6. Comparing Different Speeches[58]
If speeches heard from inferiors are not compared, the
superior will find no reason to call the inferiors to account.
If speeches are not held responsible for their utility, heretical
theories will bewilder the superior. A word is such that people
believe in it because its upholders are numerous. An unreal
thing, if its existence is asserted by ten men, is still subject to
doubt; if its existence is asserted by one hundred men, its
reality becomes probable; and if its existence is asserted by
one thousand men, it becomes undoubtable. Again, if spoken
about by stammerers, it is susceptible to doubt; if spoken
about by eloquent persons, it becomes believable. Wicked
men, when violating their superior, rely on the support of the
many for their background, display their eloquence by
quoting forced analogies so as to embellish their selfish acts.
If the lord of men shows no anger at them but expects to
compare and identify their deeds with their words, by force
of circumstances his inferiors will be benefited.
The sovereign upholding the true path, when heeding
words, holds them accountable for their utility, and charges
them with their functions. From the requirement of successful
functions there issue matters of reward and punishment.
Therefore, whoever displays useless eloquence, is never kept
in the court; whoever is appointed to office, if known to be
unable to perform his duties, is removed from his post;[59]
and
whoever talks big and exaggerates everything, is driven to his
wits' end by the disappointing outcome. In consequence,
there will be disclosed wickednesses, wherefore the superior
will be in a position to reprimand the culprits. Any word
that does not truly materialize with no extraneous hindrance,
is a fraud. Of fraud the speaker should then be convicted.
In other words, every word has its retribution; every theory
has its responsibility for utility. Consequently, the words of
rapacious ministers' adherents and partisans will not go into
the superior's ear.
According to the right way of heeding suggestions in
general, the ruler requires the minister to speak loyally to
him about any culprit, and to cite wide illustrations of every
suggestion presented to him for adoption.[60]
If the sovereign
is not wise, culprits will gain the advantage. Yet according
to the intelligent sovereign's way, the ruler, when pleased by
any counsellor, would examine the accepted counsel in detail;
when angered by any counsellor, he would reconsider the
whole contentions for the argument, and profane his judgment
till his feelings have become normal in order that he may
thereby find sufficient reason to award the counsellor honour
or disgrace and determine whether his motive is public justice
or private greediness.
Ministers usually present as many counsels as possible to
display their wisdom and let the ruler choose one out of them,
so that they can avoid responsibilities. Therefore, when
numerous counsels appear simultaneously, only the fallen ruler
would heed them. As for the intelligent sovereign, he would
admit no alternative word in addition to the original, but
enact the system of future testimony by making
[61]
the consequent
result testify the antecedent project so as to ascertain
the falsity or sincerity
[62]
of the counsellor. The way of the
intelligent sovereign never tolerates two different counsels by
one minister, but restricts one person to one counsel at one
time, allows nobody to act at random, and always synthesizes
the results of comparison. Therefore, the culprits find no
way to advance.
