rous, was effective. What they proceeded from was the root (of filial piety implanted by Heaven).
'The relation and duties between father and son, (thus belonging to) the Heaven-conferred nature, (contain in them the principle of) righteousness between ruler and subject[1]. The son derives his life from his parents, and no greater gift could possibly be transmitted; his ruler and parent (in one), his father deals with him accordingly, and no generosity could be greater than this. Hence, he who does not love his parents, but loves other men, is called a rebel against virtue; and he who does not revere his parents, but reveres other men, is called a rebel against propriety. When (the ruler) himself thus acts contrary to (the principles) which should place him in accord (with all men), he presents nothing for the people to imitate. He has nothing to do with what is good, but entirely and only with what is injurious to virtue. Though he may get (his will, and be above others), the superior man does not give him his approval.
- ↑ We find for this in the Chinese Repository:—'The feelings which ought to characterise the intercourse between father and son are of a heavenly nature, resembling the bonds which exist between a prince and his ministers.' P. Cibot gives:—'Les rapports immuable de père et de fils découlent de l'essence même du Tien, et offrent la première idée de prince et de sujet;' adding on the former clause this note:—'Les commentateurs ne disent que des mots sur ces paroles; mais comment pourroient ils les bien expliquer, puisqu'ils ne sauroient en entrevoir le sens supreme et ineffable? Quelques-uns ont pris le parti de citer le texte de Tâo-teh King (ch. 42), "Le Tâo est vie et unité; le premier a engendré le second; les deux ont produit le troisième; le trois ont fait toutes choses;" c'est-à-dire, qu'ils ont tâchè d'expliquer un texte qui les passe, par un autre où ils ne comprennent rien.' But there is neither difficulty in the construction of the text here, nor mystery in its meaning.
