,t

THE

WORKS OF KTING-SUI{ LT]NG.TZU

{*
WITE

TRAT.ISLATION FROM THE PAIT.ALLEL CHINESE ORIGINAT

TEXT, CRTTICAL AI-ID NGGETICAL NOTTS, PUNCruATION

AT.ID LITERAT TRAT.ISLATION,

THE CHINESE COMMET.ITARY,

PROIEGOMM.IA, AT.ID INDD(

J.

&
a

BY

,*

MAX PERLEBERG

rh

*
f,+

HYPERION
\VESTPORT,

INC.

Librery of Congress Cetaloging ln Publieation Data

Kung-surp Lungr 3d cent. B. C.

The works of Kung-sun Lung-tzu.

Reprint of the J-gre ed. published in

Bibliography: p.
ed.
I . Perleberg, Matc, 19OOBu8.

x8Z

LyT3

JBl '

rL

rsBN 0-88355-o77-6

Published

in Hongkong,

1952

First Hyperion reprint edition 1973 I990

Library of Congress Catalogue Number 73-884

lsBN

0-E8355-077 -6

Printed in the United States of America

Hongkong.

?3-BBtl

THE WORKS
OF

KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU

taa

lll

TO TEE IIEMORY OF MY LATE FRIEND AND TEACEEB

MR. WANG TZV-CHUNG

ir++
(

1887 _ 1e46)

"

Both Heoven ond Eorth ore

&
low.

& ,4

Mountorns ore os level os lokes."

Hui Shih (300-250

B.C.

7F

rL

+ +

, t-5

H,l

fr
gk
Ts
t

"Knowing thot the universe is o mere

tore-seed, knowing thot thc tip of

o hoir is o mountoin,-1[|t is to

J^

know relotivity."
Chuons Tzu

(3

69-285

B.C.

iL

+
"A man might

indeed argue

*o
o

*
+
.T->
-<--

*,

,&,

*o

x.

i&
>,
-<-,

a,

4*,

'L
.&

.&,

,K

that'fitatcll'is the contrary of 'little'and

'great'is the contrary of 'small'. However, this is all not quantitative but

relative. Things are not great and small absolutely, they are so called
rather as the result of an act of comparision. For instance: A mountain
ls called 'stnall' and a grain 'll.rge', in virtue of the fact that this mountain

Is smaller than all the others."

Arlstotle (384-3ZZ

B.C.

By the so,me Author:

"The Poems of Lin Ho-ching, the Hermit
of the West Lake."
(Sung Dynasty A.D. 960-12?g)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
A

Page:

HUI SHIH, CHUANG TZIJ AND

ARISTOTLE
....1,... IX
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
.I " '
XIII
INTRODUCTION TO KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU
...I '
" " XVI
COMPARISION BETlryEEN

A.
CHAPTER I

PROLEGOMENA

WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZV AND THEIR

-TIIE
RtrCOGNITION UNDER THE HAN AND BEFORE IT

1. The IIan Catalogu e

2. Ref c rence to Kung-sun Lung, as f ound in the Historical
Records
...,..,,..
3. Referenee to Kung-sun Lung, as found in the Elsun T2u......
4. Reference, as found in the Spring and Autumn Annals by
5.
6.
7,
8,
9.
10.

Lu Pu-rvgi .,.,..

Reference,
Reference,
Reference,
Referenee,
Reference,
Ref erence,

e..,. r. ... r.. !

in the first chapter of Kung-sun Lung

in the I l\len Chih ........,......
in Confucius .,.,.. ...,.,....,......,...
in Chuang Tzu ......,r.r.........,r,........
in Hsun Tzu .... . .
.......
, ,., .
as f ound in the Hun-f ei*t:tc
as
as
as
as
as

found
found
found
found
found

Page
1

2
2
3

6
6
7
7

I
10

CTIAPTER II

Section l: A Critical Review on Kung-sun Lung-tzu's Works

Sec tion I I : The Preface Written by Hsieh Hsi-Shen

CHAPTER III-TIIE LIFtr OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

CHAPTER IV-A SHORT SUMMARY OF KUNG-SUN LI]NG-TZU'S

(r.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

WRITINGS

First chapter: Illaterial for a Debate

Second

chapter: A Discourse on a White Horse

Third chapter: Designation of Things

11

L7
90

24
24

.....

........

25

26
28

Fourth chapter : Discourse on Conclusions drawn from Changes

Fifth chapter: Discourse on Hard and White ...... ......,.. 31
Sixth chapter : Discourse on Names and their actual
..,.... 34
.....
Sigrrificance ..,...
g. The lost chapter: Sirnilarity and Difference .....
...... B4
PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS TI""" 36
CHAPTER V
-THE Paradoxes of Kung-sun Lung-tzu .,...
....., 36
1. The seven
. . . ..
.... . .. .. 39
2. The ten Paradoxes of Hui Shih
3. The twenty-one Paradoxes of the Dialecticians . . .. ... . .. . .. ... '. 46
4, Thg fivg Paradoxes of Hsun Tzu .e ....t.r...,...r.......r.'.'.r..... 60
.......... 61
5, The Eighteen Paradoxes of Lao Tzu ..,............
64
TZU AND DIALECTICS
CHAPTER VI
-TTO
68
DIALECTICIANS
CHAPTER VII
-THE
CHAPTER VIII-T}{E FIVE ELEN{ENTS & THBIR PERIITTITATOINS 7L
7t
Section I
12
Section II

xl

B.

THE BODY OF THE VOLUIVIE

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU:

CHAPTER I
FOR A DEBATE or Ch,i fu ...........,. .... o
-MATERIAL
CHAPTER II
DISCOURSE ON A W HITE HORSE or Pai mq, lun

-A

Page
73
84

CHAPTER III-DESIGNATION OF THINGS or Chih wu \un............ 93

CHAPTER IV-A DISCOURSE ON CONCI-,USION DRAWN FROM
CHANGES or T'ung pien lun
99
CHAPTER v
DISCOURSE ON HARD AND WIIITE or
-AChien pai lun
..r..
110
CHAPTER VI-A DISCOURSE ON NAMES AND THEIR ACTUAL
SIGNIFICANCE or Mrng slnh lu,n . .. . ... i .. : .. . .
119

C. SUPPLEMENT
r.

Page:

PUNCTUATION AND LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THE

CHINESE TEXT
r....
........ 126

II. INDEX
.,...
.r.......r..r.....o* ....r.r.... 14g
III. LIST OF BOOKS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS WORK:
l.
Foreign books .r.........
..r..r-r...r,.
..r.rr............,r
160
2, Chinese books .....,
.....
.....
.r...., 168

xrt
aa

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
Trris book is the first complete translation of what remains

of

l(ung-sun Lung-Tzu's u,ritings. More than 50 years

ago the \vellknown Get'man sinologist, PI'of. Alfred Forke,

marle an incomplete tt'anslation of this \4,'ot'k, u,hich was, in
spite of its many shortcomings at that time an astonishing
achievernent. Dr. Derk Bodde translated certain parts of
Kung-sun Lung rvithin the frame of Fung Yu-lan's HISTORY
oF CHINESB PHILOSOPHY ( iffiE ffi , r-p H #
).
His interpretation of Kung-sun Lung's writings is far mol'e
accurate than that of Forke.

**_

I have tried to keep as close as possible to the Chinese

text ancl have also made the translation of the Chinese
commentary by the Sung scholar Hsieh Hsi-shen. His
commentary is the only available one and not even eoL1siderecl well done. However, it gives us many a valuable
hint as to the real meaning of the clifficult Chinese text and,
rvithout this commentary the works of Kung-sun Lung would
be considered as incomplete.
The ortginal Chinese text is often so corrupt and collfusing that it makes a rendering into a foreign language
most clifficult. We know now that the dialecticians used
words in the abstract and sometimes in the concrete sense
and, it was only after finding out this fact which in Forke's
time was still unknown, that we were able to explain the
meaning of some of their paradoxes. Whenever I inquired
from Chinese scholars about the difference of the two
'Whites' used by Kung-sult Lung, they said i "One 'White'
is the particular rvhite and the other the general colour of
white."
In my translation I rendered the partieular, concrete
meaning a^s white and the general abstr aeb as 'Whiteness'.
Once \ve know how to differentiate between white and
xlll

'Whiteness', \ue have to agree with Kung-sun Lung's theory

that 'A White Horse is not a Horse'. It was only after
Kung-sun Lung set up his 'White Horse Theory' that other
dialecticians began to debate on their paradoxes. They
maintained fot' example that, 'A Fowl has three Legs', that
'Eyes do not see', that 'The Ess has 'Feathers', etc. These
paradoxes beeame famous and most of the Chinese scholars
have been at a loss to interpret them even up to the present
time.
Chinese always wel'e fond of speaking in paradoxes,
even befot'e Kung-sun Lung's time. In the Tao-Te Ching
of Lao Tzu \rye also discover some. These paradoxes made
the dialecticians famous. I have colleeued as many as I
have been able to fincl and triecl my best to explain their
meaning by making use of the annotations given by Chinese
scholars who had the great advantage of more than 2000
years of experienee and countless books of references at

their disposal.

It was in September 1950 when I first finished a transIation of Kung-sun Lung, but evef sinee I have been trying to revise and improve the manuscript. I have been
giving it the final touch during my stay in Hongkong.
Here my greatest won'y was that I had never at my disposal
all the books of reference which I should like to have had.
Even sueh a wellknown rn ork as Giles' Bibliographical
Dictionary was not available. 90% of the Chinese bookstores in Shanghai as well as here in Hongkong sell only
Communist literature and it has become very difficult to buy
classical books which are considered as not progressive in
the China of to-d ay. Before my departure from Shanghai,
a Chinese friend made the following interesting remark
when he glanced over my manuscript: "lf our children in
future want to stud.y the ancient Chinese Classics I am afraid
that they will have to go to a foreign country." This almost
sounds paradoxical too, but I am sure that he spoke the truth.
Is not his paradoxical rernark a eompliment to sinologf/ ?
xlv

Although this science is still young u,itir Westerners, as courpat'etl t','ith othet' bI'anches of science, it has nll'eady a tradition of some 300 years. Sinology has macle a remarkable
pi'ogl'ess clttt'in.q the ltrst ferv decado.'" How clifferent would
Alfrerl ffctt'ke's renclet'ing of Kung-sun Lung be, ,,','r'0 he still
alive atrcl in po.qsession of all the nroclern reference books.
Irlevet'theless his translation \vAS often very useful to me.
The flrst person rvho suggested that I shoulcl attempt the
tt'*nslation of Kttng-sun Lung's \\'orks \vas nly oicl friencl ancl
mentor I\[l'. Wang Tzu-chung. Being himself a great scholar
ttncl Taoist, he introdueed me into the clifferent schcols of
Llhinese philosophical thought. It was four years after his
tleath thet I actually started on this translation, and I ha-rq
to aclrnit that without his valuable aid I could never have
cionc it. The seconcl person rvho encorlraged me to undertake this lvorl< \vas Prof. H. Wilhelm.
This bcol< has a parallel text in Chinese rvith the neccssarv lrunctuation inserterJ ancl a literal translation rvhi ch
enables tirose acquainted rvith Cl:inese charaeters to follc\r,,
ancl comliiire it r,,-itir the English text.

The publication of my translation was only

macle

possible by the munificent assistance of some of my friencls.

Finally I offer my thanks to the Rev. Bro. Cassi&tr, F.S.C.
of Lasalle College, Hongkong and Mr. Desmond John
O'Shea for their help in amencling any grammatical errors.

MAX PBRLBBERG.
Hongkong, October, 1st 1952.

INTRODUCTION

TO KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU
by

The Reu. Brother Cassian F.,S.C.

President of the Hongkong Teachers' Association,.
Kung-sun Lung -Tze is not the type of book that provides
delightful reading to a tired businessman, who exhausted
after an irksome week, decides to remain at home on a
rainy Saturday afternoon. It is a dt'eary collection of
debates and dissertations on very abstruse assertions, mostly
paradoxical and couched in archaic language. We have
thought to ineorporate into this work as a help to the reader
a few explanations on the mechanism of thought; from a
perusal of the text, we are convinced that quite a number of
these notions were known to Kung-sun Lung himself as they
were to the old Chinese philosphers. We need not neeessarily take Kung-sun Lung's oratorical joust at its face value,
and if we delve deeper into the matter we are forced into
a number of very interesting eonelusions. We have no
means of finding out exaetly how much Kung-sun Lung knew

about the working of the human brain, and even had he

known a great deal, he still lacked the medium for expressing it. Prof. M. Perleberg rightly says that Proto-Chinese
was a poor vehicle of teaching. ft had no means of rendering the scientific transformation of the concrete into the
abstract. Our mind passes from an individual horse (,,8 )
whether black or white or of any other colour, to the equus
caballus, which in our modern translation we invariably
render as "horsehood" ; but Kung-sun Lung after performing
the same mental operation had to fall back upon the same
identical character: ( ,m )
xvl

If we analyse our method of thinkirg, we find that invariably three fundamental elements intervene : the visual
image, the mental langu&g, and motion or the tendeney
towards motion. Of course, \ve must add accessory
adjuvants to this tripod of human thought: evoeation of
sensations, of sounds, of smells, of tastes, some of them
agreeable, others hateful or painful; acquired conceph,
abstract ideas.
Considerecl in its generality, an object, a horse for example, is to our mind first of all a shape, i.e., a set of surfaces
rvhich limit it in space. This shape rvhich ean be seen or
touched is measurable. Moreover, it is susceptible of displacement. However, no matter how much you mqy move
the horse along or make him travel, it ever remains identical
to itself : it is stable, although a dead reality apart from the
noise it may make. In order to become a living reality it
must be placed in a lighted medium. Its aspect now will
vary with the visual incidenee. In other rvords, the degr':e
of lighting or the angle under which the light strikes the

object

will alter its aspect. As far as the object is eon-

cerned \4,e may write:

Spatial X

Medirlm: Vfsfbility.

We now come to our second point rvhich is the transference of this visibility to each individual, for the visible
objeet is not seen in the same manner by each one of us.
Our eye does not merely act like a photographic camera.
It is in communication with our interior being and each
pereeived image is aeeompanied by an echo which is personal to each one of us; this eeho transforms what we see
or think we see into what we call the apparent vision, hence
Visible Object X Indiuidual
Apparent Object.
It is through a physieo-{hemieal process that the
physical object is pereeived ; memory and habit inten ening
continuously. The Greeks certainly had definite ideas about

the brain and its functions. What we call Hippocratie

xvl

seienee or the body of knowledge, which we attribute to

Hippocrates, did extend to the economy of the brain and its
attributes and functions in the human organism. The
Author of "The Sacred Disease", a work anterior to Hippocrates himself, but adopted by him, maintains that it is
with our brain that we think, understand, see, hear, distinguish between beauty and ugliness, evil and good, make
out the agreeable from the disagreeable; it is also there that
we get mad and that we start raving.

It is evident that the image received on the retina of each

eye will be fused in consciousness into one single sensation.
Our brain eonsists of a very large number of cells, perhaps
as many as 10 to 12,000 millioils, each one eonsisting of two
neurors, dendrite and axon. The working of each cell can
be assimilated to that of an electric dry battery producing
its own energ'y; let us say that a current of .07 volts is
generated by consuming glucose. In L947 electro-eneephalographists were able to show that the "All or none" larv
operated: "ff a stimulus produces a response at all it will
produce the maximum response of which the tissue is
capable, under the conditions existing at the moment." (1)

This would mean that the electrical signal is always the

same, and that it is a question of "contact or no eontaet";
so that the human brain does work aeeording to the principle
of binary arithmetic. It is also the system used by eybernetists in the robot brains. It is the principle that underlies
the coneeptions of the Pa-Kua ( 2) , or combinations by three
(3), which we
of the two symbols Yin
and Yang
might call after the old Chinese philosophers: "One and the
absenee of one"; or "contact and the absenee of contaet, and
hence no contaet". It is not a matter for surprise that
everywhere we should be meeting this dual principle YinYang, a eoncept r*'hich seerns to have been the woof and
warp of Chinese philosophy, and has now invaded all
branches of our modern physics and ehernistry.
xvlll

This mode of perception, of course, imposes some

limitation on our internal vision of objects. Thus, when we
think of a horse, it is the shape of the animal that is uppermost in our minds; but, rvhen we think of a 'White Horse',
it is the colour of the horse that is emphasized ; the shape
is now in recession. Similarly, if we happen to call to our
mind the representation of a stone, it is its hard consistency
that u,ill at onee be visualised ; no particular shape will be
represented.

The old Chinese philosophers are very reticent about

their sensitivo-sensorial impressions, but from the reading of
their works you get the impression that somehow they were
aware of the facts, and had an idea of the way the human
brain functions. In his fifth chapter, Kung-sun Lung says
definitely: "Our eyes perceive 'Whiteness' by means of
light." He calls it fire (A). It is not light, however, that
cloes the seeing, for neither do the eyes nor does the light
see; it is the mind that causes us to see. But as a matter of
fact it is not the mind that does the seeing either; the three
functions are entirely separate. The work of the mind is
also brought out by the paradoxical saying that "A fowl has
three legs", or as it is put elsewhere, "Chang has three ears;"
the third leg and the third ear being the mind which directs
the organs of the body. In the same chapter on the separation of "hard" and "white" our definition for an abstract
nciun is given almost word for word: "That which cannot
be separated by our mind from the object to which it is
related;" e.g., the 'Whiteness' of a book, of a wall, of a
stone; the 'Hardness' of a diamond, of a block of wood, of
a stone, of an iron bar. A little further, we find the very
abstract saying "Power and Knowledge are equivalent"
which we have rendered more tersely as "Knowledge is
Power."

To realise fully Kung-sun Lung's position in Chinese

philosophy, it is necessary to go back to Mo Ti, of whom we
know not more than we actually know about Lao Tzu.
xlx

Tradition, however, links up the name of Mo Ti with a very

considerable portion of literature produced in China in the
two hundred years following the death of Confucius. Mo
Ti certainly did inspire most of it. It is, however, acknowledged that the greater part of what has been attributed to
him personally is but the work of his pupils who put down
in writing the substanee of his teaching; but they often
added to it some of their own work. Relative Logic was vely
much in the air; i.e. the presentation of a thought as tme
because of the eonneetion it bears to another thought which
we know to be true. Chang has two ears, but he requires
something else to enable him to hear, that something else
which completes the operation of hearing will be called a
third ear; both the ears and the mind being classified as
hearing aids. The saying will then go "Chang has three
ears." We say u,ith the Lord P'ing-yuan as mentioned
in the K'ung T{urtg Tzu: "It is wrong but it is logical." It
was indeed logical in the days of Kung-sun Lung; it is not
'We
have here again a case of the disciple's zeal
so to-day.
overstepping the master's wisdom and preparing the ruin of
his doctrine. E. R. Hughes rightly tells us that later public
opinion stigmatized this flagrant confusion of error with
truth.
However, Kung-sun Lung deserves that we be kind to his

memory. If he had not a clear vision of the Uniaersals he

Ied the way to their discovery; he is the representative of a
transitional period in Chinese thought, a period that showed
mueh interest in biology and scientific induction. Finally
let us add that like his Master Mo Ti, the most loveable of
all Chinese philosophers, Kung-sun Lung was a confirmed
and persistent believer in the brotherhood of all mankind.
Bro. Cassi&tr, F.S.C.

Notc Ir

"Tlt,e liuing body," by C.H. Best and N.B. Taylor, p. L 13, (London:

Chapman and Hall.

It

was in 1929 that Hans Berger, the German neurologist, discovered

the cerebral eleefrie waves, which discovery has proved
a freiious meang
-explorations.

of carrying out our medical and physiological

Th.e Pa Kua ( i\ #+ ), the Eight Diagrams,-eight cornbinations or
arrangements of a line and a divided line, either one or other of which
is repeated twice, and in two cases three times, in the same combination. Thus there may be three lines, or three divided lines, a divided
Iine above or below two lines, a divided line between two-lines, and
so oD, eight in all; e.g.
ete,
= - , E
These diagrams are said
to have been invented two thousand
years and more B.C. by the legendary monarch tt # Fu Hsi who
cop_ied them from the back of a tortoise. King \Men ( lt :E 11g41 1 5 7 B. C' ) subsequently increased the above simple cornbinations to
sixty-four double ones, on the permutations of wtrictr are based the
philosophical speculations of the Canon of Changes ( A g I Chingl .
Each Diagram represents some power in natire,'
ac[ive "o"
passive, such as fire, water, thundir, earth, etc.
"iItrt
Notc IIIr The Yiry ( H -- ) and the Yang ( [f,
primeval forces,
developed from ( t-),-The
by ih. inteiaetion of which
) The Greot Monod,'Efrressed
the whole universe has been produced.
in Chinese tt ;
eircle; the dark half .being the- Yin or female principle, Utre ligtrt fiafi
the Yang or male principle. Also used in maiic
ior.e"v,:
Notc II:

"nd

xxl

KUNG, SUN LUNG -TaIJ

Prolegomena

PROLEGOMENA
CHAPTER I
OF THE PROLEGOMENA
The Works of Kuns-sun Lung-tzu and their Recognition
under the Han Dynasty and before it.
1. The Han Catalogue mentioned that the Works of
Kung-sun Lung eontained 14 chapters, the Ch'ien Lung
Catalogue, however, informs us that eight of them were
already lost before the Sung Dynasty ( X A.D. 960L279). Only six chapters have eome down to us and
they are:

'n:oter

l, ffi:ilI*iTlff l**,::(# r."un

III

E,M Fft )
Discourse on Designation of Things (clfih,
wut,

IV
V

VI

lun +Amffi

Discourse on Designation drawn from

Changes (t'u,ng WzTL lwt, jE B ffi )
Discourse on Hard and White (chien pai

tun

ry

E;ft )

Discourse on Names and their actual

Significanee (ming shih lun A H Fft )
There are besides the seven themes of Kung-sun Lung, 8s
found in Lieh Tzu (Ftl + 440-370 B.C.).
The ancient elassical books mention only three chapters: The seeond chapter, 'Diseourse on a White Horse,'
the fifth chapter, 'Diseourse on Hard and White,' and one
of the lost chapters, 'similarity and Difference' (t'ung i
tEI Jq ) (1).
1

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUI{G.TT,V

(1)
find further ref erence to this lost chapter :
-We
(a) In
the Huai-Nan-Tzu ( iffi H f- died !2? B.C.) : "Kung-sun Lung
distinguished between 'Similarity and Differenee,' and separated
'Hard' from 'White' ( g F, )."
(b) In the Chuang Tzrt ( ffi + ca. 370 B.C.), ehapt. XXXIII: 'White',
"They
were arguing and debating with each other about 'Hard and

Norer:

'Similarity and Difference'.

2.

Referenee to Kung-sun Lung, 8s found in the Historical

Records (shih chi *-;f, ), as eompiled by Ssu-Ma

ch'ien

,l1,nY,lf,n:':i,n-

chao state (1) and

was debating on 'Hard and White' and 'Similarity
and Difference.' He was opposed by Tsou Yen
(2) and discedited with Lord P'ing-Yuan(3) who
formerly has admired him so that he later dismissed him. He lived during the third cent. B.C.
At the court of King Hui Wen of Chao ( H A ]f
298-266 B.C.) he was talking about 'Universal
Love' (4 ) and'Disarmament.'
Noter: (l)-The Chao State ( ffi ) was an aneient feudal stste.
(2)
Yen ( lS 4ii ) was the head of the Five Element School.
-Tsou P'ing-Yuan ( zp
($)-Lord
IH r? ) died 262 B.C. was one of the indireet ea[ses in the downfall of the powerf ul Chou Dynasty
( m'was
!L22-265 B.C.). His personal name was Sheng- ( W ) qfrd
a brother of Kin[ Hui Wen of Chao. He was the
ire
Prime Minister under his brother and under King Hsiao Cheng
( * f*, ). In the year 256 B.C. the capital of Chao was saved
f, I i,, l: I:i ui s,l #:+ H:,,"# ; J} : t
!{, i}:, ;:' *l'* "l #
Lord Hsin-ling for his assistanee and opposed the scheme.
with the
(a)-universar

*l'r,

li-fi"r "*:? i!# \r,,nirili=rlt.lccordance

3.

Reference to Kung-sun Lung as found in the Hsu,n Tzrt

( a5T 310-230 B.C.):
''They (Kung-sun Lung and Hui Shih) do not follow

the ways of the early kings. They do not think

that correct conduct and justice is proper. Their
teachings are strange and they eonfused the people
with their queer ideas. They are severe in their
critics ancl pay no attention to their usefulness.
2

THEIR RECOGNITION DURING THE HAN DYNASTY AND BEFORE IT

Their arguments are not practical. 'with all their

bustle they accomplish nothing. However, what
they maintain seems reasonable, so are their teachings with which they try to mislead the people who

4.

are ignorant.
References as found in the Spring and Autumn Annals
by Lu Pu-wei(1) :

In

chapter 18,1 we find a conversation between

Kung-sun Lung and the King of Chao:
THE KING: "I wish to disarm but I find it not
possible."

KUNG-SUN LUNG: "The idea of disarming proves

a sympathetic heart. This kind of heart should
not be an empty name but an actuality. Now,
there are the two towns of Li-shih ( h*d ) and
Lin ( ffi ) which were annexed by Ch'in ( * ).
Because of this you went into mourning. When
Yotu Majesty, however, attacked the Eastern
frontiers of Ch'i ( H ) and you took possession of
a city, you gave a large feast and prepared wine.
When Ch'in gained new territory you went into
mourning again. 'W'hen Ch'i lost territory you
began to feast. This proves not a sympathetic
heart. This is also the reason why your disarmament cannot succeed. Here we have a person
whose conduct is unceremonial and ineonsiderate, however, he demands respect. Here is a
person rvho is partial and unreasonable and yet
demands that his orders be obeyed. Here is a
person who issued many troublesome proclarr&tions and changes and disturbs the peaee. This
person is greedy and cruel and yet demands discipline. Although he would be the Yellow
Emperor (2 ) he could never overcome his dimculties."
ts

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

Noterr Kung-sun Lung here is a fearless defender of

deliberations mueh Mencius.

peace and likens

in

his

(1) The Spring and Autumn Annsls or Lu Shih Ch'un Ch'iu contains
26 books. It was made by many scholars during the Ch'in
Dynasty ( * 256-2A9 B.C, ) under the direetion of Lu Pu-wei
( tr f + dred 236 B.C.). It is a eompilation of various schools
-lili"
*ff,H;*
?i,rii,l:-ni;u T:Hl1"l:, Ti' of
#JH?i:i;
tr!il",
Verlag, 1928).

(2')

H;,I;,Jl*rEmperor

was

a legendary monareh

whose date was

There is another interesting referenee to Kung-sun Lung

in the chapter 18,5 of the same work:
''At a meeting in K'ung Hsiung (*til an agreement was concluded between the two states of Ch'in
and Chao ( *m ). Herein it was stipulated that, beginning from norv, in case that something happened to
Ch'in, this state may ask the assistance of Chao or
vice versa. After some time Ch'in attacked the state of
Wei ( ffi ) with an arrny and Chao wished to support
Wei. The king of Ch'in reproachecl ( m I Chao and
sent some ambassadors to inform the king of Chao with
the words : "In our agreerurt it was clearly stipulated,
that in case sornething should happen to my country you
should glve me assistanee. Now my country wishes to
attack the Wei State and the Chao State intends to assist
Wei., This is eontrary to our agreement." )'
The King of Chao informed Lord P'ing-yuan of this
incident and he again reported it to Kung-sun Lung who
said : "We might turn this incident to this: We shall
send an ambassador to the King of Ch'in and inform
him that the Chao State intends to assist the Wei State
and the King of Ch'in refuses help. This is also eontrary to the agreement."
Then later we find the following incident reeorded in
the same chapter:
"K'ung Chuan (7L+) (1) and Kung-sun Lung met

at the court of Lord P'ing-yuan. They had a debate

whilst the lord watched their skill. They maintained that a servant

(ffi) had three ears (tr:

4

J+.tU ).

THEIR ITECOGNITION DURING TIIE }1AN DYNASTY AND BEFORE IT

Kung-sun Lung debatecl on these three ears rvith

great eloquence. K'ung Chuan, horvever, could not
agree and left after some time. The next day K'ung
Chuan appeared again at the court and Lord P'ing-yuan
spoke to him: "Recently Kung-surr Lung showed great
eloquence". K'ung Chuan replied: "Of course, he
gave to the servant three ears, however, this is not so
simple. I shoulcl like to ask you something? If we
maintain that the servant has three ears, this fact is
quite difficult to prove. If we say that the servant has
trvo ears, it is quite easy to prove. I don't knorv now,
if you will agree wibh the 'easy to prove', way and

reality, or with the 'difficult to prove' way and

unreality." The next day the lord said to Kung-sun
Lung "You should not dispute with K'ung Chuan." "

Then in chapter 18,7 we find the following record:

'Kung-sun Lung advised King Chao of Yen ( ,HE HB
to
disan:r. The king said : "That is an exellent
t)
idea and I intend to discuss this plan with you (my
guest)." Kung-sun Lung said : " According to my
humble opinion I believe that Your Majesty would not
do it." The King asked: "Why?" Kung-sun Lung
answered : "Your Majesty had some time ago the
intention of destroying the Ch'i State (Pf ) and only all
those ministers rvho were in favour of this were
employed by you. All those who were acquainted with
Ch'i's dangerous difficulties ( thtlfl.)and the discords between the king and his ministers were employed by Your
Majesty tco. How could it ever be said that you had
never the intention of destroying this state after you
gave employment to all these men? The natural outcome was, of eourse, that you really destroyed Ch'i and
you suppose to have clone a great deed. If Your
Majesty says now "l am willing to disarm", so I know
that you will never do it as long as all these military
talents still remain at your court." The king was unable
to reply."
5

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZIJ

Then in chapter 13,4 we find the follorving reeord:

'Everyone ( rfLA ) rnust have some practice for his
mind (,h ) to be able to understand what has been said.
Not having this practice, he must make up his mind to
get it. To learn without inquiring and still being able
to understand could never succeed from ancient times
till no\lr. An example for this is Pai Guee ( H t ) rvho
disagreed with Hui Shih and Kung-sull Lung when
they reproached King Chao of Yen because he did not
wish to disarm. That their reproach was justifiecl was
proved, when later the king met with disaster."
Notcr: K'ung Chuan ( 1) was mentioned bcfore. He was Kung-sun Lung's
chief opponent. He was a direct descendant of Confueius in the sixth
generation, the gr"ndfather and the author of a work, entitled K'ung
Tsung Ttu ( iL #:f' ) see Page t3-

5.

References as found
Lung:

in the first ehapter of Kung-sun

This chapter is entibled : 'Material for a Dehate'

or 'clti Iu:. It says:
"Kung-sun I-,ung was a dialectician during the period of
the Six States. Being inclignant at the prevailing
deviations and confusions between names ancl their
aetual .significanc, he made use of his great talent to
set up the theory of 'Preserving Whiteness'. He gavc
man.y examples on subjeets in debating on his theorlr."
Note

6.

r This first part of the chapter appears to be a short biography of the

rvriter or sorne kinrl of introduetion. Thcrefore I presume that it was
a later addition.

Reference as found in the I W en, Clr,ilt

portion of the Former Han History.
"The 'Name School' ( * aE mittg chia,) or 'school of
Dialecticians' had their beginning in the Nlinistry of
Ceremonies. Not only the ranks and positions rirere
formerly different but also their ceremonies. The aim
of this sehool was the 'Designation of Names ( 1 ) '."
6

TIIEIR RECOGNITION DURING Ti{E }IAN DYNASTY AND BEFORE IT

Notet

1) 4ung-!un Lqng devo.ted a rvhole chapter to the 'Designation of

Names'u'hich is entitled,'Discourse on Names anrl th-eir actual
Signifie ance' or 'mitt.q shih /ror'.

,o,f 'li j'l'";i,fffl;J;rr'.f,i;1i#

il'[:,'oil,u'i fil h,i' f ,,'i'{rlzT

77-6 B C.) and his
*l"l,ll.iiili'i$i-ff'u"l#r'';:.ITTE11r d r'.ir

7.

Reference as found

in Confucius:

In Kung-sun Lung's first chapter \ve find the follorving recorcl of Confucius. I(ung-sun Lung said to K'ung
Chuan:

,,Moreover, the theory

that 'A White Horse is not a Horse' was accepted even

( E-f:,mfl.,ffi/\flrftZfrfiqy

by Confucius." ( 1)
Note:

(1

Confu cius was

iii;i,;",[1,ii)'nu,

8.

at times considered to be a 'Dialectician' as he

Names' ]E &
jliiil"r"i

il',;,T",iH:?';11,.:l

in Chuang-tzu:
Chuang-tzu ( f,I + ca. 370 B.C.) made a longer reference to the 'Min,g Chia' ol' 'school of Dialecticians'
in his chapter xxxIII, entitled 'In the Empire' ( 7( T
t'ien hsia) .
Reference as found

g WZ rt+ " :n(rt Z do

If{ 7rfl8 f; o?'ii$ E ffi Hlt[f TE o

@;ffiffif;[ o ifiif#f*i4;l,il o +F],ii'ir.i[,H o l{!it H liil lti;Zy;f+fl o
"The disciples of Hsiang Li Ch'in ( tElggl ), and the
five feudal princes, as well as K'u Huo ( ?.; ig ), Chi
Ch'ieh ( e rffi ), and Teng Ling-tzu ( Hllp41- ), they
all studied Moti's ( H
writings, but they couiti
+H

+)

not agree rvith each other. Their opinions were all

different and they called themselves 'Rebellious
Mohists' ( ,[tJ # ). They were arguing about
'Hardness and Whiteness', Similarity and Differenee'.

HriE4)i o jt*lt4r
"Hui

Shih

o Si6r+,ffiI o ltE"tU4irl

1) too had many different opinions.

,o
He

was such a prolific rvriter that his writings could fill

7

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN

LUNG-TZ,U

cars (2). However, all his teachings were wrong

his
argument never to the point."
and

five

Note: (1)
(2)

fli-:l* ";.[H#;H. t SfrfrF;] ",ii'8300-250 B'c') was

?t _$lrT: ffiX"5r;,ilotn,n*

is left exeept his paradoxes to

which

U Lt EH rfi tH rH o #* 4 ffite o ffi El *fFffE r# # Z nt

o Wfi'EA
o THEEEAZ,U'o
o ffiAZ,h o h
o ffi
ffi#zm{u o Hrf,,Efrn o EA## o ++9qxT
o H,fi Z1i'fr, o AUffi&ft o
'lI o

ffi#

)\|fr,

Ztr

ftjttfftll

zffi#

"This was the subjeet the dialecticians were debating

with Hui Shih without ever coming to any conclusions.
Huan T'uan ( trEl ) and I(ung-sun Lung, these two
debaters, always tried to enlighten the people's mind.
They could easily attract and always overcome
everybody with their great eloquence, yet they \vere
unable to convince. This was their weakest point.
With great wisdom was Hui Shih debating the whole
day long with the people and purposely ehose the
strangest subjeets. This was his speeiality. However, Hui Shih considered himself the most capable
debater of his time."

o E : ff*Hllfl Xru TWT

ffi#fififriirffif,Itf o Tfi-fr ti ffi
o TIffiilii$f o;!ilrfiir
rg o E(FHffiffiZw.? Hrfi4iH+triiffi
^ffi
o MUffiH o ffiZU{'f o AIi,/t ffiffi o n1iffi
ttto

*ffie

UWLffi* o Feta4frriH{l

"Hui Shih wanted to be superior to everyone but was

often lacking in skill. There was another queer person

coming from the South, called Huang Liao ( H *fr ).
He inquired why the sky did not fall and the earth
never sank. He inquired about the causes of wind,
rain and thunder. Hui Shih had for everything all
explanation ready rvithout ever hesitating or thinking
it over. He could discuss everything and talked unceasingly, and yet he believed that he did not talk

THEIR RECOGNITION DURING TIIE IIAN DYNASTY AND BEFORE IT

9.

eltough. What he really did tvas nothing else than to

contl'aclict people, so that he could uphold his reputation of being able to overcome anyone rvith his eloquence. This was the reason that he coukl never
agree rvith anyone."
References to dialectics as found in Hsun Tzu ( ET +
310-230 B.C.).
Hsun-Tzu, properly speaking, cannot be considered
a dialectician, although he made numerous references to
this subject.
"When \ve hear a name, the purpose is to find out its
acfual significance. We use names to compose literature. Once we make a proposition we combine llames
of different actualities for the discussion of an idea.
If we want to understand the different meanings of
names \ve must consider clialectics and an explanation
as an actuality. The object of dialectics is the designation of names. Once a man's clialectics are in accordance with his mind, his propositions in accordance with
dialectics, rvhen he uses the rectification of names to
designate their actual significance, rvhen he understands the meaning of names as based on their
actualities, rvhen he differentiates rvithout errot's,
then only may he listen to An argument by using his

reasoning polver."
"If we wish to express an idea we must combine names
of many actualities to a proposition."
"With names rvhich designate things we distin.quish
between'Similarity and Difference'."
"Things belonging to the same classification have the
same name, and when they belong to a different, they
have different names."
"Names were mAde in order to designate their aetualities,
and thus show the good and the bad."
Further referenee to Hsun Tzu is given under the
'Paradoxes.'

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

10. Referenee to dialectics as found in the

( $*rF+ died 233 B.C.)

Han-f ei-tztt,

Han-f ei-tzu was a legalist. He made the following

referenee to 'Narnes and their actual Signifieance' :
"Onee things are correct and their position is fixed, they
are designated by the sages with their appropriate
names. When a name is unknown, we have to investigate into its actual significance. Onee names and
their actual significance agree, they can be applied."

10

CHAPTER II

OF THE PROLEGOMENA
SECTION I

A Critical

Review on Kung-sun Lung-Tzu's Works

A+*ffE+{,tS

*t*rtE + : E Ill *lfr,rtE {IE* E ic, ffi 4i *r* ffE r,.x rit Er jq [E-l
ZWif: tf S A'l' riE r-l,1 A?+ i[ iffi{'' lH E Zffi /F{? tH l\ H
ffifrEft
#f*k;i'i iiE{f, /r4;f;ttt lfrf..rtl{'f#tffEii:+*ilI T-ii'i
H + u {ffi # +E*t,Ll 9i} l( + fo n* m iiE-tlJ tilknrl rtE'iii ffi
rf,Jit# [] /\ Fl,[5 H* FH ;ii'i iiE Btt f' l"E if, 1- -fr )l.tlt,!t # ifr fr #
$ft l-[L]ffif ftt]z\ffi rjtr+{ifi fi-*lt;rr.r rl ,mfffi+tnfrF8tli{ H
*H.It ffi )[. H +i F,i t9r++L#-#F;fii {iTL #+ ,tY, {i Ziiii fiE

^
ffi#fyi*Hif-ri

ttL#tii'i

#l,fIir"X >f, 1''uNW,Jr$ffi,iEfl

i[ rt i[ E Zliii,k +^ U[t TL It
M,'tl;{rlt I t itil l ;rt, i d, fiJi 4 [,il 4i,h!t]- tll J I: ++/t lF )*

,y"r,fr.fF E. |SrlL"t1ffi

il

A'# El

+ f*Dt

4 * {fE
ttTl{l'i+fr+ArliE ).djl,{ii It,[* irir ]!i Nttt4\HrHH,{f 1'S rfirt:.*

ff il

rt # iii{E rt{ i}t} fll f,|ilfifi At#iiE trrti$+ rfiH{,

'*.Htt<
{i[ 2\ !#iilil[fr+[1 fiT# JIt+d,fi[tErr-f lt
F/'ti;.itl+ ii[rJ llirpll iF.
ffi I]t plLi
t,I ,il, lJ 4i[ii'i Zlill
,h4;)tUtH
f;rifli 4;'l/j't;il iiil
+r, )t trrfirrll
UfiffiE
ffi#,f tfiE 'rtff4i iil iF.fli Itd+ili fl lE#+",rtrifE'l,ltilErfii][*H f,.rt
f,r ffi+hIfi Ji frikr{ittE l{l)r t{'r[ I,tE tr fll'r *x, zfirl r( itll 4 lJ]J fft fLx,(l
ltt #,y()t:{{, li:ibti'fr8 tE4itf:+ il\iff.ifl;&, liErfl,i,ttfr,ffE, {-;<
*lE+fErt,lgi
trtl(ff.{i rF ilitttrrt tti tt Ji.ft t!4{ffi,l rt I li 'it .L li,* tl,.+*
tt 4i ziF.)\ ft ist4 rit rri l* ts''i {f Fr rr. - -f,HJ t rl-:t+Ii if li rfr
pI r$A,H,+: Ffi4i
{rrE
ilfr ]+$",f(,*;
1t

ilfr ;rl'i 5t1 "8 0rl

lPa-f i/:

Z-

#lIii
,V,i[(

)il

The three volumes of Kung-sun Lung-tzu, \\rere written

by him during the Chou dynasty.
11

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU

The Book of Historical Records ( 1 ) says : " In the

State of Chao lived Kung-sun Lung-tzu who argued about

'Whiteness and Hardness (2)' ".

In the Han Histoyy, chapter l-wen Chilt (3), we read:
"Kung-sun Lung, Mao-kung ( +, * ), and others stayecl
at the palace of Lord P'ing-yuan. Here it is also stated that
he was a native of Chao."
Kao Yu, in is eommentary on the Lu,-shih Ch'u,n Ch'iu,
said that Kung-sun Lung was a native of the Wei State(4),
but nobody knows upon what this statement was based.
Tzu(5 ) said in his introduetion
Lung's honorary name was Tzu-ping."

Lieh

"Kung-sun

Chuang-tzu(6) said to Hui Tzu(?) : " Confucius(8),

Mo Tzu(g), Yang Chu (10), and Kung-sun Lung were four,
and rvith you, my master, there will be five." According to
this record Kung-sun Lung is said to have lived during the
'Warring States Period ( 11) '.
Ssu-ma Chen (LZ) said in his eommentary that I(ungsun Lung was a disciple of Confucius, but this statement is
wrong. His books were listed in the register of the History
of Han (13), eomprising 14 chapters, of which eight were

already lost during the Sung dynast.y ( 14 ) . Up to the

present time the follorving chapters were preserved :
lst chapter "Material for a Debate" or' "chi ftt" (15)
Znd ,,
"A Discourse on a lVhite Hot'se" or'
"pai nla lun" ( 16 )
3rd ,,
"Designation of Things" ol' " clfih, Luu,
Itut" ( 17 )
"Discourse on Conclusions drawn from
,,
Changes" or "t'ttttg Inen Ltut" (18)
5th )t
"Discourse on Hard ancl White" or
" chien pai lutt" ( 19 )
6th t,
"Discourse on Names and their actual
Significance" or "ming sldlt lu,tt" (20)
altogether six chapters.

4th

L2

CRITICAL REVIEW ON KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU'S \\IORKS

The clebate rvhich he held in his first chapter with K'ung

Chuan(zl) \\re fincl also in the book called K'uny1 Ts'u,ng
Tz?t. There Kung-sun Lung was stated to have been the
loser. However, Kung-sun Lung staLed in this chapter, that
K'utrg Chuan was u,illing to be his disciple, but that they
coulcl not agi'ee lvith each other. Of course, Kung-sun Lung
also rvishecl to shorv in his book the superiority of his theory.
K'ttttg Ts'ung Tzu, was a forgery u,ritten betrveen the Han
(22) and the Chin (23 ) dynasties. Chu Tzu(24) said that
this nnork \vas u't'itten by some of the descendants of Confucius, and it is only too obvious that they u,ished to prove
the superiority of their ancestor's theory. Therefore lve
should not be surprised why their records are so different.
The basic idea of Kung-sun Lung's writings is, that
ow'ing to his indignation at the pt'evailing difference between
names and their actual significance, the author tries to
eliminate all \4'rongs by the proper designation of things and
thus bring the abstract and concrete meaning in agreernent.
He cloes this by using his discourse on the 'White Horse'
rvith the intention, that the rulers of his time would be a\\'are
of these wrongs and, that they rvould direct their efforts
torvards the 'Rectification of Names'(25). Later historians
therefore callecl this school of thought the 'Name School' or
the'School of Dialecticians'(26).

