Harvard-Yenching Institute

The Kung-sun Lung Tzu With a Translation Into English Author(s): Y. P. Mei Source: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 16, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1953), pp. 404-437 Published by: Harvard-Yenching Institute Stable 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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

WITH A TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH

Y. P. MEI
BOWDOIN COLLEGE

INTRODUCTION

each important Although Chinesephilosopher has some kindof methodology,1 only a fewChinesethinkers have interested themin the fieldof logic. These fewall lived in the selves exclusively ancientperiod,2 and the subjectof theirdiscussions may be called logiconlyifthe termis used in a verybroad senseso as to include, besides logic proper,such materialas dialectics,sophism,paradoxes,and whatis currently spokenofas semantics.The " Bibliographical Records" ofthe Han shu contains, underthe " Division on the Philosophers," a " Sectionon the Logicians" in whichthe seven titlesare listedwitha concluding following remark:
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Teng Hsi ,,9j, two chapters 2. Yin-wen tzu -EI9JI?J-, one chapter Hui tzu

Kung-sunLung tzu t Ch'eng Kung sheng,4j,

,:, .,

Huang kung _ Mao kung c

one chapter

fourteen chapters five chapters

, fourchapters nine chapters

Of the logicianstherewere altogetherseven titles with thirty-six chapters.

Of these seven titles,all but the Kung-sunLung tzu are either no longerextant,such as 4, 6, and 7 above; or most questionable as to authenticity and worth,such as 1, 2, and 5 above. As a matterof fact,the essentialmaterialfora studyof Chineselogic
'See Hu Shih, The Developmentof the Logical Method in AncientChina, Shanghai: OrientalBook Co., 1922. 2 This statement seems to overlook the considerable group of Buddhist thinkers that flourished duringthe Pre-T'ang and T'ang centuries, and the notable contributions that some of them made to epistemology and logic. But the imprintof Indian ideas upon these scholars was so distinct that one doubts whether their thinkingcould properlybe consideredChinese.

404

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

405

today consistsof little more than the Kung-sunLung tzu, the six chapterson logic in the Mo tzu: t'fiF, g 2 QTR the sectionon HUI Shih and the otherdialecticians in the last chapterofthe Chuangtzu 4; and someotherportions of the Chuang tzu and the Hsiin tzu.5 The importanceof the presenttext of the Kung-sunLung tzu, the remainsof a much is clear. fuller work,
THE AUTHOR KUNG-SUN LUNG

There were two KUNG-SUN Lungs in the intellectual worldof ancientChina who wereimportant enoughto deservemention by SSU-MA Ch'ien in the Shih chi. One of these was a disciple of Confucius,6 described as about fiftyyears younger than his and therefore born in approximately Teacher, 500 B. C. The otherwas the dialectician-logician who lived sometimebetween about 320 and 250 B. C. and leftthe workhere translatedand discussed.7 SSU-MA Ch'ien's biographicalnote on him says: 8
3 Mo tzu, chapters 40-45. Unfortunately there is no adequate translationof these chapters,althoughsome itemsfromthem are discussed by Hu Shih, op. cit. 87-108. ' There are the following English translations of this chapter: H. A. GILES, Chuang tzu (Shanghai: Kelley and Walsh, 1889, 1926) 437-454. James LEGGE, The Texts of Taoism, SBE 40 (London: OxfordUniversity Press, 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 in the chaptermay be foundin the following additional volumes: Hu Shih, op. cit. 111-12, 118-19. FUNG Yu-lan, Historyof ChinesePhilosophy: The Period of the Philosophers(Peiping: Henri Vetch, 1937; Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress, 1952) 197-200, 215-17 (Translationby Derk BODDE). 'See my translation of 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's translation of the same book of Hsiin tzu in TP 23.221-254. 6 Shih chi, "Biographical Essay on the Disciples of Confucius" FgkIJ4, " by the mistaken for "the dialectician who discoursed on hardness and whiteness historian. 7 Shih chi, "Biographical Essay on Mencius and Hsiin Ch'ing." SSU-MA Chen, the commentatorof the T'ang dynasty who called himself the " Minor Ssu-ma " in deferenceto his illustriousnamesake, mistook the dialectician for the disciple of Confucius. 8 Ibid.

IIJA

406

Y. P. MEI

Lung urgeddisarmament and demobilization on both King Chao i and King Hui of Chao .Ef ofYen Ago'E A.I PossiblyKUNG-SUN Lung did grow up in the traditionof Moism, since Mo tzu so pre-eminently combinedthe doctrinesof universallove and pacifism withlogic and the dialectic.
For a considerable period, KUNG-SUNLung was a "guest," a

dialectic.9 The Lu shih ch'un ch'iu 10 recorded that KUNG-SUN

"Furthermore,there was KUNG-SUN Lung of Chao, who disand difference." coursedon hardnessand whiteness, similarity Lu Sheng 4l of about the fourth century A. D. said that both Hui Shih and KUNG-SUN Lung were proponentsof the Moist

11of Chao. sort of adviser-retainer, of Prince P'ing-yuian 1WEX During this time he met K'UNGCh'uan MLr and the discussion was held that is recordedin the Kung-sunLung tzu 12 and the K'ung Ts'ung tZU.13 EvidentlyKUNG-SUNLung's pupil Ch'i-wu tzu * iJH and his fellow logicianMao kung 45 werealso among the Prince's guests. It must have been a pleasant as well as a profitable time for KUNG-SUN Lung, as the Prince treated him with special warmthand respect. But when Tsou Yen Ot 14 came fromthe state of Ch'i to visit the state of Chao, he soon convincedPrince P'ing-yiianof the futilityof KUNG-SUNLung's teachingsand the logicianfellinto disfavor.15
16 who is represented Wei 034I in the Chuang tzu and the Lieh tzu as a noblemanwith Taoist inclinations.Perhaps after in thehouseofPrinceP'ing-yuan,KUNG-SUN suffering humiliation Lung foundthe companyof a recluse-prince morecomfortable. In additionto these references to his life,he is mentioned by

KUNG-SUNLung also cultivated the friendshipof Prince Mou of

9Lu Sheng's preface to his commentary on the chapters on logic in the Mo tzu Li shih ch'un ch'iu chapter18, sections7 and 1. " Prince P'ing-yiianwas a member of the rulinghouse 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 school of philosophy. 15 Shih chi, " Biographical Essay on Prince P'ing-yuan." and Lieh tzu, chapter 4 4j 16Chuang tzu, chapter 17 fkRA, .
10

