Wan Zhang asked Mencius, “Some people say, ‘By the time of Yu, virtue had declined. The empire was not passed to a worthy minister, but to his own son.’ Is this true?”
Mencius replied, “No, that is not the case. If Heaven intends to give the empire to a worthy minister, it will do so; if it intends to give it to the son, it will do so. In the past, Shun recommended Yu to Heaven. Seventeen years later, Shun passed away. After the three-year mourning period, Yu withdrew to Yangcheng to avoid Shun’s son. However, the people of the empire followed Yu, just as they had followed Shun instead of Yao’s son after Yao’s death.
Later, Yu recommended Yi to Heaven. Seven years later, Yu passed away. After the three-year mourning period, Yi withdrew to the north of Mount Ji to avoid Yu’s son, Qi. Those who came to pay respects or settle lawsuits did not go to Yi, but to Qi, saying, ‘He is the son of our sovereign.’ Those who sang praises did not praise Yi, but praised Qi, saying, ‘He is the son of our sovereign.’
Yao’s son, Dan Zhu, was unworthy, and Shun’s son was also unworthy. Shun assisted Yao, and Yu assisted Shun for many years, bestowing lasting benefits upon the people. Qi was worthy and able to respectfully continue Yu’s ways. Yi, however, assisted Yu for only a short time, and his benefits to the people were not yet deep. The vast differences in time between Shun, Yu, and Yi, as well as the worthiness or unworthiness of their sons, were all determined by Heaven. This is beyond human power. What is done without anyone deliberately doing it is the will of Heaven; what arrives without anyone deliberately bringing it about is destiny.
For an ordinary commoner to gain the empire, his virtue must be equal to that of Shun and Yu, and he must also be recommended by the Son of Heaven. Therefore, Confucius, despite his great virtue, did not possess the empire. For a ruler to inherit the empire, Heaven will only abolish his line if he is a tyrant like Jie or Zhou. Therefore, worthy men like Yi, Yi Yin, and the Duke of Zhou did not possess the empire.
Yi Yin assisted Tang in becoming king over the empire. After Tang’s death, his eldest son Tai Ding died before ascending the throne; Wai Bing reigned for two years, and Zhong Ren for four years. Later, Tai Jia overturned the laws of Tang, so Yi Yin exiled him to Tong. Three years later, Tai Jia repented, blamed himself, and practiced benevolence and righteousness in Tong. After three years of heeding Yi Yin’s teachings, he was welcomed back to Bo. The Duke of Zhou not possessing the empire is exactly like the cases of Yi in the Xia dynasty and Yi Yin in the Shang dynasty. Confucius said, ‘The abdications in the Tang and Yu eras, and the hereditary successions in the Xia, Shang, and Zhou eras, share the same underlying principle.’”
Note
This passage from the Wan Zhang I chapter of the Mencius is one of the most important discourses on the “Mandate of Heaven” and “historical evolution” in Mencius’ political philosophy. Drawing on historical context and traditional commentaries, we can understand its philosophy through the following dimensions:
- Debunking the Theory of Moral Decline: The Intrinsic Unity of Abdication and Hereditary Succession
Wan Zhang’s question represents a popular “theory of historical decline” during the Warring States period, which viewed the transition from the “public empire” (abdication) to the “hereditary empire” as a moral degradation. However, Mencius unified these two systems at the level of the “Mandate of Heaven” through the assertion: “If Heaven intends to give the empire to a worthy minister, it will do so; if it intends to give it to the son, it will do so.” In Mencius’ view, whether through abdication or hereditary succession, the source of legitimacy is “Heaven.” As long as it conforms to Heaven’s will, hereditary succession is not inferior to abdication. Confucius’ conclusion that “their underlying principle is the same” completely dissolved the opposition in institutional forms, reducing the core of political legitimacy to conforming to the Way of Heaven and the hearts of the people. - The Dialectic of Historical Contingency and Necessity: “Heaven’s Will” and “Destiny”
Mencius objectively analyzed the differences between Qi and Yi, as well as between Dan Zhu and Shun’s son. He pointed out that the length of time spent assisting the sovereign, the depth of bestowed benefits, and the worthiness of the successors – these seemingly human factors ultimately boil down to “what is done without anyone deliberately doing it is the will of Heaven; what arrives without anyone deliberately bringing it about is destiny.” Here, Mencius demonstrated profound historical rationality: he did not reduce historical trends to mere subjective human will or moral manipulation, but acknowledged an objective necessity (the Mandate of Heaven) that transcends individual control. This reverence for “destiny” ensures that Confucian political philosophy emphasizes human moral effort while maintaining humility toward the complexity of history. - The Political Boundaries of Sages: The Separation of Morality and Power
In this discourse, Mencius provided a perfect defense for sages who possessed virtue but lacked political position (such as Confucius, Yi, Yi Yin, and the Duke of Zhou). He pointed out that whether a person can possess the empire depends not only on personal morality (“virtue equal to Shun and Yu”) but also on objective historical conditions (“being recommended by the Son of Heaven” or “inheriting the empire”). If the reigning monarch is not a tyrant like Jie or Zhou, Heaven will not abolish his regime; thus, no matter how morally noble a minister is (like Yi Yin or the Duke of Zhou), he cannot take his place. This establishes a crucial political bottom line in Confucianism: high moral standing does not automatically grant the legitimacy to usurp power. Sages must abide by their proper roles and conform to the Mandate of Heaven.
萬章問曰：「人有言：『至於禹而德衰，不傳於賢而傳於子。』有諸？」
孟子曰：「否，不然也。天與賢，則與賢；天與子，則與子。昔者舜薦禹於天，十有七年，舜崩。三年之喪畢，禹避舜之子於陽城。天下之民從之，若堯崩之後，不從堯之子而從舜也。禹薦益於天，七年，禹崩。三年之喪畢，益避禹之子於箕山之陰。朝覲訟獄者不之益而之啟，曰：『吾君之子也。』謳歌者不謳歌益而謳歌啟，曰：『吾君之子也。』丹朱之不肖，舜之子亦不肖。舜之相堯，禹之相舜也，歷年多，施澤於民久。啟賢，能敬承繼禹之道。益之相禹也，歷年少，施澤於民未久。舜、禹、益相去久遠，其子之賢不肖，皆天也，非人之所能為也。莫之為而為者，天也；莫之致而至者，命也。匹夫而有天下者，德必若舜禹，而又有天子薦之者，故仲尼不有天下。繼世以有天下，天之所廢，必若桀紂者也，故益、伊尹、周公不有天下。伊尹相湯以王於天下。湯崩，太丁未立，外丙二年，仲壬四年。太甲顛覆湯之典刑，伊尹放之於桐。三年，太甲悔過，自怨自艾，於桐處仁遷義；三年，以聽伊尹之訓己也，復歸于亳。周公之不有天下，猶益之於夏，伊尹之於殷也。孔子曰：『唐虞禪，夏后、殷、周繼，其義一也。』」
Leave a Reply