Huai-nan-tzu(27) said in his explanations that Kungsun Lung \l/as unsurpassecl in his rhetoric and coulcl change
names in one way ol'the other. Yang Tzu, in his Fa Yeit,
(28) said: "Kung-sun Lung's words wet'e often misleading
and amounted to several tens of thousand. Surely his
arguments, if so convincing, coulcl have influenced the whole
tvorld". So the philosophers of his time, such as Chuang
Tzu, Lieh Tzu and Hsun Tzu(29 ) all accepted his sayings as
belonging to one of the schools of philosophical thought.
However, names and their meanings are too numerous to be
counted and Kung-sun Lung wished to specify every single
one; still rt'ith all his investigations he did not succeecl in
13

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN

LUNG-TZ,U

overcoming others with his reasonings. So the more he

argued about names and their actual significanee the less
possible was it to rectify them. Nevertheless, as his book
was written before the Ch'in dynasty(30), his style was
humorous and extravagant rather than eomprehensive in its
expressions.

Ch'en Chen-sun, in his explanatory records, exaggerated

when he denounced Kung-sun Lung as superfieial, vulgar,
indirect and eorrupted.
Chung Hsin (31), who lived during the Ming dynasty,
(32) was the first to print his book and he called it "Pien
Yen" or "Argumentative Speech"(33). This is preposterous and ineorrect. I rather prefer the title "Kung-sun LungtztJr" as given in the Han reeords.
In Cheng Ch'iao's Summary of Bibliographical Reeords
we find this book listed in two different editions with annotations,-one by Ch'en Ssu-ku and the other by Chia Shih-yrn,
each comprising one volume. However, both of them are
lost. The commentaries of this edition were made by Hsieh
Hsi-shen(34) during the Sung dynasty. At the beginning
of the book we find his prefaee. His notes are rather supel'ficial and common and were not always approved. However, as they are found in the original edition, they are given
here with the text.
Notcrr ( 1) The Historical Records or Shih Chi (H.HE), are in 130 chapters.
They eontains the first g:enerat History of China, ending *i16 the

ii's"ild,11;lu I 11t3'o3;f ',1t;r;f,'ffi.,[nf, ffi tr kJB8,i,fl

145-86 B.C.).
ch,ien (a,tr8
and Hardness' refers to Kung-sun Lung's 6th
)
.Y#t:L-=r
( 3 ) The l-wen Chih, is a bibliosraphy compiled by Pan Ku ( ilE it1
(2

fi'r' ol3l,'5,rT,T'i?1,.,*?=3,"'#;'f i.Ll-fil #lt"ilr-.

tson,i,i,i'
and can be found in chapter 40 of the Former Han History.

(4)
(6)

If L:ffilu',ffi '.x',iini:xXt,1 i?"f,;ltr"l*a"itX'"$J,1*i3

of Honan.

u;,11.oT,)'HIffiJ'i*Hl

3;*

Ti;I'"fi,,!flf#'l;
li,:n ffJu(j,l
Period. He advocated the teachings of Lao Tzu.
t4

A CRITICAL RtrVItrlV ON KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU'S WORKS

( 6 ) Chuang Tzu ( itE + ) was supposed to have been written by the
Taoist Chuans Chou ( llE ffi ) who tive{ 869-2g6 B.C. The
greater parb of his rvork was written by -[is disciples af ter his
deabh. There exists hardly any doubt, tfrat the fiist 7 chapter
which are called 'Ne i pien' ( n fS ) , or the 'Inner Clrapters, are
au

rhentic.

( 7 ) Hui rzu ( H + ) or Hui shih ( H

ffi ) was born in the sung
State ( * ) and a friend Chuang Tzu's. He belonged to th;
'Name school' or 'tling ch,iu,,. ue lived ca. 800_260 B.c.
( 8 ) Conf ucius is here in the Chinese text represented by the charac-

ter ( tffi ). IIe lived 6b1 -479 B.C.

(9) MoTzu ( ry. +) orMofi ( & & ) livedca.4?9-881 B.C.His
writings contain 7l ehapters. His adherenLs are known as the
'Mohist School' or ,l),Io Chiu, ( {fi
),
(10) Yang Tzu ( tE + ) olYang Chu (^+4t * I was an individualist,
and lived ca. 480-400 B.C.

t 1)

The warring states ( trI H chan kua) or six states ( ;t E

liu, kuo) about 4 1 0-2 5 0 B. C. f ormed an allianee to resist th;
Ch'in State.

12)

Ssu-rna Chen ( F].SH,

) rvrote a commentary to Kung_sun Lung.

(13) The History of Han or Han Shu ( H B I refers here to the
ch,,ien Hun.S[rr ( Eil H B I or the History of the Former Han
Dynasty. It contains 120 ehapters and was written by Pan Ku
( ffi Il,1 ) who tived A.D. gZ_sZ.
(14) The Sung Dynasty ( * ) A.D. 960-LZ7g.
(16) 'Material for a Debate,or ,Chi-fu, (Wf, lf+ ).
(16) 'A Discourse on white Horse' or ,pai mn lun, ( E,t$,;ff ).
( 17) 'Designation of Things' or 'chih 7au lur{ (
+r Wr ffi ).
( 18 ) 'I)iseourse on Conclusion drawn from Changes' or
'T'ung pien lun,
(

( i6Effi

).

(19) 'Discourse on Hard and white' or ,chien pai lun' ( E H ffi ).

(20) 'Discourse on Names and their actual Significance' or 'ltling shih
lun' ( {r 'trffi ),
(21) K'ung Chuan ( 1L#- ). Refer to Kung-sun Lung's first chapter..
(22) The Han Dynasty ( H ) 206 B.C.-A.D. Zz0.
( 23 ) The Chin Dynasty ( -ff ) A.D. 268-419.
(217

Chu'fzu (X+

) or

Chu Hsi

(fttr)

A.D. 1190-1200, the

famous commentator to the chinese classies.

(25) 'Reetifieation of Names' (rE $ cheng mingl . Refer to page zo

and

120.

(26) 'School of Dialectieians' or 't{ing Chia, (.{,

68.

15

*.).

Refer to page

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZ,V

(27) Huai-nan-tzu ( ifr H * ) contains 21 chapters. A eompilatlon

of varioua school.s of thought made under the direetion of Liu
An ( 3[ t ) or Prince of Huai-nan who eommitted suicide in
122 B.C.

(28) 'Fa Uen' ( & ff ) or "standard Speeeh" has been written by

Yang Tzu.

(29) Hsun Tzu (ffi + ) or Hsun Ch'ing ( d, m ) lyed 298-238 B.C'

He was an adheient of the Confucian sehool. His work is divided into 32 chapters.
(30) The Ch'in Dynasty ( * ) 266'209 8.C., see page 73.
(31) Chung Hsin ( 3t tE ) about A.D. 1610.
(32) The Ming Dynasty ( lfr ) A.D. 1368-1628.

(HE ).
( S rl! i# ) was the eommentator of the \florlcs

(3e1 ArgumentativeSpeech
(341 Hsieh Hsi-shen

of Kung-sun Lung. He lived A.D.

t6

960-1279.

SECTION II
THE PREFACE WRITTEN BY

HSIEH HSI-SHEN

tr

IH

*lfrHE + It a Lq& HE :f + *ffi /r tilUEit El Zf*FnP* /A Hn,

ffi .rirH H ?*+ tflHi= jt r,il fii |? i.h Zr*ffi {f, fitf fii ieffi + H
H Dil tfl frtl + ffitl + E Z"Et M.7i T zr*fi ntr#=hm fr+ +. 6
TH # friirLffi{f, 6 +H'#tr Jq ffi{f, T +H ffiL+f ffi iE tE t!}l S ffi

/i.4f;nffi Ttr#+HIfU Wffit#z;9,s$Di+6 W,li{+iE

ffi * +?, *ffitrIffi ilh.H,tHx,utH{Fnftfi+Dl+Ht+ r5g u*H
#41 H td Z^11}h. X{u rtL *: ztiH+ lH.Hffi iliiftt ZX. qffi
*++tH
^ ## iE + H*E A ffi ffE ZRA{I t1fis BIF4!ffifi
Efft'm 'l, E fiT f,ii lv.t *i*f'E nm s_B'ffi.E[ A Z,h [n A ZD
FijlH

* tfrru zi q ffi*8U H6=fi fr{ffi fl,h tfi lt ffifd tifl zR

fiIiffi
^ffi
*e ffi +,tU # # + *Lffi ffE ii?fr# )uZE 4 fiAflH A e

#g
HE

,h#f# ZWILLIWi

HfiJi

Kung-sun Lung-tzu's surname was Kung-sun and his

personal name was Lung. His style or honorary name was
Tzu-ping. He was a native of the State of Chao ancl rvellknown for his discourses on 'Hard and White'. At first
Lord P'ing-yuan invited him to his palace as his guest and
was convinced of his theories and treated him with great
favours. Then it happened that the State of Ch'i sent Tsou
Yen ( 1) as an ambassador to Lord P'ing-yuan who rvished
to get some advice from him. Tsou Yen spoke to the
Lord ; " Kung-sun Lung -tzlr is useless. All those dialecticians in the Empire are only superior in five points yet
attain something only in three. Besides a person who is
IT

TIIE

1VORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZIJ

only good in debating has no merits at all. The dialectician.s

ean be grouped into a different class so that there rvill be no

eontradictions about their schools of thought. They are

capable of explaining the vat'ious schools of philosophical
thought which are always at loggerheads with eaeh other.
The dialecticians ean express their ideas rvell and readil.y
know, how to impress othet's v,rith their opinions so that
everybody seems to be in complete agreement with them.
Yet they are only deceiving one another. Therefore the
winner never loses what he was fighting for and the loser not
what he was asking for. But in such a case their arguing
still amounts to something. If someone tries to distort the
truth by made-up expressions, he persuades the hearers rvith
figurative language and convinees them with skillful laid out
examples. They may win over everyone with their high
sounding eloquence, but they still leave them in the dark as
to their true meanirg rvhich is, of course, in eontradiction
with true facts." Thus Tsou Yen convineed Lord Ping-yuan
and Kung-sun Lung was dismissed.
Kung-sun Lung was also an intimate friend of Prince
Mou of Wei(1), but he \ryas laughed at by Yo-cheng Tzu-yu
who said: "Kung-sun Lung acts only in his own particular
way without teachers. He studies alone without the assistance of other seholars. Although his eloquence is great, he
cannot eonvinee. His speech is overflowing and surprises
when he talks extravagantly and without restraint about the
strangest subjects. He makes fools of others and gives
them no chance to eontradiet." Yo even tried to attack
Kung-sun Lung u'ith Han-tan and others. However, Prince
Mou of Wei still did not want to consider him as wrong and
his theories spread more and more.

Now, when studying his writings I fincl them less interesting but more difficult to understand. They consist of
six chapters. Therefore I take the liberty to make some
explanatory notes with my humble learning without being

certain that they

will be worthwhile and satisfactory.

18

TIIE PREFACtr WRITTEN BY HSIEH HSI-SHEN

Chuang Tzu said: "Kung-sun Lung could easily overcome

others with his great eloquence, yet was unable to convince
them. This was his weakest point and the only significant
one."
Hsieh Hsi-shen (Sung Dynasty)
Noter:

1) Prinee Mou of Wei was the son of the Marquis of Wei who lived
426-387 B.C. He is at times identified wittr Prince Mou of
Chung Shan. Forke makes here an interesting remark i "This
prince .lived about a hundred- years anterior to Kung-sun Lung.
There is besides internal evidence to show, as Fabei and GilIs
have done, that these two references to Kung-sun Lung are later
editions to the worlcs of Lieh Tzu and Chuang Tzu. fn add,tion
to those two passageg, Kung-sun Lung is men[ioned in Huai Nan
Tzu ( XI, 14 ) , where his principal tenets are alludcd to. and in
Yang Tzu's Fa yen ( W {- itf H II, 4), where it is said that he
put forward many thousands of strange propositions."
According_ to- the C_hronological Table of Prof, Ma llsu-lun,
Prince Mou of Chung Shan beeame Prime lVlinister in the yeai
298

B. C.

19

CHAPTER III

OF THE PROLEGOMENA
THE LIFE OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZV
The reeords about Kung-sun Lung's life are very seanty.
His date of birth must have been around 333 B.C. and his
death ca. 250 B.C.
The Historical Records or 'Shih Chi' ( EEi ) only mentioned that he was born in the third century B.C. in the Chao
State (1).
His surname was Kung-sun (2) and his personal name

Lung. His style or honorary title was Tzu-ping. He beIonged to the so-called 'Name School' (

* X

ming chia)

or the 'School of Dialecticians'. Their object was to

designate names and make them agree

with their

actual

signifieance. This theory originated from Confueius'

'Rectification of Names'. His only known disciple was

Chi Mu-tzu ( X{I} + ).

Kung-sun Lung's known opponents were Chuang Tzu,
Tsou Yen, K'ung Chuan and Yo-cheng Tzu-;nr(3). Chuang
\)zu said about the dialecticians that they could easily overcome everyone with their eloquence but not always eonvinee.
His intimate friend was Prince Mou of Wei who was
prime minister, and the earliest known reeord about Kungsun Lung is, that ea. 310 B.C. he had an interview with him.
We read about this interview in Chuang Tzu(4 ). In Lieh
'f zu(5) we find another record saying, that Prince Mou
bestowed great favours on Kung-sun Lung. At about the
*qame time Chuang Tzu also went to the Wei State, and we
nray safely presume that the two actually met.
Kung-sun Lung was then invited as a guest to the palace
of Lord P'ing-yuan in Chao who was formerly Duke Sheng
( BF ) and appointed a prime minister. This event must
20

THE LIFE OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

have taken place between the years 298-297 8.C,, at a time

when Chuang Tzu was still alive. The History of the
Formet' Han Dynasty (6 ) mentions that Huan T'uan and
Mao Kung, both dialecticians from Chao, were also at that
time living as guests at the court of Lord P'ing-yuan.
Now it seems that Kung-sun Lung left Lord P'ing-yuarl
for some time, as we find him around the year 257 B.C. at
the court of I(ing Chao of Yen (rffi[Hfi ) where he was
talking about 'Universal Love' and 'Disarmament' (T). In
the Spring and Autumn Annals(8) we find him saying to the
king: "Now Your Majesty wishes to conquer the State of
Ch'i (9 ) . Do you think that this conquest is a merituous
deed ? " The king saicl that he was willing to disarm, but
Kung-sun Lung proved to him that he \4/as only pretending.
"When you annexed the two towns of Li-shih and Lin(10)

you gave a large feast but, when the State of Ch'in ( *

)
gainecl new territoty you went into mourning. Does thi;
prove a heart sympathetic to disarmament?"
In the year 252 B.C. we find him again at the court of
Lorcl P'ing-yuan(11). At that time Lord Hsin-ling ( EW.
E ) of Wei had just defeated the Ch'in army, and liis
ministel' advised hirn to reward P'ing-Jruan with two cities
for the assistance he rendered to the king during the siege
of the city Han-tan. Kung-sun Lung, however, advised
P'ing-yuan not to accept this reward. The Lord listened to
his advice and bestowed great favours on him. It was at
that time when Kung-sun Lung showed his great eloquence,
as we find reeorded in the Spring and Autumn Annals:
"Between the trvo states of Ch'in and Chao an agreement
was made that, in case something should happen to Ch'in,
this state may ask Chao for help", and vice versa. Some
time later Ch'in attacked Wei but Chao wanted to help this
state. The King of Ch'in was very displeased wih this
anr'l sent at once ambassadors to Chao calling upon them
to stand by their agreement. When P'ing-yuan told
I(ung-sun Lung about this occurence, the latter said :
"We rnight turn this incident to this: We shall send an
21

TEE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

ambassador to the King of Ch'in and inform him that Chao

has the intention of assisting the Wei State, but the King
refuses help. This is also contrary to the agreement."
P'ing-yuan informed the King of Chao of Kung-sun Lung's
aclvice.

Kung-sun Lung gave two further examples of his great

gift of eloquence at the eourt of P'ing-yuan in his debate

with K'ung Chuang(lz), BS reeorded in his first chapter

(13), when he wanted to prove that a servant has three ears.

About two years after the Ch'i State sent Tsou Yen as
an ambassador to P'ing-yuan; he discredited Kung-sun Lung
in such a way that P'ing-Jruan dismissed him(14). The only
one who spoke in his defenee was his old and intimate friend,
Prince Mou of 'Wei who also, aeeording to Lieh Tzu, tried to
explain his famous seven paradoxes. Lord P'ing-yuan died

in

251 B.C.

The known reeords about Kung-sun Lung extend therefore from 333 to 260 B.C. over a period of 88 years.
Not,:

I (1) $l:
(2)

f,l{i"fn.'lilrxii"i':ut:S #;,:ilS,,tl; IflH,Tllr.il$

of the Warring

States.

( 4! {. ) and their sons ugain

( A l# ) grandson of princes, or-dueal
grandsons. Therefore
gJ"":Iffi
lHff
,",',";{,';ru,.f H,*;'Hl:,"f; xti"$,:-f,:1":iH::l
The sons of prinees were generally

(B) ff:tH hi , tL#., *n-.T-rrr "

.Autumn Floods, ( fX /t ch,iu ahui).
(4) Chuang Tzu, chapter XVII,
(6) Lieh Tzu, ehapter 'Confueius' ( l,F f?, chung-nil .
(6)
g'
Han shu). For
Ililn}'lTr';.f;-ITfft1r.( iiir & ch'ien
(7) 'Universal Love' ( rt *t chien ai) and lDisarmament' ()F Ik
(8) f;r!r:;i}; Autumn Annars or Lu-shih ctv,un ch,iu,ehapter yins
Uen lun ( fi H' f,h ). For further referenee see page 4.
(9) Ch'i State ( 14 )
1to) Li-shih ( HE .{; ) and Lin ( m ).
( 11) According to a reeord in the
'Plots of the lMarring States'
u,3'^r'f'?;,,\l"tion chao-san ffi . in the HisI"#"F*S",;3?
(l2l K'ung chuan was mentioned before, on pages 6, E.
( 13 ) The title of the first chapter, 'Material for a Debate' ( W, trl
(14) #if,litn"" reference see the Prefaee written by Hsieh Hsi-shen,
.

on page L7.

22

TI{E LIFE OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZV

Notcr

II

: There is another version as to the time when Kung-sun Lung-tzu

lived. Ku Ting-lin ( FJI H f.l.. I says that he was EB years younger
than Confucius; that woukl set hi; date of birth at 4g8 Ii.C. .na
put him 16 5 years ahead of my caleulations, 3 33 B. C.
Fan ShouK,ANg ( iU ffi t,}t I in his GENERAL DISCUSSIoNS oN HTS.
TORY OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY ( + rfi fr 4I *, iM ffi )
dbaiir dt 6a-' z;0 b

fr,{,T,l,t,fl?:';l}*1iti,t'-,13u.X,;1#l3,iis

i'

Many other points speak against Ku's version :

1. 'The Historical Records'or'Shrh Chi'tell us that he lived at the
third cent. B.C. His friend Prince Mou of Wei lived too in ttre
same century.

2. Lord P'ing-yuan his patron died ca. z5r B.c.

3. Kung-sun Lung-tzu was at the eourt of King Chao of Yen
whose reign $-as g 1 1 -27 g B. C.
4. Thq Han Si.u said that he was I guest of Lord P'ing-yuan who
agarn was a eontemporary of Meng-tzu ( ft I- gTL-z8g B.C.)
8Td King Nan of chou ( IrJ ffi I: ') who lived gt4-276 B.c:,
almost 2 00 years af ter Conf ucius. He was one of the las[
scholars of the chou dynasty. (ended 256 B.c.)

23

CHAPTER IV

OF THE PROLEGOMENA

A SHORT SUMMARY OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU'S

WRITINGS
As already mentioned before, Kung-sun Lung's writings
now eonsist of six chapters. The first and fourth are writteu
in the form of a dialogue, in which Kung-sun Lung has a
debate with an opponent.

(a)

First chapter: MATERIAL FOR

($trffi chi fu).

A DEBATE

We find here Kung-sun Lung in a debate \4rith K'ung Chuan,

one of the direct descendants of Confucius, at the court of
Lord P'ing-yuan of Chao. This meeting must have taken
place around 257 B.C.
It begins with a short biography of Kung-sun Lung
which must have been written by a later author or commentator, and here he defends his theory that 'A White
Horse is not a Horse'. His opponent, K'ung Chuan, had
undoubtedly a great deal of common sense, and his objections are not only reasonable but at times rather convincing. As it has to be expected Kung-sun Lung got the
better of him, but in all fairness he represents his opponent
as no mean debater. There is, however, another version of
the same debate to be found in the K'ung Ts'ung-tzu
( 7L#+ ). Its author claimed to be in the eighth generation
directly descendecl from Confueius. His name was K'ung
Fu ( 7L$,f,1 ), and the grandson of Kung-sun Lung's opponent
K'ung Chuan. In the aforesaid debate, as might be expectd, K'ung Chuan got the better of Kung-sun Lung. But
this is not surprising as this book was written by one of the
deseendants of Confucious. The book K'ung Ts'ung-tzu is
thought to be a forgery of the Sung Dynasty. Anyhow,
24

A SHORT SUMMARY OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU'S WRITINGS

K'ung Chuan wanted to be Kung-surl Lung's disciple if the

latter only were rvilling to abandon his 'White Horse
Theoly.' However, Kung-sun Lung was not rvilling to give
tlp his theory which made him famous and which, according
to him, was even accepted by Confucius himself. Furthermore he admitted that his philosophy was based on the fact,
that 'A White Horse is not a Horse', and if he were made to
gtve it up, he had nothing more to teach. This chapter is
some preparation for the next:

(b)

chapter: A DISCOURSE ON A WHITE

HORSE ( H ,m ffi Ttai ma lun).
The whole chapter consists of questions and answers. The
Second

questioner, who is called the host by the commentator Hsieh

Hsi-shtr, represents a person with common sense, whilst the
respondent or guest is Kung-sun Lung -tzu himself. Hsieh
said to this, that a person can be best enlightened in the
form of a conversation. Here he may listen to constant
questions and replies on different subjects. In this way any
misunderstanding can be avoided. It gives Kung-sun Lung
also the best chance to convince others as to the correct
ness of his theory. The theme of the debate is immaterial
as long as it has its aim to convince others. Differenb

matters have different relations. Once you succeed in

showing that they will correspond with each other, you'
theory is proved. But again, &s in the preceding chapter',
the opponent is a person of no mean intelligence and
eloquence. However, Kung-sun Lung at the close gets
again the better of his opponent, but only after long deliberations. As a matter of fact he can only succeed in differentiating about the 'White' in the particular and concrete
sense and the general and abstract white which I call here
'Whiteness'. The same difference he makes here betrveen
'Horse' and 'Horseness'. Yet 'Horseness' is not a horse
and thus is also a difference between white and 'Whiteness'.
26

THE WORKS OF KUNG-STJN LUNG-TZI]

It

seems to me that the Chinese have less trouble

in distinguishing the abstraet from the concrete and vice
versa than we Westerners. Most of the paradoxes of the
dialecticians can be explained when taking a conerete noun
in an abstract sense. Was it really Kung-surl Lung-tzu
who first applied this juggling with abstract and concrete
nouns? The question is not easy to answer. Most of thc
dialecticians were contemporaries and lived in about the
same eentury, therefore the themes of their paradoxes are
'What differenee
almost the same.
does it make whether
Kung-sun Lung maintained that 'A White Horse is not a
Horse' or another dialectician said that 'A White Dog is
black.' The 15th of the famous 2L paradoxes says, that
'The Shadow of a Bird does not move,' Kung-sun Lung
said, 'A Shadow does not move'. Hui Tzu in his seeoncl

paradox maintained that 'A Fowl has three Legs', and

Kung-sun Lung-tzu said the same in his 4th ehapter,
entitld, 'Diseourse on Conclusions drawn from Changes'.
He proves his 'White Horse Theory' to his opponent
basically with the words: "That which you took for
being a 'Horse', is only that you aeeepted the abstract
'Horseness' for the eonerete 'Horse'. But could you call
'Horseness' a 'Hors e'?" Then he says : "Whiteness does
not specify what is actually white. Once you forget that
'Whiteness' does not specify what is actualty white, you will
understand my theory." Kung-sun Lung follows up this
theory in his 5th chapter; 'A Disourse on Hard and White'.

(c) Third chapter:

( Ifr+Dl ch,ih wu).

DESIGNATION OF THINGS

"Without designations in the world things cannot be called

things."-This sentence illustrates the importance Kung-sun
I:ung-tzu pays to the word'Designation'. 'Things'he
explains thus : "Heaven and Earth, together rvith what
they produce, are called 'Things'." With designation we
may find out the proper meaning of a thing, therefore every
'Thing' must have its correct 'Designation'. Perhaps it
26

A SHORT SUIITMARY OF KUNG-ST]N LUNG.TZU'S

\ITRITINGS

could be better explainecl if I follow as closely as possible

the Chinese way of thought: 'To Designate' is in the text
represented rvith the Chinese eharacter ( +H ) " chilb" which
rneans, 'To point out' or 'To Aim'. So the term 'ch,ih 1o,u,'
could be perhaps t'endered best u,ith : 'To point out the
proper meaning of a thing', which in turn is only possible
by clesi.qnating it. This is about the same rvhat Confucius
called 'The Rectification of Names' ( .tE * clr,eng ming )
and u'ithout u,hich clisorder must follorv. 'W'ithout the
proper reetification of names the Emperor would cease to be
the Empet'or, the nobles would cease to be the nobles, the
minister to be a minister, and the common people would
cease to be the common people. With the 'Rectification of
Names' this great sage gives to everyone his right position,
social rank, and proper sphere of influenee.
Designations are unimportant for the thing but important for society. Therefore one must designate a thing lest
clisorder should follow. 'A Thing' is that rvhich really exists
in the world while DESIGNATIONS do not exist. They are
man-made. Although things are not designated, they are not
undesignated. There are so many things in this rvorld
that it is impossible for us to designate them all, and in
addition to this every day new and unknown things are produced which await their correet designation. However,
even those unknown things are still not undesignatecl. They
exist as things whether we designate them or not. Kungsun Lung -tzu teaches us that 'Designation' and 'Name' are
quite different; so he says: "The idea that there are no
designations in the world, arises from the conclusion that
every thing has its proper name; but this cannot be taken as
designation. A thing ean exist without a designation and
what really does not exist is 'Designation', although it is
quite common in the world." Kung-sun Lung-tzu closes this
chapter with a question : "If we take a designation as not
existing thetr, why has it to depend on things and is taken as
a designation

"
27

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZV

The Later Mohists ( 1) too discussed the 'Designation of

Things.' They said that onee a thing is known to us, we must
designate it, than without designation we could not know
that such a thing really exists.
This whole chapter consists also of questions and answers in the same arrangement as the preceeding one.
Noter: ( 1) '&4<**.

(d)

Fourth chapter: DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM CHANGES ( iE H ffi

t'ung pien lun).
This chapter too consists of questions and answers. Kungsun Lung-tzu here changes again a word from its eonerete
sense to its abstract and viee versa.
The chapter begins with the question : "Does 'Two'
include 'One'?"-[6 which Kung-sun Lung-tzu answered:
"'Two' does not include 'One'." Hsieh gives to it the explanation that 'Whiteness' and 'Horseness' are two different
items which can never be eombined into 'One'. A ehange
may not be called a non-ehange, as we ean easily place a
thing from the right to the left side. In this ease 'Right'
has undoubtedly undergone a change. But, how could it
then still be called 'Right'? In ease that it has not been
changd, how could lve then call it a 'Change'? However,
left and right are two, so we eannot say that 'Two' has
neither 'Right' nor' 'Left'.
To prove his theory Kung-sun Lung -tzu uses three
different animals as an illustration: An ox, a ram and a
fowl. He say: "A ram eombined with an ox does not
make a horse." Hereto is given the following explanation
"lf we place a ram at the left and an ox at the right and
these two should combine into one, then it could be callecl
:

neither a ram nor an ox. As we have no correct clesignatiorr

for this combination, we coulcl also never call it a horse."
With this example we can prove that 'Two' (things) ean
'We
never be taken for 'One'.
can also never say that an
ox eombined with a ram makes a fovrl.
2t

A SHORT SUMMAITY OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU'S WRITINGS

Here we have again to clistinguish between the general

anrl abstract left and right which can never be taken for
'Tu,o'. tr'or 'Two' we may only take the concrete and
particular left ancl t'ight. The same rule holds good in
the case of the three animals. Besides all three animals
belong to different species and must be taken'One'by'One'
and can never be taken for 'Two'. Therefore it is impossible to take a ram ancl an ox for a horse, unless we would
take 'Tu'o' for 'Three'. At last he eomes to the conclusion
that oxen and l'ams have 'Five' Iegs and the fowl has 'Three.'
He takes 'Leg' in the abstract, general sense, &s the leg of
a man, of an ox, a ram, of a fowl, of a table etc. So he
takes the legs of a ram or ox as 'Four,' which they actually
have, plus 'Leg', to be considered in an abstract wey, and in
this way he can maintain that a ram and an ox have 'Five'
legs. The same rule holds good with a fowl which must
then have 'Three' Iegs.
That "A Fowls has three Legs" we can also find in the
seconcl theme of the 2L paradoxes. The 18th theme of the
same paradoxes also refers to this ehapter. It says: "A
yellowish horse and a black ox make three."
But begirrning with the three characters ( tr
ffif# )"Let us talk about something else," the topic bf t[-e"whole
chapter suddenly changes from animals to colours in such a
peculiar way, that one has the impression, the end of this
chapter is a forgery. Alfred Forke too has discovered
this deviation frorn the theme and doubts its genuineness.
The translation of this chapter into a Western language
represents the most difficult part of Kung-sun Lung -tztJ.
Forke, &s well as Fung Yu-lan in "THE HISTORY oF
CHINESE PHILOSOPHY", translated by Derk Bodde, were
unable to explain it. I followed as closely as possible the
commentary in Chinese and the 'Five Elements' with their
permutatiotrs, on which I have compiled a list and hope
to have given the correet rendering and explanation 6f the
text. In studyirg the list of the 'Five Elements', we find:
29

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

5 colours:
White
Red
Green

Yellow

5 elements: 5 ranks:

5 directions:

Metal
Fire
Wood
Earth

West
South
East
Center

Minister
Affairs
People
Prince

Then again, one element ean overcome the other, as:

1. Water overcomes Fire
2. Fire
Metal
,,
3. Metal
Wood
,,
4. Wood
Earth
,,
First Kung-sun Lung-tztJ used the ox ancl the ram as an
example and gave them the position of right and left. Both
animals separatedly belong to different species. To follow
up his theory he gives colours as illustration and compares
them with other objects. Some colours can never blend
because they are in opposition, &s 'Blue' and 'White' and
thus they cannot interfere with their position. The commentator Hsieh remarks on this, that 'Blue' cannot be made
'Bluer' if we mix it with 'White'. 'lVhite' eannot be made
'Whiter' if we mix it with 'Blue'. Yellow refers to the
Prince, blue (in the list 'Green') represents the people, and
white the minister. These colours show the struggle among
the three social classes. However, Kung-sun Lung -tzu is
mueh influeneed by Confucian teachings and says, that once
one rank is overcome by another, disorder will follolv. He
points out again that 'Names' must eorrespond with their
aetual 'Significance', or there will be no eorrectness in
government and all virtue is lost.
The various Chinese schools of thought always followed
a fixed pattern during more than 2000 years. It is that
pattern set up by their greatest sage, Confucius, which
defined for everyone his proper social positioil, kept all
Chinese together as one nation and determined their cultural
development.
30

A SHORT SUI\ITTARY OF KUNG.SUN LT]NG.TZIJ'S

WTTITINGS

(e) Fifth chapter!

DISCOURSE oN HARD AND

WHITE ( lit H iiffi r:ltiera itai hrn,)
Whenever \\'e find in one of the ancient Chinese books a
reference to Kung-sun Lung-Lzu, it says that he |e1,1 cliscussions on 'White and Hard'. The theol'y of 'White and
Hard'made him famous and therefore this chapter must
be consiclet'ed as his best ancl most important one. Here

again he differentiates betu,een the gennrlal abstract apd the

particular eoncl'ete tvhich I follorvecl up 11,iLh the terms
'white ancl whiteness', 'Hard and Harclnlss,.
Already in the beginning he denies that 'Hard', 'White'
and 'Stone' are three different items. They are only 'Two',
because 'Hardness and Whitness' combine together and
make the 'Stone', which alone is a concrete fact. We cannot see 'Hardness' but can only perceive it with our sense of
touch. 'What we actually can see is 'Whiteness' without
'Hardness'. Touch perceives only 'Hardness,, but not
'Whiteness'. Without 'Whiteness' \ve cannot see a stone,
and u,ithout 'Harclness' \','e cannot speak of a stone. A
stone has a shape. Everything has a certain quality, as
harcl and white. Colour,shape and qualit)/ combine into onc
body and llever erelude one another. What has been eoncealed so far is the quality. Our sense of sight exists quite
sepal'ately from our sense of touch. Actually the non-seeing

is rvhat separates. However, 'separation' is

concealecl.

'Whiteness' as well as 'Hardness' is abundant in a stone.

'Harclness' is separated from 'whiteness'. Why? Beeause
rv calr only see that the 'Stone is White', but not that it is
'Hard'. His opponent, however, says : " Hardness, Whiteness and Stone have all their own designations, and one
cannot take the place of the other, therefore they are
separated." We must first take into consideration the
particular 'White' of a stone then its particular 'Hard' and
thus we can count them as 'Two', rvhilst the third is the
'Stone'. The visible and invisible combine together into
one body. So we combine three clifferent items into one
actuality.
31

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

With white we cannot properly define 'Whiteness', with

hard we cannot properly define 'Hardness'. If we took
them in the general, abstraet sense they could never exist in
a stone. 'Whilst the opponent always points out that
'Hard', 'White' and 'Stone' form three separate items,
Kung-sun Lung-tzu always maintains that they are only
'Two'. 'Stone' is 'One', the perception of 'Hard and White'

is tone'.

'We

know something by looking at it, and if we do not

it. Knowing and not knorving
are separated also. However, 'Hardness' is concealed, because we cannot see it. 'Whiteness' in eoneealed, because
we cannot toueh it, therefore both 'Hardness' as well as
'Whiteness' are concealed and not sepal'ated from eaeh
other. They must be thus considered as 'One'. Another
proof that 'Hardness' is eoneealed is, that 'Hardness' is not
hard in itself because it can be found not only in a stone but
in other things also. The same rule holds good with
'Whiteness'. A stone can only reveal itself by its white
colour, and every thing in the world must have a eolour.
'Hardness and Whiteness' can exist separately from other'
things, but it is still impossible that this separation is aparl,
from other things. Only nature can achieve this separation.
Our eyes cannot see without light, and light has no
organs of sight. It is only our imagination whieh makes us
see things. Therefore we may say that 'Eyes cannot see',
and 'Light cannot see'. Even our 'Imagination cannot see',
as it has also no organs of sight. What really can see, we
do not knorv. Here we have again 'separation' of knowIedge from the mind. Neither through touch nor sight have
we the power of linowledge. Our mind creates the living
and brilliant imagination of our mental powers. Our mincl
is the master of our five senses and our limbs, and without
them our mind is lost. So we may ask: "Does our mind
know anything? Is there anything existing in the world
without being separated ? "-Things are separated from each
see a thing we do not know

32

T\ SHORT SUMMARY OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU'S WRTTINGS

other ancl clo not combine. They are always changing quite
independentl;, from another.
'Hat'clness' and 'Whiteness' are co-existent and yei
different. One has to be excluded from the other. Therefot'e the 'Hat'd, White Stone' does not represent three
items but only ttt'o. The product of our sense of sight and
our sense of touch is here combined into one unit.

(f)

Sixth chapter: DISCOURSE ON NAMES AND

THEIR ACTUAL SIGNIFICANCE ( aH, mi,ng
sltih).

This is Kung-sun Lung's shortest chapter and does not

convey very much. He begins with his famous definition:
"Heaven and Earth and what they produce are things."
The actuality of a thing is, that it is only a thing and
nothing else ; ho\vever, actuality has its position which
mal<es things usable. It defines also the correct position

and relation between different soeial ranks. Once we

put something in its proper positiotr, we have rectification
u'hich in its cot'rect terminology means, that terms should
altt'avs express the true quality and relation between things,
as Confucius said

" Once

the meaning of a name is rectified,

it u,ill set've as a standard for conduet and will bring about

goocl ot'del'. TheD, the ruler will continue to be a ruler, the
noble to be a noble, the ministers to be ministers and the
common people to be people."
Thet'efore we make names agree with their actual
significance and then all things will be rectified too. With
the rectification of names we know that this thing has such
a meaning and that thing has another meaning. A thing
must affirm its meaning lest it will not respond to it. Once
the meaning of a thing is not in agreement with the name,
confucion rvill be caused.
33

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZV

At the close of this chapter it is said : "How perfect

were the aneient farsighted kings. They examined names
and their actualities." This is to prove the great importanee of the rectification of names and the good order it will
bring about.

(g)

The lost chapter: SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE ( IEI E t'uns i)

We know about the existence of this chapter only from
ancient reeords. Kung-sun Lung -tzrJ pointed out that there
is a unity between 'similarity and Differenee' just as rvell
as between 'Hard and White'. This theory was eontradicted by the Mohist Sehool. They eontradicted most of
Kung-sun Lung-tzu's theories.
For further reference see page 2.

34

CHAPTER V
OF THE PROLEGOMENA

THE PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS

7.

of KUNG-SUN LUNG:
Introduction: In the fourth chapter of Lieh-tzu ( rtl +
The seuen PARADOXE'S

440-370 B,C.), entitled 'Confucius', we find

a passage

recording a dispute between 'Duke Mou of Chungshan ( r[. 1-,[1 A++ ) and Yo-cheng Tzu-ch'un ( #rT,
+ 6 ), in rvhich the latter cited the seven paradoxes of
Kung-sun Lung and gave his critic and doubts about
them. The Duke explained the meaning of these
paracloxes and ended the dispute.

lst Theme: "WITH INTENTION A PIJRE MIND

LOST." ( .fiffiT,h ).

IS

Notec: These themes cannot be found in the present edition of Kung-sun

Lung. The remaining six are only partly given there. What actually
has come dou'n to us are only six ehapters of Kung-sun Lung and the
name of a lost chapter, entitled, 'Similarity and Difference' ( E &
t'ung i), Perhaps we msy presume that those seven themes were seven
chapters in themselves, and make up the L4 ehapters which are mentioned in the Han Catalogue. These eight chapters were definitely lost
before the Sung Dynasty.
The explanation of the above-mentioned theme should be ehanged
into a negative form in order to prove it. Another explanation eould
be found in the famous Chinese saying: "For intended goodness,
although it is good, there srill be no reward. For unintended evil,
o
although it is evil, there will be no punishment." ( H,[.E]glE$,ffr
,$,['f3.sf,E.H 6frii " )
This first theme is quite difficult to explain. Leo Wieger gives
the following rendering: "One cannot think without using one's intel-

ligence." ( 6 H ) means here certainly 'Having Intention'. It

is followed by the term ( -,1i ,t ) which proves the negative form.
Richard Vlilhelm's version is: "'Wer Gedanken hat, hat keine Seele."
As the first clause here is in the affirmative, it should be prefered to
Wieger's version.

F36-

THE IVORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZIJ

2nd Theme: "DESIGNATION NEVBR REACHES PBRFIICTION IN ITSELF." ( fr'ffiT E ).

Notec: This is the same as the llth theme of the paradoxieal argiuments of the
dialeetieians, which reads: (fB ,Il "E o E T ffi) "DESIGNATION

NEVER REACHES PERFECTION IN ITSELF. THINGS NF,:VER

COIIIE TO NAUGHT." Prf. Fung Yu-lan ( lB fr, n ) made a correetion of the text by replacing the seeond ( H ) with ( *itt ) . l'urther
explanation we ean find in Kung-sun Lung's third chapter, entitled,

'Designation of Things ( +E tfrJt ffi chih ,u,tt lun) .

Leo Wieger gives the following version: "One cannot touch
things without being in contact." This intelpretation seems entirely
wrong. Riehard Wilhelm's rendering: "W'as man hofft, trifft nicht
ein", takes also no referenee to Kung-sun Lung's real meaning.

3rd Theme: "THINGS NEVER COME TO NAUGHT."

GmTffi).

Note: This -egllelponds to the seeond part of the 1lth paradox: ( .E f ffi )
"THINGS NEVER COME TO NAUGHT." A further reference we can
find in Kung-sun Lung's third chapter.
?t,!g SgtL s_ives hereto tt,q following explanation: ( # W# ffi t')
..THINGS
}YHICH ARE NTILLIFIED ARE ALWAYS FOUNO ACATT.I.'i
Reeent Chinese seltolars are very doubtful as to the explanation giren
hy Duke Mou.
Chuans Tzu, in his ( 1?th ) chapter, (Autumn Floods' ( Frt 7j(
eh'ht s/rrri) refers to it also. TIe sa1'5; ( +hfrZF.ffiHffift^MffiWt#ffifrt)
,.DIITIENISIONS ARE WITHOTIT I,IMIT. TIM[-] IS 'TTvn[nsS,
CONDITIONS UNRELIABLE: PERIODS ARE NOT FINAI-,.,' O;
AgtIiN. ( J[ 6 frB M Eii z..tr I .'TO St'T UP T}IE VARIOUS PART
OF A BODY AND CALL IT A HORSE."
Or perhaps 'Lao-Tzu', when he said: ( * ff ST lfr q ). ,,If one
only enumerates the parts of a eart, it does nbt -yct pioduce the car.t."
Non' I shall -give the eommentary of Ch'ien Mu ( f,E B a rvellknown Chinese seholar, born l89 E.) :

'AIl this p-oints to the follorving

eonelusion

: A eart has wheels,

flxis, spokes and a yoke. A horse hai a tail, mane and legs. Onee we
analyse 'Cart' and 'Horse' into their eonstituent parts, 'Horse' anrl
'Cart'heve vanished. The 'Cart'is a useful implement, the 'Horsr.'
a usefttl domestic animal. However, boats, earts,' bridges and sl eiglrs
mal'all he ealled useful implements. Horses, oxen, rarns. and clogs,
een all be tametl as domestie animals. If r-e all unite them in trvo
terms, as'Implements' and'Domestie Animals," tCart' as well as'IIorse'
$'ill disappear. This is the proof that every'The
ttring, whieh rve eall a thing
and designate rvith 1name, is inrperfeet.
namu of a shape as *"ii
as speeeh is not eoincident with the aetual form. Horvever, when we
speak with eommon sense to designate a thing eorreetly. then a hor.se is
perfeetly -eoineident *'ith eny shipe of horses, just ai well as a stone
is perfeetly eoineident rvith any shipe of stones. In that ease rve eannot
s:,y that arrything is imperfeet. Only if we diseuss something mentally,
these our ideas are imperfect, The shape of a thing is a rn*r. impressions o.! our pereeptions. The impressions of our preeeptions means
again 'Se-palation', so all f orms and shapes are imperf
ect, and all the
names- 9{ !!!n.Es are based on our impressions. 'Therefore we say:
,,THINGS NEVtrR COIITE TO
NAUGHT."
lVieger's version of the third theme is: ' "That which is, cannot
cease to be." Wilhelm's rendering is: "Dinge nehmen nie ein linde."
36

THE PARAL)OXtrS OF' 'IIIE DL\LIICTICIANS

4th Theme: "THE SHADOW DOES I{OT

( ,fiffi4;ffi ).

