Hello. Welcome back. Let's continue with our discussion of Mencius. The stories we introduced the last time are not trivial. It's important to understand how ideas take root and come to define not only elite culture, but also the popular imagination. To further explore the world of Mencius, I suggest that we begin with his political philosophy. The debate on what is right versus what is profitable, I think, offers a very good starting point in our discussion of Mencius interpretation of Confucian philosophy. This may well be directed especially against the Mohists' emphasis on utility. In general terms, like Confucius, Mencius emphasizes a government in accordance with the principle of Humanity or Ren. In contrast with a mere noble lord who rules by might or governs by force, Mencius sets up an ideal model of what he calls a true king. The true king in his own words is one who practices benevolent government towards the people. "The true king is always respectful and frugal, courteous and humble, and takes from the people no more than what is prescribed alright." Now, a ruler who applies force may become a leader among the feudal lords, no doubt, but according to Mencius, only a ruler who puts Humanity into effect through the transforming influence of virtue will become a true king. Statements like these can be found throughout the Mencius. But they don't really tell us very much now, do they? Fortunately, Mencius was also concerned about specific issues which reflect how Confucian philosophy had to tackle real policy issues as it developed. In governing the people and managing the economy, Mencius once told a feudal prince that he could become a true King, which obviously implies that he wasn't one at the moment, if he would reduce punishment and taxation, assist the people in agriculture and sericulture, and promote education. Now, tax was paid in the form of grain at that time. Early China was an agricultural society, and cash currency was not developed until later. Mencius also argued against excessive compulsory state service, where male adults would be taken away from the homes and fields to serve as labourers and soldiers. This should not be done especially during the harvest season, as Mencius said to the ruler as well. This is what he says, "If you do not disrupt the seasons of planting and harvesting, there will be more grain than what can be consumed." Moreover, Mencius seems to have, what we might call today, a keen sense of environmental protection as well. As he went on to say that if the ruler does not allow nets that have extremely fine meshes in fishing, which will trap indiscriminately even the baby fishes, then there will be more fish than what the people need for food. And if the ruler allows logging only in the proper seasons, then there will be more wood than what the people need for their use. This kind of policy was not common at that time and may still hold lessons for us today. The Mencius contains some detailed discussion of specific policies which are important to our understanding of early Chinese economics and government. Let me cite just one more example here. Mencius is this well-known for his support for the so-called "Well Field" system of land distribution for agriculture. The Chinese word for a well looks like this. Think of the word as representing a parcel of land, a piece of land of a certain size. The plot of land would be divided into nine equal square units. Eight of the nine units would be assigned each to a family, and the eight families will then work together on the central square as the public plot. Mencius did not originate this system, but he did interpret it from a distinctively Confucian perspective, which places a premium on the welfare of the people. Before him, the peasants were essentially servants of the nobility and would cultivate the land for them. What Mencius is suggesting is that the peasants should be allowed to cultivate the land for their own sustenance. Now, it's not a question of private ownership because all land in those days, in principle, belongs to the king. Rather, what we have here is Mencius' vision of a fair benevolent way of distributing land among the people, who would then be able to look after themselves and their families as free farmers with dignity and who would cultivate the public field to provide for the needs of the state. This attention to details no doubt reflects that changing, the new intellectual and political climate of the Warring States Period, where the Mohists and other intellectuals were very specific in their proposals for a new world order. From Mencius, in the final analysis, the core teaching of Confucius in politics is that the people are the most valuable, and that is to say, of the highest importance and the least important is the ruler. This is a rather bold assertion at that time and might easily invite personal danger because the power of the king or ruler was absolute. In fact, Mencius interpreted the whole doctrine of the Mandate of Heaven in this light. What does it mean to say that the King has the mandate to rule? Simple, according to Mencius, It means that he has the support of the people. What happens if the ruler loses the support of the people then? The