A man named Xu Xing, who claimed to follow the teachings of Shen Nong (the mythical Divine Farmer), came from Chu to Teng and went directly to Duke Wen, saying:
“As a man from afar, I’ve heard you practice benevolent governance. I’d like to receive a house and become your commoner.”
The duke granted his request. Xu Xing and his dozens of disciples all wore coarse hempen clothes and made a living by weaving sandals and mats.
Meanwhile, Chen Xiang and his brother Chen Xin, disciples of Chen Liang, carried farming tools from Song to Teng, saying:
“We’ve heard you implement the politics of the sages – you yourself are a sage! We wish to be your people.”
When Chen Xiang met Xu Xing, he was delighted and completely abandoned his former studies to follow Xu.
Later, Chen Xiang visited Mencius and relayed Xu’s view:
“Duke Teng is indeed virtuous – but he hasn’t yet grasped the true Way.
A true sage should farm alongside the people to eat, and govern while cooking meals.
Yet now Teng has granaries and treasuries – this is exploiting the people to feed himself. How can he be called virtuous?”
Mencius asked:
“Does Master Xu only eat grain he himself grows?”
“Yes,” replied Chen Xiang.
“Does he only wear cloth he weaves?”
“No – he wears hempen clothes.”
“Does he wear a cap?”
“Yes.”
“What kind?”
“A plain silk one.”
“Did he weave it himself?”
“No – he traded grain for it.”
Mencius pressed:
“Why doesn’t he weave it himself?”
“Because it would interfere with farming.”
“Does he cook with pots and plow with iron tools?”
“Yes.”
“Did he make them himself?”
“No – he traded grain for them.”
Mencius then said:
“When he trades grain for tools, is he exploiting potters and smiths?
And when they trade tools for grain, are they exploiting farmers?
If Xu truly wanted self-sufficiency, why not make his own pottery and tools?
Why engage in constant trade with artisans? Isn’t that troublesome?”
Chen Xiang admitted:
“One cannot farm and practice all crafts at once.”
Mencius concluded:
“Then how can governing the world be done while farming?
There are tasks for the mind and tasks for the body. Those who labor with their minds govern others; those who labor with their bodies are governed. The governed feed others; the governors are fed by others – this is the universal principle of the world.
He then cited ancient sage-kings:
In Yao’s time, floods raged, beasts roamed, and crops failed. Yao appointed Shun, who sent Yi to burn forests to drive away animals and Yu to dredge rivers for eight years – passing his home three times without entering. Could he have farmed?
Hou Ji taught agriculture; Xie taught human relationships: father-son affection, ruler-minister duty, etc.
Sages worried that without moral education, people would sink to the level of beasts. Where would they find time to plow?
Quoting Confucius:
‘Great was Yao! He modeled himself on Heaven… Noble was Shun! He possessed the world yet shared nothing for himself.’
Their governance required deep thought – just not on farming.”
Mencius then rebuked Chen Xiang for betraying his teacher:
“I’ve heard of using Chinese civilization to transform barbarians, never the reverse.
Your teacher Chen Liang, though from Chu, traveled north to study the Dao (Way) of the Duke of Zhou and Confucius, excelling among northern scholars – a true hero!
After decades of study, you abandon him at death to follow Xu Xing, a ‘southern barbarian with bird-like speech’ who rejects ancient sages.
This is like leaving a tall tree for a dark valley! As the Odes of Lu say: ‘Punish the Jing and Shu tribes.’ Even the Duke of Zhou condemned them. Your choice is not progress – it’s regression!”
Finally, Chen Xiang argued:
“Under Xu’s system, market prices are uniform: same-length cloth costs the same; same-weight grain costs the same – even a child won’t be cheated.”
Mencius retorted:
“Goods are inherently unequal – that’s their nature!
Some differ by double, some by tenfold or even millions.
To force identical pricing – say, big shoes and small shoes at the same price – who would make quality goods?
Following Xu’s way would encourage fraud, not good governance!”