THE KUNG-SUNLUNG-TZU

407

name in the last chapterof the Chuang tzu as one of the dialecticianswho " turnedpeople's minds and alteredtheirideas." In the Lieh tzu, chapter4, 41PJM,thereis anotherreference to KUNG-SUN Lung in which seven articles of what is said to be his teachings are listed. His doctrines on hardnessand whiteness, and on the whitehorse,etc., werereferred to repeatedly by other 17 ante-Ch'in philosophers and he was spoken of by name by several of the leading scholarsof the Han dynasty.18 It is true that practicallyall of these references are critical,but this fact makesit all themorelikelythattheman and his teachings are not fictitious.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE TEXT

The Kung-sunLung tzu is first listedin the Han shu, entered in the " Section on the Logicians" as fourteen chapters. In the " Bibliographical Records" oftheSui shu,theKung-sunLung tzu is missing.But curiously, in the next dynastichistory, the Chiu T'ang shu, the item Kung-sunLung tzu reappearedamong the " Logicians." It was enteredas consisting of threevolumesandthisis important-there was the further mention ofa commentary on the workin one volumeby CHIA Ta-yin -7C and another in one volume by CH'EN Ssu-ku MWi4t. Later, commentary CHENG Ch'iao (1104-1162) in his T'ung chih t.,., recorded the Kung-sun Lung tzu as one volume and observed, " of the original fourteen chapters, eightare lost." Nearly a century later, the greatSung textualscholarCH'ENChen-sun,1" in his Annotated Catalog of the Chih-chaiLibrary YNI A0 US NM. recorded the Kung-sunLung tzu as threevolumes. Ever since the Sung dynastythe work has been listed in all bibliographical records and librarycatalogs eitheras one volume or threevolumes,but presu-mably the six chaptersnow extantare always meant. Outstandingamong those questioning the authenticity of the
Hsiin tzu, chapters 2, 3, Han Fei tzu, chapter41 MR. 18Huai-nan tzu, chapters11, 14 -11; YANG Ilsiung, Fa Yen, chapter Mtq,jj-92 -ff ; WVANG Ch'ung, Lun heng, chapter 83 19 CH'EN Chen-sunheld an important official post in Chekiang in 1234-1237.

8, 19, 9292

17Chuang tzu, chapters 2, 10, 17 ig

M7j;

408

Y. P. MEI

present textwas thekeencritic wrote YAO Chi-heng(1647-?) wlho in hisAncient and ModernSpuriousBooks Examined 4LRi'@E tiA' I:W4: " [The Kung-sun Lung tzu] is recordedin the 'BibliographicalRecords' in the Han shu but is not recordedin the Sui shu. What doubtcould therebe thatit (thepresent text) was fabricatedby some forgerof a later age? " This is a strong conclusion to be drawnfrom fairly weak premises.20 None theless, theomission ofan important the from official work bibliographical records ofa dynastic history is cause forsuspicion.It is a plausible that the originalKung-sunLung tzu mighthave been argument lost duringthe period extending betweenthe Han and the Sui and histories, that the presenttext was fabricatedduringthe period betweenthe Sui and the T'ang histories. However,the profusion of literary references to the Kung-sunLung tzu during both of the periodsmarkedout by the threedynastichistories, and a carefulstudy of the catalog entriesthemselves, indicate that such a forgery is extremely unlikely. It should be noted that while the work is missingfromthe "Section on the Logicians" in the Sui shu,in the " Sectionon the Taoists " the item " A Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness Y M in one volume" appearswithout any indication of authorship. This title has elsewherebeen used to referto theKung-sun Lung tzu.'1 In theopening paragraph ofthe present talent to writetreatisesin defenseof his doctrineof whiteness." This translation has intentionally been kept non-committal but " He the Chinesetexthereactuallycan be equally welltranslated, used his special talentto writea Treatisein Defense of the Doctrineof WThiteness." 22 In the Han shu,wherethe Kung-sunLung tzu is listedamong the "Logicians," there is no item in the whole catalog called Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of IVhiteness. In the Sui shu wherethe Kung-sunLung tzu is not foundamongthe " Logi2%HUANG Yiin-mei iXW r Ku-chinwei-shuk'ao pu-chengjfI (Nanking, 1932), 143-46,also objects to YAo's conclusion. 21 CH'ENG Hsuan-yingin his commentary on the Chuang tzu. See note 25. 22 See p. 415 for this passage in the translation.

text is the sentence, " He

(KUNG-SUN Lung) used his special

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

409

cians," the Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness in the Chiu T'ang shu, appearsamongthe " Taoists." And finally, wherethe Treatiseis not listed amongthe " Taoists," the Kungsun Lung tzu reappears among the "Logicians." It seems extremely probablethat the Treatisein Defense of the Doctrineof Whitenesswas none other than the Kung-sun Lung tzu itself underan alternatename; what appears to be an omissionof the workin one ofthe important catalogsis reallya case of confusion classification. of names combined witha faulty about the classification of the Althoughthereis some mystery Treatise among the " Taoists," it should be realized that the " BibliographicalRecords" in the Sui shu is full of errors. In addition, the language of the Kung-sun Lung tzu itself is so that it is not easy to say what it is about withouta very cryptic carefulreading. If the copy seen by the editor bore the title the words A Treatisein Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness, line of the Tao te ching," He would call to mindthe well-known who knows the white, yet cleaves to the black becomes the standardby whichall thingsare tested."23 Finally,Taoist literature is never clearly delimitedand has always been a loose, catchall classification.In the centuries precedingthe editingof the Sui shu,Taoism saw a lot of activityand expansion, and was quite willing to incorporatealmost any miscellaneouis work. To this day, the best edition of the Kung-sun Lung tzu text is the one preservedin the Tao tsang, the originalprinting of whichgoes back to the Sung dynasty. These factorsmake it a good deal easier to understand how it mighthave been possible forthe logical Treatisein Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness to be classified among the " Taoists." We are thus led to think that the continuousexistenceof the Kung-sunLung tzu is not denied,and is perhaps even attested,by the dynastichistories. At any rate, YAO Chi-heng'scondemnation of the text is altogethertoo hasty and the suspicionbased on it has littleweight. Thereis an abundanceofmorepositiveevidenceon the authenticityof the transmitted textin the form of commentaries, quotations,and criticism, as well as references to the Kung-sunLung
23

Chapter 28. Translation is Artlhur WALEY'S.

