Human Rights

Talking about Human Rights in Premodern China

(In the Words of the Great Writers)

The human rights materials in China Mirror were gathered on the assumption that issues we associate with human rights, such as fairness or free speech, are not the expression of national genius. All societies must deal with the problem of justice/fairness and equality, for political authority is implicated in both. This is inescapable. However, some societies opt for privilege as the standard for distributing authority while others attempt to establish the principle of equality before the law. The texts gathered below are a selection from among a great many in China that promoted the ideal of equality before the law and were opposed to law understood as privilege. The texts sometimes appear under multiple categories if they are relevant to multiple topics in human rights.

Quotation categories:

____________________________________________________

THE NATURE AND LIMITS OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY
____________________________________________________

 

Those in Power can Make Mistakes

MOZI (5th c. BCE):

There are a great many monarchs in this world, but among them the humane ones are few. If we take the monarch as standard, then the standard will not be humane. If the standard is not humane, then it is not a standard.

Comment: This passage clearly indicates that the monarch is fallible, and that there are moral standards that hold an authority higher than that of the monarch. Moreover the author, an intellectual, feels he, and others, have the right to decide whether or not the monarch meets that moral standard.

 

Illegitimate Encroachment on People’s Property and Privacy

XUNZI (ca. 312-230 BCE):

Rulers increase the levies in bronze coinage and cloth to pilfer the valuables of the common people. They double the taxes on agricultural produce so as to steal their food. They tyrannize with imposts the border stations and marketplaces to place obstacles in the way of business transactions. Not content with this, they also spy on people so as to entrap them, using their privileged position to plot people’s demise, hoping to turn the tables against them and bring their enterprises to ruin. But when the people come to their senses they will know of their ruler’s wanton tyranny, and then the throne will be in grave danger. [Translation adapted from John Knoblock, Xunzi: a translation and study of the complete works (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988]

Comment: There is much of interest in this passage. First, as with Zhen Dexiu elsewhere in this section, Xunzi assumes that not all taxes passed by law are legitimate. Indeed, he presumes that the people possess property that the government has no legitimate claim to. He seems to imply that privacy is a form of property and so, likewise, the government has no legitimate claim to a man’s privacy. In this respect Xunzi anticipates Lv Zuqian’s statement elsewhere in this section. Should privacy be violated, those in power could use their special advantage to harm innocent persons or undermine their enterprises in pursuit of their own, private gains. There is no presumption here that “our rulers know best” or that such encroachments are necessary for the sake of national wellbeing. In fact, when such encroachments occur, Xunzi declares that these define the very stuff of tyranny. In keeping with classical Chinese political thought, he assumes of course that tyranny will lead to political instability and, eventually, collapse.

 

Laws Prejudicial to the People Are Illegitimate

EMPEROR WEN OF HAN (reigned 180–157 BCE):

Laws being the Rules of government, ought, if possible, to be faultless. Their ends are, not only to punish Vice, but to protect innocence. Yet I find among our laws one still in force, by which, when a Man is criminal, his Father; his Mother, his wife, and Children, are involved in his Punishment, and the least punishment they have to dread is Slavery. This Law is by no means to my Liking.

It is a common and a true Saying, that laws, when perfectly just; are the surest means of keeping the people in their duty. When Punishment falls only upon the guilty head, the World approves of the Judge. The duty of a magistrate is to guide the People, like a good Shepherd, and to prevent their going astray. If our Magistrates have not succeeded in this and have still Laws to judge by, not entirely consistent with the strictest Equity, these laws, tho’ originally designed for the Good of the People, turn to their prejudice, and favour Cruelty. Such seems to me the Law I have mentioned; of which I cannot see the good Tendency. Let it be maturely deliberated, whether it is not necessary to repeal.

Comment: This edict implies an entire theory of government. First it notes that law is not designed merely to punish iniquity but is also for the protection of the innocent. From the context it is clear that it means that laws should protect the people from abuses by government. The laws will be effective only if they are just, and they will be known as just if the people accept them as just. Government should guide people, not frighten them into obedience. But how will you know if the laws are unjust? One criterion listed here is when laws are not consistent with the strictest equity. Another is when the laws lead to cruelty, as is always the case when guilt is by association. Note that the edict ends with an appeal to the cabinet to maturely deliberate the repeal of the old law. This is because the emperor did not, in fact, make such decisions unilaterally. All edicts had to be passed by the cabinet, which consisted of the chief officials presiding over the ministries. Of course this law was enacted and was regarded as exemplary in later times, being republished in Song times, in Qing times under the Kangxi Emperor, and in 1738 by Edward Cave in London.

 

A Tyrant Cannot Command

FAN YING (2nd c. CE):

In my eyes, a tyrannical lord is no different from an enemy. If I stand in his court against my will, how does this make me noble? I come from the ranks of commoners and live under the shelter of an old wall. The tranquillity and satisfaction of my life is not something I would exchange for the most prestigious rank. Having this satisfaction, can one be base? If it were not appropriate, even if you offered me the highest salary, I would not accept. If will is free to extend where it may, I do not at all resent subsisting on the poorest meal. So how can your majesty make me wealthy? How can you make me poor? [Translation adapted from Kenneth DeWoskin]

Comment: This is a strong assertion of the agency of the individual. Clearly Fan Ying’s sense of worth and authority are in no way contingent upon the monarch’s approval, much less that of any other member of the nobility. The rights of individuals, in other words, set clear limits on the authority of government. The basis for Fan Ying’s assertion would appear to be the Zhuangzi, though this isn’t easy to determine for certain.

 

Sacrifice for the People

LI GANG (12th c.):

The Dying Ox
I’ve plowed a thousand acres—a thousand bushels of grain;
Vigor exhausted, sinews sore, who could hurt me more?
But if only all the people might finally eat their fill,
I’d gladly lay my broken body in the waning sun.

