XWomen CONTENT


<Previous Section>			<Next Section>

40 難勢第四十

慎子曰：

「飛龍乘雲，騰蛇遊霧，雲罷霧霽，而龍蛇與螾螘同矣，則失其所乘也。賢人而詘於不肖者，則權輕位卑也；不肖而能服於賢者，則權重位尊也。堯為匹夫，不能治三人；而桀為天子，能亂天下：

吾以此知勢位之足恃，而賢智之不足慕也。夫弩弱而矢高者，激於風也；身不肖而令行者，得助於眾也。堯教於隸屬而民不聽，至於南面而王天下，令則行，禁則止。由此觀之，賢智未足以服眾，而勢位足以（缶）〔屈〕賢者也。」

應慎子曰：

飛龍乘雲，騰蛇遊霧，吾不以龍蛇為不託於雲霧之勢也。雖然，夫（擇）〔釋〕賢而專任勢，足以為治乎？則吾未得見也。夫有雲霧之勢而能乘遊之者，龍蛇之材美（之）也。今雲盛而螾弗能乘也，霧醲而螘不能遊也，夫有盛雲醲霧之勢而不能乘遊者，螾螘之材薄也。今桀、紂南面而王天下，以天子之威為之雲霧，而天下不免乎大亂者，桀、紂之材薄也。且其人以堯之勢以治天下也，其勢何以異桀之勢也，亂天下者也。夫勢者，非能必使賢者用（己）〔之〕，而不肖者不用（己）〔之〕也。賢者用之則天下治，不肖者用之則天下亂。

人之情性，賢者寡而不肖者眾，而以威勢之利濟亂世之不肖人，則是以勢亂天下者多矣，以勢治天下者寡矣。夫勢者，便治而利亂者也。故《周書》曰：「毋為虎傅翼，〔將〕飛入邑，擇人而食之。」

夫乘不肖人於勢，是為虎傅翼也。桀、紂為高臺深池以盡民力，為炮烙以傷民性，桀、紂得（乘）〔成〕（四）〔肆〕行者，南面之威為之翼也。使桀、紂為匹夫，未始行一而身在刑戮矣。勢者，養虎狼之心而成暴（風）亂之事者也，此天下之大患也。勢之於治亂，本（末）〔未〕有位也，而語專言勢之足以治天下者，則其智之所至者淺矣。

夫良馬固車，使臧獲御之則為人笑，王良御之而日取千里。車馬非異也，或至乎千里，或為人笑，則〔巧〕拙相去遠矣。今以國位為車，以勢為馬，以號令為轡，以刑罰為鞭筴，使堯、舜御之則天下治，桀、紂御之則天下亂，則賢不肖相去遠矣。夫欲追速致遠，不知任王良；欲進利除害，不知任賢能，此則不知類之患也。夫堯、舜亦治民之王良也。

復應之曰：

其人以勢為足恃以治官。客曰「必待賢乃治」，則不然矣。夫勢者，名一而變無數者也。勢必於自然，則無為言於勢矣。吾所為言勢者，言人之所設也。

夫（聖）〔堯〕、舜生而在上位，雖有十桀、紂不能亂者，則勢治也；桀、紂亦生而在上位，雖有十堯、舜而亦不能治者，則勢亂也。故曰：「勢治者則不可亂，而勢亂者則不可治也。」此自然之勢也，非人之所得設也。

若吾所言，謂人之所得（勢）〔設〕也而已矣，賢何事焉？何以明其然也？

客曰：「人有鬻矛與楯者，譽其楯之堅：『物莫能陷也。』俄而又譽其矛曰：『吾矛之利，物無不陷也。』人應之曰：『以子之矛，陷子之楯，何如？』其人弗能應也。」

以為不可陷之楯，與無不陷之矛，為名不可兩立也。夫賢之為（勢）〔道〕不可禁，而勢之為道也無不禁，以不可禁之〔賢與無不禁之〕勢，此矛楯之說也。夫賢勢之不相容亦明矣。

且夫堯、舜、桀、紂千世而一出，是比肩隨踵而生也。世之治者不絕於中，吾所以為言勢者，中也。中者，上不及堯、舜，而下亦不為桀、紂。抱法處勢則治，背法去勢則亂。今廢勢背法而待堯、舜，堯、舜至乃治，是千世亂而一治也。抱法處勢而待桀、紂，桀、紂至乃亂，是千世治而一亂也。且夫治千而亂一，與治一而亂千也，是猶乘驥、駬而分馳也，相去亦遠矣。

