Chunyu Kun said, “Those who prioritize fame and practical achievements do so for the sake of others; those who relegate them to a secondary position do so for themselves. You, Master, are ranked among the Three Ministers of Qi. Yet, without having established any tangible contributions to either your sovereign above or the people below, you simply resigned and left. Is this truly how a benevolent person acts?”
Mencius replied, “Bo Yi was one who, when in a low position, refused to serve an unworthy ruler with his worthiness. Yi Yin was one who went to Tang five times and to Jie five times. Liu Xiahui was one who did not despise corrupt rulers nor decline minor offices. The ways of these three men were different, but their ultimate destination was the same. What was that destination? It was benevolence (Ren). A gentleman simply needs to be benevolent; why must their methods be identical?”
Chunyu Kun said, “During the time of Duke Mu of Lu, Gongyi Zi managed the government, and Zi Liu and Zi Si served as ministers. Yet, the territory of Lu was reduced even further. From this, it seems that worthy men are of no benefit to the state!”
Mencius replied, “Yu perished because it did not use Baili Xi; Duke Mu of Qin became hegemon because he used him. If a state does not use worthy men, it will perish. How could it merely suffer a reduction in territory?”
Chunyu Kun said, “In the past, when Wang Bao lived by the Qi River, the people west of the river became skilled at singing. When Mian Ju lived in Gaotang, the people on the western border of Qi became skilled at singing. When the wife of Hua Zhou and Qi Liang excelled at weeping for her husband, she transformed the customs of the state. What is within must manifest without. I have never seen a case where someone did the work but produced no results. Therefore, there are simply no worthy men today; if there were, I would certainly recognize them.”
Mencius said, “When Confucius served as Minister of Crime in Lu, he was not employed. Later, he followed the duke to a sacrificial ceremony, but the roasted meat was not distributed to him as per ritual. He departed without even taking off his ceremonial cap. Those who did not know him thought he left because of the meat. Those who knew him understood he left because of the breach of ritual. In truth, Confucius wished to use a minor fault as a pretext for his departure; he did not want to leave in a hasty and undignified manner. The actions of a gentleman are indeed beyond the understanding of the common people.”
Note
This passage from the Gaozi II chapter of the Mencius records a brilliant philosophical exchange between the famous Warring States debater Chunyu Kun and Mencius regarding the “utility of worthy men” and the “conduct of a gentleman.” Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- “Different Paths Leading to the Same Benevolence”: The Plurality and Inclusiveness of Moral Practice
Chunyu Kun measured Mencius’ departure by the secular standards of “fame and practical achievements,” arguing that a worthy man must establish tangible contributions. Mencius, however, shattered this singular standard of success by citing three ancient sages: Bo Yi, Yi Yin, and Liu Xiahui. Whether aloof, accommodating, or alternating between office and retirement, their distinct styles all centered on “Ren” (benevolence). Mencius used this to point out that true moral cultivation is not bound by external forms or trajectories. As long as one holds benevolence in their heart, whether advancing or retreating, prominent or obscure, it is the righteous path of a gentleman. - Refuting the “Worthies Are Useless” Argument: Worthy Men Determine National Survival, Not Mere Gains
Chunyu Kun used the reality of Lu shrinking despite having worthy ministers to question their practical utility. Mencius astutely seized the logical flaw: the role of a worthy man is to “preserve the state from perishing,” not necessarily to “expand its territory.” Without these worthy ministers, Lu might have perished entirely; how could it even afford to discuss “territorial reduction”? Mencius established the role of worthy men in defending the bottom line of the nation, criticizing the short-sightedness of using short-term utilitarianism to negate the value of moral politics. - “Using a Minor Fault as a Pretext”: The Independent Personality and Spiritual Realm of the Gentleman
Faced with Chunyu Kun’s pressing argument that “what is within must manifest without,” Mencius used the allusion of Confucius “departing without taking off his cap” as the ultimate rebuttal. Confucius left Lu ostensibly over a piece of roasted meat (manifested without), but actually to preserve the dignity of ritual propriety between sovereign and minister (using a minor fault as a pretext). Mencius profoundly revealed the cognitive gap between the gentleman and the secular world: the actions of a gentleman often contain profound moral considerations and political wisdom. This inner spiritual realm and baseline of character are simply beyond the comprehension of ordinary people who are obsessed with superficial utility. This highlights Mencius’ pride in steadfastly upholding his ideals and refusing to drift with the current in a chaotic era.
淳于髡曰：“先名实者，为人也；后名实者，自为也。夫子在三卿之中，名实未加于上下而去之，仁者固如此乎？”
孟子曰：“居下位，不以贤事不肖者，伯夷也；五就汤，五就桀者，伊尹也；不恶污君，不辞小官者，柳下惠也。三子者不同道，其趋一也。一者何也？曰：仁也。君子亦仁而已矣，何必同？”
曰：“鲁缪公之时，公仪子为政，子柳、子思为臣，鲁之削也滋甚。若是乎贤者之无益于国也！”
曰：“虞不用百里奚而亡，秦穆公用之而霸。不用贤则亡，削何可得与？”
曰：“昔者王豹处于淇，而河西善讴；绵驹处于高唐，而齐右善歌；华周、杞梁之妻善哭其夫，而变国俗。有诸内必形诸外。为其事而无其功者，髡未尝睹之也。是故无贤者也，有则髡必识之。”
曰：“孔子为鲁司寇，不用，从而祭，燔肉不至，不税冕而行。不知者以为为肉也。其知者以为为无礼也。乃孔子则欲以微罪行，不欲为苟去。君子之所为，众人固不识也。”
Leave a Reply