Comment: In this poem Li portrays himself as a heroic martyr who has devoted his life to the people. This is significant because, like Wang Chong (see elsewhere in this section), he presumes that, apart from the officials, even ordinary taxpayers have the right to work on behalf of the people. Li’s choice to represent himself as an ox is significant because Mencius had compared the people to an ox in one of his more famous arguments. Li Gang was, in fact, politically active even when not in office. He was the leader of the student protest movement in his time, organizing student demonstrations that successfully toppled some high-ranking officials and, no, the students were not mowed down by the police.

 

Laws Should be Written to Serve the People

ZHANG RUYU (late 12th c.):

When one ignores the fundamentals, then the ruler and officials concentrate their efforts on personal gain and slight service to the people. How should this be consistent with the predispositions of nature? Therefore if one lacks (this mutual ruling and sustaining) practice yet establishes bureaucratic offices, in other words if one lacks the substance yet sets up the claim, then the whole thing is a lie . . .  If one carries out changes in official or institutional structure but does not take into account whether or not these changes are beneficial for the people, then one will only throw into confusion the body consisting of the officials and the people [the state].

Comment: Students preparing for the civil service examinations often made use of Zhang’s text to prepare themselves, so we know that his views were close to mainstream. Here he makes it clear that both the emperor and the officials are presumed to be fallible—both can engage in illegitimate conduct—using public office for private gain—and when they do, “the whole thing is a lie.” He goes on to establish the benefit of the people as the standard for making institutional changes, a category that would include the making of policy.

 

No Thought Should Be Forbidden

LV ZUQIAN (1137–1181) on the human condition:

If you pursue the matter to its logical end, there is nothing in nature that you can do away with. Within the heart of man, there is no thought that should be forbidden. How should it be possible that greedy or stingy thoughts could be eradicated? How would you accomplish that? How should the possibility exist? How would you get rid of such thoughts? There is no way you can force greedy or stingy thoughts to disappear—but—there is also no need to force them to disappear . . . The fact is that while actions may be good or bad, thoughts are without good or evil. It is only when a thought leads to good actions that we call it a good thought, and when a thought augments bad actions, we call it a bad thought. Both originally are merely thoughts. In origins there is no difference.

Comment: Lv Zuqian was an influential Confucian philosopher of the Southern Song period. He is often ranked close to Zhu Xi, the most influential thinker of that period, but in this passage his thought is closer to that of Su Shi, who held that human passions are neither good nor evil, but merely human. Good and evil apply only to actions, not to thoughts. It follows that the authority of government extends only to our actions, not to our thoughts. This principle was put into practice in that people were not obliged to follow any particular religion, or no religion if they chose. People complaining about government through the Grievance Offices also could do so anonymously, an official recognition of the idea that they could not be blamed for their thoughts.

 

Against Torture, Mass Incrimination, and Other Injustices

Zhen Dexiu’s (1178–1235) Ten Scourges of Unjust Government:

1. Bias in making criminal judgments (e.g. going easy on the rich and being harsh toward the poor; favoring friends, etc.).
2. Carrying out judicial investigations in a perfunctory manner (not attending sufficiently to the facts).
3. Keeping criminals in prison longer than absolutely necessary (either before or after trial).
4. The use of torture.
5. Rounding up suspects en masse rather than limiting apprehension to those you have reason to believe are guilty.
6. Tricking or bribing people into testifying against others.
7. Exploiting the poor with illegitimate fees.
8. Unreasonable and therefore illegitimate taxes.
9. Illegitimate use of corvee labor by local government.
10. Selling government supplies at a cheaper than market rate, putting small merchants out of business.

Comment: All of these items may be regarded as setting limits on government authority. Such practices, in Zhen’s view, are illegitimate and without legal or moral justification. It is of some interest that most of the practices Zhen lists here remain topics of public debate even today. Illegitimate fees, for instance, need not come from government but can be protected by government. Timely trials, torture, mass incarceration–it all sounds very contemporary. How do your senator’s views compare with Zhen Dexiu’s?

 

____________________________________________________

THE SOURCE OF POLITICAL AUTHORITY
____________________________________________________

 

Leaders Can Flip-flop so Long as they Follow the People’s Will

LAOZI, Chapter 49:

A wise ruler does not hold to just one point of view; he takes the will of the people as his point of view.

Comment: The sentiment expressed so succinctly here can commonly be found in writings of a Mencian persuasion, as well as in bureaucratic theory written between the 4th and 2nd centuries BCE. These theories demanded that the monarch “do nothing”, which is to say, he should not impose his personal will upon the populace. Instead, he should try to determine what the will of the people was and follow that as it changed over time. These theories rejected the idea that there might be an eternal truth, as in religion, that could guide a ruler in all things irrespective of the realities that people face in their daily lives. Rather it was those realities that were to be the guide for government policy.

 

The Government Needs Feedback from the People to Function Properly

MASTER ZUO’S ANNALS (4th c. BCE):

If people retire morning and evening and pass their judgment on the conduct of government as good or bad, I will do what they approve and will correct what they condemn. They are my teachers. On what grounds should we destroy those schools?

Comment: In a passage from Zuo’s Annals, word got out that someone was speaking critically of the government in the schools. A minister suggested closing down the schools, but another minister said “why should we?” and then added the passage above. This passage is one of the earliest justifications for political speech. It implies not only that government can benefit from popular feedback, but that it is the nature of government to form policy on the basis of the people’s feedback. This is closely related to Mencius idea of the affection of the people or, as it evolved later, the will of the people.

 

The Will of the Masses can Topple Governments

SAYINGS FROM THE STATES (4th c. BCE):

The will of the masses can build city walls;
the voice of the masses can melt metal.

Comment: This couplet, whose meaning should be transparent, remains a common saying in modern Chinese today.

 

The Government Must Follow the People’s Will

THE BOOK OF GUANZI (3rd c. BCE):

Government can be successfully administered only when it is in accord with the people’s will/minxin. When a government fails it is because it goes against the people’s will.

Comment: This is a much stronger version of Mencius’ notion that a government is legitimate only when supported by the people.

 

The Government must Follow the People’s Will

Essay on “The Ruler’s Government”, Silk manuscripts from the third and second centuries BCE:

If you follow the people’s customs, you will understand their principles . . . When I say ‘customs’ I mean following the will of the people/minxin.

