| | 問孔: |
世儒學者，好信師而是古，以為賢聖所言皆無非，專精講習，不知難問。夫賢聖下筆造文，用意詳審，尚未可謂盡得實，況倉卒吐言，安能皆是？不能皆是，時人不知難；或是，而意沉難見，時人不知問。案賢聖之言，上下多相違；其文，前後多相伐者，世之學者，不能知也。 |
| | The scholars of later generations have a tendency to place great faith in their teachers and to revere antiquity, believing that all statements made by the sages are without fault. They concentrate solely on studying and reciting these teachings, yet they do not know how to raise questions or challenge them. When sages and virtuous men compose writings, they do so with careful thought and meticulous consideration; yet even then, it cannot be said that all their words are entirely accurate. How much less can this be expected of hasty remarks spoken on the spur of the moment? How could such statements possibly be completely correct? Since they cannot all be correct, and contemporaries do not know how to question them; or even if some are correct, the meaning may be profound and difficult to discern, yet people at that time did not know how to ask about them. Upon examining the statements of sages and virtuous men, one finds that many are contradictory when compared with each other; their writings often contradict themselves in the beginning and end; yet scholars of later generations fail to recognize this.
|
| | 問孔: |
論者皆云：「孔門之徒，七十子之才，勝今之儒。」此言妄也。彼見孔子為師，聖人傳道，必授異才，故謂之殊。夫古人之才，今人之才也，今謂之英、傑，古以為聖、神，故謂七十子歷世希有。使當今有孔子之師，則斯世學者，皆顏、閔之徒也；使無孔子，則七十子之徒，今之儒生也。何以驗之？以學於孔子，不能極問也。聖人之言，不能盡解；說道陳義，不能輒形。不能輒形，宜問以發之；不能盡解，宜難以極之。皋陶陳道帝舜之前，淺略未極，禹問難之，淺言復深，略指復分。蓋起問難此說，激而深切，觸而著明也。 |
| | Commentators all say: "The disciples of Confucius, the seventy outstanding students, were more talented than today's scholars." This statement is false. They see Confucius as a teacher, and believe that the sage transmitted his teachings only to those with exceptional talent; therefore, they consider them extraordinary. Talented people of ancient times are no different from talented people today; what we now call outstanding or exceptional individuals, the ancients regarded as sages or divine figures. Hence, they say that among Confucius's seventy disciples were rare talents found only once in a generation. If there were today a teacher like Confucius, then the scholars of this age would all be disciples comparable to Yan Hui and Min Ziqian; If there had been no Confucius, then those seventy disciples would merely have been ordinary scholars of today. How can this be verified? Because those who studied under Confucius did not exhaustively question him. The words of a sage cannot be fully understood; when explaining principles and expressing ideas, they could not immediately convey them clearly. Since they could not immediately express their meaning clearly, it was appropriate to ask questions in order to elicit further explanation; since the words of sages cannot be fully understood, one should challenge and question them thoroughly. Gao Tao presented his principles before Emperor Shun, but his explanation was superficial and brief. Yu raised questions and challenged him; as a result, the shallow remarks became profound, and the brief points were elaborated in detail. It is through raising challenging questions about such statements that ideas become more deeply insightful and clearly illuminated.
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子笑子游之絃歌，子游引前言以距孔子。自今案《論語》之文，孔子之言，多若笑弦歌之辭，弟子寡若子游之難，故孔子之言遂結不解。以七十子不能難，世之儒生，不能實道是非也。 |
| | Confucius laughed at Ziyou's playing of music on the zither, and Ziyou cited previous remarks to counter Confucius. Now, upon examining the text of the Analects, one finds that Confucius's words often resemble those expressing disapproval of music and song; yet among his disciples, few challenged him as Ziyou did. Therefore, many of Confucius's statements remain unresolved and unexplained. Because the seventy disciples could not raise objections, later scholars have been unable to accurately determine what is right or wrong.
|
| | 問孔: |
凡學問之法，不為無才，難於距師，核道實義，證定是非也。問難之道，非必對聖人及生時也。世人解說說人者，非必須聖人教告乃敢言也。苟有不曉解之問，迢難孔子，何傷於義？誠有傳聖業之知，伐孔子之說，何逆於理？謂問孔子之言，難其不解之文，世間弘才大知生，能荅問、解難之人，必將賢吾世間難問之言是非。 |
| | The method of scholarly inquiry does not depend on the absence of talent, but rather lies in daring to challenge one's teacher, examining the principles and meanings carefully, and verifying what is true or false. The practice of raising questions and challenges does not necessarily require confronting sages in their lifetime. When people today interpret or explain the words of others, they do not need to have been personally instructed by a sage before daring to speak. If there are questions that one does not understand and one dares to challenge Confucius, what harm would this do to the principles? If someone truly possesses knowledge that transmits the teachings of sages and challenges Confucius's doctrines, what contradiction would this present to reason? To question Confucius's words, to challenge the parts that are not clearly explained—those of great talent and profound knowledge in this world who can answer questions and resolve difficulties will certainly judge whether our contemporary challenging remarks are right or wrong.
|
| | 問孔: |
孟懿子問孝，子曰：「毋違。」樊遲御，子告之曰：「孟孫問孝於我，我對曰：『毋違。』」樊遲曰：「何謂也？」子曰：「生、事之以禮，死、葬之以禮。」 |
| | Meng Yizi asked about filial piety, and Confucius said: "Do not go against it." Fan Chi was driving the carriage, and the Master told him, "Meng Sun asked me about filial piety; I replied to him: 'Do not go against it.'" Fan Chi said, "What does this mean?" The Master said: "When a parent is alive, serve them according to ritual; when they die, bury them according to ritual."
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：孔子之言「毋違」，毋違者禮也。孝子亦當先意承志，不當違親之欲。孔子言「毋違」，不言「違禮」，懿子聽孔子之言，獨不為嫌於無違志乎？樊遲問何謂，孔子乃言「生、事之以禮，死、葬之以禮，祭之以禮。」使樊遲不問，毋違之說，遂不可知也。懿子之才，不過樊遲，故《論語》篇中，不見言行，樊遲不曉，懿子必能曉哉？ |
| | It was asked: The words of Confucius "Do not go against it"—"do not go against" refers to the rites. A filial son should also anticipate his parents' wishes and follow their aspirations, and should not go against what they desire. Confucius said "Do not go against," but did not say "do not violate the rites." If Yizi heard Confucius's words, would he alone have no reservations about failing to follow his parents' aspirations? Fan Chi asked what it meant, and Confucius then said: "When they are alive, serve them according to the rites; when they die, bury and honor them with rites." Had Fan Chi not asked, the meaning of "do not go against" would have remained unknown. Yizi's talent was no greater than Fan Chi's, so in the Analects we do not see Yizi's words or deeds recorded. If Fan Chi did not understand it, could Yizi possibly have understood?
|
| | 問孔: |
孟武伯問孝，子曰：「父母唯其疾之憂。」武伯善憂父母，故曰「唯其疾之憂」。武伯憂親，懿子違禮。攻其短，荅武伯云「父母唯其疾之憂」，對懿子亦宜言「唯水火之變乃違禮」。周公告小才勑，大材略。子游之、大材也，孔子告之勑；懿子、小才也，告之反略，違周公之志。攻懿子之短，失道理之宜，弟子不難，何哉！ |
| | Meng Wubo asked about filial piety. The Master said: "Parents are only concerned about their children's illnesses." Wubo was good at worrying about his parents, so the Master said, "Only worry about their illnesses." Wubo worried for his parents; Yizi went against ritual. If one were to address their shortcomings, in responding to Wubo by saying "Parents are only concerned about your illnesses," then when answering Yizi, it would also be appropriate to say: "Only calamities such as water and fire constitute a violation of ritual." The Duke of Zhou gave detailed instructions to those with lesser talent, but brief guidance to those with greater ability. Ziyou was a man of great talent; Confucius gave him detailed instruction; Yizi was a man of lesser talent, yet he received only brief guidance—this goes against the Duke of Zhou's principle. To criticize Yizi for his shortcomings is to fail in following proper principles; that none of the disciples questioned this, why is it so!
|
| | 問孔: |
如以懿子權尊，不敢極言，則其對武伯，亦宜但言「毋憂」而已。但孟氏子也，權尊鈞同，形武伯而略懿子，未曉其故也。使孔子對懿子極言毋違禮，何害之有？專魯莫過季氏，譏八佾之舞庭，刺太山之旅祭，不懼季氏增邑不隱諱之害，獨畏荅懿子極言之罪，何哉？且問孝者非一，皆有御者，對懿子言，不但心服臆肯，故告樊遲。 |
| | If one argues that Yizi was not given a thorough explanation because of his high status and authority, then in responding to Wubo as well, Confucius should have merely said "Do not worry" and nothing more. Yet both were sons of the Meng family, with equal status and authority; to give a detailed response to Wubo but a brief one to Yizi—this is puzzling. If Confucius had given Yizi a thorough explanation about not going against the rites, what harm would that have caused? The power of Lu was no greater than that of the Ji family. Confucius criticized their use of eight rows of dancers in their courtyard and condemned their sacrificial rites on Mount Tai. He did not fear the danger of openly criticizing the Ji clan's expansion of territory without concealment, yet he alone feared being blamed for giving Yizi a complete explanation—why is this so? Moreover, those who asked about filial piety were not only Yizi; each had someone driving the carriage. The explanation given to Yizi was not merely an internal conviction or a personal opinion, which is why it was explained further to Fan Chi.