MOVE,"

Note: This corresponds to the 15th paradox: ( A[ .B 2l;*"{i & ) ,,THE

SIIAD0!\r OF A FLYING BIRD DOES NOT I\[OVE." The explanation

is that the u'lrole shadow is made tlp from many instantenuoue shadows
var'f ing points of time, which toueh the ground and remain there
fixed zr[ Lhe particular place atrcl do noL nrove. It is said frorn the
viervp'int as spoken of the continuity of time.
CH'IEN MU'S COMMENTARY; "Chuang-tzu saicl in his chapter,
entitlcd, 'Autumn Floods': ( B fE tb r frg tii f* *t ) ,.Time is infinite, Peliods are not final." Therefore, as soon as the previous
shadorv disappears, a new shadow follows. Chuang-'Izu glves us
anottrer illustration to it. He tells us about an ignoramus rvho
tugs his boat to a valley for safe keeping, but soon it is stolen by another person at midnight who just carries it away. Our ego from to-day
differs already ft'om our ego of yesterday, and- man speaks to himself :
"That is tlte !" 'f lte South and North in the morning differs already
from the South and North in the evening, yet we still call it South
and North. A name is insulficient to designate the laws of nature.

at

ore, in speaking of a 'White florse', we just designate it as

'White'. In speaking about a 'White Stone', lve just designate it as
'\Vhite.' In speaking about a 'Hard Stone', we just designate it as
'Hard', In speaking about a 'Hard Metal', we just designate as
'[Iard' too. We are unaware of the difference between 'White' and
'Whiteness', ol' 'Ilat'd' and 'llardness'. However., there exists
neittrer 'Hat'd', nor '\l hite' in this world. [Iow nray we then designate
something as '[Iat'd' and 'White ?' Therefore I refer to Kung-sun
Lung's third chapter, s'hich reads: ( M H )F +fr m fE # fH )
.,'fH}]RE IS NO TIIING \\'IIICH CANNOl IJE DtrSIGNATED,
YET
DESIGNATIONS AIiE NO DITSIGNATION." Iiverything which we
descrilie as the form and quality of a thing, we have realiy perceived
rvith different faculties at diffcrcnt periods and places, and stiil we are
apt to tlesignate these things with the same name. "TIME IS INFINITE,
I'E[iIODS AP'E NOT FINAL", tlese trvo propositicns nrusf be regarded
ft'om the point of view of both time and space, and they should shorv us
narnes and their actualities. If we do not understand that there is an
intellect 'Within', and a matter 'Without', and just calI everyf hing
phenomena and sensations, whieh a].'e apt to change at every instance
and every place, and thus are beyond our control, neither continuous
nor separated by themselves, and even not controlled by one another,
then rve may ask ourselves: "ARB THINGS REALLY EXISTING IN
THIS WORLD ?" What remains are only names. Even the latter
shadow has no connection with the former one, and still we consider and
designate it as shadow. ' Hardness' and 'Whiteness' are sepalateC
from each other and we still take it for a'Stone'. They all are only
'Names'. We just fix the form of our perceptions and designate them
Theref

with names. So, when we talk about a quadruped, we make no differentiation of its being a horse or an ox. I{orvever, once we speak about
oxen and horses, we are aware that they belong to different species.
AII that we knorv is only to designate them with a name, lest miftrt we
not be able to distinguish an ox from a horse. Thus did Kung-sun
Lung prove his theory of the 'Rectification of Names'."
At the close I shall give again the trvo different versions:
Leo Wieger: "A Shadow eannot move."
Richard wilhelm i "Der Schatten bewegt sich nicht."
.)q
r)t

TIIE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN

LUNG.TZIJ

Sth Theme: "ONE HAIR CAN DRAW 80.000 CATTIES."

( x'.11 +*E).
Notc: This is an illustration to the third theme, "THINGS NEVER COME TO
NAUGHT." Thst one hair can draw 30.000 eatties is quite possible, if
the 30.000 eatties are in equilibrium. The Bsme theme we find' in
Mo Tzu.

CH'IEN MU'S COMMENTARY: This theme is the continuation

snd explanation of the two preeeding oneB. It interprets the idea of

previousness and suceession of time, as well a^s [he 'Rectification

of Names'. Of eourse, our hair is very brittle, snd one thousand
catties ar yery heavy. The hair has to break if we draw with it one
thousand eatties. 'Not Drawingl is equal to 'Not Breaking'. Wnat
we aetually pereeive is only the broken hair and that it eannot
draw one thousand catties. We must first have a drawing before
the breaking takes place. If we do not aeeept this presumption, it is
just as absurd as if we would say: "Men were not born onee we see
them die." If we say thst 'A shadow does not mov', we only mistake

the latter shadow for the former. If we say that 'One hair eannot
draw 1000 Catties', we mistake the hair that draws for the hair that
breaks. Therefore Kung-sun Lung investigated minutely into the
names with respect to time, in order to verify that a name should neither
be separated nor eombined."
Leo 'Wieger: "A hair ean support 80,000 Pounds."
Richard \Milhelm : "Ein Haar kann 1000 Zentner ziehen."

6th Theme: "A WHITE HORSE IS NOT

( E ,ffi rF,m ).

A HORSB."

Note: The theme is explained in Kung-sun Lung's seeond chapter. It was,

however, contradicted by the Later Mohist Sehool. It runs as follows:"Things belonging to a eertain class must not always have certain
charaeteristies. Not all the horses rnust be white. - What we can
maintain is only, that it is possible for horses to be white, but not
that they are really white. Our knowledge of a thing may'be sometimes not ve_ry complete, so all that we can do is, to gir" r temporary
judgment. Therefore, if we have a 'Horse' which is 'White', we really
do not know if our judgment is eorrect or not. Whst we should Eay
is, that the 'Horse is possibly White'."

7th Theme:. "AN ORPHAN CALF NEVER HAD A

MOTHER."

( 0[{El*ffi{*

).

Notc: If it had a mother we eould not call it an'Orphan Calf.' In the

gliginal text of Lieh-Tzu the two charaeters ( ffi ft} ) "IIAD A
MOTHER," were missing, thus rt was very difficult to understand the
meaning, and the commentator of Lieh-Tzu found it impossible to
explain this theme. Reeent seholars proved that Lieh-Tzu was a
forgery by some person living during the period of the Wei Dynasty
( fl A.D. 220-2601 or the Chin Dynasty ( ff A.D. 317-419). This
is the reason why the Duke of Muo did not explain eorreetly all the
themes of Kung-sun Lung. Modern scholars are very doubtful as to the
seven themes, BS they were never mentioned in any edition of Kung-sun
Lung'a writings.

_tg

TIIE PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS

CH'IEN MU'S COMMENTARY:
(

1) \\re can never talk about the intellect (mind) and things just
as they exi.st. We can really on ly discuss phenomena and
perceptions.

(2

Names represent phenomena and perceptions, and

still they

are su bj ect to change. Theref ore, all the investigation in the

'Rectification of Names'must be analysed in,seplaration, and
their actualities. This offers a strange example ,i th* analysis
of names. If we keep the actual fact in mind we must admit
that, although an 'Orphan calf has no Mother Cow' in the past,
it must have had a mother. A calf must have had a mother
when it was born, but when we speak about it as'An Orphan,
it 'Has' definitely 'No Mother'. once we accept the word

'orphan', we must reject the word 'I\[other,, *t i"h actually

was its nrother. In spite of this we may safely say that, th;
,,ORPHAN CALF NEVER

HAD A MOTTTER."
Note: Kung-sun Luug discussed this only in name, when he said: ,,If
it is called an orphan calf, it should have'No Mother'. If the calf had
a mother, it could never be called an 'Orphan Calf '." So he comes
tO thc CONCIUSiON thAt .,AN ORPHAN CALF NEVER IIAD A MOTHER."
This is only another example f or Kung-sun Lung's 'Reetification of
Names.'

Leo wieger: "An orphan calr never had a mother.,,

Richard Wilhelm: "Ein verwaistes Kalb hatte nie eine Mutter.,,

2.

Tlr,e ten PARADOX^E'S

of HUI SHIH:

Introduction: Hui Shih ( H ru ) is said to have lived ca.

300-250 B.c. He was next to Kung-sung Lung the
greatest representative of the 'school of Dialecticians' ( A X rning chia). He was born in the
state of Sung

jk I and a contemporary and intimate

friend of the great Taoist philosopher Chuang Tzu.

He stayed for some time at the court of King Hui of
Liang ( 9* H I 370-335 B.C.) who was also mentioned in the first chapter of Meng-tztr. Chuang-tzu
mentioned in his chapter 'Autumn Floods' (
)t
dkzh
-His
( H + tH* ) "Hui Shih was a minister in Liangi';

influence on the king was so great, that the latter wanted

to yield his throne to him. Later he fell in disfavour

with the king, owing to the machinations of Ti Chien

(as[).

t0

THE WORKS OT KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZIJ

His greatest opponent was his friend Chuang-tzu

who paid to him perhaps the greatest respect rvhen he
said : "Ever, since Hui Shih died I have no more
material and no one to speak to." In Chuang-tzu's z4th
chapter there is also a mentioning that he rvent to visit
the grave of his friend. It is very doubtful if all these
discussions between Hui Shih and Chuang-tzu really
have taken place. Modern Chinese scholars accept
them more as a forgery of Chuang-tzu's disciples in
order to glorify their teacher. In the Later Han History (
hou han shu) there is a remark that Hui
Shih and Chuang-tzu were intimate friends.

eH#

,,, Jn:5'i [

"E

:;;I, ;:ffi ?l,,, fl,]H,t_i?'il:

teresting story about Hui Shih :

#+*vE o H+Wz o rf+HlltrsffdH{ffiilrtrft o H+El :

$( l\E+ o **TE o z(geff E-R o x.trffimffi o Tu&
ry 7 #+ E : T,f* o trHrayLilt, o +titrffi{Ff ffE ffiffi*t 7 *
sr6m#*ffi& o JFlfrffi && o nil+$ffiffi, o *trytffiznil
o

wffit'ffi, o ffi,&mafo o frrffi.ffia4. o +a.wffizyv,

o EfHruffi#fik*H o ruffi'41tfr, o All{E#WttEH
o

iffi&ffkrfrkf*Erfti 9lZ o AlylffiTffi,fft'o ffirh,"tll o

"When Chuang-tzu's wife died, Hui Shih went to console him. He found the widotvel' sitting rvith his legs
erossed singing and beating time by striking an old pot.
Hui Shih said to him: "You have livecl together u,ith
your wife, you have seen her sons growing up, and so
far you have not shed one single tear over her dead body.
According to my opinion this is already bad enough.
But this is a little going too far, to be sitting here singing
and beating time by striking an old pot."-Chuang-tzu
replied : "Not at all ! As soon as she died, I was somewhat moved on realising that I had lost het'. Then I
remembered that she must have existed before in some
other form. She had existed before her birth shapeless
40

THE PARADOXES OF TIIE DIALECTICIANS

and rvithout substance. To this shapeless condition

Iater her spirit was added. Then this substance began
to take a form, and the next step wa.q her birth. Now
another change has taken place: She has died. She
was just going over from one transition to another,
as Spring, Sumrner, Autumn and Winter are following
one another. Nolv, lvhilst she lies there in her sleep, I
would be considered a fool ignorant of the laws of
nature were I to sit here wailing and weeping. This is
the reason why I do not cry."

It is very difficult to give any explanation to

Hui Shih's paradoxes. The basic idea is that time ancl
space are infinite. These ten paradoxes we find in
the 33rd chapter of Chuang-tzu, entitld, "fn the
Empire" (XT t'ien hsin):

lst

Theme:

"THE GREATEST HAS NOTHII.IG WITHOUT. IT

IS CALLED THE GREAT IJNIT. THE SMALLEST
HAS I{OTHING WITHIN. IT IS CALLED THE
SMALL UNIT."
E $ffi ,l- o iH

zt -

o E, rl- $ffi ft o #

ztt. --

Note: The best referenee given as an explanation to this theme is in

chapter of Chuang-tzu, entitled, 'Autumn Floods'. It says:

fir{HE: #tntltXfluffirJ.*tr*?

the 1?th

ltffiHE: 6I *,ffi ft*

ffi * ffio
$So *#It&
"The Spirit of the River said: 'Should I then consider the universe as
'Great', and the tip of a (Autumn) hair as'Small'?-The Spirit of
the Ocean replied: "Of course not. Extensions are unlimited. Time
is infinite. Conditions are unreliable, and periods not final."
The best rendering would be: "There are no limits within and

withouL" In the 20th theme of the 2l

paradoxes we find the following

illustration: -R2,fif,o E ry.*$o #tU6*8"

"If a rod is one foot long and we chop ofr every day one half of it,
there will be still something left, even after ten thousand generations."
41

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

Znd Theme: "NOTHING CAN BE ACCUMULATED

THAT HAS NO THICKNESS, YET ITS SIZtr BE
THOUSANDS OF MILES LONG."

fr$trfr ilIffi&o St+go

Note: The Chinese commentator remarks to its: 4i, :E EI Sl {il ln + !A +

"If it could be aceumulated, then how is it thousands of miles long?"
,,tr

o,Inx,rtlxilTl'

iE Hil,,:n:?tT,r.1,, T" -tdf ,!,il or,:!'w ",,'f#],

( t H ft ) watched his eook cutting a whole ox into pieces. When

replied :
.e,6iltr fl o *rJtE" th'6 HH.n a *fitu " + tr 2n-y )L* "
rta]J,0fr#*.t$il{ 'vfi.fi#'6 [pr o mi/J ,))t fr*
FfiW+ l[f $t"
ff o l;l .tffitrlt6ffi" W,tX.+#reiE/J o ,fl,6 ffirUfra
t'A

the Lord admired his great skill, the cook

good eook has to_ change his &xe once a year, because he only cuts
with it. A poor eook has to ehange his axe onee in a month, bieause
he hacks with it. I use my axe for nineteen years and have cut with

it thousands of oxen, still its edge is as sharp as if it has been just

sharpened. There are always hollow spaees between the joints, and the
'Edge of the Axe has no Thickness'. There is always space enough for
inserting that which 'Has no Thickness.'
srve here Forke's explanation
.,THAT WHICH HAS NO DIMENSIONS CANNOT BE HEAPED
UP, AND YET IT SPANS A THOUSAND LI." It means that if there is
Bpace, tl1e1e are distances of a thousand Li. The matter filling up these
thousand Li is eomposed of atoms, but these unsubstancial atoms heaped

o.iu,orut*tl# .'i}".i["",H#r:If""fr.'o

up or put together will never measure a thousand Li. One may combine
ever so many millions of mathematical points, they never give more
than one mathematical point. Out of the multiplication- of nondimensions there can never result a dimension."

Srd Theme: "BOTH HEAVEN AND EARTH ARE LOW.

MOUNTAINS ARE AS LEVBL AS LAKES."
& fiu
sE ]+ +o

s. t[

Notc: The Chinese commentatorts remark is: "Onee the universe was ereated
the heaven must have been as level as the ground.,,
Aeeording to Chuang-tzu : "The Smallest is within the limits of
the largest." Therefore, we eannot regard it as small and how do
we know that the universe is within thi limits of the largest ? This
Frings us to the eonclusion that 'Height' and 'Depth' are onty existing
in
our imagination.
I found Aristotle had about the same reasoning: "A man might
indeed srgge that 'Much' is the eontrary of 'Little'r-and 'Great' is [tre
eontrary of 'Small'. However, this is all not quantitative but relative.
Things are not great and small absolutely, thei are so called rather ag
the result of an aet of comparision. F'6r instance: A mountain is
called'Small', and a grain'Large', in virtue of the fact that this mountain is snraller than all the others. Thus there is ouly a reference to
an external stsndsrd."

_
- 12

THE PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS

4th Theme: "THE SIIN AT NooN IS DECLINING. THE

CREATURE JUST BORN IS DYING."

Bfr +fr

Noto:

HRc

Once the sun has reaehed

onrv#;i,ril:',
*+h#*#dieH[flo

VIfr &fry8.

its zenith, he is setting down. A creature is

"All things which flourish will again return to their root.',

Sth ThCMC: "GREAT SIMILARITY DIFFERS FROM

SMALLSIMILARITY, AND IS CALLED THE LITTLE
SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE. ALL THINGS ARE
SIMILAR AND DIFFERENT, AND THIS IS CALLED
THE GREAT SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE."
tiil nf R rJ. IFjl Eo rk
tH rl. FJ &o

t
Z
HMl+*5EIE]oItrzHHAM&o

Notc: The

Chinese commentator sayE:

He E fr+h $ m l3fl fr,b FHz -t FI Jgo

"Jugt as in the case of cold and heat, day and night, all things are in
one way similar and in the other different. So we speak of ,The Great
rn*

Sirnilarity and Differenee'. This will also give

explanaiiol

to

"n
the third theme, that Heaven and Earth are low. Mountains
are as level
as lakes."
Chuang-tzu refers also to it in his fif th chapter, entitled, .proof of

Perfect Virtue' (te ch'ung lu 6 f fiI ) :

"Looking at them as to their difference, then the states of Ch,u and
Yueh are not farther from each other than liver from gall. Looking ag
them as to their similarity, then all the thing3 are one.,,

6th Theme: "THE SOUTH IS WITHOUT A LIMIT AND

HAS A LIMIT."

Hfiffiffi

Notc: When speaking of South, it

ffi 6 #

has a

North, East and lVest.

Chuang-tzu refers to it in his

limit within the other three direetions

VII chapter, entitled, 'Autumn Floods:

E'ufr.frlfrf fi,nf Hgo *HtJb" X?$Ell+"

iH A6ff " ffi nftuE o fAIq t H.,r&t,iE"

"Moreover, he ( Chuang-tzu ) could deseent to the Yellow Springs

(Valley of death) and ascend to the great Emperor (Realm of Heaven).

He knew neither South nor North. - The four directions disappeared,
he comprehended the fathomless. He knew neither East nor lV'est, He

started with chaog and reverted to the Tto.,,

48

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU

7th Theme: "I GO TO-DAY TO THE STATB OF YUEH

AND ARRIVED THERE YESTERDAY."

+r

iffi

rn

x.

Notc: The Chinese commentator said:

"Onee I had decided to go to Yueh, in my thoughts I arrived there long
ago." Chuang-tzu said, that periods are not final.

8th Theme: "CONNECTED RINGS CAN BE SEPARAT-

ED."iEEE-Iffi&,.

Note: The

Chinese commentator mentions to this theme:

"Rings are eonneeted with another, however, there is always some empty
spaee between them where tlr.y are uneonneeted. Betwlen two ring's

ffi:

i:":il,'T,ll='l,?-:,,#'*J",;'filf:l]".[,"t: Il:H,ffi:l'

ring

ean

gth Theme: "I KNOW THE CENTRE OF THE WORLD

IS NORTH OF YEN AND SOUTH OF YUEH."
+lt *n
T + o *t Z"ilbo ro
tr {ll o

Zffi

Notc: Yen was a state in the North, about the present day Chili, near Peking.
Yueh eorresponds about to the present day Fukien.
tion LHt*iffii"

*,rsf;l?i;1"ffi'"'l?j"::

onrv depends on the direc-

Chuang-tzu s&ys, that extensions have no

tinues in his ehapter AUTUMN FLOODS:
El E wL&.xfr,LP{l
" ,t<MEE

Br

+ bN2-eiEft o 7{iM#X

2&.ti+

2&.tB *t

limits. Then he (:on-

*r

"Could we not regard the four Seas within the universe as mere puddles
in a march? Could we not regard China in eomparition with the four
surrounding Seas as one tare-seed within a granaiy?,,
The two charaeters ( X-F t'ien hsia) , lit: "Below the Heaven"
refer to China, or the country under the Heaven. Therefore, the centre
of the world eould necessarily only be located within China.'

10th Theme: "LOVE ALL THINGS BeUALLY, FOIr

THE UNIVERSE IS ONE AND THB SAME."

EXHff1 oXfi[<ffi{U

Note: The Chinese eommentator says :

"The universe is not large. I am not small.,,
This refers to: "The universe was ereated together with rr, and
with me all things are one." Another reference riyr that TAO is imPgtial to all creatures: Turlg Kuo Tzu ( fi'ii[a
asked Chuang-tzu:
1s 1- |'"Thure
"'W'here is then the TAO ?"- Chuang-tzu
is nowh.re
i
where it is tlot." "specify an instance of it."-r'It is in the ant. It
is in the grass."-r{How eould it be lower still ?"-"1t is in the tiles. tt
is even in the exerement." Now Tung Kuo Tzu stopped asking.
44

THE PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS

"To love all things equally", this theory was also propounded in I\[o
Tzu's chapter of 'Universal Love, ( * q chien ai) .
Another reference we find in Mencius about love and the universe.
It is one of the best themes in Mencius' writings and goes as follows:
E So I:tN. L
fl1 0 ax. L2fi1 0 x -F EIffi m H
"R,espect the elders in your family, so that the elders in the farnilies
of others shall be sjmilarly treated. Show kindness to the young
in your family, so that the young in the families of others stratt b;
treated similarly. If you act acebrdingly, the whole world will turn

2fto fia

on your palm."

chuang-tzu said at the close of these ten paradoxes:

.#ffi uw, E

,$xTm',E Htt XT

Zffi# rnE* /o

"With these
^sIdiscussions Hui Shih made a great show. IIe taught his
themes to other debaters who admired hirn much." Thus thiv put
up the following 2l paradoxes:

3. THE 21 PARADOX^ES OF THB DIALECTICIANS;

Introduction: These 2L paradoxes can be also found in
Chuang-tzu's xxxlll chapter, 'In the Empire'. They
are partly based upon the themes of Kung-sun Lungtztr
ancl Hui Shih.

lst Theme: "THE

EGG HAS FEATHERS." gF

A ft

Note: The Chinese commentators says: qF * + fl .B {Ef H ,il

" (
"It is not the -egg -which has f eathers but the ( little ) bird
still
the egg) has them."
This is a sirnple enough explanation.

inside

2nd Theme: "A FowL HAS THREE LEGS." X# .= ,E

Note: The Chinese cornmentator
$ m EFftUfr nr rF

sayst

srE, fr.fr Hr.E &I[ fi rs H+srEmtr

rfu

""TS#*or*o
rnoving

rF.frtl

legs for watking but it still cannot use them for

about. The walking is done by the legs, whilst the motion
is brought ab-out by the mind. Now,- althoufih' the fowl has two
l.gt, it must have also the mind which makeJ them walk. Therefore we say that a fowl has three legs.,t
What the commentator wanted to say is, that he differentiates the two
legs which the fowl actually has frbm the 'Leg' only existing in an
abstract sense in the mind. 'Led not can only rlfer to the twJ legs of
the f owl, but also to .your l"g* and mine. !! -rv refer to the f our- legs
of a table, the three legs
of a tripod, etc. The ttrira leg is unvisible arid
we.-p_ictyre it
in our mind. It is thus quite separite from the two
visible. l"g" of-only
the fowl. 'Leg' may exist ii two d'ifferent expressions.
First .in the general abstract slnse and in the particular .on.r"t. sense,
as_pointed out in Kung-sun Lung's Znd chapter. 'A White Horse is no[

a Horse.'

45

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZ,V

3rd Theme: "FIRE IS NOT HOT,"

Notc: Fire in itself
as hot.

does

,l T ffi o

not feel hot, yet we, in touching it, will pereeive it

4th Theme: "YING(l)

woRLD." SF A

CONTAINS

X To

THE

WHOLE

Notc ( 1) Ying

was the capital of the Ch'u State, This could be explained

with the 9th Theme of Hui Shih's 10 paradoxes.

Sth.Theme: "A DOG CAN BE TAKEN FOR A RAM."

t EI A ffi +o

Notc: The Cinese commentator gives here a rather strange exptanation.

Bays:

{+2EH

LFft

fa# fr,e

7\tr+ru+f

He

"The desigrnations for 'Dogi' and 'Ram' are all men-made, and we do not
know if before a dog was not taken for a ram."
Another explanation is possible that both animals belong to the
elass of "Domestic Animals," and this latter designation would then hold
good for the dog as well as for the ram.

6th Theme: "THE HORSE HAS EGGS."

ffi

fi

ryflo

Note: The Chinese eommentary goes as follows:

ffi qng {L A rit frfru}/ ffi m t * ffi ,ri F] F fn w.fi srifir fr aeF o
"In the pregnant womb the egg develops to a man. Our emotion are
then differentiated by our moral point of view. The beginning of the
proeess is not the same. The bird's egg develops into a hairy animal
but the state of pregnaney resembles an egg."

7th Theme: "A NAIL HAS A

TAIL." T + A fto

Note: Giles, in his 'Chinese English Dictionary', explains the 'Nail' ( T 1' )
charaeter with 'Tadpole'. So the theme eould be ehanged into
..A TADPOLE HAS A TAIL."
There must be definitely some printing errors in the text of the
Chinese eommentator, which I am unable to make out. It runs somewhat like this: "The Ch'u People called the COMMON TOAD a TINGTZU ( T f' ), and this animal had no tail." According to their knowledge the tail has not yet taken any definite shape. But before the tadpole w&s born it had no legs yet a tail and afterwards, when the legs
were developed, the tail disappeared.
Perhaps some learned zoologist may give his commentary to it. I,
myself am unable to do it. In the HISTORY OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY it is said: "A frog not itself has a tail, so that to say 'the
frog has a tail' means that it may become 'a creature having a tail."Perhaps in its next inearnation ?
46

TEE PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS

8th Theme: "MOUNTAINS BRING

tLt

tro

our

NtouTHS."

Note: The Chinese commentary: & A ff So

"The empty valley transmits sounds." The eommentator refers here
to the echo.

gth ThCMC: .'WHEBLS DO NOT PRESS THE GROUND.''

*ft 4 [E

fiUo

Note: The Chinese commentary: {ft lS 6 H E q[ [|J {!, I,l H

"
"As long as the turning of the wheels does not stop, how could they
nlove

if

thel' are pressed on the ground?,,

10th Theme: "EYES DO NOT

SEE.,,

H T n

Note: Ilyes do not see. It is our sense of sight which makes them see. The
sanre is rvith the two legs of the fowl which cannot walk unless the
nrind makes them moye.

Ilth Theme:

..DESIGNATION

I{EVBR REACHES ANY-

TIIING. THINGS NEVtrR COMB TO AN

tno

fr

5,-c 5,

Noter The Chinese cornmentary goesI ltFff

ht+ ?WUi,{ffHt Lq ;.4n

END.''

frfio

ffil\6fltF,1tnfH,1l

{TE+

!!insl- are designated_ th"y are left behind. So we say, that

'DESIGNATIoN
NEvER REAbHES' ANyTHING'.
a.-ignated
thing is erroneous, as it is only given by the speech of A
men." As to
the second part of the Theme,- *" shouid r"}"i to [he- explanation
of
KolF:=_qL . Lung's third Theme: 'THINGS NLIVER COME TO

"Once-

NAUGHT.'

12th Theme:

"A

SNAKE."

TORTOISE

IS

fi E /A At o

LONGER THAN A

Note: The Chinese commentary goes : R*E fA Yt M F ,F ffi Fl'l fL F flE tU t\ +rt 2
rliltli $ i,Y. itft i8r*\ frt
R hrr. fi
H t m[,tR Z*rtu # ul mr,.H ;
=ftB
"Neither long nor short
refers to =cp
length or shortness. It is a mere
deception of our mind to call the torioise short and the snake long.
Now let us abandon this delusion and better say, that the toiroise Is
longer than the snake, because we nray just as w"ll maintain that there
is nothing_lalser than the tip of an Autumn hair and nothing smaller
than the T'ai Mountain.,,
This is the same reasoning &s that whieh I ref errecl to above in
quoting Aristotle, where he siia: i'Nothing could ever be taken as
quantitative but only as relative." We may also say that in a small
house are living mariy people and in a large hotel oniy fen,.

.47

THE IVORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZIJ

13th Theme; "SQUARES ARB NOT SQUARE. COMPASSES CANNOT MARK CIRCLES.''

fE4-fro *nfrEIAffiHo

Note: The Chinese eommentary g:oes:

X'F H H fr )F E[M. X f EI T'H E[ ffi,"
'F
of a square. If the world
"If the world is square, it is not so beeause
is round, it is not so because of a eircle."

14th Theme:

"A CHISEL DOES NOT SURROUND ITS

HANDLE."
Note: The

H 4 EI ffio

Chinese commentary goes:

&11{Ufi8#'n

TL

tr Z'*" ffi Et

^Lwt#*ffiEfl2"

"The chisel goes through a hole. But inside the hollow handle is wood."
So, what the eommentator really wanted to say is, that only the wood
inside the hole surrounds the ehisel and not the handle itself.

l5th Theme: "THE SHADOW OF A BIRD DOBS NOT

MOVE." fr,H Z

ftfrH$,[o

Note: The Chinese eommentary goes:

.H ffi b tl.G ilt
frr* ffi ffi g4 t= w,Ftfi tt, "
=?
flies at dusk its shadow does not move." Or:
a
bird
"supposing
Aecording to Mo-Tzu: "The shadow eannot walk."
Ihis Theme is almost the same as the 4th Theme of Kung-sun Lung:
'THE SHADOW DOES NOT MOVE', and here the same explanation
holds good.

16th Theme: "THE SWIFTLY FLYING ARROW IS AT

TIMES NEITHER IN MOTION NOR AT REST."

ffiRZfiom#441 4ItZffio

Note: The

Chinese comrnentary goes:

rfr

# ft.28 "
A E 21b. " sEl, ffixH'E H
on man. So we may
in
its
motion
rest
arrorv
or
depentls
entirely
"The
say that the arrow is at times neither in motion nor at rest."
Another explanation by Ssu-ma Piao ( E, tr ru ) : "Whilst the
arrow's forrn is at rest, it tends only towards moving, Onee the form
is visible, it moves slowly. Once its tendency is visible, it is moving

wxfi:h

swiftly. "

-48

TTIE PARADOXES OF THE DIALECTICIANS

lTth Theme: "A DOG IS NOT A HOIJND." tfi )F

Noter The Chinese e ommentary soes: ,AtlAE

litil o f,ft#n[frffi;Hlh]*ntt, " EEfE

ft

Rfi t {tE6nu&I/ffififbJ[tEftin
, ff-rhlrFtu '

: trAttE,

"Dog is now designated with the right name then with the wrong name.
\\rhen the name is in agreement with its actuality, then it is sometimes
dcsignat ecl as 'Dog' and sometimes as 'Hound'. We find here the difference between names and their act,ual significance. Onee it is called
'Dog', the designation 'Hound' is different. Mo-tzu said: A dog is
also a tround, but aetually it is not a hound."

18th Theme:

"A YELLOWISH HORSB AND A BLACK

ox MAKE THREE." H ,ffi $E + = o

Note: The Chinese eommentary goes: - A R frE fr i 6

"TWO colours together rvith their bodily FORM make THREE."
A further explanation is found in Kung-sun Lung's 4th chapter
'Discourse on Conelusions drawn from Changes' ( iE t fft t'ung Ttien
lu,n)

19th Theme:

"A WHITE DoG IS BLACK." E

lfrt

ffi

Note: The Chinese commentary goes:

go ,HZA 2 4i H ts*go
HH
^Fft
designations
of the colours black and white are men-made. Who
"The
could ever maintain that white cannot be taken for black also ?"
Ssu-ma Piao said: "If a white dog has black eyes, it may be also
taken for a black dog."

20th Theme:

"AN ORPHAN COLT NEVER HAD A

MOTHER."

m ,$fi * B H {}o

Note: The Chinese eonlmentary goes:

EIJ S f ff}H.M [U ffi Bil ffi ilNU ff} & *-u, O ffi il EtJ * E Hft}
"When the eolt was born it had a mother. Onee we speak about it as an
orphan it has no mother. If we wish to eall it an orphan the word
mother disappears. Thus we may say: "An orphan colt never
had a mother." "
It has the same meaning as the ?th theme of Kung-sun Lung-tzu
which soes: 'AN ORPHAN CALF NEVER HAD A MOTHER', and the
O

same explanations could be applied here.

49

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

zlth Theme: "IF

A ONE FOOT LONG ROD WE

WOULD CUT EVERY DAY ONB HALF, THERB
FROM

WILL STILL BE SOMETHING LEFT EVEN AFTER

TEN THOUSAND GENERATIONS"

)l(ZffioBInH+oHtr4ffio

Note: The

Chinese eommentary goes:

tr&fl o H* dr +frfltlffi ffifi *r Elfi'rt *ffi {f. o fit n : H E 6 ifi "

"The charaeter fr nteans; 'a rod'. Onee you break this rod yon hur-e
two. At whateve r time you stop breaking it, you will still harre one
portion left and ^you -yill_ _always p.reserve its entity. Thus we may

""''"iX,1',,ffi1:[';'.i,3:or'n'"r":ffi1,if ,Htl'l-ir"1ili.11il:rert'"

l.

The Fiue PARADOXES AS FOUND

/N I/SU^|tr-TZU:

lst Theme: "MOUNTAINS AND PooLS ARE AS LtrVEL

AS HEAVEN AND EARTH." il #H + x ff o

Note: It is the

same as the third theme of the Dialectieians: "BOTH HEAVtrN

AND EARTH ARE LOW. MOUNTAINS ARE AS LEVEL AS LAKES."

2nd Theme:

..CH'I AND CH'II{ ARE COTERMINOUS.''

Ib H *o

Note: The explanation ean be found in the ?th theme of IIui Shih: "THE
SOUTH IS WITHOUT A LIMIT AND HAS A LIMIT."
CH'I was the name of an aneient feudal state. It eomprised large
portions of nrodern Chili.
cH'IN-This state was founded by Fei rzu ( ,F
T- ) 89? B.c.
-i<ansu,
until zzl
lnq gtadually extended over the whole 6f Shensi and
B. C. when the Chou dynasty was overthrown and the feudal system
finally eame to an end. The Ch'in state beeame later the -Ch'in
Dynasty, (255-209 B.C. ) under 'Shih-huang-ti' or 'The First Emperor'
who united China.

3rd Theme: THAT WHICH BNTERS BY THE BAR

ISSUED FROM THE MOUTH."

IS

gE +4,U+Eo

Note: our mouth can only repeat that which we hear.

4th Theme: "A HOOK HAS A BARB."

itl fr ,H o

Note: The Chinese eommentator says, that ( #,

which means 'Ilook'

-kou

should be taken for (tfr -ch.'ue) which means 'Married woman'. Thus
the whole meaning would be ehanged to 'A MARRIED WOMAN HAS
A BEARD'-.
To explain this latter theme we have to refer to the sth
Theme of - the paridoxes of the Dialeeticians: - (A DOG CAN BE
FOR
A RAM.'
TAKEN
60

THB PARADOXES OF T}IE DIALECTICIANS

sth Theme: "THE EGG HAS FBATHERS."

Note: Refers to the first
FEATHERS.'

Theme

9F

H{o

of the 2l paradoxes: 'THE EGG HAS

5.

I'ARADOXTS AS trOUND IN LAO TZU:

lst Theme: "TAO IS II{VARIABLY WITHOIJT ACTION,
STILL THBRE IS NOTHING THAT IT CANNOT DO."

jHHffiffifrf#Z^ffio

Note: This refers to the 'Non Interference, or ,* Ft ,utu

2nd Theme: "A SHAPE HAVING

THING HAVING NO FORM."

wei.,

NO SHAPE:

ffifltZfltffimZfro

Note. Refers to the TAO.

3rd Theme: "THE TWI,STED SHALL BE WHOLE. THE

CROOKED STRAIGHT. THE EMPTY FILLED.
THE WORN OT]T }IEW. ONE HAVING LITTLE
WILL OBTAIN. ONE HAVING PLENTY WILL BE
IN DOIJBT."
ffiflrl
ffiHrlHo HHtlRffiHrl o ffiDlp.*Hrlffio
4th Theme: "THE HIGH IS LOWERED. THE LOW IS
BROIJGHT IJP. FROM THOSE HAVING ABUN.
DANCE IT WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. THOSE WHO
HAVE LITTLB WILL BE RESPLENISHED."

+o

H#t\tZ" T#&Zo A*#+HZo /fifffiffi/

Sth Theme: "THE WEAKEST II{ THE WORLD WILL

OVERCOME THE STRONGEST."

XTZEfroSUESXTZfo

6th Theme: "IF oNE WANTS To REDUCE soMETHING THERE WILL BE PROFIT. IF ONE WANTS
TO PROFIT FROM SOMETHING THERE WILL BE
LosS." $t gE+H
E[
+Ao

Z ff ffio

-61 -

ffiZff

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZV

7th Theme: "WHAT IS EXPECTED TO SHRINK, MIIST

FIRST BE STRETCHED. WHAT IS EXPBCTED TO

WEAKEN, MUST FIRST BE STRENGTHENED.

WHAT IS BXPECTED TO BE DESTROYED, MUST
FIRST BE BUILT UP. WHAT IS EXPECTED TO
BE CAST OFF, MIJST FIRST BE GIVEN TO."

ffi'ffi.fikZ" {'m fRZo lfi'il.WL" {. E l&Zo

ffiCXWZ" 11['EI s-/^" ffi'ffi.*/" {'tfl&2"

8th Theme: "THE SAGE PUTS ALWAYS HIMSELF IN

THE BACKGROUND, AND YET HE ALWAYS
COMES TO THE FRONT. \ryHEN HE IS OIITSIDE,
HE IS THERB."
fE U gB A 1* H 4 nfr 4 lEo rl S +nfr q fr- o
gth Theme: "HB DOES NOT SHOW HIMSELF, AND HE

ISDISTINCT."

H n ffi

BBo

10th Theme: "HE DOES NOT FIGHT, AND THEREFORE NOBODY IN THE WORLD CAN FIGHT WITH

HrM."

ftffi4 St[XTHHE4ZSo

llth

Theme: "THE NOBLE TAKES THE INFERIOR AS

ITS ROOT. WHAT IS HIGH TAKES LOWLINESS
AS ITS FOIJNDATION."

HUffiffifioHATffiSo

12th Theme: "ONE WHO WISHES TO PLACE HIMSELF ABOVE THE PEOPIfi, MUST SPEAK AS IF
HE WERE BELOW THEM. ONE WHO WISHES
TO BE IN THE FROMT OF THE PEOPLE, MIJST
PLACE HIMSELF BEHIND THEM."

ftAffi.}fto 'Y,UETZo ffifrRo ,y,,A$&Zo

13th Theme: "IF WE TAKE ILLNESS

THERE WILL BE NO ILLNESS."

ftffiffiffio8D4ffio
_ 62 _

AS

ILLNESS,

THtr PARADOXES OF TIIB DIALECTICIANS

14th Theme: "THE WAY TO LIGHT LOOKS AS IT IS

DARK. THE WAY TO ADVANCENTENT LOOKS
AS IF'IT IS GOING BACI{. THAT WHICH IS OF
THE PUREST WHITE LOOKS LIKE A DISGRACE.
THE I\{OST EXTENSIVB VIRTIJE LOOKS LIKE
INADEQI]ATE."
(ffi iE -,tr IjII )

ffiiEHffio EiE # i$o

/tE#SoHffi # 4 ,.?o

tsth Theme: "'WHAT HAS ABUNDANCE LOOKS AS

IF IT WERE EMPTY, AND YET ITS USE IS INEXHAUSTIBLE. WHAT HAS THE GREATEST
SKILL LOOKS AS IF IT WERE CLTJMSY. TH},
GREATEST BLOQUBNCE SOUNDS

LIKE STIJT-

TERING."

;tE#lFo SmFfieo Xr5#Ifro XW#;ho

16th Theme: "WITH MORE LAWS AND PROMULGATIONS ROBBERS AND THIEVES WILL INCREASE."

E+ififfoffiffi*Ho

lTth Theme: "BANISH WISDOM AND DISCARD

KNOWLEDGE, AND THE PEOPLE WILL GET A
HUNDREDFOLD ADVANTAGE. BANISH BENEVOLENCE DISCARD RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND THE
PEOPLB WILL AGAIN KNOW FILIAL PIETY.
BANISH SKILL DISCARD PROFIT, AND THERE
WILL BE NEITHER THIEVES NOR ROBBERS."

*859*EoEtr[tr'ffioffitr*ffio
8ffi"+ ffio f;E{ *flo ffiffi#Ho

18th Theme: "IN OLDEN TIMES THOSE WHO PRACTISED THE TAO NBVER TRIED TO ENLIGHTEI{
THE PEOPLE, BUT RATHER KEPT THEM
IGNORANT.
ffi iE #o )F Fn tr o ffi ffi. Zo

fr Z #

Notc: A great number of paradoxes could be found in the Taoist literature.

So far I have given here 60 paradoxes from different philosophical
schools and will now elose this chapter.
53

CHAPTER VI

OF THE PROLEGOMENA
MO TZU AND DIALECTICS

The founder of the Mohist School ( #ts X), Mo Tzu

lived 4?8-881 Hc. we know
aetually very little about his life. Meng Tzu opposed him
and Han Fei-tzu ( $* )F + ) callecl him a Confucianist.
His diciples were ealled 'Mohists' ( SE A mo chia) or 'NIo

(B +) or Mo Ti (& &)

che'

(B #).

After his death his disciples split into three groups, each
teaeher, such as Hsiang Li
g
), Hsiang Fu (tH * ), and Teng Ling-tzu ( HII W+ ).
(tH
They could never agree as how to understand the tef,chings
of their master. Chuang Tzu mentioned nothing aboui

of which was headed by a

Hsiang Fu.
Mo Tzu's rvritings comprise 7L chapters aceording to
the l-wen Chih (S A tr ) of the Han Shu (Hg). His
principal themes are:
1. "Universal Love' ( * E chien a,i).
2. 'No aggressive Wars' ( )Fyk f ei kung).
3. 'Economy of Use' or Frugality ( ffi H cltieh, yung\.
4. 'Fmgality in Funerals' ffi* chielr, tsang).
5. 'The Will of Heaven' (X ffi t'ien clr,ilr,).
6. 'Belief in the Manes' ( BE ,R ming kuei).
7. 'Destmctive Pleasures' ()F H f ei lo).
8. 'Against Fatalism' ( rF,ot' f ei ming).
9. 'Against confucianism' ()F ffi lei iu) .
10. 'The first Part of the Canon' ( tr
-L ch,ing slrung).
11. 'The second Part of the Canon' ( f$ T ching hsia).
64

TIO TZU AND DIALECTICS

L2. 'The Major Illustrations, ( t qf fu ch,,u).

13. 'The minor Illustrations' (zJ. Hl lr,siao ch'u).
The 14th and 15th chapters deal only rvith methocls of defense in warfare.
Only the two canons rvith its illustrations deal with
dialecties. We can perhaps trace rvith Mo Ti the beginning
of the School of Dialecticians or ming chia ( * *il. Mo
Ti wished himself to train in the art of debate,To
as to influence the rulers to adopt a more peaceful policy. He said
that the aim of a debate is to arrive at objective reaiity,
which is often obscured by expressions, comparisions, and
doubts. Once a name is correctly designated it should
never be changed afterwards. That which corresponds
with nature can be applied as being correct for all things
created. That which is in opposition to nature is incoryect
and erroneous. The method of distinguishing between right
ancl wrong is by analysis following the comparision of the
F'ive Elements (see page 7L-72). That which is supported by
analysis is the basic truth. That rvhich is in opposition to
it is wrong. Analysis is made clear by the power of reasorling and ends with evidence. There is still another method
by synthesis which groups together facts.and closes with a
conclusion. So we may have four possibilities in discovering the truth, and they are:

1. To analyse
3. To re-unite

2.
4.

To formulate
To prove.

Something might be tme yet impracticable and therefore it cannot be applied. This gives two possibilites: One
advantageous and the other disadvantageous. It shows,
however, that the practical conclusion does not always agree
with logic. Now I shall give the most important parts of the
Mohist Canons dealing with dialectics as explained by
Liang Ch'i-ch'ao (*tsftI) in his work 'A Study of Mo
Tzu' ( gB + !p* mo-tzu hbueh-an):
-bb

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZIJ

The Mohist Canon is the most difficult part of the ancient

Chinese literature. It contains alltogether si:< chaptel's:

1. The first Part of the Canon ( tS L chin g sh,arLg)

2. Ihe second Part of the Canon ( fS T ching hsia).
3. The Explanations to the first Canon ( tS ffi I cltin g
.

shuo shang).

4. The Explanations to the seeond canon ( fS ffi T

ching sltuo hsia).

5. The major Illustrations ( ;( ry fu ch,'u).
6. The minor Illustrations ( zJ.', B hsiao ch'u,).
The commentary was written by Lu Sheng ( B W ) who was
living during the Chin Dynasty ( H 265-419 B.C.) ; it refers
to the first four chapters and was called "A COMMENTARY
ON THE MOHIST'S DIALECTICS" ( # ffi lf ft mo-pien
chu-hsu).

All six chapters are different. The first as well as the

second part of the eanon was undoubtedly written by Mo
Tzu, but probably enlat'ged by later writers. Chuang Tzu
mentioned in his 33rd chapter, entitled, 'In the Bmpire
( X T t'ien hsia) : "The Mohists all reeited the Mohist
Canon."