Comment: This passage is from a text on government discovered in an early Han period tomb, suggesting that the views espoused on the Guanzi above were still current after the establishment of the empire. It states, remarkably, that the people—farmers with dirt on their hands—have principles and that it is the government’s duty to discover what those principles are and adjust accordingly. This line of thought found expression in any number of laws passed during the Han dynasty, and some of those are cited in the section on free speech.

 

Promotions and Punishments Should be Based on the Facts

FROM THE ANNALS OF THE PRINCE OF HUAINAN (ca. 120 BCE):

Although there may be executions in the nation, it is not because of the monarch’s wrath; although there may be promotions at court, it is not because the monarch grants them. If criminals are executed, they do not resent the monarch because their punishment is the consequence of their own crime; if men are promoted, they do not feel they owe it to the monarch because this is the consequence of their own accomplishments. (In this way) the people/min will know the (true) source of promotions and punishments; they will know that it all depends upon their persons.

Comment: This text is taken from an early essay on bureaucratic theory. It states a principle that is common to most bureaucratic theory in China, namely, that punishments and promotions should be determined objectively on the basis of the facts, and should have nothing whatever to do with the monarch’s personal feelings. As the author of this passage observes, this means that the one who truly determines promotion or punishment is the individual, not the monarch.

 

Public Opinion Reflects a Universal Sense of Justice

A memorial from Zhen Dexiu (1178–1235) to Emperor Ningzong, 1210 CE:

It is a common saying that in the world there is an inextinguishable reason rooted in people’s hearts that, in all times, remains the same. This reason is nothing other than public opinion. Since the beginning of time, there have been periods when the world was without reason: the constant principles of nature were broken and the basic rules of society destroyed such that people would commit the worst crimes without fear, even to the point of suppressing the expression of public opinion in the world. Yet, even in such times, they were unable to prevent (rational) public opinion from subsisting in people’s hearts. As Liu Anshi once said “public opinion is heaven’s reason. Heaven’s reason is never extinguished, not for a single day, it is there for all to see” . . . Therefore those (administrators) who would benefit the nation fear public opinion as they would fear Heaven. In this way all people will delight in them, and heaven will aid them. What project, then, could not be successfully completed?

Comment: Several of the passages reproduced in this section, including those by Shenzi, Guanzi, or those written in the Mencian tradition, share the supposition that law and policy should be rooted in the hearts of the people. For Mencius, there is basically no distinction between Heaven’s Mandate and minxin, or the support of the people. The only way you can detect the mandate is if you have earned the hearts and minds of the people. In this passage Zhen Dexiu provides a more detailed exposition of that theory. First, he states that reason, the sense of justice that all people share, is universal and imperishable because it is rooted in human nature. Because Zhen lived in Song times, he assumed that human nature was consistent with natural law, or natural process. But then he goes further and identifies this universal sense of justice, this universal reason, with public opinion. It follows that suppressing public opinion is equivalent to tyranny, a sentiment expressed in several texts reproduced in this section. It follows further that the first job of government is to pay mind to public opinion. If the emperor and officials do that, then “all people will delight in them, and heaven will aid them”. Of course “heaven” will aid them, because “heaven” is nothing other than the people’s support, which is necessary for the successful implementation of any policy.

 

____________________________________________________

EQUALITY AND RULE OF LAW
____________________________________________________

 

Law Doesn’t come from Gods but from People

SHENZI (d. 337 BCE):

Law does not come from Heaven, nor does it arise from the earth. It develops in society, and resides in the people’s hearts, that is all.

Comment: This passage states again a common assumption of classical Chinese political theory, namely the idea that political authority ultimately is legitimate only when the people approve of it.

 

Legal Equality as the Basis for Rational Government

GUANZI (4th c. BCE):

An enlightened lord uses statecraft and measures (of official performance) and so cannot be cheated. . . As a result, none of the officials will dare to further his private (family) interests, eminent people will not dare to overshadow the lowly, those near to the throne will not be able to prevent (promotions for) those distant, and even orphans, widowers, the old and the weak will not be prevented from acquiring appropriate positions. Within the borders of the state all distinctions of (ability and responsibility) will be clear, and none will interfere with another’s (sphere of responsibility, i.e, jurisdiction). This is what is called “ruling a state.”

Comment: This is an early statement of legal equality rooted in bureaucratic theory. The bureaucratic theorists were well aware that human greed would lead those in power to abuse their authority for personal ends rather than serve the commonality, so they proposed instituting laws that would separate persons from accidental qualities such as family background, social status, age, facebook friends (to use a contemporary example), or other features of group membership.

 

Natural Freedom

ZHUANGZI (4th c. BCE):

The people had their regular and constant nature. They wove and made themselves clothes. They tilled the ground and got food. This was their common ability and endowment. They were all one in this (ability) and did not form themselves into groups. This is called their natural freedom/tianfang. . . In the age of perfect virtue, men lived in common with birds and beasts, and were on terms of equality with all creatures, as forming one family. How could they know among themselves the distinctions between gentlemen and commoners? . . . But when the learned men appeared, strutting about in the practice of humanity, parading about in the practice of propriety [i.e., conventional morality], then the world began to be confused. These men were wanton in their performance of music and excessive in their performance of ceremony. It was then that the world began to be separated into classes.

Comment: This passage argues first of all that all people are equal. Indeed, seeing as Zhuangzi denies that we have access to any supernatural arbiter who could tell us who, if anyone, is more valuable, we have no basis to suppose that we are superior to animals. People are equal also in that all naturally have the capacity to farm and weave and therefore provide for themselves. Since this is the case, the nobility, it is understood, have no logical grounds upon which to deprive people of this natural freedom by using ceremony and religion to create artificial distinctions of dignity between different groups of people.

