A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy

by Wing-Tsit Chan

  There are four things that enable the enlightened ruler to achieve accomplishments and establish fame; namely, timeliness of the seasons, the hearts of the people, skill and talents, and position of power. Without the timeliness of the seasons, even the Yaos cannot grow a single ear of grain in the winter. Acting against the sentiment of the people, even Meng Pen and Hsia Yü (famous men of great strength)10 could not make them exhaust their efforts. Therefore with timeliness of the seasons, the grains will grow of themselves. If the ruler has won the hearts of the people, they will exhort themselves without being pressed. If skill and talents are utilized, results will be quickly achieved without any haste. If one occupies a position of power, his fame will be achieved without pushing forward. Like water flowing and like a boat floating, the ruler follows the course of Nature and enforces an infinite number of commands. Therefore he is called an enlightened ruler. . . . (ch. 28, sptk, 8:10b-11a)

  Comment. Of all the ideas of the Legalists, perhaps the most philosophical is that of following Nature, which was derived from the Taoists. The famous historian Ssu-ma Ch’ien is correct in saying that Han Fei Tzu’s doctrines can be traced to Lao Tzu.11 Han Fei Tzu commented and elaborated on the Lao Tzu.12

  The Taoist ideal of taking no action (wu-wei) had a strong appeal to the Legalists because if laws worked effectively at all times, there would be no need for any actual government. The various Taoist tactics, such as withdrawing before advancing,13 must have impressed the Legalists as clever techniques. And Chuang Tzu’s advice to respond to different situations in different ways must also have been attractive to them. These were certainly some of the reasons why the Legalists did not attack the Taoists while they bitterly attacked the Confucianists and the Moists. But it must be remembered that differences between Taoism and Legalism far outweigh their similarity, which is both apparent and remote, to say the least. Control, violence, superiority of the state, and so forth are entirely incompatible with Taoism.

  The questioner asks, “Of the doctrines of the two schools of Shen Pu-hai and Shang Yang, which is of more urgent need to the state?”

  I reply: “They cannot be evaluated. A man will die if he does not eat for ten days. He will also die if he wears no clothing during the height of a severe cold spell. If it is asked whether clothing or food is more urgently needed by a man, the reply is that he cannot live without either, for they are both means to preserve life.”

  Shen Pu-hai advocated statecraft and Shang Yang advocated law. Statecraft involves appointing officials according to their abilities14 and demanding that actualities correspond to names. It holds the power of life and death and inquires into the ability of all ministers. These are powers held by the ruler. By law is meant statutes and orders formulated by the government, with punishments which will surely impress the hearts of the people. Rewards are there for those who obey the law and punishments are to be imposed on those who violate orders. These are things the ministers must follow. On the higher level, if the ruler has no statecraft, he will be ruined. On the lower level, if ministers are without laws, they will become rebellious. Neither of these can be dispensed with. They both are means of emperors and kings. . . . (ch. 43, sptk, 17:4b-5a)

  The important thing for the ruler is either laws or statecraft. A law is that which is enacted into the statute books, kept in government offices, and proclaimed to the people. Statecraft is that which is harbored in the ruler’s own mind so as to fit all situations and control all ministers. Therefore for law there is nothing better than publicity, whereas in statecraft, secrecy is desired. . . . (ch. 38, sptk, 16:5b-6a)

  The means15 by which the enlightened ruler controls his ministers are none other than the two handles. The two handles are punishment and kindness (te). What do we mean by punishment and kindness? To execute is called punishment and to offer congratulations or rewards is called kindness. Ministers are afraid of execution and punishment but look upon congratulations and rewards as advantages. Therefore, if a ruler himself applies punishment and kindness, all ministers will fear his power and turn to the advantages. As to treacherous ministers, they are different. They would get [the handle of punishment] from the ruler [through flattery and so forth] and punish those whom they hate and get [the handle of kindness] from the ruler and reward those, whom they love. If the ruler does not see to it that the power of reward and punishment proceeds from himself but instead leaves it to his ministers to apply reward and punishment, then everyone in the state will fear the ministers and slight the ruler, turn to them and get away from the ruler. This is the trouble of the ruler who loses the handles of punishment and kindness.

  For the tiger is able to subdue the dog because of its claws and fangs. If the tiger abandons its claws and fangs and lets the dog use them, it will be subdued by the dog. Similarly, the ruler controls his ministers through punishment and kindness. If the ruler abandons his punishment and kindness and lets his ministers use them, he will be controlled by the ministers. . . .

  Comment. Confucius was not unaware of the “two handles” of the government.16 But whereas the Confucianists put virtue ahead of punishment, the Legalists put punishment ahead of virtue. In fact, virtue in the true sense of the word is rejected by the Legalists, for te as used here by Han Fei Tzu no longer denotes moral virtue but merely kindness in the sense of rewards and favors. Even these are to be bestowed with an ulterior motive.