410

Y. P. MEI

scattered thecenturies tzu in theliterature bothbefore throughout and afterthe editingof the Sui shu. The following are the more important taken up in chronological instances, order: 1. References betweenthe Han and Sui histories: occurring a. WANG Ch'ung (27-110), a youngercontemporary of PAN Ku, includesa commentary on the Kung-sunLung tzu in chapter 83 of his Lun heng @ i, a collectionof running commentaries on some of the outstanding worksof ancientand contemporary thought. His commentary reads:
He dissected propositions and analyzedterms. He interested himself in sophistry and the dialectical His teachings way of discourse. are not commensurable with the fundamental and are of no use to good principles, government.
KUNG-SUN Lung wrote treatiseson his doctrineof hardnessand whiteness.

b. A chapterofthe K'ung Ts'ung tzu TL>', a workprobably of the periodbetween100 and 300, bears the subtitle" Kung-sun Lung tzu." A numberof sectionsof this chapter are identical withparts of chapter1 of the Kung-sunLung tzu. The question of whichis the originaland whicha copy is not of greatconcern here. The significant point is that the Kung-sunLung tzu was not lost and forgotten at thetime: the authorofK'ung Ts'ung tzu was promptedeither to appropriatesections of the Kung-sun Lung tzu or to writeup certainalleged reportsof conversations between KUNG-SUN Lung tzu and K'UNG Ch'uan, who was supposedto be an illustrious descendent of Confucius. c. In chapter4 of the Lieh tzu, seven articlesof what is said to be KUNG-SUN Lung tzu's teachings are listed. The sixtharticle reads,"a whitehorseis not a horse." CHANG Chan W .,a man of the East Chin dynasty, wrotea standardcommentary on the Lieh tzu in the fourthcentury. His commentary on the sixth articlereads:
This treatise is currently extant; manyare thosewho are debating about it. But thesedebaters are all lacking in erudition and insight. Therefore we are herewitholding our comment.

d. Liu Hsieh's well-known Wen hsin tiao lung,a workof the

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

411

early sixthcentury, also touchesupon KUNG-SUN Lung tzu. The " reads: in the chapteron " The Philosophers comment
the whitehorseand orphan The teachingsof KUNG-SUN Lung tzu concerning in principle.... Such is not a colt24 are clever in words but ill-contrived groundlessdisparagement of them.

Liu Hsieh's workcomes down to about a hundredyears before the Sui shu. Thus, duringthe fiveand a half centuries bridging the Former Han and the Sui histories, there is such a steady successionof references to the Kung-sunLung tzu that it would have been all but impossibleforthe work to have disappeared that time. or been lost completely during 2. References betweenthe Sui and Old T'ang histories. occurring the entryof the Kung-sunLung tzu in the a. Accompanying been pointed out, therewas mentionof as has Chiu T'ang shu, commentaries on the work by CHIA Ta-yin and CH'EN Ssu-ku. both commentaries have been lost, and of CH'EN Unfortunately, Ssu-kulittleis knownexceptthat he lived in the T'ang dynasty. But of CHIA Ta-yin somewhatmore is known. His fatherwas CHIA Kung-yen4-A who was a scholar-official of some note in the first fewdecades of the T'ang dynastyand held an important official post during 650-656. That means that the elder CHIA was a younger of WEI Cheng,editorof the Sui shu, contemporary who died in 643. The compilationof the Sui shu must have receivedthe personalattention of the father ifnot also of the son, It wouldbe mostunlikely, CHIATa-yinhimself. within practically the same generation, forthe official catalog to give up a workfor lost while a memberof the scholar-official circle,who could not be ignorantof the catalog listings, devoted himself to writing a on it. The commentary commentary may be dated late in the seventhcentury. b. YANG Liang's MIT standardcommentary on the Hsiin tzu " is dated 819. In chapter2, on theitem hardnessand whiteness" the commentary says:
In the last chapter of the Chuang tzu a list of twenty-one propositions made by the dialecticiansin responseto Hui Shih's ten propositions is recorded. Some of them are presumably KUNG-SUN Lung's. The twentieth item is: " An orphancolt has never had a mother."
24

412

Y. P. MEI

" Hardness and whiteness " refers to the separationof hardnessand white" by KUNG-SUN ness. " The Discourse on Hardness and Whiteness Lung says: " Hardness, whiteness, and stone-may one not referto them as three? No. May one refer to themas two? Yes." ....

says:

In chapter22, on the item" It is not a horse" the commentary

"It is not a horse" refersto the "Discourse on the White Horse " by KUNG-SUN Lung, whichsays, "I' White'" denotescolor: 'horse' denotesform. it is said. a whitehorseis not Color is not form;formis not color. Therefore a horse."

Kung-sun Lung tzu.

The references in these commentaries are specific and the quotations practicallyverbatim reports of the present text of the C. CH'ENGHsiian-ying'sA)Ai_~ commentary on the Chuang tzu 25 says in chapter12,on " separating and whiteness hardness ":
the Doctrine of Whiteness by KUNG-SUNLung tzu "; in chapter
17, on " KUNG-SUN Lung ": " KUNG-SUN Lung .... composed the

" 'Hardness and whiteness' refers to the Treatise in Defense of

mind of CH'ENG Hsiian-ying that KUNG-SUN Lung did write a work called The Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness dynasty.

in circulation."It can be seen that therewas no questionin the " in theT'ang and thatthisTreatisewas " currently in circulation

Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness "; and in chapter 33, on " KUNG-SUNLung ": ' KUNG-SUNLung ... composed the Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whitenesswhichis currently

These are the more importantindicationsthat the firstfive of the six chaptersof the presenttextof the Kung-sunLung tzu are authentic.The evidenceis that theyare the remainsof what was originally a much largerwork,of whichmore has been lost than preservedand there is a high degree of probabilitythat what has been preserved is fullyauthentic. Of course,this does not exclude such minorcorruptions as copyists'errorsand disarrangements by scribes;but it can be said that the authenticity
andquotation aregiven:W ,,Th) 0;^i *X n6-k .~,- Tt 1-,,-* 11 fF
25

Since this is the most important of the commentaries quoted, the originalreference

" ;#fZ4. W,"

JZ

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

413

of the Kung-sunLung tzu is no more questionablethan that of any of the generally accepted texts of a similarstature,such as the Mo tzu and Hsiuntzu.
COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS

There have been only a few commentaries on the Kung-sun Lung tzu. The earliestknownare the two T'ang dynastycommentaries mentioned in the Chiu T'ang shu, by CHIA Ta-yin and CH'EN Ssu-ku. Both of thesehave been lost and untilveryrecent times, the only commentary on the work was that by HSIEH Hsi-shenAtiNT- of the Sung dynasty,which is still current. This commentary is quite uneven in worth;on some pointsit is quite penetrating whereason othersit is ratherridiculousand mixed up with occultism. There is some suspicionthat HSIEH materialfrom a morecapablecommentator-possibly incorporated one of thoseofT'ang times-whose own workis no longerextant. The Kung-sunLung tzu began to receivenoticein the middleCh'ing period,when the textual criticism movementwas at its the studyof the Kung-sunLung tzu has been height. Currently, further stimulated by an increasedinterest in logic,due to intellectual contactwiththe West. The following is a list of some of the moreimportant commentaries:
26