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子曰：「富與貴，是人之所欲也，不以其道得之，不居也；貧與賤，是人之所惡也，不以其道得之，不去也。」此言人當由道義得，不當苟取也；當守節安貧，不當妄去也。 |
| | Confucius said: "Wealth and rank are what people desire; if they do not obtain them through proper means, one should not accept them." "Poorth and low status are what people dislike; if they come about without following the proper path, one should not abandon them." This statement means that a person should obtain wealth and rank through righteousness and principle, and must not acquire them in an improper or hasty manner; one should maintain one's integrity and accept poverty calmly, rather than recklessly abandon it.
|
| | 問孔: |
夫言不以其道得富貴，不居，可也；不以其道得貧賤，如何？富貴顧可去，去貧賤何之？去貧賤，得富貴也；不得富貴，不去貧賤。如謂得富貴不以其道，則不去貧賤邪？則所得富貴，不得貧賤也。貧賤何故當言「得之」？顧當言「貧與賤，是人之所惡也，不以其道去之，則不去也。」當言「去」，不當言「得」。「得」者、施於得之也。今去之，安得言「得」乎？獨富貴當言「得」耳。何者？得富貴，乃去貧賤也。 |
| | To say that if wealth and rank are not obtained through proper means, then one should not hold them—is acceptable; but what of poverty and low status—if they come about without following the right path, how should one respond? Wealth and rank can be abandoned; but where would one go if one were to abandon poverty and low status? 邏 To abandon poverty and low status is to attain wealth and rank; if one cannot obtain wealth and rank, then one should not abandon poverty and low status. If it is said that if one attains wealth and rank without following the proper way, then one does not abandon poverty and low status—then what of this? Then those who attain wealth and rank in an improper way do not deserve to be poor or lowly. Why should poverty and low status even be described as "obtained"? It would have been more appropriate to say: "Poverty and low status are what people hate; if one does not remove them through the proper way, then they should not be abandoned." One should speak of "removing" them, not of "obtaining" them. The term "de" refers to something one actively acquires or attains. Now, if one is removing it, how can it be called "obtaining"? Only wealth and rank should be described as something that is "obtained." Why so? Because obtaining wealth and rank means leaving behind poverty and low status.
|
| | 問孔: |
是則以道「去」貧賤如何？脩身行道，仕得爵祿富貴，得爵祿富貴，則去貧賤矣。不以其道「去」貧賤如何？毒苦貧賤，起為姦盜，積聚貨財，擅相官秩，是為不以其道。 |
| | Then, how is it to "remove" poverty and low status through the proper way? By cultivating one's character and practicing virtue, one may serve in office and attain rank, salary, wealth, and honor. When one attains these honors and riches, then poverty and low status are left behind. What if one "removes" poverty and low status without following the proper way? To suffer bitterly from poverty and low status, then rise to commit theft or corruption, amass wealth, and seize official positions—this is what it means to "remove" them without following the proper way.
|
| | 問孔: |
七十子既不問，世之學者亦不知難，使此言意不解，而文不分，是謂孔子不能吐辭也；使此言意結，文又不解，是孔子相示未形悉也。弟子不問，世俗不難，何哉？ |
| | Since neither the seventy disciples questioned it, nor did later scholars raise any objections, this has left the meaning of these words unclear and their text ambiguous. This is said to mean that Confucius was unable to express himself clearly; if the meaning remains unresolved, and the text cannot be understood, then it is said that Confucius did not fully convey his ideas. The disciples did not ask questions, nor did the common people raise challenges—why so?
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子曰：「公冶長可妻也，雖在縲紲之中，非其罪也。」以其子妻之。 |
| | Confucius said: "Gong Yechang is worthy to be given a wife; although he is in prison, it is not his fault." He gave his daughter in marriage to him.
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：孔子妻公冶長者，何據見哉？據年三十可妻邪？見其行賢可妻也？如據其年三十，不宜稱在縲紲；如見其行賢，亦不宜稱在縲紲。何則？諸入孔子門者，皆有善行，故稱備徒役。徒役之中，無妻則妻之耳，不須稱也。如徒役之中多無妻，公冶長尤賢，故獨妻之，則其稱之，宜列其行，不宜言其在縲紲也。何則？世間彊受非辜者多，未必盡賢人也。恆人見枉，眾多非一。必以非辜為孔子所妻，則是孔子不妻賢，妻冤也。案孔子之稱公冶長，有非辜之言，無行能之文。實不賢，孔子妻之，非也；實賢，孔子稱之不具，亦非也。誠似妻南容云：「國有道、不廢，國無道、免於刑戮。」具稱之矣。 |
| | It was asked: On what basis did Confucius give his daughter in marriage to Gong Yechang? Is it because he was thirty years old and thus eligible for marriage? Or is it because his conduct was virtuous, making him worthy of being given a wife? If the basis were merely that he was thirty years old, then there would be no need to mention his imprisonment; if it is because of his virtuous conduct, then mentioning his imprisonment should also not be necessary. Why so? All those who entered Confucius's school had good conduct, hence they were called "complete disciples and attendants." Among the disciples and attendants, if someone lacked a wife, it was simply customary to give one—there would be no need for special mention. If among the disciples and attendants many lacked a wife, but Gong Yechang was especially virtuous, so he alone was given one, then when mentioning this, it would have been appropriate to list his virtues rather than mention that he was in prison. Why is this the case? In the world, there are many who suffer unjustly and bear false accusations; they are not necessarily all virtuous people. Ordinary people being wrongfully treated is a common occurrence, not an isolated case. If Confucius must have given his daughter in marriage solely because someone was wrongly accused, then this would mean that Confucius did not marry a virtuous man, but rather an innocent sufferer. Upon examining Confucius's remarks about Gong Yechang, there is mention of his being wrongly accused but no description of his conduct or abilities. If he was not truly virtuous and Confucius still gave him a wife, this would be wrong; if he was indeed virtuous but Confucius failed to fully commend his virtues, that too is inappropriate. It truly resembles the case of Nangong, when it was said: "In a well-governed state, he would not be neglected; in an ill-governed one, he could avoid punishment and death." That statement fully commended his virtues.
|
| | 問孔: |
子謂子貢曰：「汝與回也孰愈？」曰：「賜也何敢望回？回也聞一以知十，賜也聞一以知二。」子曰：「弗如也，吾與汝俱不如也。」是賢顏淵，試以問子貢也。 |
| | The Master said to Zigan: "Between you and Hui, who is the better?" Zigan replied: "How dare I compare myself with Hui? When Hui hears one thing, he understands ten; when I hear one thing, I understand two." The Master said: "You are not as good as him. Neither am I as good as he is." This was praising Yan Hui, and the question was posed to Zigan as a test.
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：孔子所以教者，禮讓也。子路為國以禮，其言不讓，孔子非之。使子貢實愈顏淵，孔子問之，猶曰不如；使實不及，亦曰不如。非失對欺師，禮讓之言，宜謙卑也。今孔子出言，欲何趣哉？使孔子知顏淵愈子貢，則不須問子貢；使孔子實不知，以問子貢，子貢謙讓，亦不能知。使孔子徒欲表善顏淵，稱顏淵賢，門人莫及，於名多矣，何須問於子貢？子曰：「賢哉回也！」又曰：「吾與回言終日，不違，如愚。」又曰：「回也，其心三月不違仁。」三章皆直稱，不以他人激，至是一章，獨以子貢激之，何哉？ |
| | Question: What Confucius taught was propriety and humility. Zilu, when speaking of governing the state with ritual propriety, did not show humility in his words; Confucius disapproved of this. If Zigan were indeed superior to Yan Hui, when Confucius asked him about it, he would still say that he was not as good; if in reality he fell short, he would also say that he was not equal. This is not a case of giving an incorrect answer or deceiving the teacher; when it comes to matters of propriety and humility, one should be modest. Now, what was Confucius trying to imply by making such a statement? If Confucius already knew that Yan Hui was superior to Zigan, then there would have been no need to ask Zigan; if Confucius truly did not know and asked Zigan in order to find out, then even if Zigan showed humility, he could not have known. If Confucius merely wished to highlight Yan Hui's virtue, and praised Yan Hui as virtuous with no one among his disciples comparable, then there would be ample evidence of this in the records; why then was it necessary for him to ask Zigan? The Master said: "How virtuous is Hui!" He also said: "I spoke with Hui all day, and he never contradicted me; it seemed as if he were foolish." He also said: "Hui's heart remained in accordance with benevolence for three months without deviation." These three passages all directly praise Yan Hui, without using others to highlight him. Yet in this one passage alone, Confucius uses Zigan as a contrast—why is that?
