Gongsun Chou asked Mencius:
“What is the principle behind scholars not seeking audiences with feudal lords?”
Mencius replied:
“In ancient times, a scholar would not visit a ruler unless he was already serving as his minister.
Duan Ganmu once climbed over a wall to avoid Duke Wen of Wei; Xie Liu shut his door and refused to meet the duke of Lu.
But these two went too far. If the ruler sincerely pressed the matter, it would be acceptable to meet.
Yang Huo, a powerful minister in Lu, wanted to see Confucius but feared being accused of impropriety (since he wasn’t the legitimate ruler).
According to ritual norms: ‘When a high official gives a gift to a scholar, if the scholar cannot receive it at home, he must go in person to thank him at his gate.’
So Yang Huo sent Confucius a steamed suckling pig while Confucius was away.
Confucius, in turn, went to return the courtesy when Yang Huo was out.
Thus, neither met face-to-face, yet ritual propriety was fully observed.
In that situation, since Yang Huo initiated the gift, Confucius – by ritual obligation – had no choice but to make the return visit. This was not self-promotion, but adherence to ritual.
Zengzi once said: ‘Hunching your shoulders and forcing a flattering smile is more exhausting than weeding a summer field!’
Zilu said: ‘To speak with someone whose values you don’t share – and blush with shame – is something I simply cannot do.’
From this, we see clearly what kind of character a true gentleman cultivates: one of dignity, sincerity, and unwavering moral composure.”
公孫丑問曰：「不見諸侯何義？」
孟子曰：「古者不為臣不見。段干木踰垣而辟之，泄柳閉門而不內，是皆已甚。迫，斯可以見矣。陽貨欲見孔子而惡無禮，大夫有賜於士，不得受於其家，則往拜其門。陽貨矙孔子之亡也，而饋孔子蒸豚；孔子亦矙其亡也，而往拜之。當是時，陽貨先，豈得不見？曾子曰：『脅肩諂笑，病于夏畦。』子路曰：『未同而言，觀其色赧赧然，非由之所知也。』由是觀之，則君子之所養可知已矣。」
Note
This passage from Mencius: Teng Wen Gong II explores the Confucian ethics of political engagement through the lens of ritual propriety and personal integrity.
Autonomy of the scholar
The rule “do not see a ruler unless you are his minister” safeguards the scholar’s independence. Serving is about realizing the Way (Dao), not currying favor. This reflects the Confucian hierarchy: the Dao stands above power.
Critique of extremes
While Duan Ganmu and Xie Liu aimed to preserve virtue, Mencius calls their total avoidance “went too far.” Another example is Zhuangzi. King Wei of Chu, ambitious and eager to build a powerful state, sought out the greatest minds of his age. Hearing of Zhuangzi’s brilliance, he resolved to appoint him Chancellor of Chu – the highest ministerial position in the realm. However Zhuangzi used the “The Turtle in the Mud” as the analogy to decline the king’s invitation.
Complete withdrawal forfeits the chance to guide rulers – a balance between principle and pragmatism is essential.
Confucius’s ritual ingenuity
By returning Yang Huo’s courtesy only when he was absent, Confucius honored ritual form without compromising moral substance. This shows Confucian ritual as flexible wisdom, not rigid formalism.
The agony of inauthenticity
Zengzi’s “flattering smile” and Zilu’s “blushing discomfort” reveal a core truth: compromising one’s convictions for social convenience is spiritual torment. Integrity requires inner alignment.
Historical Context: Countering Warring States opportunism
Amidst an era of wandering strategists, such as Su Qin, Zhang Yi, Shang Yang, selling loyalty to the highest bidder, Mencius insists: true worth attracts recognition – it does not solicit it.
Intertextuality with the Analects and Book of Rites
The “steamed pig” episode (from Analects 17.1) is reinterpreted to highlight ethical nuance. Ritual rules from the Book of Rites provide structural grounding, showing that Confucian morality is always embedded in concrete social forms.
Mencius thus articulates a timeless model: engage power only on terms of mutual respect, guided by ritual, anchored in principle, and never at the cost of self-respect.
Leave a Reply