  Whenever a ruler wants to suppress treachery, he must examine the correspondence between actuality and names.17 Actuality and names refer to the ministers’ words and deeds. When a minister presents his words, the ruler assigns him a task in accordance with his words and demands accomplishments specifically from that work. If the results correspond to the task and the task to the words, he should be rewarded. If the accomplishments do not correspond to the task or the task not to the words, he will be punished. If the minister’s words are big but his accomplishment is small, he will be punished. The punishment is not for the small accomplishment but for the fact that the accomplishment does not correspond to the words. If the minister’s words are small and his accomplishments are big, he will also be punished. It is not that the ruler is not pleased with the big accomplishments but he considers the failure of the big accomplishments to correspond to the words worse than the big accomplishments themselves. Therefore he is to be punished. . . . (ch. 7, sptk, 2:4a-5a)

  Comment. Like practically all ancient Chinese schools, the Legalists emphasized the theory of the correspondence of names and actualities. But while the Confucianists stressed the ethical and social meaning of the theory and the Logicians stressed the logical aspect, the Legalists were interested in it primarily for the purpose of political control. With them the theory is neither ethical nor logical but a technique for regimentation.

  Indeed customs differ between the past and the present. Old and new things are to be applied differently. To try to govern the people of a chaotic age with benevolent and lenient measures is like to drive wild horses without reins or whips. This is the trouble of the lack of wisdom.

  At present the Confucianists and Moists all praise ancient kings for their universal love for the whole world, which means that they regarded the people as parents [regard their children]. How do we know this to be the case? Because they say, “When the minister of justice carries out an execution, the ruler will stop having music”18 and that “when the sovereign gets the report of a capital punishment, he sheds tears.”19 These are their praises of ancient kings. Now, to hold that rulers and ministers act toward each other like father and son and consequently there will necessarily be orderly government, is to imply that there are no disorderly fathers or sons. According to human nature, none are more affectionate than parents who love all children, and yet not all children are necessarily orderly. Although the parents’ love is deep, why should they cease to be disorderly? Now the love of ancient kings for their people could not have surpassed that of parents for their children. Since children do [not] necessarily cease to be disord
erly, then why should the people be orderly? Furthermore, if the ruler sheds tears when punishment is carried out according to law, that is a way to show humanity but not the way to conduct a government. For it is humanity that causes one to shed tears and wish for no punishment, but it is law that punishments cannot be avoided. Ancient kings relied on laws and paid no heed to tears. It is clear that humanity is not adequate for a government.

  Moreover, people are submissive to power and few of them can be influenced by the doctrines of righteousness. Confucius was a sage known throughout the empire. He cultivated his own character and elucidated his doctrines and traveled extensively within the four seas (China). People within the four seas loved his doctrine of humanity and praised his doctrine of righteousness. And yet only seventy people became his devoted pupils. The reason is that few people value humanity and it is difficult to practice righteousness. That was why in the wide, wide world there were only seventy who became his devoted pupils and only one (Confucius) who could practice humanity and righteousness. On the other hand, Duke Ai20 of Lu was an inferior ruler. When he sat on the throne as the sovereign of the state, none within the borders of the state dared refuse to submit. For people are originally submissive to power and it is truly easy to subdue people with power. Therefore Confucius turned out to be a subordinate and Duke Ai, contrary to one’s expectation, became a ruler. Confucius was not influenced by Duke Ai’s righteousness; instead, he submitted to his power. Therefore on the basis of righteousness, Confucius would not submit to Duke Ai, but because of the manipulation of power, Confucius became a subordinate to him. Nowadays in trying to persuade rulers, scholars do not advocate the use of power which is sure to win, but say that if one is devoted to the practice of humanity and righteousness, one will become a true king. This is to expect that every ruler must be equal to Confucius and that all people in the world are equal to his [seventy-odd] followers. This is absolutely impossible. . . .

  What are mutually incompatible should not exist together. To reward those who kill their enemies in battle and at the same time to exalt acts of kindness and benevolence, to bestow honors and offices to those who capture cities and at the same time to believe in the doctrine of universal love, to sharpen weapons and strengthen troops as preparation for emergency and at the same time to praise the style of flowing robes and ornamental girdles (worn by the literati), to enrich the state through agriculture and to depend on the army to resist the enemy and at the same time highly to value men of letters, to neglect the people who respect the ruler and are afraid of the law and at the same time to support men like knights-errant and assassins—how can an orderly and strong state result from such self-contradictory acts? The state supports scholars and knights-errant in time of peace, but when emergency arises it has to use soldiers. Thus those who have been benefited by the government cannot be used by it and those used by it have not been benefited. This is the reason why those who serve take their work lightly and the number of traveling scholars increases every day. This is the reason why the world has become disorderly.

  What is now called a worthy person is one who practices correctness and faithfulness. What is called wisdom consists of subtle and unfathomable doctrines. Such subtle and unfathomable doctrines are difficult even for men of highest intelligence to understand. If what men of highest intelligence find to be difficult to understand is used to become laws for the people, the people will find them impossible to understand. When you have not even coarse rice to eat, don’t look for refined grains and meat. When you don’t even have rags to wear, don’t wait for fancy embroidery. For in governing a state, when urgent matters have not been accomplished, efforts should not be directed toward things that can wait. If in governmental measures one neglects ordinary affairs of the people and what even the simple folks can understand, but admires the doctrines of the highest wisdom, that would be contrary to the way of orderly government. Therefore subtle and unfathomable doctrines are no business of the people. . . . Therefore the way of the enlightened ruler is to unify all laws but not to seek for wise men and firmly to adhere to statecraft but not to admire faithful persons. Thus laws will never fail and no officials will ever commit treachery or deception.