|
| | 問孔: |
或曰：「欲抑子貢也。當此之時，子貢之名，凌顏淵之上，孔子恐子貢志驕意溢，故抑之也。」夫名在顏淵之上，當時所為，非子貢求勝之也。實子貢之知何如哉？使顏淵才在己上，己自服之，不須抑也；使子貢不能自知，孔子雖言，將謂孔子徒欲抑己。由此言之，問與不問，無能抑揚。 |
| | Some say: "It was intended to humble Zigan." At that time, Zigan's reputation had surpassed that of Yan Hui; Confucius was afraid that Zigan might become proud and overconfident, so he humbled him." Having a reputation above Yan Hui was the result of circumstances at that time; it was not something Zigan sought to achieve. What then was the true extent of Zigan's wisdom? If Yan Hui were truly more capable than himself, he would naturally have acknowledged this and there would have been no need for Confucius to humble him; if Zigan was unable to recognize his own shortcomings, then even if Confucius spoke, he might have thought that Confucius merely wanted to belittle him. From this reasoning, whether or not a question was asked would be of no help in elevating one and humbling another.
|
| | 問孔: |
宰我晝寢，子曰：「朽木不可彫也，糞土之墻不可杇也。於予，予何誅？」是惡宰予之晝寢。 |
| | Zai Wo was sleeping during the day; the Master said: "Decayed wood cannot be carved, and a wall of dung soil cannot be smoothed. As for Zai Wo—what punishment can I inflict on him?" This expresses disapproval of Zai Wo's sleeping during the day.
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：晝寢之惡也，小惡也；朽木、糞土，敗毀不可復成之物，大惡也。責小過以大惡，安能服人？使宰我性不善，如朽木、糞土，不宜得入孔子之門，序在四科之列；使性善，孔子惡之，惡之太甚，過也。「人之不仁，疾之已甚，亂也。」孔子疾宰予，可謂甚矣。 |
| | Question: Sleeping during the day is a wrongdoing, but it is a minor one; decayed wood and dung soil are ruined things that cannot be restored—they represent grave wrongdoings. To hold a minor fault accountable as if it were a great wrongdoing—how could this possibly convince others? If Zai Wo's nature was inherently evil, like decayed wood or dung soil, then he should not have been admitted into Confucius' school and ranked among the four categories of disciples; if his nature was good but Confucius condemned him, then such condemnation would be excessive and itself a mistake. "Disliking someone who lacks benevolence too intensely is also disorder." Confucius's disapproval of Zai Wo can truly be considered excessive.
|
| | 問孔: |
使下愚之人，涉耐罪之獄，吏令以大辟之罪，必冤而怨邪？將服而自咎也？使宰我愚，則與涉耐罪之人同志；使宰我賢，知孔子責人，幾微自改矣。明文以識之，流言以過之，以其言示端而己自改。自改不在言之輕重，在宰予能更與否。 |
| | If a person of low intelligence were to become involved in a case involving capital punishment, and the officials imposed the death penalty upon him, would he necessarily be wronged and resentful? Or would he accept it as his own fault without complaint? If Zai Wo was foolish, then he would be no different from those who are wrongly involved in criminal cases; if Zai Wo was virtuous, knowing that Confucius held him accountable, he would have already made subtle self-corrections. By clearly stating the matter and spreading it as a warning, Confucius used his words to set an example so that Zai Wo would naturally correct himself. Whether or not he corrected himself did not depend on the severity of Confucius's words, but rather on whether Zai Wo was capable of change.
|
| | 問孔: |
《春秋》之義，采毫毛之善，貶纖介之惡。襃毫毛以巨大，以巨大貶纖介，觀《春秋》之義，肯是之乎？不是，則宰我不受；不受，則孔子之言棄矣。聖人之言，與文相副，言出於口，文立於策，俱發於心，其實一也。孔子作《春秋》，不貶小以大，其非宰予也，以大惡細，文語相違，服人如何？ |
| | The meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annals is to record even the slightest virtue, while condemning even the smallest evil. To praise a slight virtue as great and to condemn a minor wrongdoing with excessive severity—according to the principles of the Spring and Autumn Annals, would this be acceptable? If it is not appropriate, then Zai Wo should not bear such condemnation; if he does not accept it, then Confucius's words would be disregarded. The words of a sage are consistent with the written text; when spoken, they become recorded in writing. Both originate from the heart and are essentially one and the same. Confucius, in composing the Spring and Autumn Annals, did not condemn minor faults with great severity. If he criticized Zai Wo by applying a grave wrongdoing to a small offense, then his written words would contradict each other—how could such statements convince others?
|
| | 問孔: |
子曰：「始吾於人也，聽其言而信其行；今吾於人也，聽其言而觀其行。於予，予改是。」蓋起宰予晝寢，更知人之術也。 |
| | The Master said: "At first, when I encountered people, I listened to their words and believed in their actions; now, when I encounter people, I listen to their words but observe their actions." "As for Zai Wo, this is something he must change." This statement arose from the incident of Zai Wo sleeping during the day and reflects a refined method for understanding people.
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：人之晝寢，安足以毀行？毀行之人，晝夜不臥，安足以成善？以晝寢而觀人善惡，能得其實乎？案宰予在孔子之門，序於四科，列在賜上。如性情怠，不可彫琢，何以致此？使宰我以晝寢自致此，才復過人遠矣。如未成就，自謂已足，不能自知，知不明耳，非行惡也。曉勑而已，無為改術也。如自知未足，倦極晝寢，是精神索也。精神索，至於死亡，豈徒寢哉？ |
| | Question: How can someone's sleeping during the day be sufficient to destroy their character? A person whose conduct is corrupt may stay awake all night and day, but how would that make them virtuous? To judge a person's virtue or wickedness solely based on whether they sleep during the day—can one truly discern their true nature in this way? According to records, Zai Wo was among Confucius's disciples and ranked within the four categories, even placed above Zigan. If his nature and disposition were lazy and unchangeable, how could he have achieved such a position? If Zai Wo had attained this status solely by sleeping during the day, then his talent must far surpass that of others. If one has not yet achieved success but considers oneself sufficient, and is unable to recognize this shortcoming, it indicates a lack of self-awareness, not necessarily evil conduct. It merely requires gentle admonition; there is no need for drastic measures or changes. If he himself realized his own insufficiency and was so exhausted that he slept during the day, this indicates a depletion of his spirit and energy. When one's spirit is depleted to the point of approaching death, it is not merely about sleeping!
|
| | 問孔: |
且論人之法，取其行則棄其言，取其言則棄其行。今宰予雖無力行，有言語。用言，令行缺，有一概矣。今孔子起宰予晝寢，聽其言，觀其行，言行相應，則謂之賢，是孔子備取人也。「毋求備於一人」之義何所施？ |
| | Moreover, when judging a person, one either focuses on their actions and disregards their words, or focuses on their words and disregards their actions. Now, although Zai Wo may lack the strength to act, he has eloquence in speech. To judge by his words and overlook his shortcomings in action is still a consistent standard. Now, Confucius, upon observing Zai Wo's daytime sleeping, listened to his words and observed his actions. If a person's words and deeds corresponded, he would call them virtuous—this shows that Confucius fully considered both speech and conduct in judging people. To what extent does the principle of "Do not demand perfection from a single person" apply?
|
| | 問孔: |
子張問：「令尹子文三仕為令尹，無喜色；三已之，無慍色。舊令尹之政，必以告新令尹。何如？」子曰：「忠矣。」曰：「仁矣乎？」曰：「未知，焉得仁？」子文曾舉楚子玉代己位而伐宋，以百乘敗而喪其眾，不知如此，安得為仁？ |
| | Zizhang asked: "Lord Yin Ziwen served three times as Lord Yin, yet showed no joy; when he was dismissed three times, he also showed no anger. He would certainly inform the new Lord Yin of all previous policies and affairs. What do you think of him?" The Master said: "He was loyal." Zizhang asked: "Was he benevolent?" The Master replied: "I do not know. How could one be called benevolent without knowing?" Ziwen once recommended Lord Zi Yu to succeed him in office and lead the campaign against Song, but with only a hundred chariots he suffered defeat and lost his troops. If one does not know that such an outcome occurred, how can one be considered benevolent?
