難四

Sun Wenzi of Wei came on a diplomatic mission to Lu. When the duke ascended, Sun Wenzi also ascended. Shusun Muzi hastened forward and said: "At gatherings of the feudal lords, our lord has never been ranked behind the lord of Wei. Now you do not defer to our lord even by one degree -- our lord does not know what offense he has committed. Would you please be a little more restrained?" Sun Wenzi offered no apology, nor did he show any expression of remorse. Muzi withdrew and told others: "Sun Wenzi will surely perish. An exiled minister who does not defer to the ruler, who errs and does not repent -- this is the root of destruction."

Someone objects: When the Son of Heaven loses the Way, the feudal lords attack him -- hence there were Tang and Wu. When feudal lords lose the Way, the great officers attack them -- hence there were Qi and Jin. If ministers who attack rulers must perish, then Tang and Wu would never have become kings, and the states of Qi and Jin would never have been established. Sun Wenzi acted as a ruler in Wei, and afterward did not behave as a subject in Lu -- he was his own lord. When the ruler errs, the minister gains. To predict destruction for a minister who has gained, rather than for a ruler who has erred, shows a lack of perception. Lu has no authority to punish Wei's great officers, and Wei's ruler lacks the discernment to recognize an unrepentant minister. Even if Sun Wenzi had both these faults, would he necessarily perish? What he loses through his faults, he gains through becoming his own lord.

Another objects: The relationship between ruler and minister involves due shares. A minister who can seize from the ruler does so because he has won the allegiance of others. Thus one who takes what is not his due share will have it seized by the multitude; one who declines his due share will be given even more by the people. When Jie demanded the women of Min Mountain and Zhou demanded Bi Gan's heart, All-Under-Heaven abandoned them. When Tang risked his own person and changed the dynastic name, and Wu endured personal insults, the whole realm submitted. When Zhao Xuan fled to the mountains and the Tian clan served as external vassals, Qi and Jin followed them. Tang and Wu became kings, and the new Qi and Jin were established, not simply because they were rulers -- they first gained the people's support and only afterward occupied the ruler's position. Now Sun Wenzi has not yet gained what would justify his position, yet he acts as though he already occupies it. This is to invert righteousness and defy virtue. Inverting righteousness is how undertakings fail; defying virtue is how resentment accumulates. That he will perish and fall -- how can one fail to perceive this?

Yang Hu of Lu wished to attack the Three Huan families. He failed and fled to Qi, where Duke Jing received him with courtesy. Bao Wenzi remonstrated: "This must not be. Yang Hu was favored by the Ji clan yet sought to attack Ji Sun -- out of greed for their wealth. Now our lord is wealthier than Ji Sun, and Qi is larger than Lu -- Yang Hu will exhaust all his treachery here." Duke Jing thereupon imprisoned Yang Hu.

Someone objects: In a family with a thousand gold in wealth, its sons become unvirtuous -- people are desperately eager for profit. Duke Huan, the foremost of the Five Hegemons, fought for the state and killed his brother -- the profit was enormous. The bond between ruler and minister is not the intimacy of brothers. When the reward of a coup is to control a state of ten thousand chariots and enjoy immense profit, which minister is not a Yang Hu at heart? Undertakings succeed through subtlety and skill, and fail through clumsiness and crudeness. That the other ministers have not yet launched rebellions simply means their preparations are not yet complete. All ministers harbor Yang Hu's ambitions while the ruler remains unaware -- this is subtle and skillful. Yang Hu was greedy before the whole world and openly sought to attack his superiors -- this was crude and clumsy. To fail to have Duke Jing execute the clumsy Yang Hu -- this is where Bao Wenzi's argument backfires. Whether ministers are loyal or treacherous depends on how the ruler acts. When the ruler is discerning and strict, ministers are loyal; when the ruler is weak and benighted, ministers are treacherous. Perceiving the subtle is called discernment; granting no pardons is called strictness. To fail to detect Qi's skillful schemers while punishing Lu's bungled rebellion -- is this not absurd?

Another objects: Benevolence and greed do not share the same heart. Prince Mu Yi declined the throne of Song, while Shang Chen of Chu murdered his father; Qu Ji of Zheng yielded to his brother, while Duke Huan of Lu murdered his brother. The Five Hegemons all annexed territory, yet if we judge everyone by Duke Huan's standard, then none of them possessed integrity or uprightness. Moreover, when the ruler is discerning and strict, ministers are loyal. Yang Hu created disorder in Lu, failed, and fled; entering Qi without being executed is tantamount to sanctioning rebellion. A discerning ruler would execute him, knowing that Yang Hu could foment disorder -- this is the essence of perceiving the subtle. The saying goes: 'Among feudal lords, the state serves as kinship.' A strict ruler cannot let Yang Hu's crime go unpunished -- this is the substance of granting no pardons. Executing Yang Hu would make all ministers loyal. To fail to detect Qi's skillful schemers and therefore abandon the punishment for a manifest crime of rebellion, to demand accountability for what has not yet happened while refusing to punish an obvious offense -- that would truly be absurd. Executing Lu's convicted rebel to intimidate all ministers who harbor treacherous hearts would also win the goodwill of the Ji, Meng, and Shusun clans. How then does Bao Wenzi's advice backfire?