  In regard to the words [of traveling scholars], rulers of today like their arguments but do not find out if they correspond to facts. In regard to the application of these words to practice, they praise their fame but do not demand accomplishment. Therefore there are many in the world whose talks are devoted to argumentation and who are not thorough when it comes to practical utility. That is why even when the hall of the ruler is full of scholars who praise ancient kings and preach humanity and righteousness, the government is still not free from disorder. In their deeds scholars struggle for eminence but there is nothing in them that is suitable for real accomplishment. Therefore wise scholars withdraw to caves and decline the offering of positions. Inevitably armies become weak and the government becomes disorderly. What is the reason? The reason is that what the people praise and what the ruler respects are those techniques that bring disorder to the state. . . .

  Therefore in the state of the enlightened ruler, there is no literature of books and records but the laws serve as the teaching. There are no sayings of ancient kings but the officials act as teachers. And there are no rash acts of the assassin; instead, courage will be demonstrated by those who decapitate the enemy [in battle]. Consequently, among the people within the borders of the state, whoever talks must follow the law, whoever acts must aim at accomplishment, and whoever shows courage must do so entirely in the army. Thus the state will be rich when at peace and the army will be strong when things happen. These are the materials for the true king. Having stored up these materials and taken advantage of the enemy’s moments of weakness, this is surely the method to surpass the Five Emperors and match the Three Kings. . . .21 (ch. 49, sptk, 19:2b-3a, 4b, 5a-b)

  Comment. The advocation of prohibiting the propagation of private doctrines eventually led to the Burning of Books in 213 b.c. and in the periodic prohibition of the propagation of personal doctrines throughout Chinese history.

  2. Interpretations of Tao

  Tao is that by which all things become what they are. It is that with which all principles are commensurable.22 Principles are patterns (wen) according to which all things come into being, and Tao is the cause of their being. Therefore it is said that Tao puts things in order (li).23 Things have their respective principles and cannot interfere24 with each other. Since things have their respective principles and cannot interfere with each other, therefore principles are controlling factors in things. Everything has its own principle different from that of others, and Tao is commensurate with all of them [as one]. Consequently, everything has to go through the process of transformation. Since everything has to go through the process of transformation, it has no fixed mode of life. As it has no fixed mode of life, its life and death depend on the endowment of material force (ch’i) [by Tao]. Countless wisdom depends on it for consideration. And the rise and fall of all things are because of it. Heaven obtains it and therefore becomes high. The earth obtains it and therefore can hold everything. . . .25

  Men seldom see a living elephant. They obtain the skeleton of a dead elephant and imagine a living one according to its features. Whatever people use for imagining the real is called form (hsiang). Although Tao cannot be heard or seen, the sage decides and sees its features on the basis of its effects. Therefore it is called [in the Lao Tzu] “shape without shape and form without objects.”26

  In all cases principle is that which distinguishes the square from the round, the short from the long, the coarse from the refined, and the hard from the brittle. Consequently, it is only after principles become definite that Tao can be realized. According to definite principles, there are existence and destruction, life and death, flourish and decline. Now, a thing which first exists and then becomes extinct, now lives and then dies, or flourishes at first and declines afterward cannot be called etern
al. Only that which exists from the very beginning of the universe and neither dies nor declines until heaven and earth disintegrate can be called eternal. What is eternal has neither change nor any definite particular principle itself. Since it has no definite principle itself, it is not bound in any particular locality. This is why [it is said in the Lao Tzu] that it cannot be told.27 The sage sees its profound vacuity (hsü) and utilizes its operation everywhere. He is forced to give it the name Tao.28 Only then can it be talked about. Therefore it is said, “The Tao that can be told of is not the eternal Tao.”29 (ch. 20, sptk, 16:7a-8a)

  Comment. This is one of the earliest and most important discussions on Tao. It is of great importance for two reasons. First, principle (li) has been the central concept in Chinese philosophy for the last eight hundred years, and Han Fei was one of the earliest to employ the concept. Secondly, to him Tao is not an undifferentiated continuum in which all distinctions disappear. On the contrary, Tao is the very reason why things are specific and determinate. This is a radical advance and anticipated the growth of Neo-Taoism along this direction in the third and fourth centuries a.d.

  ▪ ▪ ▪--13--▪ ▪ ▪

  THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHANGE

  The Book of Changes (I Ching)1 grew out of the ancient practice of divination. Its text is very cryptic and no definite philosophical conclusion can be drawn from it. In the commentaries, however, which have been ascribed to Confucius by tradition but to unknown writers three or four centuries later by some scholars, there is a clear outline of a rational approach to a well-ordered and dynamic universe. It is a universe of constant change, and whatever issues from it is good. One is reminded of “perfect sincerity” in the Doctrine of the Mean, which is the source of the good and is unceasing.2