(NPPLC) Chapters #25, 26 & 27 孟子梁惠王上 (Section 7: Parts 1, 2 & 3)

[somethingfunny]

This thread is for the discussion of chapters twenty-five, twenty-six and twenty-seven in A New Practical Primer of Literary Chinese by Paul Rouzer.

 

OK, the introduction to Mencius was very gentle with some short, easy dialogue.  The next part looks a bit more meaty, so first things first, here's the texts:

 

Part 1:

 

齊宣王問曰：「齊桓、晉文之事可得聞乎？」

　　孟子對曰：「仲尼之徒，無道桓、文之事者，是以後世無傳焉；臣未之聞也。無以，則王乎？」

　　曰：「德何如則可以王矣？」

　　曰：「保民而王，莫之能禦也。」

　　曰：「若寡人者，可以保民乎哉？」

　　曰：「可。」

　　曰：「何由知吾可也？」

　　曰：「臣聞之胡齕曰，王坐於堂上，有牽牛而過堂下者，王見之，曰：『牛何之？』對曰：『將以釁鐘。』王曰：『舍之！吾不忍其觳觫，若無罪而就死地。』對曰：『然則廢釁鐘與？』曰：『何可廢也？以羊易之！』——不識有諸？」

　　曰：「有之。」

　　曰：「是心足以王矣。百姓皆以王為愛也。臣固知王之不忍也。」

　　王曰：「然；誠有百姓者。齊國雖褊小，吾何愛一牛？即不忍其觳觫，若無罪而就死地，故以羊易之也。」

　　曰：「王無異於百姓之以王為愛也。以小易大，彼惡知之？王若隱其無罪而就死地，則牛羊何擇焉？」

　　王笑曰：「是誠何心哉？我非愛其財而易之以羊也。宜乎百姓之謂我愛也。」

　　曰：「無傷也，是乃仁術也，見牛未見羊也。君子之於禽獸也，見其生，不忍見其死；聞其聲，不忍食其肉。是以君子遠庖廚也。」

　　王說曰：《詩》云：『他人有心，予忖度之。』夫子之謂也。夫我乃行之，反而求之，不得吾心。夫子言之，於我心有戚戚焉。此心之所以合於王者，何也？」

 

Part 2:

曰：「有復於王者曰：『吾力足以舉百鈞，而不足以舉一羽；明足以察秋毫之末，而不見輿薪。』則王許之乎？」

　　曰：「否。」

　　「今恩足以及禽獸，而功不至於百姓者，獨何與？然則一羽之不舉，為不用力焉；輿薪之不見，為不用明焉；百姓之不見保，為不用恩焉。故王之不王，不為也，非不能也。」

　　曰：「不為者與不能者之形何以異？」

　　曰：「挾太山以超北海，語人曰，『我不能。』是誠不能也。為長者折枝，語人曰，『我不能。』是不為也，非不能也。故王之不王，非挾太山以超北海之類也；王之不王，是折枝之類也。

　　「老吾老，以及人之老；幼吾幼，以及人之幼，天下可運於掌。《詩》云：『刑於寡妻，至於兄弟，以御於家邦。』言舉斯心加諸彼而已。故推恩足以保四海，不推恩無以保妻子。古之人所以大過人者，無他焉，善推其所為而已矣。今恩足以及禽獸，而功不至於百姓者，獨何與？」

　　「權，然後知輕重；度，然後知長短。物皆然，心為甚。王請度之！」

　　「抑王興甲兵，危士臣，構怨於諸侯，然後快於心與？」

　　王曰：「否！吾何快於是？將以求吾所大欲也。」

　　曰：「王之所大欲，可得聞與？」

　　王笑而不言。

　　曰：「為肥甘不足於口與，輕暖不足於體與？抑為采色不足視於目與？聲音不足聽於耳與？便嬖不足使令於前與？王之諸臣，皆足以供之，而王豈為是哉？」

　　曰：「否！吾不為是也。」

 

Part 3:

