Li Lou II · Passage 30 / 33 · 孟子 4B.30

Mencius 4B.30: why Mencius defends Kuang Zhang

Mencius does not deny the seriousness of unfiliality. He refuses to treat public consensus as truth.

公都子曰：「匡章，通國皆稱不孝焉。夫子與之游，又從而禮貌之，敢問何也？」孟子曰：「世俗所謂不孝者五：惰其四支，不顧父母之養，一不孝也；博弈、好飲酒，不顧父母之養，二不孝也；好貨財、私妻子，不顧父母之養，三不孝也；從耳目之欲，以為父母戮，四不孝也；好勇鬭狠，以危父母，五不孝也。章子有一於是乎？夫章子，子父責善而不相遇也。責善，朋友之道也。父子責善，賊恩之大者。夫章子豈不欲有夫妻子母之屬哉？為得罪於父，不得近；出妻屏子，終身不養焉。其設心以為不若是，是則罪之大者。是則章子已矣。」

gōng dōu zǐ yuē：「kuāng zhāng， tōng guó jiē chēng bú xiào yān。 fū zǐ yǔ zhī yóu， yòu cóng ér lǐ mào zhī， gǎn wèn hé yě？」 mèng zǐ yuē：「shì sú suǒ wèi bú xiào zhě wǔ： duò qí sì zhī， bú gù fù mǔ zhī yǎng， yí bú xiào yě； bó yì、 hǎo yǐn jiǔ， bú gù fù mǔ zhī yǎng， èr bú xiào yě； hǎo huò cái、 sī qī zǐ， bú gù fù mǔ zhī yǎng， sān bú xiào yě； cóng ěr mù zhī yù， yǐ wéi fù mǔ lù， sì bú xiào yě； hǎo yǒng dòu hěn， yǐ wēi fù mǔ， wǔ bú xiào yě。 zhāng zǐ yǒu yì wū shì hū？ fū zhāng zǐ， zǐ fù zé shàn ér bù xiāng yù yě。 zé shàn， péng yǒu zhī dào yě。 fù zǐ zé shàn， zéi ēn zhī dà zhě。 fū zhāng zǐ qǐ bú yù yǒu fū qī zǐ mǔ zhī shǔ zāi？ wéi dé zuì wū fù， bù dé jìn； chū qī píng zǐ， zhōng shēn bù yǎng yān。 qí shè xīn yǐ wéi bú ruò shì， shì zé zuì zhī dà zhě。 shì zé zhāng zǐ yǐ yǐ。」

The disciple Gong Du said, 'Throughout the whole kingdom everybody pronounces Kuang Zhang unfilial. But you, Master, keep company with him, and moreover treat him with politeness. I venture to ask why you do so.' Mencius replied, 'There are five things which are pronounced in the common usage of the age to be unfilial. The first is laziness in the use of one's four limbs, without attending to the nourishment of his parents. The second is gambling and chess-playing and being fond of wine, without attending to the nourishment of his parents. The third is being fond of goods and money, and selfishly attached to his wife and children, without attending to the nourishment of his parents. The fourth is following the desires of one's ears and eyes, so as to bring his parents to disgrace. The fifth is being fond of bravery, fighting and quarrelling so as to endanger his parents. Is Zhang guilty of any one of these things? Now between Zhang and his father there arose disagreement, he, the son, reproving his father, to urge him to what was good. To urge one another to what is good by reproofs is the way of friends. But such urging between father and son is the greatest injury to the kindness, which should prevail between them. Moreover, did not Zhang wish to have in his family the relationships of husband and wife, child and mother? But because he had offended his father, and was not permitted to approach him, he sent away his wife, and drove forth his son, and all his life receives no cherishing attention from them. He settled it in his mind that if he did not act in this way, his would be one of the greatest of crimes. Such and nothing more is the case of Zhang.'