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：子文舉子玉，不知人也。智與仁，不相干也。有不知之性，何妨為仁之行？五常之道，仁、義、禮、智、信也。五者各別，不相須而成，故有智人，有仁人者；有禮人，有義人者。人有信者未必智，智者未必仁，仁者未必禮，禮者未必義。子文智蔽於子玉，其仁何毀？謂仁，焉得不可？ |
| | Question: Ziwen recommended Zi Yu; this shows he did not truly understand people. Wisdom and benevolence are unrelated to each other. Having a nature that lacks understanding does not prevent one from performing acts of benevolence. The five constant virtues are benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness. These five virtues are distinct from one another and do not depend on each other to be complete; therefore, there can be wise people and benevolent people. There can also be those who excel in propriety or righteousness. A person may possess faithfulness but not necessarily wisdom; a wise person is not necessarily benevolent; a benevolent person is not necessarily refined in propriety; and one who excels in propriety is not necessarily righteous. Ziwen was misled by Zi Yu in terms of wisdom, but how does this affect his benevolence? To call him benevolent—how can that be denied?
|
| | 問孔: |
且忠者、厚也，厚人、仁矣。孔子曰：「觀過，斯知仁矣。」子文有仁之實矣。孔子謂忠非仁，是謂父母非二親，配疋非夫婦也。 |
| | Moreover, loyalty means sincerity; to be sincere toward others is already an act of benevolence. Confucius said: "Observing how a person handles their mistakes reveals whether they are truly benevolent." Ziwen indeed demonstrated the reality of benevolence. Confucius regarded loyalty as distinct from benevolence; this is akin to saying that parents are not the two closest relatives, or that a pair of partners are not husband and wife.
|
| | 問孔: |
哀公問：「弟子孰謂好學？」孔子對曰：「有顏回者，不遷怒，不貳過，不幸短命死矣！今也則亡，未聞好學者也。」 |
| | Duke Ai asked: "Among your disciples, who may be considered devoted to learning?" Confucius replied: "There was Yan Hui. He did not transfer his anger, and he did not repeat the same mistake. Unfortunately, he died young! Now there is none left; I have heard no one else who can be called devoted to learning."
|
| | 問孔: |
夫顏淵所以死者，審何用哉？令自以短命，猶伯牛之有疾也。人生受命，皆全當潔，今有惡疾，故曰「無命」。人生皆當受天長命，今得「短命」，亦宜曰「無命」。如天有短長，則亦有善惡矣。言顏淵「短命」，則宜言伯牛「惡命」；言伯牛「無命」，則宜言顏淵「無命」。一死一病，皆痛云命，所稟不異，文語不同，未曉其故也。 |
| | What was the cause of Yan Hui's death, and what significance should we attach to it? It is merely that he died young, just as Bo Niou suffered from illness. When a person's life begins and they receive their destiny, it should be complete and pure; if someone suffers from a severe illness, that is why it is said "they have no fate." Everyone's life should be granted by Heaven with longevity; now to receive a "short life" also ought to be called "having no fate." If Heaven has short and long lifespans, then it would also have good and evil. To say that Yan Hui had a "short life," one should also call Bo Niou as having an "evil fate"; to say that Bo Niou had "no fate," one should also say Yan Hui had "no fate." One died and the other fell ill; both are described as suffering from fate. What they received was not different, yet the wording is inconsistent—I do not understand the reason for this.
|
| | 問孔: |
哀公問孔子孰為好學，孔子對曰：「有顏回者好學，今也則亡。不遷怒，不貳過。」何也？曰：「并攻哀公之性遷怒、貳過故也。因其問，則并以對之，兼以攻上之短，不犯其罰。」 |
| | Duke Ai asked Confucius who among his disciples was devoted to learning, and Confucius replied: "There was Yan Hui who loved learning; now he is no longer alive. He did not transfer anger, nor repeat mistakes." Why so? It was said: "This was a subtle critique of Duke Ai's tendency to transfer anger and repeat mistakes. Taking advantage of the question, he answered in such a way as to subtly criticize the ruler's shortcomings without incurring punishment."
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：康子亦問好學，孔子亦對之以顏淵。康子亦有短，何不并對以攻康子？康子非聖人也，操行猶有所失。成事：康子患盜，孔子對曰：「苟子之不欲，雖賞之不竊。」由此言之，康子以欲為短也，不攻，何哉？ |
| | Question: Lord Kang also asked about who was devoted to learning, and Confucious also answered by mentioning Yan Hui. Lord Kang had shortcomings as well; why did he not similarly respond in a way that criticized Lord Kang? Lord Kang was no sage, and his conduct still had its flaws. Record of Events: Lord Kang was troubled by thieves; Confucius replied, "If you yourself have no desire for improper things, even if you offer rewards, people will not steal." By this statement, Lord Kang's shortcoming was his own desires; why then did he refrain from criticizing him?
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子見南子，子路不悅。子曰：「予所鄙者，天厭之！天厭之！」南子、衛靈公夫人也，聘孔子，子路不說，謂孔子淫亂也。孔子解之曰：「我所為鄙陋者，天厭殺我！」至誠自誓，不負子路也。 |
| | Confucius met with Nanzi, and Zilu was displeased. The Master said: "If I were to act in a way I despise, Heaven would surely 厌 me!" "Heaven would surely 厌 me!" Nanzi was the wife of Duke Ling of Wei. She invited Confucius, and Zilu disapproved, thinking that Confucius had become involved in licentiousness. Confucius explained: "If I did anything despicable, Heaven would certainly 厌 and destroy me!" With utmost sincerity he swore an oath, thus not betraying Zilu's trust.
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：孔子自解，安能解乎？使世人有鄙陋之行，天曾厭殺之，可引以誓。子路聞之，可信以解。今未曾有為天所厭者也，曰「天厭之」，子路肯信之乎？行事：雷擊殺人，水火燒溺人，墻屋壓填人。如曰：「雷擊殺我，水火燒溺我，墻屋壓填我。」子路頗信之。今引未曾有之禍，以自誓於子路，子路安肯曉解而信之？行事：適有臥厭不悟者，謂此為天所厭邪？案諸臥厭不悟者，未皆為鄙陋也。子路入道雖淺，猶知事之實。事非實，孔子以誓，子路必不解矣。 |
| | Question: How could Confucius' self-defense actually resolve the issue? If people in the world who behaved despicably had ever been 厌 and destroyed by Heaven, such an example could be cited as a vow. Zilu hearing this would believe it and thus be reassured. But now there has never been anyone who was 厌 by Heaven; to say "Heaven will 厌 me," would Zilu have believed it? Record of Events: Thunder struck and killed people; water and fire burned or drowned them; walls and houses collapsed, crushing or burying them. If one were to say: "Lightning will strike me dead, water and fire will burn or drown me, walls and houses will crush or bury me." Zilu would likely believe it. Now, by invoking a disaster that has never occurred, to swear an oath before Zilu—how could Zilu possibly understand and believe it? Record of Events: If someone were lying down,厌 but not realizing it, would one say that this is a case where Heaven has 厌 them? Examining those who are 厌 while lying down and do not realize it, they are certainly not all despicable people. Although Zilu had only a shallow understanding of the Way, he still knew the truth of matters. If the matter was not true, and Confucius used it as an oath, Zilu would certainly not have understood.
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子稱曰：「死生有命，富貴在天。」若此者，人之死生，自有長短，不在操行善惡也。成事：顏淵蚤死，孔子謂之短命，由此知短命夭死之人，必有邪行也。子路入道雖淺，聞孔子之言，知死生之實。孔子誓以「予所鄙者、天厭之」，獨不為子路言：「夫子惟命未當死，天安得厭殺之乎？」若此，誓子路以「天厭之」，終不見信。不見信，則孔子自解，終不解也。 |
| | Confucius declared: "Life and death are determined by fate; wealth and honor depend on Heaven." If this is the case, then a person's life or death has its own length of time; it does not depend on whether their conduct is good or evil. Record of Events: Yan Hui died young; Confucius called it a short life. From this, one might conclude that those who die prematurely must have had evil conduct. Although Zilu's understanding of the Way was shallow, upon hearing Confucius' words, he understood the reality about life and death. Confucius swore, "If I did anything despicable Heaven would 厌 me," yet he alone did not tell Zilu: "Master's death is only because his time has not come; how could Heaven possibly 厌 and kill him?" If this were the case, swearing to Zilu with "Heaven will 厌 me" would ultimately not be believed. If it was not believed, then Confucius' attempt at self-defense would remain unresolved after all.
|
| | 問孔: |
《尚書》曰：「毋若丹朱敖，惟慢游是好。」謂帝舜勑禹毋子不肖子也。重天命，恐禹私其子，故引丹朱以勑戒之。禹曰：「予娶，若時辛壬；癸甲開呱呱而泣，予弗子。」陳己行事，以往推來，以見卜隱，效己不敢私不肖子也。不曰「天厭之」者，知俗人誓，好引天也。孔子為子路行所疑，不引行事，效己不鄙，而云「天厭之」，是與俗人解嫌，引天祝詛，何以異乎？ |
| | The Book of Documents says: "Do not be like Danzhu, who was arrogant and loved only idleness and play." This means that Emperor Shun admonished Yu not to follow the example of his unworthy son. He emphasized Heaven's will, fearing that Yu might favor his own son; thus he cited Danzhu as a warning to instruct and caution him. Yu said: "When I married, it was on the Xin and Ren days of that time; on the Gengyi day my child cried out in wails—such a child, I will not recognize as my son." He recounted his own past actions, using the past to predict the future, in order to demonstrate divination and caution; this was to show that he would not dare favor an unworthy son. He did not say "Heaven will 厌 me," knowing that common people, when swearing oaths, tend to invoke Heaven. Confucius, in addressing Zilu's doubts, did not cite past actions to demonstrate his own virtue and instead said "Heaven will 厌 me"—this is no different from common people resolving suspicions by invoking Heaven for curses. What distinction does it make?