HSIN Ts'ung-yi* 4, Kung-sunLung tzu, 1787. CH'EN Li Wit, Kung-sunLung tzu chu 1, 1849. WANG Kuan IR., Kung-sun Lung tzu hsiianchieh .MH, Chung

Hua Book Company,1928. CHIN Shou-shen *, Kung-sun Lung tzu shih -z, CommercialPress, 1930. CH'IEN Chi-po I ung-sunLung tzu chiao tu hou hsii K
CH'IEN

Mu RA, Kung-sunLung tzu hsin chieh AMP, CommercialPress, 1931. T'AN Chieh-fu XfrI, Hsing-ming fa wei N-/9ROR,Wu-han Press. University
HSIEH Hsi-shen's (Name, HSIEH Chiang , ) fatlher was HSIEH T'ao 0 passed the last state examinationand obtained the highestdegree in 990 A. D.

who

414

Y. P. MEI

CH'EN Chu 1W , Kung-sun Lung tzu chi chieh AN,

mercialPress, 1937.

Com-

All but the first two items above are by contemporary scholars, publishedbetween1920 and 1940. The last item is an attempt in one volume. to collectall the important commentaries together I would like here to acknowledge my debt to this work in this ofits translation. studyoftheKung-sunLung tzu and preparation AlfredFORKE has translatedthe six extant chapters of the been Kung-sunLung tzu into English27 and they have recently put into French.28 Professor was made half FORKE'S translation a century ago, without the assistanceof any ofthe severalhelpful commentaries publishedsince that time. It misses most of the crucialpointsof the originaldiscussion.29 Witha highly textlikethe Kung-sunLung tzu,it would cryptic be presumptuousfor anyone to claim to have found all the answersto the many problems, or to rule out all othersolutions as impossible or irrelevant.Bilingualpublicationof the textwith the translation is practically a necessity and has made it possible to reduce the numberof notes greatly. It is hoped that this translation may serve as a startingpoint toward one that will be generallyaccepted as authoritative, and that the discussion of the text will have removedthe doubt of authenticity.On an extensive anotheroccasion,I hope to undertake consideration of Chineselogic,including the Kung-sunLung tzu.

27JNCBRAS 34 (1901-2). 28 It has recently been reportedfromParis that a French translationof the Kungsun Lung tzu has been prepared by a Chinese Catholic Priest and will be published under the auspices of the Bibliotheque des Hautes Etudes. 29 E. R. HUGHES includeda translationof all of chapter2 and part of chapter 5 of the workin his ChinesePhilosophyin Classical Times 122-27. Derk BODDE'S translation of some of the key concepts and passages of the Kung-sunLung tzu is usually more reliableand may be foundin FUNGYu-lan, op. cit. 204-214.

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

415

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

I: CollectedNotes 1 1
IKUNG-SUN Lung was a dialectician ofthe timeof the Six Kingdoms. He was grieved by the confusion and divergence in names and He his realities. used special talentto k7 s-? V4 in defense writetreatises of his doctrine of whiteness.2He employed analogies and 0 illustrations to arguein defense of the doctrineof whiteness. He said, " A whitehorseis not a horse. Why? Because ' white' denotes color, while 'horse ' denotesshape. Color is not 1o shape, and shape is not color. When color ,% b~~~ JJ2fft4, is spokenof,shape shouldnot be included, and when shape is spokenof, color should not be broughtup. Now, to make one object out of the combinationof both is not correct. Suppose you look fora white horsein a stable,and thereis none.Though X1 z2ktI4XV thereare black horses, theywillnot answer the requirements of a white horse. Since to it ]% ;t f As 4 they do not answer the requirements of t!X,a white horse, the horse wanted is not there.Because it is not there, a whitehorse is, indeed,not a horse." He wishedto extendsuch arguments as these to rectifynames and reality and spread his influence over the whole world.

gt

2
KUNG-suN Lung met with K'UNG Ch'uan 3in the house of PrinceP'ing-yiian

416

Y. P. MEI

19

+4ttiA~~~~~~~~, T'S

v~~~& ~~~&

r0 a
'

>

"}<

6* 2 &&I2$J
%W4i-

btk,

of Chao. K'UNG Ch'uan said: "I have always heard of yourhighreputation, and fora longtimehave wishedto becomeyour pupil. However,I cannotaccept yourdoctrine that a white horse is not a horse. Please discardthistheory, and I willbeg to becomeyourpupil." KUNG-SUN Lung replied: "What you have said, Sir,is preposterous.My system of dialecticrestsentirely on the disputation on the whitehorse. Now, you bid me to give it up. I would then have nothingto teach. Besides, the reason forany one to wishto have a teacheris becausehis knowledge and wisdomare inferior to that of the teacher. Now you bid me to discard my doctrine. This amounts to your teaching me first and then having me as your teacher,whichis preposterous. " Moreover,that a whitehorse is not a horse is a view that even Confuciusaccepted. I have heardthattheKing of Ch'u drew his famous bow, and put on his renowned arrowsto shoot snakes and rhinocerosesin the Yiin-mengPark. Then he lost his bow. His attendants wished to search forit, but the King stopped them, saying, ' The King of Ch'u has lost the bow, and a man of Ch'u will get it, what need to searchforit? ' " When Confucius heardof this,he said, 'The King of Ch'u is benevolent and righteous but not yet perfect. He mightjust as well have said, " One man loses a bow, and anotherman will get it." Why must it be a man of Ch'u?' Confucius thus makesa distinction betweena man of Ch'u,

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

417

tA zVb tldNo1

yn,

: 4L fe,

and what is simply a man. Now, it is preposterous to accept Confucius'distinction betweena man of Ch'u and what is simply a man, and at the same time to impugn my distinctionbetween a white horseand whatis simplya horse. You, Sir, followthe teachingsof Confucianism, but rejectwhat is admittedby Confucius, and thenyou wishto learnfrom me but bid me discardwhat I have to teach. Under conmen a hundred ditions, timesas cleveras I would not be able to undertakethe task." K'UNG Ch'uan had nothingto say in reply. 3
KUNG-SUN Lung was a guest of Prince P'ing-yuanof Chao. K'UNGCh'uan was a descendantof Confucius.When theymet, K'UNGCh'uan said to KUNG-SUN Lung: "I come fromthe state of Lu, whereI heard of you. I greatlyadmired your wisdom, and was much pleased withyour conduct. To receiveinstruction fromyou has been my desirefora long time. Now, at last I have the pleasure of meetingyou. There is just one thingI do not like about you: your theorythat a white horse :s not a horse. I beseechyou to drop this doctrine, and I beg to becomeyour disciple." KUNG-SUN Lung rejoined: "What you have said, Sir,is preposterous.My system is that whichteachesthat a whitehorseis not a horse. If you make me give it up, I shall have nothingto impart. To try to learnfrom me whenI have nothing to teach would be moststrange. Moreover, onlyhe could wish to learn fromme, who con-

