CHAPTER XXXIII.

Criticisms on Confucius (Wên Kung).

The students of Confucianism of the present day like to swear in verba magistri, and to believe in antiquity. The words of the Worthies and Sages are to them infallible, and they do their best to explain and practise them, but they are unable to criticize them. When the Worthies and Sages take the pencil, and commit their thoughts to writing, though they meditate, and thoroughly discuss their subject, one cannot say that they always hit the truth, and much less can their occasional utterances all be true. But although they cannot be all true, the scholars of to-day do not know, how to impugn them, and, in case they are true, but so abstruse that they are difficult to understand, those people do not know how to interpret their meaning. The words of the Sages on various occasions are often contradictory, and their writings at different times very often mutually clash. That however is, what the scholars of our time do not understand.

One always hears the remark that the talents of the Seventy Disciples of the school of Confucius surpassed those of the savants of our days. This statement is erroneous. They imagine that Confucius acting as teacher, a Sage propounding the doctrine, must have imparted it to exceptionally gifted men, whence the idea that they were quite unique. The talents of the ancients are the talents of the moderns. What we call men of superior genius now-a-days, were regarded by the ancients as Sages and supernatural beings, hence the belief that the Seventy Sages could not appear in other generations.

If at present there could be a teacher like Confucius, the scholars of this age would all be like Yen and Min, and without

Confucius, the Seventy Disciples would be only like the Literati of the present day. For though learning from Confucius, they could not thoroughly inquire. The words of the Sage they did not completely understand, his doctrines and principles they were unable to explain. Therefore they ought to have asked to get a clearer conception, and not understanding thoroughly, they ought to have raised objections in order to come to a complete understanding.

The sentiments which Kao Yao2 uttered before the Emperor Shun were shallow and superficial, and not to the point. Yu asked him to explain himself, when the shallow words became deeper, and the superficial hints more explicit,3 for criticisms animate the discussion, and bring out the meaning, and opposition leads to greater clearness.

Confucius ridiculed the guitar-playing and singing of Tse Yu,* who, however, retorted by quoting what Confucius had said on a previous occasion. If we now take up the text of the Analects, we shall see that in the sayings of Confucius there is much like the strictures on the singing of Tse Yu. But there were few disciples able to raise a question like Tse Yu. In consequence the words of Confucius became stereotyped and inexplicable, because the Seventy could not make any objection, and the scholars of the present time are not in a position to judge of the truth of the doctrine.

Their scientific methods do not arise from a lack of ability, but the difficulty consists in opposing the teacher, scrutinizing his doctrine, investigating its meaning, and bringing evidence to ascertain right and wrong. Criticism is not solely permitted vis-à-vis to sages, as long as they are alive. The commentators of the present day do not require the instruction of a sage, before they dare to speak.

If questions be asked on things which seem inexplicable, and Confucius be pressed hard, how can this be deemed a violation of the moral laws, and if those who really are able to hand down the holy teachings, impugn the words of Confucius, why must their undertaking be considered unreasonable? I trust that, as regards

1

Yen Hui and Min Tse Chien, two prominent disciples of Confucius.

2 The minister of Shun.

3 The discussions of the two wise men before Shun are to be found in the

Shuking, Kao Yao mo.

4 Cf. Analects XVII, 4.

those inquiries into the words of Confucius and those remarks on his unintelligible passages, men of genius of all ages, possessing the natural gift of answering questions and solving difficulties, will certainly appreciate the criticisms and investigations made in our time.

"Meng I Tse asked, what filial piety was. The Master said, To show no disregard.' Soon after, as Fan Chih was driving him, the Master told him saying, "Mêng Sun3 asked me, what filial piety was, and I answered him, 'To show no disregard.'"

Fan Chih said, What does that mean?' The Master replied, That parents, while alive, should be served according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety.'

4

Now I ask, Confucius said that no disregard is to be shown viz. no disregard to propriety. But a good son also must anticipate his parents' thoughts, conform to their will, and never disregard their wishes. Confucius said "to show no disregard," but did not speak of disregard for propriety. Could Meng I Tse, hearing the words of Confucius, not imagine that he meant to say, "no disregard for (the parents) wishes?" When Fan Chih came, he asked, what it meant. Then Confucius said, "That parents while alive should be served according to propriety; that, when dead, they should be buried according to propriety; and that they should be sacrificed to according to propriety." Had Fan Chih not inquired, what the words "no disregard" meant, he would not have understood them.

Mêng I Tse's talents did not surpass those of Fan Chil, therefore there is no record of his sayings or doings in the chapters of the Analects. Since Fan Chih could not catch the meaning, would Mêng I Tse have done so?