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子曰：「鳳鳥不至，河不出圖，吾已矣夫！」夫子自傷不王也。己王致太平，太平則鳳鳥至，河出圖矣。今不得王，故瑞應不至，悲心自傷，故曰「吾已矣夫。」 |
| | Confucius said: "The phoenix bird has not arrived, the Yellow River has not produced a map—my time is up!" The Master lamented his own failure to be honored as a king. If he had been honored as a king and brought about great peace, then in times of peace the phoenix bird would have arrived and the Yellow River would have produced a map. Now that he did not attain kingship, hence no auspicious signs appeared; with sorrow in his heart and lamenting himself, he said: "My time is up!"
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：鳳鳥河圖審何據？始起？始起之時，鳥圖未至。如據太平，太平之帝，未必常致鳳鳥與河圖也。五帝三王，皆致太平，案其瑞應，不皆鳳皇為必然之瑞。於太平，鳳皇為未必然之應，孔子、聖人也，思未必然以自傷，終不應矣。 |
| | Question: What is the actual basis for the phoenix bird and the map of the Yellow River? When did they first appear? At that time, when things began, the phoenix bird and map had not yet appeared. If one takes the appearance of peace as a basis, even emperors who brought about great peace did not necessarily always bring forth phoenix birds and maps from the Yellow River. The Five Emperors and Three Kings all brought about great peace; examining their auspicious signs, they were not necessarily phoenix birds as an inevitable omen. In times of great peace, the arrival of a phoenix is not an inevitable response; Confucius was a sage. To grieve over something that may never happen is ultimately unfounded.
|
| | 問孔: |
或曰：「孔子不自傷不得王也，傷時無明王，故己不用也。鳳鳥河圖，明王之瑞也。瑞應不至，時無明王；明王不存，己遂不用矣。」夫致瑞應，何以致之？任賢使能，治定功成。治定功成，則瑞應至矣。瑞應至後，亦不須孔子。孔子所望，何其末也？不思其本，而望其末也；不相其主，而名其物。治有未定，物有不至，以至而效明王，必失之矣。孝文皇帝可謂明矣，案其《本紀》，不見鳳鳥與河圖。使孔子在孝文之世，猶曰「吾已矣夫」。 |
| | Some say: "Confucius did not lament his own failure to become a king, but rather mourned the absence of an enlightened ruler in his time, and thus he was not employed." The phoenix bird and the Yellow River map are omens of a wise king. Since these auspicious signs did not appear, it indicated that there was no enlightened ruler in his time; if an enlightened king did not exist, then he would inevitably remain unappointed." What causes the appearance of auspicious signs? How can they be brought about? By appointing virtuous people and employing capable individuals, one achieves stability in governance and completes great achievements. When governance is stable and accomplishments are achieved, then auspicious signs will appear. Even after these auspicious signs have appeared, there would still be no need for Confucius. What Confucius hoped for was truly insignificant! He did not consider the root, yet he looked forward to its branches; he did not examine his ruler, yet named things after their appearances. When governance is still unsettled and certain phenomena have not yet appeared, to take their appearance as proof of an enlightened ruler will surely lead to error. Emperor Xiaowen can be considered wise; examining his "Basic Annals," however, there is no mention of phoenix birds or the Yellow River map. If Confucius had lived in Emperor Xiaowen's time, he would still have said: "My time is up!"
|
| | 問孔: |
子欲居九夷，或曰：「陋，如之何？」子曰：「君子居之，何陋之有？」孔子疾道不行於中國，志恨失意，故欲之九夷也。或人難之曰：「夷狄之鄙陋無禮義，如之何？」孔子曰：「君子居之，何陋之有？」言以君子之道，居而教之，何為陋乎？ |
| | The Master wished to live among the Nine Yi. Someone asked: "They are uncultured; how can you do that?" Confucius said: "If a gentleman lives there, what rudeness could there be?" Confucius was distressed that the Way did not prevail in China; filled with regret and frustration over his unfulfilled ambitions, he therefore wished to go to the Nine Yi. Someone challenged him by saying: "The Yi and Di are crude and lack rites and righteousness; how can one go there?" Confucius said: "If a gentleman lives among them, what rudeness could they have?" He meant that by living there and teaching the Way of the gentleman, how could it be considered crude?
|
| | 問孔: |
問之曰：孔子欲之九夷者，何起乎？起道不行於中國，故欲之九夷。夫中國且不行，安能行於夷狄？「夷狄之有君，不若諸夏之亡。」言夷狄之難、諸夏之易也。不能行於易，能行於難乎？ |
| | Question: Why did Confucius wish to go to the Nine Yi? What was the reason behind this desire? It arose from his belief that the Way could not be practiced in China, so he wished to go to the Nine Yi instead. If it cannot be practiced even within China, how can it possibly be implemented among the Yi and Di? "The Yi and Di may have rulers, but they are not as good as the Zhuxia who lack them." This means that it is difficult to transform the Yi and Di, while it is easier with the people of Zhuxia. If one cannot practice it among those who are easy to influence, how can they possibly implement it among those who are difficult?
|
| | 問孔: |
且孔子云：「以君子居之者，何謂陋邪？」謂脩君子之道自容乎？謂以君子之道教之也？如脩君子之道苟自容，中國亦可，何必之夷狄？如以君子之道教之，夷狄安可教乎？禹入躶國，躶入衣出，衣服之制不通於夷狄也。禹不能教躶國衣服，孔子何能使九夷為君子？ |
| | Moreover, Confucius said: "If a gentleman resides there, what does 'crude' mean?" Does this mean that by cultivating the Way of the gentleman one can naturally be accepted? Or does it mean to teach them through the Way of the gentleman? If cultivating the Way of the gentleman can indeed bring about acceptance, then China itself is sufficient; why must one go to the Yi and Di? If it is to teach them through the Way of a gentleman, how can the Yi and Di possibly be taught? Yu entered the country of the Yueguo; he went in naked but came out clothed, indicating that the system of clothing was not understood by the Yi and Di. If Yu could not teach the people of Yueguo about clothing, how could Confucius possibly transform the Nine Yi into gentlemen?
|
| | 問孔: |
或：「孔子實不欲往，患道不行，動發此言。或人難之，孔子知其陋，然而猶曰：『何陋之有』者，欲遂已然，距或人之諫也。」實不欲往，志動發言，是偽言也。君子於言，無所苟矣。如知其陋，苟欲自遂，此子路對孔子以子羔也。子路使子羔為費宰，子曰：「賊夫人之子。」子路曰：「有社稷焉，有民人焉，何必讀書，然後為學？」子曰：「是故惡夫佞者！」子路知其不可，苟對自遂，孔子惡之，比夫佞者。孔子亦知其不可，苟應或人，孔子、子路皆以佞也。 |
| | Some say: "Confucius actually did not wish to go; he was troubled by the fact that his Way could not be implemented, and thus made this statement out of frustration." Someone challenged him, and Confucius knew the place was crude; nevertheless, he still said, "What is there to be crude about?" in order to affirm his own position and reject the other person's advice. If it were true that he did not wish to go, yet he made such a statement out of emotional impulse, then his words would be insincere. A gentleman does not speak carelessly or without sincerity in any matter. If he knew it was crude but still insisted on proceeding for his own sake, this would be akin to Zilu's response to Confucius regarding Zigao. Zilu appointed Zigao as the magistrate of Fei, and Confucius said: "This is harming a gentleman's son." Zilu replied: "There are ancestral altars and people there; why must one read books to be considered learned?" Confucius said: "This is why I despise those who are sly and deceitful!" Zilu knew it was not advisable, yet insisted on responding in a way that served his own purpose; Confucius despised this behavior and compared him to those who are sly. Confucius also knew it was not advisable; if he had merely responded to the other person out of convenience, both Confucius and Zilu would be considered sly.