有為神農之言者許行，自楚之滕，踵門而告文公曰：「遠方之人聞君行仁政，願受一廛而為氓。」文公與之處，其徒數十人，皆衣褐，捆屨、織席以為食。
陳良之徒陳相與其弟辛，負耒耜而自宋之滕，曰：「聞君行聖人之政，是亦聖人也，願為聖人氓。」陳相見許行而大悅，盡棄其學而學焉。
陳相見孟子，道許行之言曰：「滕君，則誠賢君也；雖然，未聞道也。賢者與民並耕而食，饔飧而治。今也滕有倉廩府庫，則是厲民而以自養也，惡得賢？」
孟子曰：「許子必種粟而後食乎？」曰：「然。」
「許子必織布而後衣乎？」曰：「否。許子衣褐。」
「許子冠乎？」曰：「冠。」
曰：「奚冠？」曰：「冠素。」
曰：「自織之與？」曰：「否。以粟易之。」
曰：「許子奚為不自織？」曰：「害於耕。」
曰：「許子以釜甑爨，以鐵耕乎？」曰：「然。」
「自為之與？」曰：「否。以粟易之。」
「以粟易械器者，不為厲陶冶；陶冶亦以其械器易粟者，豈為厲農夫哉？且許子何不為陶冶。舍皆取諸其宮中而用之？何為紛紛然與百工交易？何許子之不憚煩？」曰：「百工之事，固不可耕且為也。」
「然則治天下獨可耕且為與？有大人之事，有小人之事。且一人之身，而百工之所為備。如必自為而後用之，是率天下而路也。故曰：或勞心，或勞力；勞心者治人，勞力者治於人；治於人者食人，治人者食於人：天下之通義也。
「當堯之時，天下猶未平，洪水橫流，氾濫於天下。草木暢茂，禽獸繁殖，五穀不登，禽獸偪人。獸蹄鳥跡之道，交於中國。堯獨憂之，舉舜而敷治焉。舜使益掌火，益烈山澤而焚之，禽獸逃匿。禹疏九河，瀹濟漯，而注諸海；決汝漢，排淮泗，而注之江，然後中國可得而食也。當是時也，禹八年於外，三過其門而不入，雖欲耕，得乎？后稷教民稼穡。樹藝五穀，五穀熟而民人育。人之有道也，飽食、煖衣、逸居而無教，則近於禽獸。聖人有憂之，使契為司徒，教以人倫：父子有親，君臣有義，夫婦有別，長幼有序，朋友有信。放勳曰：『勞之來之，匡之直之，輔之翼之，使自得之，又從而振德之。』聖人之憂民如此，而暇耕乎？
「堯以不得舜為己憂，舜以不得禹、皋陶為己憂。夫以百畝之不易為己憂者，農夫也。分人以財謂之惠，教人以善謂之忠，為天下得人者謂之仁。是故以天下與人易，為天下得人難。孔子曰：『大哉堯之為君！惟天為大，惟堯則之，蕩蕩乎民無能名焉！君哉舜也！巍巍乎有天下而不與焉！』堯舜之治天下，豈無所用其心哉？亦不用於耕耳。
「吾聞用夏變夷者，未聞變於夷者也。陳良，楚產也。悅周公、仲尼之道，北學於中國。北方之學者，未能或之先也。彼所謂豪傑之士也。子之兄弟事之數十年，師死而遂倍之。昔者孔子沒，三年之外，門人治任將歸，入揖於子貢，相向而哭，皆失聲，然後歸。子貢反，築室於場，獨居三年，然後歸。他日，子夏、子張、子游以有若似聖人，欲以所事孔子事之，彊曾子。曾子曰：『不可。江漢以濯之，秋陽以暴之，皜皜乎不可尚已。』今也南蠻鴃舌之人，非先王之道，子倍子之師而學之，亦異於曾子矣。吾聞出於幽谷遷于喬木者，末聞下喬木而入於幽谷者。《魯頌》曰：『戎狄是膺，荊舒是懲。』周公方且膺之，子是之學，亦為不善變矣。」
「從許子之道，則市賈不貳，國中無偽。雖使五尺之童適市，莫之或欺。布帛長短同，則賈相若；麻縷絲絮輕重同，則賈相若；五穀多寡同，則賈相若；屨大小同，則賈相若。」曰：「夫物之不齊，物之情也；或相倍蓰，或相什伯，或相千萬。子比而同之，是亂天下也。巨屨小屨同賈，人豈為之哉？從許子之道，相率而為偽者也，惡能治國家？」
Note
During the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, many schools of thought invoked the names of ancient sages to promote their doctrines. For example, the Agricultural School held up “the teachings of Shennong” as their banner.
This passage from Mencius: Teng Wen Gong I records a pivotal debate between Confucianism and the Agriculturalist school (represented by Xu Xing), revealing core Confucian views on social division of labor, civilizational order, teacher-disciple ethics, and economic pluralism.
Defense of functional differentiation
Against the Agriculturalist ideal of “rulers farming with the people,” Mencius argues that specialization is essential for civilization. “Mind-laborers” (scholars, rulers) and “body-laborers” (farmers, artisans) fulfill complementary roles – not hierarchical oppression but organic interdependence.
Governance as higher cultivation
Using Yao, Shun, and Yu as examples, Mencius shows that true “nourishing the people” lies in flood control, moral education, and institution-building – not manual farming. Granaries and treasuries are tools of public welfare, not private greed.
Civilizational hierarchy: “Transforming Barbarians with Chinese Ways”
Mencius’s harsh language (“southern barbarian”) reflects Warring States-era cultural confidence. His point isn’t ethnic superiority but the belief that Zhou-Confucian values represent universal ethical standards. Abandoning them for primitivism is moral regression.
The sanctity of Teacher-disciple Bonds
By contrasting Chen Xiang’s betrayal with Zengzi’s refusal to replace Confucius, Mencius elevates discipleship to a sacred covenant. Knowledge transmission is inseparable from moral continuity.
Economic realism: Against price uniformity
Xu Xing’s “uniform pricing” ignores qualitative differences. Mencius recognizes that value stems from scarcity, effort, and quality – a proto-market insight warning that artificial equality breeds deception and inefficiency.
Historical context: Confucianism in the marketplace of ideas
Amidst competing schools (Mohist egalitarianism, Daoist primitivism), Mencius defends a hierarchical yet harmonious social order grounded in merit, education, and differentiated responsibility.
Ultimately, this dialogue is a defense of civilization itself: progress requires trust in specialization, reverence for tradition, and respect for natural differences.
Leave a Reply