66

Meng Wu Po asked what filial piety was. The Master replied If the only sorrow parents have, is that which they feel, when their children are sick."5

1 Meng I Tse was the chief of one of three powerful families in Lu.

2 A disciple of Confucias.

3 I. e. Meng I Tse.

4 Analects II, 5.-The citations from the Analects are quoted from Legge's translation, but here and there modified so as to suit the text, for Wang Chung often understands a passage quite differently from Legge and his authorities.

5 Analects II, 6.

Meng Wu Po used to cause his parents much sorrow, therefore Confucius spoke the afore-mentioned words. Mêng Wu Po was a cause of sorrow to his parents, whereas Mêng 1 Tse disregarded propriety. If in reproving this fault Confucius replied to Mêng Wu Po "If the only sorrow parents have is that which they feel, when their children are sick," he ought to have told Meng I Tse that only in case of fire or inundation might propriety be neglected.

Chou Kung says that small talents require thorough instructions, whereas for great ones a hint is sufficient. Tse Yu possessed great talents, yet with him Confucius went into details. The talents of Meng I Tse were comparatively small, but Confucius gave him a mere hint. Thus he did not fall in with Chou Kung's views. Reproving the shortcomings of Mêng I Tse, he lost the right principle. How was it that none of his disciples took exception?

If he did not dare to speak too openly owing to the high position held by Mêng I Tse, he likewise ought to have said to Mêng Wu Po nothing more than not to cause sorrow (is filial piety),' for both were scions of the Meng family, and of equal dignity. There is no apparent reason, why he should have spoken to Mêng Wu Po in clear terms and to Meng I Tse thus vaguely. Had Confucius freely told Meng I Tse not to disregard propriety, what harm would there have been?

No other family was more powerful in Lu than the Chi family, yet Confucius blamed them for having eight rows of pantomimes in their court,' and objected to their performing a sacrifice on Mount Tai. He was not afraid of the evil consequences, which this lack of reserve in regard to the usurpation of territorial rights by the Chi family might have for him, but anticipated bad results from a straightforward answer given to Mêng I Tse? Moreover, he was questioned about filial piety more than once, and he had always his charioteer at hand. When he spoke to Mêng 1 Tse, he was not merely in a submissive mood, therefore he informed Fan Chih.

5

Confucius said "Riches and honour are what men desire. If they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be

1 Analects III, 1.

2 Analects III, 6. This sacrifice was a privilege of the sovereign.

3 So that he might have used him as his mouth-piece as in the case of

Meng I Tse.

4 He was not afraid of Meng I Tse.

5 Analects IV, 5.

held. Poverty and meanness are what men dislike. If they cannot be obtained in the proper way, they should not be avoided."1

The meaning is that men must acquire riches in a just and proper way, and not take them indiscriminately, that they must keep within their bounds, patiently endure poverty, and not recklessly throw it off. To say that riches and honour must not be held, unless they are obtained in the proper way, is all right, but what is poverty and meanness not obtained in a proper way? Wealth and honour can, of course, be abandoned, but what is the result of giving up poverty and meanness? By giving up poverty and meanness one obtains wealth and honour. As long as one does not obtain wealth and honour, one does not get rid of poverty and meanness. If we say that, unless wealth and honour can be obtained in a proper way, poverty and meanness should not be shunned, then that which is obtained is wealth and honour, not poverty and meanness. How can the word "obtaining" be used with reference to poverty and meanness? Therefore the passage ought to read as follows:

"Poverty and meanness are what people dislike. If they cannot be avoided in the proper way, they should not be avoided.”

Avoiding is the proper word, not obtaining. Obtaining is used of obtaining. Now there is avoiding, how can it be called obtaining? Only in regard to riches and honour we can speak of obtaining. How so? By obtaining riches and honour one avoids poverty and meanness. Then how can poverty and meanness be avoided in the proper way?--By purifying themselves and keeping in the proper way officials acquire rank and emoluments, wealth and honour, and by obtaining these they avoid poverty and meanness. How are poverty and meanness avoided not in the proper way?--If anybody feels so vexed and annoyed with poverty and meanness, that he has recourse to brigandage and robbery for the purpose of amassing money and valuables, and usurps official emoluments, then he does not keep in the proper way.

Since the Seventy Disciples did not ask any question regarding the passage under discussion, the literati of to-day are likewise incapable of raising any objection.

If the meaning of this utterance is not explained, nor the words made clear, we would have to say that Confucius could not

1

Wang Chung thus interprets the passage, which gives no sense. I should say that he misunderstood Confucius, for every difficulty is removed, if we take the words to mean what Legge translates:-"if it cannot be obtained” viz. “if it is not possible to act in the aforesaid manner instead of if they cannot be obtained."