Readings 1 & 2 - Yielding?

Tuesday: N. 15b: In an accounting of each of Shun’s appointments and how they “achieved their merits” in their roles, we learn that Po Yi, who oversees rites, has caused yielding to come about: “people above and people below all yielded to one another.” What does this mean?

This might mean that the powerful observe rites in a way that is considerate of the interests of the commoners, and vice versa. Perhaps Po Yi ordered rites via negotiation or reckoning the interests of those “above” and those “below,” resulting in a consensus on how rites are observed. The more powerful might yield by providing commoners the time and resources to participate in aspects of a carrying out a rite. Commoners might yield by agreeing to honor a rite, even if it is materially difficult for them to do so.
Or does this mean that rites have been ordered so well that they inspired yielding in other matters? Rites provide a way for a community to view and understand a pivotal moment together. If done well, participants in the rites share emotions and form a common understanding about a moment’s meaning. The more people are able to have shared understanding, the more yielding occurs in other affairs? Why? What is yielding anyway?
Yielding is an action that is a non-action. When one yields, they do not act as they wish, but instead give another the ability to act as they wish. If one yields to another, it shows that they are aware and are sensitive to the other’s existence and needs. Perhaps the shared experiences of rites (done well) increases this awareness and sensitivity.
Yielding comes up during successions. For example, on 13b: there the non-action of yielding, not taking power allows a moment for all to come to an agreement on who the leader ought to be. Shun’s yielding doesn’t just allow the interests of the two parties to be satisfied, it allows the interest of those who will be led to be satisfied. The “world” resolves the decision by deciding to whom they will go. Since this seems to be a routine practice, it must be (or at least be seen as) an important step in the transfer of power. Is this another way yielding and rituals are connected in the reading, as part of the rite of succession?
Thursday: Q.14m, paragraph 5. 

At this moment of conflict between the states of Qin and Jin, Sima Qian documents a Jin royal’s view on the character of the Qin army, that it “has no sense of propriety. How could it help but suffer defeat?” What is improper about the Qin army?
This view may be referring to the interrupted mourning rites for Duke Wen, former ruler of Jin. We are told that Duke Wen dies on 13b, which is noted as being Duke Mu’s thirty-second year as Qin ruler. Then, shockingly, we are told on 15t that Duke Wen’s burial has still not taken place. This is the thirty-third year of Duke Mu’s rule, so this does represent a very significant disruption to mourning rites for the former Jin ruler. This raises the question: ought Qin yield to Jin so that its people may carry out proper mourning for their ruler? Qin’s refusal to yield to rites motivates Duke Xiang of Jin to defeat Qin. What would the outcome be if yielding had occurred? Or does it really matter?
Who is beholden to a rite? In the passage from Tuesday’s reading (N.15b), the idea that rites somehow involve yielding by “people above” and “people below” struck me. In the case of Jin and Qin, who is above and who is below? If there is no agreed form to their relationship, is it possible to support each other’s ritual practices?

-Ms. Caswell