曰：「然則王之大欲可知已，欲闢土地，朝秦楚，蒞中國而撫四夷也。以若所為，求若所欲，猶緣木而求魚也。」

　　王曰：「若是其甚與？」

　　曰：「殆有甚焉。緣木求魚，雖不得魚，無後災；以若所為，求若所欲，盡心力而為之，後必有災。」

　　曰：「可得聞與？」

　　曰：「鄒人與楚人戰，則王以為孰勝？」

　　曰：「楚人勝。」

　　曰：「然則小固不可以敵大，寡固不可以敵眾，弱固不可以敵強。海內之地方千里者九，齊集有其一。以一服八，何以異於鄒敵楚哉？蓋亦反其本矣。 」

　　「今王發政施仁，使天下仕者皆欲立於王之朝，耕者皆欲耕於王之野，商賈皆欲藏於王之市，行旅皆欲出於王之途，天下之欲疾其君者皆欲赴愬於王。其若是，孰能御之？」

　　王曰：「吾惛，不能進於是矣。願夫子輔吾志，明以教我。我雖不敏，請嘗試之。」

　　曰：「無恆產而有恆心者，惟士為能。若民，則無恆產，因無恆心。苟無恆心，放辟邪侈無不為已。及陷於罪，然後從而刑之，是罔民也。焉有仁人在位罔民而可為也？是故明君制民之產，必使仰足以事父母，俯足以畜妻子，樂歲終身飽，凶年免於死亡；然後驅而之善，故民之從之也輕。 」

　　「今之制民之產，仰不足以事父母，俯不足以畜妻子；樂歲終身苦，凶年不免於死亡。此惟救死而恐不贍，奚暇治禮義哉？ 」

　　「王欲行之，則盍反其本矣：五畝之宅，樹之以桑，五十者可以衣帛矣。雞豚狗彘之畜，無失其時，七十者可以食肉矣。百畝之田，勿奪其時，八口之家可以無饑矣。謹庠序之教，申之以孝悌之義，頒白者不負戴於道路矣。老者衣帛食肉，黎民不饑不寒，然而不王者，未之有也。」

 

Just so that we're all clear, unlike the last thread which was three different sections of one chapter, this is three parts which constitute one section.  As you can see, it's very long so I probably won't be doing it all at once.  I'm expecting this to be significantly more difficult than the previous content, and Rouzer even provides an English language summary of the content of these three lessons in his book.  I'll attempt the first part in about a week.  Have a read, make a comment.

[somethingfunny]

Hello everyone (or anyone).

 

I've decided that anyone who has made it this far probably isn't having much trouble with literal interpretations, add to this the fact that Rouzer provides pretty extensive commentary and an English language summary and that further translations can be found fairly easily on via google (Chinese and English) I have decided to no longer provide translations here.  I have still translated it in my own notebook but no longer see the value in typing that up here.  Instead, I will proceed directly to detailed questions/notes and a discussion of the text.

 

This is for part 1 only:

 

Firstly, general language questions:

1. 德何如则可以王  My initial thought was that this would be "Virtue, how can it be used to rule?" but it seems a more correct translation would be "Virtue, what kind will allow one to rule?"  How should we approach this?
2. 保民而王，莫之能御也 "Protect the people through rule and there is nothing which cannot be defended"? This first half is straightforward but 莫之, could I translate this as "there is nothing"? Then 能 "which can"?  Then 御 "be resisted"???  Surely this gives the opposite meaning.
3. 衅钟 I assume this is some sort of sacrificial ceremony.  Can anyone provide some more info?
4. 无罪而就死地 First couple of times I translated this as "With no crime is just killed on the ground" before realising it was that - actually rather common - use of 就 to mean "to go".
5. There were a few other parts which took a while to figure out, in particular I really enjoyed 夫我乃行之，反而求之，不得吾心 which, if you sort of take it at face value won't really get you anywhere, but once you realise, you get as a nice "As for my actions, I returned and examined them, but I was not able to discover what I had really been thinking."

