忠孝

All-Under-Heaven considers the ways of filial piety, brotherly deference, loyalty, and obedience to be correct, yet no one knows how to examine these ways carefully and practice them with discernment. This is why All-Under-Heaven is in disorder. Everyone considers the Way of Yao and Shun to be correct and takes it as a model -- and this is precisely why there are regicides and those who supplant their fathers.

Yao, Shun, Tang, and Wu -- some of them violated the proper relationship between ministers and their ruler, disordering the teachings of later generations. Yao was a ruler who yielded his rulership over his ministers. Shun was a minister who took the rulership from his sovereign. Tang and Wu were ministers who killed their lords and mutilated their corpses -- yet All-Under-Heaven praises them. This is why All-Under-Heaven has remained disordered to this day.

What is called an enlightened ruler is one who can control his ministers. What is called a worthy minister is one who can clarify the laws and statutes, govern official duties, and thereby support his ruler. Now Yao considered himself enlightened yet could not control Shun. Shun considered himself worthy yet did not support Yao. Tang and Wu considered themselves righteous yet killed their sovereign lords. This means that the 'enlightened ruler' perpetually gives away power while the 'worthy minister' perpetually seizes it. Thus to this day, there are sons who seize their fathers' households and ministers who seize their rulers' states.

For a father to yield to his son, for a ruler to yield to his minister -- this is not the way to establish fixed positions and unify instruction. What I have heard says: 'The minister serves the ruler, the son serves the father, the wife serves the husband. When these three are in proper order, All-Under-Heaven is governed. When these three are in disorder, All-Under-Heaven is in chaos. This is the constant Way of All-Under-Heaven.' If the enlightened king upholds this and does not alter it, then even if the ruler is unworthy, ministers will not dare encroach.

But today, to exalt the worthy and entrust the clever without constancy -- this is to reverse the Way, and yet All-Under-Heaven constantly regards it as good governance. Thus the Tian clan seized the state from the Lu clan in Qi, and the Dai clan seized the state from the Zi clan in Song. These were all worthy and clever men -- were they foolish and unworthy? When one abandons the constant and exalts the worthy, there is disorder. When one discards the law and entrusts the clever, there is danger. Therefore it is said: exalt the law, do not exalt the worthy.

The Records say: 'When Shun appeared before Gu Sou, his expression was uneasy. Confucius said: At such a time, how perilous! All-Under-Heaven was on the brink! One who possesses the Way -- his father cannot truly treat him as a son, and his ruler cannot truly treat him as a minister.'

I say: Confucius fundamentally did not understand the ways of filial piety, brotherly deference, loyalty, and obedience. If this is so, then does the man who possesses the Way, when he advances, not serve as a minister to his ruler, and when he withdraws, not serve as a son to his father? The reason a father wishes to have a worthy son is that when the family is poor, the son enriches it, and when the father suffers, the son brings him joy. The reason a ruler wishes to have a worthy minister is that when the state is disordered, the minister brings order, and when the ruler is humbled, the minister elevates him. But if a man has a worthy son who does not serve his father, then the father's position in the household is bitter. If there is a worthy minister who does not serve his ruler, then the ruler's position on the throne is perilous. In that case, having a worthy son or a worthy minister is nothing but a source of harm -- what benefit is gained?

What is called a loyal minister is one who does not endanger his ruler. What is called a filial son is one who does not condemn his parents. Now Shun used his worthiness to seize his ruler's state. Tang and Wu used their righteousness to exile and kill their rulers. All of these used their worthiness to endanger their lords, yet All-Under-Heaven praises them as worthy.

The noble men of antiquity advanced but did not serve as ministers to their rulers, and withdrew but did not serve their families. They advanced and condemned their rulers; they withdrew and condemned their parents. Moreover, to advance without serving one's ruler and to withdraw without serving one's family -- this is the way of disordering the world and cutting off posterity. Therefore to praise Yao, Shun, Tang, and Wu and to approve of noble men -- this is the technique of All-Under-Heaven's disorder.

Gu Sou was Shun's father, yet Shun banished him. Xiang was Shun's brother, yet Shun killed him. To banish one's father and kill one's brother cannot be called benevolent. To marry the emperor's two daughters and seize All-Under-Heaven cannot be called righteous. Without benevolence or righteousness, he cannot be called wise.