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子曰：「賜不受命，而貨殖焉，億則屢中。」何謂不受命乎？說曰：「受當富之命，自以術知，數億中時也。」 |
| | Confucius said: "Zi gave no heed to his destiny, yet engaged in commerce and speculation; he often guessed correctly." What is meant by "giving no heed to one's destiny"? The explanation says: "To 'give heed to one's destiny' means to accept the fate of wealth, but Zi instead relied on his own methods and knowledge, frequently making correct guesses."
|
| | 問孔: |
夫人富貴，在天命乎？在人知也？如在天命，知術求之不能得；如在人，孔子何為言「死生有命，富貴在天？」夫謂富不受命，而自知術得之，貴亦可不受命，而自以努力求之。世無不受貴命而自得貴，亦知無不受富命而自得富者。成事：孔子不得富貴矣，周流應聘，行說諸侯，智窮策困，還定《詩》、《書》，望絕無冀，稱「已矣夫」。自知無貴命，周流無補益也。孔子知己不受貴命，周流求之不能得，而謂賜不受富命，而以術知得富，言行相違，未曉其故。 |
| | Is a person's wealth and honor determined by Heaven's will? Or is it in the power of human knowledge? If wealth and honor are determined by Heaven's will, then no amount of skill or effort can obtain them; If it is in the power of humans, why did Confucius say: "Life and death are determined by fate, wealth and honor by Heaven"? To say that wealth is not subject to destiny but can be obtained through one's own knowledge and skill, then honor as well could also be pursued independently of fate, by means of one's own efforts. In the world, there is no case where someone disregards their destiny for honor and yet attains it on their own; similarly, one also knows of no cases where wealth was attained without following one's destined fortune. Fact: Confucius did not attain wealth or honor; he traveled widely, seeking appointments and persuading the feudal lords. His wisdom was exhausted and his strategies failed. He returned home to compile the "Shijing" and "Shangshu," with all hopes extinguished and no expectations left, lamenting, "It is over!" He realized that he had no destined fortune for honor; his travels brought him no benefit. Confucius, knowing that he himself was not destined for honor and that his travels seeking it had been in vain, yet said of Zi: "He does not accept the destiny of wealth but attains it through skill and knowledge." His words contradict his actions; I do not understand the reason.
|
| | 問孔: |
或曰：「欲攻子貢之短也。子貢不好道德，而徒好貨殖，故攻其短，欲令窮服而更其行節。」夫攻子貢之短，可言「賜不好道德，而貨殖焉。」何必立「不受命」，與前言「富貴在天」相違反也？ |
| | Some say: "It was an attempt to criticize Zigan's shortcomings." Zigan did not value morality but only loved commerce and wealth, so Confucius criticized his weakness in order to make him realize the error of his ways and change his conduct. To criticize Zigan's weaknesses, one could say: "Zi does not value morality but is engaged in commerce and wealth." Why was it necessary to assert that he "does not accept his destiny," which contradicts the previous statement that "wealth and honor are in Heaven's hands"?
|
| | 問孔: |
顏淵死，子曰：「噫！天喪予！」此言人將起，天與之輔；人將廢，天奪其佑。孔子有四友，欲因而起。顏淵早夭，故曰「天喪予」。 |
| | When Yanyuan died, Confucius said: "Alas!" "Heaven has deprived me of my son!" This statement implies that when a person is about to rise, Heaven provides him with an assistant; when a person is about to fall, Heaven takes away his support. Confucius had four close friends who wished to assist him in rising to prominence. Yanyuan died young, so he said, "Heaven has deprived me of my support."
|
| | 問孔: |
問曰：顏淵之死，孔子不王，天奪之邪？不幸短命，自為死也？如短命不幸，不得不死，孔子雖王，猶不得生。輔之於人，猶杖之扶疾也。人有病，須杖而行，如斬杖本得短，可謂天使病人不得行乎？如能起行，杖短，能使之長乎？夫顏淵之短命，猶杖之短度也。 |
| | Question: Since Yanyuan's death did not prevent Confucius from becoming a king, was Heaven truly taking away his support? Was it merely an unfortunate short life, and naturally the result of dying? If a short lifespan is considered misfortune and death unavoidable, then even if Confucius had become king, Yanyuan still could not have been brought back to life. Support from others is like a cane aiding the sick. When someone is ill, they need a cane to walk; if the cane itself breaks short, can it be said that Heaven has caused the sick person to be unable to move? If one is able to stand and walk, but the cane is too short, would it make sense to say that the cane can become longer? Yanyuan's early death is like a cane of insufficient length.
|
| | 問孔: |
且孔子言「天喪予」者，以顏淵賢也。案賢者在世，未必為輔也。夫賢者未必為輔，猶聖人未必受命也。為帝有不聖，為輔有不賢。何則？祿命骨法，與才異也。由此言之，顏淵生未必為輔，其死未必有喪，孔子云「天喪予」，何據見哉？ |
| | Moreover, when Confucius said "Heaven has deprived me," it was because Yanyuan was virtuous. However, the presence of a virtuous person in the world does not necessarily mean they will serve as an assistant. A virtuous person may not necessarily become an assistant, just as a sage may not necessarily receive destiny or mandate. There are emperors who are not sages, and assistants who are not virtuous. Why is that? Because the destiny of rank and fortune, as determined by one's "bone method," differs from one's talent. By this reasoning, Yanyuan may not have necessarily been destined to be an assistant in life, and his death may not have truly caused a loss. What basis did Confucius have for saying "Heaven has deprived me"?
|
| | 問孔: |
且天不使孔子王者，本意如何？本稟性命之時，不使之王邪？將使之王，復中悔之也？如本不使之王，顏淵死，何喪？如本使之王，復中悔之，此王無骨法，便宜自在天也。且本何善所見，而使之王？後何惡所聞，中悔不命？天神論議，誤不諦也？ |
| | Moreover, if Heaven itself did not intend for Confucius to become a king, what was its original intention? Did it not originally bestow upon him the fate and nature that would make him a king? Was Heaven going to make him a king but then changed its mind halfway? If Heaven originally did not intend for him to become a king, then what loss was there in Yanyuan's death? If Heaven had originally intended for him to be a king but later changed its mind, then the kingship is not determined by one's "bone method," and it would conveniently rest entirely in Heaven's hands. Moreover, what virtue did Heaven originally see in him to make him a king? What wrongdoing later became known that caused Heaven to regret and withhold its mandate? Is the deliberation of Heaven and the gods mistaken or unclear?
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子之衛，遇舊館人之喪，入而哭之。出，使子貢脫驂而賻之。子貢曰：「於門人之喪，未有所脫驂；脫驂於舊館，毋乃已重乎？」 |
| | When Confucius went to Wei, he encountered a mourning ceremony for an old acquaintance. He entered and wept at the funeral. After leaving, he sent Zigong to remove one of their horses as a gift in mourning. Zigong said: "For the funerals of our fellow disciples, we have never removed a horse to give as a gift; giving one for an old acquaintance seems perhaps too generous?"
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子曰：「予鄉者入而哭之，遇於一哀而出涕。予惡夫涕之無從也，小子行之！」孔子脫驂以賻舊館者，惡情不副禮也。副情而行禮，情起而恩動。禮情相應，君子行之。 |
| | Confucius said: "Earlier, when I entered and mourned with him, my sorrow met his grief, and tears flowed." "I hate weeping without genuine emotion. You must follow through on this!" Confucius removed a horse to mourn the old acquaintance because he hated for emotions not to match proper rites. To perform rites in accordance with one's feelings means that emotion arises and stirs compassion. When rites correspond to emotions, gentlemen act accordingly.
|
| | 問孔: |
顏淵死，子哭之慟。門人曰：「子慟矣！」「吾非斯人之慟而誰為？」夫慟、哀之至也。哭顏淵慟者，殊之眾徒，哀痛之甚也。死有棺無槨，顏路請車以為之槨，孔子不予，為大夫不可以徒行也。 |
| | When Yanyuan died, he wept for him with deep sorrow. His disciples said: "Master, you are grieving deeply!" He replied: "If not for this man's death should I grieve, then for whom else?" Deep grief is the utmost expression of sorrow. To weep for Yanyuan with such deep sorrow was to distinguish him among his many disciples, showing how deeply he mourned and felt pain. When Yanyuan died with a coffin but no outer case, Yan Lu asked to use his carriage as the outer case. Confucius refused, saying that as an official of high rank he could not walk without a carriage.
|
| | 問孔: |
弔舊館，脫驂以賻，惡涕無從；哭顏淵慟，請車不與，使慟無副。豈涕與慟殊，馬與車異邪？於彼則禮情相副，於此則恩義不稱，未曉孔子為禮之意。 |
| | When mourning for an old acquaintance, he removed one horse to give in tribute and hated weeping without genuine feeling; yet when grieving deeply over Yanyuan's death, he refused the request for a carriage, causing his deep sorrow to lack proper expression. Is it because weeping and deep grief are different? Or is it that horses and carriages differ in value? In one case rites matched emotion, but here affection and righteousness were not properly expressed. I do not understand Confucius's intent regarding rites.