 

Secondly, lets take a look at the content:

 

1. Rouzer says that Mencius was being disingenuous by not talking about the previous rulers the King wanted to talk about.  Is there a reason Mencius avoided this topic?
2. Mencius argues that they mistook the King's actions for "love" of the animal.  (I feel Rouzer's translation as "mistook him for cheap" makes a few too many leaps for my liking.)  But later it seems like the argument focuses more on the financial value of the animal (以小易大/我非爱其财).  So, are people annoyed at the King because they think he's interfering to save that which he loves, or interfering to gain for himself that which is valuable?
3. This idea that a good man is one that cannot bear to see a living thing die, or eat the meat of an animal whose cry he heard seems a bit cheap.  Is Mencius a vegetarian?  Although it is funny to think that probably the vast majority of meat eaters today would be unwilling to kill animals themselves if they had to eat their meat.

 

There are a few other questions but these should get cleared up in the following passages.

 

I found this part a little tricky at first, but with consultation to other resources it was not so bad.  One thing that Rouzer could benefit from doing is maybe providing alternative formatting like the one I used above.  The dialogue, within a story, within a dialogue is hard enough to follow even without all the text being crammed in one continuous paragraph.  Sure, you could argue that this is the way it was originally recorded, but then why even bother punctuating it if the original had no punctuation?

[somethingfunny]

OK, this post is about part 2 only:

 

Mencius goes off on a bit of a rant in this one and it's a little difficult to follow what he's talking about and relate it back to the point he's trying to make.  I've got quite a few technical language questions for this one and then maybe a couple of content related queries:

 

Language:

 

1. 挾太山以超北海 Not quite sure about the imagery here (although I get that its supposed to be something impossible).  Is he saying, "to use Mt. Tai to cross the North Sea"?  In which case, how does this 挾 verb work?
2. 老吾老 Rouzer's advice to take this first 老 'putatively' still leaves me lost.  Does 吾老 just mean "My elders"? And then 老吾老 would be "To elder my elders".  I guess this would make sense as he then goes on to say that this should be extended to others.  Basically, its just do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Or maybe, do unto others' elders as you would have them do unto your elders.
3. 刑於寡妻，至於兄弟，以御於家邦。I've got this is: "If I punish my wife, this will extend to my brother, and use this to control the state."  Which doesn't make much sense me.  The Baidu baike translation comes out in reverse as "先给妻子做榜样，再给兄弟好影响，凭这治家和安邦" which makes more sense, but seems fairly disconnected from the original text.
4. 古之人所以大過人者 I'm a little mixed up about 所以 and 者 in this sentence: 古之人 "People in ancient times"; 所以 "The means by which they"; 大過人 "Greatly surpass other people"; 者 "The fact that"? (add at start of sentence?).  I kind of guess that the meaning should be something along the lines of: "The means by which people in ancient times were able to surpass others was...".  I'm also not sure about 大 in this sentence.
5. 無他焉，善推其所為而已矣 Seems like there is some redundancy in this line.  Am I right?
6. 否！吾何快於是？I feel like the King is telling Mencius that he couldn't place happiness in his heart after acting the way described, but I'm not sure what 是 is doing here.  Could it mean "there"?
7. "为" gets quite an airing in this text, and it seems like its in a few different meanings.  For example, early on we see 為不用力焉 where it supposedly means "because" (因为?).  This is quickly followed by 故王之不王，不為也，非不能也 where it means "the desire to do sth" rather than the ability to do it.  And at the end we have 而王豈為是哉？where it means "to act for the purpose of sth".  Would you agree with this analysis?

 

OK, now lets have a think about what the hell Mencius is talking about:

 

1. Mencius' opening gambit about the man who can see the end's of fine hairs, but not carts of firewood.  What's the point of this?
2. He then says that the King is showing mercy to animals but not to commoners.  Am I taking this too literally?  Is he saying, the reason the ox (from part 1) lived is because you showed it mercy, but you do not extend the same mercy to your people?  Therefore, it's not that the King is incapable of the mercy necessary to rule, but rather that he does not exercise it (at least not upon people).
3. The King asks a fairly straightforward question about the difference between "don't want to" and "unable to" and gets a rather long, tangential answer in reply.  The stuff about Mt. Tai and massages seems unnecessary.  Then he just seems to return to his idea of "extending mercy".  Is he saying that the able man is the one who spreads mercy?
4. "To weigh and know the weight, to measure and know the length, my lord please consider this."  Is this just Mencius imploring the King to consider carefully what he has said?
5. Mencius then does a sort of unexpected roundabout and starts attacking the King for stirring up trouble and not being satisfied with the pleasures of his court.  What's that about?