k+4 4 fA?t2'
__.4W.g __t

tB
t$e
AV A-I

4+-

A57
7 4D

30tSfu
Is%Ay4N

>

418

Y. P. MEI

sidered his knowledge and wisdom not equal to mine. Now, to demandthatI give up my view that a white horse is not a !Ai 40A fZt horse,wouldbe first to teach me and afterit wardsto learnfrom me, whichis improper. "What you ask of me remindsme of what the King of Ch'i said to YIN Wen.4 The King of Ch'i said to YIN Wen, 'I am veryfondof accomplished men. Why is it At 38 tiZ* that in Ch'i thereare none?' "YIN Wen replied, 'I should like to know what Your Majesty considersto be an accomplished man.' " The Kinigof Ch'i could not say. YIN Wen wenton, ' Let us supposethatherewe have a man, who serves his sovereign loyallyand his parentsfilially, whois faithful to his friends, and at peace with the Z;tliot ;>JU ~ 3Fmembersof his community.Embodying these fourqualities,can he be considered an accomplished man?' vt 4I 2 ' Good, that "The King of Ch'i rejoined, 27 ii7LzQi;Ke is exactlywhat I consideran accomplished man. " YIN Wen said, ' If you had such a man, would you appointhim to be a minister?' " The King replied, ' I wouldbe onlytoo glad, but I cannotfindsuch a man.' " At that timethe King of Ch'i set high store upon courage. ThereforeYIN Wen asked him saying,' Supposingsuch a man wereinsultedin open courtbeforea crowd of people,but did not dare to fight, would you appointhim to office?' " The King said, ' Why,fora gentleman not to avenge an insultwithhis swordis a dishonor. A dishonored man I would not like to have in my employ.'

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

419

Wen remarked,'Although the man does not draw his swordupon being he does not lose thereby insulted, the four above-mentioned qualities. Not havinglost these he is still a gentleman. But Your Majesty would in the firstcase take him into your service,and in the second case -1? -% ) # would not. Is then what we considereda A/ pA z gentleman beforeno gentleman?' VV " The King could not answer. YIN Wen went on, 'Now, thereis a sovereignwho wishesto governhis state. If anyoneis at he condemnshim, and if he is not, fault, h; 1D ti he condemnshim nevertheless.If a man M has achievedmerit, he rewardshim,and if he has achievednone,he rewards him also. Yet he complainsof his people not being orderly. Can he rightly do that?' " The King of Ch'i answered in the negative. YIN Wen remarked, 'As I observe Z . tE \n,?t'A IMA the government of Ch'i by your subordinates, the methodused is just about like t~~ 9u ~~ this.' " The King said: 'Did I really govern the state as you said, then I should not *u i . ,% dare complain, even if my people werenot orderly.But is it possiblethat it is not so bad as that?' W:rE z _ )$gAf " YIN Wen said, 'How dare I make such an assertion without properreasons? Your commandsstate that whoeverkills a man must die, and whoeverinjures a man has to suffer bodilypunishment.Some people :tx Ie A AV' respectyourcommands and do not venture to fight wheninsulted, thus upholding the royal commands. But Your Majesty says that not to avenge an insult with one's
"YIN

420

Y. P. MEI

ll I:r7.
-f-q

UJ1L4 PA
/ wJ Xr 7

2-J.Jv

swordis a dishonor.To call it a dishonor is to put censure upon it, and this is to censurea man when he is withoutfault. Furthermore you would strike his name from the official lists.Not to be employed as an official is a punishment. Thus somebody not guiltyis punished by Your Majesty. And, as you disgracea man who dares not fight, you must honorhim who does. To honora man is to approveofhim, butthisis to approveof a man without warrant.And you will give him an official post, which meansa reward.Thus a man without merit is rewarded. Those rewardedby you are the same whomyourofficials punish;what is approved of by the sovereignis condemned by the law. Thus, rewards and punishments, approval and condemnation, are confounded one with another. Under these circumstances, even a man ten times as able as the Yellow Emperor could not keep order.' " The King of Ch'i did not know what to say in reply. " Hence I regard yourwordsas likethose of the King of Ch'i. You object to the doctrine that a whitehorseis not a horse, but cannot give satisfactory reasons for doing so. This is similarto the King of Ch'i, who appreciated accomplishedmen by name,but was unableto recognize them by theirattributes."

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

421

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

LAj

II:

Discourse On the White Horse 1

Q:5 A white horse is not a horse"-is this possible? A: Yes. Q: How can this be? " white" deA: " Horse " denotesform; denotes color does not notes color. What it is said, a white denote form. Therefore horseis not a horse.
2

2 say that thereis no horse. If one cannot say that thereis no horse,then why is it no horse? There being a whitehorse,one must admit that thereis a horse,how can " white" deny the existenceof " horse." A: When a horseis wanted,yellowand black ones may all be brought.But when a whitehorseis wanted,yellowand black ones may not be brought.If a whitehorse be a horse,thenwhat is wantedin the two instanceswould be the same. If what is wantedwere the same, then a whitehorse would be no different from a horse. If what is wanted were not different, then is it that why yellowand black horsesare in the one case but not in the satisfactory other? What is satisfiedand what is not satisfied evidently are not the same. Now the yellow and black horses remain the

onecannot Q: There beinga whitehorse, \s, .l~~~~~~~~~~\.b fcoi

b"

+pt,4g%* OR A-7

4292

Y. P. MEI

P'

la?

b'o

same,and yettheywillanswerthe requirementsof a horse,but will not answerthe requirements of a white horse. Hence it shouldbe clear that a whitehorseis not a horse. 3 Q: If a horsewithcoloris considered no horse, thentherewillbe no horseson earth, as there are no colorlesshorses on earth! Is this possible? A: Horses,of course,have color. Thereforethereare whitehorses. If horseshad no color, there would be merely horses. How could we specify whitehorses? But a whitehorseis not a horse. A white horse is horse united with whiteness,or whiteness united with horse. Therefore it is said, a whitehorseis not a horse.

