kung-sun lung tzu

8/13/2019 Kung-sun Lung Tzu

1/35

Harvard-Yenching Institute

The Kung-sun Lung Tzu With a Translation Into EnglishAuthor(s): Y. P. MeiSource: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 404-437Published by: Harvard-Yenching InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2718249 .Accessed: 26/08/2011 07:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Harvard-Yenching Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hyihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2718249?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2718249?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hyi


2/35

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

WITH A TRANSLATIONINTO ENGLISHY. P. MEI

BOWDOINCOLLEGE

INTRODUCTION

Although ach important hinesephilosopher as some kind of

methodology,1 nly a few Chinesethinkers ave interested hem-selvesexclusively n the field f logic. These few all lived in theancient period,2 nd the subject of their discussionsmay be calledlogiconly f the term s used n a very broad sense o as to include,besides logic proper, uch material as dialectics, ophism, para-doxes, nd what s currently poken f as semantics. The " Biblio-graphicalRecords of the Han shu contains, nder he " Divisionon the Philosophers," " Sectionon the Logicians" in which hefollowing even titles re listed with a concluding emark:

1. Teng Hsi ,,9j, two chapters2. Yin-wen tzu -EI9JI?J-, one chapter3. Kung-sun Lung tzu fourteen hapters4. Ch'eng Kung sheng 4j, five chapters5. Hui tzu ,:, ., one chapter6. Huang kung _ , four chapters7. Mao kung c nine chaptersOf the logicians there were altogether even titles with thirty-six hapters.

Of these seven titles, ll but the Kung-sun Lung tzu are eitherno longer xtant, uch as 4, 6, and 7 above; or most questionableas to authenticity nd worth, uch as 1, 2, and 5 above. As amatter f fact, he essential material for study of Chinese ogic

'See Hu Shih, The Development of the Logical Method in Ancient China, Shanghai:Oriental Book Co., 1922.

2 This statement seems to overlook the considerable group of Buddhist thinkersthat flourished uring he Pre-T'ang and T'ang centuries, nd the notable contributionsthat some of them made to epistemology nd logic. But the imprint f Indian ideasupon these scholars was so distinct that one doubts whether their thinking couldproperly e considered Chinese.

404


3/35

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU 405

today consists of little more than the Kung-sun Lung tzu, thesix chapters on logic in the Mo tzu: t'fiF, g 2 QTR

the section on HUIShih and the other dialecticiansin the ast chapter f the Chuang tzu ; and some other ortions fthe Chuang tzu and the Hsiin tzu.5 The importance f thepresent ext of the Kung-sun Lung tzu, the remains of a muchfuller work, s clear.

THE AUTHOR KUNG-SUN LUNG

There were two KUNG-SUN Lungs in the intellectual world ofancient China who were mportant nough o deserve mention ySSU-MA Ch'ien in the Shih chi. One of these was a disciple ofConfucius,6 escribed as about fifty years younger than hisTeacher, and therefore orn in approximately 00 B. C. Theother was the dialectician-logician ho lived sometime betweenabout 320 and 250 B. C. and left the work here translated nddiscussed.7 SSU-MA Ch'ien's biographical note on him says: 8

3 Mo tzu, chapters 40-45. Unfortunately here is no adequate translation f thesechapters, lthough ome items from hem are discussed by Hu Shih, op. cit. 87-108.' There are the following nglish translations f this chapter:H. A. GILES, Chuang tzu (Shanghai: Kelley and Walsh, 1889, 1926) 437-454.James LEGGE, The Texts of Taoism, SBE 40 (London: Oxford University ress, 1891,

1927) 214-232.L. C. PORTER, Aids to the Study of Chinese Philosophy (Peiping, 1934) 43-48.Lin YUTANG, The Wisdom of Laotse (New York: Random House, 1948) 24-37.

The dialecticians' paradoxes n the chapter may be found n the following dditionalvolumes:Hu Shih, op. cit. 111-12, 118-19.FUNG Yu-lan, History of ChinesePhilosophy: The Period of the Philosophers Peiping:

Henri Vetch, 1937; Princeton: Princeton University ress, 1952) 197-200,215-17(Translation by Derk BODDE).

'See my translation f Bk. 22 of Hsuin tzu, " On the Correct Use of Terminology"IE1a in Philosophy East and West 1 1951).2.51-66. Cf. J. J. L. DUYVENDAK'stranslation f the same book of Hsiin tzu in TP 23.221-254.

6 Shih chi, "Biographical Essay on the Disciples of Confucius" IIJA gkIJ4,mistaken for "the dialectician who discoursed on hardness and whiteness by thehistorian.

7 Shih chi, "Biographical Essay on Mencius and Hsiin Ch'ing." SSU-MA Chen, thecommentator of the T'ang dynasty who called himself the " Minor Ssu-ma" indeference to his illustrious namesake, mistook the dialectician for the disciple ofConfucius. 8 Ibid.

8


4/35

406 Y. P. MEI

"Furthermore, here was KUNG-SUNLung of Chao, who dis-coursedon hardness nd whiteness, imilarity nd difference."

Lu Sheng 4l of about the fourth entury . D. said that bothHui Shih and KUNG-SUNLung were proponents f the Moistdialectic.9 The Lu shih ch'un ch'iu 10 recorded that KUNG-SUNLung urged disarmament nd demobilization n both King Chaoof Yen Ago'E and King Hui of Chao .Ef.I Possibly KUNG-SUNLung did grow up in the tradition of Moism, since Mo tzuso pre-eminently ombined the doctrines f universal ove andpacifismwith ogicand the dialectic.

For a considerable period, KUNG-SUNLung was a "guest," asort of adviser-retainer, f Prince P'ing-yuian 1WEX1of Chao.During this time he met K'UNGCh'uan MLrand the discussionwas held that is recorded n the Kung-sun Lung tzu 2 and theK'ung Ts'ung tZU.13 Evidently KUNG-SUNLung's pupil Ch'i-wutzu * JH and his fellow ogicianMao kung 4- were lso amongthe Prince's guests. It must have been a pleasant as well as a

profitable ime for KUNG-SUN Lung, as the Prince treated himwith special warmth nd respect. But when Tsou Yen Ot 14came from he state of Ch'i to visit the state of Chao, he soonconvincedPrince P'ing-yiian f the futility of KUNG-SUNLung'steachings nd the logician fell nto disfavor.15

KUNG-SUNung also cultivated the friendship f Prince Mou ofWei 034I 16 who is represented n the Chuang tzu and theLieh tzu as a nobleman with Taoist inclinations. Perhaps aftersuffering umiliation n the houseof Prince P'ing-yuan, KUNG-SUNLung found he company f a recluse-prince orecomfortable.