It may safely be presumed that the explanations to the

canon were given by Mo Tzu himself but were enlarged by
The Later Mohists ( & * B fi h,ou lai mo-cltia).
The two chapters, entitld, Major Illustrations ancl
Minor Illustrations were certainly written by the Later
Mohists. They discussed the different forms of the Mohist
doctrine with special reference to the themes of Kung-surl

Lung and Hui Tzu.

The Major lllustrations form the most difficult part,
because they contain too many errors, whilst the Minor'
Illustration are somewhat more intelligible. They are at
Ieast complete and gtve clear explanations:

-66

NTO

'TZU AND DIALECTICS

rHE cANoN SAYS: Ei ifl B -t[ o

"Speech ( E ) is tire uttering of Appelations

(&)."

THE EXPLANATION OF THE CANON SAYS:

E,rlt#EffizH*#-ruo

"Speech is that u'hich the Mouth utters and which

designates a Name."

*rg

H fr,fr,o

"A Name is that which illustrates the Word T'iger."

= iH {Uo
"Speech is also that with which we call a Thing.,,
EH #*&o
FI

"Speech is that from rvhich a Name comes forth."

In uttering an 'Appelation' /& ) we wish to

remove

any cloubts as to the actual meaning..

But, horv can we utter an appelation

?-With

our mouth.

A CONCEPT ( ffi A kai n,ien) is only an empty, indistinct

idea, just as we imagine in our mind the pieture of a

'Tiger'. Our mind, of course imagines the whole picture of a tiger. But, how do we form the picture of a
tiger independantly and without any interference with
other undistinct impressions ? How can we make our
mind comprehend this picture ?-The first important
step is that we can make our mouth utter the rvord
'Tiger', thus fixing the sound with which we utter it.
This utteranee expresses our 'Concept'. Therefore
the texts reads: "speech is that with which we call a
thing. Speech is that from which a 'Name' comes
forth." Once we fix the name we know, how to call a
thing by its real meaning. Without a name we have
no way to call it.
6T

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN

LUNG-TZ,U

APROPOSITION (ffi tz'u).-The meanirg of the rvord

'Proposition' has not been exactly explained in the
Mohist Canon. Its meaning is a mere guess. Proposition consists of two meanings: 1. We call it a 'Term,'
3nfl-1. We call it a'Proposition'.

A STATEMENT (ffi
THE CANON SAYS:

ffi rn u

shou):

,[o

EE
"A Statement is that with which we prove that we
understand something."
This part of the canon is very difficult to understand.
We find here no extensive explanations. However, the
second paft of the canon shows what is really meant by
'Statement' :

ffi,f fro

"A Statement is that with which we ean prove a

Cause ( tt )."
ACAUSE (ffiku):
THE CANON SAYS:

ffiffifi*Afr&ffi" &o
"A Cause is that with which we obtain and accomplish something."
THE EXPLANATION OF THE CANON SAYS:

ffio zJ.fio HZ4{'*eo MZy}Tf&o

"A Cause:-A Minor Cause ( zJ. tr hsiao ku)With it not necessarily it must be so. Without it, necessarily it must not be so."

ffio7\ffioHZ,Y)f,go
"A Cause:-A Major Cause (7( ffi ta lcu)-With

it, a thing must be neeessarily

68

so."

MO TZU AND DIALECTICS

As for Example

# ):

n,zffin&o

"Seeing is that which is aceomplished by Sight.,,

ffio {f, ffi Z &o

"Cause is that rvhich produces Action.,,

As for Example: With additional heat we boil water ancl

produce steam. 'With additional cold we freeze water
and produce ice. Steam is the cause of heat. Ice is
the cause of cold. Therefore we say: "A Cause is
that with which we obtain and accomplish something."

THE EXPLANATION CONTINUES:

"The Principal Cause we may call 'The Major
Cause', and the Subordinate Cause we may call ,The
Minor Cause'."
As for Example: The eyes are the organs of sight. The
eyes must have objects to look at. They must have
objects illuminated by light. They must have a clear
Iine of vision to view things independantly. They must
have the mental power to distinguish a thing distinctly.
So we have five causes. If we have only one of these
five causes, we are unable to see. Therefore it is said:
"With it, not necessarily it must be so."
If we have all five causes complete we have 'A
Major Cause', and with this we are able to see. Therefore if is said : "With it, it must be necessarily so."
THE MINOR ILLUSTRATIONS SAY:

U ffi H tro
"With a Statement we bring about a Cause."
We have thus three terms:

1. Concept (ffift kainien).

2. Judgment ( f|| ffi p'an tuan).
3. Inference ( ffi fft t'ui lun).
59

THE WORKS Or. KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

THE FIRST PART OF THE CANON SAYS:

ws&,&o
"A Debate
Opponent."
WW tr,O

is the competitive Struggle with an

(
\

"The One who wins, brings about an Agreement

EEI

tang).,,

THE EXPLANATION OF THE FIRST PART OF THE

CANON SAYS:
" (Here is) A Debate (pien W) , (one says) An
Ox cannot be called an Ox. ( g[EH Z+EliH Z)1,+ )

*lJ, ?'ix'e'H

u,rhT';=,f
in

o?lJ*,
disagreement ( 6

example

(#

).

fl

Eff
I.

ff,P,,L

H ), they take a 'Hound' for

an

THE SECOND PART OF THE CANON SAYS:

HHy *EW, Y)4 Ho

''In a Debate without a Winner, Disagt'eement

must follow."

THE EXPLANATION OF THE SECOND PART OF THE

CANON SAYS:

t*: ffr HH )F m -U HtI tr &o

'That which we call not similar is different."

Hrl
lFjl
S.fiEH
similar ( IA t'ung) we may sey, a Hound is a
Dog.,:'rt
E r, Hrl iH
Z,ffi tlto
'lf clifferent ( E i) it could be an Ox or a Horse."
.60

*tH Zrfr

fi

Z^&o

Z +, S *;H

MO TZU AND DIALECTICS

Both competitors cannot win (

This is
ffi W
equal to having no debate (
In
debate
a
,E T ffi'other
fi-.i'."'
ancl ttrii
( *;f 'U ), one aflirms ( E
clenies ( )F ).
An agl'eement must be -brought about by the lvilner.
(
).

fl

).

H#w&

These trvo considerations make

intelligible.

the general outline

THE EXPLANATIONS CONTINUE:

Itt/F., tr)F go

mrfr,o

''This ox is equally not an ox. Therefore it refers

to trvo different Appelations.,,
Therefore in a debate, both partners must arrive at an

agreement.

For example:

ffi|

fr!+tilil: FE$o {trffi: L)Fgo

'I say that it is an

Ox. You say that it is not an

Then arises the Question of a Debate."
The reason is that both debaters have different opinions,
u'hich are like this: One upholds the 'Affirmative' and
the other the 'Negative' point of view. I maintain that

ox.

'It is an Ox', you maintain that '[t is not an Ox'.

'We

at'e both at'guing about our different opinions and this is the
l'eason for our debate. In our debate we cannot both be

right. That is: 'I am not right and 'you' are not right'.

If, as in our former debate, the animal be really a houncl,

then 'You' are naturally the winner. But, here you are still
contradicting my opinion. Therefore this point must be
clearly understood : 'In a Debate one Partner must win.
Thus he is considered suceessful'. fn the ease that
among both opponents are neither a winner nor a loser, it
would be equal to having had no debate. However, could
we arrive at the same eonclusion, if an agreement in our
debate was reached ? Now, we can understand rvhat is
meant by:
-61

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZV

W# Ho H#ffio

"The Winner brings about the Agreement. The

One

who agrees brings about the VictorT."

Mo Tzu's theory was later contradicted by Chuang Tzu
who said:

ffi t[

#, H 4 n &o

"In a Debate One Partner never sees the Point of the

Other."
Chuang Tzu refers in his 2nd chapter ( H +h ffi ch'i
wu lun) to the same subject in a very interesting eontroversy
which is as follows:

Ff{t+Jifl#ffi* o #W#,o +JIT#Wo #REU o *rF

R{Uflt ? +\w# o ffTBff#" +JtRE&,o imR)Fltotlr?

flsIE& o SEI)F&L o fftt ? S@)F&tl\?

+JtH#FHEf;n

H|I^rflEs$[ffi o E"=ft{f,]E Z? {flrflT-##iE /o

gfr,N#mft o #HE tr-Z? {f,ffi+#*rtZ o f-{8 1."1+si4

-tll 0

o fffrAfr-L?

rtz?

{f,ft++tE#tr-Z

WXSfiE#* o tr

*&Etf+JtE#&A o @THE+Hfn&, o ffit*ffi+fr,tt\t

"Supposing I al'glre rvith you. If you are superior to

ffie, and I am not superior to you, then must you be right
and I must be wrong ? If I am superior to you, and you are
not superior to ffi, then I must be right and you wrong?
Is one of us right and the other rvrong? I and you cannot
eome to a mutual understanding and others are still in the
dark. Whom shall I ask to settle our argument? If I ask
someone who agrees wiih you, if he does agtee with you,
how can be settle it ? If I ask someone who agrees with ffi,
if he does agree with me, horv can he settle it? If I ask
someone rvho is opposed to me and you, how could he settle
it? If I ask someone who agrees with me and you, horv
could he settle it ? So you, I and all the others would never
come to a mutual understanding. Shall we still wait for
another person ? "
62

ITO TZV AND DIALECTICS

Chuang-tzu gives another example in his ehapter, erl titled, ( tl(/( clt'iu shui) or Autumn Floods. It tells about
a meeting betrveen Hui Shih and Chuang-Tzu, an6 goes as
follorys:

ft.zwtfr, o H+tr : +)FRo **nffi,zw?

*r+E : T,F{l o **n+tTfnfr zW? H+E : firF+ o t,fl6 *arF.o +rfl)Fffi,ft o +tr)Fffi,*"o +zr*nfuz#ft4 o

#+tr: iffiffiSto+tr t "lk**U,R#"2:E o fr:hf,1;fi

Hfrn ZffiilHlfi o fifn Z&I& o

"Chuang-tzu and Hui Shih were once strolling along a

small path which led acros.s a small stream, when Chualgtzu turned to Hui Shih and said : "Look, how the fishes
are jumping; it seems to give them pleasure." Hui Shih
ans\\rered : "You are not a fish, and how do you know
rvhat gives them pleasure ? "-Chuang -tzu saicl . (,you are
not I, and horv could you know that I do not know rvhat
gives pleasure to the fishes ? "-Hui Shih replied : "I am
not you, and therefore do not know, what you know and
rvhat you do not know. One thing I know for sure, that
you are not a fish, and therefore it has to be proved, that you
do not knorv what gives pleasure to the fishes."-Chuang -tzt)
said : "Let us return to the first question. You were asking
ffie, 'How do You knorv, what gives pleasure to the fishes'?
With this question you are admitting that 'I know it', or you
would never have asked me, what I could know and what I
could not know."
This proves what Chuang-tzu said : "fn a debate there
is no one who wins."
Now, let us look at two different opinions. Mo-tzu
said: "There must be a Winner in a Debate." (ffi H W)
and Chuang-tzu said : "fn a debate there is no one rvtro
wins." So we may ask ourselves : "Actually now, who is
right and who is wrong?" My opinion is that we have at
first to take into consideration the view of the opponent,

68-

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZV

then the subject under discussion, and the cause of horv the
discussion was brought about. The second step will be
to depend on our sound judgment, irrespective of the way
the debate is carried out. The most important thing is
perhaps to affirm or deny the subject under discussion, or
both debaters must be right or wrong. With this conclusion
we may decide that a name must be in agreement u,ith its
actual meaning.

Aecording to Mo-tzu, dialecties are applied to distinguish between right and wrong, to distinguish between
goocl and bad government, to shorv clearly the 'similarit.y
and Differenee' ( lFi] E t'ung i ) , to examine into 'Names
ancl their aetual Significanee' ( * E ming shih) , to distinguish between the beneficial and the harmful and to find
out rvhat is llncertain. It deseribes the form of every thing
and tries to eompare the differenee in meaning in eertain
arguments.

To Kung-sun Lung's assertion that 'A white Horse is

not a Horse', the Mohists say : "In a eertain elass or speeies
a eertain characteristic is not is found in all things. Not
all the horses have to be white. Therefore we ean only
maintain that horses eould be possibly white, but not that
they are white."
If rve are to eompare two propositions, we must use the
method of parallel. An example illustrating this is Kungsun Lung in his first ehapter, 'Marerial for a Debate' ( BI, Iffi
chi fu):
"I have been told that the King of Ch'u stretchecl his
slender bow and rvith arro\\'s aimed carelessly but shot a
dragon ancl a rhinoceros at Yuen-meng ancl he forgot his
bow. His suite wanted to reeover it, but the king saicl :
"Let it be ! The borv rvhich the King of Ch'u has lost, the
Ch'u people may reeovel'. Why should you recover it?"
Confucius heard this ancl said : "Although the King of
Ch'u tried to practise Benevolenee and Righteousness ( ,f: #
ien i ) , he was not very successful. If he opines that anothei
64

NIT]

TZU AND I]IAI,IICTICS

lttay get the bott' r,r,'hich he has lost, then there is nothing
Inore to be said. Horvever', $,h), may just the Ch'u People
get it? In saying this Confucius pointed out onlv the differ'()nce between a man from Ch'u and all the othel's, who couhl
lte also callecl 'Men'. Even if Confucius differentiated betlt,.een a man of Ch'u and all the others, then in the same
case it would also not be wrong for me to differentiate betrt'een'A White Hot'se'ancl one which can be called a horse."

The Mohists also oppose Kung-sun Lung's theory of

'Hat'd ancl White'. To the question : "Hardness, Whiteness

ancl Stone clo not exclucle one another'. Is it possible to
conceal the third?" They say : " Hardness ancl Whiteness
rlo not exelude one another'. If Hardness and Whiteness are
trvo they nevet' ovel'come eaeh other', so one excludes the
othet'." Het'eafter follows a long exposition rvhich tries to
rlispr"ove Kung-sllu Lung's theory.

Another long exposition is given to oppose Kung-sun

Lung's 'Designation of Things' ( +ffi W, ;ii chih ?.t-,t(. lun,
chapter

III).

So fAt' the meaning of 'Debate' has been explained.

Howevel', u'hat is the use in investigating the u,ord
'Debate'? What methorl should be acloptecl in a clebate?
On this point

THE MINOR ILLUSTRATIONS SAY:

EX,E )F ;L * o tr ifr
tEf f# {U # ffi u'***'H

'

'A

m XZfu,

ffiL

;Z llo

ZIE , Etrl|it: , )rtffiffio

Debatet' should clearly cl istinguish betu'een the

Affit'mative ancl t,he Negative. Thus he rvill avoid confusiolr. He should distinguish bet$,'een 'similarity ancl
Differenee', This rvill bring him to investigate' Names
ancl their Actual Significanee'. He must distinguish
betleen useful and harmful. The distinction betu,een
aclvantage and clisaclvantage avoicls cloubts. "

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SIIN I,UNG-TZU

In acting thus, he will be able to explain myriads of things.

Whilst he is debating he may ask anyone to find out rvhether
all his allegations are strictly confirming the truth. Once
he gives a 'Name', he will make it agt'ee rvith its 'actual
Significanee'. He expresses his opinion with a'Proposition'.
With his 'Statement' he brings about a 'Cause' by giving
different illustrations.
Accordingly \\re have in a debate first to distinguish
between true affirmative and true negative facts before turning to anything else. Therefore a person, anxious to learn
debatirg, should not only look for direetions but he must
have them t'eady. He is looking for the eorrect definition of
everything. u'hen he follorvs the explanation about myriads
of things in nature.

We find five different methocls ( fr

this in the Mohist Canon

#, fang f a) to

1. The Method of Similarit.l, ( X IFi] clt'itt t'ung).

2. The Method of Difference ( *E ch,'iu i 1.
3. The Method of Similarit.y and Differenee ( fA fr
*.1+ t'tutg i ch,iao te)
4. The Method of Conomittant Variation ( * B kurt,.r1
.

Pie'n ) .

5. The Method of Dealing with the Remainder' ( 1t ffi

eh'itt

?11.t,) .

After'$,ards the Mohists give some questions for practicing the art of clebating:

(1)
(2

"A slave is a man who serves another man. A

slave n,ho ser"ves his parents, serves nobody."-"'Why ? "

) "A ear is made of woocl.

However, to drive in
A CAr doeS nOt mean to drive in urOOd."-('Why?"
66

}IO 1'ZU AND

(3

) "A

rvhite horse

r}IA I-,ECTICS

is a horse, To ride a

(4

white

horse. A brown horse is

a horse. 'fo ride a brown horse, means to rifle
a horse. "-('Horv is that pos-*ible ?,,
"A robber is a man. If we say that, ther.e Al'e
many robber'!, we cannot say yet, that there are
many men. The wish 'To have no more Robhorse, means to ricle a

bers' does not means 'To have no more Men. t'

"Explain this !"

(5) "To kill

(6)
(7

(8)
(9)

(10)

(11)

a robber and to kill a man is not the

Same."-(t'W'hy? t'
"To read a book, does not yet mean to like

i1.r'-

"why?"
"Why it is different to say 'To leave through a
Door' and 'To have left a Door ?,, ,
"fn which sense is a long life different from a
short life ? "
"To reside in a country does not yet mean to
?"
Possess a country."
-('Why
"To inquire about a sick person is identical with
'To Inquire about a person'. To become ill by
the illness of a sick person is not identical with
'To have been made ill by a sick person." '"why?"
"The soul of a deceased is'No l\{an', but the soul
of my cleceased brother is 'My Brother'."
"why?"
"If a horse has bis eye.s, we may not yet say that
it is big.t'-]'Why?"
"lf an ox has yellow hair, we call him 'Yellow'
If,NUmefOUS,
an ox has much hair, we do not call him
'

( 12

(13)

,,

(14)

_(,Why

r,

"Because two horses are white, w may not yet

conelude that a horse is white."-('Why?"
67

CHAPTER VII
OF THE PROLEGOMENA

THE DIALECTICIANS
During the Pet'iod of the Warring States there were
besides the tht'ee schools of thought: the Confucians, the
Mohists, and the Taoists, two more which were called the
Sehool of Dialecticians ( * X nr"irr 91 chia) ancl the Legalists

(lE

X la ch,ia).

The School of Dialecticians or Name School rvas also

called the Forms and Names School ( M *X l.sinq minq
chia). Perhaps it woulcl have been more appropriate to
have callecl them the Form School, &s (Xr* ltsirtg mbr,g1)
refers to Forms and Names ancl points to the difference
betrveen names ancl their relations. Was it not their l'eal
aim to examine into the meaning of names and make them
agree u,ith their actual significance ? They set up new
theories about 'Hardness and Whiteness', about 'Similarity
ancl Differenee' which they supported u,ith skillful debates.
Therefore they were at times called 'Debatel's' V# # pieru
che) . From these theories developed a ne\\, logic which
\vas e\ren cliscussecl by sueh areat thinkers as Mo Tzu ancl
Chuang 'Izu lvho triecl to give them a certain form. We
coulcl sometimes compal'e the clialectieians u,ith the (]r'eel<
sophists, such as Soet'ates, At'ist,ot Ie, anrl Prota[Tol'as.
Although Chinese philosophical thought has so far beerr
little explorecl, it ean safely be said that it has ah'early hacl
some influenee on Western philosoph.y. This is especiall.y
true with the Tao-te ehhtgy ( LH m *S ).
We can perhaps tt'aee the beginning of the school of
dialecticians u,ith Confucius and his 'Rectification of Names',
so that some scholars I'efer to the Ju ({ffi -Confucianists),
as sophists. The modern version is represented b.\, Fung
68

TT{E DIALI,CTICIANS

Yu-lan (

fr, ffi ) in his article u,ritten in the Ch'hr,g-lt'Lltt

(
HsuelL-po,o iffi + + fli ) rvhere he said, that Teng Hsi
( Htl tf ) ancl Hui Shih ( H ffr) were no dialecticians but
Iegalists ( i* X fa chia), and had their origin rvith the
larvyers of that period. Ku Shih ( ffi H ), horvever, said
f,W

that Teng Hsi was definitely a dialectician, unless there was

another scholar rvith the same name who was a legalist.

Real dialectics was, however, first developed rvith

Kung-sun Lung and Hui Shih, although Chuang Tzu anrl the
Mohists paid no little attention to it. This refers espeeially
to the Later Mohists, &s Mo Tzu himself coulcl harclly be eonsidered a dialectician.

Alfred Fot'ke mentionecl altogether nine dialecticians:

1.
2.

Teng Hsi ( HII ffi ), ca. 570-501 B.C.

Yin Wen ( y 7f ), sbout the end of the 4th. eent. B.C.
I(ung-sun Lung (
m ffE ).

3.
*
4. Hui Shih ( H fifr), c&. 4th. cent. B.C.
5. Cheng Kung-sh*ni{ ( ffi * *. ).
6. Huang Kung (H * ).
7. Mao Kung (+ ).
8. FIan Tan (+# tE{).
^ Onlt, his name is known, as found
9.

in the [-,ieh TzlL.

T'ien Pa ( E tr ), ca. llrd. cent.

B.C.

Modern Chinese scholal's mention only Teng Hsi, Kung-sun

Lung, Hui Shih, follou,ing F'an Shou-k'ang ( ffi # ffi ) in
his 'General Outline of Chinese Philosophy' ( rl, E W W
tr ffi ;'ft ) and Liu Chi-ch'en ( $lJ &_ E ) in his book
'The Thought of Philosophers of various Schools before
Ch'in'. ( ft 7$ffi -f ,8 ffi ).
69

THE TI/ORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZV

Of Teng Hsi rve have only two chapters left.

They

are : 'No Generosity' ( {ffi H- ffi wlt, hou pien) and "Turning of Words' ( E[ fi+ chuan t'zu) There is 'similarity and
Difference' between Teng Hsi and Lao Tzu (*+ ). The
former said :

Hrl 1*- s f,ti n o $g r+ ffi Er Arl 1+ s FIi Eit o

at
that rvhich is not present, one beholds it.
"Looking
Listening to that which has no sound, one pereeives it."

frfl

rt *m a

Whilst Lao Tzu said:

frJn,

Z 4 n & E H o $S, Z',41 Eil * E -ffi o

"Looking at that which is not visible, we call it eolourless.

Listening to that which cannot be heard, we call it evasiv e."
This is also similar to Teng Hsi's:

fflrBrHf;ntrEo

'olf one looks aL something clearly, one knows what is obseure." He too seemed to be greatly influenced by Taoism,
and yet Chuang Tzu sairl of the dialecticians:
fi

A Zr['

E T frE ItsA Zrh o

n /t Zffi frV,trfr xZ
people

with their arguments

"They were able to attract
and overcome them rvith their skill in debating, I,t they
could never convince their minds."

70

CHAPTER VIII
OF THE PROLEGOMBNA

THE FIVE ELEMENTS

(fi.41)

AND THEIR

PERMUTATIONS

SECTION I

tzft
NAf,IE , WATER
Number r.,........ I
organs
I Spleen &
G

' Kidney

Quality ............ [ trnowtedge

Taste ..............

Colors o...........
Animals ..........

Ministgrs ..,......
Directions

-......

-,{r

*,

FIRE

wooD

EARTH

Lungs

Heart

Liver

Stomach

Righteous-

Worship

Love

Faithf ul-

ness

nesg

Salty

Pungent

Bitter

Sour

Sweet

Black

\Mhite

Red

Green

Yellow

Bear
Rat
Ox

Monkey
Cock
Dog

Serpent
Horse
Goat

Tiger

Hare
Dragon

Ox
Dog
Goat
Dragon

Things

Minister

Affairs

Subj ect

Prince

Rank

ft

METAL

Minister of Minister of Minister of Minister of Minister of

Labour
\Yar
Justice
Education
Finance
North
West
South
East
Centre

Seasons .r....,....

\[Iinter

Autumn

Summer

Spring

Odours .,...

Putrid

Metalic

Burning

Mouldy

Sweet

Planets .....

Mercury

Venus

Mars

Jupiter

Saturn

La

Re

So

Mi

Do

Musical Notes ,..

1. W'ater
2. Fire
3. Metal
4. Wood

overcomes Fire
Metal
,,
Wood
,,
Earth
,,
TL

bT-

o
o

-o
a
d

:a

ili
-ta

r# *,
-t

;il nI

+)

o
-o
tr

E;
t-

to

-cd

o)
F..

()o

F:

;is n s sI;;=:E !s

arEs

He '-;!}*uss#nsE;lE:]!#ies*=gs

lF{

fi

o
.A

.;
.aJ

*==;]}

o
.l
J

E'A

5,

tt

ot

OO

L
o
t
6
o

rFr

EE

3,o

#*
oqt

tt+r
P.tr

6E;

T
U'

H
i:o

Fr qltr
f{
U -}E;

o
a

flsl*;;il]e*srEEs
h0

tr
'fr3

:lg
r-O

E>

lLJa

Id

rr'-b-@E55Ig;fig

wa

a gH
(l,

'.-*:H ro E st
NOttO6O

HtE E
.*'=as,{
}4zJ |4 tu

Hg;.fi##'

*;i?H
*
f;f$g#E-== [g*t.FsiE
i.*g3!sde4g=

u0

!E
P'{ 3
iT
E

.=F
ad
*r5
Hc)
.:r !.1
5O
lt<

ad
-!

;:;}se;ss s E s,,;l;;;It#rs5sry

o
I -a

E
>.

qJ

(tr
+,

lr:NcD(g

..O

> 3i E EE:ad B
Fz

t=u

'*

--

-'E

r-:.i:6._-E

irSc.U

.i5
uo tr
?oc

Dc

lri#
'/,-

l-

q,

q,
c0
v7

+)

tr

c
L.

i
16i
H;

i;--sg;;E il*

fr
o

t{

i # lgi*El;s

N
Ft

BP
el bCQ

o "fr38
(l
O+r (D

?.

s: HE:iiu,*E
:; :guE HE,EE
iZ.
Sg E{ f?bfi',t'd-c,
$E EI3S
{t
r-I o 33

(t)

fr]

-oO

tCi,^-'

EgE
72

TEEESE

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG -TZIL)

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZI)

CHAPTER I
MATERIAL FOR A DEBATE
(Chi fu)

E6kiL+
"e

ffrlft ffi --.

t*fiE.+it q fl+ #f +{L o t-xfl E <fit

fiL o

,tr

1.

"Kung-sun Lung was dialeetician during the period of

the Six States ( 1). Being indignant at the prevailing
deviations and confusions between names and their
actual significanee (2), he made use of his great abilities
to set up his theory of preserving Whiteness(3). He
gave many examples on lvarious) subjects in debating
on this theory."
Notcr: The Chinese heading is: ( iA {t frE fil )-..gslections from Kungsun Lung at the time of the Chou Dynasty ( EI LL22-266 B.C.)."
^
,,,,fr},i ff ',1,:1"j.,ff8l.::*'F,"",i1,* ?t'r'"tlH,',t,ffll:;i:"
life see the prolegomena chapt. 1,2, translation from tt d ',HistoriIal
Records".,_Ch8pt. II: "A critical review on Kung-sun Lung's works',
-

rlili

and the "Preface written by Hsieh Hsi-shen." Cf,-apt. III : "The life
of Kung-sun Lung."
(1) "The Six Sta!.t" (
liu kou) or "The Warring States" ( EtE
chan kuo) formed^E
240 B.C. an alliance to resist Ch'in ( * fid
note 4). They were: Yen ( f.t ), Chao ( ilt ), Han, ( Sf, )'-Wei
(A and ch'u ' ('il
rhis period lasted frorn

Iffi_L;fI:t.

(2) Refers to

ehapt.

l,

).

VI, entitied: "Diseourse on

actual Significance" on page t 19.

Names and their

),xlll,"J",frin,il"lrs j3L'*
H :il#l'!il'l;,?fi:i:"t,:fl[?,",rT;
a White Horse" and chapt, v, "Discourse on Hard and White.,,
( 4 ) Ch'in ( * ) , an aneient feudal state which arose with Fei Tzu
I t|:f ) 879 B.C. It became at last the Ch'in Dynasty under
Emperor Shih huang-t'i ( fft g ffi ).
Hsieh Hsi-shen ( ill il, YF ), the eommentator to the worlcs of
(3

frTri:"l"ft"tfl Jitlt jHt**'};*ill,i"3r,lri'y,"1ff

"^,;'d,.lfJ;
by his narne'(Hsieh."
Hrich: rhe t',i1i'.;'*:Tl,', o{,il'".'Ht',l"rT;H;"1#rl""j';.i1t..f,ts ) 'tu''
73

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZT]

A A .W!& rt .Fv.&, o A .H; S lF .F? *

o e.F,, fff rt, flfilA o

A fff v"A fl ?)Y-fu o fii)Y e{f-' o *.e e

o

o Alfu7r.'6 o 4 efi, o q'l ?-6fr1tr- o

2. He says: "'A White Horse is not a Horse'. Why do
I say so ? Because White denotes a colour, or the name
of a certain eolour. Horse denotes a shape, or the name
of a certain shape. Let us take apart colour from
shape ( 1 ) . Colour cannot be confused with shape (2) .
If I say 'Shape' that meails, colour can never be followed
by or added to shape."
Noter: (1) Colour is not shape, and shape is not eolour.
(2) Colour eannot be added to shape.
has its own particular quality of which the sage makes
Hrieh: Everything
use. However, even sages have different opinions and each of them
will propound his own theory. The result is disagreement. Thus the
righteous is overshadowed by the evil. Then reward and punishment
is not awarded by the emperor, as authority and influence depends

upon some powerful ministers.

Kung-sun Lung regrets that there are no wise kings and is indignant at the deviations and conf usions between names and their
actual significance, theref ore he tries to eliminate all these shorteomings bV the exact 'Definition of Thing L ( 3 ) and -requires the

abstrait to eonf orm with the conerete ( 4 ) . f n doing this he hopes

that the rulers of the present time will be aware of their errors and
try to rectify the relations between names and their actual significance.
Notes : ( 3 ) Refers to the chapter III, entitled : "Designation of Things."
( 4 ) Ref ers to Kung-sun Lung's lost ehapter, entitled : 'similarity
anrl Differenee'( EI ft. t'ung i ), see page

2.

++ o vz&tbrF{f-^o -lo*a.F-rl.#l*,+
fiWe<.Er o *t,6nv'Aig6

.,ftA o'r?

A.F.r{L o 4nvArefr

f$ft-l4vzfi. flF rD4U,^T.6 o

3. "Now, if eolour and shape combine to form something,
it means nothing ( 1). If someolre is anxious to get (2) a
rvhite horse from a stable, it cannot be obtained ( 3 ),
are only black-coloured

horse.s. Of
eourse, it could never be said that there should be a white
horse too. If there be no white horse means, the horse
he is seeking does not exist(4). If it does not exist, the

because there

74

ITytATtrRIAL FOF

A DEBATE

rvhite ltot'se is not really ( 5 ) a horse. Follorving up this

theot'y and rectifying the name to conform unith its actual
significance(6), then the rvhole rvorld(?) rvill have no
doubts (8 )."
Noterr

( 1)

,F

(2)
(3)
(4)

:ii

naught to.

(5)

1t )
-Is
-tteally
(6)
8fftr)
(7)
*6 -Requires.
)-There will be none.
x-F )
(8)
t )
{t )
-C}range.
Hrieh: The slrape-Disappears.
of hrtt'ses do nut greatly cliffer., only that
some are rvhite,
yellow ol'black' Thus we ean rnake right and wrong conform. \\re
also ean rectify the relation betrreen names ancl their actual sirrni)

ficance.

o ff
fL+4 Xt tr q& + /F.
:
o te-^n *,nv.a.t6rF.l.5

*r+A

e * fA *,,i-g;?a Ed
4 o rfr**t 4ttt o

.6 o -'B-'ikg?r,<tr o rAE*+^,!o,{1
o *bh*kdal*_|'?F<,{1 o h*k{olLfrf

+ftfit *<

<#,W

o A_A

4- Kung-sun Lung and K'ung Chuan ( 1) once met at the

palac e (2) of Lord P'ing-yuan (3 in Chao (4 . I('ung
)
)
Chuan said: "Sir, I have heard about your virtuous
conduct and have been anxious for a long time to beeome
youl' clisciple. Howevet', I cannot agree ( 5 ) u,ith your.
theoly that 'A W hite Horse is not a Horse' (6). Please,
t'elinquish ( 6 ) this pl'esumption, then I rvill ask you to
allow me to beeome )/our disciple.,,Kung-sun Lung replied: "Your words at.e contrary tt-r
the right(7). W'hat made me famous is just my theory
that 'A White Horse is not a Horse'. Now, if you n,ant
me to relinquish it, then I have nothing more to teach
you. Besicles, if someone requil'es a teacher, (the
reason) is that (his own) wisdom and learning is not
equal to(8) (that of his teacher). Now you want me to
75

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

abandon my theory which means, you wish first to teach

me and then(g) ask me to allow you to be your teacher.
To teach first and then ask to be taught, this is eontrary
to the right. Moreover, the theory, that 'A White Horse
is not a Horse', was also aecepted by Confueius."
Noter

1) K'ung Chuan was Kung-sun Lung's opponent. Refer to page 6, E.

2) Lord P'ing-yuan was Kung-sun Lung's patron. Refer to page 2,2.
3) (*.)-lit.
"Home."
4) Name of an old feudal state.
6) ( Ifi )-Take; aeeePt; agree with.
6) Refers to ehapt. II, entitled: "Diseourse on a White Elorse."
7'l ( lS)
"Rebellious."
-lit.)-{tnst
like."
8) ( ,f tn
9) ( ffi l*. )-{'gnfl then."

Hrieh: Confucius said: "Names must agree with their aetual signidcarlee."
Kung-sun Lung, with his 'White Horse Theory', intended to rectify the
relations between names and their aetual signifieanee, He, thereford,
pointed out that this theory was formerly also aceepted by Confueiur.

5. "I ha're been told that the King of Ch'u ( 1 ) stretched his

slender bor\,, fixed an arrow, aimed carelessly but shot a

dragon and a rhinoceros(2\ at Yun Meng(:l) and lost
his bo$,. His suite (4 ) wanted to reeover it. The king
said i "Let it be ! The bow which the king of Ch'u has
lost, the Ch'u people rrr}y recover. Whv should you get

it?" "
Hrieh: The King of Ch'u helieved that, bl giving up his how, he would benefit
his people. His generosity, however, only coneerned the Ch'u people
and not tlre yreople of the rvhole empire. Therefore it is ,said:
"Although the King of Ch'u praeticed'Righteousness and Benevolence'( 5 ) he was not successf ul." The king only tried to benefit
his friends and relatives. This eompares rvith a person requiring a
horse rvithout insisting on its white eolour. Theref ore only a white
horse ean answer his requirement. What the King of Ch'u meant
with people, did not refer to the people of the whole world. Thus,
requiring a horse but not insisting on its colour means, that all horses
will ansu'cr the requirement.
Notert ( 1) Ch'u was the namo of an aneient feudal state which existed from
740-300 8.C., and lvas known in the early years of its existence
as Ching ( *', ).
76

NIATERIAL FOR
(Z

) The

DEBATE

( tt ;t' /fr {U ) _., ( it )

-.shuo wen
to the species of dragons." ThetrEancient
flictionary ( Eft *. ) sn1's: "[n ancient times ( {lt ) u,as conChinese clictionar.r, explains:

belongs

sidered to belong to the species of dr.agons. It alwal,s appear.etl

at the time of flood." Perhaps it rvas a cl.oeodile after all. As to
the ( til, ) the dictionary says: "[t is an animal. The rhinoceros
having one horn with a hard and thick skin." It must have been

quite different from the unicorn as of ten r.ef err.ed to in the

Chinese classics. I am stilt not certain whether the character

( E or

14:

) is the correct interpretation for- the word

"r.hino-

ceros, as I have doubts that such anirnals ever.existetl in China.

"The ( ,t* ) ," ch'i' '-is one of ttre fabulous animals of China
generally tt'anslated "unieorn", though an attempt has been nrade

to identify it with the giraffe. To r.efer to the ( H ) ,,.s.src", as

pointed out in the above-mentioned Chinese text, a. ir.r unicorn is
undoubtedly wl'ong', because the "sst{" is of much heavier built
and has a hald and thick skin. The ,,(:h, i,, is said to have
appeared j ust pt'evious to the death of Confucius. It is the
svmbol of all goodness and benevolenee. It has the body of a
tleet', the tail of an ox, one horn, the scales of a fish, etc. it does
tro[ tread on an]'living thing, not even on living grass. Its horn
is eovered tvith flesh, shorving that rvhile able firr: war, it desires
peace. The ( rr* ; "/i rr" is the fenrale of thc ,,eft.'i,,. It is an
enrblem of an illustliotrs posterity. It is irnpossible that the King

of Ch'u rvou ld have shot su ch an animal, because it was considered as sacred. The spring and Autumn A nnals of Lu ( E E
1-('ar trre captut'e ,r the "rin"'

J:#rJ,rl"i1;="1

*:,'t$,ff,r

(3) ('-t''F )-ytln Meng is cxplained as "A slreet r',f u,ater or a lake".
This place is situated in the present ciay [Iupeh. Or iginally there
\vcrc trvo lakes. one called (.8)-!'111p, North of the yangtze
River and ( 4t |
South of the river. I was told that the
-.ll(ilg,
lalte in the North
is m()r'e hc'autiful. The Chart Li ( Ifi m ) or
'Chou Ritual' r'efers to Yun Nfeng only as Ching-chou ( *',1 fl'l ),
the lrresent [Irrpeh.

(4) His strite; lit: "Thc

(5)

(+ fenfl

ffi:,1'J:1=i:ilr,1;1,

people

left and right ( /i-|.i )."

( t'
je n r
rhe principre

3:li-lil:?:;-

il

< c q: lt-lFluh^6.U-, o q: /\f

/\

1+< o daL,o fr,!. t_#*Ufff1-^gg#_Xrt fft'afl/\ o

X ft rf fa* H /\* Ffr'afl A'r?,| F fit X a .F.t * f ft ifl .Ft
fff *k o n'l fifrE-f;L

6.

A^ffi6'Et

* o ,Lf ,fr v.AM,6

Confucius, on hearing this said : "Although the King of

Ch'u u'ished to practise 'Benevolence and Righteousness',
he was not sueeessful. If a person has lost his bow and
77

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN I,,UNG-TZU

anybody could get it, there is nothing more to be said ( 1 ).

However, why may just the Ch'u people get it?" By this
Confucius pointed out the difference between the people
of Ch'u and those who are also men. Even, if (2) Confueius differentiated between the Ch'u people and those
who are also men, then should I (Kung-sun Lung) not
differentiate between a white horse and others which are
also horses? You, sir, are a great admirer of Confucius,
yet you disagree with that u,hich he has aecepted (as
correet. ). You wish to learn from il, yet you trant me
to abandon what I teach. Even though, there rvere one
hundrerl Kung-sun Lungs the"v would have nothing to
teach you." K'ung Chuan was unable to answer.
Noteu (1)

(llf

E).
(2\ ( rE E
)-"f,vsn, if ...

'

Hrieh: Though the teachings of the sag:es at first glanee might &ppear somewhat different, they have all the same end in view. The inferior
seholar is always absorbed in his own theory, therefore he is quite unable to understand what he is really reading. He is always eontented
with the little he understands, and tries to ridicule that which he is
unable to grasp. So, even if there were such a man who eould surpass
Kung-sun Lung's wisdom a hundred times he eould hardly teaeh anything. This ean be eompared with a person who only loses his time
asking for a horse u'ithout insisting that is should he white.

o ffl,flfiLe
;lt.l.1

: .B8,8./n,l fflAffi.A*,Lqrg

o 'afr,h

<4 0 ffrfrfu*,+ o At*fiLe: *,'t<a,B

v"A*k, ,ftrz *kdafi+-Tf,L{L#'W o i- *,'ik#-ffiL

# , v'AE+4 4.6 o fu^*.{L o +*kfiil+ A,FtrF.tt
o *-*-**a

7.

Kung-sun Lung was the guest of Lord P'ing-yuan of

Chao. K'ung Chuan belonged to Confucius' elan ( 1 ) .
When K'ung Chuan met Kung-sun Lung, the former said
-78

NfATtr]RI/\L FOR A DEBATE

"f

was an official (2 ) in Lu ( 3 ) in an inferior

position ( 4 ) , rvhen I heard of your lofty u,isdom and often
spoke about your virtuous conduct. I was for a long
time anxious to receive )rour instructions. Now, having
seen you, I am yet unable to accept your theory that 'A
White Horse is not a Horse'. Please, &bandon yout'
theot'y, and I rvill ask you to be allorved to become yout'
clisciple."-Kung-sun Lung replied: Sir, you words are
contradictory'! IVIy learning is based on the theory that
'A White Horse is not a Horse'. If you want me to
abandon it, then I have nothing to teach you. Learning
from me when I have nothing to teach is contradictot'y.
Moreover, when a person rvants to learn from ffie, then
his rvisdom and leat'ning should never equal mine.
Now, to instruct me to abandon my theory, that 'A White
Horse is not a Horse', is equal to teaching me first anC
then asking me to be the teacher. To be taught first and
then ask to be instructed, this could never be done !
Your idea of teaching first is quite the same as with the
King of Ch'i (5) and Yin Wen (6)."

to him.

Noter:

(2)
(3)

+L

"Confueius' (leaf ), elan or generation."

* * )-lit:

E[)

6)-0r

Hl

tu

kuol-Nalne of the native State of

Con-

fucius, the annals of which, from 722-481 B.C. form the subject
of the ( # f^ eh'un eh'iu) "Spring and Autumn," now one of

the Five

Classics.

(4) ( -F n )-hs1s only a polite phrase.

(6) ( fr E )-|r[arns of an ancient feudal State. The first Ch'i State
began ll22 B.C. when it was eonferred by ( Xt.t )-Wu Wang
upon ( fB 9a,)-Shang Fu, and lasted until 412 B.C., when it was
destroyed by the descendants of ( A + ft, )
Tzu Wan.
-Kung
The second Ch'i State was raised upon the ruins
of the first, and
lasted down to 244 B.C. It comprised large portions of Northern
Shantung and Southern Chili, and its capital rvas ( S E:, )
-Yingch'iu, now ( EH tg [!f; )-fin-tzu Hsien.
(6) Yin Wen ( ,t t ) was frequently mentioned in the Chinese
Classics; as in the Chuang Tzu chapt. 33, entitled'In The Empire'
( X -F ), Lu. P'u-wei's Spring and Autumn Annals ( E E ,b fl ),
and in the Han Sft.u ( BE E[ ).
79

TIItr WORKS OF KUNG.SUN

ffl<iflf{.e

LUNG.TZIJ

: E,<&*1 + o doffH*+ o FI

: EnfAJt.r< Fft'afl** ? ff-r*vAM

o f*.e : +fr /\tfb #* H,l ,t o fi*nill 4 o t
Aq{tA o iEfeFn'l llE o fr tvU,w't761 fH** ? *-*. q
: +*b4+ f'ft'a*n*-rb o 7iq : g t1tb4 o -frv2
#.riZ* ? -:f q : fff EftdaTaI &{L o &ft+Ff frLt*
*&^iLWI o;.itt'A#,E+? -Iq : l?*{L, n&
,{n^Wl+{L o +n,l *./\Tvt,fulL* o f*.e : qL
fr,& {D 4 Wl * X Xup fi {L o +, /\f,- *,* w ft , *
{L o flJce

f'ff

,-A#.r+{L o ff tfi -LvA#.rt*- o <.A^yZ#,, l2 o n'l B,

8.

The King of Ch'i onee said to Yin Wen: "I am ver.)

foncl of (1) scholal's and yet there al'e none in the Ch'i
State. Wh.y is this ? "-[ip Wen replied : "I should
like to find out u,hom you would call a scholar'?"-fhs
King of Ch'i dicl not reply. Yin Wen said: "Nou',
here is a man who serves (2 ) his king loyally (B ) , his
lrat'ents filiall)' ( 4 ) , in his relations to his friencls he
is faithful ( 5 ) , ancl in the place where he lives he is lau,abicling(6). If he has all these'Four Virtues'(7), would

you call him a

"-The King repliecl : "Of

eoul'se, this is t'eally what I eall a scholar'," Yin W-en
then eontinuecl : "If your' [{ajest.\, coulcl fincl sueh a lnalr,
al'e you rvilling' to appoint him your minister ! "-J1,.
King replied : "That is just the men I \','ant. Hou-e'r,e r',
I cannot fincl l'lim."
At that time the King of Ch'i was verv fcncl of cculag'eous mell. Therefore Yin Wen said : "supposing that
thet'e shoulcl be sueh a mall standing in the lal'ge operl
spaee befot'e youl' palace among a large crowcl rvho rvitnessecl hirn being insulted ancl not daring to fight, rvoulrl
scholar?

