Wan Zhang asked Mencius, “The Book of Poetry says, ‘In marrying a wife, how should it be done? One must inform one’s parents.’ If we believe this saying, no one should follow it more strictly than Shun. Why then did Shun marry without informing his parents?”
Mencius replied, “If he had informed them, he would not have been able to marry. The union of man and woman in marriage is the greatest of human relationships. If he had informed his parents, he would have voided this greatest human relationship and consequently harbored resentment toward them. That is why he did not inform them.”
Wan Zhang asked, “I understand now why Shun married without informing his parents. But why did Emperor Yao, when giving his daughters to Shun in marriage, also not inform Shun’s parents?”
Mencius said, “The Emperor also knew that if he had informed them, the marriage would not have taken place.”
Wan Zhang continued, “Shun’s parents sent him to repair a granary. After he climbed up, they removed the ladder and set the granary on fire. Later, they sent him to dredge a well. After he went in, they filled the well with earth. Shun’s younger brother Xiang said, ‘The scheme to kill Shun was entirely my doing. The oxen and sheep shall go to our parents; the grain shall go to our parents; the weapons, the lute, and the carved bow shall be mine; and I will make my two sisters-in-law prepare my bed.’ Xiang then went into Shun’s room, only to find Shun sitting on the bed playing the lute. Xiang tried to cover it up by saying, ‘I was deeply missing you!’ and looked exceedingly awkward. Shun said, ‘You shall help me govern the realm.’ I wonder, did Shun not know that Xiang was going to kill him?”
Mencius replied, “How could he not know? He simply grieved when Xiang grieved, and rejoiced when Xiang rejoiced.”
Wan Zhang asked, “Then was Shun’s joy merely feigned?”
Mencius replied, “No. Once, someone presented a live fish to Zichan of Zheng. Zichan ordered the pond keeper to keep it in the pond. Instead, the pond keeper cooked and ate it. Upon returning, he reported, ‘When I first released it, it was half-dead; after a while, it began to swim actively, and then it swam away freely.’ Zichan exclaimed, ‘It has found its proper place! It has found its proper place!’ After leaving, the pond keeper said, ‘Who says Zichan is wise? I have already cooked and eaten the fish, yet he keeps saying, ‘It has found its proper place!’ Therefore, a gentleman may be deceived by what is plausible, but he cannot be fooled by what is contrary to reason. Xiang came with the appearance of loving his elder brother; thus, Shun sincerely believed him and rejoiced. How could this be feigned?”
萬章問曰：「《詩》云：『娶妻如之何？必告父母。』信斯言也，宜莫如舜。舜之不告而娶，何也？」 孟子曰：「告則不得娶。男女居室，人之大倫也。如告，則廢人之大倫，以懟父母，是以不告也。」 萬章曰：「舜之不告而娶，則吾既得聞命矣；帝之妻舜而不告，何也？」 曰：「帝亦知告焉則不得妻也。」 萬章曰：「父母使舜完廩，捐階，瞽瞍焚廩。使浚井，出，從而揜之。象曰：『謨蓋都君咸我績。牛羊父母，倉廩父母，干戈朕，琴朕，弤朕，二嫂使治朕棲。』象往入舜宮，舜在床琴。象曰：『鬱陶思君爾。』忸怩。舜曰：『惟茲臣庶，汝其于予治。』不識舜不知象之將殺己與？」 曰：「奚而不知也？象憂亦憂，象喜亦喜。」 曰：「然則舜偽喜者與？」 曰：「否。昔者有饋生魚於鄭子產，子產使校人畜之池。校人烹之，反命曰：『始舍之圉圉焉，少則洋洋焉，攸然而逝。』子產曰『得其所哉！得其所哉！』校人出，曰：『孰謂子產智？予既烹而食之，曰：得其所哉？得其所哉。』故君子可欺以其方，難罔以非其道。彼以愛兄之道來，故誠信而喜之，奚偽焉？」
Note
This passage from the Wan Zhang I chapter of the Mencius is one of the most controversial yet profound sections in Confucian ethics. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- The Dialectic of “Expediency” (Quan) and “Constant Principle” (Jing): The Highest Principle in Ethical Conflicts
In Confucian ethics, “informing parents before marriage” is a constant principle (Jing), while “the union of man and woman” is an even more fundamental constant. When two ethical principles come into irreconcilable conflict, Mencius introduces the concept of expediency (Quan). Shun’s father, Gusou, was extremely stubborn and hostile toward Shun. If Shun had rigidly adhered to the rule of informing his parents, he would not only have remained childless (a grave unfilial act in ancient times) but also severed the great human relationship of marriage. Therefore, Shun’s “marrying without informing” superficially violated ritual propriety, but substantively preserved the greater Dao of human relationships. This reflects the flexible wisdom of Confucianism in moral practice, emphasizing substance over rigid formalism. - Ultimate Sincerity Without Pretense: The Psychology and Emotional Authenticity of Great Filial Piety
Facing his brother Xiang’s repeated attempts to murder him, Shun not only refrained from revenge but also displayed genuine joy. Wan Zhang questioned whether this was “feigned joy,” but Mencius refuted this with the story of Zichan being deceived by the pond keeper. Mencius pointed out that Shun’s joy was not a hypocritical political performance, but a sincere response based on Xiang’s appearance of “coming with the way of loving his brother.” In Confucianism, Cheng (sincerity) is the Way of Heaven and the ultimate Way of humanity. Shun’s love for his brother stemmed from his innate, ultimate sincerity. He did not use malice to interpret his brother’s superficial goodwill. This state of “grieving when Xiang grieved, rejoicing when Xiang rejoiced” transcends worldly grudges and revenge, showcasing the purity and breadth of a sage’s inner emotions. - “A Gentleman May Be Deceived by What Is Plausible”: The Cognitive Boundaries of the Moral Subject
Through Zichan’s story, Mencius proposed a profound epistemological proposition: “A gentleman may be deceived by what is plausible, but he cannot be fooled by what is contrary to reason.” This means a gentleman can be misled by illusions that conform to reason and moral logic, but he will never be blinded by absurd lies that defy common sense. The pond keeper’s fabricated story of “the fish swimming away” fit the reasonable expectation after releasing a fish, so Zichan believed it; Xiang’s pretense of “missing his brother” fit the normal expression of fraternal affection, so Shun believed it. This shows that a gentleman’s “deception” is not due to stupidity, but because they always seek to understand the world with goodwill and moral logic. Such “deception” is precisely a manifestation of the gentleman’s adherence to moral principles, not a blemish on their morality. - The Shaping of the Sage-King in Historical Context
From a historical and political perspective, Mencius’ defense of Shun was constructing a “Sage-King” paradigm that transcends secular law and ordinary human emotions. In the social context of that era, struggles for power and property within families were extremely brutal (as evidenced by Xiang’s actions). Through Shun’s story, Mencius demonstrated to the world the moral capacity a true political leader must possess: even when facing malice from close relatives, one must still treat them with sincerity and repay resentment with virtue. This is not only the ultimate family ethics but also the political capital for governing the world and educating the people in the future.
Leave a Reply