In addition to these references o his life, he is mentioned y

9Lu Sheng's preface to his commentary n the chapters on logic in the Mo tzu

10 Li shih ch'un ch'iu chapter 18, sections 7 and 1." Prince P'ing-yiian was a member of the ruling house of the state of Chao and

its Prime Minister. He died in 251 B. C.12 Kung-sun Lung tzu, chapter 1.13 K'ung Ts'ung tzu, chapter on " KUNG-suN Lung tzu."14 Tsou Yen (340?-260?)was a leader of the Yin-yang chool of philosophy.15 Shih chi, " Biographical Essay on Prince P'ing-yuan."16Chuang tzu, chapter 17 fkRA,nd Lieh tzu, chapter 4 4j .


5/35


name in the last chapter of the Chuang tzu as one of the dia-lecticians who " turned people's minds and altered their deas."

In the Lieh tzu, chapter 4, 41PJM, here s another reference oKUNG-SUN Lung in which seven articles of what is said to behis teachings re listed. His doctrines n hardness nd whiteness,and on the white horse, tc., were referred o repeatedly y otherante-Ch'in philosophers 7 and he was spoken of by name byseveral of the leading scholars of the Han dynasty.18 t is truethat practically ll of these references re critical, but this factmakes t all the more ikely hat the man and his teachings re notfictitious.

THE AUTHENTICITYOF THE TEXT

The Kung-sun Lung tzu is first isted n the Han shu, enteredin the " Section on the Logicians as fourteen hapters. In the" Bibliographical ecords of the Sui shu, heKung-sun ung t uis missing. But curiously, n the next dynastic history, he ChiuT'ang shu, the item Kung-sun Lung tzu reappeared mong the" Logicians." It was entered s consisting f three volumes nd-this s important-there was the further ention f a commentaryon the work n one volume by CHIA Ta-yin -7C and anothercommentary n one volume by CH'EN Ssu-ku MWi4t. Later,CHENG h'iao (1104-1162)in his T'ung chih t.,., recordedthe Kung-sun Lung tzu as one volume and observed, " of theoriginal ourteen hapters, ight re lost." Nearly a century ater,

the great ung textual cholarCH'ENChen-sun,1"n his AnnotatedCatalog of the Chih-chai Library YNI A0 USNM. recordedthe Kung-sun Lung tzu as three volumes. Ever since the Sungdynasty the work has been listed in all bibliographical ecordsand library atalogs either s one volume or three volumes,butpresu-mably he six chapters now extant re alwaysmeant.

Outstanding mong those questioning he authenticity f the

17Chuang tzu, chapters 2, 10, 17 ig M7j; Hsiin tzu, chapters 2, 3,8, 19,9292 1 Han Fei tzu, chapter 41 MR.

18Huai-nan tzu, chapters 11, 14 Mtq,jj--11; YANG Ilsiung, Fa Yen, chapter92 -ff WVANGCh'ung, Lun heng, chapter 83 -

19 CH'EN Chen-sun held an important fficial ost in Chekiang n 1234-1237.


6/35

408 Y. P. MEI

present ext was the keen critic AOChi-heng 1647-?)wlhowrotein his Ancient nd ModernSpuriousBooksExamined 4LRi'@E iA'

I:W4: " [The Kung-sun Lung tzu] is recorded n the 'Bibli-ographical Records' in the Han shu but is not recorded n theSui shu. What doubt could there be that t (the present ext) wasfabricated by some forger f a later age?" This is a strongconclusion obe drawn rom airlyweak premises.20 one the ess,the omission f an important ork rom heofficial ibliographicalrecords f a dynastic istory s cause for uspicion. t is a plausibleargument hat the originalKung-sun Lung tzu might have beenlost during he period extending etween the Han and the Suihistories, nd that the present text was fabricated during theperiod between the Sui and the T'ang histories. However, theprofusion f iterary eferences o the Kung-sun Lung tzu duringboth of the periods marked out by the three dynastic histories,and a careful tudy of the catalog entries hemselves, ndicatethat such a forgery s extremely nlikely.

It should be noted that while the work s missing from he"Section on the Logicians" in the Sui shu, n the " Sectionon theTaoists " the item " A Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine ofWhiteness Y M in one volume appears without ny ndicationof authorship. This title has elsewhere been used to refer othe Kung-sun ung tzu.'1 In the opening aragraph f the presenttext is the sentence, " He (KUNG-SUNLung) used his specialtalent to write reatises n defense f his doctrine f whiteness."This translation as intentionally een kept non-committal utthe Chinese exthere ctually an be equally welltranslated, Heused his special talent to write Treatise n Defense of the Doc-trine f WThiteness."2

In the Han shu, where he Kung-sun Lung tzu is listed amongthe "Logicians," there s no item in the whole catalog calledTreatise in Defense of the Doctrine of IVhiteness. n the Suishu where he Kung-sun Lung tzu is not found mong the " Logi-

2%HUANG Yiin-mei iXW r Ku-chin wei-shuk'ao pu-cheng fI (Nanking,1932), 143-46, also objects to YAo's conclusion.

21 CH'ENG Hsuan-ying n his commentary n the Chuang tzu. See note 25.22 See p. 415 for this passage in the translation.


7/35


cians," the Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whitenessappears among he " Taoists." And finally, n the Chiu T'ang shu,

where he Treatise s not listed among the " Taoists," the Kung-sun Lung tzu reappears among the "Logicians." It seems ex-tremely robable that the Treatise n Defense of the Doctrine ofWhiteness was none other than the Kung-sun Lung tzu itselfunder an alternate name; what appears to be an omission f thework n one of the mportant atalogs s really case of confusionof names combined with faulty lassification.

Although here s some mystery bout the classification f theTreatise among the " Taoists," it should be realized that the" BibliographicalRecords in the Sui shu is full of errors. Inaddition, the language of the Kung-sun Lung tzu itself s socryptic hat it is not easy to say what it is about without verycareful reading. If the copy seen by the editor bore the titleA Treatise n Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness, he wordswould call to mind the well-known ine of the Tao te ching, He

who knowsthe

white, yet cleaves to the black becomes thestandard by which ll things re tested." 3 Finally, Taoist litera-ture is never clearly delimited and has always been a loose,catchall classification. n the centuries receding he editing ofthe Sui shu, Taoism saw a lot of activity nd expansion, nd wasquite willing to incorporate lmost any miscellaneouis work.To this day, the best edition of the Kung-sun Lung tzu textis the one preserved n the Tao tsang, the original printing f

which goes back to the Sung dynasty. These factors make it agood deal easier to understand ow it might have been possiblefor the logical Treatise n Defense of the Doctrine of Whitenessto be classified mong the " Taoists." We are thus led to thinkthat the continuous xistence f the Kung-sun Lung tzu is notdenied, and is perhaps even attested, by the dynastic histories.At any rate, YAO Chi-heng's ondemnation f the text is alto-gether oo hasty and the suspicionbased on it has little weight.