)'ou still want him to be your ministel'?"-The kinp.

t'eplierl : " WIr)', a seholar who is openlv insultecl antl
80

MATERIAL FOR A DEBATE

does not fight back, is put to shame. One who is put to

shame, I shall never appoint my minister." Yin Wen
said : "But by sufferir,g insult and not fighting back,
he still has not lost his Four Virtues. When a man has
not lost his Four Virtues, he can still be considered a
scholar. However, first you want him to be your

minister, and then you do not want

him.

The man

whom you before called a scholar, is he not still one ?"

The King was unable to answer.

Notcr:-(l) .1# fi.)-fne

Q)

(3)

(1)
(6)
(6)
(7)

($

here is in the 4th tone and a verb meaning,

$ ) _is here a verb : ,,To serve.r,

) "Loyal."
# |
B ) -t'Filial."
lE ) -"Faithful."
Four Virtues; i.e. loyality, filial piety, faithfulness
m ff-"Q[gdient."
)
-r'The
and obedienee.
,U

ff.q : +frLf f+rL*4 o ,rfrlY o H'l tlF< o

q : E ffi inT *.< tLfi*n # h* o -r E : E
/\rg q G * *, L < e o eE L^ tg *. /\ o nL, {,
o Ef,- fft,* o f *,e : A<. o ft,fti'r;,+
^ ? -f-<
o
o
Ae : +fr,1*frn @Lhfr,l /<frfi,-I<+fr fu
failr?*s^fi*.Wl o ftA-E<+,{l,o dag'-q.: fut6,A
*.

.t}b$fl o ,ra-rflZ-g

-.ts-

i<

i+^rt*.#

o ,B,,fr n*.W

Ffrft'r?r* <FftrF{L o 6fi ftrF*a.B

eL+frfrAfi rg.&-o ff_r-R t'AM,6 D ftfiL

fftitrL "
o

w{+

81

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

9. Yin Wen said: "Now, there is a lord who wants to

govern his country. If a person is in the wrong, he rvill
punish him. If he is doing nothing wrotrg, he rvill punish
him also. If he has achieved something, he will reward
him. If he has achieved nothitrg, he rvill rewarcl him

also. However, he resents that his people do not eare

for him(l). Do you think that this is right (2) !"-ffus
King of Ch'i replied : "No, it is not right." -Yin Wen

said :

"I notice that your petty offieials govern the Ch'i

State in such a manner."-The King of Ch'i said:
"supposing that I govern my country in sueh a manner
as you, Sir, have just told me and, although the people do
not care for me, I dare not resent it. My thoughts have
not arrivecl at this conclusion."--Yin Wen said : "As
you agree rryith me, why should I not speak furthet'?
Your orclers say: One who kills a person must die (3).
One who injures a person should be punished. People
in fear of your orders rather suffer insult and dare not
fight. This, horvever, is quite in conformity with your
orclers. However, the king says that a person rn'ho
suffers an insult ancl dare not fight, is put to shame.
'W'ithout his being
You call this shame a wrong too.
wrong, you accuse him of being put to shante. On
aeeount of this you turn away from him (4 ) and do
not appoint him your minister. This is actually his
punishment. He is without wrong and yet his king
punishes him. Moreover, you put a man to shame who
dares not fight, and you glorify a person who dares
fight. You say, that he is right, and with this eonclusion
you want to appoint him your minister. His rervard
then is that you think it neeessary to appoint him your
ministel'. He has achieved nothitrg, yet you reward
him. The man rvhom you rervard is exactly the same
)/our officials rvoulcl put to death. First, you considet'
him right but then, the larv punishes him for his wrong.
Rewal"d, punishment as well as right and wrong, these
four things, al'e eonfusecl. Although a country would
82

MATERIAL FOR A DEBATE

( 5 ) , it could not be governed. "
this the King had nothing to answsl'.-('Therefore
-To
my (I(ung-sun Lung's) talk with you (K'ung Chuan) is
similat' to that of the King of Ch'i. You cannot unclerstand that'A White Horse is not a Hot'se', bui it is
difficult to convince you u,hy you cannot understand this.
It is the.qame as knorving to be fond of scholars but not
knorving hou, to clistinguish them."

have ten Yellorv Emperors

Noter: The style uscd here in the discussion betrveen Yin Wen and the King
of Ch'i is much the same as we can find with I\fencius. Kunq-sun
Lung here got the better of his opponent K'ung Chuan. The contents
of this discussion we find also in the K'ung T s'ung T zu ( lL ;':, {- ) ,
but here it was stated that Kung-sun Lung was defeated in the debate.
Refer to page 24.
( 1) ( US- )-here used in two different walns: ( ItU E )-"To govern
a country" and ( 6 FU )-'IDo not eare, or not to take notice of."
(21 ( EI {, )
"Is it possible?"
-lit: put to death by authority."
( 3 ) ( it )
-('fs J[ff )-lit:
(4) ( ffiP(ff;
"Onthisaccountyoustrikehisname
off the list."
( 5 ) ( fii tj )
Yellow Emperor; a legendary monarch, whose
fixed as 2698 B.C.
date was-"The
Hrich: A sage who employe sorneone in his serviee will only use him according to his abilities and talents and assign him to that kind of job for
which he is suitable. He will never first aecept a person and then
rejeet him. The King of Ch'i tried to find talented men beeause he
was fond of scholars. We could compare him with a person requiring
a horse, but insisting that it must be a white one. How could he ever
expect to attraet talented nlen in such a manner? In spite of all his
ideas, the King was not a person of high principles. He would bring
his country in confusion, because he did not pay proper attention to
the laws. Even, if there \r'ere a sage ten tirnes more sagacious than
the Yellow Emperor he could never avoid confusion.

CHAPTER II
THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZI)
A DISCOURSE ON A WHITE HORSE

.lI7

?hffi

---

(Pai md lun)
(The host, here the questioner, represents cornrnon sense
uthilst the guest, Kung-stln Lung, Wopounds his theorA.)

1. Hort:

+q

-I
.Hl
.Eb
t'May we'lFsay th at a'White Ho rse' is not

'Hors e'?"

Guegt: "We may say so."

Hrieh: A -person wishing to express himself through eommon sense is best
enlightened by way of discussion between a host and his grrest. Here
he listens to an active question and reply on some subject or other.
Here Bome or other subjeet, is discussed, to avoid any niisunderstanding. In the same way does the author debate abouL the white horse
to clear up eonflicting opinions.

frf +t

*il,
+2. L.&
Host |

.F.7

?_,

# fft vA +t fri {L A # ffi v?

# ,t dp' {L dt q A .tt7 ,E .rS

"Why may we say so?"

Guest: "Horse denotes a shape; white denotes a
coloul'. What denotes a colour does not denote a
shape. Thel'efore I say 'A White Horse is not a
Horse'."

Hrieh: The.example of a horse is used here to illustrate how different objeets

provide material for a debate. The eolour of horses illustrate difrerent
relationst!p=, If you can harmonize conflict.ng elements, worloly
power will be aehieved. When, in governing t eountry, the ruler.
differentiates unfairly between close and distant relatives, frirnds anJ
others, h9 will cause rebellion. It could be eompared to asking for a
horse without stating its eolour, in whieh ease all liinds of horses-appear
aceeptable.__'Whereas, to look for a horse while keeping'Whifer in
mind, a 'White Horse' alone beeomes suitable. Thus, -in tlenoting
shape, yet limiting it to one eolour, such a generalisation can never
simply include all horses.

-84

A DISCOURSE ON A WHITE

3. Host: "If

HORSE

is a 'White Horse', we cannot say

that there is no horse. If we cannot say that there is
no horse, are there then no more horses?"
there

Hrich: As a white horse actually exists, we eannot maintain that there are
horses. can we not call white horses horses too?
Notcr ( 1) tE, -is here an interrogative particle.

no

4. Host: "Having a 'White Horse' means that there Is

a horse. How can white malce the horse nonexistent

"

Hrieh: If "White" ean be combined with "Horse," why may we then say that
a 'White Horse is not a Horse?'

5.

q ,s.
,r a

.F,,

ff' X, .F'7 A" -I fk

,F^ .F'l
" fx
Guert: "If you only require a horse, yellow and black
ones all ean be supplied. But if you require 'A White
Horse', yellorv and black ones will not be supplied."
.F,l

Hrich: Closely related things are more limited than those that are loosely
related. It is the same with one specified 'White' as compared with
its different shades. Theref ore in requiring horses without ststing
their desired colour as 'White', Bny choice may be had from smong
the various ones too. In requiring a horse and limiting the request
only to the colour white, all those horses of other colours are no
longer availabl,e. It is just as in the case of the king who gives preference to his subordinate princes while holding others off by excuses.

.F,, n .B {L
rF
ffl ,s' # A #

{*. A

ft ffl ,K -- tE,
*

.Fb.rf,

6. Guert: "If you allow a 'White

^ Horse' to be a horse, it
is just one kind you require. But being just one
kind you require, 'White' would not make it different
from tHorse'.

85

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

Hcieh: If we say s tWhite Horse is not a Horse', we may only refer to

'Horseness'. The former's qualities may not be different from other
horses. Similarly with a king wito only favours one person whose
abilities make him no better than any other. His favourite might not
be even faithful to him, just as horses do not always exist in one
colour. As long as the king keeps him as his favourite, he will remain
faithful to him, But if the king treats him with less kindness, he will
turn against him. This proves that a fiing should never have
favourites but, treat all alike.

fff

{t T *'{o #,X,

4T*
7

.F,

fr { fr 6

6I Ft {rJ T

ta rF an ff. #,P^ -6=-{L {q

vA

re A

Guest: "If you insist in not specifying your request, as

for example between the colour of yellorv and blaek
horses, horv ean these meet your request? They may
or may not meet your requirement, as you have not
clearly stated it. Yellow and black horses belong
each to their kincl, and can only be considered as

'Horse'. They cannot be admitted as a 'White Horse'.

Therefore it is undeniable that 'A White Horse is not
a Horse'."
Hrieh: For instance: Whether a horse is yellow or blaek, it eonstitutes
'Horseness' ns sueh; it cannot ref er to other horscs, and ean. never be
synomymous with a'White Horse'. But why not? Because white is
not yellow, and yellow is not white. We know that various colours
differ from each other. If a king only favours those near to him, then
his unprivileged officials will rebel against him. How could they ever
be willing to obey his orders? We therefore repeat again: When in
requiring a horse and on insisting on its being 'White', w no longer
have any choice among other horses.
-b
/H

L & ,t.Lr-J^TrF

T*.F-r{+

-tL
Host: "Then a horse wit ha
^- colour is not a horse. In
the world there are no uneoloured horses. Are thet'e
then no horses in the world?"
.llE7

8.

Hrieh: If a eoloured horse is not a horse, and all horses in the world most
certainly are eoloured, ean we then still maintain that there are no
horses? Similarly with men. W'e cannot maintain that there are no
men as long as we have close and distant rglatives.
86

A DISCOURSE ON A \\THITtr HORSE

8 .1.1 q fr

t*-fr d .lI7 /*. ,ft e. fr

4 + jE d.ll.r *t A A rF .[.1 -rL o
?-

.l+-7

.6 4,, ( 1)

9. Guesti "Horses naturally al'e coloured, therefore there

are rvhite horses. If horses were uncoloured, we
rvould have only ( 1) 'Horse' and nothing more. We
lay emphasis on the words 'White Horse' (2), for
'Whiteness' does not connote 'Horse'."

(2) The colour rvhite is not a horse.

Noter, ( I ) ln
horse ntust be of some colour, so there must be a whiie horse
Hrieh: Every -Only.
too. Supposing that horses originally were uncoloured and still known
as horses, the question-rvould arise theu,-how to fincl a whlte horse?
Similarly with men. All of them must belong to a certain race or

how eould we ever distinguish the Chinese from the foreigners? Supposing that there were originally no races at all and men belonging
to no race whatsoever, how could we then distinguish between those
distant or elose to us ? Theref one white is only to be taken f or
'Whiteness' and not for 'Horse ( ness)'.

4.F,7

10.

A -V-.llEl* A.F,7,tbtt
fr.$Jts('The

q A.lb rF.l.l ,tL o

i
word 'White Horse' means 'Horseness
and Whiteness', but 'Horse and Whiteness' do rnean
a'Horse' too. Therefore I say that 'A White Horse
is not a Horse'."

Guest

Hrieh: 'As White (ness)' is not a horse, so 'White(ness) and Horse(ness)' are
different. Both being combined together, they do not denote a horse.
So the conelusion remains: When defining 'Whiteness' and 'Horseness', we cannot say that 'A \l'hite Horse is a Horse.'
Note: The difficulty in the translation is, how to distinguish between abstract
and concrete nouns. The Chinese appear not to experience this
problem as much as foreigners do. Kung-sun Lung seemed to consider '\\rhite and Whi teness' as different, and the same 'Horse and
Ilorseness'. His idea seemed to be as follows: A white horse con'
sists of the two words'White' and'Horse', but'Whiteness' and'I{orseness' together do not make a 'Horse'.
Forke seemed to have had the salne difficulty in his translation of
the above paragraph. tIe gives he reto the follorving explanation;
The text reads: E .B #,pi R E -[r E ru Ft .[E tU ffi L{ ft .B JF .tr t!,
r,

I il : : r il: "lHi #

".,
colour

is no

h
o:

u,i

::';3" ;' ?ff ,' iH?' ilx ; I"f"l,'fI'

shape, cannot suddenly say that

and whiteness,
second clause

i ffi a Tff I
a white horse is a horse

i.e. A 'Ilorse' and 'A White Horse'. Either the

whole

,E R H E tE is a later addition, or the E before fr,

is interpolated. fn that case the second clause is only a repetition of
the first, a mode of speech not infrequent in deductions, which I try
to express in my translation."

87

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

q.F.r
.r-7

t**A&.Lt Afuf-*.f'rfi A+.f-r* Aff-frA

*, ta # v'A^ta

* fu fri- { tt e A .Fr;lF

.Lr'r

f,- 6I

11. Host: "Horse rvithout 'Whiteness' is 'Horse'. White

without Horse (ness) is 'Whiteness' Furthermore
'Horse' eombined with 'Whiteness', is known as
'White Horse'. When not combined, we could not
call it such. Therefore we cannot say that 'A White
Horse is not a Horse'."
Hrieh:

The host refutes his guest's argument by stating that a horse belongs

to the speeies of horses. '\Mhite' comes under the classifiestion of

'Whiteness'. Thus the text reads: "Combined with". To eonrbine
'Horse (ness)' with 'Whiteness' and designate it as a horse means to
treat 'lVhite' arbitrarily as L designation for "Horse" This is impossible ! So is it impossible too to say that 'A White Horse is not e

Horse'. The first "Impossible" is used in the argument made by the

host, while the latter one is made by the guest.

a vzfi A,Ft&rF .tr?ffifr A.ffifufrrt.F'r"f + ef,-"I

12. Host: "If we have 'A White Horse' and may not take
it for a horse,

ffi&y we say then that

can be taken for 'A Yellow Horse'?"

Guest

Hrieh:

The host then asks his guest: "If we have not deeided that'A White
Horse' does not prove the existenee of horses, then we may call a white
horse a yellow horse too?"

i}ftv'A#.6

13.

Horse'

"No, we may not."

q v"Afr.1.1 fu*fr

.6

'A White

ft*fr.8,

#.F'r

fu rF.F.,

t.F"'tb

*fr

Guest: "lf there is a differenee between a horse and a

yellow horse, one may then correctly differentiate
between 'A Yellow Horse' from (other) horses. To
differentiate

'A Yellow Horse' from (other)

makes it also eorrect to say that

not a Horse'."

'A

horses,
Yellow Horse is

Hsieh: Since the term 'White Ilorse' proves the existenee of a horse, then 'A
Yellow Horse' must 'Not be a Horse'. This proves that our host's
argument is eorrect too.
88

A DISCOURSE ON A WHITE

v'A#.6 &

& fr

rF .81f? vi/. A.Hb

HORSE

,F',

*b ft

fiL fi+ .tL o

,r.

it

14. Guegt: "Tn stating that

'The Yellow Horse' is not a

horse, and the 'White Horse' is a horse, is very much
like flying into a pool, or to have the inner coffin ( 1)
and the outer coffin (2) in different places. This is
contradictory and confusing."

Noter: (1) f,B-The inner eoffin.

(21

ffi-The outer

eoffin.

Kung-sun Lung considers both white and yellow horses as horses.

Hriehr Yellow and white are eolours. Horses &re shapes. To accept colour
for shape arbltrarily is just as contradictory &s flnng into a pool.
Yellow as well as white horses are horseg. To accept the white colour
and reject the yellow one is just as contradietory as having the inner
eoffin and outer coffin in different places. The relation of the inner
eoffin to the outer eoffin is the same as that of the lips to the teeth.
"IVhen the lips are gone, the teeth will feel cold(l)," and the latter
eannot exist. The four barbarian tribes(2) guard the outer frontier,
whilst the Chinese guard the empire as such. Thus the one is
dependant upon the other and together seeure a peaceful empire.
When favours are only extended to the Chinese and not upon the
barbarians the latter will rise in revolt. To fight the barbarians
with soldiers will only cause great hardship to the common people
and cause a revolution, The inner people ( the Chinese ) cannot be
independant of the outer people ( the barbarians) , just as we cannot
have the inner coffin and the outer eoffin in different places. Even,
though the king extends his favours upon a great number of people,
this will be unsufficient for fighting the barbarians, So we may conclude: To reject yellow and only accept white is absurd.

Notcr: (1) E t nf E*

"When the lips are gone, the teeth feel eold", is &
wellknown Chinese saying, It is used figuratively of the exposed condition of the eentral power, when its outlying defences are taken.
Said by Kung Chi-ch'i, ?th. cent. B.C.

(Z)-the four barbarian tribes: [n the North, the Ti (lt(,|. Also a

of a feudal state near Gobi, now nE * H Yen-nan Fu in the
North of Shensi. Used for & Chai.
In the South, the Man ( fi ) or Nan blon ( Ht ) or Man Tzu,
the Southern barbarian. From the second term comes 'Manzi or
'Manji' of Marco Polo.
In the East, the I ( H ) or Tung I ( nH ), which is an old name
name

for

Korea.

In the West, the Jung ( * ) or Hsi Jung, 'ltrestern Jung ( EI* ).

of the West. The Tibetans.

The wild tribes

gg-

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU

qfr a,WZ^"T&?6*,WftgE a<r1t.*Wrtfr a

.tf, fi n'afrS .f., tL *n fff A #,rA .f.r ft M yZ .6 fu fi .f., 4
)F fr A,W fu fr
ti. X & fi ,fv +L $ n A ),fr.F,r tL
v

.F,r

.F.,

15. Guest: "If there is 'A White Horse'(1) you cannot sa.v
you have 'Not a Horse'. You can only say that, when
you separate 'Whiteness' from

it.

When not separ at-

ing 'whiteness' from it, you have again 'A White

Horse' whieh you cannot also call a horse (2). There..

fore that which you took for being a'Horse' has only

been 'Horseness'(3) you have been acepting for

'Horse'. The reason why you have not aeeepted 'A
White Horse' for 'Horseness' is because you took it
for a 'Horse.' Horvever, you cannot call 'Hol'seness'
a horset.t'

Noter

(1

) E:-as 'Horse' is to be taken in a concrete sense ; i.e. the live

(3

) ,S-a* 'Horse' is to be taken in an abstraet sense, which I

horse, which we can see, hear and touch, whilst

(21 ,S-here you eannot call a horse but only 'Horseness'.

have

rendered here as 'florseness'; i.e. is only the quality of being a horse.

The above text is the most difficult part of Kung-sun Lung's writings. The last two words of the text ,E ,fS are both represented by
the identieal eharacter (HORSE) u'hieh means 'Horseness' also in ttrl

abstract

sense.

*,isTffi :??,ll'lf.:'#,1f,"Y,ltfH'f"Xli,ffi"n-*ihu',tf ;nl-",'.ff :

There is no difference between noun, verb, or adjective. There are
no prepositions, no punetuation and qven conjunctions are only rarely
used. Kung-sun l,ung uses the eharaeter .E ( HORSE ) alternatively
in its abstt'aet and conet'ete senses, thus making the translation of thl
text into a foreign -lan-guage very difficult. Tha Chinese seholar, howeverr seems not to bother mueh about this difterenee, beeause abstract
'Horseness' as well as 'tlorse' hoth serve him as suitable illustrations.
n

tT, ;: * r i;}, .' h J' ;i, ix$ i',"r'. T I

"fx i "li:
questicn by the host, whiist it undoubtedly
is
?
the answer, BS gi_ven by the guest, i.e. Kung-sun Lung, as ca11- be
fotrnd out from Hsieh's eommentary, which begins with fr. fj i.e.
"TH E GUEST SAYS". Besides he does not differentiate betrveen
'Horse and Horseness'. His second sentenee goes as follou's:
white horse is eliminated, then indeed one
:
i " 11 i}:' I I' it
", { i-fl
graph
in the
form of

.*n.,ll =Ah'lf lo;:r3i,,P

The Chinese text, horvever, goes : ,li

Hl[ #'fi H ,E
it (i.e.'\\Ihiteness' from the,White Horse'), you
-(r]r[ef
have
again 'A White

separating

Horse'.

The * refers here to t'l 2 of the preeeding

the'White llorse'.
90

sentenee and not to

A DISCOURSE ON A WHITE

HORSE

Hriehr 'What the guest s-anted to say was: "Omit ''White'and there will be
'A Horse'. Do not omit it and there will be 'No florse'. Only by
combining the shape and colour of the horse together, we can gei two
horses within one bo4y. These two horses cannot be called E E
Thus we can only use the term 'White Hoisei.
-{[{svseness-Horse'.

Ea#^tffiA

16.

Guest
(

1)

!
.

('

+),

lgr' a

{a{rLo

'Whiteness' does not specify what is white.

Once you forget this, then you will find it

t'easonable."
Notct (1) 'White'-i.e.-What is meant here with 'W'hite'.
Hrichr Unnumerable things are white, hence may we say that 'W'hite' alone
is'not specified. Here 'W'hite' does not only refdr t; horsesl-t""ruse
their colour is not .a-lryays white. Therefore, as soon as we require a
horse without specifying its colour, any hoise becomes suitabie. If
you extend favours generally and not only with preference to friends
and relatives, the whole world will respond to your wisheg.

A .6 #

e A R ffi A {LE ffr A ft rF A & o

L7. Guest: "To say that 'A white Horse is white',

to specify its colour as 'Whiteness', but
it as 'Whiteness', it is not white."

if

means

you specify

Hsieh: To define the 'White' of 'A lforse' is to refer to 'Whiteness'. But

,IVhiteness?,
how could one horse alone have

*+ fltf t-ti,fi',X,+ fflv'AMo

18. Guest:
.6 #

"The word 'Horse' neither excludes nor

includes a colour. Therefore black horses as well as
yellow must be acceptable to your request."

Haieh3 'Horse' alone doeg not imply a colour, thus horses of all colours \rill
be acceptablg. Therefore-the sage does not make any distinction and
he enjoys Febce at his heart. He manages
wittr an unprejudiced mind. Thus everything finds lts everythinf
proper pface and reason
reigns ever5rwhere.

* IR f ?-# ,F., .F,, R ffl v"A ?- +

A.F.rIq{yAl64o
('Since
A .F., ft fr

19. Guest:

#t

the term 'White Horse' excludes and

includes colour you have also to exclude black-and
yellow eoloured horses. Thus the 'White Horse' alone
must be aeeeptable."
_91

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

Hrieh: When excluding yellow and including white, all horses still keep their
colours; they do not lose them. In that case only the 'White Horse'
remains to meet your ehoiee. A ruler who forms around himself a
certain clique, upon which he alone extends all his favours, wil! keep
others away from him, and all those will be remote and eventually rise
in revolt. Who would ever obey the eommands of such a ruler?
I suppose only those upon whom he has extended his favours. But
this witt only increase his difficulties and never quell the revolt.

,ft +
20.

fr +{L tt E A .F.r rF .6 o
# rt('To
means to have

have nothing that excludes

i
none excluded. Therefore I can say that
Horse is not a Horse.t'

Guest

'A

White

Notc: The word'Horse'does not refer to any species of horses nor to any
particular eoloured ones too. Whereas,- with t\e term 'White Horse'
itre eolour 'White' is specified. 'White' here is the specification of one
particular eolour of one particular horse. 'White' includes the different shades of 'White' as a blueish white, a greyish white, a yellowish
white, ete. One white horse has- always a somewhat lighter or darker
shade' of white than the other. 'Whiteness', however, in a more abstraet sense, ineludes everything of an unspecified colour includllg aU
the different shades of 'White'. It does not include the speeified '\['hite'
of one particular 'Horse'. Therefore Kung-sun Lung does -not consider 'Whiteness' as (a specifie) eolour. When he says that 'A White
Horse is not a Horse' he wants to express the strange presumption
that, once we combine 'Whiteness' with 'Horse', Ie cannot lPeak of
it as such, but mean only its quality of being a horse, which I term
here 'Horseness'. He nevir refeis to the differentiation between abstract
'White'
snd concrete senses, as in Chinese the eharacter Et means t'Horseas well as 'Whiteness', and the character E 'Horse' as well as

ness'. In that case he is absolutely correct in maintaining that 'A

White Horse is not a Horse'. What he really should have said is:
'Whiteness' can never be combined with one particular horse but only
with 'Horseness', but how can 'Horseness' be aecepted as a horse'?
That which denotes 'White' in the sense of a particular 'White Horse'
is entirely different from that which he terms 'Whiteness'. Onee he
uses'Whiteness'in conneetion with a horse, the idea of a horse is
eliminated and what is left is only 'Horsene$s'. \Mhen speaking of a
horse, its eolour should be expressed speeifieally and eoncretly.
Once he uses 'White' in connection with a horse, he sees again a
'Horse' ; i.e. 'One Particular Horse' with its 'Particular Shade of
White'.
Hrich: To exclude no 'White' means to exelude no 'yellow.' To exelude no
eolour means that no colour of a horse ean be excluded. Thus the
text reads: "To have nothing that exeludes means to have none excluded."-fhs 'Yellow and White' of horses ean be eompared with men
enj oying favours or being disf avoured. A king may f avour one to
who* ft is mueh attaehed, and disfavour those with whom he has no
close attaehment. The result will be that they will revolt against him,
in rvhieh ease his favourites will be helpless too. Thus the text reads:
every"A White Horse is not a Horse." Therefore the sag:e looks at proper
thing without prejudice and will allow all matters to take theireverything between Heaven and Earth, East
course. He
"mbirc".
and North. Uis intelligence is so Ereat that he
and West, South
understands all phenomena of nature, and he is quiet as .well a$
peaeeful. He approaehes those standing near him,_. though -they- ?re
unaware of his nearness. He approaeheJ those standing far from hlf,
though they are unaware of tlie distance. He never favours or disfavours anyone. His actions bring'All within the four Seas' (the
whole world) close to him and all obey his wishes.
92

CHAPTER III
THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZI)
DESIGNATION OF THINGS

dt tnt ?h

AF

fr,

I
<t-

(Chih wu lun)

tb

.A ,F th

ti ,t

fh

1. Guest: "There is not a 'r?

thing which cannot be designated. Designations, however, are ur1designated."
Noter:

_(

It

*B ) sfiift--is explained in Giles

comes also near to "define.,,
It is opposed to

(t

as: "A finger; to point out; to aim."

l) "*u", which Giles explained with "Matter; substance; living

in general. The affairs of this world, ai

creature ; animals; things

opposed to the spiritual.,'

Kung-sun Lung explains the ( ffi | "*u" in his chapter vI :

"( X tU E * f')t EE f# il il )"-"11eaven and Earth together with
what they produce, are called things." So ( +F ) ,'chih', should be
better used in an abstract sense, whilst ( W, ) "utu" i8 used in a con-

crete

sense.

Derk Bodde, in his translation of Feng Yu-lan's History of Chinese

Philosophy, translated ( tE ) "chih"-" That which designates.,,

Kung-sun Lung referred here to the ,Meaning of a Meaning., He
denies the existenee of sueh a term as 'The Meaning of a MJaning,.
Every thing must have some meaning or characteriitics of its own,
and the meaning is only the shadow of a thing, and at times it has not

of its own shadow.

It seems that Hsieh Hsi-shen, the commentator, has not fully
understood the basic idea of the text, as he tries to explain 'Designation'
with 'Criticism' or 'The Mutual Criticism between Things', ana thus
even the semblance

causing more eonfusion.

Hrich: We have different abilities all pointing to different ways. Therefore

the text says: ( *h H lF tE )
is not a thing which cannot
be designated." To designate-"fhs1s
one thing or another means, to
designate right or wrong or to compare (criticize) one with the oth"".
Now, this comparision (criticisrn) of right and wrong bringp mankind
in eonfusion and results in no designation. ThuJ the [ext reads:
( fE )F +H )
are undesignated.',
-"Designations

93

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

2. Host:
"If there are no designations in the world,
^T*fitb*"If),,afrtb
things cannot be called things."

Noter: In another Sung eopy the text consists of only nine characters :
( X li :l|f +F qrl J.rlq EI ';I tii )
the original text contained
elearly divided into two sections.
ten characters. The text can be-whilst
characters and, ( VU fit -rtl D,t ;ii th )
First: ( 7. I f* ffr )
-four
eharacters. It eould
be better understood if we put a comma
-six
between the trvo characters ( +E ), (4'l:). Here the meaning was confused because the last charaeter ( ti"A ) was omittecl. This omissign
caused a mistake in the punctuation, putting the eomnla between
(4'n), (fE).
Hrieh: To designate means, to compare (criticize) or designate right or wrong.
The reason why the text says, "Designations are undesignated" is, beeause things are always compared with one another. If in this world
is a thing without designaton, nothing ever could be called a thing.
So I say: "Wherever we have a thing we shall have eomparision."
This brings us to the following conelusion: "There is not one thing
which eannot be designated."

fh
x
T 'f? ttp q
3. Host: "If there is designation, (how) could things

;lt rfr #

+"H

no

in this world be called designated?"

Hrieh: There is not a thing which is undesignated. The reason why we say
that a designation is not a designation is, because there are nrany
things in thl world, and how could we ever eall them all designated?
uneonseious of their designation; thus designations are
Things
^re
undesignated.

4.

Guest

('Designation, is not of this world. Things, are

of this world. It is not possible to aecept that
which exists in the world for that rvhich does

not exist. "

Hrieh: The world eould not exist one day without things, and there is not one
thing which is incorrect. Therefore it is impossible to consider a
thing as designated.

5.

z 3'fn the world being no designation, then things

^T*tfrdDtb4{+"Hffr{L
can never be said to be designated."

Host

Hrich: The reason why we can find neither right nor wrong in this world is,
because all things in themselves are pioper and thus -tluy cannot be
ealled neither right nor wrong. Theref ore neither right nor wrong
exists.
9.1

DESIGNATION OF THINGS

6.

Host

"

If^{'aHfh
they cannot be

frrF fh {L

called designated, there is no

designation."

Hriehr For example: Water and fire have different qualities, although each
has its partieular use. How then could we call either of them right
or wrong?

,Frhfrtb
tifttb*

Guest:

,F 4h -tL

rough things
things are not designated, they are
"Although

not undesignated."
Notcr: The comma is here between ( YA ) and ( H ). The punctuation
makes all t'he difference in the meaning of ttie text. Soire seholars
+E {r. o )
lvoul-d prefer ttr* following punctuation : ( ,f. # {t " ,fi;
-designation,
In that case the translation is : "Although there is -noH:/F
things are not undesignated." I follow tlie punctuation as g{ven by
Hsieh.

Hrieht

*Hl.rl,It*t

T*

not designating thernselves are designating one another

4
T 2,fr fh rt rt fr ,lt ffr {L
being

th-.ro tb

no designation in the world and

^8. Guest. "There
things cannot be called designated, they are

still not undesignated."

Hrieh: The reason why things eannot be called designated is, beeause there
is neither right nor wron[r, and therefore righl and wrong never exists.
Thus the text reads : ( .l[. H JF fE t't )
Still they are not undesigna ted."
-"

,t fr rF rh # h A rF tt rL
tbA rF fih 'r? fh rF ti {L

9. Guest: "Although not undesignatd, (does not mean

that ) there are no things rvhich are un-

If things are not undesignated,

then designation is no designation."
clesignated.

Hrieh: As the eondition of being neither right nor wl'ong: does not exist, all
things defy each other's right and wrong. Thus the text reeds:
( ,F 4+ )F +E -Ul )
not undesignated." As 'i,l'rere is
-"Although
neither right nor wrong,
thcre is not such condition of being neither
right nor wrong and things are unaware of their defying each other''s
right and wrong. However, there neither exists right nor wrong.

lTiil',,lixl,fi:f:;,,[,9 ft.75f,ff ,g'# JLJfl#;],;" "

95

things

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

10. Host: "The idea that there are no designations in the

rvorld arises from the conclusion that every
thing has its name which cannot be taken for
designation."
Hrieh: Everything is aetual and has its proper name. As f or instance :
Wang Liang ( fi R, ) was a good horseman and Li Shou ( *il ?i')
good at mathematics. So every one had his own talent. It is similar
to the fact that we eannot be without our eyes and ears, each havc
their right way of being used,
Note: What Hsieh wanted to say is: "'We ean only use our eyes for seeing
but not for hearing, and viee versa".

11.

Host

3'All things
i "All
thinss not being
beinE

desiEnated. still
designated,
still some
may call them designated, this would make
them both (names and designations) ulrdesignated."

Hrieh: All things are undesignated. still someone may eall them designated.
This lrill let things defy their being right and wrong. It is, however,
sill undecided which is right or which is wrong. Theref ore there is
no designation.

t2.
Hrieh

13.

v),
Host:

"Having not taken them for designated, makes

it impossible to take them for undesignated."

: Undesignated things have designations. Theref ore it is impossible

term a thing designated.

Host

"Moreover', designation is tha tw hich

mon throughout the world."

to

is eom-

Hrieh: Things being both right and wrong or, things designating one another,
are eorrelative,
96

DESIGNATION OF THINGS

^T*f6#*tpfiTffi,&th*t,-r

^{a.fr16ftrFfrrFrh,e,
not

14. Guert: "There is no designation in the world ; we pancall things undesignated. They cannot be
spoken of as not designated, &s there are none
which are undesignated."

Hrieh: The words right and wrong originate from mutual designations of
hgis are none
things. Thus the text reads: ( )F fr {F tE fl o )
-"f
whlch are undesignated." Anything without designation
is again undesignated.

;tFfrrFrh#h Art

15. Guegt: "If there is nothing

rh

un designat d, things are

not unclesignated."
Hrieh: It means neither right nor wrong is derived from it, and there ls no
thing without a desiglation. Therefore the sage tries to find a man
who moves within the limits of right and wrong then, indeed, he will
find one who is neither right nor wrong'.

fi

rF lF fA {L

fi

-tr *b 1t

ti

tL

16. Guest: "A designation is not undesignated too, but a

designation referring to a thing is a nolldesignation."

{i,^T*
L7

Host:

tbfA-at lEfr {F fA iT* tb'a\lL#rfi

"If in this world no things were clesignated,
who then could say they were undesignated ?
If there were no things in the world, who could
then call them designated ? "

Hrich: Things which are designated have no designation. A designation witnout anything to be designrated is non-designation.
97

TIIE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN

TfrTA *

LUNG-TZU

ti

ri

tb rE
4s.rfl
designation in the world without
things being designated. Who could speak
of non-designation and say then that there are
no things without deuignation ? "
*b rfr rE4s.ffi rF

Guest: "There

18.
^.

is

be
Hrieh: If things and designations never existed in the worli then all would
still and quiet. Which is designated and which is undesignated? 'Who
could then say that a designation is a dcsignation?

Jf,-

n 16 a a & rF ia 4 tr -r *b do n 4 & ra

19.

Guest

"Moreover, in ease a definite designation in

itself is taken for a non-designation, whY cloes
it then depend on things, and why is it then
taken for a designation?"

Hrieh: If there is cnly designation and nothing to which it ean be attributed

f or its designation then, who may say that a thing has designation ?
Wh1'nray we say then, rvhere is no thing, there is no designation? This
provcs
-evidentthat no designation exists. Considering both viervs it treeomes
that designation in itself is no designation. How is it then
possible that a thing has a designalio. ? This proves that various
lhins* ean be differently applied. Every thing, whilst existing in
itself, ean only be spoken of as something acbing on behalf of something. In that case there will be neither right nor wrr)ng. - Therefore,
the'iage keeps profound silenee and is uneonseious of right and
rwong.- He r-ejects nothing, neither a person nol' a thing.

98

CHAPTER IV
THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU
DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN
F ROM CHANGES
Lq_

,ft

?hffi

\4

(T'ung-7-pien htn)

q;-fr4+q-=

1.

'*-

Does two include one?"

Kung z " Trvo does not include one?"
on

Qu

"

Noterr This chapter is divided into questions and answers, both indicated by
the character ( El ) .
It cannot be inferred frorn the text rvho was actually the inquirer,
whilst the respondent was undoubtedly Kung-sun Lung. Therefore
the _intluirer is _indicated with "Qr" and the respondent with "Kung:"
"l:
o,
L, i: ffi bti #,-'n'. }r*
*?: x' !}i"l' ? n :1x 3,
"
"o
the"fxls{"
abstract, and vice versa.
The abstraet
always refers
to ",tJ
things
"#
general, Bs in ehapter II the words'Horseness and Whiteness'. T'he

abstract rvord e&n never undergo any change. Only the conerete can
be changed, as it refers to things in particular, as 'Horse and White'.
The ( .- ) "Two" mentioned in the above text is to be taken in a
general abstraet sense. Thus it ean be taken for "One" also.
( i6 ) t'ung-1i;. To go through; to come to the front.
( A ) pien
To ehange; to alter; to transform.
-lit:
( ilf, E t'rtng-pienl
That u'hieh comes from changes.
Forke translates-lit:
"T'ung-pien" with "On Accomodation," by taking
it erroneously for ( fi ilB pien-t'ungl.
Hrieh: '\Vhite artd Horse' are two things which cannot be combined to one.

q-frfr+q;,frfrq-=fr8+q;*E

q
2.

fr T'afr;+ E $6I E frEI ffi=+ q

fr+4frqffi=+qEI
TWO
Qu:

include right?"
"Does
Kung: ('TWO does not include right."
TWO include left?"
Qu: ('Does
Kuns: ('TWO does not include left."
right be called TWO?"
Qu: "Can
('No,
it cannot.t'
Kung |

99-

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN

LUNG.TZ,U

Quz "Can left be called TWO?"

"No, it eannot.t'
"Can left and right be called TWO?"
Kung: "Yes, it ean."
Kung

Qui

Note:

We find in some editions 'Two and One' misplaced. These errors have
been eliminated in later editions.

Hrieh: tTwot.
'Left and Right'have their own positions snd

cannot be taken for

Noter: 'Two'is here taken in an abstraet sense thus it cannot be changed into
'One' nor into 'Right or Left', 'Right' as well as 'Left' have tlteir own
positions, theref_ore they- ean be taken for 'Trtro' together..

.,,*rHI;3il"i#T";3;lHTiffi"::;Hli;,.

is nor a right day and

a left, or a right king and I left king. Right and left togethcr pre
two. but two is not always right or left, as we have seen. Subje^t
and predieate eannot be simply transposed. Every horse is an
animal, but every animal is not a horse."

qaftrF^&T+qT
3'May

3. Qui

Kung

we not call a change a non change?"

''Yes, we may."

Note: I want to point out here again that the abstraet never ehanges, what
actuall.y ehanges is only the concrete particular,

Hrich: It is quite evident that'One'eannot be taken for'Two', nor can'Two'

be taken for 'One'. Things have their own way of changing, so we
can never maintain that there is a non-change.

-^r'
,b

4. Qu

EIfr& + q"I
('May
we call RIGH Tw

hich has been transferred

a change?"

Kung:

(tYes,

we may."

Noter: Yu,Iiuh

( frt il ) copmented on this in the original text:

''The eo-ordinated {'Not" is superfluous. It should be eorreeted:
( FIl's *-fr EI + )-"Mav ye -sav that a ehange is a non-ehange?"
Ihis version seems to be the bettrr one. Ho*ever, I do not want

to ehange the Chinese text.

Hrieh: The phrase fr -H E means: "Right to be transferred to the left."
It shows that one thing may be changed into another quite difrerent,
such as the eicada ( ftlt ) is different f rom the hug" rukh ( [Jlg ) , or the
faithful from the unfaithful, or 'To be or not t; be' is indlfinite, or
fortune or misfortune is everehanging. All these examples prove ihat
one thing may ehange into anothei. So 'Right' can be faken for 'One'
and always remain the same even after hundreds of changes.
Note: For referenee to the small eieada and the huge rukh see Chuang Tzu
one, ( H fi U
aae au) or "Transeendental
-(jt[ + ),Achapter
pleasant abstraetJon -,hsiao
Bliss".
of self acrols the bounds of this
physieal universe to an infinite domain beyond,
100

DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FRONI CIIANGES

q
5.

,ft
Qu

t^

/O

? " Which part of the tu,o changes "

?

Kung: "The right."

Noterr The Chinese text consists of only three characters ( g E . ), and
although the interrogative particle ( + ) is omitted it rnuot be taken
for a question, as the answer "The right" shows. Ilsieh did not comment on this omission, but Forke's attention was drawn to it. He
remarks: "There seems to be a lacuna in the text. I have tried to
fill it out. Perhaps some more words have been left out." IIe renders
the passage: "If you change one part of a pair, rvhich part is allected
thereby ?"

I do not believe, however, that there is more than the interrogative

particle( +) omitted.
According to Yu Yueh the character ( * ) is here taken for ( X ) .
Hriehr The cieaiia and the rukh belong to different species. The interchange
only shows that the single is turned into the double. How may we
then say that it has become ,Two,?

qfia,t+7I
6. Qu: "If

)@

r*'

AA /O

t6,ft+T

)o

aa

&

RIGHT has been changed, how can ir still be

called right ? If not changd, hor can it be called a
chang e?"

Hrieh: As right has been ehanged to left, how could it be still called right?
If we regard it as the same, how can we say that it has been ehanged?
This proves that'Two'may be'one', or,one, may be,Two,.

7. Kung: "If TWO is neither RIGHT nor LEFT, how is

it possiblle that LBFT and RIGHT are Two?"-"A
ram with an ox does not make a horse. "
Notcu The second sentenee beginning with "A Ram" introduces a new theses.

"iI

::ff'""d'i:?;l:'"JJ"i'H 1,,T";"il::;'1.,

been inrerchanged

with( # )-('Each".

Hrich; If we place a ram on the left and the ox on the right, and these 'Two'

become 'One', then this one(combination) cannot be called a ram nor

an ox. Sinee combined it could not be correctly designated, one

it as a horse. This proves that 'Two Things' can never
be taken for 'One'.

eannot define

101

THE 1YORKS OT KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZL]

*l'r, /\.
,F *P,
8. Kung: "An ox wit ha

ram does not make a fo\\'I."

Noter: Here we have to distinguish again between the general abstraet 'Left
and 'Right' whieh eannot be added to make 'Two'. Only the conerete
particular 'Lef t and Right' can be taken f or 'Two'. The same case
with the three animals taken in the abstraet general sense.
Hrieh: Changing one thing into another is the same as placing the'Right'in
a wrong position, that is: The ox on the lef t and the ram on the
right. We can conelude that it is neither a ram nor an oX, mueh Iess
a fowl.

fr

g.a u:

fi,

How is this

"

10. Kung: "A ram differs from an ox, as the ram has
front-teeth on its upper gum and the ox has none,
Horvever, it does not mean that a ram is not a ram,
and an ox is not an ox. Each of them might not have
those teeth and still belong to the same speeies."