 

The Basis of Meritocracy

ZHUANGZI (4th c. BCE):

Fish thrive living in water, whereas people (eventually) will die. The two (ways of living) necessarily differ, as do the all the living preferences of these two types of creature. It was on the basis of this understanding that the ancient sages did not presume that all people are capable in the same way, and so did not assign to all officials the same sorts of tasks. People were assigned offices on the basis of the facts of their actual performance, and the appropriateness of their rank and role was determined on the basis of what was suitable (for their talents). This is called promoting prosperity through intelligent selection.

Comment: Although it occurs in one of the later chapters of the Zhuangzi, this passage belongs to a genre of writing that one might call bureaucratic theory. It makes use of Zhuangzi’s perspectivalism to argue that all persons are individual in their talents and proclivities and that, therefore, they are suitable for different kinds of official tasks. This, of course, is the fundamental premise of meritocracy. In the privilege based systems of classical China or, say, medieval Europe, official duties were ill-defined and expertise was rarely required because any nobleman was presumed to have the authority to take charge of the adjudication of justice, the punishment of crimes, or any other aspect of government. The principle espoused here takes for granted a concept of political authority that is situated in the office and that all persons, in principle, can hold an office if they are qualified. Social status and lineage do not enter into the equation.

 

All Are Equal Under the Law

HAN FEIZI (280—233 BCE):

Under the law, punishments will not escape even the highest officers, while rewards will not discount even the commonest man.

Comment: This is one of the earliest statements proclaiming equality under the law; its influence in later times was considerable.

 

Guilt by Association is Cruel and Illegitimate

EMPEROR WEN OF HAN (reigned 180–157 BCE):

Laws being the Rules of government, ought, if possible, to be faultless. Their ends are, not only to punish Vice, but to protect innocence. Yet I find among our laws one still in force, by which, when a Man is criminal, his Father; his Mother, his wife, and Children, are involved in his Punishment, and the least punishment they have to dread is Slavery. This Law is by no means to my Liking.

It is a common and a true Saying, that laws, when perfectly just; are the surest means of keeping the people in their duty. When Punishment falls only upon the guilty head, the World approves of the Judge. The duty of a magistrate is to guide the People, like a good Shepherd, and to prevent their going astray. If our Magistrates have not succeeded in this and have still Laws to judge by, not entirely consistent with the strictest Equity, these laws, tho’ originally designed for the Good of the People, turn to their prejudice, and favour Cruelty. Such seems to me the Law I have mentioned; of which I cannot see the good Tendency. Let it be maturely deliberated, whether it is not necessary to repeal.

Comment: Under the government of the famous tyrant Qin Shihuang, the First Emperor, guilt by association was inscribed in the law. If someone related to you committed a crime, you, too, were culpable. If someone you knew was under suspicion, so were you. In this edict, published not long after the downfall of the Qin, the Han government overturned this barbaric relic of China’s worst period of tyrannical rule. This edict was published not long after the principle of meritocracy was official instituted. This is no accident, for both policy decisions are founded on the legal standing of the individual. In the case of meritocracy, one acquires office based on one’s individual knowledge, experience, and performance. In the case of this edict, one is held criminally culpable only for what one does as an individual. In either case, the group you belong to, your family background, or your facebook friends, for instance, are of no interest to the government. Only your public actions are subject to acclaim or legal action by the government. This principle recurs in this section in statements by Lv Zuqian, and of course informed the policy of religious toleration in China.

 

All Men are Brothers

SU WU (140–60 BCE):

The bonds of blood are like the leaves and branches of trees;
They shoot forth and sprout, in mutual support.
Within the four seas, all men are brothers;
Who then is a stranger, and who is not?

Comment: Su Wu (140–60 BCE) and Li Ling (d. 74 BCE) were two fast friends, like brothers, whose fates were both tied to the Han military struggle with nomadic tribes to the north. While exiled among the nomads Su Wu wrote a famous poetic letter to Li Ling, and these are the opening lines. Living among non-Chinese peoples, Su Wu’s argument presumes the common humanity of all persons, for “within the four seas” refers to the entire world, not just to China. The fourth line, “who is a stranger, and who is not?” is brilliant, for it highlights the fact that, from a universal perspective, no one is in a position to determine where the center is, or where the periphery is. This sentiment almost certainly derived from Zhuangzi’s theory of equality, discussed elsewhere in this section. Following Zhuangzi’s logic, all centers are relative to ourselves, but no one can stand above the system and declare where the “real” center is, although simple-minded people easily convince themselves that their own, local center is the same as the universal center. In reality, there is no center. We are all locals; we are all strangers; and that makes us all equal.

 

All are Protected under the Law

EDICT OF EMPEROR GUANGWU (35 CE):

It is the nature of Heaven and Earth that mankind is noble. Whoever should kill a male or female slave shall be punished to the full extent of the law.

Comment: There is nothing terribly significant about the statement that mankind is noble; this is common in most cultures. The trick is in defining “who is human?” By extending the term to include even male and female slaves (the edict is careful to specify gender), it conveys in clear language the principle that everyone is human. We have actual cases from this period, moreover, in which even nobility were punished for murdering slaves.

 

All Taxpayers Should be Equal before the Law

LIU ZONGYUAN (773–819), letter to Xue Cunyi:

Do you know the duty of all those who are officials on the land? Their duty is to be the people’s servants, not to make the people serve them! Those who make their living on the land take one tenth (of their income) to hire officials, which puts me [i.e., everyman] on a level with the official.

Comment: Here the radical reformer and exile Liu Zongyuan argues that taxes are not payments that the lowly make to the exalted. On the contrary, in paying taxes the taxpayers are hiring officials to work on their behalf, in essence as representatives. While he admits further on that, during his time (early 9th century), this was not the mainstream view, he nonetheless asserts that the payment of taxes in fact puts everyman on a level with the official.

 

Equality and Anonymity

OUYANG XIU (1007–1062):

[Following reforms to the civil service examination system, including measures designed to protect the anonymity of the examinee, Ouyang Xiu declared] The current examination system, in comparison with earlier times, achieves the utmost in objectivity and fairness/gong.