There s an abundanceof more positive vidence n the authen-ticity f the transmitted ext n the form f commentaries, uota-tions, and criticism, s well as references o the Kung-sun Lung

23 Chapter 28. Translation s Artlhur WALEY'S.


8/35

410 Y. P. MEI

tzu n the iterature cattered hroughout hecenturies oth beforeand after he editing f the Sui shu. The following re the more

important nstances, aken up in chronological rder:1. References ccurring etween he Han and Sui histories:

a. WANG Ch'ung (27-110), a younger ontemporary f PANKu, includes commentary n the Kung-sun Lung tzu in chapter83 of his Lun heng @ i, a collection f running ommentarieson some of the outstanding works of ancient and contemporarythought. His commentary eads:

KUNG-SUNLung wrote treatises n his doctrine f hardness nd whiteness.He dissected ropositions nd analyzedterms. He interested imself nsophistry nd the dialecticalway of discourse.His teachings re not com-mensurable ith the fundamental rinciples, nd are of no use to goodgovernment.

b. A chapter f the K'ung Ts'ung tzu TL>', a workprobablyof the period between 100and 300,bears the subtitle Kung-sunLung tzu." A number of sections of this chapter are identicalwith parts of chapter 1 of the Kung-sun Lung tzu. The questionof which s the original nd which copy is not of great concernhere. The significant oint is that the Kung-sun Lung tzu wasnot ost and forgotten t the time: the author f K'ung Ts'ung tzuwas prompted either to appropriate ections of the Kung-sunLung tzu or to write up certain lleged reports f conversationsbetween KUNG-SUN Lung tzu and K'UNG Ch'uan, who was

supposed to be an illustrious escendent f Confucius.c. In chapter 4 of the Lieh tzu, seven articles of what is saidto be KUNG-SUNLung tzu's teachings re listed. The sixth rticlereads, "a white horse s not a horse." CHANGChan W .,a manof the East Chin dynasty, wrote standard commentary n theLieh tzu in the fourth entury. His commentary n the sixtharticle eads:

This treatise s currently xtant; many re those who are debating boutit. But thesedebaters re all lacking n erudition nd insight. herefore eare here witholding ur comment.

d. Liu Hsieh's well-knownWen hsin tiao lung, a work of the


9/35


early sixth century, lso touches upon KUNG-SUNung tzu. Thecomment n the chapter n " The Philosophers reads:

The teachings f KUNG-SUN Lung tzu concerning he white horse and orphancolt 4 are clever in words but ill-contrived n principle.... Such is not agroundless isparagement f them.

Liu Hsieh's work comes down to about a hundred years beforethe Sui shu. Thus, during he five and a half centuries ridgingthe Former Han and the Sui histories, here s such a steadysuccession f references o the Kung-sun Lung tzu that it would

have been all but impossiblefor the work to have disappearedor been ost completely uring hat time.2. References ccurring etween he Sui and Old T'ang histories.

a. Accompanying he entry f the Kung-sun Lung tzu in theChiu T'ang shu, as has been pointed out, there was mention fcommentaries n the work by CHIA Ta-yin and CH'EN Ssu-ku.Unfortunately, oth commentaries ave been lost, and of CH'EN

Ssu-ku ittle s known xcept that he lived in the T'ang dynasty.But of CHIATa-yin somewhat more is known. His father wasCHIAKung-yen 4-A who was a scholar-official f some note inthe first ewdecades of the T'ang dynasty nd held an importantofficial ost during 650-656. That means that the elder CHIAwas a younger ontemporary f WEI Cheng, ditor f the Sui shu,who died in 643. The compilation of the Sui shu must havereceived he personal ttention f the father f not also of the son,CHIATa-yin himself. t wouldbe most unlikely, ithin racticallythe same generation, or he official atalog to give up a work forlost while a member f the scholar-official ircle, who could notbe ignorant f the catalog listings, evoted himself o writingcommentary n it. The commentary may be dated late in theseventh entury.

b. YANGLiang's MITstandard ommentary n the Hsiin tzu

is dated 819. In chapter , on the tem hardness nd whiteness"the commentary ays:24 In the last chapter of the Chuang tzu a list of twenty-one ropositions made by

the dialecticians n response o Hui Shih's ten propositions s recorded. Some of themare presumably UNG-SUN Lung's. The twentieth tem s: " An orphan colt has neverhad a mother."


10/35

412 Y. P. MEI

" Hardness and whiteness refers o the separation of hardness nd white-ness. " The Discourse on Hardness and Whiteness by KUNG-SUNung says:" Hardness, whiteness, nd stone-may one not refer o them as three? No.

May one refer o them as two? Yes." ....In chapter 2, on the tem " It is not a horse" the commentary

says:"It is not a horse refers o the "Discourse on the White Horse " by

KUNG-SUNung, which ays, "I' White " denotes color: horse' denotes form.Color is not form; orm s not color. Therefore t is said. a white horse s nota horse."

The references n these commentaries re specific nd the quota-tions practically verbatim reports of the present text of theKung-sun Lung tzu.

C. CH'ENGHsiian-ying's A)Ai_~ commentary n the Chuangtzu 25 says n chapter 2,on " separating ardness nd whiteness :" 'Hardness and whiteness' refers o the Treatise n Defense ofthe Doctrine of Whiteness by KUNG-SUNLung tzu "; in chapter

17, on " KUNG-SUNLung ": " KUNG-SUNLung .... composed theTreatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness "; and in chapter33, on " KUNG-SUNung ": ' KUNG-SUNLung ... composed theTreatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness which s currentlyin circulation." t can be seen that there was no question n themind of CH'ENGHsiian-ying that KUNG-SUN Lung did write awork called The Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whitenessand that this Treatise was " currently n circulation in the T'angdynasty.These are the more important ndications hat the first iveof the six chapters f the present ext of the Kung-sun Lung tzuare authentic. The evidence s that they are the remains f whatwas originally much larger work, of which more has been lostthan preserved nd there s a high degree of probability hatwhat has been preserved s fully uthentic. Of course, his doesnot exclude such minor corruptions s copyists' errors nd dis-arrangements y scribes;but it can be said that the authenticity