夫棄隱栝之法，去度量之數，使奚仲為車，不使成一輪。無慶賞之勸，刑罰之威，釋勢委法，堯、舜戶說而人辨之，不能治三家。夫勢之足用亦明矣，而曰「必待賢」，則亦〔不〕然矣。

且夫百日不食以待粱肉，餓者不活；今待堯、舜之賢乃治當世之民，是猶待粱肉而救餓之說也。

夫曰「良馬固車，臧獲御之則為人笑，王良御之則日取乎千里」，吾不以為然。夫待越人之善海遊者以救中國之溺人，越人善遊矣，而溺者不濟矣。夫待古之王良以馭今之馬，亦猶越人救溺之說也，不可亦明矣。夫良馬固車，五十里而一置，使中手御之，追速致遠，可以及也，而千里可日致也，何必待古之王良乎？

且御，非使王良也，則必使倉獲敗之；治，非使堯、舜也，則必使桀、紂亂之。此味非飴蜜也，必苦萊、亭歷也。

此則積辯累辭，離理失術，兩（未）〔末〕之議也，奚可以難夫道理之言乎哉？客議未及此論也。

Chapter XL. A Critique of the Doctrine of Position

¹Shên Tzŭ said:—

"The flying dragon rides on the clouds and the rising serpent strolls through the mists; but as soon as the clouds disperse and the mists clear up, the dragon and the serpent become the same as the earthworm and the large-winged black ant, because they have then lost what they rested on. If worthies are subjected by unworthy men, it is because their power is weak and their status is low; whereas if the unworthy men can be subjected by the worthies, it is because the power of the latter is strong and their status is high. Yao, while a commoner, could not govern three people, whereas Chieh, being the Son of Heaven, could throw All-underHeaven into chaos.

"From this I know that position and status are sufficient to rely on, and that virtue and wisdom are not worth yearning after. Indeed, if the bow is weak and the arrow flies high, it is because it is driven up by the wind; if the orders of an unworthy man take effect, it is because he is supported by the masses. When Yao was teaching in an inferior status, the people did not listen to him; but, as soon as he faced the south, and became Ruler of All-under-Heaven, whatever he ordered took effect and whatever he forbade stopped. From such a viewpoint I see that virtue and wisdom are not sufficient to subdue the masses, and that position and status may well subject ² even worthies."

In response to Shên Tzŭ some critic says:—

"True, the flying dragon rides on the clouds and the rising serpent strolls through the mists. The dependence of the dragon and the serpent on the circumstances of the clouds and the mists I never deny. However, if you cast worthiness aside and trust to position entirely, is it sufficient to attain political order? No such instance have I ever been able to witness. Indeed, if the dragon and the serpent, when having the circumstances of clouds and mists, can ride on and stroll through them, it is because their talents are excellent. ³ Now, though the clouds are thick, the earthworm cannot ride on them; though the mists are deep, the ant cannot stroll through them. Indeed, if the earthworm and the ant, when having the circumstances of thick clouds and deep mists, cannot ride on and stroll through them, it is because their talents are feeble. Now, while Chieh and Chow were facing the south and ruling All-under-Heaven with the authority of the Son of Heaven as the circumstances of clouds and mists, All-under-Heaven could not evade chaos, although the talents of Chieh and Chow were feeble. Again, if All-under-Heaven was governed by Yao with his position, then how could that position differ from Chieh's position with ⁴ which he threw All-under-Heaven into chaos? After all, position cannot always make worthies realize their ⁵ good-will and unworthy persons realize their ⁶ malice. If worthies use it, the world becomes orderly; if unworthy persons use it, the world becomes chaotic.

"As regards human nature, worthies are few and worthless persons many. Because the unworthy men who disturb the world are supplied with the advantage of authority and position, those who by means of their position disturb the world are many and those who by means of their position govern the world well are few. Indeed, position is both an advantage to order and a facility to chaos. Hence the History of Chou says: `Do not add wings to tigers. Otherwise, they will fly into the village, catch people, and devour them.'

