The Hard Sayings: The Confucian Case of Xiao 孝 in Kongzi and Mengzi

Abstract

Every great religio-philosophical tradition has a set of “hard sayings.” These are the sayings or teachings we wish the masters and saints had not said or written. First, they are the “hard sayings” that expose contradictions in the overall structure of the text of a school’s teachings. While religious or philosophical emic devotees have always and everywhere evinced a commendable ability to live with blatant contractions, etic scholars are often less willing to let things slide by without comment. The current debate about the nature of xiao 孝 as a fundamental Confucian virtue in light of some perplexing statements we find in both the Lunyu and the Mengzi questioned by LIU Qingping and defended by GUO Qiyong are perfect examples of the common hermeneutical dispute and dilemma about “hard sayings.” Liu argues that the cases of sheep stealing and the dubious actions of Shun based on family affections [nepotism?] that trump consideration of the larger common good are perfect examples of discordant ethical teachings lurking at the very core of the Confucian project. Many Christians share this sense of unease with their Confucian cousins when they contemplate Jesus’ many hard sayings about the use and abuse of wealth, property, and family relations. It is hard to reconcile many of Jesus’ teachings about the need to disentangle oneself from property and money and still conduct a decent middle class life. On the Confucian side, I wish that Master Kong had never taught, as he seemingly does in Lunyu 7.1, that we should only transmit the ancient teachings of the sages and not create anything new for ourselves—shu er bu zuo 述而不作. Perhaps this problem arises for me merely because I am a modern Western intellectual enamored of notions of process and creativity, and I wish that Kongzi had not said something so out of kilter with my modern cosmological sensibilities. Second, contemporary scholars follow similar strategies in trying to deal hermeneutically with these “hard sayings.” Initially, they can try to show that the “hard sayings” are actually false insertions into the pristine text by editors unknown and hence should not be considered as legitimate teachings. Alas, this will not work with either Master Kong or Master Meng in these cases (nor with Jesus on wealth, property, and family for that matter). Dao (2008) 7:119–123 DOI 10.1007/s11712-008-9065-x