Xk~'

\ '7-% C53
5-kK

%s, itN4*7

\.: 15

Q: Horse not united with whitenessis horse; whitenessnot united with horse is as you say. But whenhorseand whiteness, are united,the compoundname whiteness white horse is applied, which means that they are united. It is not rightto refer to them as though they were not united. Therefore it is not right to say that a white horseis not a horse. Counter-Q: If you shouldregarda white horse as being a horse,you mightas well claim a whitehorse to be a yellow horse. Would this be possible? A: No. A: To holdthat a horseis different from a yellowhorse is to differentiate a yellow

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

423

$7 P

horse from a horse. To differentiate a yellow horse froma horse is to regard a yellowhorseas not a horse. Now to regard vv a yellow horse as horse, and yet to hold that a whitehorseis a horse,would be like in a lake or placing the inner and flying in separateplaces. This would outercoffins be the most perverse talk and confounded in the world. argument 5

q, &2 jM
J7t%L(to

flb

t1r

. A7 - 7fA

Q: It cannotbe said thathavinga white horse is having no horse,and this on the basis of separatingwhiteness. Even if it is not separated,stilla whitehorsecannot be said to be no horse. The reason for holdingthat it is a horseis simplybecause a horseis alwaysa horse,and not because a whitehorseis another kindofhorse.Thereforewhen we hold that it is a horse,that is not to say that thereis one kindofhorse and another kind of horse. A: The whiteness that does not fixitselfupon any object may simplybe overlooked. But in speaking ofthe whitehorse, we refer to a whiteness that is fixedupon its object. Whiteness that is fixed upon an object is not just whiteness as such. The term a " horse" does not involve any choice of color. Therefore yellowand black ones all willanswerthe requirements. The term" whitehorse" does involvethe choiceof color. Yellow and black ones are all rejected owing to their color. White horsesalone will do. That whichdoes not exclude any color is not the same as that whichexcludescertaincolors. Therefore, it " is said a whitehorse is not a horse."

424

Y. P. MEI

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

III: Discourse on Things and Their
7 Attributes

1 Thesis 8: Things consistof nothingbut their attributes. But attributesare not attributes in and ofthemselves.9 Withoutattributes cannotbe said things to be things.Withoutthings, can therebe said to attributes? 2 Antithesis:Attributes are thatwhichdo not exist on earth; thingsare that which do exist on earth. It would be improper to take what does exist as what does not exist. Thesis: Indeed there are no attributes on earth,and things may not be said to be just attributes, (as you say). Although thingsmay not be said to be attributes, however, are theynot that to whichattributes are attributed? Attributesare not attributes in and of themselves, but things consistof nothingbut theirattributes.10 Again,thereare no attributes on earth, (as you say). Although things may not be said to be just attributes, certainly neither do they consist of anythingother than attributes. Since they do not consist of otherthan attributes, anything thingsconsist of nothing but attributes. (Ergo), things consist of nothing but their attributes, but attributesare not attributes in and of themselves.1o

~~~~~~~~,ozF)o40

AR

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

S Antithesis: That thereare no attributes on earthis due to the factthat things have their respectivenames and are not just attributes. To call them attributeswhen they are not, is to claim all are attributes. It would be improperto take what are not all attributes as what are nothingbut attributes. Thesis: To be sure,attributes are that whichdoes not existon earth,(as you say). thereare no attributes Although on earth, thingsmay not be said to be withoutattributes.Since theymay not be said to be without attributes, thingsdo not consistof anything other than their attributes.'1 Since theydo not consistof anything other than their attributes,things consist of nothingbut theirattributes." Not that attributesare not attributes, but attributes in thingsare not attributes in and of themselves.Were there no attributes-in-things on earth,who could say simplythereare no attributes: Were there no thingson earth,who could say simply thereare attributes?Were thereattributes but no attributes-in-things, who could say simply there are no attributesor simply that things consist of nothingbut their attributes? Furthermore, attributesare indeed not attributesin and of themselves." And it is only because they adhereto thingsthat they become attributes.

MA-v di$A,

t9
t

A~

tIS-?Th4s

t
1KS 4 ,bj
z' l7 7
Bi4.%

426

Y. P. MEI

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

[IV: On Variationand Divergence Contents by Sections 1. Two and one. Right and left. 2. Illustration by form.Wherea ram and an ox are different and wherethe same. Clear distinction of formas that between the ram and the ox against the horse. Vague distinction ofform as that betweenthe ram and the ox againstthe chicken. 3. Illustrationby color. Clear distinction ofcoloras thatbetween greenand white against yellow. Vague distinctionof color as that betweengreenand white againstjade-color.]

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

ks AflL4

IV: On Variation and Divergence I A: Two does not containone."4 Q.: Does two containright? A: Two has no right. Q: Does two containleft? A: Two has no left. Q: Can rightbe called two? A: No. Q: Can left be called two? A: No.

Q: Does two contain one?

V-7:

WE:IZ%f
laz

THE KUNG-SUNLUNG-TZU

427

be called and lefttogether Q: Can right two? A: Yes. Q: Is it properto say that a changeis not a change? A: Yes. membecomesa constituent Q: As right of a can one change? speak ber, A: Certainly. Q: Into what does it change? A: Still the right. Q: If the righthas changed,how can you still call it right? And, if it has not changed,how can you speak of a change? A: Two would have no right,if there ofleft-and-right. wereno left. Two consists 2 A: A ram and an ox togetherare not the same as a horse. An ox and a ram are not the same as a chicken.'5 together What do you mean? Q: A: Although a ram is different froman ox in that the ram has upper front-teeth whilethe ox does not, yet one cannot say that an ox is not the same as a ram,and a ram not the same as an ox. They might but not both have certaincharacteristics, other stillbelongto the same class. On the hand, althougha ram has horns while an ox also has horns, yet one cannotsay, that an ox is the same as a ram,or a therefore ram the same as an ox. They mightboth and yet belong have certaincharacteristics, classes. to quite different Rams and oxen both have horns and

Q: How is that?

2.

/~~~1:

To

428

Y. P. MEI

7 DA t)IJ'
-~

t )"

-A~

4o st gV?
;oM%
_) t 1A t

A_ tL

<"'6

horsesdo not, whereashorseshave prominent tails, while rams and oxen do not. I say, " a ram and an ox toTherefore, getherare not the same as a horse." That means that the horseis eliminated.Consea ram is not two,and an ox is not quently, two, but ram-and-ox is two. This makes it possible for a ram and an ox to be set offfroma horse.15When the distinctions (about ram and ox) are thus made, it is based on the differences between classes. Similarly, rightand leftmay also be thus distinguished. Rams and oxen have wool and chickens have feathers.The legs of a chickenare one by designation, and two by counting, and therefore threealtogether; the legs ofa ram or an ox are one by designation, and fourby counting, and therefore five altogether.Thus oxen and ramshave fivefeet each, and chickens three. Therefore, I say, " an ox and a ram togetherare not the same as a chicken,"and yet they are not set off from a chicken.'5 Between a horse and a chicken it is betterto decidein favorof the horse. Evidently when instances are not good instancestheymay not be dependedupon for purposesof classification. To drawdistinctions (or definitions) on sucha basis would cause a confusion of namesand would be a case of illicitdistinction. 3 Q: Please discuss this in some other way.

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

429

A: Green and white are not yellow; whiteand greenare not jade-color."' A: Green and whitedo not blend even when mixed,because they conflict.They do not approach each other even when placed side by side, because they do not relinquishtheir position. As they do not ~~~~~~~~~~~~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. relinquishtheirpositionand as they conX4f~ fi4 flict,each keeps its own place, leaning to the one side northe other. Thus , neither t'?,7:$f they do not become one in green,nor one in white. How then should they become S yellow? Jk* Yellow (in the proposition that " green and white are not yellow") is indeed proper, the proper basis for distinction. The contrast is like that between the sovereign (representing yellow) and the ' se,-ilsS' ministers(representing green and white) in a state, which is admittedlya forced parallel. 4 $o, Furthermore, if green is interspersed with white,white does not overpowerit. Since white could triumphbut does not, Zij wood does violenceto metal.17 Wood doing violence to metal, jade-color is produced, which is assuredlynot a properbasis for distinction. Green and white do not blend but are mixed. As they do not overcome each other,they both shinesimultaneously. As they conflict and both shine,the resultis jade-color. Betterthan jade-coloris yellow. Yellow is like the horse (in the previousillustration), and doesn't it facilitateclear classi-

Q: How so?

LoT t$

t'$>%At

430

Y. P. MEI

J;z e
r Hb4Pt

rz #Ws
?0 s\

S)-,frtboW

fication?Jade-color is like the chicken (in the previous illustration),and doesn't it leave thingsin rivalry? When rivalryis rampant,sovereign and minister contendwitheach otherand both wishto shine. The morebothwishto shine, the darkerand less clear will be the result, for this is a case of improper distinction. When distinction (or definition)is not proper,names and reality do not correspond, and a mixtureof colors is in evidence. That is whyI say bothshinesimultaneously. When both shine,and the right way is lost, then there is no wherewithal fortheirrectification.

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

V: Discourse on Hardness and Whiteness
1

t iJe

K$

Hardness, whitenessand stonemay one refer to themas three? A: No. to themas two? Q: May one refer A: Yes.
Q:
18

A: Hardness being not there,one perceives whiteness:thus what is represented is two (i. e., whiteness and stone). Similarnot beingthere, ly,whiteness one perceives hardness:thus,whatis represented is again two (i. e., hardnessand stone). Q: Having perceived whiteness one canis not there;having not say that whiteness perceived hardness one cannot say that

Q: How?

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

431