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子曰：「鯉也死，有棺無槨，吾不徒行以為之槨。」鯉之恩深於顏淵，鯉死無槨，大夫之儀，不可徒行也。鯉、子也，顏淵、他姓也。子死且不禮，況其禮他姓之人乎？ |
| | Confucius said: "When Li died, there was a coffin but no outer case; I did not use my own carriage as the case for his burial." The affection between Confucius and Li was deeper than that with Yanyuan. When Li died without an outer case, the etiquette of a high-ranking official could not allow him to walk barefoot as a mourning gesture. Li was his son; Yanyuan belonged to another family. If he did not observe proper rites for the death of his own son, how could he possibly do so for someone from a different family?
|
| | 問孔: |
曰：「是蓋孔子實恩之效也。」副情於舊館，不稱恩於子，豈以前為士，後為大夫哉？如前為士，士乘二馬；如為大夫，大夫乘三馬。大夫不可去車徒行，何不截賣兩馬以為槨，乘其一乎？為士時，乘二馬，截一以賻舊館，今亦何不截其二以副恩，乘一以解不徒行乎？不脫馬以賻舊館，未必亂制；葬子有棺無槨，廢禮傷法。孔子重賻舊人之恩，輕廢葬子之禮，此禮得於他人，制失親子也。然則孔子不粥車以為鯉槨，何以解於貪官好仕恐無車？而自云「君子殺身以成仁」，何難退位以成禮？ |
| | It was said: "This is indeed an example of Confucius's genuine affection." To express emotion for an old acquaintance yet fail to match it with proper affection for his own son—could this be because he was once a commoner and later became an official? If earlier as a common scholar, he rode on two horses; and later as an official, officials ride with three horses. If it was improper for a high-ranking official to walk barefoot without his carriage, why not sell two of the horses to buy an outer case and ride on just one? When he was a scholar, riding on two horses, he could have taken one to give as mourning tribute for an old acquaintance; now why not take two in order to express proper affection and ride the remaining one so as not to walk barefoot? Not giving a horse as mourning tribute for an old friend may not necessarily have violated established rites; but to bury his son with only a coffin and no outer case was to neglect rites and violate the law. Confucius valued the affection of mourning tribute for old friends, yet neglected the proper rites in burying his son. This was to observe rites toward others while failing to uphold them for one's own child. If so, then why did Confucius not sell his carriage to buy a case for the burial of his son Li? How could this be reconciled with concerns about greedy officials who fear they would have no carriages if they were required to do such things? Yet he himself said, "A gentleman sacrifices his life in order to fulfill benevolence." Why then was it difficult for him to step down from office in order to observe proper rites?
|
| | 問孔: |
子貢問政，子曰：「足食，足兵，民信之矣。」曰：「必不得已而去，於斯三者何先？」曰：「去兵。」曰：「必不得已而去，於斯二者何先？」曰：「去食。自古皆有死，民無信不立。」信最重也。 |
| | Zigong asked about governance. Confucius said, "Ensure sufficient food supplies, adequate military forces, and the people's trust." Zigong said, "If it were unavoidable to abandon one of these three, which would you give up first?" Confucius replied, "Abandon the military." Zigong said, "If it were unavoidable to give up one of these two, which would you abandon first?" Confucius replied, "Abandon food supplies." "Since ancient times, death has been inevitable for all. But without the people's trust, a state cannot stand." Trust is most important of all.
|
| | 問孔: |
問：使治國無食，民餓，棄禮義。禮義棄，信安所立？《傳》曰：「倉廩實，知禮節；衣食足，知榮辱。」讓生於有餘，爭生於不足。今言去食，信安得成？春秋之時，戰國饑餓，易子而食，㭊骸而炊。口饑不食，不暇顧恩義也。夫父子之恩，信矣，饑餓棄信，以子為食。孔子教子貢去食存信，如何？夫去信存食，雖不欲信，信自生矣；去食存信，雖欲為信，信不立矣。 |
| | Question: If a state were governed without sufficient food, the people would starve and abandon rites and righteousness. If rites and righteousness are abandoned, where could trust possibly stand? The Commentary says: "When granaries are full, people know the proper conduct of rites; when clothing and food are sufficient, they understand honor and disgrace." Respect arises from abundance; contention arises from scarcity. Now, if one speaks of abandoning food supplies, how can trust possibly be achieved? During the Spring and Autumn period, in times of war and famine, people exchanged children to eat, and boiled bones for cooking. When mouths are starving and food is unavailable, there is no time to consider kindness or righteousness. The affection between father and son is indeed a matter of trust; yet in times of famine, this trust is abandoned, and one's child becomes food. How could Confucius teach Zigong to abandon food supplies while preserving trust? If one preserves food supplies and abandons trust, even if one does not wish for trust, it will naturally arise; but to abandon food in order to preserve trust, though one may desire trust, trust cannot be established.
|
| | 問孔: |
子適衛，冉子僕。子曰：「庶矣哉！」曰：「既庶矣，又何加焉？」曰：「富之。」曰：「既富矣，又何加焉？」曰：「教之。」語冉子先富而后教之，教子貢去食而存信，食與富何別？信與教何異？二子殊教，所尚不同，孔子為國，意何定哉？ |
| | Confucius went to the state of Wei, and Ranzǐ was his charioteer. Confucius said, "How numerous the people are!" Ranzǐ asked, "Now that the population is large, what more can be added?" Confucius replied, "Make them wealthy." Ranzǐ asked, "Now that they are wealthy, what more can be added?" Confucius replied, "Educate them." To tell Ranzǐ to first enrich the people and then educate them, yet to teach Zigong to abandon food in favor of trust—what is the difference between food and wealth? What distinction exists between trust and education? The two disciples received different teachings, with differing priorities. If Confucius were governing a state, what fixed principle could he possibly have had?
|
| | 問孔: |
蘧伯玉使人於孔子，孔子曰：「夫子何為乎？」對曰：「夫子欲寡其過而未能也。」使者出，孔子曰：「使乎！使乎！」非之也。說《論語》者曰：「非之者，非其代人謙也。」 |
| | Qu Boyu sent someone to visit Confucius. Confucius asked, "What is your master doing?" The messenger replied, "My master wishes to reduce his mistakes but has not yet succeeded." After the envoy left, Confucius said, "What a capable envoy!" "A true envoy!" This was not praise. Commentators on the Analects said: "To criticize means to disapprove of his speaking on behalf of another in a humble manner."
|
| | 問孔: |
夫孔子之問使者曰：「夫子何為？」問所治為，非問操行也。如孔子之問也，使者宜對曰：「夫子為某事，治某政」，今反言「欲寡其過而未能也」，何以知其對不失指，孔子非之也？ |
| | When Confucius asked the envoy, "What is your master doing?" he was inquiring about what his master was engaged in governing, not about his moral conduct. If Confucius had asked in this way, the envoy should have replied, "My master is dealing with a certain matter and managing a particular policy." Yet now he instead said, "He wishes to reduce his mistakes but has yet succeeded." How can one know that such an answer did not miss the point, prompting Confucius to criticize him?
|
| | 問孔: |
且實孔子何以非使者？非其代人謙之乎？其非乎對失指也？所非猶有一實，不明其過，而徒云「使乎使乎」！後世疑惑，不知使者所以為過。韓子曰：「書約則弟子辨。」孔子之言「使乎」，何其約也？ |
| | Moreover, what was it about the envoy's response that actually caused Confucius to disapprove of him? Was it because he spoke on behalf of another with excessive humility? Or was his disapproval due to the envoy's answer missing the point entirely? Even if there were a single valid reason for criticism, without clearly identifying the mistake and merely exclaiming "What an envoy! What an envoy!" future generations would be confused and unable to understand why the envoy was at fault. Han Feizi said: "When writings are concise, disciples will argue over their meanings." How concise was Confucius's statement of "What an envoy!"?
|
| | 問孔: |
或曰：「《春秋》之義也，為賢者諱。蘧伯玉賢，故諱其使者。」夫欲知其子，視其友；欲知其君，視其所使。伯玉不賢，故所使過也。《春秋》之義，為賢者諱，亦貶纖介之惡。今不非而諱，貶纖介安所施哉？使孔子為伯玉諱，宜默而已。揚言曰：「使乎！使乎！」時人皆知孔子之非也。出言如此，何益於諱？ |
| | Some say: "This is the meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annals, to conceal for the sake of a virtuous person." "Qu Boyu was a virtuous man, so his envoy's mistake is concealed." To understand one's son, look at his friends; to understand a ruler, observe the envoys he sends. If Qu Boyu were not virtuous, then his envoy would have made mistakes. The meaning of the Spring and Autumn Annal is to conceal for a virtuous person, yet it also censures minor evils. Now, if one neither criticizes nor conceals, where would the censure of minor faults be applied? If Confucius wished to conceal Qu Boyu's mistake, he should have simply remained silent. Yet instead, he openly declared, "What an envoy!" "What an envoy!" At the time, everyone knew that Confucius was criticizing him. To speak in such a way—how would it help to conceal anything?