25 Since this s the most mportant f the commentaries uoted, the original eferenceand uotationregiven:W,Th) " ;#fZ4." JZ ,11X;^i fF -k~- T t 1-,,-*


11/35


of the Kung-sun Lung tzu is no more questionable han that ofany of the generally ccepted texts of a similar tature, uch as

the Mo tzu and Hsiun zu.COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS

There have been only a few commentaries n the Kung-sunLung tzu. The earliest known are the two T'ang dynasty om-mentaries mentioned n the Chiu T'ang shu, by CHIA Ta-yin andCH'EN Ssu-ku. Both of these have been ost and until very recenttimes, the only commentary n the work was that by HSIEHHsi-shen AtiNT- 6 of the Sung dynasty, which s still current.This commentary s quite uneven n worth; on some points t isquite penetrating whereas on others t is rather ridiculous ndmixed up with occultism. There is some suspicion that HSIEHincorporatedmaterial rom more apablecommentator-possiblyone of those of T'ang times-whose own work s no longer xtant.

The Kung-sun Lung tzu began to receive notice n the middle-

Ch'ing period, when the textual criticism movement was at itsheight. Currently, he study of the Kung-sun Lung tzu has beenfurther timulated y an increased nterest n logic,due to intel-lectual contact with the West. The following s a list of some ofthe more mportant ommentaries:

HSIN Ts'ung-yi * 4, Kung-sun Lung tzu, 1787.CH'EN Li Wit, Kung-sun Lung tzu chu 1, 1849.

WANG Kuan IR., Kung-sun ung tzu hsiian hieh MH,ChungHua Book Company, 1928.CHIN Shou-shen *, Kung-sun Lung tzu shih -z, Com-

mercial Press, 1930.CH'IEN Chi-po Kung-sun Lung tzu chiao tu hou hsii

CH'IEN Mu RA, Kung-sun Lung tzu hsin chieh AMP, Com-mercial Press, 1931.

T'AN Chieh-fu XfrI, Hsing-ming a wei N-/9ROR,Wu-hanUniversity ress.

HSIEH Hsi-shen's (Name, HSIEH Chiang , ) fatlher was HSIEH T'ao 0 whopassed the last state examination nd obtained the highest degree n 990 A. D.


12/35

414 Y. P. MEI

CH'EN Chu 1W , Kung-sun Lung tzu chi chieh AN, Com-mercial Press, 1937.

All but the first wo items above are by contemporary cholars,published between 1920 and 1940. The last item is an attemptto collect ll the mportant ommentaries ogether n one volume.I would like here to acknowledgemy debt to this work n thisstudy f the Kung-sun ung tzu and preparation f ts translation.

Alfred FORKE has translated the six extant chapters of theKung-sun Lung tzu into English 7 and they have recently een

put into French.28 rofessor ORKE'S translation was made halfa century go, without he assistance f any of the several helpfulcommentaries ublished since that time. It misses most of thecrucial points of the original discussion.29

With a highly ryptic ext ike the Kung-sun Lung tzu, t wouldbe presumptuous or anyone to claim to have found all theanswers o the many problems, r to rule out all other solutionsas impossible r irrelevant. Bilingualpublication f the text withthe translation s practically necessity nd has made it possibleto reduce the number of notes greatly. It is hoped that thistranslation may serve as a starting oint toward one that willbe generally ccepted as authoritative, nd that the discussionof the text will have removed the doubt of authenticity. Onanother ccasion, hope to undertake n extensive onsiderationof Chinese ogic, ncluding he Kung-sun Lung tzu.

27JNCBRAS 34 1901-2).28 It has recently een reported from Paris that a French translation f the Kung-

sun Lung tzu has been prepared by a Chinese Catholic Priest and will be publishedunder the auspices of the Bibliotheque des Hautes Etudes.

29 E. R. HUGHES included a translation f all of chapter 2 and part of chapter 5 ofthe work n his Chinese Philosophy n Classical Times 122-27. Derk BODDE'S translationof some of the key concepts and passages of the Kung-sun Lung tzu is usually morereliable and may be found n FUNGYu-lan, op. cit. 204-214.


13/35


k7 V4-?

0 g

X12ktI4XV

1 o

b~~~% JJ2fft4,

;t fo 4s it ]%X,- t-

KUNG-SUNLUNG TZU

I: CollectedNotes 1

1IKUNG-SUN Lung was a dialectician f the

time of the SixKingdoms. He was grievedby the confusion nd divergence n names

and realities. He used his specialtalent towrite reatises n defense f his doctrine fwhiteness.2 He employed analogies andillustrations o argue n defense f the doc-trine f whiteness.

He said, " A white horse s not a horse.Why? Because ' white denotes color,while horse denotes shape. Color is notshape, and shape is not color. When coloris spokenof, hape should not be included,and when shape is spoken of, color shouldnot be brought up. Now, to make oneobject out of the combination f both isnot correct. Supposeyou look for whitehorse n a stable, nd there s none. Thoughthere re black horses, hey willnot answerthe requirements f a white horse. Sincethey do not answer the requirements fa white horse, the horse wanted is notthere. Becauseit is not there, white horseis, indeed, not a horse."

He wished to extend such arguments sthese to rectify names and reality and

spread his influence ver the whole world.2

KUNG-suN Lung met with K'UNGCh'uan 3in the house of Prince P'ing-yiian


14/35

416 Y. P. MEI

A 19

v~~~&~~& P+4ttiA~~~~~~~~,'S

a >0' "}


15/35


tldNo1tb A

k+4 4 fA?t2'

yn,

fe, 4L S

__.4W.g __t

t$e A57tB 4+-AV-I 7D

30tSfu >Is%Ay4N

and what is simply a man. Now, it ispreposterous o accept Confucius' distinc-

tion between a man of Ch'u and what issimply a man, and at the same time toimpugn my distinction between a whitehorse nd what s simply horse. You, Sir,follow he teachings f Confucianism, utreject what is admitted by Confucius, ndthen you wish to learn from me but bid mediscard what I have to teach. Under con-ditions, men a hundred imes as clever s Iwould not be able to undertake he task."

K'UNG Ch'uan had nothing to say inreply.

3KUNG-SUN Lung was a guest of Prince

P'ing-yuan of Chao. K'UNGCh'uan was adescendant f Confucius. When they met,K'UNGCh'uan said to KUNG-SUN Lung: "Icome from he state of Lu, where heardof you. I greatly admired your wisdom,and was much pleased with your conduct.To receive nstruction romyou has beenmy desire for a long time. Now, at last Ihave the pleasure of meeting you.