The Earl of Zheng was about to appoint Gao Qumi as a minister. Duke Zhao opposed this and resolutely remonstrated, but was not heeded. When Duke Zhao ascended the throne, fearing that the duke would kill him, Gao Qumi on the xinmao day assassinated Duke Zhao and installed Prince Dan. A gentleman said: "Duke Zhao knew what to hate." Prince Yu said: "Will Gao not be put to death? His retaliation was too extreme."

Someone objects: Are Prince Yu's words not backwards? Duke Zhao met with disaster because his retaliation came too late. It follows that Gao was slow to die because his retaliation was excessive. An enlightened ruler does not leave his anger hanging. When anger hangs unresolved, ministers with minor offenses act rashly out of desperation, and the ruler is endangered. Thus at the banquet of the Ling Terrace, the Marquis of Wei grew angry but did not execute the offender -- so the Chu Master launched a rebellion. At the turtle soup feast, the lord of Zheng grew angry but did not execute the offender -- so Zigong killed his ruler. When the gentleman said Duke Zhao 'knew what to hate,' this was not praise for excessive retaliation. It meant: his perception was so clear, yet he failed to carry out the execution, and thereby met his death. Therefore 'knowing what to hate' reveals his lack of decisive authority. Rulers fail not only in perceiving danger but sometimes in making decisions. Duke Zhao perceived the threat, delayed punishment without executing, and let Gao Qumi harbor resentment and fear death while hoping for luck -- hence he could not escape being killed. This shows Duke Zhao's retaliation was not excessive but insufficient.

Another objects: Excessive retaliation means imposing great punishment for minor offenses. Imposing great punishment for minor offenses is the extreme of severity. The danger of such severity lies not in whom one punishes, but in the multitude of enemies one creates. Thus Duke Li of Jin destroyed the three Xi families, but the Luan and Zhonghang clans then launched a rebellion. Zi Du of Zheng killed Bo Xuan, but the Shiding rose up in revolt. The King of Wu executed Wu Zixu, but Goujian of Yue thereby achieved hegemony. The Marquis of Wei's expulsion and Duke Ling of Zheng's assassination occurred not because the Chu Master was left alive or because Gongfu was not executed, but because anger was shown when it was not yet warranted and thoughts of execution harbored when they were not yet justified. If anger is directed at genuine offenses and execution does not go against the people's hearts, then even leaving anger hanging does no harm. But to hold no established crime before taking the throne, then after ascending to settle old grudges with execution -- this is why Duke Hu of Qi was destroyed. When a ruler applies such measures to a minister, there are still consequences -- how much more so when a minister applies them to a ruler? When execution is unwarranted, yet one is bent on thoroughness, this is making oneself the enemy of All-Under-Heaven. Would it not then be fitting to be put to death?

In the time of Duke Ling of Wei, Mi Zixia was a favorite in the state. A dwarf came to see the duke and said: "My dream was a trivial one." The duke asked: "What did you dream?" "I dreamed of a stove, which represents seeing you, my lord." The duke was angered: "I have heard that those about to see a ruler dream of the sun. Why would you dream of a stove when coming to see me?" The dwarf said: "The sun illuminates All-Under-Heaven equally, and no single thing can block it. A ruler illuminates an entire state equally, and no single person can obstruct him. Hence one dreams of the sun before seeing a ruler. But a stove -- once one person warms himself at it, those who come after cannot get near. Could it be that someone is warming himself at my lord's fire? If so, though I dreamed of a stove, is that not fitting?" The duke said: "Well said." He thereupon dismissed Yong Chu, removed Mi Zixia, and employed Sikong Gou.

Someone objects: The dwarf was skillful in using a dream to reveal the way of rulership, but Duke Ling did not truly understand the dwarf's words. Dismissing Yong Chu, removing Mi Zixia, and employing Sikong Gou means removing the beloved and employing the worthy. But Zi Du of Zheng considered Qing Jian worthy and was obstructed by him; King Kuai of Yan considered Zizhi worthy and was obstructed by him. To remove the beloved and employ the worthy does not free one from having a single person warming himself at one's fire. When an unworthy person monopolizes the ruler, the harm to discernment is limited. But to fail to add discernment and instead let a worthy person monopolize the ruler -- that is truly dangerous.

Another objects: Qu Dao was fond of water chestnuts, and King Wen was fond of pickled calamus -- neither is a proper delicacy, yet these two worthies esteemed them. What one favors is not necessarily fine. Duke Ling of Jin admired Can Wuxu, and King Kuai of Yan esteemed Zizhi -- neither was a proper officer, yet these two rulers honored them. What one considers worthy is not necessarily worthy. Employing the unworthy whom one considers worthy is the same as employing the beloved. Employing the truly worthy is different from employing the beloved. Thus King Zhuang of Chu promoted Shusun and achieved hegemony, while Shang Xin employed Fei Zhong and perished -- both employed those they considered worthy, yet the outcomes were opposite. Though King Kuai of Yan promoted those he considered worthy, it was no different from employing the beloved. How would Wei's case be any different? The dwarf's advice is therefore not yet vindicated. When the ruler is obstructed and does not know he is obstructed, then sees the dwarf and learns he was obstructed, and thereupon removes the obstructing minister -- this is adding discernment. The argument was: 'without added discernment, letting a worthy person monopolize the ruler is surely dangerous.' But now discernment has been added. With added discernment, even if someone monopolizes access, there is surely no danger.