 

I found this part fairly difficult and still have trouble fixing it all together in my mind to understand what exactly they are getting at.  If Mencius had been my teacher, class would have gone a little something like this...

 

Me: "Teacher, how can I tell the difference between a man who does not want to act and a man who is unable to act?" 

Mencius: "If you instruct a man to insert Mt. Tai to cross the North Sea..."

Me: "F**k this."

[evn108]

For the first part: 

1. I can't remember if there's a better explanation for this, but the gist of it is that both of these people were hegemons who were very powerful in their time. It seems Mencius would rather talk about more basic things than how to become the most powerful state. 
2. It's not too many leaps, that translation is pretty standard and is fundamental to understanding the rest of the passage. The people aren't upset because he loves the animal, they are upset because he is too cheap to sacrifice a valuable animal and is opting for a cheap one instead. 
3. Yeah, more like the second part of your comment I think. This doesn't have anything to do with the ethics of killing/eating animals, but with the natural responses of sympathy that people have when they witness someone or something else suffering. To Mencius, showing that kind of instinctual reaction to the suffering of others is a sign that you haven't completely obliterated your humanity, and that is the basic seed that can grow into a more profound virtue if nurtured properly.

 

Second part:

1. The equivalent of "not seeing the forest for the trees" I think.
2. Yes
3. Not tangential--Explaining the difference between "unable" and "unwilling." Don't say you are unable to do things that you just don't want to do.
4. I think he's imploring him to consider more carefully his own reactions and impulses. 
5. I think he is getting at what the king's ultimate goals are. Again, appealing to his better interests. He first asked about the powerful lords of Qi and Jin, implying he hopes to one day be like them. But the question is why? Does he just want to be a super badass that everyone is afraid of? Does he want to be rich and comfortable? No, what he really wants is to do something substantive and be respected and admired for it. If that's the case, then his whole policy needs to be about doing respectable things, not just doing things that expand his territory and wealth. 

[somethingfunny]

Thanks evn108!  Great comments.  I'm still a little uneasy about this 'cheap' comment and as you say it is pretty important to the rest of what happens.  The offending line is:

 

百姓皆以王為愛也

 

Which I get as "The common people all took the king to be acting out of love".  My literal reading would give this as love for this specific animal.  It seems like a large leap for me to get to the standard 'cheap' interpretation because we have to follow this line of though:

 

The King has a love of this Ox -> He has a love of all Oxen ->  He loves them because of their monetary value -> Their monetary value as compared to other, cheaper animals.  

 

Surely there would be a better verb that could be used to express this sentiment?

 

 

 

I'm working on part 3 now and will post it later.

[somethingfunny]

OK, some interesting stuff here in part 3.  I'll keep the previous format by posting a few more technical language based questions, followed by some points about the general 'Mencian philosophy' for potential discussion.  If anyone has a better idea of how to arrange this then let me know (I notice evn108 skipped the boring grammar questions and went straight for the philosophy!  Although seriously, just post whatever you can, even in China its hard to find people who are willing to discuss this and able to do so in a comprehendible manner.)

 

So, here are some bits about part 3 only:

 

Language:

 

1. 欲闢土地，朝秦楚  How does 朝 work here?  Initially I thought it was "expand territory - in the direction of  Qin and Chu" but I guess it probably has some sort of "force Qin and Chu to come to you to hold court".
2. 則王以為孰勝？My general impression is that Classical Chinese is much more terse than its modern counterpart.  I guess this is an exception to prove the rule.
3. 吾惛，不能進於是矣。The poor, muddle-headed King.  Is he saying that he is unable to advance to this degree?  Whereby everyone loves to come to his state to farm and travel and party etc.
4. 願夫子輔吾志，明以教我 What's that first 原 doing?  "I am willing for you to teach me?"  Sounds pretty arrogant, even for a king.  And how does the second part work grammatically?  "Through teaching allow me to understand"??
5. 無不為已 This is a nice tricky little comment.  I just ignore the final particle 已 and get "There is nothing that they will not do"?
6. 樂歲終身飽 and 樂歲終身苦 - not quite sure what this 乐岁 means.