"Indeed, to place unworthy men in advantageous positions is the same as to add wings to tigers. Thus, Chieh and Chow built high terraces and deep pools to exhaust people's strength and made roasting pillars to injure people's lives. ⁷ Chieh and Chow could abuse their position and give themselves over to all vices ⁸ because the south-facing authority ⁹ worked as their wings. Were Chieh and Chow commoners, then before they as yet committed a single vice, their bodies would have suffered the death penalty. Thus, position can rear in man the heart of the tiger and the wolf and thereby foster outrageous and violent events. In this respect it is a great menace to All-under-Heaven. Thus, concerning the relation of position to order and chaos, there is from the outset no ¹⁰ settled view. Nevertheless, if anyone devotes his whole discourse to the sufficiency of the doctrine of position to govern All-under-Heaven, the limits of his wisdom must be very narrow.

"For instance, a swift horse and a solid carriage, if you make bondmen and bondwomen drive them, will be ridiculed by people, but, if driven by Wang Liang, will make one thousand li a day. The horse and the carriage are not different. Yet, if they sometimes make one thousand li a day and are sometimes ridiculed by people, it is because the skilful coachman is so different from the unskilful ones. Now, compare the state ¹¹ to the carriage, position to the horse, commands and orders to the reins and the bridle, ¹² and punishments to the whip and the cord, and then let Yao and Shun drive them. Be sure All-under-Heaven would fall into chaos. It is because the worthy and the unworthy are very different from each other. Indeed, if anybody wants to drive fast and far but does not know to employ Wang Liang, or if one wants to increase advantages and remove dangers but does not know to employ worthy and talented men, it is the calamity of the ignorance of analogy. After all, Yao and Shun are the Wang Liangs in governing the people." ¹³

In response to the foregoing criticism some other critic says:—

"The philosopher considered position sufficiently reliable for governing officials and people. The critic said that you had to depend on worthies for political order. As a matter of truth, neither side is reasonable enough. Indeed, the term shih 勢 is a generic name. Its species cover innumerable varieties. If the term shih is always restricted to that variety entirely due to nature, then there will be no use in disputing on the subject. What is meant by shih on which I am talking is the shih created by man. Now, the critic said, `When Yao and Shun had shih, order obtained; when Chieh and Chow had shih, chaos prevailed.' Though I do not deny the success of Yao and Shun, yet I do assert that shih is not what one man alone can create.

"Indeed, if Yao and Shun were born in the superior status and even ten Chiehs and Chows could not create any commotion, the political order would then be due to the force of circumstances. If Chieh and Chow were born in the superior status and even ten Yaos and Shuns could not attain order, the political chaos would then be due to the force of circumstances. Hence the saying: `Where there is order by force of circumstances, there can be no chaos; where there is chaos by force of circumstances, there can be no order.' Such is the shih due to nature; it cannot be created by man.

"By shih the critic ¹⁴ meant what man can create. By shih I mean only the kind of shih as acquired by man. Worthiness has nothing to do with it. How to clarify this point?

"Somebody said: Once there was a man selling halberds and shields. He praised his shields for their solidity as such that nothing could penetrate them. All at once he also praised his halberds, saying, `My halberds are so sharp that they can penetrate anything.' In response to his words people asked, `How about using your halberds to pierce through your shields?' To this the man could not give any reply.

"In fact, the shields advertised to be `impenetrable' and the halberds advertised to be `absolutely penetrative' cannot stand together. Similarly, worthiness employed as a form of shih cannot forbid anything, but shih employed as a way of government forbids everything. Now, to bring together worthiness that cannot forbid anything and shih that forbids everything ¹⁵ is a `halberd-and-shield' fallacy. ¹⁶ Clearly enough, worthiness and circumstances are incompatible with each other.

"Moreover, Yao and Shun as well as Chieh and Chow appear once in a thousand generations; whereas the opposite ¹⁷ types of men are born shoulder to shoulder and on the heels of one another. As a matter of fact, most rulers in the world form a continuous line of average men. It is for the average rulers that I speak about shih. The average rulers neither come up to the worthiness of Yao and Shun nor reach down to the wickedness of Chieh and Chow. If they uphold the law and make use of their august position, order obtains; if they discard the law and desert their august position, chaos prevails. Now suppose you discard the position and act contrary to the law and wait for Yao and Shun to appear and suppose order obtains after the arrival of Yao and Shun, then order will obtain in one out of one thousand generations of continuous chaos. Suppose you uphold the law and make use of the august position and wait for Chieh and Chow to appear and suppose chaos prevails after the arrival of Chieh and Chow, then chaos will prevail in one out of one thousand generations of continuous order. To be sure, one generation of chaos out of one thousand generations of order and one generation of order out of one thousand generations of chaos are as different from each other as steed-riders driving in opposite directions are far apart from each other.

