Confucius said, “When a man’s father is alive, look at the bent of his will. When his father is dead, look at his conduct. If for three years (of mourning) he does not change from the ways of his father, he may be called filial.”
In a capsule, this analect presents a man through his father. How man should be while his father is alive, after his father dies and at a time he is now on his own. A father forms his child for his child will be another father who will form another child.
When a man’s father is alive, look at the bent of his will. Is there a son who would not obey his father’s will? One may trace obedience on the merit of the power the father has over his children. It seems one cannot go outside the father’s will since he controls the major components of the family’s life – economic, social, political, spiritual. He is the breadwinner, the head of the family, the ruler and the high priest. Thus, the power and control are in his hands. In some cases when the father does not have control of the household’s economics, that is being not the bread winner of the family, or even the spiritual, since he may not profess belief in any god, still being the head of the household would claim the right of being the authority. Obedience of the son is demanded by power.
Given such patriarchal family the son finds it hard to be independent that is to be on his own. It is hard for a child to disobey his father while he is alive. It is easier to say that a son follows his father’s will simply because his father has the power and the child is powerless. It seems hard for a child to disobey his father since the father has all the power to effect what he wanted Obedience is doing what the father wants you to do. Whatever his father wishes, he will do so. If he has done something good, that is following instructions, complying with the rules and regulations and submitting to the authority, it is to please the father and be spared from punishments. His will is subservient to the will of his father.
However, the analect would tell us that obedience should not simply be out of blind obedience but should be rooted upon respect. It is respect for the father and not out of the power. Power here is not outside the father and the son but within the father and the son. It is relational.
When his father is dead, look at his conduct. The goal of obedience is to form one’s character. The father by imposing his will to the son and making him obedient to him may become successful in effecting what he wanted his son to be. The son’s character is a character that is molded by his power that even after he left or when the time of his departure comes, the child will be strong enough to put into effect whatever he formed in him. Thus people would say, ah, anak nga siya ni whoever it may be. The distinctive character of his father he now posses. Who and what he is now is his father’s image.
At the death of the father however the child comes face to face with his own reality – who he is and what has he become while his father was with him. In front of himself he can see clearly his own power. The death of the father gives the child freedom. He is freed from the father’s power and now has a power of his own - the power to determine himself.
To determine oneself however cannot be divorced from the reality of the past. The death of the father is not simply the death of something that happens in that particular time but it has trails of what has been in the past. The goal of forming the son by the father would find its worth in the free submission of the son’s will to the father. Determining what he should be after the father’s death will be part and parcel of his character. What has already been rooted and planted by the father.
If for three years (of mourning) he does not change from the ways of his father, he may be called filial. Would the son still follow his father’s ways now that he is no longer there? Yes, if his life experience with his father proved to be fruitful and meaningful. After all the years of being with the father he has seen the wisdom and understanding the father has seen and imparted to him. No, if the child has simply seen his obedience as a shackle, a fetter of iron that hinders him from doing what he wanted to do and determine his own life, thus rendering what has been formed through the years is not his character but a false image of what he must become and what he wanted to be.
Although in our age we affirm and certainly stress that we should have our own identity, still we cannot divorce our identity from that of the father.
Recent discussions bring me once again in communion with my father.
The way of the father is still the right way to follow. Age and a lot of experience have given him wisdom that made him who he is. Parents will what is best for their children. There is no greater love than the love of parents. A parent would never wish to do that which is not good for the child even if others would not see the goodness in their intent. As what my mother would tell me when I was yet a child, parents would in any event never disown their child, but a child can disown his parent.
Childhood years gave me an experience of such power. I grew up ad baculum. It is through my father’s stick whereby I was formed. The stick was his power and it demands obedience from us. He determines what must and should be in his house. My obedience was obedience to his power. He is a father when I was a child and did not know what obedience was, a father when I was an adolescent and wanted freedom, and still a father when I got married and now a father of my own. I was wrong in looking at obedience at the point of view of his power oppressing and limiting me as to who and what should I be according to his perspective. But it is power that wishes to shape and form me as to what and how should I be as a man – to myself, to the family and to the society.
When I was young my father demanded obedience, hoping that I may be shaped a good man. As I grow up, he was constantly looking at my character. And when the time came I demanded freedom and be freed from corporeal punishment, he in a way partly lose his power over us, yet fatherly love granted us that freedom. He simply hoped that the years of corporeal punishment shaped us into what he wanted us to be. In the course of my life, he is looking at my character. Now that he is old, he is hopping that he has done what is good and that I may not change from his ways
Now, I am free and I can determine by my choice whatever I want with my life. I am grateful my father did not left me on my own struggle with life but shaped and molded me according to his standard and I do believe his standard is and will always be one of the best.
Obedience, character and faithfulness. Three words that sums up my reflection and still powerful enough to evoke in me realizations rooted in trails of experiences. I see the same for my sons.
I am my father’s son.
Let it be