Comment: The reformed civil service examination system was the most important institutionalization of the principle of equality before the law in imperial China. Examinees took the examination in a cubicle cut off from anyone else. They were searched for hidden documents or answers before entering. When the answers were complete, the examinee’s name was covered with paper and the examination given a number instead. This document was copied by a scribe, and the result graded by five different graders. Finally the grades were averaged. This system effectively hid all personal information such as family background, class status, or ethnicity from the graders. All that was left was the examinee’s knowledge, ideas, and analytical ability. Officials of Song times understood that equality is founded on anonymity. Without it, people will inevitably be classed into groups and arranged in hierarchies based on prejudice rather than one’s ability to contribute to society. Humans being what they are, one presumes that it was possible to get around the system, but surely it was not easy, for the officials recorded in the Song histories overwhelmingly come from non-noble families.

 

All Taxpayers are Equal before the Law

SIMA GUANG (1019–1086):

“[Thanks to the law passed by Emperor Taizu, both landlords and tenants] as taxpayers are equal under the law. Now no one is in a position to lord it over the other!”

Comment: See Hu Hong comment below

HU HONG, 12th century:

[Thanks to the law passed by Taizu] even if it’s the emperor himself, officials must protect the people as they would their own babies; how much more so if it’s a case of landlords and tenants? All are equal under the law!

Comment: “No one is in a position to lord it over the other [in a court of law]” is a pretty good definition of legal equality. In imperial China, edicts generally were not written by the emperor. Typically a cabinet level statesman would propose a law. It would be discussed by the cabinet, including the emperor, revised, and if passed, the emperor would issue the law as head of the cabinet. However, any officer of the level of magistrate or higher could propose a text for discussion. In this case, both of these famous statesmen referred to a law passed in 971 CE that declared, in essence, that all registered taxpayers would be treated equally before the law. The law was issued specifically to deal with inequities between landlords and tenants, but it was quickly understood to have much broader significance, as is evident from both passages. Hu Hong goes so far as to imply that the emperor himself was not above accusation, a common view in texts from Han, Song, and Ming times.

 

____________________________________________________

PUBLIC/PRIVATE
____________________________________________________

 

The State has no Interest in Your Personal Background but only Your Public Performance

MOZI (5th c. BCE):

Therefore the ancient wise kings paid mind to promoting capable men and appointing officials on the basis of their abilities. They did not appoint fathers or brothers, they did not favor the rich and noble, they were not swayed by feminine charm. They chose and promoted the capable, made them wealthy and noble so that they could serve as major and minor officials.

Comment: This passage rejects the hereditary standard of authority, a radical idea considering hereditary authority remained a common assumption in European political thought until modern times.

 

Guilt by Association is Cruel and Illegitimate

EMPEROR WEN OF HAN (reigned 180–157 BCE):

Laws being the Rules of government, ought, if possible, to be faultless. Their ends are, not only to punish Vice, but to protect innocence. Yet I find among our laws one still in force, by which, when a Man is criminal, his Father; his Mother, his wife, and Children, are involved in his Punishment, and the least punishment they have to dread is Slavery. This Law is by no means to my Liking.

It is a common and a true Saying, that laws, when perfectly just; are the surest means of keeping the people in their duty. When Punishment falls only upon the guilty head, the World approves of the Judge. The duty of a magistrate is to guide the People, like a good Shepherd, and to prevent their going astray. If our Magistrates have not succeeded in this and have still Laws to judge by, not entirely consistent with the strictest Equity, these laws, tho’ originally designed for the Good of the People, turn to their prejudice, and favour Cruelty. Such seems to me the Law I have mentioned; of which I cannot see the good Tendency. Let it be maturely deliberated, whether it is not necessary to repeal.

Comment: Under the government of the famous tyrant Qin Shihuang, the First Emperor, guilt by association was inscribed in the law. If someone related to you committed a crime, you, too, were culpable. If someone you knew was under suspicion, so were you. In this edict, published not long after the downfall of the Qin, the Han government overturned this barbaric relic of China’s worst period of tyrannical rule. This edict was published not long after the principle of meritocracy was official instituted. This is no accident, for both policy decisions are founded on the legal standing of the individual. In the case of meritocracy, one acquires office based on one’s individual knowledge, experience, and performance. In the case of this edict, one is held criminally culpable only for what one does as an individual. In either case, the group you belong to, your family background, or your facebook friends, for instance, are of no interest to the government. Only your public actions are subject to acclaim or legal action by the government. This principle recurs in this section in statements by Lv Zuqian, and of course informed the policy of religious toleration in China.

 

Promotions and Punishments Should be Based on the Facts

FROM THE ANNALS OF THE PRINCE OF HUAINAN (ca. 120 BCE):

Although there may be executions in the nation, it is not because of the monarch’s wrath; although there may be promotions at court, it is not because the monarch grants them. If criminals are executed, they do not resent the monarch because their punishment is the consequence of their own crime; if men are promoted, they do not feel they owe it to the monarch because this is the consequence of their own accomplishments. (In this way) the people/min will know the (true) source of promotions and punishments; they will know that it all depends upon their persons.

Comment: This text is taken from an early essay on bureaucratic theory. It states a principle that is common to most bureaucratic theory in China, namely, that punishments and promotions should be determined objectively on the basis of the facts, and should have nothing whatever to do with the monarch’s personal feelings. As the author of this passage observes, this means that the one who truly determines promotion or punishment is the individual, not the monarch.

 

Public Law should Overrule Personal Connections

WANG FU (2nd c. AD):

The way the lord of the state carries out his rule is by conducting affairs with a mind to the public interest [gong]. When laws are promulgated in the public interest [gong] then there is no way for disorder to arise in the law. Now the reason that flattering ministers try to benefit themselves (through the law) is private interest [si]. When the government proceeds according to private interest [si] then public law is destroyed. Now the reason that all the scholars act on their integrity is for the sake of justice. If probity and justice can be established, then this will eliminate iniquity. In this way perverse officials, unruly local officers and all such lawless types day by day will be shut out from the ranks of intelligent rulers and just scholars. Under these circumstances the two cannot coexist in government.