|
| | 問孔: |
佛肸召，子欲往。子路不說，曰：「昔者，由也聞諸夫子曰：『親於其身為不善者，君子不入也。』佛肸以中牟畔，子之往也，如之何？」子曰：「有是也。不曰『堅乎磨而不磷』？不曰『白乎涅而不淄』？吾豈匏瓜也哉？焉能繫而不食也？」子路引孔子往時所言以非孔子也。 |
| | Bo Xi invited him, and Confucius wanted to go. Zilu was displeased and said, "In the past, I heard from Master that: 'A gentleman does not enter a place where someone close to him is committing evil.'" "Bo Xi has rebelled in Zhongmou. How can you go there, Master?" Confucius said, "That is true." "Did I not say 'A gemstone remains unblemished even when ground against'?" "Did I not also say, 'Pure white silk does not turn black even in soot'?" "Amygdalus fruit hangs but cannot bear fruit. Am I to be like that?" "How can I just hang there without being used?" Zilu cited Confucius's previous words to criticize him.
|
| | 問孔: |
往前孔子出此言，欲令弟子法而行之。子路引之以諫，孔子曉之，不曰「前言戲」，若「非」而「不可行」，而曰「有是言」者，審有，當行之也。「不曰堅乎磨而不磷；不曰白乎涅而不淄」，孔子言此言者，能解子路難乎？「親於其身為不善者，君子不入也。」解之宜：「佛肸未為不善，尚猶可入。」而曰：「堅、磨而不磷；白、涅而不淄。」如孔子之言，有堅白之行者，可以入之。「君子」之行，軟而易汙邪？何以獨「不入」也？ |
| | Previously, when Confucius made this statement, he wished for his disciples to follow and emulate it. Zilu quoted it to advise Confucius, and Confucius acknowledged this. He did not say that his previous words were jests or that they "were wrong" and thus "unworkable," but rather said, "I did indeed say that." If the statement was true, then one should act upon it. "I did not say 'A gem remains unblemished when ground against';" "I did not say, 'White silk does not turn black in soot.'" Did Confucius's use of these words resolve Zilu's objection? "A gentleman does not enter the domain of someone close to him who is committing evil." To resolve this, one should say: "Bo Xi has not yet committed evil; it is still acceptable for a gentleman to enter his domain." Instead, he said, "A gem remains unblemished despite being ground against;" "Pure white silk does not become black even when exposed to soot." According to Confucius's words, one who possesses the integrity of a gem and the purity of white silk may enter such a domain. Is the conduct of a "gentleman" then weak and easily tainted? Why, then, should one uniquely refuse to enter?
|
| | 問孔: |
孔子不飲盜泉之水，曾子不入勝母之閭，避惡去汙，不以義，恥辱名也。盜泉、勝母有空名，而孔、曾恥之；佛肸有惡實，而子欲往。不飲盜泉是，則欲對佛肸非矣。「不義而富且貴，於我如浮雲。」枉道食篡畔之祿，所謂浮雲者，非也。 |
| | Confucius did not drink water from the Bandit Spring, and Zengzi did not enter the neighborhood of Shengmu; they avoided evil and removed themselves from pollution—not for righteousness alone, but to avoid shame and disgrace. The Bandit Spring and the Shengmu neighborhood had only reputations; yet Confucius and Zengzi were ashamed of them; Bo Xi had actual evil deeds, yet you wish to go there. If it was right not to drink from the Bandit Spring, then going to visit Bo Xi would be wrong. "Riches and high rank obtained through unjust means are as fleeting to me as floating clouds." To accept the salary of a usurper or rebel by abandoning one's principles is precisely what I mean by "floating clouds"—it is not righteousness.
|
| | 問孔: |
或：「權時欲行道也。」即權時行道。子路難之，當云「行道」，不言「食」。有權時以行道，無權時以求食。「吾豈匏瓜也哉？焉能繫而不食？」自比以匏瓜者，言人當仕而食祿。我非匏瓜繫而不食，非子路也。孔子之言，不解子路之難。子路難孔子，豈孔子不當仕也哉？當擇善國而入之也。孔子自比匏瓜，孔子欲安食也。且孔子之言，何其鄙也！何彼仕為食哉？君子不宜言也。匏瓜繫而不食，亦繫而不仕等也。距子路可云：「吾豈匏瓜也哉，繫而不仕也？」今吾「擊而不食」，孔子之仕，不為行道，徒求食也。 |
| | Some say: "It was an exercise of flexibility in order to promote the Way." Even if it were a case of exercising flexibility to promote the Way, Zilu's objection should have been about "promoting the Way," not about "eating." There is flexibility to promote the Way; there is no justification for flexibility in seeking food. "Am I a gourd melon?" "How could it be tied up and not eaten?" Comparing oneself to a gourd melon means saying that people should hold office and receive salary. "I am not like a tied-up gourd melon, left uneaten—I am not Zilu." Confucius's words did not resolve Zilu's objection. Did Zilu object to Confucius, implying that Confucius should not have held office? One should choose a virtuous state and enter it. Confucius compared himself to a gourd melon; Confucius desired to be at peace while receiving salary. Moreover, how vulgar were Confucius's words! Why would he hold office merely for the sake of food? Such was not a statement befitting a gentleman. A gourd melon tied up and left uneaten is the same as being tied to an office without holding it. To refute Zilu, one could say: "Am I a gourd melon? Tied up and not holding office?" Now I am like a "gourd melon struck but not eaten"—Confucius's holding of office was not for promoting the Way, but merely to seek food.
|
| | 問孔: |
人之仕也，主貪祿也，禮義之言，為行道也。猶人之娶也，主為欲也，禮義之言，為供親也。仕而直言食，娶可直言欲乎？孔子之言，解情而無依違之意，不假義理之名，是則俗人，非君子也。儒者說孔子周流應聘不濟，閔道不行，失孔子情矣。 |
| | When people hold office, they are mainly driven by a desire for salary; words about rites and righteousness are spoken to promote the Way. It is like when people marry, mainly driven by desire; words about rites and righteousness serve only to honor one's parents. If holding office can be openly stated as seeking food, then is it acceptable to openly state desire when marrying? Confucius's words express personal feelings without any ambiguity, and do not rely on the name of righteousness or principle; such a person is merely an ordinary man, not a gentleman. Confucian scholars say that Confucius traveled widely and accepted appointments but failed to achieve his goals, lamenting the failure of the Way—this misses the true feelings of Confucius.
|
| | 問孔: |
公山弗擾以費畔，召，子欲往。子路曰：「末如也已！何必公山氏之之也？」子曰：「夫召我者，而豈徒哉？如用我，吾其為東周乎？」「為東周」、欲行道也。公山、佛肸俱畔者，行道於公山，求食於佛肸，孔子之言，無定趨也。言無定趨，則行無常務矣。周流不用，豈獨有以乎？ |
| | Gongshan Furiào rebelled in Fei and invited him; Confucius wanted to go. Zilu said: "It is not advisable at all!" "Why must you go to the house of Gongshan?" Confucius said: "Those who summoned me, would they do so without purpose?" "If I am employed, perhaps I could become the Eastern Zhou [dynasty]!" "To become the 'Eastern Zhou'"—this was a desire to promote the Way. Both Gongshan and Bo Xi were rebels; promoting the Way in Gongshan, seeking food in Bo Xi—Confucius's words show no consistent direction. If his words have no fixed direction, then his actions lack consistency as well. Traveling widely without being employed—was there not a reason for that?
|
| | 問孔: |
陽貨欲見之，不見；呼之仕，不仕，何其清也？公山、佛肸召之，欲往，何其濁也？公山不擾與陽虎俱畔，執季桓子，二人同惡，呼召禮等，獨對公山，不見陽虎，豈公山尚可，陽虎不可乎？ |
| | Yang Hu wanted to see him, but he refused to meet. When summoned to hold office, he declined—how upright he was! Yet when Gongshan and Bo Xi invited him, he wanted to go—how unprincipled that seems! Gongshan Buriào and Yang Hu were both rebels who seized Ji Huanzi. The two shared the same evil deeds, and their invitations carried equal courtesy. Yet Confucius refused to see Yang Hu but wanted to go to Gongshan—was Gongshan still acceptable while Yang Hu was not?
|
| | 問孔: |
子路難公山之名，孔子宜解以尚及佛肸未甚惡之狀也。 |
| | Zilu questioned the name of Gongshan; Confucius should have explained that he still had some virtue and that Bo Xi was not yet very evil.
|