~~~~4

?t

hardness is not there. Such being the nature of the existenceof the stone, are therenot threethings? A: When seeing,one does not perceive hardness but perceives whiteness-this is becausehardness is notthere.Whentouching, one does not perceive whitenessbut perceiveshardness-this is because whiteness is not there. 2

Q: If therewereno whiteness on earth, one could not see a stone,and iftherewere no hardnesson earth, one could not feel a stone. Hardness,whiteness and the stone do notexcludeone another, how could (one of) the threebe hidden? \g:~~~~~Alea )AtA A: It hides itself, and is not hiddenin or by anything alse. Q: Whiteness and hardness are indistzA~Im~E] pensable qualities permeatingeach other in the stone. How is it possibleforeither of themto hide itself? A: One perceives whiteness and one perceiveshardness;what is seen and what is not seen are evidentlyseparate. It is because the one (stone) and the two (qualities) do not permeate each other that they are separate. To be separate is (to be in a position) to hide.
io

?701

3 ofthe is thewhiteness Q: The whiteness stone and the hardnessis the hardnessof one of themis visible the stone. Although while the other is not, the two together

432

Y. P. MEI

V N

A$, ,70 3$

40rk)

$4>S{

\A7, tSsoi

withthe stonemake three. They permeate one anotheras widthand lengthdo in the case of a surface.Why shouldtheynot be all represented together? A: Some thing maybe white, but whiteness is not therebyfixed upon it; some thing may be hard, but hardness is not therebyfixedupon it. What is not fixed upon anything is of universalapplication. How thenis it possibleto assumethat they (hardnessand whiteness)must be in and of the stone? Q: We touchthe stone;unlessit can be felt,therecan be no stone; unless thereis the stone thereis no sense in referring to the white stone. That the stone and its qualitiesare not separateis something that is necessarily and infinitely so. A: Stone is one; hardness and whiteness are two,thoughtheyare in the stone. But one of them can be felt while the other cannot;one of themcan be seen whilethe othercannot. Obviouslythe tangibleand intangible are separate;the visibleand the invisible hide from each other. There being hiding, who will say that they are not separate? 4 Q: Because the eye cannotbeholdhardness nor the hand grasp whiteness,one cannot contendthat thereis no hardness or whiteness.These organsfunction differforeach other. entlyand cannotsubstitute But, just the same,hardnessand whiteness both residein the stone,and how can you insistthat theyare separate?

Oa,-j4 )12

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

433

N4941 ;s

'b 'J vA WA \ XZ
tto

\*4 77

.S

tso4{ssv

kgi

@&;b K ish v

9 ) :KE
EgjL~

g)9@5jJ
9,J4St

A: Hardnessis hardness, notnecessarily ofthe stone,as it can be of any otherthing. Again,it is not necessarily hardnessof any otherthing;it can be hardnessin and of itself. The hardnessthat is neitherof the stonenorof any otherthingdoes not seem to existin the world-this is merely to say that it is hidden. If whitenesscould not be whitenessin and of itself, how could it be whiteness of stone and things? If, on the other hand, whitenessis actually whiteness in and of then it is whiteness itself, withouthaving to be whiteness of anything.With yellow and black colorsit is the same. Now then the stoneitself is no longer there, and what sense is therein referring to the hard and white stone? These are all separate, and theyare separatefrom the natureofthings. It is far better to accept the nature of things thanto exertone's perceptive power of feeling and sight.19 5 Furthermore, whiteness is beheldby the eye, but the eye sees by means of light. However light does not have the faculty of vision. Then, neitherlightnor the eye can by itselfsee whiteness, and it must be the mind that sees it. Actually,the mind alone cannot see it either. Thus the sight of whiteness is something separate. Hardness is felt by the hand, but the hand feelsby means of a hammer. However,thehammer does not have the faculty of feeling.Then, neitherthe hammernor

434

Y. P. MEI

the hand can feel hardnessby itself,and it mustbe the mindthat feelsit. Actually, the mind cannot feel it either. Thus the separate.20 of hardnessis something feeling in the worldare separate; All existences onlywhentheyare treatedas independent is it correct.