Note: Ilere again 'Ox and Ram' must be taken in the abstraet sense.
Hrieh: An ox rvithout teeth is not lackirrg anything whilst with a ram the
upper teeth al'e unneeessar)'. However, it is not possible to call I ram
with superfluous teeth a non-ram. If we compare an ox without upper
teeth to a ram wittrout sueh, we will admit that the ram is Iacking
x:' ! :: i'1,:
i:'x "Jl: " t
I. * -' :.' ?tii ';3' : .:'" :xt 3*,",: JT ll
",i l'
an ox wi, be atwavs

n*

:l*'Ji.i,:J* T:.:Htf,,il J}"#i,"jJ:'; ,L,!,:'"f'lrre

+
"I

11.

41

ft

K ung: "A I'am has horns and an ox has horns. However, it is not possible to say thab an ox is a ram, ancl
a ram is an ox. Both of them have horns but they
belong to different species."

Note: ( -Lffi ) is similar to ( Z:E ).

Hrieh: Although an ox as well as a ram have.horns, it is not possible to call
an ox a ram nor a ram an ox. That both grow horns is in accordanee
u'ith nature. Still rams and oxen belong to different speeies and can
never interehange their designations.
102

DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DITA\\IN FROI\I CIIAI{G ES

+ + fr trt,6 * trt .F,r fr f+, + + * fa*t w +

+ + rF tL ilF .6 # * .6 rL * F., # +
j- *_ da +,r? + rt ,F,r ?r ^,&
+
'rr + +
...trr

L2,

Kung: "Itams and oxen have horns. Horses have

^:
horns. A horse has a long hairy tail. Therefore

no

it is saicl that a ram rvith an ox cloes not make a horse.

If there is no horser \re have no horse (to talk aboub).
If thel'e is no horse, the ram cannot be taken for Two
as rvell as the ox cannot be taken for TWO. Horvevet', we can take a ram added to an ox for TWO.
But a ram and an ox cannot be taken for a horse,
rvhich fact has been admitted before. If they are
taken for TWO and this statement is considered
as col'rect, it is just like taking them for different
species as in the case of left and right."

Noter: There is undoubtedly a differenee between ( ffiE ) and ( ,F.E ).

( ffiIE ) should be taken r'or "Without a Horsei' i; ; conerete-particular sense'.whilst ( ,F.E ) should be taken for "No Horseness"] in the
general abstraet

sense.

Hrieh: As the horse is different from the ox and the ram, the eornbination of
ram and ox cannot be designated as a horse. Not only is it not a
horse, as in the species of rims and oxen a horse n.u.. can be found.
Rams belong to one species and can therefore not be taken for'Two'.
Oxen belong to one species and never ean be taken for ,Twoi. It is
possi ble, horvgver, that a ratn added to an ox can be taken f or ,T\r,o,.
This proves that a ram and an ox cannot be called t
f} u ram
and an ox were to be taken for a horse, we have"to "ir".
take 'Two, for
(i.e.
'Three'. l:t tlg-species
rams, 2nd the species of o*". plus a
horse which makes. 'Thiee') . "J
Rams and oxen ."ir- only be considered
as 'Two' if there is no horse. The reason rvhy here rams and oxen
are taken for an examplq is, to illustrate two animals U"to"gi"t i;
two different species. The same illustration shows the diFerence
betrveen left and right. Once the differenee between left ;"d;;[t
is defined, the position of up and down is defined too.
41 R,*, fr ,J{ fr *fe & !F *t, &::
+
-.- *t
)o
!,-:
+ + &'ts *t & w w,rr tt rt- + + &
/L
ft q + + + rF *?" rF fr v? rF *f6,rL
#,
-E *16 ,(.:
13. K ung:
J-

r.L
-+
I

6A

"oxen and rams have hair. Fowls are eo\rered

with feathers. We rnay refer to the fowl's legs as
ONE(l), but counting them (one by one) there are
Two. Two and oNE makes THREE (z). we may
103

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

refer to the ox' and ram's legs as ONE ( 3 ) , but eounting them (one by one) there are FOUR. FOUR and
ONE makes FIVE (4)."
CONCLUSION z "Oxen and rams have each FIVE
LEGS, each fowl has THREE LEGS." Therefore it
is said that an ox with a ram does not make a fowl.
Having no forvl we have no forvl at all."
Note:

1) 'Qns'-The leg of I man, of an ox, of a ram, of a fowl, of a table,

etc. which can be ref erred to as "Leg", taken in the abstract
general sense and counted as 'One Leg'.

(2) The'T\uo'legs which a fowl aetually has in addition to the'One

Leg' taken in the abstract sense.
(3) The four legs of a ram and the four legs of an ox to be taken in
the abstract

Bense

as 'One Leg'.

) The legs of a ram and an ox to be tsken as 'Four' (which each

actually has and furnishes a concrete fact) in addition to the 'One'
abstract 'Leg', thus meking 'Four' eoncrete 'Legs' and 'One'
abstract 'Leg' together 'Five Legs' f or each animal.
( 6 ) Here we find again the term ( ,Fsl ) as referred to in the
preceding text; it indicates that fowl should be taken here in the
abstract sense Bs 'Fowlness' in comparision with the conerete
'Fowl'. So the correct translation would go : " Without having
a fowl there is no 'Fowlness."
Hrieh: Here the 'Ram and Ox' arrangement is changed to 'Ox and Ram'.
This change shows the transf er from the lef t to the right position.
This refers to the interchange of duties between the sovereign and hrs
offieials which will cause disordeT. Men say: "Rams have legs, oxen
have legs, and fowls have legs" ; however, they never count the legs of
each animal and j ust mentton 'Leg' or 'One Leg' ( in the abstract
(4

sense ) .

* .6 vA *,S .6 *t *t* * vA*n s * #*,

fi1

fr*.ffi1L8
('In

the comparision between a horse and a

fowl, the more intelligent horse is to be prefered. A
not so intelligent animal (as the fowl) cannot belong
to the same speeies (as the horse). To decide otherwise would cause confusion. This appellation could
be called an incoherent distinction ( I ) "

14. Kung:

Hrieh: In comparing a horse with a fowl, of

eourse the horse is to be prefered.

Because the horse is more useful(2) to a nation than a fowl(3). Both
these animals do not belong to the same species. The same eomperision
holds good when a king employs persons without talents and prornotes

them to the same position &s talented persons. He conf uses names
and their aetual significance. His action is 'Abnormal'( fiE ) .
104

DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM CHANGES

Noter

) ( iIjE EE k'uang chul-'rf nsoherent Distinction,,. The same term

was used in the Later Illohist School. Derk Bodde translated it
with "Loose Appellation."
(2) The horse is useful to a nation as a means of transportation in
peace as well as in war,
(3) The usefulness of a fowl is only limited to an item of food.
(1

15. Qu3 "Let us talk about something

else."

Notcr The questioner is evidently tired of Kung-sun Lung's reasoning.

q frL,"AA rF#Av^fr rF *
('Blue

16.

Kung:

and white does not make

and blue does not make green."

yellow. 'White

q FI +t
L7.

wh y is this?"

Qr..:

q fr A

fi .P da ta .P fx*+ rL
*$^ B*^ fi
^

ta #F,r? ta

18. Kung: "Blue and white do not combine. Their eombination is in opposition ( 1). However, whether they
approach each other or not, their positions are not
interfered with."

Hrioh: fn the preeeding argument-we used the ram and the ox as an example,
as they are 'One' with left and right. They actually belong- td
different categories which cannot oveicome one another-. Therdfore
colours are given in the discussion as an illustration in comparision
with other obj ects. For example : Blue cannot be made more blue
if mixed with white. White cannot be more white if mixed with blue.
Blue - represeqts wood, ilr position is in the East. lVhite represents
metal,-^its position is in the West. East and West are focing inother;
"
they lie opposite to one another. East cannot be moved to thd
extreme limit of East, so West cannot be moved beyond the extreme
limit of Wegt. Both direetions, however, are not unconnected and
not opposed (2).. Thus the text reads i "Whether they approach
each
other or not, their positions are not interfered with." tgl- 'Westerners
Noter: The whole text is qnintelligible to
unless they study the
table of the 'Five Elements' on chapter VIII, page 7!-72. - For better
information I give here again a sunmary of the five colours with their
positions and elements:

Colourr

1. Blue (gfeen) Porition:

2. White
3. Yellow
4. Black
6. Red
105

Esst

lVest
Centre

North
South

Elcmcnt: \[ood.
Metal.

Earth.
Water
Fire,

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZV

1) ( H ch'itrg) can be taken for three eolours: Green-blue-black.

As pointed ou'" before ( B eh'i;tg) refers to the East, so the'green
colour is more appropriate. However, in the English text I have
given it as 'Blue' to differentiate it from ( B pf )
blueish
-the
and. greenish shade of jade.
(21 Hsieh's explanations is unintelligible to rne. Blue and East is
opposite to White and West which corresponds rvith the above
(

text:

"Blue and lVhite do not combine. Their combination is in opposition." This is evident as "Metal overcomes Wood." Now,
as in the text : "Whether they approach each other or not, their
positions are not interfered with." This makes sense only if we
consider that East cannot combine or approach West, because
these two direetions are separated by North and South. This
makes also the interf erence of their particular positions impossible.

Forke failed entirely to give a proper explanation. It is

evident that he did not make use of the eommentary. Derk
Bodcle omitted the text with the remark : "The text that follows
is not very clear."

T S * n # fx'r? gi +'6' * ffi ;* fr fr

Eh
19. Kung: "Not interfet'ing with their positiolts lneans to
be in opposition but still in agreement as to their
respective positiolts. It is the same as if left and right
cannot be combined."
Hrieh

( fi ) here a eolour which is mixed. East and lVest are opposite and
iacing one another, still each has its proper position, just as -with left
and right which cannot be combined. So they never interf ere with
their positions.

tt lrt fr

*a

* fr # **t
.6 *krt A*
^?I
^?r
ftXrr. *fr-E#tbtfr*A<H
3'Therefore
it is impossible that they
Kung:

20.

--

E+

beeome

one with blue or one with rvhite. How coulcl they

then ever hecome yellow ? Yellorv is a correct
colour ( 1 ). It is the right choice. It refers to a
prinee and the ministel's within olte eountry and thus
resuiting to power and long life."

Note: Here a eomparision with the five elements will give the
explanation

colour'

necessary

Rank'
ifix[?."
{,iity
People
Blu e green

Element:

f,H$

Poeition:

Wood
Thus Yellow refers to the prinee and is the eorreet
\Mhite ,, ,) ,) minister
Blue
), ,, ,) people.
(

106

fi,"*"""

East
eolour

DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM CIIANGES

d#
H rA ,t rE #*
2L. Kung: "Moreover, if BLUE is combined
fr#ft^

nfi,AiL t-

nh

H,J

rvirh WHITE,

WHITE cannot ovet'come it. If there is enough

WHITE, it may overcome it, but never completely.

It is because WOOD cannot destroy METAL. If

WOOD could destroy METAL, we would obtain

GREEN. GREEN, however, is not the correct colour
to be chosen."

Hrichr White: here represents !h" powers invested in a prince. Blue the
power 8s entrusted to the minister. If 'Blue'is Laaea to ,White,
means that the ministers have too much power and will encroach ,po.
the authority of - the prince. In such a case the rule of the princ6 it
unsuccessful. Thus the text reads: ( E ,,fi W XL ) ,,Wt it" cannot
overcome it." The eorreet yay. is that th;- prince has authoiity
over his ministers. This rule is - irrefutable. If ' 'lVhite' is unable t;
overeome 'Blue', is just as 'Wood' would overcome 'Metal' or the minister 1,"Y. greater power than their prinee. If we combine 'Blue, with
'W'hite' we obtain Green. If the ministers overcome th; piir,.*
with
their power, !h" government is disorderly. If the prin"[ - ao"r not
employ -hit ministers in the right positiorl the rule irt ttrl prince is
disorderly too.
Notcr: (1) ( 8+ )-{r[g combined w-ith.,,
(2) ( s pi)
blueish-greenish shade of jade, as mentioned before. It-r'1'1r"
refers here to a mixed colour, indicating disorder.
For further explanations:

HlL"

represents

t,lr

ilIxl:;""

to Hsieli.
#g; li '#?,

This
is according
r h e -arrangement
f,iL,X,' I i"".11,1*'

il

fr a fi JB'r? ta 4
aA*?-*,-u
^ ('BLUE
^

22.

',tr

element
ho w e v e r

Hr:Ti.

ta fr#-H| ffi qA.& +,r?

Kung t
cannot combine with .\{HITE, and
when combined, they cannot overcome each other, 8s
both of them are visible. They clash in their brightness and their colour changes to GRBEN."

Hrieh: Blue and white are entirely independant colours. If mixed one cannot overcome the other. Tb"y
elnnot overcome each other because,
even adding blue t-o_ white, it -cannot entirely o""i.omr *i.it". pure
white mixed with blue shows that white cannot overeome the
blue.
In the mixture with blue the white colour is still visibie. - ln the
mixture with white, the blue colour is still visible. Each of these
colours are still evident when mixed. Thus the text ruud.: " Blue
and white clash in their brightness and the colour changes to green."

107

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

23. Kung: "In a combination rather prefer GREEN to

YELLOW. YELLOW represents the horse. Could
it be this class ? "
Hrichr In comparing yellorv with gteen, yellow is to be prefered, because its
position is eentral; The horse is a very useful animal to a nation.
The meaning of being situated in s central (upright) position refers
only to something of great national importBnee. Therefore yellow is
prefered in eonnection with a horse. Thus horse symbolizes a central
(

upright) position.

*r,ru * * & +
*24. *Kung:
"GREEN represents the FOWL.

Is this in-

eorrect?"
Hrieh: Green is a eolour which is not upright (coreet). The fowl is unbelong to the same elassiintelligent. Thus both, 'Fowl and Green'
ffeation. A clash between 'Blue and 'White' will produee 'Green'. This
proves that ''White' cannot overcome the eonfusion'

# nf * a + ib ffi an-u. ffi aA * 6 r

# &.
25. Kung: "If their is an outrage (incorreetness) then the
prinee will clash with his ministers, as both wish to be
brighter ( or to be more in evidenee ) . If both of them
wishing to be bright, brightness will be obscured. If
there is no brightness, we shall have no eorrectness
(in government)."
qA rF
-c.

Hrieh: If there is a clash between a prinee and his ministers for their brightthe g:overnment will be a eruel one and breed confusion.
ness (power),
-a
prince is slruggling with his ministers for brightness (power),
When
the upper position of the prince as well as the lower position of his
be eonfused. Commands and orders are unjust and
minis[ers
"ritt will be incorreet.
their exeeutions

,E

ffi

-E.

S * fl H * 6' &* ?- +

AA da

,t't*

fr v'A-iE .6

.6

ik q ffi aA tL

26. Kung: "If there is no correctness in government, names

do not eomespond with their actualities. Therefore it
is said that there are two kinds of brightnesses (two
-108-

DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM CHANGBS

powers struggling for supremacy). With trvo kinds

of brightnesses virtue is lost and without it there is no
correctness ( in government ) ."
Hrieh: We should employ names in agreement with their actual significance.
The sun and moon, the great variety of matter, the sereni ty of the
prince and the father, the humbleness of ministers and sons, the countless offieials and elerks in high'or lorv positions, as well as'all utensils
and substances, evdry thing is 'desisnaled with its own name. When
the sage controls them, he regulates the aetions and avoids errors.
The world is then quiet and stable "and Heaven's harmony is achieved.
The higher as well as the lower are in good order. Althoush the sage
seemed to do nothing, his aetions reach a tremenduous scope. He
keeps silent yet .his t-eachings are for reaching ( 1) . If names are not
in agreement with their actual significance they will never respond.

Then, the upper elass is impudent, the lower encroaching. These contradictions cause confucion. So the text reads : " Brightnes will be
obscured." The muddled green shorvs the struggle between prince and
ministers. The people are scattered from the centre and the outside
people ( the barbarians) become rebellious. Righteousness disappears
due to incorrect relations between names and their actual signicfiance
and nothing can forestall the collapse.
Notc: ( 1) refers here to ( t* fr m 6 fr tuu wei erh Au weil-'(lr[sn Action
Brings Action", the wellknown Taoist principle as propounded by Lao
'L'zu.

109

CHAPTER V

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

DISCO URS E ON HARD AND WHITE

&

a?hffi1
pai

(Chien

lun)

q66Iq:"I+q-Io
ArtZrI+
4
we say that
1.
'Hard', and 'Stone' are
Qu: "May
three

'White',

"

Kung: "No, we may not."

Qu: "May we say that they are two?"

Kung i "Yes, we may say so."
Hrieh: The

why'Hard','White' and'Stone' are three things eombining

into one body and still do not define as three different
things is: We see the stone with our eyes, thus we see only its white
coloirr but not that it is hard. Our sight pereeives only two things:
'White an.l Stone'. Therefore we read in the following text: "Withou t I Iarrln ess to get Whiteness makes two." W hen touching the
stone rvith our hands, we ean only find out that it is hard, but we still
do not perceive its.rvhite colour. This explains that we pereeive
'Stone rna Hard' as two items only. Thus the following text reads:
"Without'Whiteness to get Hardness makes two."
Noter: We have here again to differentiate between the partieular white
eolour of an object and'\Mhiteness', taken in a more abstract, general
sense, as pointbd out already in ehapter II of the 'White Horse'.
Kung-sun Lung wishes to explain that '\Mhiteness and Hardness' are
trvo independant, separate items to be understood in a general, abstract
th

re&son

emselves

sense.

Ht j:

;''ii, ni t. l,k, Y;'l#ir

i5(551-479

*t'J T ir :il

t^fr

Titr Tgfr
"
Confucius
B.C.) nor Meneius (3?2-289 B.C.) mentioned
'fi it.
Mo Tzu ( Eg + 4?8-381 B.C.) discussed it at length in his later six
chapters wliieti proves only that these had not been-written by himself'
Chuang Tzu ( *f + ca. 3?0 B.C.) mentioned 'Hardness and \Mhiteness'
th

r
3J 3l

in sevJral of his chapters, mostl), in conneetion with Hui Tzu ( H :F ),

who was his eontemporary.

efiI*k e,REL 4+A*#'{L:-,fra lilEL4.#&:

2.

Qu

"

Horv is this ? "

i "Without
'Hardness' to get 'Whiteness' gives
'W'ithout
two.
'Whiteness to get 'Hardness' gives

Kung

also two."
110

DISCOURSE ON HARD AND WHITE

e 1+-R ffi a

^T

3. Qu i

ffi.fr a & t

ffr

EL

"When getting this quality of 'White' one cannot

say that there is no 'Whiteness'. When getting this
quality of 'Hard' one cannot say that there is no
'Hardness'. The 'Stone', however'. is a concrete f.act
and eannot be eounted as three."

Noterr ( tri LEfrV

f S.& ) The first ('2') here is a definite, demonstrative artiele, as in ( 2A )-('fhis Stone". The second ( 2 ) is a
Pronoun-{(if,,".

Hrichs 'I'lardtress'and'Whiteness'are to be found in the same body.

It is
impossille to say that there is no'Hardness'but'Whiteness'. - We get
either 'Hardness' or 'lVhiteness', but rve cannot say that they togetf,er
with the stone do not make three.

* EL rL il.I
fil+t ffi A itr 4+t ffi Et 1+tgl{L* a ,u,
e &,^

4+

ffi

EL ,r? 4+

fft a fr

4. Kung: "With sight we do not

pereeive'Hardness', but
we see 'Whiteness' without 'Hardness' ith touch
we do not feel 'Whiteness' but 'Hardness'. Touch
finds out 'Hardness' without 'Whiteness'."

Hrich:

We eannot see 'Hardness' with our eyes, Eo we say: ( ffiE )-"Without Hardness." With toueh we eannot find out'Whiteneisi so we say
( ffi

H )-r'Without

Whiteness.,,

ffi,EELAfr^*a*tr,:aI+

5. Qu: "Without 'Whiteness' in the world, w0 cannot

behold a stone. Without 'Hardness' in the world, w

cannot speak of a stone. 'Hardness', 'Whiteness' and
'Stone' do not exclude one another. Is it possible to
eonceal the third ? "

Hrich:

"TV'hiteness ref ers

to a colour. If we speak of colour many

illL B;:l:'l;o,l: ."TJ,ll':i ll,fil: i""#*oni;#'

eolours

l}il:

"'"t"Hi;""l
the text reads: ( XT#Hfi
EIfiEA )-r'Without
Whiteness in
the world, we cannot behold a stone ,i'- 'Hardness is a quality. When
speaking of a quality we must also eonsider its brittleness, sof tness,
ete. - Things have different qualities and are all endowed with that
which
nature has given them.- There is nothing in the world without
111

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZV

quality, and everything must depend upon a quality to make it solid.
resds: ( X -f ffiE 6 EI U FE E )-ttlyithout Hardness in
the world we eannot speak of a stone." A stone must have a shape.
Onee we allow I stone to have a shape then the shapes of other things
must be revealed to us also. Theref ore 'Colour, Shape and Quality'
another.
are to be found in one body without being separated from one
'Whiteness
Thus the text reads: ( Et E A 6 *A ,f )
may also say that they
and Stone do.not exelude one another." We-'3!lardness,
do not exist in other things. When seeing with our eyes and touehing
( f eeling) with our hands, we perceive two of them, but never three
at the same time. However, it is impossible to say that these three
things do not aetually exist. Thus the tert reads: ( m = EI + )"f s it possible to eoneeal the third ?" ( I )
Note: (1)-The third is '\ilhiteness' or 'Hardness'.
Thus text

qfra
6.

+t

{b1Ffi

tr? tr ,tL
,4.
('
Kung z Hav ing self-eon ceal men t or non-coneealment
means eon cealment.t'

Hriehr

'We ean see with our eyes'Whiteness'but not'Hardness', thus'Ilardness'lies coneealed. With our toueh we ean find out'Hardness' but
not 'lVhiteness', in that ease 'Whiteness' lies eoneealed, This is what
nature eonceals from us. Therefore the text reads: ( fi' H ffi )"Having self-eoneealment." These two qualities are eoneealed by
nature but nothing else. However, we eannot say that with touch we
only find out two whilst the other lies eoneealed.

A -v-* EL.rL {a,8,}b 1+

*
.
and

q
7

Qu: "The 'White'

abundanee in a

'Hard'

A ffi A{"I
*
qualities must be both in

A *a

fu A

stone, so how ean they

lie in

self-

concealment?"
Hrichr

Whiteness must be abundant in a hard stone. tHardness'must be

abundant too in a rvhite stone; so the stone is abounding in 'Whiteness'
as well as in 'Hardness'. Thus the text reads: ( X H -tt, * g & m
and 'Hard' qualities must be both in
E ,V,4!} Df fH * fi. )
-'{fhsAs'White'
abundanee in a stone,"
these two things are in abundanee, they
beeome one. lVhy should we then say, they are self-concealed?

1+* A',& *EL n, *

n,gF

fu gE

T *a e, *n *F BF.rL tr,,rb
^
8. Kung: "The Dereeption of 'Whiteness' as well as 'Hard-

ness' ean be found out by seeing or non-seeing ( 1 )

separately. The non-seeing is that which separates.
One does not exceed the other. Therefore they are
separate. Separation is eoneealed too."

tl'z

DISCOUITSB OI\i HARD AND WHITE

Hrieh: Evct'y thing has its designation, and every designation its aetuality.
Therefore every thing llhich is dcfined with the designation 'Whiteness'

must actually be 'White'. Every thing which is defined with

the

designation 'Hardness', must be actually 'Ifard'. I{owever, if tve look

at a stone we see only that it is actually white but not hard. As we
have not noticed the actuality of its being'Hard'proves that'Hardness'
is separated from 'Whiteness'. Thus we find in the text: ( .H.4 4i
and non-seeing are separated." Then knowing and
,F, Sft )
-.,Seeing
not knowing
are separated too, Stone is 'One', 'Hardness' and 'White-

ness'are'Two', Each of these three designatios have their o\iln

actuality, so they are not in abundance with one another. The fact
that their names do not mingle with one another proves their separation, os non-seeing means concealment. In the Spring and Autumn
Annals of Lu 1 tr Et ff frrt lu-sh,ih, ch'un ch'iu) we find the following
record: "Kung-sun Lung propounded the theory of concealing threc
in his debate with K'ung Chuan ( +L # ) at the palace of Lord P'ingyuan ( + IH ) of Chao ( m )." Probably he took the topic of this

chapter as the subject of his debate. See page 4.

Notcr (1)-Non-seeing refers here to touch. That which we eannot perceive
with our Benses is here ealled separation. 'Whiteness' as well as
'Hardness' exist in a stone independantly of sight and touch.

'tb tA

fr,,tL*
('The

rE

9. Qu:

#+

'Whiteness' of a stone as well as the 'Hardness' of a stone; the 'Seeing' as well as the 'NonSeeing' make trvo and with the stone they make three.
Width and length pervade one another also. How
could they not be existent?"

Hrich: Though 'Whiteness' has its actuality we have yet to consider the
particular white colour of a stone. Though 'Hardness' has its actuality
we have yet to consider the particular hard quality of a stone. Therefore we may say that these are two different items. Hence 'Hardness'
and 'Whiteness' with the stone make bhree. The visible and the invisible combine to form one body. 'Whiteness' and 'Hardness', 'Width
and 'Length' all are hcrmegenous with 'Stone' and in abundance with
one another. Is it not that we combine three names to one actuality?

t ffi A tu EL,tL T t
;fiE.*#++,Etb
e *b A

.6

fr

R,

ffi E*

10. Kung: "A thing rvhich is 'White' does not define its
'Whiteness'. A thing which is 'Hard' does not define
its 'Hardness'. As they are both undefined they are
general. How can they be found in the 'Stone' ?t'
113

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN

LUNG-TZTJ

Notc: ( lfil\l )-A matter which is white.

( rt )-Combined; general.
( $,+ )-How? By what means?
( {q .h fh. )
This is a stone also.
-Lit: things with the qualities of 'Whiteness' and 'HardHrich: There are various
ness'. How could we then say that 'Hardness' and 'Whiteness' is only
limited to a stone? They are general and still do not define various
things. When they do not define them, how c&n they combine to the
shape of a stone?

4fr fr

rE

[fr.* fr

rE

BF*q+ff**a
refers to

11. Qu: ('If

one

fr -* ffr n + d fr T *a

a stone one cannot refer to 'That'

(to other things). Without a 'Stone' there is no

'Stoneness'. So we have no alternative ( 1) but a
white stone. There is no mutual separation (2). This
is eertain and there is nothing else(3)"

Notcr: ( ffiftr'e+ )-The (+ )

here is an affirmative particle,

& )-Here means "Alternative."
( 1) Lit:
"Without having a stone we cannot refer to a white Btone."
(2) There is no mutual separation from 'Hardness' and 'Whiteness'.
(3) In free translation: "lVhat I jt:st have said is definite and there
is no Bense in disputing it."
(

e j' fr -F rL e a ; th'rr

frf' fr *n fr ,tu .6

fi T, rt, .6 fr n .6 6 n .6 tk*" .4 fr *- ta
-B BF n,* T n,*a * ^
tr ifi, tkail"ia T BF
('Referring
72.

to a stone is 'One'. Referring to

'Hardness' and 'Whiteness' makes 'Two'. But they
are both in a stone. Therefore knowing sornething

Kung

and not knowing anything is like seeing something

and not seeing anything. Hence knowing something
and not knowing anything is correlated with separation. Seeing something and not seeing anything is
correlated with concealment. There is eoncealment.
Thus who could call it non-separation?"
Hrieh: What the inquirer is asking Kung-sun Lung is: "lf we refer to a
stone, we may conclude that various things ean also eombine with
'Hardness' in the same body. Thus the text reads: "W'ithout '[Iardness'no stone ean exist." It means that stone has to depend upon
'Hardness' to obtain its name. If there be no stone, we could never
take white into eonsideration, beeause the sight of white depends
114

DISCOURSE ON HARD AND WHITE

upon a stone. Therefore things in forming a body have to depend

Jrpol ?nother. In touching a stone rvith rrui hands we feel that it-""J
i;
hard, but Eie eannot find out that it is white. Thus our feeling
lo-n-flelirs 13lq separated from each other. In seeint ln.- stone we
behold its 'Whiteness', but cannot find out its 'HardnEs,. Thus oui
seeing 8ld - non-seeing &re separated from each other. ,Hardness, is
concealed fr_om- our sight because we cannot see it. Who could stiu
deny that 'Hardness' is not concealed? 'Whiteness' is concealed-fiom
touch because \rye cannot feel it. Who could still deny that,Whiteness'
is not concealed?
Noter: Some commentators take the ( H ) in the sentence ( ffifr f5',lifnH)
as the pronoun-'rif" and translate the sentence: "We know it and
we do not knorv it." I have rendered ( ;lS ) here with "something. "
-

B T- ALEL

T ?6 *

E*

T ),fl*

^trvA{trLEL
^ A rfr. rf fr^ +
x*'l*.&**
('Although
13.
i
d

Qu

BF

our eyes cannot see 'Hardness' and

our hands canllot feel 'Whiteness', we cannot say that

there is neither 'Hardness' nor 'Whiteness'. They ( 1)
have different funetions. The one eannot take the
place of the other (2). 'Hardness and Whiteness' are
limited to a stone. How could they be separated ? "
Hrich:

Eyes can see, hands can feel, thus are their functions different. Hence
the text reads: ( * * +* fr. )-"fhsy have different funetions." I47e

cannot see 'Hardness' with our eyes because our hands cannot assunlt
the functions of our eyes. We eannot perceive
'Whiteness' with our
hands because they cannot undertake - the functions of our eyes.
Therefore if the eyes interchange their functions with the hands, we

do not know whether a thing iJ white or not. Thus the text reads:
( Jt * D/ ft-tL )-t'One cannot take the place of the other." The
spheres of 'Hardness' and '\lrhiteness' are limited. How eould we eall
their separation a non-separation ?

Noters ( 1) TheY-EYes and hands.

(2)
interchanse their functrons with the hands
If;; ;l::":"nnot

and

a EL f,-JB fr & gL,6 tb # a+B tb & EL,r? EL,g.

tb 'r? ELfi.T t6 # EL rra* /fi.
EL-*

^Wn

L4, Kung: "'Hardness' is not hard because it is present in

a stone, it is also common in other things. If it is not
present in things yet still taken for 'Hardness' this
'Hardness' must be 'Hard' in itself. This 'Hardness'
is not that of the stone and other things,

it is hard in

itself. As such, 'Hardness' does not exist in

world; it lies concealed."

115

the

TIIE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LITNG-TZU

Hrieh: 'Hardness' does not only ref er to the 'Hardness' of a stone but to
various other things too. Thus the text reads: ( tr g * E ,E ts EE
m +fu rft )-r' 'I{ardness' is not hard because it is present in a stone,
it is common in other things too." It is also absent in other things, so
'Hardness' remains unchangeably hard. Henee we may say that sueh
'Hardness' does not exist in the world and lies coneealed.
Note: The ( & )
in the 4th tone and means '-"To be present at." It
-is
must be distinguished
from the ( R ) in the 3rd tone,

dq

^frL

drt+

AA

E na|- d n

tb +

A *,S A

n{

fkBF-rbgF,rb* 4 ft-

15. Kung:

"If

'Whiteness' definitely cannot be white in

itself, horv can it make a stone and other things
white ? If 'Whiteness' must be white, then it is
not to make things white, but is white in itself.
With black and yellow' is the same. If it is that
they (Whiteness and Hardness) can be present without a stone, horv can we then expect a stone to be
'Hard and White'? Thus is there separation ( 1).
Separation is on this account."

r ( I ) Separation of ''Whiteness' and 'Hardness' frorn other things.

Hrieh: If there is no independant'Hardness'in the world, independant'Whiteness' eannot exist either. Thus the text reads: ( H lfi f fE El H m
)
'Whiteness' eannot be white in itself, how eould
frE H A *rt *
it make a stone-{IIf
and other things white ? " If 'Whiteness' cannot be
white in itself, it should not depend upon other things to reveal its
colour. Here eentres not only the question about'Whiteness'and
'Hardness', but with black and yellow too. If we ean only distingrrish o

Notc

stone and other things by their eolours, and a eolour cannot reveal its
actual eolour, then a stone ean never reveal that it is actually I stone.
Nothing in the world eould ever be seen without its eolour, Thus the
text reads: ( Tt *+ M6 # )-"fhsy ean be present without a stone.,,

If 'They can be present without a Stone', how eould a stone depend

upon the qualities of hard and white? Thus the text reads: ( & S
H ,fi * )-"Can rve expect a stone to be har.d and white?,, So we
ean conclude that 'Hardness' and 'Whiteness' are separated from other
things. But ere they really separated from other things ? No, this

would be illogical, because nature has achieved their separation. Thus

the text reads:

tr E

-(,On
116

this

aeeount.,,

DISCOURSE ON HARD AND WHITE

/l**-*^#4fr-

16. Kung: "For the same reason, we conclucle that

potver

and knorvledge are equivalent."

Noterr (lX) means herei "Conclusion."
( H) means here: "Equivalent."
Hrieh: We can never succeed if 1ve take advantage of this natural selfseparation and try to separate power and knowledge from 'Hardness'
and'Whiteness'. Therefore the natural self-separation is to be preferred.

Notcr: 'Whiteness'which is not white in itself is unchangeable and should be

taken in a general, abstract sense. It cannot be used to make a s[one
white. 'Whiteness'that is necessarily white is only the appellation
given to it; i.e. iu is still 'Whiteness' yet cannot whiten a stone, The
same rule holds good in the case of black-Blackness and yellowYellowness. If 'Hardness' and 'Whiteness' cannot exist without a
stone, they exist separated from things. Taking that for granted, how
can we then expect a stone ro be hard and white?

-E
JB

I7.

{fi d v^ 4 v^ x fr. 'r? X

B T n, #, nf n if T n
Kung:

^,r?

n, A']
n, BF

"Moreover we see 'Whiteness' with our eyes by

means of light, but light cannot see. Then fire (light)

and eyes cannot see ( 1) . However, our minds clo

perceive it. Although our minds cannot see, thus is

there separation from sight (2)."
(l) F.ygt cannot see without light, and light has no organs of sight.
(2) Sight
can exist independantly from things; this means separation.
Hrich: We sey that we can see objects with our eyes depending on light.
This proves
even eyes cannot see things. They tan only see wittr
the help of -!hqt
light. But light is not the organ with which we can see 8
white colour. Thus we alrive at the conllusion that eyes as well as
light cannot see. What is it then that makes us see ? It is our minds
which rnakes us see. But even our minds, having no organs of sight,
cannot see. lVe cannot make out what makes us see, so we do not
know what really sees. Thus the text reads : ( F. HE )
is
separation of sight."
-"thsjg
Noter:

EL vA

+ da + v.Al**, t*(3)F + *-'A T *" da nf JB

18.

('What is hard can

be felt with the hand and
the hand feels it through touch. It is that touch is
made with the hand. But if it is unknowil, our minds

Kung

_LL7_

TIIB WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZV

clo not knou, it either. Oh, mind!(1). Then we call
it(2) sepal'ation. If we have separation in the world

then e\,ol'ything rvill

be

independant and correct."

1) The ( + ) here is an exclamsfiqn.-"Oh, nrind, even you do not

know !"
(2) Separation of knowledge from mind.
(3) (**) eh'ung-To push into; here: "Touch"'
Hriehr We obtain the power of knowledge neither through our senses of toueh
nor sight. Then what our hands and minds diseern is more pereeiveable than knowledge. What does our rnind really do ? It illustrates
the living brillant eminence of our mental powers. But our eyes and
ears have different functions distinct from those of our limbs. They
differ in a thousand ways. Their master is only the mind. Still the
nrind ean only make use of nature's endowment, which are our eyes,
ears and the eonsequ ent f unctions of our limbs. It ( the mind ) cannot make ears see, eyes hear, feet hold, and hands walk. The mind
makes us see that an object is vrhite but not that it is hard. It makes
us feel that sornething is hard but not that it is white. How does it
grasp the countless things within such an unlimited sphere existing
between Heaven and Earth, East and West, South and North? Thus
the text reads: ( m{t R rli ffl )-"Our mind does uot know it either."
As even the mind does not know anything, so knowledge is separated
( f rom the mind) .
Thus, to conelude finally, we ask ourselves : "Of
all the countless things in the world, is there none in separation?"
Henee, things are separated from eaeh other and do not eombine.
They airn at changing, but do not depend on each other. So, THIS
thing is not produced by THAT ( thing ) . However, as they are not
separated from another, w cannot eonfuse THAT with THIS. Therefore the sage keeps silence about every thing and moves at nothing.
To move at nothing makes the whole wcrld at ease. To keep silent
about every thing preserves its natural content. Things will be in
harmony rvith each other. If the whole world is at ease, names snd
their actualities will not be treated earelessly.
N

oter

118

CHAPTER VI

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZIJ

DISCOURSE ON NAMES AND THEIR ACTUAL
SIGNIFICANCE

AF?hffi*
(

Mirlg shih lu,n )

,(,&.*
*ffi fr.6 *b,th
1. ttHeaven and Earth and rvhat they produce

are things."

Notcr ( fr[) shih-Actuality; genuine; true; real.

Hrieh: The form of Heaven and llarth and all that what they produce
called things.

ib LtA tb t ffl tb 'r?

are

.6 E,tL

2. "A thing is a thing anrl nothing

^ more.

This is actuality."

Hrich: The materials for building temples and houses, for earriages, clothing,
utensils, and mactrines; the qualifications for sages to their positions as
chamberlains, and for ministers who do not blunder in th; execution
of their duties, all must correspond to their positions. They are
therefore in agreement with theii actual significin.e.

F v'A E -R fft E yfr .6This

tq,{1,
3. "Actuality exhibits actuality.
actuality is
^
empty. It

not

has position."

Hrieh: These actualities make utensils and all things uiable. As every
utensil is used for its appropriate material, eveiy person is employed
for that govelllment office f or which he -and
proves competent ind is
assigned to. Thus nothing is left undone,
superiors as well as
inferiors are assigned to their respective positions. So the text reads :
( ft tE, )
has position.,,
-..It

B * fft ti ,|t ttt (i

4. "Taking it

t fff (i

.6 -E ,U

from its position makes it lose its positiorl.

Placing it in its position makes it rectified."

Hrich: To assign officials to unsuitable positions, is like using utensils for

inappropriate purposes and will cause everything to lose iheir positions,
so that some officials will rise too high and others will be kept too low.
To use materials for making utensils, to render services and give re119

T}IB WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

wards, to nrete out just treatments equally to those in high and low
; to raise re,spected officials to high - positions, and not allow
inybody to rise too high nor to renrain too low, this is what we call
positions

'Rectification' (correetness).

* isfff
-E
t ffl -iE -E t ffl -E *fr
(propel')
rvhich
no
5. "In using this (proper) rectification
^
rectification, ffians, having doubts in its (propel')
y2

rectification."
Noter:

( n: ) cheng-"The standard of co*ectness"' It is an spproved theory

that eorreet terminology in language is a condition 'Sine Qua Non' of
suceessf ul political rule. Correct terminology seems to be that in
rvhich terms express the true qualities and relations of things.
Conf ucius said about 'The Rectification of Names' ( Ir1& cheng
mingl z "Once the meaning of names a{e rectified, they will ,serve as
a stlndard of conduet. The ruler will then continue to be the ruler,
the noble a noble, the minislers as ministers, snd the eommon people
to be the people. This will bring about good order." Names were
made to sifnify actualities and to distinguish between 'Similarity and

Differetlce'.

The 'Reetifieation of Names' beeame such an important term that

it was referred to by Mencius, Hsun Tzu ( AI + 310-230 B.C.) and
the Legalists (& *, la chia) as well as the Mohist School ( E& *.
mo chia).
,
We can refer to 'The Rectification of Ne.mes' in a broader sense
with the term "Human Relationships" ( EX ffr ) ming lun, "The five
human Relationship" ( ltffil ) wu lun, or' ( A{ffi | ien, lutt, or ( X{ft)
t'ien lun. The are
-E'\ "Sovereign" and (tr) "Subject."
between
t,
tt

,,
,,

yl
X)
,d, )
gil )

"Father"
"Husband"
"Brothers"
"Teaeher"

,, (:f ) "Son."
t, (ffi) "Wife."
,t ( X, ) "Friends."
,, ( '* ) "Pupil."

Often we find ln Chinese temples the f ollowing tablet

errected:

t'ien.

or worship

/( )
U EARTH
ru) chun
RULER

HEAVEN

)
ch'in FAMILY (Parents)
shih TEACHER
Ffi I
Hrieh: It is better to use what is proper and to eorreet what is improper, or
otherwise we have to use what is improper and to correct what is
lS

ffi )

proper. This rvill eause the people to have doubts.

*rectify
*-E
-E * fft E,rL -E * fff F * -iE * Z,tE,
that which rectifies an aetuality, means the
6.
"To

rectification of this actuality and also the rectification

of its name."

Hrieh:

Confueius said : "It is neeessary to rectify names." As Eoon as

names are reetified, aetualities will be reetified too. Onee aetualities
are rectified, sll things will be rectified.
120

DISCOURSE ON }.IAMES AND THEIR ACTUAL SIGNIFICANCB

fr rE H,l 4r + *

*
7.

lh_ *b .E
"Once its name is rectified, then follows, that THAT is
THIS."

Hrich: The rectification of names me8ns, to define a name correctly accorcling to the aetuality of THIS ( thing) and THAT ( thing) . Therefore,
to find out the actuality of a name, both THIS and THAT must cor.
respond to the name,
Noto: ( ry )-is her-e an affirmation of a reply.

fl 4h, da tR

)r
ol
8.

qL

4rh.

F,l frt.'afl

"ln calling it THAT, whilst TIIAT

cloes

THAT then is THAT and does not

r.eact

Tft
not affirm it,
to it."

Notc: ( ;iH )
here : ,,It means,, or ,,A n order.,,
Hrich: If an-expresses
given
order is
and the response is not in the affirmative
as seen from the text, the order

fr *b 'r? rtb T, ,{r +

will not be obeyed.

( pE

),

*b n,l }}h 2,fr T. ft

9. "In calling it THIS and

THIS does not affirm it, THIS

is then THIS and does not react to it."

Hrichr When the order for summoning a person is not properly given, it will
not be obeyed by that person.

v^6T6',tbT6''DfrL.rb

10.

"By taking IT as being in agreement,

ment. It is then in

it is in disagreedisagreement, and will cause

confusion."
Hrichr

Once an order is improper but accepted as proper, it beeome more improper. Thus the text reads: (*lXHfB&)-'i,fgking
it as
being in agreement, it is in disagreement.,, Once the order is in disagreement, nobody and nothing will respond to it. By applying
improper methods to those who disregard orders, and by threatening
them with the law, the whole world will accept the improper method
ag being proper, and this ends in confusion.

l?L

TIIE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU

ti{,t tR6 + rf n'l qL+ fh.*'ri [rt.}b}bB +rtUfltl

qL*

*U

*1,fl

41

*L*vA6'r?'S

+U

vA6 A 6 -E'th

11. "Therefore THAT agrees rvith THAT, and THAT

affirming it, means it will respond to THAT. THIS
agrees with THIS, and THIS affirming it, means it
will respond to THIS. Taking anything as being in
agreement makes it agree rvith it. That it agrees with
the agreement is the rectification of this agreement."
Note: A neme ( & ming) must signify its aetuality ( tr sllill). In that
case THr\T must be in aErreement with TI{AT, and THIS in agreement
with THIS. Onee both THIS and THAT are in agreement, their
must nrake t'at asree which asrees with
,r[:.
f,lfl ::.f
Hrieh: When giving an order, TTIAT and THIS must be in agreement with
"ll"tl"l-:?oit'
their actual signifieances. It means that both (THIS and
names ancl
THAT) will readily respond to the execution of this order. Arriving
at the conclusion it is clear, that once the proper method is employed,
the whole world will be reetified.

tk 4k /th. rt -f

rt t

l}b' "I
4R *b l}b
L2. "Therefore THAT alld THAT stops at THAT, and
THIS ancl THIS stops at THIS-which is possible."

Note: THAT ( name ) u'i th its THAT ( actuality ) is here confined to (the
word) TI{AT.
Hrieh: The name of THAT stops at the actuality of THAT. The name of
THIS stops at the actualtty of THIS. The names of THIS and THAT
are not in disagrcement lvith their actualities. Thus the text reads:
( ,.I )
\Vhieh is possible."
-"

4k
1{)
I r).