Mencius contains a dialogue between the king of the state of Qi and Mencius that addresses precisely this point. King Xuan of Qi asked, "Is it true that Tang banished Jie and that king would let a military strike against Zhou?" Now, Jie was the legendary last king of the so-called Xia dynasty, an evil king. And Tang was the founding Emperor of the Shang dynasty, a model good ruler. So, Zhou was the last king of the Shang dynasty, a terrible, terrible tyrant. And King Wu, of course, founded the Zhou dynasty. Mencius replied that yes, these events were so indicated in the records. The king of Qi was probably trying to set Mencius up. This is because evil or not, Jie was the reigning ruler then. And virtuous or not, Tang was then in his service. The same relationship holds true for the other pair. The king of Qi then asked, "Probably thinking that he would be able to floor Mencius in this debate, put him in a corner. Is it permissible?" He asked, "Then for a minister to assassinate his king?" Mencius replied, "Anyone who harms the cause of humanity is called an assailant. Anyone who harms Rightness is called an aggressor. Such an assailant or aggressor can only be called a mere fellow, a mere men. That is, to say not a noble person in the ethical sense." "I have heard," he continues. "I have heard that the fellow Zhou was put to death. I have not heard of any regicide." Now, in the Analects, we see how Confucius developed the idea of rectifying names. Here, we see how Mencius applied that even more forcefully to political legitimacy. Some scholars have described this as a justification for revolution. Some would even described Mencius as a democrat. Now, this would be, I think, a bit too strong. Historically, Mencius lived and believed in a hierarchical world where proper distinctions were important. And for that, the Confucians drew critical fire especially from the Daoists. Nevertheless, the concern for Rightness now clearly impacts significantly on political philosophy. As a general principle, Mencius distinguishes the way of the true king from that of a mere ruler. Now, we see how this is carried to as a logical conclusion. The way of the true king consists in valuing the people, putting the people first in governance, and this is what really benevolent government means. In this light, it is to be expected that Mencius would be against the rampant aggression that marked Warring States politics. Unequivocally, Mencius made clear that the true king would not commit any unrighteous act or kill a single innocent person even if he would gain the empire as a result of such an act. Ultimately, virtue, especially in the sense of doing what is right, remains decisive in understanding Mencius' rendition of Confucian philosophy. As in the teaching of Confucius, ethical self-cultivation is seen to be fundamental to the political enterprise. The Junzi ideal or that of the Great Man in Mencius alternative formulation, this ideal cannot be realized through the exercise of power or the use of any strategic or expedient means. It points directly back to who we are. What makes a Junzi gentleman different from ordinary human beings? According to Mencius, and I'm quoting him now, "Is that he is able to preserve his heart and mind. The Junzi preserves his heart and mind with Ren-humaneness, and with Li-propriety. A person of humaneness cares for others. A person who possesses propriety respects others. He who cares for others will always be loved by them, and he who respects others will always be respected by them." You can see from this passage that there is good alignment between Mencius and Confucius in their emphases on humaneness and propriety. Among the various virtues, filial piety is also singled out by Mencius as central because the bond between parents and children is considered the most basic and filial affection grooves from the family into a broad sense of humaneness that ideally should permeate all relationships. This can be seen, I think, as Mencius responds to the Mohist doctrine of impartial care. The Confucian Junzi is by definition a filial person. There is reason why stories of filial piety surround Mencius and his mother. And in that respect, perhaps I should add that all the dialogues and stories about Mencius and various noble princes could also make their way into the popular imagination through songs, through drama, and today even through comic books and animated computer games. In developing the teachings of Confucius, Mencius, of course, had to confront the realities of Warring States China. Nevertheless, the commitment to ethical excellence remains unchanged. To achieve that, to become a Junzi gentleman or even a Sage, total dedication, and constant self-reflection, and ethical practice would be necessary. But here, Mencius also added a distinctive note, as if to dispel any doubt that the Confucian ideal is about pipe dream. Mencius declared boldly that not only is it possible to become a Sage, but fundamentally, he said, "The Sage and I or the Sage and we are the same in kind". Now, what does this mean? This brings us to a discussion of Mencius famous theory of human nature, that human nature is originally good, which will be the topic of our next discussion.
