Section 25.1
Why could Yao and Shun presume to transfer [rulership of] the world [from one to the other]? The words of the
Classic of Filial Piety state: “If you serve your father with filial piety, then you will serve Heaven brilliantly.” Serving Heaven and serving one’s father are ritually identical. Now if a father bestows a responsibility on his son, the son will not presume to bestow it on someone else. People’s hearts are all like this. Now the king is also Heaven’s son. Thus when Heaven gave the world to Yao and Shun, they received the Mandate of Heaven and ruled the world. Being [Heaven’s] sons, how could they presume to transfer to others the responsibility they received from Heaven? Heaven illuminated the Way of being a son by not giving Yao and Shun the authority to pass on the throne. It follows beyond doubt that Yao and Shun did not personally transmit the world [to someone else] and [did not] presume to transfer [the throne] to someone else.
1 [23/34/3–6]
Confucians consider Tang and Wu the utmost worthies and greatest sages. They hold that [these men] were ones who
perfected the Way,
[comprehensively] investigated righteousness,
and epitomized [moral] beauty.
Thus they rank them as equal to Yao and Shun, designate them “sage-kings,” and take them as their models of emulation. Now if you consider Tang and Wu to have been unrighteous, then, sir, which kings of what generations would you designate as “righteous”?
[That person] said: I do not know.
[I replied:] If you do not know, do you mean that [all] those who have ruled have been unrighteous? Or do you mean that there have been righteous rulers but that you are not familiar with them?
[The person] replied, Shen Nong [was one such].
I responded to this by saying: Did Shen Nong become the Son of Heaven simultaneous with the inception of Heaven and Earth? Or was there someone he replaced?
3 What if you approved of the ruler whom Shen Nong replaced but you took exception and disapproved of the rulers whom Tang and Wu replaced? How could that be? Moreover, when Heaven gives birth to the people, it is not for the sake of kings; when Heaven establishes kings, it is done on behalf of the people. Therefore
if his virtue is sufficient to bring security and happiness to the people, Heaven bestows [the Mandate] on him;
if his evil is sufficient to injure and harm the people, Heaven withdraws [the Mandate] from him.
An Ode declares:
They were subdued by the Zhou.
Heaven’s Mandate is not permanent.
The officers of Yin, great and petty,
offered libations in the capital [of Zhou].
4This means that Heaven’s bestowal or withdrawal of the Mandate is not constant. Thus there is the Feng sacrifice on top of Mount Tai, the Shan sacrifice below Liangfu Peak, and the change of clan name when there is a [new] king. Those whose virtue resembled that of Yao and Shun numbered seventy-two men. Kingship is bestowed by Heaven. As for those whom the kings replaced, they are in every case those from whom Heaven had withdrawn [the Mandate]. Now you have held that only Tang and Wu’s attack on Jie and Djou was not righteous but that there were seventy-two kings who also conquered others. If I extend your argument to its conclusion, then you would hold that all of the seventy-two kings were unrighteous.
Thus,
the Xia being without the Way, the Yin replaced them;
the Yin being without the Way, the Zhou replaced them;
the Qin being without the Way, the Han replaced them.
Those with the Way replace those without the Way. This is the principle of Heaven. It has existed since ancient times. How could this principle begin with Tang and Wu? If you condemn Tang and Wu for chastising Jie and Djou, then you also must condemn Qin for chastising Zhou, and Han for chastising Qin.
5 It is not simply that you do not know Heaven’s principles. You also do not understand the propriety dictating human relationships. It is a matter of propriety that a son conceals his father’s evil. Now if you were ordered to chastise
6 others and you believed [the order] to be unrighteous, then you ought to conceal it for the sake of your state. How could it be appropriate [to use the order] to slander [your state]? This is what we call “With one statement, two errors.” The term “ruler” designates one who controls the orders. Orders put actions into effect, and prohibitions stop them. Now Jie and Djou sent orders throughout the empire, but the people did not carry them out; they sent out prohibitions throughout the empire, but the people were not stopped by them. In what sense were they able to cause the empire to submit? If they truly were not able to cause the empire to submit, how can you say that Tang and Wu rebelliously murdered [their rulers]?
7 [23/34/6–20]