Comment: Many modern institutions are founded on the distinction between public and private, but in fact this principle appears rather late in European history. In China the principle was stated early on, around the 4th or 3rd century BCE, and was repeated often thereafter in both public and private documents. In this case we cite a privately published essay of the early 2nd century CE.

 

Political Authority Comes from the Public, not the Monarch

SIMA GUANG (1019–1086), from a memorial on meritocracy and the distinction between public and private:

For every monarch, the key principle in governing is to promote those who are capable and to dismiss those who are not. When someone is given a (official) salary it is the entire empire that gives it; it is not the case that the monarch grants it as a favor. When someone is punished it is the entire empire that hands down the sentence; it is not the case that the monarch dispenses punishment to those he dislikes. This is why, in classical times, when someone received honors at court these were granted in concert with the views of the scholars, and when someone was punished in the market, this was in concert with the wishes of the mass of the people. From this it is evident that the monarch did not dare to make such determinations on the basis of his own, personal feelings, thereby suppressing the opinion of the empire’s people.

Comment: When Europeans travelled to China in the 16th, 17th, and 18th, centuries, they assumed that the Chinese monarch, like European monarchs, had absolute authority. They could not imagine that court and state were separate in China, and that the state ran itself, for the most part, without direct intervention from the emperor. They also assumed that offices, in China, were granted as a “favour” from the monarch, as was the case in Europe. Neither assumption was true. Already in classical bureaucratic theory, cited elsewhere in this section, it was stated as a principle that offices and punishments were determined on the basis of the facts of a person’s performance, not as favors or retribution from the monarch. In Sima Guang’s memorial he reviews that principle but adds a new one, namely, that the authority to confer office or punishment ultimately comes from the people of the empire. What permitted Sima Guang to make this claim was the institution of the Grievance Offices, which collected complaints from the people, serving as a conduit for public opinion. And so Sima Guang goes even further and declares that the emperor should not dare to promote his own, personal judgements as that would be equivalent to “suppressing the opinion of the empire’s people”. Clearly, for Sima Guang, emperor does not have the authority to suppress public opinion. The reason for this is the Mencian principle that the monarch gets his authority from the support of the people.

 

No Thought Should Be Forbidden

LV ZUQIAN (1137–1181) on the human condition:

If you pursue the matter to its logical end, there is nothing in nature that you can do away with. Within the heart of man, there is no thought that should be forbidden. How should it be possible that greedy or stingy thoughts could be eradicated? How would you accomplish that? How should the possibility exist? How would you get rid of such thoughts? There is no way you can force greedy or stingy thoughts to disappear—but—there is also no need to force them to disappear . . . The fact is that while actions may be good or bad, thoughts are without good or evil. It is only when a thought leads to good actions that we call it a good thought, and when a thought augments bad actions, we call it a bad thought. Both originally are merely thoughts. In origins there is no difference.

Comment: Lv Zuqian was an influential Confucian philosopher of the Southern Song period. He is often ranked close to Zhu Xi, the most influential thinker of that period, but in this passage his thought is closer to that of Su Shi, who held that human passions are neither good nor evil, but merely human. Good and evil apply only to actions, not to thoughts. It follows that the authority of government extends only to our actions, not to our thoughts, a clear admission of the right of the individual to his or her privacy. This principle was practiced in that people were not obliged to follow any particular religion, or no religion if they chose. People complaining about government through the Grievance Offices also could do so anonymously, an official recognition of the idea that the government had no authority over their thoughts.

 

Public Officials Must Work in the Public Interest

ZHEN DEXIU (1178–1235):

It is my hope that, along with my fellow officers, I should be conscientious regarding the four key concerns of administration and to extirpate for the people the ten scourges on their lives. What are the four key concerns? The first is that one must administer the law in an impartial manner/gong (without regard to personal feelings). The second is to let humanity/kindness guide one’s care for the people. The third is to hold oneself to the standard of public interest. The fourth is to administer the law conscientiously and in a timely manner.

Comment: Zhen Dexiu defines just government here as administering justice without bias, and being guided by humanity–not exactly a “tough on crime” sort of ethos. He further refines his understanding of justice as meeting the standard of public interest. In his comments on these four principles, not translated here, he makes it clear that if a judgement benefits the judge rather than the public, then the judge has overstepped his authority. Clearly he did not believe that those in positions of political power would never make mistakes.

 

____________________________________________________

FREE SPEECH
____________________________________________________

 

The People are the Government’s Teachers

ZUO’S ANNALS (4th c. BCE):

If people retire morning and evening and pass their judgment on the conduct of government as good or bad, I (an official) will do what they approve and will correct what they condemn. They are my teachers. [Translation adapted from James Legge]

Comment: This passage states that ordinary people without hereditary or official status have the agency to pass judgment on the government. It seems based on the Confucian idea that the government ultimately derives its legitimacy from the people, and so there should be mechanisms for officials to learn about the views of the people. The passage also implies that government is fallible and therefore needs feedback from those who are governed. Feedback mechanisms were in fact established in early modern times when any taxpayer could go to the Grievance Office at the county, provincial, or national level, and make a complaint anonymously or otherwise.

 

Punishing Those who Criticize is Tyranny

Master Lü’s Annals (3rd c. BCE):

When a (government) slanders the best people, that is called ‘tyrannical’. When the most talented men flee the country, that is called ‘in decline.’ When the people do not dare to criticize or complain, that is called ‘oppressive’. This is the most extreme form of turmoil. It cannot get worse than this.

Comment: This passage sets a standard for ascertaining when a government can be considered tyrannical. Here the suppression of dissent is considered the most typical and diagnostic feature of tyranny.

 

Everyone has the Right to Criticize the Monarch

Jia Shan’s (200–169 BCE) Memorial to Emperor Wen of Han:

Formerly officers and teachers would speak or remonstrate of the ruler’s errors; ordinary people would criticize from the roads, and merchants or travelers would denounce government from the markets, so that the ruler would hear of his faults. To hear one’s faults and then to reform, to listen to reasonable criticism and to follow it, this is the way to preserve the empire for all time.

