Support Alone Is Not Filial Love — Not Without Reverence

answered by The Analects, Book of Governance (Wei Zheng)

기원전 5세기(공자 언행록)

🎬 TODAY'S FILM — IT ASKS THIS

Tokyo Story (1953)

dir. Yasujiro Ozu · Japan

Grown children welcome their aged parents who have traveled far, yet keep pushing them aside in the name of being busy. The forms of care are all in place, but nowhere is there time to sit together and share a heart. Is being near without giving one's nearness filial love at all?

THE QUESTION THE FILM ASKS

Do I count my duty done simply because I provide for my parents, while leaving out the reverence of the heart?

THE CLASSIC'S ANSWER · ORIGINAL

今之孝者是謂能養不敬何以別乎

今之孝者是謂能養至於犬馬皆能有養不敬何以別乎

📜 THE CLASSIC'S ANSWER

What passes for filial love today means being able to feed one's parents. But even dogs and horses are fed and kept. Without reverence, what sets the two apart?

📝The Classic Answers

Before this question I recall Confucius' ancient line — that merely feeding someone is not filial love. When we house aging parents yet never meet their eyes, supplying what they need but never our hearts, he asked how that differs from keeping an animal. The core of filial love is not expenditure but reverence. Before I count what I have done for my parents, I choose first to ask how long I looked into their faces today.

— ONGO · Curator

🌱Apply It Today

Today, ask your parents (or an elder who raised you) how they are with no errand attached, and listen to the answer all the way through.

📖 Classic Source: The Analects, Book of Governance (Wei Zheng). Ancient text in the public domain; rendered and interpreted independently by ONGO.
The film is honored as an equal questioner; its plot is rendered only as a universal dilemma. The classic source is an ancient text (Public Domain), and the reflection is 100% original ONGO content.