly declining a gift is considered disrespectful, why is that?”
Mencius said, “When a superior bestows a gift, if one first deliberates, ‘Did he acquire this righteously or unrighteously?’ before accepting it, this is considered disrespectful. Therefore, one should not decline.”
Wan Zhang asked, “What if I do not decline with words, but decline in my heart, thinking, ‘He extracted this from the people unrighteously,’ and then decline it using some other excuse? Would that be acceptable?”
Mencius replied, “If the interaction is based on the Way and the reception is in accordance with the rites, even Confucius would accept it.”
Wan Zhang said, “Suppose there is a robber who murders people outside the city gates. If his interaction is based on the Way and his gift is given in accordance with the rites, can his stolen goods be accepted?”
Mencius said, “Absolutely not. The Kang Gao says, ‘He kills men and takes their goods, being fearless of death; there is no one among the people who does not detest him.’ Such a person can be executed without waiting for instruction. When the Yin dynasty succeeded the Xia, and the Zhou succeeded the Yin, this law was not altered. It is even more severe today; how could one accept his gifts?”
Wan Zhang said, “The way today’s feudal lords extract wealth from the people is no different from robbery. Yet, if their etiquette in socializing is proper, the gentleman accepts it. How do you explain this?”
Mencius said, “Do you think that if a true King were to arise, he would execute all today’s feudal lords as if they were robbers? Or would he first instruct them, and only execute them if they refuse to change? The statement that ‘taking what does not belong to one is robbery’ is merely pushing the logical category to its ultimate extreme. When Confucius served in the state of Lu, the people of Lu practiced ‘hunting contests’ (competing for game to offer in sacrifices), and Confucius also participated. If participating in hunting contests was acceptable, how much more so is receiving gifts given in accordance with the rites?”
Wan Zhang asked, “Then did Confucius take office not to serve the Way?”
Mencius said, “He took office to serve the Way.”
Wan Zhang asked, “If he served the Way, why did he participate in hunting contests?”
Mencius said, “Confucius first regulated the sacrificial vessels using official documents, and stipulated that food offered from the four quarters should not be used to fulfill these regulations (thus gradually abolishing the hunting contests).”
Wan Zhang asked, “Then why did he not leave?”
Mencius said, “He wanted to test the waters. If the test showed that his Way could be implemented, but the ruler still refused to implement it, only then would he leave. Therefore, he never stayed in any state for a full three years. Confucius took office for three reasons: when he saw that his Way could be implemented; when he was treated with proper etiquette; and when the ruler had a custom of supporting scholars. Serving under Ji Huanzi was an instance of seeing his Way could be implemented; serving under Duke Ling of Wei was an instance of being treated with proper etiquette; and serving under Duke Xiao of Wei was an instance of being supported by the ruler.”
Note
This passage from the Wan Zhang II chapter of the Mencius profoundly explores the Confucian principles of conduct in complex political environments, the boundaries of ritual and righteousness, and the flexibility of political practice. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- The Mindset of Interaction and the Priority of “Rites”
Mencius begins by establishing “reverence” as the fundamental mindset for interpersonal interactions. When receiving gifts from superiors, Mencius opposes using secular “unrighteousness” to speculate about the giver, believing this is inherently arrogant and disrespectful. Confucianism emphasizes that “interactions must be based on the Way, and receptions in accordance with the rites.” As long as the procedures and forms of interaction conform to righteousness and rites, a gentleman should accept them calmly. This reflects the Confucian respect for “rites” as the basic norms of social interaction, avoiding the disruption of normal interpersonal dynamics due to moral puritanism. - The Boundaries of Concepts: From “Murder and Robbery” to “Feudal Extortion”
Wan Zhang attempts to apply the extreme logic of “robbers” to contemporary feudal lords, which Mencius cleverly refutes. He points out that murder and robbery are absolute evils that can be “executed without instruction,” whereas the extortion by feudal lords, though equally unrighteous, still falls under the category of “instructable” in political ethics. Mencius introduces the concept of “pushing the category to its ultimate extreme,” meaning that “taking what does not belong to one is robbery” is merely a theoretical concept pushed to the logical limit, not directly equivalent to criminal offenses in reality. This demonstrates the rationality and sense of proportion in Confucian critique of reality. - The Flexibility of Political Practice: “Testing the Waters” and the Three Types of Office
Through the example of Confucius participating in “hunting contests,” Mencius vividly interprets the Confucian wisdom of “expediency” (quan) in practical politics. Confucius was not colluding with corrupt practices, but rather “testing the waters” (making an initial attempt to gradually reform by regulating sacrificial vessels). When he realized the ruler was ultimately beyond saving, he resolutely left. Mencius then summarizes the three reasons for Confucius taking office: “when he saw his Way could be implemented,” “when treated with proper etiquette,” and “when the ruler had a custom of supporting scholars.” This shows that for Confucian scholars, participating in politics is not solely bound by the absolute standard of “implementing the Great Way.” When the highest ideal cannot be realized, maintaining some political involvement and upholding the baseline of the rites is also a commendable and pragmatic choice.
萬章問曰：「敢問交際何心也？」
孟子曰：「恭也。」
曰：「卻之卻之為不恭，何哉？」
曰：「尊者賜之，曰『其所取之者，義乎，不義乎」，而後受之，以是為不恭，故弗卻也。」
曰：「請無以辭卻之，以心卻之，曰『其取諸民之不義也』，而以他辭無受，不可乎？」
曰：「其交也以道，其接也以禮，斯孔子受之矣。」
萬章曰：「今有禦人於國門之外者，其交也以道，其餽也以禮，斯可受禦與？」
曰：「不可。《康誥》曰：『殺越人于貨，閔不畏死，凡民罔不譈。』是不待教而誅者也。殷受夏，周受殷，所不辭也。於今為烈，如之何其受之？」
曰：「今之諸侯取之於民也，猶禦也。苟善其禮際矣，斯君子受之，敢問何說也？」
曰：「子以為有王者作，將比今之諸侯而誅之乎？其教之不改而後誅之乎？夫謂非其有而取之者盜也，充類至義之盡也。孔子之仕於魯也，魯人獵較，孔子亦獵較。獵較猶可，而況受其賜乎？」
曰：「然則孔子之仕也，非事道與？」
曰：「事道也。」
「事道奚獵較也？」
曰：「孔子先簿正祭器，不以四方之食供簿正。」
曰：「奚不去也？」
曰：「為之兆也。兆足以行矣，而不行，而後去，是以未嘗有所終三年淹也。孔子有見行可之仕，有際可之仕，有公養之仕也。於季桓子，見行可之仕也；於衛靈公，際可之仕也；於衛孝公，公養之仕也。」
Leave a Reply