*b 'f? 4R Jf,- r}b *b tk d'? ib, gttt th. fr T

"THAT ancl THIS is but THAT. Moreover, THIS and
THIS is THAT. In that case THIS beeomes(l)
THAT, rvhich is impossible."

Noter: (1) The (B-) here'-rrBeeome."

Onee rve known THAT ( name ) and that it will eonfine to TIIIS
(actuality) then it is not any more THAT (name). It is just as impossible to signify TIIIS (narne) with its THIS (actuality) as TEAT
Hrieh:

(name).
To eonfuse THAT name with THIS actuality and still signify it as
THIS, or to eonfuse THIS name with THAT actualily and still signify
it as TIIAT, is n'hat the text calls (,,1i EI )-"l6possible."

t22

DISCOURSE ON NAI}IES AND THEIR ACTUAL SIGNIFICANCE

14. "A name must

be identifiect ( 1) by its actuality. Knou,ing that THIS is not THIS, ancl knoring that THIS
is not in THIS, then it cannot be called (THIS ) .
Knorvirrg that THAT is not THAT, and knowing that
THAT is not in THAT, then it cannot be callecl

(rHAr)."

Notcr

Hrieh'

1) The

( h'ltl ) means here

: "To identify."

*#[ixti]ff
]ilr tri:,";i * :ii] :i]#'H,]l*i rri:r##
ment is not attributed to THIS person. and THIS little alfrievement

is

not in agreement with THIS rervard, then THtrSE rewards should not
be given. IF it is knorvn that THAT capital crime is not attributed
to TH_AT person, and THAT petty erime is not sufficiently punished
by TIIAT retribution, then TIIOSE punishments shouid not be
i

nflieted..

A*+t-s< aA =-6* ZFfil*f,ff ffie*+\*<aA

15. "How perfect \\rere the ancient farsighted kings

They examined llames and their actualities. How

careful they were in what they said ! How perfect
and farsightecl \vere the ancient kings !"
Hriah: In this discourse Kung-sun Lung supported his argument by illustrating the best method a country should be governed. llowever, even
the best methods of governing a country was f or him of less importance than having names agree with their actualities. It was Confucius who once said that if only utensils and nanles were never lent
to others, then the sage would take them seriously and treat them
with great care. Through names we have command over things.
Their actualities make them execute these commands. Although
names cannot be compard with things, things without names can never
be distinguished. Things cannot be compared with names, yet names
without things are never known. Therefore a name is established by
its actuality, and this is known by its name. Once a name corresponds with its actuality, it will have comnrand over things. Onee the
eommand is executed, it will render successful service to its actuality.
Heaven much appreeiates the best method f or governing a country.
Theref ore the ancient sage-emperors examined carefully names and
their actualities and applied them with greatest caution.

123

SUPPLEMENT

LITERAL TRANSLATION AND PUNCTUATION

126

SUPPLEMENT
PIJNCTUATION AND LITERAL TRANSLATION
OF THE CHINESE TBXT
CHAPTER I

MATERIAL FOR

DEBATE

Efi/6 fr.
(chi fu)
l. Lit, Transl t t| Kung ii sun ffE Lung ( rvas during)
Six El Sta Les
^ at f, nanres
$ period f,i:,i debating * schoier. * Indignant
rand their) H acLualities Ht iie'r'iations (and) ffiL confusic,ns,
tU bccause --* r'ich +4 trrlent /'s f',n being E extensive, ( he )
ffi made r'.y 1n'eserving H white ;ft theory. ,lE Availing (himself of )
+h things (he) f{ took (them) (for) *T examples l-'l u'ith
.iit pre serving H n'hite ffi tliscussions.
2. Lit. Tranrl, i'=11 fiays: f'l White j..$ holsc f,X take for J]: no .ttrj horse tL (.)
Ft White ,[5 horse ffi take for ,F no ,E horse # the person H'
says f{ rvhite f,i belongs D{ to & the name of e. a colour. F
Says : .[5 llorse lrn belongs t:l to t, the name of fr, a shape tE (.)
E, Colour ( isl )F not fi, :r shape, Ifi shape ( is) )F not E a colour'
(here an introductory partiele) (let us) -H' say& colour
U(.)
^ If, shape ,I; not ( in ) H egreernent, E and H- say
fllJ thcn
ff, shape n|J then E, colour.,li not ft- suitable.

3. Lit. Tranrl z $ Now 'i cornbining ( colour and shape ) I)tts means
*h things jF none {ll (.) *n If ,lt requiring H white ,B horse
tt from W: stable rlr inside fF not +1* existing nf and [il black
e, eoloured .E horse. y,f of course f not Ef I, can ft admitted
H there is H white ,E horse t!, (.) . ,4i Not EfH ean fC admitted
H have H white .E horse nlJ then Fn that jt requir-Z -ed
,E horse t vanishes. fl|J Thcn Ff rvhite ,E horse fi really JF no
.E horse. 'fi Wishing {'fE to follow up -rt this fi( theory .D-{ with
IE rectifying f, rlAme (with) tt actuality m then 4t, change
Xl= rvhol e world i: ( . )
127

THF] WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

4.

f;E Lung(here Kung-sun Lung) R with |L K'ung !fl Chuan

met at frt Chao T P'ing IH yuan f;| Lord *. home. q- Chuan
(here K'ung Chuan) El said: ff Alu'ays Ff, heard fr,k Sir F?; high
ffi eorrectness ffi wish f,$ (to beeome) tt * disciple A long. ill- Ilut
4; not S{ aceept fr,*. Sir's t:) with H rvhite ,$ horse ffi take for
)F no .E horse 4(.) Fffi Please * (let)go tlt this ffi idea [tJ then
#- chuan Ftr asks ft to be il',* disciple. f,F, Lung g said | fr,* sir
2 's ;T words ( are ) ,1'F rebellious. fE Lung 2 's Ft that D) with

Lit. Trenrlr

ft

(which he) ffi makes & famous # man lbD. that is fl white
.B horse 2's ffi theory; ffi and + now & if fE Lung iF let go
2 it RlJ then fS nothing I;l with tk to teaeh. -H (.) fl. Moreover,
0l wanting frfi teaeher Z# the reason is U with # wisdom E and
4t learning ,li not tn equal t[, (.) + Now ft if FE Lung * let so
IIt it Jfi fir'st fil teach ffi and'ffi later tIi teaeher 2 it-(ask me to be)
{[ (.') fr, First {t4teaeh m and '1ft laLer Bfi ieacher ;Z* the person who, is
,lt contradietory. fl- Moreover, H white .E horse )F no .E horse

)\ that {tlrfe

5.

6.

Confucius

2's Ffi that R

Lit. TranrlrffE Kung-sun Lung

accepted.

EE heard: ff Ch'u !f, king EE stretched

* very Eq slender 2 -lV 4 bow ffi aimed ffi absent-minded 2 his
f< arro\v !-t rvith which (he) ff shot *t a dragon (and) H, rhinoeeros
f at $ Yun H meng 2's m park m and E lost * his 4 bou'.
l7-Left fr right (his suite-the people at his left and right) F,t wishetl
:|t t'ecover 2 it. !f King El said: ft Stop, tr Ch'u :E king
ffi lost 4 horv, tr Ch'u A nren ,i4 get 2 it I again. {r,t Why
]li reeover * t
Lit. Tranrl' {,Ftr Confueius FIE heard 2 this E said: ff Ch'u :E king
(practiced) f
not
benevolenee # righteousness m and *
sueeessful.
man
get
lost
Said:
borv
Man
#
H
2 it,
I
L:
{$
A
4
(people
nothing
Whf
more.
Ch'u
must
mE,
rZ,
Set it) ?
{iJ
tr
Comparing
this
differentiates
Confueius
Jtt
*
{rF IE
tr Ch'u
"n
people
people.
A
f} from fh those Fn call A
* ?E Even
{rtt fP, Confueius "fl differentiates fr Ch'u A people f} from W those
FH eall 11. people, nf ( why sh ould ) ,F not ffE Lung Jq di fferentiate
H rvhite ,[F, horse f] from FX those EH call .E horses ,f# ? *,*
Sir {tt admires ffi Conf ucian 'ffi art nf and ,F not ( aecept) {fitr
Confueius;l u'hat Fft that fr aceepted. (You) fr wish $ learn nf and
tr make ?iE Lung * give up f,fr that what 4* to teach. [|J Then
eft althoush tr' hundred frE Lung tl,l eertainly 4i not frE ean H
asree rvith fifI the before (said) * (.) |L K'ung # Chuan *E nothing
J:{ rvith m reply fi (.)
128

PUNCTUATION AhID LITERAL TRANSLATION

CHAPTER I

7.

8,

Lit. Tranrl: f\ Kung Xff sun EE Lung ftE Chao :F p'ins ,fl yuan Z's
# Suest fl (.). +L K'ung S Chuan iLt- Confucius ^| ,5 {f descendant
tU (.). # chuan & with fE Lung g meet. #- cthuan ;ll ca[
fE Lung H say: FE I tr resided at i[I. Lu {H11 at -r'Et lorv position
fA heard ,H high fr,lEz your tr rvisdom il spoke about frlp. sir
2's fi conduct. mH Wish * to receive * instruction ?_ of E tlays
A long (.) TJ Still + now |L,i gor to tL see (yrru r . ,qI But
Ffr that 'ervhich ,F not & accept fr, /* from you (is) Ifrj onlv
zfi not {1 accept JL4[ Sir Z's lr, urith H whit^ ,[S horse fB r,ul<e for
lF. no ,E horse }+- (.). ffi Please :* give up Fr white ,E horse
1F no ,E horse ry learning, # Chuan ffi asks f.B to be (your)
;l',* disciple.
Kung L$ sun ffE Luns 11 replied | fr, *. Sir. Z',
F words 'fli contradictory.
^
fiE Lung Z 's ry learning (is) Dt with
H white ,B horse ffi take for )F no .E horse tl (.) {t Make
ffi Lung * give up 2 it, [[ then fE Luns ffi nothing Il with which
*, to teach. fg Nothing Dt with which *. to teach pfi' and f\ still
A learn f from f;E Lung tU, (,) # that is H eontradictory. .E"rt
Moreover, ffi wishing S, to learn -f from tE Lung # the person,
ll his A wisdorn fr and ry learning F (,) B taken for ,F not
i& equal {r (.) + Now ft teaeh f;E Lung * give up Ft white
,B horse ,F no ,E horse ft that i,; ft first **. teach ffi and '&. then
fif teacher Z to be tU (.) ft, First tk to teach nn and ,&. then
ffr teaeher 2 to be ,li not Ef possible. ft*. sir Z,s Ffr that
l* with *, teaching IE Lung # is lt). alike to lE Ch,i :E King
Z's EH telling y Yin *. Wen t!, (.).
Lit. Tranrl z fi Ch'i Ji King Z lH called * yin X. Wen (and)
Fl said: #A I (lit: frienclless person) E very W love * scholars,
m but H ch'i E state ffi without * scholars. fn! How tU ( ? )
F Yin *. wen rr replied: ffi want ffi to hear t great ]E king
Z's Ffi whom (vou) FB eall * scholar # rvhom you? A ch'i
;f king ffi nothing Iil rvith what fr to answer. F yin t wen
El said: g Now -6 there is A a mari + for llt his 1* serving
B his prince n|J rvith ,t loyality, S serving # his parents HU with
* filial pietv, *, in relations to fr, friends nlJ witlr ffi farthfulness,
r&W, in his native place EU with [tH obedienee. A Having W, these
[9 four fr virtues E can Ft1 call * aseholar +(?):E Kins
El replied: $ of course, l[L this is tr really # I Fn what EII call
* a scholar, F Yin t wen H said: t King +T get xt this
A man (are you) H' willing Dl, to ffi take for H minister * t
}, King El said t Ffi Thisis what Hll want nn but T not Ef can
+X get tE, (.) E This B time m ch'i
king tr was fond of
fi eourageous men. ,tE Therefore F yin=E,
*. wen E| said: fift If
t29

THB WORKS OF KUNG-SUN

LUN G.TZV

fit this A man ffi large l& open plaee * great *. crowcl Z,s
+ eentre E is seen E ffi insulted nf and lfrL still 4; not {t ciare

ffi fight, 1[ King, ffi.will x/f,$ talie for B minister'-,f-(?) ]E King tJ said:
* scholar t!. (,) n seen ffi -nsulted nE' ancl ,I< not
ffi fight (is) 4 shameful.6 (lYhen) shamefuln[ then #A I 4< not
DJ ffi take for tr minister * (.) F yin *. wen L1 said: rfi But
E seen fF insulted m and 4: not Bfl fighting ,k not J( lost
* his Uq four 'fi virtues {U (.) E If A !l1an -,k not 9i losr
* his trl four fr virtues (he has) *t this Ffr what Dt ffi nrakes
* seholar -tU(.) f.dm, Horvever, :I-. king-first Dtf,$ take (him) for
FE minister' - then -,fi net D)R tal<e him for FF. mi:risLer. ffiI Before
2 him f,fi whom (you) FH call * a scholar ff the person whom,
)\ still (is) )F not * a scholar * I H Ch'i :11 I{ing fS withour
tE whv (this)

Il to fft

answer.

9. Lit. Tranrlr fr Yin *.

lVen trl said: $ Now fr there is A# a prince

W willing EH to g:overn ++ his El country. I iflan fi' has Jp rvrong
R[ then )F wrong Z- him. tr \,[/ichout JF wr.ong H|J then -,/l: also
1F wrong 2 him. H Having q merit nU then H reward 2 hinr.
ffr lVithout q merit n|J then nF also H relard 2 him nf and
* rescnt A man 2.'s ,{< not !il earing. EI (Is) possible + ( ? )
H Ch'i ][ \Yang E says: I Not Ef psosible. -] Yin *. Wen
El says: ffi I ffi humbly fn observed -F subordinate fi offieials
2's IU governing H Ch'i ,t their fr rnethod H compar.es to
IFt this * (.) :I'- King El says: # A I IE govern EU eountry
ff believe # like that what fr, * Sir 2's H' said, !,lt although
A peopie 4-. no ![ eare * A I 4; no ft dare # resent -LlJ, (.)
H My opinion -,1: never 5 reached m& conclusion. y Yin *. Wen
Fl said: ffi My words 2 it- agreed, ffi may ffi not fifl speak +(?)
+. King 2', + order ffi say: H. Kill A man # t,he person who
4V dies. ltr Injull' A man # the person who m, punished. A Men
ti have f+ fear (for) ![ King /.'s + orders # the men who.
H. see ffi insult nf and W ,'et T no {t dare Efl fight. E Asrees
* all (with) 1[ King 2's + orders tE, (.) m And ;[ King
I=| says: fl Seeing ffi ins:rli nf anC 4: not ffi fiSht # the person
u'ho, W shameful 'tlf (.t FB Call 2 it 6 shamful (and) ,F rvrons
2 it tU (.) ffi 11 ithout )F wrong nf and :E King & shamef trl
2- it "tE (.) ft E In consequenee W strike * hirn (fronr) ffi list
,tr not I)1 ffi take for E minister tE, (. ) ,Ii Not DI ffi taking for
H minister ff the person whu. 'liii punishes/ hirn tU (.) ft This malr
# witho;.rt lij wrcng nf but ;f King -li'il punishes iE (.) t1. Moreover,
':E King E shameful ,I; not {t dare Efl fight # the person who.
,ll, tr{ust tr glorify {t dare Eil fight # the person who -t!, (.)
* Glorify ft dare fifl fiSht # the person who. ,E Correct nf ancl
130

PUNCTUATION AND LITERAL TRANSLATION

CHAPTER I

:t- King j* rights Z_ it ,V, must lrt B take for tE minister" * (.t
,Y. I\[ust lrt fS take fer lii rninist,er # the person rvho, ,ft reward
2 him 1U(.) '[Y. IIe ** n'ithout BtJ i,,erit nii antl :E kins
'fi rewards 2 him. r King Z's Ffi so-called ti r.,,r\ro,r.dS,
EE officials t'fr so-called F* cicath t[ (. ) -L lJefor.e Fft that Z *'irir:!r
(rvas) je right nf and t* law 2 that Ffr which (is) JF wr.onr
tll (.) H Reward, ;l] punishment, E r.ight, )F lvr.ong fn nrurually
R with EI four frS misconeeptions.fiE Although -l- ten H ycllorv
ff Emperors 4i r-ro fiE can IrE gover.n tlJ, (.) m Ch,i I King S
nothins lil to fi replv j:;(,) ilt Thcrefore fi[ Lung
E rvith + you
2 his F speech fr has lrl similarity with .F+ ch,i a, King.
+ You tIl knorv flE tliilicult H rvhitc .fg horse Z is jF no
,B horse .{; not m know Fft that Dl whieh (is) H{, rlirlicult Z
about ffi speak D/ with [t this. yA How g:n know ,l to be fond of
* scholars 2 with t-t name m and f not *fl know * rlistinguish
f scholar Z's ffi class.

131

CHAPTER II
DISCOURSE ON A WHITE HORSE
(Lit. Translation according to text.)

.16

?h tr" -=

(Pai-tno, lun)

l.

I[

Punctuation: E,mrF,E o EIrF ? E : o

Lit. Tranrlt Fl lvhite .E horse )F no .B horse. EI possible +
Fl Say: Ef

possible.

2. Punctuation: fl

(?)

3 ,lplfiI ?

E : ,, A FfiUftIt +fr,o E#
FfiUft'e,& o ftE #)FfrMfr o ftE :

Li

t.

3.

: Ll

Says tnl how

fl

Lit. Tranrl: [1

4.

E,,E'F,M

ift )
Ll Says: ,$ Horse * that which f,fr refers DJ to & denoting
f! shape t[ (.) Er white # that which is Ffr refers JX to
ft denoting fi colour tU (.) ft Denotes ft colour ff that which jp,not
6 denotes ru shape -tU (.) fit Therefore H say: H White .g horse
1F- no .E horse.
Punctuation:
: H A,mZiE.I*B*ffi,m& o fElip+ffi,m
Trrnrl

'# o )F.ffi&

is H rvhite ,B horse Ai no EI can EH say

*E without ,fE horse t[ (.) 4i Not d ean FE say fg without ffi, horse
# if, (are there) )F no ,E horses tU ( ?)
Punctuationz fi HffiffiA-.ffi , AZ)F.ffi o,fFIt[, ?
says:,

There

Lit' Trrnrl z $ Ilaving ft white .16 horse ff$ means A there is JE

H lVhite 1l makes it jF no ,E holse {iI how -tE (?)

horse.

5. Punctuation: Ll : *.,8 o H#ffit?ElfrJ-o

frfi.f, , H#ffiTElfko

Lit. Transl: [] Says: ;ft ltequiring .[g horse, fr yellow i.e black ,B horses
tJi all EI ean ?r [re brought. ,l-: Requiring E white ,E horse 3t
yellou. l:ti black.f[i horses 4i not EI ean ff be brought.

6. Punctuation: {i[Hffi/}.ffi{ll o ffi*-{l

tt#6qffi{t

o Fft{t-#

Lit. Trenal: ffu If H white .tB horse l\ still ,E horse 1U (,) (then it)
E is f,ft that ,R required one -LU (.) Fft That :R required one
# (refers to the preeeding -phrase) H white ffthat which (is) f not
#q different from ,f.E horse {l1 (.)
132

PUNCruArroN

7- Punchrationr

rRANsLArroN

ffi*T*flnH#.ffi o fi'EffiZiiTl,fpltfi
nIRTEIS+H o #H o trHH.m-O

fril r-I

Lit. rranrr : rft rhar

tTr?#;H.ir"

AW,A.ffi o frilrli trIfiHA- H .ffi o E tr

JT-f#f H*o]-*

any)

fl

difference,

rn

as ro

black H horses 6 is it trT agreeable -E is it 6 not

Ef agreeable (To that which you wantedl ,tq how tU (?) nJ May ge
and ,t; not EI may * this ,fll one the other ( because ) )F not F11
clearly (specified by you). ffi fherefore It yellow i:f. black .$ horses
of one (kind), lftr and Ef can t:t be tr admitted -6 as being .E
horse, rfi' and ,4i no Er ean be rfi admitted H as being
H white

fi

yellow

,$ horse.
(

8.

as said

it rherefore H white ,E
) * (. )

hor.se

bef ore

Z is )F no

.fS horse

Punctuation: El 3 Dtffi ZAE,ffi#"ffi o XT)Ffffif;,

z^ffi{ll o xT*m.ffiEI+ ?
Lit. Trenrl: pf Says:t{ This .B horse 2 which 6 have A eolour B take
for )F no ,E horse. XT In the workl )F no 6 have t without
A eolour 2 those E horses t[ (.) XF In the world ffi without
#E horses, EI is possible + ( ? )

e. Punctuation: H : ffitrf.&" &AH,ffi o {fffiffif;, o

6-ffifn, E q o XWEffi o fr,t A#)V
.ffi{U o
ffi Horses El eertainly H have f! colours, fif therefore
H have H white ,B horse. ft If ,E horses ffi without e colours,
n, ;J *:;",5 . ?'.i" T.
nil,,::11, ";_ ix:r,*;"J 11,;:
"";,J",_="
horse,
,HE
tr therefore fi white ff that which is ,F is not ffi a horse

Lit- Trrnrl: B

Says:

-&, (.)

10. Punctuation: H"ffi#,ffiEfltlt

H,ffi#ffi

o.ffiflfi.mil o ftEI

rU o

Lit. Tranrl: fr White .B horse # that which is ,E HORSENESS E and

tl WHITENESS & (.) IE lforse E and H white (means) ,B horse
-tE (.) tr Therefore Fll say, [t white ,E horse )F no ,fS horse t[, (.)
Punctuation:
o H*q.mffiE o
:

ll.

ff ffi*qfiffiffi

ffiEA4lFAH-ffi o EtHflU,litH@o
o EtE : tr-,ErF.ffi , *irf o

fi*rl

e
ffi

Lit. Trenrlr [f Saysl ,$ Horse ft not S with H WHITENESS f;]i" taken for
#E horse. f{ White -rF not fr with ,E horse f} is taken for
133

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

WHITENESS. A Combining .B horse E with gf white (gives)
again
f, the appetation H rvhite ,B horse. fr Being f[ each other
{n

E eombined .D.{ with (or) 4, not fH eaeh other S combined f$ use

fit Therefore tr say: fr White
& this appelation * not { possible.
-trJ possible.
jF
no.B
horse
not
horse
,k
.B

t2. Punctuation: H : Af.Hffi ffirF-ffi o EHA fl,.ffi ffiAH

tT;I ".

f,;'fil,H

Lit. rrenrr, pf says,

horse ffi taken ror
,F no ffi horse (we may) E say H having H white ,B horse

ts
tr

taken

Says:

for fr having }t yellow .tr

;[i Not ,rT possible.

13. Punctuation:

horse, I,1 is possible

(?)

E : Afi.,ryn o ffiJqffi-H-ffi o tr*Hffi T

.ffi-tlt o EH"6}tlB o ftUH,ffimrF,K o

Lit. Tranrt: ;-{ Says: !:lWith .ff having .tr horse (and) ts take it $diffet'ent
E from H yello* .8 horse, (is also) ft eorrect * to differentiate
,( yellow .E irorse r frorn .tr horses -U, (.) fr To differentiate
H yellorv .E horse l1l fronr ( other) .E horses, (it is) E correet
J:l rvith !( yellon'B hot'se ffi taken for )F no .tr horse.

t4.

Punctuation z

l^H,mffirF,ffi o ffilAH,,E o m6',,8 o tb

ft#Aro o fiitBt+JtE o [txTZ'$

EffiLffit[ o

Lit. Tranal: .Dl With ,f yellorv .tr horse B taken for JF no .B horse
fn and Dt with H white .E horse ffi taken for 6 having ffi horse'
ft this flt flying # that which is inside ilL pool ilf rnd ffi inner

coffin ff outer cofHn (in) J[ difrerent

H plaees. [t This is
^
( and )
(with ) fiL eonfusing
world
talk
the
eontradicting
X1
F'
fii
'fif r)r.opositions -LE (.).

15. Punctuation:

tj

: A'H,m o 7liilItpffi,ffi{f

o HEfrZ-aH
.U o THfi :#6 tr,ffi o TliEIiHfi,m{1 o trX
o \fiU,,V'1ffi?tr,m J+ o )#A
Flt Uffifr,m
ffifr,m& o ZiEIDtiH
H,mffifi,ffi o

tt$

,ffi,ffi ttl
Lit. Tranel: t-l Says: fi (You) have H (a) white .tS horse ,I; (but yott)
no E-I can ;;i1 say ffi (that is) no .E (a) horse. HE (Only if you)
separate H white 2 (from) it iii'l (you) call tE (it) so. 4i (If you)
do not HIE separate # from it H (you again) have H (a) white
II; horse ,fi ( br:t vou ) no 'lI can ;ji'i say fr ( you ) have .E
134

PuNcruArroN

t{.l#;f,.fl

rRANsLArroN

(a ) horse tE also. ffi Therefore rrfi that

D) (rvhich you ) take
ffi for ,E (a) horse ffi only Dt (is that you) take ,f$ horseness
ts ftrr' ,E (a) horse. )F Not A having H (a) white ,E horse
ffi' taken ,E (a) horse ffi the reason * (is that you) this E took
fr ( it ) for .E horseness. f ( But you ) no EI IX can fiil call ,E

horseness ,tE

(a)

horse.

16. Punctuation: f-| : A.#TftFftfe o,6,2

frilEf{U

" not ftspecify

Lit. Trenrl: H Says: fr WHITENESS {'that which does /ti
frtt what is H white. ,H Forget Z it m then Ef is possible & (.)

t7.

Punctuation: ft,ffi#Efi o frFftH{U o ftFfiA# c *

trtll

Lit. Trrnrl: fr White EB horse ff that which is (and) tr call (it) 5f white
(means) E to specify f'n that H lvhiteness tL (.) ft specify
Fft that H lVhiteness * ihat white is (as) JF nor H whire t[, (.)

18. Punctuation:

ffi#ffi*IATA o fiHHWFfrUW

Lit. Tranrl: f;$ Horse # the word tr neither :F excludes (or) A

'f from e, eolour. tr Therefore fi yellow ,R black t& all
D|. which is fi requested.

le.

Punchration:

El,ffi#A*qfTE
O

o HH-ffi

ffi[EtrffiIfrtrI%ffiH

includeg

Fft that

WFfrA&*

Lit. Trrnrl: H White ffi horse ff the word fi- having ;f excluded fr included
f from &, colours, f, yellow ,fl black E horses .pf all f,f those
t)t with E eolours ;[ excluded. fif Therefore rfi but H white ffi horse
il$ alone EII:L can !l answer 4 (.)

20. Punctuation:

frtr

o )Ff.*{E o
: H.ffirFffi e
Lit. Tranrl: fr Without ;[ excluded, # that which is )F not 6 having
* exeluded t[ (.) f,f Therefore Fl say: fr White ffi ]rorse JF no
IE horse.

{ffi*#

r35

CHAPTER III
DESIGNATION OF THINGS

rah

?ft

tr,:

(Chih-Io)u htn)

I.

Punctuation. *hH o -)F*fr o Ef *E )E*A o

Lit. Trlnrl: Qt1 Thing .E none (which is) JF not +F designated,
m
fE designation (is) )F no ffi designation.

2.

Punctuation:

f.fiE+H o ryXffiElUiHryh o
Lit. Trenrlt XT lvorld f[ without fF designation , +rt things ffi
s-ID.[ ean be fH ea! led fn things.

3,
Lit.

4.

yet

not

Punchration, )Ftfr.#

o X I. nf AI6I*aB*HT
?
no
designation
trF
fE
# supposing that XT world nf
lfr, things EI ean EH call fF designation + horv?

Trenrl

Punctuationr

+H ilL,.# o

ZFfi 6

o xT
xT zrfiffi+tl o qfu$-#
-F

+J!, O

o;ftEIo

and

ZFfi ffi

UXT ZFfr6 ffiX

Lit. Trenrl: fF Designation (is) tE also # that which X-F in the world
2 's ff refers to (as) ffi not ( having) , U (.) ffi Things (are )
tE also fr' that which XT in the world 2 's Fft refers to (as)
fi'having tL (full stop). DI lYith XT in the world 2's fyrcfeming
to(as) H having (and) ffi take it for X-f in the world 2_ 's
FX ref erring to ( as) fit not ( having) , * not EI possible.

5.

Punctuation:

r;*ffi+H o mryxfrETtHtH

ttl

Lit. Tranrl: '{-F In the world ,m (having) no ffr designation ffi then f4 things
T not EI ean ( tre ) FH called fH designated LU. ( full stop )
.

6.

Punctuation: Tf TII;H*H #,o )Fffillt

Lit. Tranrl z tli Not Trl ean be) Fn ealled ffi designated *
1F no ffi designation -L[ (.)
(

if

there

is )

7. Punctuation,

)F+fr-# o ryXYJF+H-tU o
Lit. Trenrlr JF Not fffi designated * although ( there are
( they are )
H not )f- u n ffi designated tU (. )
136

such

) +k things,

PUNcruArroN

til?_?,ff.*i

TRANSLATT0N

8. Punchration: f,Tffi*E o ffimfrETifitffi# o )Ffi)pffi

tEo

Lit. Trenrl: (There being) XT in the world tr no ffidesignation, m and

+r, things T no Ef csn(be) FH called ffi designuted # (to be taken
here 8s a predicative particle-"it does not mean that" ) JF not

)F no fff designation tt

(.

having

e. Punctuation: #6)8ffifr c wt*)Fffi& o rytil)Fffifi

o

ilrffi)Fffitlt

Lit. Tnnrl: )F Not having )F no fS designation # (although, it does

not mesn that) ffi things (are) { not )F un ffi designated .tU (.)
f, Things (are) H not jF un ffi designated # if ffi then ffidesignation
(is ) )F no ft, designation tE, (. )
I0. Punchrations X-r.Sffiffi# o
o trffiffi

*^tryttz*A*

Lit. Trenrl, XT In ,t*rd

S
{,

ff no *E designations
arises f from(the conclusion) *r1 thing 2's
name 6 not(be) F (taken)for ffidesignation

ff (the idea that)

* every have
t, (.)

o
11. Punchration: 7|iffiffi o nf,HHZ*E o
Lit. Trrnrl: ,{i Not fr (take)for tE designation m and FH call 2 it
fE designation E ir 9t both .f. not ts take for ffi designation.

H*Tffiffi

t2. Punctuationt UAnffi*AZ o *SrFffiffi o /tEI c

Lit. Trrnrlt l:) With H having 4i nct f,f taken for ffi designation 1l them'
# not ,{; not E taken for fp designated l; not EI can.
13. Punchrationr -H.ffif

Xli ZFfr*

Lit. Trrnrl: fl Moreover, ffi designation # is that which is }fr common

XT in the world.

14. Punchration:

r fiffi*E fi o *ilt6-FttH.ffitH fl1 o rEIfH

S.tffi# o ilEf.#ffi{Il

Lit. Trrnrlr XT In the world ffii without ffi designation * if, W, things
,li no EI can ffi speak of ffi without fE designation fr, (.) f No
Ef can FH speak of * rvithout ffi designation * if, 1F none
E have ,F no fE designation U (.)

15. Punctuationt )Fffi)pffi# c VnH)Fffi

Lit. Trrnrk ,F None H having ,F no ffi designation # if, fn

H ( are ) not )F un +E designated.
- 137

things

THE WOBKS OF KUNG-SUN

LUNG-TZTJ

16. Punctuation: +#HF*Etll o +H4+,M)F+E1ll

Li

t.

Tranrl r lE' Designation )F

not ,F non +F designation tU ( . t
ffr Designation fr referring to $fu things (is) iF non ffi designation tL (.)
( is )

t7. Punctuation: tf,X f ffiM{/fr o ffr1S;H#*H X

o

FNUII

o e&l*ffi*H o
[.it. Trenrl: ffi If X l-- in the world flt no qh thing- *f designation,
ffi who (would) fS straigtforward ffi call (them) JF, not +ft designated ?
( If )
X T in the world J1q rvi thout +h LhioBS, ffi *ho ( rvould ) f$ straishtf

orrvard

ffi

take them

for

ffr designated ?

18. Punctuation: X-t fr'+H o Mfit*fr o -AM$.AH/F*H o {SiH

ffiryDF*H

Lit. Trrnrl: X-F In the world ti having ,F designation ( but) ,lE rvithout
*rj thing- fE designation. ffi Who tr ever tH speaks of )F nonffi designation ( and ) fS ever fE say (that there are) ffi no {?1 things
)F not {fr designated ?

le.

Punctuation:

Eft*HEHffi)F*fr
R*A

*'t+f'ry1 nrtrE
o

Lit. Trunrl, -H.* Moreover, {ft designation [fil certainly H self (is) E ( taken )
for )F non- fffi designation, X u'hy (it) {-} depend + on ffi things
nf and l) then R at all ts ( taken ) f or {fr designation ?

138

CHAPTER IV
DISCOURSE ON CONCLUSIONS DRAWN
FROM CHANGES
i&_

,fr_

?# fr

lrave

one * I n

(r "ung-pien tun)
l. Punctuation: fl: -.6_+? H: -*m_o
-fr
Lit. Trrnrl:
Says:
J,E

[t
rviihout

Two

one

Says:

Two

2. Punctuation: ff : -_.Afr*? H : -m6 oH:-A

ft*?H:--ffito

Lit.Trrndr[l

s".vr:.-lTwo H has fr right +?- Hsays:lTwo

ffiwithout fr right- E says:-Two 6 has ti left tL?- Hsays:
; Two tr rvithout lF- left.

2. Punctuation: fl : frE|iH:ry.
E.H:IF ? Ll

?H :
: TtiEI o

eI can.- tr ,savs lc Left Er can HH eall :

,t< No EI can.

iliEI o Fl : EE-I
two +-2 -

says:

2. Punctuation: fl : ARfijTIfiH:+ ? H : E-I o

Lit.Trlnrl:p|,Saysz!1LeftRandfrrigatET,,AIlfficalI
p-1

Says: n[ Can

3. Punctuation: fl : ;H$rF;trffi,o E.I+ ? _H : E-I

Lit. Trrnrl: pf
ffi
A
+ ? E1 Says: Ef trIay
Punctuation: ff : -,86fl o E{*a}ffi,*
Says:

4.

Lit. T.nrh H

Call

changc

)F not 4; no A

t fi Right E have E
change
I
A
* t{ Says: Ef IIIay
says

?
moved

5. Punchration: fl : ry$(+) ? Efi

Lit.
Trenrl: H

says:

f,

change

*,

half a pair?

EI may

,.f

nray

HH call

fi Right
T Hff.ffi,,

says :

6. Punctuation: ff : frHW o fiE.fip.fr

*aH#,?

change,

Xn|

Lit. Trrnrh H Says: fi Right 6 if A ehanged, * how Ef can fH call

fr right, q if 4: no A changed, * how FI can EH call f, change?
139

THE WORKS OF KT]NG.SUN LUNG.TZV

- ffi*\fr.{.trfr o --#7iflfr#{d
? +6+#.ffi

Z. Punctuation: E :

Lit. Trenrl: p1 Says: I Two fr if ffi without il- left J( and ffi without
fr right, - two # items fr- left E and fi right, * ^uhen (h1 how?
+ Ram * together 4. ox )F no ,E horse.

8.

Punctuation:

9.

Punchration: El : {plfi} ?

+&+

o )F*A o
,1,
together
Lit. Trrnrl:
Ox A
+ ram 1F no {g fowl.

Lit. Trrnrl: B Says: {E[ How # ? (to be taken for an interrogation

10. Punctuation:

tl : +SB/F[ft]i o +fffi

mark.)

+*ffiffi o nf

+z)F+{U o + z)F+ tU o rrEI,7Tr@

A-fri*fEffi

Lit. Trenrl: tr Says: {: Ram R and + ox nfi but * different.+ Ram

6 has tE upper teeth, rl. ox ,E without ffi teeth, m however
+ ram 2 belongs to )F no + ram t[, (.) tF Ox 2 belongs to
lF no + ox tE (.) -J< Not EI can ft be f not Ul. every A have
m and *, so tfl class E (.)
o +Z.m+e, o
o
Punctuation,

ll.

+6fr +fifr
+fi, *EItrr[:

+Zffi

&?fr

nfffiZiflEl&

ox 6 has fr
Lit. Trenrl: $ Ram fr has ftl horns,
z m is taken for + ram t[, (,) + ram zffi is taken for ,F. ox,
,k not EI possible E is. {F. Each have (horns) nf still ffi elass
2's T not m same tE (.)

12. Punchrationr

horns. +

Ox

o ++ffiE
++Afr o ffiffifi o,BAE
o ffiE : +e+#ffi& o #,ffifi o $ffiffi
of,tr-++o

-ruosffiffi'#+fr* +To EEil+f,il+ o #ffiEI{Il 0 #&nrDtE

o

{6'SFZ4ffi

#tfrffift#
fr without fi
o

horns.
Lit. Trenrl: $ Ram rl, ox 4i have fr horns, ,$ horse
ffi
,E Horse H has H tail, + ox + ram fq without H tail' (')
Therefore p1 say: $ Ram A together + ox )Y no ,E horse. t[,
)F No .E horse ff if, ffi rvithout ffi horse -t[, (.) ffi \Mithout ,E horse
ram
# if, + ram 4i not - two, + ox T. no ; two, m but + horse
no
ox,
and
but
,6
ram
two.
This
ox
+
,F
rr
nr
+
+
ft
nT eorreet tX. (.) X If ffi ehosen nf as Iil with E eorrect Yfr like
fn Speeies 2 being 4i not E t atn, H if tr. left fr right ffr like
il. eorrect ,R chosen.
140

PUNCTUATION AND LITERAL TRANSLATION

CHAPTER IV

g+AR

13. Punctuation:

ffE=
ilil:-'fr= o HH++,[- o ry,ftru o
o

#HAm

#$B,E-

Entr-ffif,.o ++,[.tr o $E,Er s ffiEl

I +6+)F*Eo IFAUA)F*E&o

Lit. Trenrl: *p Ox + ram H have hair * fowl 6 has m feathers.

FH Refer to ffi fowl tr, leg (is) - one, I[ counting (its) ,E legs
(make) - two, : two nf and
one ff makes = three. ffiRefer to
one, ft counting (its) legs ,E legs
+ ox + r'am ,E leg (is)
(make) ug four, El four nf and
one ffi make }[ five. + ox
+ ram ,,tr legs (are) n five, *E fowl ,8. legs (are) = three.
ilt Therefore f;l s8y: + Ox * together + ram )F no It fowl,
)F not 6 have t:) wirh )F no fi fowl tU (.)

t4. Punctuation: Effi U*Eo Sffilfi o ZrffiS o ffiDlff#

Lit. rrrnrr, !s with *,:" TT,f,f,:"frFJH*rutprerer .E horse
"
T ::[:i" h ly,f ,ff il H X.J.*: Iil I J,""#' ?, T [T lli "15:
is
Chosen as
confusion,
correct (causes)
name
"

ft

frL

ff mad ,E choice.
15. Punchration: ff : fifr,ffi
Fn called

Lit. Trenrl: g

Says:

"
ffi (Let us) else f*

16. Punctuation: ff

debate.

frUE/FHo AU#/F#o

Lit. Tranrk g Says: ffi Blue Df with H white )F not f,

U, with ffi blue )F not H green.

17. Punctuation:

,?

fi

yellow,

fi

white

ff : ,fFlfii ?

Lit. Treul: p1 Says: fif How tit ? (to be taken for an exclamation mark.)

18. Dunchration:

fl : H,tr7li,tfifl o nfffifl o tr$I{E o.4!

tH#$ o fil+HfE

, T*.X-fr&

Lir. Trrnrl: B Says: ff Blue H white T no tE mutual E

conneetion,

9,"::,1 *l'.1"'? s", H'Tl,fr ff"ffi:T .r1I] # ""JJ"il'"JX,,fl

ffi approaching ,# no * hurt tt their fi position t!,(')
o trilil$16'HHEf c
19. Punchrationz

fi#Xfr'#

Lit.

#E*

T.nrl: T Not f*"ir.r,n, (with) * their fr positions # if,

tr opposing m and g.i correet d- each H proper * respective
Fh place. X Similar /1 Lett fr right ,F not ffi unmixable colour.
141

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZU

20. Punctuation: W--ftEZiEI

*frHrFEI o ffi+Ha
o
o

H*fiI HStr*
o
o

EiErF{ll }[:6'E
trZfi\E,*,]; trdfi#R.
-if
o

blue, 4. nol E] possible,

Lit. Tranrl: ilf Therefore one ,$ becomcs
One n beeonres H white, ,f not EI possible. #,+ Horv $ they
-# have ff 1'elicrv fr;t(?) trt Yeliow fi this (islJIi correct * (.) ft Is
I eorrect IE choice. ;S lhis ,ti have -11 lord fF. nninisters ;t- 's }! in

2r.

E countt'y -.Tj (., itt '-['helt fore [!. power Iil longevity ,+ (.)
Punctuation: nii H.ffiffi+H o Rf frTWlY,o frfr-Zff
o
filn/ffio

*o
o

E^ffie&

#HlJrFrE#*

^HftAA*

Lit. Tranrl: frtr'El. Moreover, ffi blue !$fi+ eombined 'vitlr fr white ff' then
H white 4: r.ot ffi o vercome tU (.) H White tr enoush 2 it
W overeomes * (,) nf but ,f not W completely & (.) EmetalIs
f wood n* destroys 4} metal tU (.) Wood H[ destroys #
# if, E g:reen. * Gre,:n flfi then lF^ not ]E correct ffi ehoicc * (.)
22, Punctuation: EEZ.+HS o imruefffHm o Htl ffii Ffi,tll
O

$TTBEHej*MO

Lit. Trenrl: ffi l-liue H white ,f ttot fH mutually R eombine, ffi and
ftl mutual E conll:ine .{i not +X mutual W overeome' IUJ Then
fE tn,o ( have) UJ! brightness tD, ( . ) .f" Clash m and nfi brightness
l+ their E colour F* green t!, (.)

23. Punctuation:

ffi.fi#$ffi

24. Punctuation:

o HH,.6{1 o S$+$X+ ?
Lit. Trenrl: g{ Combined Jt this * green g prefer I( yellorv. fi Yellow
* this (is) ,E horse'g(.) fi It E with (rvhich) fHclass {'(?r

H4#+

#HS6&
Lit. Tranrl: 11 Gr.een lt this (i-") {,9 forvl t, (.) ,t 'i'his & eombination
* outrageous {,. ( ? t
?

25. Punctuation: # o HI|EES o fil N,{ H&, o f{,i Hfi , E

, TFA o +FrES{} o
ti1
because

clash ffi
Lit. Trenrl: $ Outyage, [lJ then *I prinee t,'i minister
to hav'")
ffi hoth (wish to h;;;) ry, brightness fl (.) H{ Both (wishingbrightness
qB brightness # if , ( reiults in ) E darkness. 4: No U)"
)F r o n1 corre<:t f[ choiee fr, (.)
26. Punctuation: +lirtr$'ffi o *Tt{$tH o EEg#}:; ? n4H

-;

ll,qnntU o rnnn o

:ti; o

mi$o HffiAU-*^

Lit. Tranel, JF N1 it-. con'ect ,y1 clruicc # if,'t, n,tllles( fr actualities

particler')
[il i\turldled e colour. #fi fina!
fE no 'i;t in agreement.
('I
[],
brightness
i'l{ Trvo
.;
'f
ivo
tU
:
orc
sai's
theref
i^l,l
t
fit
without
(viltue;
This
loit.
,ft
virtue
*f
,li brightness m and fi
W
( .)
correctness
rvith
:I;
having
lI:
It
H
L42

CHAPTER V
DISCOURSE ON HARD AND WHITE.

d ?h tr, s.

EL

( Chien pai lun)

l. Punctuation:

S, tr, E, =iil+ ? tr : 6pTo -nf

*7 HtrI
(?l
O

Lit. Tranrlr

Hard H white

4; No EI possible

tr

E
-

Say:

stone

three

Two n[=possible

i] possible
+ ( ? ) El

IP

H SaY:

Say : EJ Possible

2. Punctuation: ff : {plfi} ? I1 : {11CEEl+i,tr , }d#tll , :

Lit. Tranrl: pf Say: fil l{ow ,t is this. ffi Without PI herdness {$ get
5f whiteness * this tE choice tU (,) I two ft without pf rvhitencss
'& get EE hardness fi this ,E ehoice tE (,) - two.