Comment: This memorial, whose principles found expression in legal documents, states that anyone has the right to criticize government because government is fundamentally fallible. It states further that the best way to maintain stability and peace is for the government to take criticism seriously and adjust accordingly. This principle is the basis for the Yushitai, or information and rectification bureau, founded during the Han dynasty. Yushitai is usually mistranslated as Censorate, implying that it was designed to control the population, but in fact its function was to serve as a check on abuses of power by officials and to upbraid the emperor if he should err.

 

Ordinary Taxpayers May Criticize Even the Emperor

EMPEROR WEN OF HAN (reigned 180–157 BCE) Edict:

Furthermore it sometimes happens that the people curse the emperor, agreeing among themselves not to disclose this fact, but later break their promise and use this to level false accusations against one another. The local officers treat this as treason, and should the people object (to the charge), officials treat the object as slander to the court! This is to take advantage of the people’s ignorance, entrapping them and leading them to their deaths. I will have none of this! Henceforth, whoever commits these things shall not be punished.

Comment: This edict follows an earlier one that gives all officers the right to criticize both the government and the emperor (the distinction is clearly made). In this edict that right is extended to all taxpayers. The reasoning in both cases seems based on the argument found in Master Zuo’s Annals, that government is fallible and therefore cannot function without honest feedback, but this edict suggests yet another reason. If the local officials can entrap taxpayers, then they would have the power to arbitrarily silence anyone. This would subvert the government’s need to receive popular feedback and undermine its ability to function properly.

 

Even Ordinary Citizens should Criticize Government’s Mistakes

WANG CHONG (27–97):

When there are intelligent men in the world and in office, they set forth the truth and persuade others in the most forthright manner so as to enlighten the court. When out of office, they weigh theories and criticize sophistry so as to awaken those among the public who have been deceived. If the public can’t find its way back to reason, then in attempting to establish the truth it will easily be misled by falsehoods. If those who discuss public affairs do not seek help (from critical feedback), then their reasoning will be confused and they won’t even be aware of their error. This is why my book Weighing Theories was written, to consider all the classical writings and to expose those that differ from the facts, lest groundless fantasies should overcome what is true and beautiful.

Comment: This passage states again the principle that ordinary citizens have the agency to criticize the government, but Wang Chong goes further and compares critical writing by ordinary citizens with the actions of officials when in office. He says that, when in office, a man sets forth the truth so as to enlighten the court, whereas when he is not in office, he does essentially the same thing through his publications. He is not arguing that ordinary citizens should have the right to do this–he takes it for granted that they have that right. Many others cited in this section made the same assumption, making it hard to deny that, under normal circumstances in Han, Song, Ming, and Qing China, taxpayers took it for granted that they had a right to fashion their own opinions about the way government was conducted. Where does an ordinary taxpayer’s authority come from? Wang Chong’s passage makes it clear: from facts and reason.

 

Protest Even in the Face of Oppression

MEI YAOCHEN (1002–1060):

On a Classical Theme
Though the moon may fade, it is no less bright;
Though a sword may break, it is no less keen.
The moon becomes full only after it fades;
A sword, though broken, can be forged again.
Power and profit may press like mountains,
But a hero’s heart is hard to bend.
There are things a man must hold dear:
Though you kill him, you can’t make him yield.

Comment: Mei wrote this at a time when officials who we would tend to see as liberal were trying to expand avenues for entry into officialdom for less-privileged persons and increase checks on abuses of power. Entrenched interests sometimes responded by framing the reformers and throwing them in jail. Under those circumstances Mei’s poem cries out defiance, asserting that the human mind can never be subdued. It also warns ominously that killing one man will not stop the protest, for others will arise in his place, like a sword that can be forged again.

 

The People Are Empowered by the Facts

EDICT DRAFTED BY SIMA GUANG (1019–1086):

[Sima Guang drafted an edict calling for all people in the empire to submit complaints to the appropriate offices. The final lines are as follows]: Though their language may be coarse, it will reflect their actual, personally experienced tribulations, and if they express their genuine feelings in direct language, how can we not take it seriously?

Comment: The underlying premises here are the same as what we found in Han and pre-Han writings on free speech: the fallibility of government and the consequent need for government to receive feedback so as to avoid fatal mistakes. Here Sima Guang further implies that feedback from the people is important because it reflects their actual experiences and condition, that is, the facts of the case. This premise underlies a wide range of policies and procedures in Song times, including the widespread use of budgets to determine whether or not a particular policy would be sustainable financially. In this instance, it is the facts that give ordinary farmers the right to complain to officers in government.

 

Say What You Think

SU SHI (1037-1101):

Words arise in the heart and well up in the mouth. If you spit them out you might offend someone, but if you swallow them you will offend yourself. I’ve always thought it better to offend others, and so I have always spat them out! [Translation adapted from Ronald Egan]

Comment: Su had been framed and exiled twice for exposing the injustice of policies supported by powerful cliques. Once a friend asked him why he didn’t just shut his mouth and avoid all the trouble? The remark cited above was his heroic reply.

 

The Right Way of Learning

SU SHI (1037–1101), Eulogy for the stele at Han Yu’s (768–824) memorial temple (selection):

From the late Han period on, the way of learning declined, literature deteriorated, and fallacious teachings such as the Daoist and Buddhist religions sprang up everywhere . . . It was only when Han Yu rose up from among the people [that] . . . literature was restored to its true meaning after eight-hundred years of decline, and the right way of learning saved the world from drowning in ignorance. How? With such candor as would enrage the ruler of men! With such valor as would challenge the generals of the three divisions! How is this not ranging over Heaven and Earth, or presiding over the rise and decline of civilizations? How is this not courage such as stands alone in all of time?