Thereis just one thing do not like about you:your theory that a white horse :s not ahorse. I beseechyou to drop this doctrine,and I beg to becomeyour disciple."

KUNG-SUN Lung rejoined: "What youhave said, Sir, s preposterous. My systemis that which eachesthat a white horse snot a horse. If you make me give it up, Ishall have nothing o impart. To try tolearn fromme when have nothing oteachwould be most strange. Moreover, nly hecould wish to learn from me, who con-


16/35

418 Y. P. MEI

it Ai 40A fZt

tiZ* At 38

3F- U~

4 2 vt

;>- Z; liot

27 ii7LzQi;Ke

sidered his knowledge and wisdom notequal to mine. Now, to demand hat give

up my view that a white horse is not ahorse,wouldbe first o teach me and after-wards to learn from me, which s improper.

"What you ask of me reminds me ofwhat the King of Ch'i said to YIN Wen.4The King of Ch'i said to YIN Wen, I amvery fond of accomplishedmen. Why s itthat n Ch'i there re none?

"YIN Wen replied, I should like toknow what Your Majesty considers o bean accomplishedman.'

" The Kinigof Ch'i could not say. YINWen went on, Let us suppose hat here wehave a man, who serves his sovereignloyally nd his parents ilially, ho s faith-

ful to his friends, nd at peace with themembers of his community. Embodyingthese four qualities, can he be consideredan accomplishedman?'

"The King of Ch'i rejoined, Good, thatis exactly what consider n accomplishedman.

" YINWen said, If you had such a man,would you appoint him to be a minister?'

" The King replied, I would be only tooglad, but I cannot find uch a man.'

" At that time the King of Ch'i set highstore upon courage. Therefore YIN Wenasked him saying, Supposing uch a manwere nsulted n open court before crowd

of people,but did not dare to fight, wouldyou appoint him to office?'" The King said, Why, for gentleman

not to avenge an insult with his sword s adishonor. A dishonored man I would notlike to have in my employ.'


17/35


-% - pA1-A/ zVV

h; 1D ti

M

Z n,?t'A IMAE

t~~ ~~u

*u ,% .

W:rE )$gAf _

AV'tx-

Ie A

"YIN Wen remarked, Although theman does not draw his sword upon being

insulted, e does not lose thereby he fourabove-mentioned ualities. Not having ostthese he is still a gentleman. But YourMajesty would in the first ase take himinto your service, nd in the second casewould not. Is then what we consideredgentleman efore no gentleman?'

" The King could not answer. YINWenwent on, 'Now, there s a sovereignwhowishes o govern his state. If anyone s atfault, he condemns him, and if he is not,he condemns him nevertheless. f a manhas achievedmerit, e rewards him, nd ifhe has achievednone, he rewards him also.Yet he complains of his people not being

orderly. Can he rightly o that?'" The King of Ch'i answered n the nega-tive. YIN Wen remarked, As I observethe government f Ch'i by your subordi-nates, the method used is just about likethis.'

" The King said: 'Did I really governthe state as you said, then I should notdare complain, ven if my people were notorderly. But is it possiblethat it is not sobad as that?'

" YIN Wen said, How dare make suchan assertionwithout roper easons?Yourcommands tate that whoeverkills a manmust die, and whoever njures a man hasto suffer odily

punishment. ome peoplerespect your ommands nd do not ventureto fight when nsulted, hus upholding heroyal commands. But Your Majesty saysthat not to avenge an insult with one's


18/35

420 Y. P. MEI

ll I:r7. UJ1 L4A

- -f-q / wJ Xr 7

, a 2-J.Jv

sword s a dishonor. To call it a dishonoris to put censure upon it, and this is to

censure a man when he is without fault.Furthermore ou would strike his namefrom he official ists. Not to beemployed san official s a punishment. hus somebodynot guilty s punished by Your Majesty.And, as you disgrace man who dares notfight, ou must honor him who does. Tohonor man s to approve fhim, ut this sto approve of a man without warrant. Andyou will give him an official ost, whichmeans reward. Thus a man without meritis rewarded. Those rewarded by you arethe same whomyour officials unish; whatis approved of by the sovereign s con-demned by the law. Thus, rewards and

punishments, pproval and condemnation,are confounded ne with another. Underthese circumstances, ven a man ten timesas able as the Yellow Emperor could notkeep order.'

" The King of Ch'i did not know whatto say in reply.

" HenceI regard your words s like thoseof the King of Ch'i. You object to thedoctrine hat a white horse s not a horse,but cannot give satisfactory easons fordoing so. This is similar to the King ofCh'i, who appreciated accomplished menby name, but wasunable to recognize hemby their ttributes."


19/35


LAj

w

~ 2

\s, l~~~~~~~~~~\.bcoi

+pt,4g%* ORA-7

)-

b"

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

II: Discourse On the White Horse

1

Q:5 A white horse is not a horse -isthis possible?

A: Yes.Q: How can this be?A: " Horse " denotes form; white de-

notes color. What denotes color does notdenote form. Therefore t is said, a whitehorse s not a horse.

2Q: There being white horse, ne cannot

say that there s no horse. If one cannotsay that there s no horse, then why is itno horse? There being a white horse, onemust admit that there s a horse, how can" white deny the existence f " horse."

A: When a horse s wanted, yellow ndblack ones may all be brought. But when

a white horse s wanted, yellowand blackonesmay not be brought. f a white horsebe a horse, hen what s wanted n the twoinstances would be the same. If what iswanted were the same, then a white horsewould be no different rom a horse. Ifwhat is wanted were not different, henwhy s it that yellow nd black horses aresatisfactory n the one case but not in theother? What is satisfied nd what is notsatisfied vidently re not the same. Nowthe yellow and black horses remain the

9


20/35

4292 Y. P. MEI

P' la? b b'o

\537-%Xk~' 5-kK

%s,tN4*7

\.:5

same,and yet they willanswer he require-ments of a horse, but will not answer the

requirements f a white horse. Hence itshould be clear that a white horse s not ahorse.

3Q: If a horse with color s considered o

horse, hen here will be no horses n earth,as there are no colorlesshorses on earth

Is this possible?A: Horses,of course,have color. There-fore there are white horses. If horses hadno color, there would be merely horses.How could we specifywhite horses?

But a white horse s not a horse. A whitehorse is horse united with whiteness, rwhiteness nited with horse. Therefore tis said, a white horse s not a horse.

4

Q: Horse not united with whiteness shorse; whiteness not united with horse iswhiteness, s you say. But when horse ndwhiteness re united, he compound namewhite horse is applied, which means thatthey are united. It is not right o refer othem as though they were not united.Therefore t is not right o say that a whitehorse s not a horse.

