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!”
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.
滕文公章句上·第四节
有为神农之言者许行，自楚之滕，踵门而告文公曰：“远方之人闻君行仁政，愿受一廛而为氓。”文公与之处，其徒数十人，皆衣褐，捆屦、织席以为食。
陈良之徒陈相与其弟辛，负耒耜而自宋之滕，曰：“闻君行圣人之政，是亦圣人也，愿为圣人氓。”
陈相见许行而大悦，尽弃其学而学焉。陈相见孟子，道许行之言曰：“滕君，则诚贤君也；虽然，未闻道也。贤者与民并耕而食，饔飧而治。今也滕有仓廪府库，则是厉民而以自养也，恶得贤？”
孟子曰：“许子必种粟而后食乎？”曰：“然。”“许子必织布而后衣乎？”曰：“否。许子衣褐。”“许子冠乎？”曰：“冠。”曰：“奚冠？”曰：“冠素。”曰：“自织之与？”曰：“否。以粟易之。”曰：“许子奚为不自织？”曰：“害于耕。”曰：“许子以釜甑爨，以铁耕乎？”曰：“然。”“自为之与？”曰：“否。以粟易之。”
“以粟易械器者，不为厉陶冶；陶冶亦以其械器易粟者，岂为厉农夫哉？且许子何不为陶冶。舍皆取诸其宫中而用之？何为纷纷然与百工交易？何许子之不惮烦？”曰：“百工之事，固不可耕且为也。”
“然则治天下独可耕且为与？有大人之事，有小人之事。且一人之身，而百工之所为备。如必自为而后用之，是率天下而路也。故曰：或劳心，或劳力；劳心者治人，劳力者治于人；治于人者食人，治人者食于人：天下之通义也。
当尧之时，天下犹未平，洪水横流，泛滥于天下。草木畅茂，禽兽繁殖，五谷不登，禽兽偪人。兽蹄鸟迹之道，交于中国。尧独忧之，举舜而敷治焉。舜使益掌火，益烈山泽而焚之，禽兽逃匿。禹疏九河，瀹济漯，而注诸海；决汝汉，排淮泗，而注之江，然后中国可得而食也。当是时也，禹八年于外，三过其门而不入，虽欲耕，得乎？
后稷教民稼穑。树艺五谷，五谷熟而民人育。人之有道也，饱食、暖衣、逸居而无教，则近于禽兽。圣人有忧之，使契为司徒，教以人伦：父子有亲，君臣有义，夫妇有别，长幼有序，朋友有信。放勋曰：‘劳之来之，匡之直之，辅之翼之，使自得之，又从而振德之。’圣人之忧民如此，而暇耕乎？
尧以不得舜为己忧，舜以不得禹、皋陶为己忧。夫以百亩之不易为己忧者，农夫也。分人以财谓之惠，教人以善谓之忠，为天下得人者谓之仁。是故以天下与人易，为天下得人难。孔子曰：‘大哉尧之为君！惟天为大，惟尧则之，荡荡乎民无能名焉！君哉舜也！巍巍乎有天下而不与焉！’尧舜之治天下，岂无所用其心哉？亦不用于耕耳。
吾闻用夏变夷者，未闻变于夷者也。陈良，楚产也。悦周公、仲尼之道，北学于中国。北方之学者，未能或之先也。彼所谓豪杰之士也。子之兄弟事之数十年，师死而遂倍之。昔者孔子没，三年之外，门人治任将归，入揖于子贡，相向而哭，皆失声，然后归。子贡反，筑室于场，独居三年，然后归。他日，子夏、子张、子游以有若似圣人，欲以所事孔子事之，强曾子。曾子曰：‘不可。江汉以濯之，秋阳以暴之，皜皜乎不可尚已。’今也南蛮鴃舌之人，非先王之道，子倍子之师而学之，亦异于曾子矣。吾闻出于幽谷迁于乔木者，未闻下乔木而入于幽谷者。鲁颂曰：‘戎狄是膺，荆舒是惩。’周公方且膺之，子是之学，亦为不善变矣。”
“从许子之道，则市贾不贰，国中无伪。虽使五尺之童适市，莫之或欺。布帛长短同，则贾相若；麻缕丝絮轻重同，则贾相若；五谷多寡同，则贾相若；屦大小同，则贾相若。”
曰：“夫物之不齐，物之情也；或相倍蓰，或相什百，或相千万。子比而同之，是乱天下也。巨屦小屦同贾，人岂为之哉？从许子之道，相率而为伪者也，恶能治国家？”
Leave a Reply