KUNG-SUN LUNG TZU

VI: On Names and Reality 1 Heaven and earth, togetherwith their products,are things. If thingsassume the it, thereis exceeding role of thingswithout all the expectareality. If realityfulfills tions of realitywithoutlackingany, there is order. To deviate fromorderis to fall to observeorderis to obtain into disorder; correctness. What is correctis to be used to rectify is to what is incorrect.What is incorrect be used to checkwhat is correct. of reality; Rectificationis rectification of the of realityis rectification rectification name. 2 then the the name is rectified, WY1hen "this " and the " that" are delimited. If designationof "that" is not limited to of "that " is not that,thenthe designation of "this " is not applicable. If designation limited to this, then the designationof " this" is not applicable. This is because is extendedto whereit is the appropriate

. tpAf $-t)i
f$A2 4io@XJ

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

435

tk A@,flq

@bAL?+
e0 '

k%

inappropriate.To take the inappropriate as appropriateis faulty. On the contrary,when designationof "that " is appropriate to that,it is limited and applicableto that. When the designation of "this " is appropriateto this, it is limitedand applicable to this. This is because the appropriate is limited to where it is appropriate. To take the appropriate as appropriate is correct. To call that,and that only," that "; and to call this,and this only," this";-this is right. To call this," that," and have this becomealso that,and to call that, "this," and have that become also this-this is wrong. 3 Of course,name is to designatereality. Knowing that this is not this and that this is not in this, one will not make the designation.Knowingthat that is not that and that that is not in that, one will not either. make the designation kings Supremeindeedweretheintelligent namesand reality of old! Theyinvestigated with withcare,and theymade designations caution. Supremeindeed were the intelli-

ofold!21 gent kings

436

Y. P. MEI

NOTES 'This firstchapter is the least valuable of all the chapters in the book. It is in the nature of an epilogue or an appendix,and would come more appropriately at the end of the book. As the presentarrangement of the book stands,we can only regardthe firstchapter as a curious kind of prefacesuperadded by a disciple or a sympathizer. 2As far as the Chinese text is concerned, this sentence can just as well be translated: " He used his special talent to write a Treatise in Defense of the Doctrine of Whiteness." 8 K'UNG Ch'uan is said to be a sixth-generation descendantof Confucius. He is a Confucianist and the author of a book which is no longerextant. ' YIN Wen (350?-?285) was a minor thinkerin ancient China. There was a work Yin Wen tzu which has been classifiedamong the " Logicians" and is lost. The currentwork bearing that title is a reconstructed volume. In the last chapter of the Chuang tzu (chap. 33, " Current of Thought in the World") YIN Wen is treated togetherwith SUNGHsing as two leaders of a school of thoughtthat is characterized by pacifismand asceticism. 5 It is quite evident that this " Discourse" is writtenin the style of a dialogue between KUNG-SUN Lung and his common-sense critic. But in the originaltext there are no indications to mark question and answeror distinguish one speech fromanother. I am responsibleforthe insertion of the question and answer signs,as well as for the sectioning. 6 "A white horse is not a horse" was evidentlya much debated question among the dialecticiansof the day. 'After much study and deliberation, we have finallychosen "attribute" to render the Chinese term,chih r4w. This term is one of the most difficult in the whole body of Chinese philosophicalliterature.A numberof commentators, ancient and modern, have struggledwith it. The best ones are only partly helpful and the worst are simplymisleading. The dictionary meaningsof chih include "finger,"" to point," etc. " for chih, which As a matterof fact, a host of translations have simplyused "finger requires a lot of explanation,to 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; FUNG Yu-lan, Chuang Tzu 50, 51; L. C. PORTER, Aids to the Study of Chinese Philosophy 48; 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 correspondexactly with any of those here suggested but seems to carry the force of a combinationof several of them. " made by A. FoRKE cannot be said to be altoHowever, the choice of " definition gether happy. This "Discourse" endeavors to point out the differences as well as the relationship between the two phases of existencethat in Westernphilosophyare sometimes spoken of as substance and attributes or qualities. In fact, the whole Kung-Sun Lung Tzu may be said to revolve around the central theme discussed in this "Discourse." " has been made by the translator. The 8 The insertion of " thesis" and " antithesis originaltext contains no such indicationsor sectioning, or even punctuation. 9Announcement of the main theme of the discourse.

THE KUNG-SUN LUNG-TZU

0 Reiterationof the main theme.

437

A glaringly weak link in the chain of argument. Reiterationof the firsthalf of the main theme. 13 Reiterationof the second half of the main theme. 14 This is the key notion of the present" Discourse." The author takes the position " whereas the common-sense that " two " is " one-and-one questionerassumes "two " " and "right to be "one and one." Similarlythe difference between "right-and-left and left." in other words,the thesis of the " Discourse" maintainsthat the concept of " two " does not consistof two concepts of " one." Hence when you have " two" you have no more " one," and vice versa. Ergo, " a white horse is not a horse." 15 The verb in this pair of sentencesin Chinese is the characterfei * . The character carriesgenerally the forceof negation. As a verb it may be rendered: (a) " not to be (something) ," or (b) " not to be the same as." In a logical discussion,it may 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 trend of argumentdepends on the difference in the shades of meaningof this term. In the present context,while " a ram and an ox togetherare not the same as a horse" or " the horse but not fromthe chicken. (The basis a chicken,they are " set offfrom for this distinctionlies in the fact that ram, ox and horse are different species belongingto the same genus, while ram, ox and chicken do not even belong to the same genus.) The use of the various and shifting meanings of the same term constitutes an importantitem in the stock in trade of the Chinese ancient "logicians." 6 Note 15 applies here also. 17 According to the yin-yangand Five Elements School of thought,green corresponds to wood, east, minister,etc., whereas white to metal, west, sovereign,etc. Normally metal is supposed to overpowerwood. Since it works here the other way round, it is spoken of as "doing violence." This way of thinkingfirstflourished in the early Han dynasty,but had its beginnings centuriesearlier.
12

18

See note5.

sense possible out of it. 2 This section of the text is particularly corrupt. It is evident that this paragraph " as the precedingone does for " whitetries to prove the same point for " hardness ness." The original text was probably in exact parallel form with the preceding paragraph, and the translationis renderedon this assumptionl. 2' In China, logic is never entirely separated frompoliticsand ethics,or the " true" from the " right." This we have seen in Confucius,Mo tzu, and Hsiin tzu. Here KUNG-SUN Lung tzu, a logician, seems also to feel the need of concludinga purely logical work with a practical observation. If one remembered that accordingto the Chinese ideal the king is also the sage, the wiseman,the philosopher, one might not mind seeing names and realities,truth and falsitymixed up with kings and princes.

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

10