Counter-Q: If you shouldregard whitehorse as being a horse, you might s wellclaim a white horse to

be a yellow horse.Would this be possible?A: No.A: To hold that a horse s different rom

a yellow horse s to differentiate yellow


21/35


$7 P vv

q &2 jM

. A7 - 7fA

J7t%L(to

flb , X t1r

horse from a horse. To differentiateyellow horse from horse is to regard a

yellowhorse s not a horse. Now to regarda yellow horse as horse, and yet to holdthat a white horse s a horse, would be likeflying n a lake or placing the inner andouter offins n separate places. This wouldbe the most perverse alk and confoundedargument n the world.

5Q: It cannot be said that having white

horse s having no horse, and this on thebasis of separating whiteness. Even if itis not separated, till a white horse cannotbe said to be no horse. The reason forholding hat it is a horse s simply because

a horse s alwaysa horse, nd not because awhitehorse s another ind of horse.There-fore when we hold that it is a horse, hatis not to say that there s one kind of horseand another kind of horse.

A: The whiteness hat does not fix t-self upon any object may simply be over-looked. But in speaking f the white horse,we refer o a whiteness hat is fixed uponits object. Whiteness hat s fixed pon anobject is not ust whiteness s such.

The term a " horse does not involveany choice of color. Therefore ellowandblack onesall will answer herequirements.The term white horse" does involve the

choiceof color. Yellow and black ones areall rejected owing to their color. Whitehorses lone will do. That which does notexclude any color is not the same as thatwhich xcludes ertain olors. Therefore, tis said " a white horse s not a horse."


22/35

424 Y. P. MEI

~~~~~~~~,ozF)-4AR

KUNG-SUNLUNGTZU

III: Discourse on Things and TheirAttributes

1Thesis : Things consist of nothing ut

their attributes. But attributes are notattributes n and of themselves.9

Without ttributes hings annot be saidto be things. Without hings, an there besaid to attributes?

2Antithesis: Attributes re that whichdo

not exist on earth; things re that whichdo exist on earth. It would be improperto take what does exist as what does notexist.

Thesis: Indeed there are no attributeson earth, nd things may not be said to bejust attributes, as you say). Althoughthings may not be said to be attributes,however, re they not that to which ttri-

butes are attributed? Attributes re notattributes n and of themselves, ut thingsconsist of nothing ut their ttributes.10

Again, there are no attributes n earth,(as you say). Although hingsmay not besaid to be just attributes, ertainly eitherdo they consist of anything other thanattributes. Since they do not consist ofanything ther han attributes, hings on-sist of nothing but attributes. (Ergo),things consist of nothing but their at-tributes, ut attributes re not attributesin and of themselves.1o


23/35

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

MA-vi$A,

t9 ~ ~ ~ )

t

t

A~ tIS-?Th4s

1KS ,bj

z' l7 7

Bi4.%

SAntithesis: That there re no attributes

on earth s due to the fact that things havetheir respective names and are not justattributes. To call them attributes whenthey are not, s to claim all are attributes.It would be improper o take what arenot all attributes s what are nothing utattributes.

Thesis: To be sure, attributes re thatwhichdoes not exist on earth, as you say).Although here re no attributes n earth,things may not be said to be without t-tributes. Since they may not be said to bewithout ttributes, hings o not consist fanything other than their attributes.'1Sincethey do not consist f anything therthan their attributes, things consist ofnothing but their attributes."

Not that attributes re not attributes,but attributes n things re not attributesin and of themselves. Were there no at-tributes-in-things n earth, who could saysimply here re no attributes: Were there

no things n earth, who could say simplythere re attributes? Were there ttributesbut no attributes-in-things, ho could saysimply there are no attributes r simplythat things consist of nothing but theirattributes?

Furthermore, ttributes re indeed notattributes n and of themselves." And itis only because they adhere to things hatthey becomeattributes.


24/35

426 Y. P. MEI

KUNG-SUNLUNG TZU

[IV: On Variation and Divergence

Contents by Sections

1. Two and one. Right and left.

2. Illustration y form. Where a ram andan ox are different nd where he same.Clear distinction f form as that be-tween the ram and the ox against thehorse. Vague distinction f form s thatbetween he ram and the ox against hechicken.

3. Illustration y color. Clear distinctionof color s that between reen nd whiteagainst yellow. Vague distinction fcolor as that between green and whiteagainst ade-color.]

ksAfl-

4

V-7:

laz

WE:Z%f

KUNG-SUNLUNG TZU

IV: On Variation and Divergence

IQ: Does two contain one?A: Two does not contain one."4Q.: Does two contain right?A: Two has no right.Q: Does two contain eft?A: Two has no left.Q: Can right be called two?A: No.Q: Can left be called two?A: No.


25/35

THE KUNG-SUNLUNG-TZU 427

2.

/~~~1: T o

Q: Can right nd left ogether e calledtwo?

A: Yes.Q: Is it proper o say that a change snot a change?

A: Yes.Q: Asright ecomes constituent em-

ber, can one speak of a change?A: Certainly.Q: Into what does it change?A: Still the right.Q: If the right has changed, how can

you still call it right? And, if it has notchanged,how can you speak of a change?

A: Two would have no right, f therewereno left. Two consists f eft-and-right.

2Q: How is that?A: A ram and an ox together re not

the same as a horse. An ox and a ramtogether re not the same as a chicken.'5

Q: What do you mean?A: Although ram is different rom n

ox in that the ram has upper front-teethwhile the ox does not, yet one cannot saythat an ox is not the same as a ram, and aram not the same as an ox. They mightnot both have certain characteristics, utstill belong o the same class. On the otherhand, although ram has horns while anox also has horns, yet one cannot say, that

therefore n ox is the same as a ram, or aram the same as an ox. They might bothhave certain haracteristics, nd yet belongto quite different lasses.

Rams and oxen both have horns and


26/35

428 Y. P. MEI

DAt IJ t )"

-~ -A~ v


27/35


~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.X4f~ oT$ fi4t'?,7:$f ,

S Jk*

' se,-ilsS't'$>%At

4 $o,

Zij

A: Green and white are not yellow;white and green re not jade-color."'

Q: Howso?A: Green and white do not blend evenwhen mixed, because they conflict. Theydo not approach each other even whenplaced side by side, because they do notrelinquish heir position. As they do notrelinquish heir position and as they con-flict, each keeps its own place, leaningneither o the one sidenor the other. Thusthey do not becomeone in green, nor onein white. How then should they becomeyellow?

Yellow (in the proposition hat " greenand white are not yellow") is indeedproper, the proper basis for distinction.

The contrast is like that between thesovereign (representing ellow) and theministers representing reen and white)in a state, which is admittedly forcedparallel.

Furthermore, f green is interspersedwith white, white does not overpower t.Since white could triumph but does not,wooddoesviolence ometal.17Wood doingviolence to metal, ade-color s produced,which s assuredly not a proper basis fordistinction.

Green and white do not blend but aremixed. As they do not overcome eachother, hey both shine simultaneously. As

they conflict nd both shine, the result sjade-color.Better than ade-color s yellow. Yellow

is like the horse (in the previous llustra-tion), and doesn't t facilitate lear classi-


28/35

430 Y. P. MEI

J;z #Ws zr ?0 s\

Hb4PtS)-,frtboW

iJe K$

fication? Jade-color s like the chicken inthe previous illustration), nd doesn't it

leave things n rivalry?When rivalry s rampant, overeign ndminister ontend with ach other nd bothwish oshine. The moreboth wish oshine,the darker nd less clear will be the result,for this is a case of improper istinction.When distinction or definition) s notproper, names and reality do not corre-spond, and a mixture f colors is in evi-dence. That is why say both shine imul-taneously. When both shine, nd the rightway is lost, then there s no wherewithalfor heir ectification.

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

V: Discourseon Hardness and Whiteness1

Q: 18 Hardness, whiteness nd stone-may onerefer othem s three?

A: No.

Q: May one refer o them as two?A: Yes.Q: How?A: Hardness being not there, one per-

ceives whiteness: hus what s representedis two (i. e., whiteness nd stone) Similar-ly, whiteness ot being here, ne perceiveshardness: hus,what s represented s againtwo (i. e., hardness nd stone).

Q: Having perceived whiteness ne can-not say that whiteness s not there; havingperceived hardness one cannot say that


29/35