 

General:

 

1. The King denies his desires are as base as Mencius suggests and then Mencius tells him that in that case its easy to know what he wants - to expand his territory.  So these are the only two options?  Either 吃喝玩乐 or expand your territory (without fighting of course).
2. Mencius says his actions are like climbing a tree to catch a fish.  Which actions is he referring to?  The hypothetical party king actions Mencius made up, or the earlier save an Ox sacrifice a Sheep king we saw in part 1?
3. Mencius' suggestion is to expand benevolence etc. and then he finishes off with 其若是，孰能御之？Should I take this 之 as being the 统一天下 that Mencius seems to be selling to the King?

 

That's about it.  Mencius' speech in the second half of part 3 is all material we've heard before, although I'm still not 100% on 百畝之田，勿奪其時 which I'm guessing means something like "For large estates, do not interfere (conscript soldiers?) at the time of harvest."

 

So, as Rouzer summarises, Mencian philosophy is (1) Do not use military force to conquer your enemies, instead make your country so awesome that everyone will want to come here.  Do this by (2) Making sure everyone has enough to eat and warm clothes to wear.  This can be achieved by (3) Ah... Eh... spreading love?

 

I know I'm being a little disingenuous put the crux of this philosophy does appear to be lacking in any practical policy.  Treat the people like you treat your own family isn't really going to cut it.  Sure, it's a nice idea, but the reason I am able (in the Mencian massage-providing sense of the word) to treat my family the way that I do, is because there aren't many of them.  

[evn108]

 

Thanks evn108!  Great comments.  I'm still a little uneasy about this 'cheap' comment and as you say it is pretty important to the rest of what happens.  The offending line is:

 

百姓皆以王為愛也

 

Which I get as "The common people all took the king to be acting out of love".  My literal reading would give this as love for this specific animal.  It seems like a large leap for me to get to the standard 'cheap' interpretation because we have to follow this line of though:

 

The King has a love of this Ox -> He has a love of all Oxen ->  He loves them because of their monetary value -> Their monetary value as compared to other, cheaper animals.  

 

Surely there would be a better verb that could be used to express this sentiment?

I think you're thinking about this too much, there's no need to go through that kind of process, because "to begrudge" or "to be unwilling to part with" is one of the possible, common, meanings of the word 愛 in classical chinese. There's no reason to first think of the idea of love or even compassion when reading that word. It's the possible definition of the word that makes the most sense in this context. 

 

Edit: Also, this 欲闢土地，朝秦楚，蒞中國而撫四夷也。 is more than just expanding your territory, it's tantamount to basically making the most powerful nations submit to your rule, and then bringing about world peace. Compare with 王興甲兵，危士臣，構怨於諸侯... not the kind of thing you can do through physical power alone. 

 

Also I guess the fact that Mencius doesn't really have much practical advice about specific policies is why he is a philosopher, not a politician. But remember, most of this is Mencius talking to people that you can pretty much tell he thinks are idiots. His conversations with students or other philosophers offer more complex ideas, but still more theoretical than pragmatic. I don't think any of those are included in Rouzer, probably because they're also less entertaining to read, bc less witty. 

[somethingfunny]

 

 

because "to begrudge" or "to be unwilling to part with" is one of the possible, common, meanings of the word 愛 in classical chinese

 

 

Got it!  Thanks.

[somethingfunny]

I've been reading D.C. Lau's translation and came across something from this bit of Mencius.

 

For the line:

 

曰：然則小固不可以敵大，寡固不可以敵眾，弱固不可以敵強。海內之地方千里者九，齊集有其一。

 

He provides the following translation:

 

"That means that the small is no match for the big, the few no match for the many, and the weak no match for the strong.  Within the Seas there are nine areas of ten thousand li square, and the territory of Ch'i makes up one of these..."

 

I checked a couple of other translations, and they all agree that this should be only a thousand li square.

 

Anyone have any comments?

 

Also, is it to be inferred from context that when talking about area that 里 should be interpreted as a square 里?  After all, 1000km and 1000km^2 are two very different things.  (Edit:  I've just thought, is it somehow implied through the use of 方 in 方千里者?  If so, how does this word order work?)