3.

Punchration:

[f : 1+Hpitr , ZiEf# ,.ffiH o 1+flEf

,.*ffiH[ o nf , ZE.U, Zfft

*lb o )F=+JL o
Lit. Tranrk E Say: ft| To get * this fn so-called H whiteness ,F no
EI can tH call ft without H whiteness, fi) to get fi this lri' so-called
E[ hardness T no Ef can 5i'J cail tr without $ hardncss fg However
;z this fi stone 1l refers to f,$ concrete fttE (.) )F no = tlrree {lf (.)

B ,7litrItH

4. Punctuation: tl : ffl ,41*,HE[g o nilffiS.Eff A#

*HB'IE o +ff , frl*XEn H o nf f+S Ffi *
o

tslt!*tll

.ffiH&,

Lit. Trenrl: ff Say: [,8 Sight .,[i not {'J set +S this frt so-called l[ hardness
' ffi but {$ gets S this t',\ so-called H whiteness # :f. ffi Without
E[ hardness t[ (.) 11t touch 4i not 4+ geis ]t this Fn so-called
fr whiteness ffi but +X gets J{ th:s f'tt so-called g he"r'dness. {$ Getting
* this fl hardness tE (,) tr without Ef whiteness {E (.)

5. Punctuation: fJ : Xl. ffEE ,]iElflfiflE

X}-ffi$
) Z-;EIA+"HH 2 Ei* ) tr )E4ilf[rl e ffi
= ) TII1p?
o

Liu Trenrl: El Say: XT In the world ffi without H whiteness f not

EI c&n f,E see E stone. XT In the world tr without EE hardness
143

TIIE WORI(S OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

E can J:| with En speak E

stone
4' not fE mutually fl
E
EI possible + (?)
4: not

6. Punctuation' El i 6

stone.

exelude;

Hardness

whiteness
three

m coneeal

fe&#ffi

, ff ffi& o
H
Lit, Trensl: I.J Say: .fi Having H self ffi concealment tX, or. )F non
ffi eoneealnrent m and ( is) ffi concealment t[ (.)
7. Punctuation: LI :
) sry{U ? Riltr,Y,\+U+HPS

ilH-t[

e,o sHffi ) A{rl

r pf S,r!' : fi This H whiteness tL, and * this E[ hardness

& (, ) ff and A stone 'l/,14 must Dl,fH each other ffiH, abundant
It thrs H self ffi conccalment *{it hou'?

Lit.

Trancl

8.

Punctuationr F-l :

t++H

liiJil,H{E o

,ffitll

o 1S+FC o
o Htr
o rli{,H#. o il't'BfEfilttu o

<-

fr.Wffr,

Lit. Trancl: pf Say: fi| Obtaining * th s H rvhiteness {$ nbtaining fi this

g hardness R seeing rq anri 4i norr H., seeing i.;il: separates.4; No
one 1 one 4; not fn mutually
E seeing Hfi separates ( tr-,')
A abundant, fift Therefore l,ljff. separate (is) iXt separate fr. (.) #
( separate that)
ffi eonceeis ,ffi tU (.)

9. Punctuation: Ef 3 EZA , mzr:*-, fr,W]:n ) 4

$1=

o #HMm+H*."tIl 0

$rF8+ ?

Lit. Tranrlr I--l Say : fi Stone 2 's fr whiteness { f stone Z's $[ hardness
fi, seeing R and Zi not R. seeing { two R together with (stone)
= three. H If Et wide fiE long m anC tH mutually fi abundant
-U too. fi these )F not # evident + ( ? )
10. Punctuation: E : tfintr.U o flfr-Hff H o,thr't'F; c

fr

Lit. Trenel: pf Say:

$lg things H white IS (,) Zi not ft define * its

rvhiteness fn things g irar.d .tU (,) /f- not ft define
so-called g[ hardness '4i , Not fr defining X if ,ft general

frfr so-ealled

# its ff
B+ how E really "fr stone -tlt (.)
1I. Punctuation: fl : ffiE o )Y-M ).glSE ) )FH o {$.Effqf
o 7ri+EPitr# e El*#.i ! ssffiE
Lit. Tranrl: pf Says: 'tl{t Refer fi stone )F not ffi that;fi6 without E stone
)F no ffi stone. # Without fft the so-called (stone) &. preferenee
+ (affirmative partiele) H white tr stone. T No fH mutual
ffi separation ff if ffi eertain + I ,{t Naturally (it is) ,{ this (snd)
{SE nothing more.

+frE

144

PUNCruArroN

tTrli,i;f,.f

TRANSLATTON

+H o -tU o g ) H:{l ) niliftT

o
e
e
c
)

12. Punctuation: H :

m ffi A'f[ffi ATfrfiffi A'-E,ffi

6T_E,,F o t[ ) f[ ft.7lifufH gqHft c _E,R

Li,. rranr,: ,= says,

fl*jo#*". g;n',:lff#,1,0,

fi have fp knowledge #3 (,) fhaving [ no fp knowledge

(,)
having
H. sight f;} (,) 6 having ,tr no ,H. sight ffi (.)
H
6
knowledge
therefore
ft
fi
R and ,1i non *{ knowledge tHR mutual
Sftseparation. f,, Seeing 9( and ,li not E seeing fH mutual ES with
ifr concealment; ffi concealment. ffi Therefore g, who fifficall 2 it
ffi Therefore

,{< non

HE

separation

13. Punctuation:

ff : ETliHEry e +frfrfifi o ;liElip.ffig

- 7tiE.rHHfistr e HEff{ll

sffiutt&,
oB)H$rth-o#+BE?
0

Lit. Trenrl: H Say: [f Eyes ,F no HE ean l[ hardness, + hand Zi no

tE can gf whiteness, f no Ef may FB say ft without $ hardness,
,|i no EI may EH say tr without pf whiteness. *t They S ditrerent
E functions -tt (.) * They fi without D,lft exchange ft, (.)
l[ Ilardness H whiteness W. limited tt on A stone, H+ how
ffi separation?

14. Punchration:

ff : g*ft.Effir$

ffiryX*o X,NryXR

E nrg il,*sTliwawt o mE o xT
o

*a.#g o nrgffi

Lit. Trenrl: E Say: $ Hardness * not R present in A stone (and)

f] taken for E[ hard flf' and f, things Sf general. ft Not t( present
in W things E for $ hardness nf and ![ hardness fl. must l[ hard
fi this (is) T not E[ hardness A stone ffo things, m' but ![ hard
XT in the world * not A having # (it) as E[ hard m and
E* hardness ffi concealed.

#trf

15. Punctuation: HEITlifiE H tr o ffi68 frmfu*7

'Ylfr o HIJT frryn o nfr E ffi o H#Ez*&
HE{E.A

EE
145

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZLI

Lit. Trenrl: H White El really 4: not fiE can H self H white, S how
BE can H make white A stone (and) +r/t thitrg., + (?) H If
Hff rvhiteness 4f,. must be H rvhite [lJ then ,{; not g! make white
f|1 things; H (is) white ;t:; (.) f; Yellow H black fr both 2 is
ffisame. A Stoue X they ft not 6 having #(!) frExpeet ![hard

;f white fr stone + ( ? ) fr Thus

{[, (,) # if Eg reason E is.

16. Punctuation:

)1

"p{:ff

W*IRff #

separation

EE

fr, (.)

flS Separation

Lit. Trrnrlz fi Power & and m knowledge * concluded ,t, not (to
X equivalent E leason (of) E it.

17. Punctuation:
Lit. Trenrlr

ft{6'trAH o AXn, o ffiX;fin

EH

Tn

fff'S.E fr{$fin

Hl|A

o ililJfl,EE

lloreover H r,,'hite til with H e}'cs .D-I with ,t

but
,t fire 4i uot fi, see. flf Than /i lh'e fr and H
ffi
fi not fl see, ffi but rli{r inragination 9L sees. fF Imagination T
R, see m and E, secing Hft separation.
.^H-ft

fl, see,

be)

fire
eye

not

18. Punctuation: IEA+ o fT[+tlf$ o Et*lET.fn o frf7li

*u o rrfrswfrfjn o r,s+ ! ft.ziHBEffi o

HEdlfX-F o ffiffif,frf. o

Lit. Tranrl: $ Ilard D) rvith + hand nf and + hand .DI with ffi touch.
E Is ffi touch 4 with + hand f;11 l<no\rrn; nE' hovrever T not
fr known nf ancl ffir mind R either ,{; not fi know. frdr Mind * ( tl
E is 2- it FFj ealled ffi separation ffi (.) ffi Separation .tE, (,) # if
X-F in the world, tr henee ,6 independent nn and lE eorreet.

146

CHAPTER VI
DISCOURSE ON NAMES AND THEIR ACTUAL
SIGNIFICANCE

frE?6ffii
(il[ing

slr,ih

lun)

I. Punctuation: ftriu. utErEH , wt+tl,o

Lit' Trenrl: f, Heaven fi[ earth 4 and their

J[
Ffr so-callcrl ,f
F (,) (are, tfr things tE, (.)

creation

2. Punctuation: ff11\Mfuffi+h o nf]ri&ffi o

H{E
Lit. Tru:l: +rt Thing D) compared rvith

Vn thing JS is Fr( so_ealled

+rI thing m and T nothing id more H (.) H Actuality t[, (.)

3. Punctuation: ffiUHSEf.H ,7|rffi#i o {il{E

Lit' Trrnrt: (Actualitv)
ft

fr actualitv nf

4.

Et

and

compared with

,t; not m

Punctuation: fr XFnff.

ft

empty ffi

actuality * is Bi so-called
(. ) fil position tt (.)

)Ftt c tt$Ffrlfr-ffi e

Lit' Tranrl: fr Out from * its Pt so-called tr. position )F no iE&

fl position.
tr, Position * its ff so-called ff place, E(makes it) reetified. fr, (.)
5. Punctuatiunz flSffiiE o ff . Sffi]iIE c ffiSEniE c
Lit' Trrnrls U With * this Fft so-called lf rectification, iE rectification
* this Ffi sn-called ( is ) ,4i non iE rectification Et Doubting
* this Fft so-cslled IE reetification.
6. Punctuation3 SE#]ESEIHfi c tr{EtrHf c iES
Lit. Trrnrl: *

this

*+e

iE rectification # if jE rectifies * this

tuality tE, (, ) iE rectifying * this Ftf so-called
if iE rectifying (its) & name. tE (.)
7. Punctuation: Jf,*:f. o Hl|[fr+ o Xffitttffi o
Lit. Tnnrlr * Its A name IIi rectified n[ then ffi follows 4. (:) * its
-:15
Fft so-called fr
t actuality #

ac

&. that (is) 1}t this

8.

Punctuation' tH :

(.)

ffio tfrifrfr[E+

tfr,H\tf-o iH7fi{?

Liu Tnnrl: EH Saying ffi that XE' and ifr. that T no rfi affirmation +(t)
M. that nlJ than M. that fH .means f not q1 respondins.
. t4T

TIIE \\'ONKS OI.' KUhIG-SUN LUNG.TZIJ

9. Punctuationr HH : ft, o mft7f[&+ o t[tfll|tt o ipTfi{t

t FH Calling Jlt thir nf and Jtt this ,t; not rE affirm + (.)
ft this [|J then Jlt this FH rrre ening ,tr no fr response.
10. Punctuationr SUH o nH{U o TH o nfffiL{ll o
Lit. Trrnrl: # It y) u'ith H agreement ,li not H agreernent tE (.)
,fi Not tr agreement iffi' :rnd then ffiL eonfusion.
ll. Punctuation, t*alN'iNH* o'if,H\[ft+ o ffiXflHft,,ffi. c
H+ o ltHtJrfrtr o IhSHH{TrrL o S
aHil[H{E o UHnr"giE{E o
Lit. Tranrlr fr Therefore 'lft that (andl M that ffi agrees * (;) |$. that
nlJ then # affirms * (;) $fr. that * u'ill fr response (to) 4tt; that.
!f This (and) It this H as,rees {. ( ;) JIt this nlJ then pE affirms
+(.) Xt This (it) Fn means tr1 reslrond (to) JIL this. ]tAnything
U taken for' (in1 LYi agxreement m and (it) ?f agrees t[, (.)
E Agreeing ff with H agreement (is) jE rectification tX, (.)
12. Punctuation, t{X$fr$fr,L+Ifi o }tl}t1fT}t o EI o
Lit. Trenrl: ffi Therefore ,ify. that (&) ,ffr that jh stops + at l4fi that;
ft this ( & ) I[t this JL, stops f at It this [t this ( is ) EI lrossible.
13. Punctuation, tfl*Lmffi o ..,H-1}ht[tl[ o im1l[ Halft o TfEf
Lit.

Trenrl

ltft

Lit.

t laff That t U I Jtt this ( is ) nf but ,lN that; .,E moreover

ttr this (&) frt this (is) ;1fr. that frf then ft this -E- beeomes
ffi that (which is) ,F not EI possible.
Punctuation: ,RAfiBU o fnfiLz#Itt[ o f{rttz7f,

Trenrl

14.

&.ILA+JL o

Hrl

ztl HH,tll ., *il'.$frZ)Fw&, o *fl

lNZT&aItXilL o HrlzFtB-tll 0
Lit. Trenrl: fr (An initiel particle-"Now") & name (&) E actuality FH
identified by tU (.) fn Knowins Jlt this 2 is ,F not Ift this -tU (,)
fi knorving Jlt this 2 is ,f not # in Jtr this tE, (,) All then
T not EH call (ihis). fr Knowing ;$. that 2 is )F not ;$- that
't[, (') frl knowing 'ifr. t]rat 2 is ,ri not # in ,fr- that 'tb (,)
nlJ then ni not ill crll ( that ) . -t!, ( . )
o ,ESff
15. Punctuation: SirtfiI !
?
o
o
! frZHlJr
tH
Lit. Tranrl: $ Perfeet * rfr (an exclaimation) * aneient 2 and EX
bright Jf, king # examining *t their & names ( & ) H actualities,
that f,fr what was Ei3 said E perfect * fr (an
ffi Careful *t -rb
exclaimation)
aneient 2 and nfi blight ;f king.

fiZfffi]f #SAH

=*ft

148

INDEX
(The system of romanization is that followed by GILES, SHINESE ENGLISH
DICTIONARY.)
A.

actuality ( E shih) , Bg, 118, VI, 1, l1g, lZZ.

affirmative ( jt shih), as in a debate, 66, 61.
agreement ( 'ff tang) r 8s in a debate, 60.

,,

, vI, 10, 121,

,,

122.

appellation ( ,E chu ) , BS explained by Mo Tzu,

argumentative speech ( fiilff pien yen), 14, 16.
Aristotele, IX, 42, 47, 68.

67

B.

belief in the manes ( nn W ming kuei) and Mo Tzu, b4.

benevolence ( {: jen), G4, 7G, 7,1,
Bodde, Derk, VIII, Zg, gB, l0E, 106.
c.
canon

of Mo Tzu ( ffi

ching)

Cassian, XVI.

64, 66.

Cause ( ilt ku), as explained by Mo Tzu, 6g, 66.

Chao, (m ) capital,2.
,, , King of yen ( il{ ttr{ :H ), A, 6, 6, Zl, ZZ, Zg.
,t state, 2, 4, 12, 17, 20, Zl, ZZ, ?9, 76,
Ch'en Chen-sun ( f{ ilRl* ), 14.

Ch'en Ssu

ku ( m ftd i5 ), t4.

Chens Chiao ( fi$ flffi l, 14.

Cheng Kung-sheng ( f& *-

),

dialectieian, 69.

Chi Ch'ieh ( E, BI ), 7. ^
Chi fu ( $ If, ) , see Material for a Debate, I.
Chi Mu-tzu ( l# fil f. ) , disciple of Kung-sun Lung, ZO.
Ch'i ( Vq ), King of, 79,80, BZ, gg.
State, 3, 6, t7r Zlr ZZr E0, 78, ?9. 90, gZ.
,,
Chia Shih-yin ( Ef * [* ), 14.
chieh tsang ( fri 4F ) , frugality in funerals by Mo Tzu , 6i.
chieh yung (

Lni

,1,

), frugality by Mo Tzu, 6t.

Ch'ien Lung ( gtltfr. L ernperor, l.

chien pai lun ( fd H ffi )-Discourse on Hard and White, the whole 6th
chapt., 110.
chien ai ( ,ft'.fj ), see Universal Love.
Ch'ien Mu ( $Eg ), eommentator, 96, g7, Bg, gg.
chih ( fF )-that which designates, designation, 27, gg.
chih wu ldng ( iFi +hli,f )-Designation of Things, the whole 3rd chapt., 93.
chih wu ( +fi t17t ), explaination of, 27, gB.
Chin dynasty ( ff ), 18, 16, 88, 66.
149

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG.TZU

Ch'in dynasty ( * ), 2, 4, L4, 16, 50.
Ch'in state ( * ), 3, 15, Zl, 22, 60, ?3.

( fFt S. & # ), 69.

) see: Autumn Floods, chuang Tzu, chapt. xvIL
Chou dynasty ( In ), 2, 11, 23, 60, ?3.
Chu Tzu ( ft+ ) or Chu Hsi ( *H ), famous eommentator on the Chinese
Ching-hua hsueh-pao

eh'iu shui ( f*zJt

Classies, 13, 15.

ehu ( ,E

ch'u
,,

-appellation

as bxplained by Mo Tzu ,

57

': f:H;';':1u:u; J,'ru, ?B

state, 43, 73, ?6.

ffi+ ) or Chuang Chou ( ]ffi E ), IX, Z, 7, lZ, 18, 16, 19, 20,
21, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 50, 56, 62, 6g, 69, 70, 1r0.
,, , ehapt. I, Transeendental Bliss ( H & tr hsiao yao yu ) ,
6,-IV, 4f 100.
,, , ehapt. II, Similarity of Things and Opinions ( fr yn ffi
eh'i wu lun) , 62 illustration of a debate.
,, , ehapt. Ill,-poundation for the Culture of Life( tS*
yang sheng chu), 42.

Chuang Tzu (

,t

,,

chapt.

,: ::H:: Xlliil1f",1"1TlT::7i.?i,,ll'nni,'li,40
1, 33,
56.

Ch'un Ch'iu (

Chung llsin

V,-proof of perfect Virtu ( ffi fi, ffi

te ch'ung fu), d3.
, ehapt. XVII,-4ugumn Floods- ( f* zk eh'iu shui)
22, 36, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, 63, and his debate
with Hui Shih in the same ehapt. 63.

#f^ ), see Spring and Autumn Annals

(ffr1',r1

), seholar, 14,

by Lu Pu-wei ( ,$ 4;',1i' ),

16.

eommentary on the Mohist canon ( {B f;f if, f.f mo pien ehu hsu

6ffi ), 66.

) by Lu

Sheng

( ffi ts'ang) , V, 11 1, ll2, 1 14, I 15,

A kai nien), 58, 59.
Confueius, 6, 7 , 12, 13, I 5, 23, 24, 25, G4, G5, 77, ?8, 110.
,,
, and the u'hite horse theory, 76.
,r
, opposed by Mo Tzu,-Against Conf ueianism- ( ,F f,E fei ju ) , 54,
,, , ju ( ffii ), 08.
,,
, on narnes and utensils, VI,15f lZ3.
,,
, and Reetifieation of Nanre.s ( E tr cheng ming) 20, 33, 68, 120, tLl.

concealment
coneept ( ffi

D.

debate ( f;f lrieir ), as explained by Mo Tzu, 60,

debaters ( ffif # pien che), 68.
definition of things, 7 4.
designation

or:nt"*=,

65.

lff ?r*""TIIiJ,,lI: 3;.''

150

12' 15' 27' 28' s6' 47'

6s

INDEX
designation of things sunrmary of the Brd chapter,26.
destructive pleasurcs ( JF * fei lo) by Mo Tzu, 6q.

dialectieians, 68, 69.

,,
, school of I

{, *, ming ehia), 7, 69.

, and Mo Tzu,68,
disarmarnent, by llto Tzu, Z, Zl, ZZ.
, by Kung-su n Lung, Z.
,,
discourse on conclusions drawn from changes ( ilfi tr ifr t,ung pien lun)
,,

, ::HH:"';J.''

- ,,

discout'se on hard and white ( Pf, H i=fr chien pai

15' 26' 4e'

lun), chapt. V, lZ, 16, L7,26.

::
::Hri: fi:'chapter'
discourse on names and their actual significanee (

110

f, 1[ ffi ming shih

7, 12, 16, 73,74.

diseourse

rr
, the whole 6th chapt, 119.
- rt , SUmmSfV, 33.
- horse
- (
on a white
H.B ffi pai ma lun), chapt. II, lZ, lE, G?.

::Hr,ll fL"oter'

84'

( Fl n.H, mu pu ehien), XIV,

47,

":,

E.

eyes do not see

ll5. lt7.

F.

fa ehia ( th*. ), legalists. 69, L20.

fa yen ( }s F ), by Yang Hsiung ( t+)W. ), 13, 16, 19.
Fan Shou-k'ang ( ru H H ), scholar. 23, 60.
fatalism, against ( ,F 6 fei ming) by Mo Tzu, 54.
fei ( ,F ), the negative in a debate. 61.
,, ju ( ,F ffi ), against Confucianism by Mo Tzu , 64.
t, kung ( 1F Lk fei kung), no aggressive v.'ars by Mo Tzu, 54.
,t lo ( ,F gH ) , destructive pleasures b:r Mo Tzu, 54.
,, ming ( ,F 6 ), against fatalism by Mo Tzu, 64.
Fei Tzu ( ,F + l, founder of the Ch'in State (* l, 50, 73.
five elements ( fr-'11 wu hsing), 29, 66, 71, 105, 106, l0?.
,,
, and their permutations, Tl, 105, 106, 10?.

,,

sehool, 2,

Forke, Alfred, VIII, 19, 29, 42, 69, 87, 99, 100, 101, 106.
forms and names sehool (If, f, *, hsing ming chia), 68.
Former Han History ( iifJ & f hsien han shu ) , see : Han History.
four virtues ( W 4-i ssu hsing), 80, 81.
fowl has three legs ( fi
chi san tsu), XIV, XIX, 26,29,45,
frugality in funerals ( ffit=,8.
* chieh tsang) by Mo Tzu, 54.
or use of economy ( tfr m chieh yung) by Mo Tzu, 54.
,,

151

ee

104.

lun

THE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG-TZU

Fu Hsi

(ftm ), XXI.

Fung ru-ran,

!lf,*Jqi ';:::::"'#'"'J.il;',u',,|h?*
hsueh chi), transl.

by Derk Bodde, VIII,

chung kuo

ehe

29.

G.

of Chinese Philosophy ( rlt W +T,St H, im ;1h ehung kuo ehe

hsueh chi t'ung lun) by Fan Shou-k'ang ( ill ffi H ), 23,69.

General Outline

H.

Han eatalogue, L, 36.

Han Dynasty ( tr ), 1, 13, 15, 22.
Han-fei-tzu ( +fi )F {- ), 10.
,,
, and Mo Tzu, 64.
Han History or Han shu ( il-l. g han shu) , 6,7r

1,2,

14, 15, 20, 23,, 40,64,79.

,,

,t State, 73.
Han Tan ( +$ flt ), 18, 21, 69.

hardness and whiteness (S El chien pai), 7, 17,33, 65, 68, 73, 110.
Hippocrates, XVIII.
Historical Itecords or Shih Chi (,:8, *. ) see Shih Chi, 2, 12, 14, 20, 23, 73.
hou lai mo ehia ( l*. rlr {l:i 7i ), the later Mohists, 68, 69.
horseness, 26, 86.

and horse ( JIj ,fE ma ma), the differenee between, 25,26, 86, 90, 91.
and whiteness, 86, 87, 92r 99,
Hsiang Li-ch'ing ( ffl gt. frl ) , Mohist, 7, 64.
,, Fu ( fll * t, I\[ohist, 54.
Hsiao Cheng, King, ( * ttj. ), 2.

,,
,,

hsiao ch'u ( ,1. {f

t, ku ( ,1. ,!t

), minor illustrations, 55, 65.

), minor eause 58, 59.
[Isieh llsi-shen ( ill fr; t*, ), commenta[or on Kung-sun Lung, VIII, L4, 16, t7,
22,25, 28, 30, ?3.

, preface, 17.
Hsin Ling, Lord ( {; F,h Yt ), 2, 21.
hsing ming ( Il, f, ), see forms and names
IIsu1,
2' e' 13'
,,

t"

,t

X'l,l;J;.ln';;:"0n"''

sehool, 68.
16'

, and rectifieation of names, lZ0.

Huai-nan-tzu ( iffr i.!'1 T. ), philosopher, 13, 16, 19.
IIuan T'uan ( fit l*l ), dialectieian, 8, Zt.
Huang Liao ( ffi ffi ), as in Chuang Tzu, 8.
Huang Kung ( ,t ,i ), dialectician, Gg.
Hui'
(,ts-,flJ=.]'
or
:,HT,t"*
) :' *,1:'
,,

152

II-IDEX
Hui shih or Hui Tzu

(H ,E), IX, 2,6, 7, g, lz, lE,

60, 63, 69.

,, , goes to eonsole Chuang Tzu,40.
Hui Wen, King ( S 3f :8, ), Z.

26, Bg, 40, 41, 46, 46,

I.

i (#), see righteousness.

I Ching ( E f,E ), X, XI.
[-wen Chih ( $ t ,rt ) , chapt. in the former Han Shu. 6, ,I
,
incoherent distinction ( {LB k,uang chu), IV,lZf 106.
inference ( ,F ffr t,ui lun), 6g.

14.

J.

jen (f: ), see benevolence.

iu ( lffi ), see: Confucius, 69.
judgment ( 1r[ fi p,an tuan),

69.

K.

kai nien ( ffi

ft ),

Kao Yu ( H; ;if

ku

),

coneept, 69, 69.

commentator to the Spring and Autumn Annals , lZ.

tt ) , cause, 88, 66.

(n[ E ), Ge.
Ku Ting-lin ( n( 4 +t ), seholar, 23.
(

Ku Shih

K'u Huo

( ?'rilE ) , nrentioned in Chuang Tzu, 7 .

Kung-sun Lung-tzu ( 2\ L* frE
f. ), 69.
,,
,, , his biography, Z0.
tt , ref ers to the king of Chru, 7 g.
"
K'ung Chuan ( {L '# r, 4,6, ,I ,lB, 16, ZO, ZZ, 24, 25, 76, ?6, ?g, gB, 11.3.
K'ung Chi-eh'i scholar said: "When the lips are gone the teeth feel cold,,, gg.
K'ung Fu ( {L Sff ), author of K'ung Tsung-tzu, 24.
K'ung Hsiung ( e! q[ ), place. i, 6.
K'ung Tsung-tzu ( rL v, + ), book wriiten by K'ung Fu, xx,6, 18, 24, gB.

L.

Lao Tzu ( -Z * ), Taoist, XIX, lL, 86, 48, 70.

,t

, paradoxes,

81.

Later Han Shu ('l*. if$ g hou han shu ) r see : Han History.
Later Mohist School ( i* 4{ & *, hou lai mo chia), see: Mohists.
le g, as taken in an abstract sense, 104.
legalists ( i| *d. fa chia), 68, 6g, lZ0.
Li shou ( ;I ri' ), a famous mathematician, III,1Of 96,
Li Shih ( Hfi Ti ), town, g, Zt, ZZ,
Lieh Tzu ( gU T- ), taoist, LZ, lB, 14, lg, 20, ZZ, Bg, 69.
,,
, chapter Confu cius, 22, g E.
153

THE WORKS OF KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZLI

Lin ( llfi ), town, 3, 21, 22,

Liu Chi-eh'en ( EU X. tr ), scholar, 69.
Liu An ( EtJ f ), prinee of Huai-nan, 16.
Liu Hsiang ( EII Ifil ), scholar', 7, 14.
Liu Hsin ( Btf 0i ) , 7, 14.
Lu Pu-wei ( tr ,li iE ), eompiler of the Spring and Autttnrn Annals,
Lu Sheng ( f1 ffi ), eommenfstor on the Mohist Canon, 66.
Lu shih eh'un ch'iu ( R tt trf flk ), see Ltr Pu-wei, 12.
Lu ( {(i ) state, 79.

4.

M.
SS {ffi' ) , author of the ehronological tal.rles,
Mao Kung ( tr ,l ), dialeetieian, 12, 2t, 69.
Major cause ( 7( ilt ta ku ), 58, 59.

Ma Hsu-lun ( Hj

major illustrations

t If{ ta eh'u ),

f 0.

56.

material for a debate ( Hf ff+ chi fu), 6, 12,15, 22,24, 64,

, the whole lst ehaptet',73.
r,
,r
summal'y, 13.
,,
,r
Meneius, see Meng Tzu.

Menl

"'' * * I #llffii,hTi *i::{,Jl,,

,.
,, , respeet your elders, 45.
mind ( ,[. hsin), 3, 32, 35, 117, 118.

'6< ), see dialectieians, sehool of dialeetieians, ol' name school.

on names and their actual signifieance.
rning shih lun ( f, E ffi )
-discourse
the u'hole 6th chaptet', VI, 119.
I\'Iing Dynast.y (ry ), 14, 16.
ming kuei ( ry H, ), belief in the rlanes by Mo Tzu, 54.
minor cause ( rJ. tt hsiao ku ) , 58, 59.
minor illustrations ( ,J. {f hsiao eh'u ), 55, 65.
mo chia ( # ft ), see Mohists.
Mohists ( ,, tno chia) , 15. 28, 34, 38, 54, (i8. (i{), 105, 120.
Mohist Canon ( S #i mo ehing), 58.
()n the I\[ohist canon by
tno lrien shu hsu ( ,Sl, ffif it f;) )
Lu Sheng ( ,1T M. ), 56. -p6vnnrentat'r'
IUohists antl questions for thc pnrctiee in rlialt't'tic. fi!-r. 6(i.
Mo Ti ( $1' 4F ), see I\lo I'zu.

rning ehia ( 4',

*",t"'
,,
,,

1,"',
,,
,
,r

ilil$;fii,:ffi;1fl

, bcliei' in the nlancs { tE tV, ming

;ii:,:?;
liuei

),

54.

rbiography54.

. clestruci.ive pleasures ( rF *
154

fei

lo ) , 54.

ir;

INDEX

',', ,: ::'"':IiI,lg'#,='i;J,l'i:l 'ullr,,

,,
,,

,,
,,

, ofl dialectie, EE.

, universal love ( * qE chien ai),

M";, prince or 'ru:i",fi

b4.

84.

}i'X",,til,tn,';;: ,i'ii, ll,

s6,

88,

N.

names and their actual signifieanee

( f, E ming shih), t 0, 80, 64, 66, 66,

6g,

tg, t22.
name school ( f, *, nring elt:a l. see dialecticians ol' sehool of dialectieians,
6, 15, 2A, 39, 56, 110.
negative ( )F l, as in a debate, 68.
no generosity ( ffi tf, wu hou) by Teng Hsi (i"(,
ffi ), 70.
1

P.

Pa Kua ( ,,\#f l, XVIII, XX[.

Pai Guee ( H .f: ), scholar, 6.
p8i ma lun ( H ,B fft ), see discourse on a white horse,
Fan ku (EI lH ), author of the l-wen chih (
# t tr ),
p'an tuan ( +lJ ffi ) ,-judgement, Eg.

'"'1"..'i

',',

ffr{{yi*{'};
: :ff

':,*,

g4,

i,

14, r5.

bo

ill'1,'fr$"Jf;'1,#;-;:Tri

a:L$rE+ ),

Bb

t,
, the 2L of the dialecticians, 41, .15.
pien che ( f# # ), debaters, 68, see dialectieians.
,,

,,

BS

P'ing-yuan' Lord ( ?F

plots of the warring

ffi-j),

explained by Mo Tzu, 69.

'tF,

# ), xx,z ,4,5,12,1?,1g,20 ,z!,22,28,24,75,76,?g,118.

l ( Sn E qfr- ehan kuo ts'e ) , ehapt., Chao san

state

22.

preserving whiteness ( {F fl shou pai ) , 6,

proposition ( ffif tz'u ) , 68, G6.
Protagoras,68.

?9.

R.

rebellious Mohists ( [|J EK pieh rno) ,

1,

rectification of names ( iEfi cheng nring), T, 18, 15, 27, 87, Bg, Bg, l0g,
lighteousness

L?l,122.

( *fi i), G4, 7G, 77.

155

120,

TTIE WORKS OF KUNG.SUN LUNG.TZ,U

s.

separation ( ilE ), 31, 32, 36, 39, V, 112, 114, 116, 118.
shadow of a bird does not move, 26, 37, 48.
shih ( fr ), the affirmative, as in a debate, 61.
shih ( t ), actuality, VI,1 119.
Shih huang t'i ( fr{i H fif ), first emperor of the Ch'in Dynasty, 60,
ehou ( Ft ) , statement, 68, 66.

o'ul'""'"

='-'ll'"'

[ ft'Iil?, {i,*J:h}tli',uunt

"'

?3.

?0' 7 4'

120

. SUmmBfY, 34.
))
,,
,,
Six States ( ;i Fj| Iiu kuo), 6, 16, 73.

Soerates,68.

) , by Mo Tzu , 67 .
Spring and Autumn Annals (#frt eh'un eh'iu) bV Lu Pu-wei (
3, 4, 21, 22, 77, 79, 113.
ssu hsing ( El 4-f l,-f our virtu es, 80, 8 I
Ssu-rna Chen ( A ,[S fi ), 12, 16.
Ssu-ma Piao ( -FJ .[5 bU ), 4ry, 49.

speeeh ( H yen

Ezli:iit

),

statement ( fift shou ) , 58, 66.

Sung Dynasty ( 'ri-r ) , 1, 12, 14, 15, 24, 35,
Sung State ( ,:

),

?3.

39.

T.

ta ch'u ( t Jff ) see major illustrations.

ta ku ( t rlt ), see major eause.
tang ( fi'; ), see 'Agreement'.
Tao (ff),43,44,61.
tao te ching ( fr fti *S ), XIV, 68.
Teng Hsi ( ffi +li ), dialectieian, 69, ?0.
Teng Ling-tzu (fl F* T ), mohist, 7,64.
thing (+rt wu ) , meaning of, 2G, 3G, gB, 1l g.
Thought of Philosophers of various Sehools ( Bfr * fff + ,rg. ru. hsien eh'in
tzu ssu hsiang) by Liu Chi-eh'en ( f[ k W ), Gg.
Ti Chien ( lE frfi ), minister, 39.
!"ien Pa ( ff l E ), dialeetieian, 69.
t'ien chih ( X ;J.i )-will of Heaven by IUo Tzu, 54.
ts'ang ( Frli | ,-eoneealment, V,5 111-115.
Tsou Yen (ffi lii l, head of the five elenrent sehool, z, 17, 18. z0, z?,
Tung Kuo-tzu ( m *f 7- ), 44.
t'ung i ( lfr] fi,. ), see similarity and differenee.
t'ung pien lun ( itfJ fr f,h ),--Diseourse on eonelusions drawn from ehanges.
,, , the whole 4 tlr. ehapter, gg.
,,
t'ui lun ( tff, ift )
59.
-inference,

- 156

ehu

INDEX
Turning of lVords (tS fr+ chuan tz'u), chapt., by Teng Hsi
Tzu Ping ( T- {g ), Kung-sun Lung's style, L2, L7, 20.
tz'u ( Sf )
68, 66.

(ffi ffi ),

?0.

-proposition,

L'.

universal

love

chien ai)'

,';iii,i"'; j* f;rr,

z.

vy.

lYang Liang ( ;1:- .H, l, farnous horseman, III,i0i 96.

Warring States ( E[ E ehen li; ..), see $i:l States, L2, 14, 15, 22, 68, 73.
$-rrr3, nu aggressive vrars ( ,F tk fei kung), by Mo Tzu, 64.
Wei Dynasty ({ft ), 38.
Wei State, 4, L2, 14, 20, 21, 22, ?3.

\Yen

l{ui, Lord ( t H B ),

T/en, King

:E

),

42.

XXI.

rvhite horse is not a horse ( H ,B

tt

white dog- is blaek,

26.

,F.B

, the 6th theme

pai ma fei ma\,24,26,26,38, 64, 74,

76, 76, 79, 83, 8d.

of the 7 paradoxes of Kung-sun LunB, 86.

whiteness end hardness ( H l[ pai chien), L2, 14, 82, 37.

whiteness and white, the differenee between, 26,31, 91, 117.
\,t-ieger, Leo, 36, 36, 37, 38, 39.
Wilhelm, Richard, 4, 36, 36, 37, 38, 39.
will of Heaven ( X;t: t'ien chih), by Mo Tzu, 64.
wu hsing (fr_fr ), see five elements, 71, 72.
wu hou pien ( # E- H ),-ro benevolence, chapt., by Teng Hsi, 70.
wu ( lfry l-things, see thing.
wu wei ( ffi ts )-none interference, 61, 109.
Y.

Yang Chu ( ffi* ) or Yang Tzu, philosopher, 12, 13, 16, 16, 19.
Yellow Emperor ( f, ftr huang t'i), 8, 4, 83,
yellow horse and black ox makes three, 29, 49.
yen (H )---*peech by Mo Tzu, 67.
Yen State ( ilE ), 44, 79.
Yin Yang ( H W l, XVI[, XX[.
Ying ( gS ), capital of Ch'u ( E ), 46.
ying yen lun ( fi H' ffr ), chapter in the Spring and Autumn Annals, 22,
Yin Wen ( F t ), philosopher, 69, 79,80, 81, 82,83.
Yo-cheng Tzu-ch'un ( ft jE T- # ), Confucianist, 96.
Yo-cheng Tzu-yu ( *s jE if g{ ), 18, 20.
Yueh State ( frtr ), 43, 44.
Yu Yueh ( fil tD ), commentator, IV,4f 100, 101.
Yun-meng Park ( g t m ), 64, 76, '17.

L57

LIST OF WORKS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSULTED

IN THE

PREPARATION OF THIS BOOK:

CHINESE BOOKS:

1. Hui Shih antl Kung-sun Lung rvith

explanatory notes

Commereial Press, Shanghai

by Chien !tou,

, W,& r El 4,1, ** , fr* E[ *tB

H rE ,
IIui Shih Kung-sun
Lung, Chien I'{ou kuo hsueh hsiao ts'ung shu, *ch8ng
^L*ffi
wu yin shu kuan.
2. Kung-sun Lung, by lfu

^l*frE+fr

Tao-ehing.

, ffiHSS , EIP/1.JEB

Kung-sun Lung-tzu chih, Hu Tao-ehing, Kuo hsueh hsiao ts'ung shu.

3. Kung-sun Lung and Shih Tzu in the ,Ssu pu pei yao, Chung Hua Book Co.
F + , Elffi{dhEf , rF#gE

^l$frE,

Kung-sun Lung-tzu, Shih Tzu, Ssu pu pei yao, Chung Hua shu ehu.

4. Chuang Tzu, Commercial Press, Shanghai.

ffi+ ffit* EPg'tE
Chuang 'Tzu, Shang wu yin shu kuan.

6. The true

Book from the South, by Kuo Hsiang. Reprint from Ming

edition, Commercial Press, Shanghai.

Hrytrffi ,

+E#

nfrfll

Nan Hua chen ching Kuo Hsiang, ming k'an

6.

pen.

Lu's Spring and Auturnn Annals, by Kao Yu, Commercial Press, repriltad
Ming edition.

trEBfi Hffi,Wfil#-

Lu shih ch'un' ch'iu, Kao Yu, Ming k'an pen.

7. The \ilorks of Mo Tzu, Ming edition Chia Ching, T'ang yao-eh'en, k'an

B+ , sfr*fti , tr#E[fI#

8.

The Works of Hsun Tzu by Li, Sung edition.

ffi+, *R, ' *flJ

/ir

Hsun Tzu, Li shih, Sung k'an pen.

9. History of the Anterior and Posterior Han, Sung editiou.

BfJf$B ,'&.#* ' IfiE , **
Chien Han chi, Huo Han chi, Sun shih, Sung pen.

10. A Biography of K'ung Philosophers by Yeh of

#*
K'ung ts'ung tzu, Yeh shih, Sung.
+L#.+,

Sung.

11. Lao Tzu Tao-te ching by Ch'u shih, Sung edition.

t+, iEffiE r.EE, *rJ*

Lao Tzu Tao-te ching, Chu shih, Sung k'an pen

-169-

pen.

72, Tz'u Hai Chinese Encyclopedia; Chung Hua Book Co., Shanghai

rlr#*E

Elifi

Tz'u hai,' Chung Hua shu

chu.

13. K'ang Hsi Dictionaryr Commercial Press,

ffiR+&
K'ang Hsi Tzu tien,

74. The Historieal

Shanghai.

shang wu yin shu kuan

Records by Ssu-ma Chien, Sung edition.

, *+

E,EE F] .EE
Shih ctri, Ssu-ma Chien, Sung pen.

16. General Principles of

Chinese Philosophy

by Eu Shih, Commercial

Press,

Shanghai.

rptr'gttt,ffiilrffi#E[*tH

ta kang, Hu Shih, Shang wu yin shu kuan.

16. Lieh Tzu, from the Students' Library, Commercial Press, Shaughai.
Chung Kuo che hsueh

fl+ , $sEf #** , HIf Eil*fE

Lieh Tzu Hsueh sheng Kuo hsueh ts'ung shu, Shang wu yin shu kuau.

17, 'lSehools of Thought of various Philosophers before Ch'in" by Liu Chlch'en, Hsin-ming Book

Co.

fr*H+EtItil,3[X.E Hsin ming shu chu,

Ilsien Ch'in chu Tzu Tzu hsiang,'#Enttr

18. "Outline of the Ilistory of

ming Book

Chinese Philosophy'' by Fan Shou-K'ang, K'al-

Co,

'fEggE,ffiHrHri*E

Chung Kuo che hsueh shih t'ung lun, K'ai ming shu chu.

19. Mo Tzu's learning by Liang Ch'i-ch'ao, Commercial Press, Shanghal

E:f ln'E *SE

ffiIf H*fB

' 8rr Liang' Ch'i-Ch'ao, Shang wu yin shu lruan

Mo Tzu Hsueh
20. Chuang Tzu in modern Chinese.
H EIf
Pai hua Chuang tu pen, Kuang i shu k'an hang.

+r*

159

FOREIGN BOOKS:

1. A Forke: The Chinese Sophists, Journal of the China Branch of the

Royal Asiatic Soeiety. Vol.34, 1901-1902.
2, Fung Yu-lan: A History of Chinese Philosohy. Trtnsl. by Derk Bodde.
Henry Vetch, Peking,

1937.

8' H. A. Giles: Chuang Tzu Mystic, Moralist and Social Reformer. Kelly
and Yfalsh, Ltd., Shanghai.

4. Leo Wieger, S.J.: A History of the Religious Beliefs and Philosophical

Opinions in China. Hsien-hsien Press, lg?7.
5. Richard lVilhelm: Dsehuang' Dsi. Das wahre Bueh vom
Blutenland. Eugen Diederich, Jena 1921.
6. Riehard Wilhelm: Fruhling and Herbst

des

sudlichen

Lu Bu-we. Eugen Diederich,

Jena 1928.

7. Richard Wilhelm ; Lia l)si. Das wahre Buch vom quellenden Urgrund.
Eugen Diederich, Jena, 1921.

8. Homer H. f)ubs: Hsun Tzu. The Moulder of aneient Confueianism. A.

Probsthain, London 1927.

9. Homer H. Dubs: The Works of Hsun Tzu. A. Probsthain, London 1928,

10. Yi-pao Illei ; [f o Tzu, the neglected rival of Confueius. A. Probsthain,
London 1934.

11' Yi-pao

Me

: Ethical and political I{orks of Mo Tzu. A. Probsthain,

London 1929.

12. James Legge: The Chinese Classics. Confucian Analects. Oxford

Clarendon Press, 1893.

13. C. Porter: Aids to the Study of Chinese Philiosohy. Yenehing University, 1934.
14. H. A. Giles: A Chinese-English Dictionary. Kelly and \[alsh,
15. W.

Rudenberg

Shanghai.

: Chinesisch-Deutsches \Morterbueh. L. Friedriehsen &

Co., Hamburg 1924.

16. A New Chinese-English Dictionary. Commercial Press, Shanghai, 1927 .

160