"Indeed, when you abandon the tools of stretching and bending and give up the scales of weights and measures, then though you try to make Hsi Chung construct a carriage, he would not be able to finish even a single wheel. Similarly, without the promise of reward and the threat of penalty, and casting the position out of use and giving up the law, then even if Yao and Shun preached from door to door and explained to everybody the gospel of political order, they could not even govern three families. Verily, that shih is worth employing, is evident. To say that it is necessary to depend upon worthiness is not true.

"Besides, if you let anyone eat nothing for one hundred days while waiting for good rice and meat to come, the starveling will not live. Now, to depend upon the worthiness of Yao and Shun for governing the people of the present world is as fallacious as to wait for good rice and meat to save the starveling's life.

"Indeed, I do not consider it right to say that a swift horse and a solid carriage, when driven by bondmen and bondwomen, will be ridiculed by people, but, when driven by Wang Liang, will make a thousand li a day. For illustration, if you wait for a good swimmer ¹⁸ from Yüeh to rescue a drowning man in a Central State, ¹⁹ however well the Yüeh swimmer may do, the drowning person will not be rescued. In the same way, waiting for the Wang Liang of old to drive the horse of to-day is as fallacious as waiting for the man from Yüeh to rescue that drowning person. The impracticability is evident enough. But, if teams of swift horses and solid carriages are placed in readiness in relays fifty li apart and then you make an average coachman drive them, he will be able to drive them fast and far and cover one thousand li a day. Why should it then be necessary to wait for the Wang Liang of old?

"Further, in matters of driving, the critic chose Wang Liang for a case of success and took bondmen and bondwomen for a case of failure; in matters of government, he selected Yao and Shun for attaining order and Chieh and Chow for creating chaos. To run from one extreme to another is as fallacious as to consider taste as sweet as wheat-gluten and honey or else as bitter as parti-coloured lettuce and bitter parsley.

"In short, the criticism, composed of flippant contentions and wordy repetitions, is absurd and tactless. It is a dilemma involving two extremes ²⁰ as the only alternatives. If so, how can it be used to criticize a reasonable and consistent doctrine? The argument of the critic, however, is not as sound as the doctrine under consideration."

Notes

1. 難勢. Its English rendering by L. T. Chen is "Misgivings on Circumstances" (Liang, History of Chinese Political Thought during the Early Tsin Period, p. 117, f.I), which is a great mistake. Derk Bodde rendered shih (勢) as "power" or "authority" (Fung, History of Chinese Philosophy: The Period of the Philosophers, p. 318 ff.), which is inaccurate. For shih, a special term employed by the ancient Chinese legalists, I have chosen "position" in English inasmuch as it implies "circumstance" objectively and "influence" subjectively and, moreover, is intimately related to wei (位) for which I have used "status".

2. With Yü Yüeh and Wang Hsien-shen 缶 is a mistake for 詘.

3. With Wang Hsien-ch`ien 之 below 美 is superfluous.

4. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 也 below 勢 should be 以.

5. With Yü Yüeh 已 in both cases should be 己.

6. With Yü Yüeh 已 in both cases should be 己.

7. I read 生 for 性.

8. With Wang Hsien-shen 勢 should be supplied below 乘 and 四 above 行 should be 肆.

9. Namely, the circumstance and influence of the throne.

10. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê 未 below 本 should be 末.

11. With Wang Hsien-shen the Digest of Classics has no 位 below 國.

12. With Wang the same book has 銜 below 轡.

13. So much for the critical analysis of Shên Tzŭ's doctrine of position. In the following passages Han Fei Tzŭ attempted a critical estimate of the two foregoing systems.

14. With Wang Hsien-shen 吾 between 若 and 所言 is a mistake for 客.

15. The passage 以不可禁之勢，此矛楯之說也 involves both mistakes and hiatuses. With Ku Kuang-ts`ê it should be 以不可禁之賢與無不禁之勢兩立，此矛楯之說也.

16. 矛楯之說, logically speaking, is a violation of the Law of Contradiction, the same preducats cannot be both affirmed and denied of precisely the same subject.

17. With Wang Hsien-shen 反 should be supplied above 是比肩隨踵而生也.

18. With Lu Wên-shao 海 above 游 is superfluous.

19. Places hundreds of miles apart.

20. With Kao Hêng 未 below 兩 should be 末.


<Previous Section>			<Next Section>


Published by The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities, © Copyright 2003 by Anne Kinney and the University of Virginia