~~~~4?t

io

?701

\g: ~~~~~AleaAtA

tzA~Im~E]

hardness is not there. Such being thenature of the existence of the stone, are

there not three hings?A: When seeing, ne does not perceivehardness but perceives whiteness-this isbecausehardness snot there. When touch-ing, one does not perceive whiteness butperceives hardness-this is because white-ness s not there.

2Q: If there wereno whiteness n earth,

one could not see a stone, nd if there wereno hardness on earth, one could not feela stone. Hardness,whiteness nd the stonedo not exclude ne another, owcould (oneof) the three be hidden?

A: It hides itself, nd is not hidden nor by anything lse.

Q: Whiteness and hardness are indis-pensable qualities permeating ach otherin the stone. How is it possible for eitherof them to hide itself?

A: One perceives whiteness and oneperceiveshardness; what is seen and whatis not seen are evidently eparate. It isbecause the one (stone) and the two(qualities) do not permeate each otherthat they are separate. To be separate s(to be in a position) to hide.

3

Q: The whiteness s the whiteness f thestone and the hardness s the hardness ofthe stone. Although ne of them s visiblewhile the other is not, the two together


30/35

432 Y. P. MEI

A$, ,70 3$

40rk) $4>S{

\A7, Ssoi

)12a,-j4

with he stone make three. They permeateone another s width nd length do in the

case of a surface. Why should they not beall represented ogether?A: Something may be white, ut white-

ness is not thereby fixed upon it; something may be hard, but hardness s notthereby ixedupon it. What is not fixedupon anything s of universal pplication.How then s it possible o assumethat they(hardness nd whiteness) must be in andof the stone?

Q: We touch the stone; unless t can befelt, here can be no stone; unless there sthe stone there s no sense in referring othe white stone. That the stone and itsqualities re not separate s something hat

is necessarily nd infinitely o.A: Stone s one;hardness nd whitenessare two, though hey are in the stone. Butone of them can be felt while the othercannot; one of them can be seen while theother cannot. Obviously the tangible andintangible re separate; the visibleand theinvisible idefrom ach other. There beinghiding, who will say that they are notseparate?

4Q: Becausethe eye cannot beholdhard-

ness nor the hand grasp whiteness, necannot contend that there s no hardnessor whiteness. These organs function iffer-ently nd cannot ubstitute or ach other.But, ust the same,hardness nd whitenessboth reside n the stone, nd how can youinsist hat they re separate?


31/35


A AXZ- tto

Ksh v

N4941 'b 'J

;s 77*4 .S

tso4{ssv

9 :KEkgi @&;bg)9@5jJ EgjL~9,J4St

A: Hardness s hardness, ot necessarilyof the stone, s it can be of any other hing.

Again, t is not necessarily ardness f anyother thing; t can be hardness n and ofitself. The hardness hat is neither f thestone nor of any other hingdoes not seemto exist n the world-this is merely o saythat t is hidden.

If whiteness ould not be whiteness nand of itself, ow could it be whiteness fstone and things? If, on the other hand,whiteness s actually whiteness n and ofitself, hen it is whiteness without havingto be whiteness f anything. With yellowand black colors t is the same. Now thenthe stone tself s no longer here, nd whatsense s there n referring o the hard and

white stone? These are all separate, andthey re separate from he nature f things.It is far better to accept the nature ofthings han to exert ne's perceptive owerof feeling nd sight.19

5

Furthermore, hiteness s beheld by theeye, but the eye sees by means of light.However light does not have the facultyof vision. Then, neither ight nor the eyecan by itself ee whiteness, nd it must bethe mind that sees it. Actually, he mindalone cannot see it either. Thus the sightof whiteness s something eparate.

Hardness is felt by the hand, but thehand feels by means of a hammer. How-ever, he hammer oesnot have the facultyof feeling. Then, neither he hammer nor


32/35

434 Y. P. MEI

tpAf -t)if$A2 4io@XJ

the hand can feel hardness by itself, ndit must be the mind that feels t. Actually,the mind cannot feel it either. Thus thefeeling f hardness s something eparate.20

All existences n the world are separate;only when they are treated s independentis it correct.

KUNG-SUNLUNG TZU

VI: On Names and Reality

1

Heaven and earth, together with theirproducts, re things. f things ssume therole of things without xceeding t, there s

reality. If reality fulfills ll the expecta-tions of reality without acking ny, thereis order. To deviate from rder s to fallinto disorder; o observe order s to obtaincorrectness.

What is correct s to be used to rectifywhat is incorrect. What is incorrect s tobe used to check what s correct.

Rectification s rectification f reality;rectification f reality s rectification f thename.