The Odes say: 'Under all of Heaven, there is no land that is not the king's; within the borders of the land, there is no one who is not the king's minister.' If the words of the Odes are to be believed, then Shun, when he went abroad, served as minister to his ruler, and when he returned home, served as minister to his father, treated his mother as a concubine, and took his lord's daughters as his wives.

Thus the noble men of the world, within, do not serve their families and disorder the world and cut off posterity; without, they defy their rulers, letting their bones rot and flesh decay, spread upon the earth and flowing through valleys, not avoiding treading through water and fire. To make All-Under-Heaven follow and imitate them is to make All-Under-Heaven eagerly seek death. All of this amounts to abandoning the world without governing it.

What the world calls noble men are those who, though among the multitude, walk alone, who distinguish themselves from others, who practice the teachings of serene detachment and discourse in abstruse and elusive words. I consider serene detachment a useless teaching and elusiveness lawless speech. Words arising from lawlessness and doctrines arising from uselessness -- the world calls this discernment. I consider that human life necessarily requires serving one's ruler and supporting one's parents, and that serving one's ruler and supporting one's parents cannot be done through serene detachment. The conduct of men necessarily involves discussing loyalty, trustworthiness, the law, and techniques, and discussing these cannot be done through elusiveness. Elusive words and the teachings of serene detachment are the befuddling techniques of All-Under-Heaven.

The filial son's service to his father is not a competition to seize his father's household. The loyal minister's service to his ruler is not a competition to seize his ruler's state. Now if a son constantly praises the parents of other men, saying: 'So-and-so's parents retire late and rise early, working hard to generate wealth to support their children, servants, and concubines' -- he is slandering his own parents. If a minister constantly praises the generous virtue of the former kings and expresses longing for them, he is slandering his own ruler. When a man slanders his parents, the world knows to call this unfilial. But when a man slanders his ruler, All-Under-Heaven praises him as worthy. This is the source of disorder.

Therefore: ministers should not extol the worthiness of Yao and Shun. They should not praise the military campaigns of Tang and Wu. They should not celebrate the loftiness of noble men. To devote one's strength to upholding the law and dedicate one's heart to serving the ruler -- this is what it means to be a loyal minister.

In ancient times, the common people were muddled, simple, dull, and foolish, so they could be won over with empty titles. Today the people are shrewd, perceptive, and clever; they wish to act on their own judgment and will not listen to their superiors. Superiors must first encourage them with rewards before they will advance, and must further intimidate them with punishments before they will not retreat.

Yet the world all says: 'Xu You declined All-Under-Heaven -- rewards are insufficient to encourage such men. Robber Zhi defied punishments and rushed toward danger -- punishments are insufficient to deter such men.'

I say: one who did not yet possess All-Under-Heaven and refused to take it -- that is Xu You. One who already possessed All-Under-Heaven and refused to value it -- that is Yao and Shun. One who destroyed his integrity, sought wealth, defied punishments, pursued profit, and forgot his own death -- that is Robber Zhi. These two extremes are dangerous anomalies.

The way of governing a state and employing its people does not take these two extremes as its measure. Governance means governing the ordinary. The Way means the Way of the ordinary. Dangerous anomalies and subtle arguments are the harm of governance. The most exalted men under Heaven cannot be encouraged by rewards. The most debased men under Heaven cannot be deterred by punishments. But to abolish rewards for the sake of the most exalted, and to abolish punishments for the sake of the most debased -- that would lose the way of governing the state and employing the people.

Therefore the people of the world mostly do not speak of the laws of the state but instead speak of the Vertical and Horizontal Alliances. The feudal lords who advocate the Vertical Alliance say: 'If the Vertical Alliance succeeds, we shall certainly achieve hegemony.' Those who advocate the Horizontal Alliance say: 'If the Horizontal Alliance succeeds, we shall certainly achieve kingship.' East of the mountains, talk of Vertical and Horizontal Alliances has not ceased for a single day, yet neither merit, fame, hegemony, nor kingship has been established. Empty words are not the means to achieve governance.

The true king acts alone -- that is what makes him king. Thus the Three Kings did not concern themselves with alliances and separations but achieved rectitude. The Five Hegemons did not wait upon Vertical and Horizontal Alliances but achieved discernment. They simply governed the interior and thereby controlled the exterior.