Wan Zhang asked, “When Confucius was in the State of Chen, he said, ‘Why not return to Lu! The scholars in my hometown are ambitious but careless in their actions; they strive for progress and have not forgotten their original aspirations.’ Since Confucius was in Chen, why did he miss the bold scholars of Lu?”
Mencius replied, “Confucius said, ‘If I cannot find people who follow the Doctrine of the Mean to associate with, I must surely turn to the bold and the cautious! The bold advance vigorously, and the cautious refrain from doing certain wrong things.’ Did Confucius not desire to associate with those who follow the Mean? Since he could not be certain to find them, he had to settle for the next best.”
Wan Zhang asked, “May I ask what kind of person can be called ‘bold’?” Mencius said, “People like Qin Zhang, Zeng Xi, and Mu Pi are those whom Confucius called bold.”
Wan Zhang asked, “Why are they called bold?” Mencius said, “Their ambitions are grand, and they constantly say, ‘The ancients did this, the ancients did that.’ Yet, when their actions are examined, they do not match their words. If even the bold cannot be found, Confucius would seek those who refuse to do anything unclean and associate with them. These are the cautious, which is the next best option.”
Mencius continued, “Confucius said, ‘Those who pass my door but do not enter my room, and whom I feel no regret in ignoring, are none other than the ‘village worthies’ (Xiangyuan). The village worthies are the thieves of virtue.’” Wan Zhang asked, “What kind of person can be called a village worthy?”
Mencius said, “They mock the bold, saying, ‘Why are you so grandiose, always talking about the ancients? Your words do not match your actions, and your actions do not match your words. Why be so solitary and aloof? Living in this world, just be a person of this world; being reasonably good is enough.’ Those who act in a fawning, unprincipled manner to please the world are the village worthies.”
Wan Zhang asked, “If the whole village praises them as good, honest men, and they are considered good, honest men wherever they go, why did Confucius consider them thieves of virtue?”
Mencius said, “If you try to condemn them, you cannot point to any specific fault; if you try to criticize them, you cannot find any obvious flaw. They conform to the vulgar customs and blend in with a corrupt world. In their hearts, they seem loyal and trustworthy; in their actions, they seem pure and incorruptible. Everyone is pleased with them, and they are self-satisfied, believing themselves to be right. However, they cannot lead people onto the path of Yao and Shun. Therefore, they are called thieves of virtue. Confucius said, ‘I hate things that resemble the genuine but are not: I hate weeds, lest they be mistaken for corn; I hate glib talkers, lest they confuse righteousness; I hate the sharp-tongued, lest they confuse sincerity; I hate the tunes of Zheng, lest they corrupt true music; I hate the color purple, lest it be mistaken for vermilion; I hate the village worthies, lest they corrupt virtue.’ A gentleman simply needs to return to the orthodox Way. When the orthodox Way is upright, the common people will rise to goodness; when the common people rise to goodness, there will be no evil or wickedness.”
Note
This passage from the Jin Xin II chapter of the Mencius is a highly critical and theoretically profound discourse. Through the words of Confucius, Mencius systematically articulated the hierarchical levels of human character – the “Doctrine of the Mean,” the “Bold and Cautious,” and the “Village Worthies” – and launched a ruthless critique against hypocritical “people pleasers.” Drawing on historical context and Confucian classics, we can understand its underlying thought through the following dimensions:
- The Hierarchy of Character: A Pragmatic Choice Between the “Mean” and the “Bold and Cautious”
The highest ideal personality in Confucianism is the “Doctrine of the Mean” (Zhongyong), representing perfect alignment of words and actions without excess or deficiency. However, perfect individuals are extremely rare in reality. Therefore, Confucius proposed the “Bold and Cautious” as a secondary choice. Although the “bold” may have a disconnect between their words and actions and aim too high, they possess ideals, dare to advance, and are full of upward vitality. Although the “cautious” may lack grand vision, they have a bottom line and a sense of shame. Mencius pointed out that in an era of moral decline, it is better to associate with the edgy and principled “bold and cautious” than with mediocre individuals. - A Profound Dissection of “Village Worthies” and Their Designation as “Thieves of Virtue”
The “village worthies” (Xiangyuan) are the primary target of Mencius’ critique in this passage. These people appear loyal, honest, and accommodating on the surface, but in reality, they lack moral principles, merely pandering to the secular and blending in with corruption. Their greatest harm lies in being “specious but false” – they use a mask of false piety to conceal moral decay, misleading ordinary people into believing this is true morality, thereby blurring the standards of right and wrong. Confucius denounced them as “thieves of virtue” because they steal the name of morality while hollowing out its core. This is in the same lineage as later Confucian critiques of “pseudo-scholars.” - “Returning to the Orthodox Way” and the Path to Purifying Society
Faced with the social chaos of “village worthies corrupting virtue,” Mencius’ remedy is “a gentleman simply needs to return to the orthodox Way.” “Return” means to go back, and “Way” refers to the constant principles or orthodox path. Mencius believed that to eliminate hypocrisy and evil, one must not compromise, but must re-establish absolute standards of value. As long as the core values of society are upright, the common people will naturally distinguish right from wrong and strive for goodness, and evil and wickedness will naturally perish. This reflects the Confucian firm stance of adhering to principles and purifying the roots when facing moral crises.
万章问曰：“孔子在陈曰：‘盍归乎来！吾党之士狂简，进取，不忘其初。’孔子在陈，何思鲁之狂士？”
孟子曰：“孔子‘不得中道而与之，必也狂獧乎！狂者进取，獧者有所不为也’。孔子岂不欲中道哉？不可必得，故思其次也。”
“敢问何如斯可谓狂矣？”曰：“如琴张、曾皙、牧皮者，孔子之所谓狂矣。”
“何以谓之狂也？”曰：“其志嘐嘐然，曰‘古之人，古之人’。夷考其行而不掩焉者也。狂者又不可得，欲得不屑不洁之士而与之，是獧也，是又其次也。
孔子曰：‘过我门而不入我室，我不憾焉者，其惟乡原乎！乡原，德之贼也。’”曰：“何如斯可谓之乡原矣？”
曰：“何以是嘐嘐也？言不顾行，行不顾言，则曰：‘古之人，古之人。行何为踽踽凉凉？生斯世也，为斯世也，善斯可矣。’阉然媚于世也者，是乡原也。”
万章曰：“一乡皆称原人焉，无所往而不为原人，孔子以为德之贼，何哉？”
曰：“非之无举也，刺之无刺也；同乎流俗，合乎污世；居之似忠信，行之似廉洁；众皆悦之，自以为是，而不可与入尧舜之道，故曰德之贼也。孔子曰：‘恶似而非者：恶莠，恐其乱苗也；恶佞，恐其乱义也；恶利口，恐其乱信也；恶郑声，恐其乱乐也；恶紫，恐其乱朱也；恶乡原，恐其乱德也。’君子反经而已矣。经正，则庶民兴；庶民兴，斯无邪慝矣。”
Leave a Reply