2

WY1henhe name is rectified, hen the"this " and the " that" are delimited. fdesignation of "that" is not limited tothat, hen the designation f "that " is notapplicable. If designation f "this " is notlimited to this, then the designation of" this is not applicable. This is becausethe appropriate s extended o where t is


33/35


tkA@,flq

k%0 '@bAL?+

inappropriate. To take the inappropriateas appropriate s faulty.

On the contrary, when designation of"that " is appropriate o that, t is limitedand applicable to that. When the designa-tion of "this " is appropriate o this, itis limited and applicable to this. This isbecause the appropriate s limited o whereit is appropriate. To take the appropriateas appropriate s correct.

To call that, and that only, that "; andto call this, nd this only, this ";-this isright. To call this, " that," and have thisbecome also that, and to call that, "this,"and have that become also this-this iswrong.

3

Of course, name is to designate reality.Knowing that this is not this and thatthis is not in this, one will not make thedesignation. Knowing hat that s not thatand that that is not in that, one will notmake the designation ither.

Supreme ndeedwere he ntelligent ings

of old They nvestigated ames nd realitywith are, nd they made designations ithcaution. Supreme ndeed were the intelli-gentkings f old 1


34/35

436 Y. P. MEI

NOTES

'This first hapter s the least valuable of all the chapters n the book. It is inthe nature of an epilogue or an appendix, and would come more appropriately t theend of the book. As the present rrangement f the book stands, we can only regard hefirst hapter as a curious kind of preface superadded by a disciple or a sympathizer.

2As far as the Chinese text is concerned, his sentence can just as well be trans-lated: " He used his special talent to write a Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine ofWhiteness."

8 K'UNG Ch'uan is said to be a sixth-generation escendant of Confucius. He is aConfucianist nd the author of a book which is no longer extant.

' YIN Wen (350?-?285) was a minor thinker n ancient China. Therewas

a workYin Wen tzu which has been classified mong the " Logicians and is lost. Thecurrent work bearing that title is a reconstructed olume. In the last chapter of theChuang tzu (chap. 33, " Current of Thought in the World ) YIN Wen is treatedtogether with SUNGHsing as two leaders of a school of thought hat is characterizedby pacifism nd asceticism.

5 It is quite evident that this " Discourse" is written n the style of a dialoguebetween KUNG-SUN Lung and his common-sense ritic. But in the original text thereare no indications o mark question and answer or distinguish ne speech from nother.I am responsible or the insertion f the question and answer signs, s well as for the

sectioning.6 "A white horse is not a horse" was evidently much debated question among

the dialecticians f the day.'After much study and deliberation, we have finally hosen "attribute" to render

the Chinese term, hih r4w. his term s one of the most difficult n the whole bodyof Chinese philosophical iterature. A number of commentators, ncient and modern,have struggled with it. The best ones are only partly helpful and the worst aresimply misleading. The dictionary meanings of chih include "finger," to point," etc.As a matter of fact, a host of translations ave simply used "finger for chih, whichrequires a lot of explanation, o say the least. (Cf. H. A. GILES, Chuang Tzu [1926

edition] 19, 452; James LEGGE, The Texts of Taoism, Pt. I, 183, Pt. II, 230; FUNGYu-lan, Chuang Tzu 50, 51; L. C. PORTER, Aids to the Study of Chinese Philosophy48; LIN Yutang, The Wisdom of Laotse 35.)

In a discussion of logic, the term chih may be read, I believe, as "to denote,""to designate," "predicate," " attribute," " quality," and possibly even "universal "and "essence." The term does not seem to correspond xactly with any of thosehere suggested but seems to carry the force of a combination of several of them.However, the choice of " definition made by A. FoRKE cannot be said to be alto-gether happy. This "Discourse" endeavors to point out the differences s well asthe relationship etween the two phases of existence hat in Western philosophy resometimes spoken of as substance and attributes or qualities. In fact, the wholeKung-Sun Lung Tzu may be said to revolve around the central theme discussed inthis "Discourse."

8 The insertion f " thesis and " antithesis has been made by the translator. Theoriginal text contains no such indications r sectioning, r even punctuation.

9Announcement f the main theme of the discourse.


35/35


0 Reiteration f the main theme.A glaringly weak link in the chain of argument.

12 Reiteration of the first half of the main theme.13 Reiteration of the second half of the main theme.14 This is the key notion of the present " Discourse." The author takes the position

that " two " is " one-and-one whereas the common-sense uestioner ssumes "two "to be "one and one." Similarly he difference etween "right-and-left and "rightand left." in other words, the thesis of the " Discourse" maintains that the conceptof " two " does not consist of two concepts of " one." Hence when you have " two"you have no more " one," and vice versa. Ergo, " a white horse s not a horse."

15 The verb in this pair of sentences n Chinese is the character fei * . The char-acter carries generally he force of negation. As a verb it may be rendered: (a) " notto be (something) " or (b) " not to be the same as." In a logical discussion, tmay also mean: (c) "to reject," (d) "to exclude," or (e) "to be set off from."Throughout this "Discourse," the term is used variously, but much of the trendof argument depends on the difference n the shades of meaning of this term. In thepresent context, while " a ram and an ox together re not the same as a horse ora chicken, hey are " set off from the horse but not from the chicken. (The basisfor this distinction ies in the fact that ram, ox and horse are different peciesbelonging o the same genus, while ram, ox and chicken do not even belong to thesame genus.) The use of the various and shifting meanings of the same term con-stitutes an important tem in the stock in trade of the Chinese ancient "logicians."

6 Note 15 applies here also.17 According to the yin-yang nd Five Elements School of thought, green corre-

sponds to wood, east, minister, tc., whereas white to metal, west, sovereign, tc.Normally metal is supposed to overpower wood. Since it works here the other wayround, t is spoken of as "doing violence." This way of thinking first lourished nthe early Han dynasty, but had its beginnings enturies arlier.

18 See note .19This sentence in the text is odd and obscure. I have tried to make the best

sense possible out of it.2 This section of the text is particularly orrupt. t is evident that this paragraph

tries to prove the same point for " hardness as the preceding one does for " white-ness." The original text was probably in exact parallel form with the precedingparagraph, and the translation s rendered on this assumptionl.

2' In China, logic is never entirely eparated from politics and ethics, r the " true"from the " right." This we have seen in Confucius, Mo tzu, and Hsiin tzu. HereKUNG-SUNung tzu, a logician, seems also to feel the need of concluding purelylogical work with a practical observation. If one remembered hat according to theChinese ideal the king is also the sage, the wiseman, he philosopher, ne might notmind seeing names and realities, ruth and falsity mixed up with kings and princes.

kung-sun lung tzu

Documents