Comment: Su Shi, like many other late Tang and Song intellectuals, identified as a dark age what we now think of as China’s medieval period, which lasted from the end of the Han (early 3rd c. CE) to the late Tang, 9th c. And what made this period so dark? According to Su Shi, the use of religion as the basis of policy rather than facts and reason. Han Yu himself identified this period as an age of ignorance, noting that the low point of Chinese civilization corresponded to the high point of religiosity. From Su Shi’s comments we can figure out that religion, with its fixed dogmas, was the opposite of a candid confrontation of the facts. This explains his admiration for Han Yu, because Han did not flinch to lay out the facts as necessary. He confronted the emperor with the facts of the matter so candidly as to incite the royal rage, and he set forth the truth to those generals who were making a fortune off of wars against minority tribes when people were dying needlessly on both sides of the battle. Some like to portray Han Yu as a dogmatic Confucian, promoting his own faith against the religions, but that theory doesn’t mesh either with Han Yu’s memorials or with what Su Shi calls the “right way of learning”. Clearly the “right way of learning” leads to a courageous and forthright consideration of the facts no matter what dogma or privilege might demand that we believe. In other words, the right way of learning is to use knowledge in the pursuit of social justice.

 

Replacing Facts with Bombast Leads to Tyranny

WANG FUZHI (1619–1692), Essays on the Song Dynasty: Shenzong’s reign period, where he discusses Wang Anshi’s unethical suppression of dissent; opening paragraph:

Sometimes people talk big but their words lack substance; by lack of substance I mean lacking in detailed facts. A wise prince will recognize this, and will recognize that man’s bombast and thus will become alarmed. For this reason as soon as a prince hears this kind of speech, he’ll want to distance himself from that man, only fearing he might not do so fast enough. I speak only of those whose knowledge is limited but whose plans are big, whose ambition is mean-spirited and who wish only to sugar coat their incompetence, and who delight in exercising their meanness so as to lock up the mouths of the entire world, thereby flattering their own lies! Otherwise anyone in a glance would recognize their rash impulsiveness; how should that be difficult?

Comment: Cold War sinologists often refer to the eminent statesman Su Shi’s imprisonment and exile as a classic case of the suppression of dissent in China. In fact, it reveals just the opposite. Su Shi himself, in his 10,000 word memorial, regards his treatment as a shocking departure from normal practice. Writing hundreds of years later, the distinguished Ming scholar Wang Fuzhi arrived at the same conclusion. The paragraph translated is the opening paragraph of the essay on that reign period. He doesn’t mention Wang Anshi’s name in that first paragraph, but the knowledgable reader sees it everywhere between the lines. Then the next paragraph begins with the words: Wang Anshi. Wang Fuzhi’s contempt for Wang Anshi reaches a climax precisely when he gets to the matter of free speech, excoriating people like Wang Anshi “who delight in exercising their meanness so as to lock up the mouths of the entire world, thereby flattering their own lies!” Can you hear the anger? Why would Wang Fuzhi get so angry if the suppression of dissent was normative in Chinese society?

 

____________________________________________________

THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN LIFE
____________________________________________________

 

The Value of Human Life

LAOZI, Chapter 31:

An army is an evil tool, not the tool of a gentleman. It is only to be employed if there is no other option . . . If one is victorious in battle, one does not glory in it; those who glory in victory take pleasure in killing people. Those who take pleasure in killing people will not attain their ambition of ruling all the people . . . If one kills a great many, this is occasion for tears and mourning. Victory in battle calls for ceremonies of mourning.

Comment: This passage makes it clear that all human life is valuable, not just humans who belong to “our” group. War, therefore, should be the tool of last resort, not the first.

 

Freedom of the Human Spirit

ZHUANGZI (4th c. BCE):

In its resolute pride it refuses to be bound. Such is the mind of men. [Translation adapted from James Legge]

Comment: The true meaning of this remark is that it is impossible for any government, no matter how tyrannical, to ever fully subjugate human beings because their minds remain forever free (if they, themselves, permit themselves to be free). Fuller statements of this principle can be found elsewhere in this section in passages by Fan Ying and Mei Yaochen. Mei Yaochen was well aware of Zhuangzi’s sentiments.

 

Hard Work Can Bring Success

ANTHOLOGY OF THE PRINCE HUAINAN (ca. 120 BCE):

Sophisticated men who refuse to exert themselves are not equal to simple men who strive after learning. . . Renown can be won by effort; merit can be gained by struggle.

Comment: The idea that human dignity proceeds from one’s personal performance and hard work is a cherished value throughout most of Chinese history. This is a fairly early example of that sentiment.

 

Even Slaves Have a Right to Life

EDICT OF EMPEROR GUANGWU (35 CE):

It is the nature of Heaven and Earth that mankind is noble. Whoever should kill a male or female slave shall be punished to the full extent of the law.

Comment: There is nothing terribly significant about the statement that mankind is noble; this is common in most cultures. The trick is in defining “who is human?” By extending the term to include even male and female slaves (the edict is careful to specify gender), it conveys in clear language the principle that everyone is human. By Song times, the nu, i.e., the term that had meant “slave”, ceased to resemble what we think of as a slave because a nu shared certain rights with taxpayers, such as the right to sue their boss in court. We have instances in which this was done and where the slave won the case. Indeed, in one instance an imperial relative was found guilty of murdering a slave and was punished accordingly. This is strong evidence that the dignity of human life was cherished by many, even to the point of functioning as a principle in law.

 

____________________________________________________

TOLERATION, RELIGIOUS AND OTHERWISE
____________________________________________________

 

Do Unto Others

CONFUCIUS (Analects):

What you do not wish for yourself, do not foist upon others.

Comment: Some five centuries before Christ, Confucius summarized the core principle of moral behavior in a single line. This sentiment, like its Christian analog, presupposes a fundamental equality of value between human beings.

 

Turning the Other Cheek

LAOZI, Chapter 49:

To those who are good, I am good to them. To those who are not good, I also am good to them. I value the good. As for people who are trustworthy, I trust them. People who are not trustworthy, I also trust them. I value trust.

Comment: Laozi’s views here appear not so different from those of Christ. The principle is to remain good and trustworthy yourself no matter what those around you might be like.

 

All Persons are Individual in Their Talents and Proclivities

ZHUANGZI (4th c. BCE):

Fish thrive living in water, whereas people (eventually) will die. The two (ways of living) necessarily differ, as do the all the living preferences of these two types of creature. It was on the basis of this understanding that the ancient sages did not presume that all people are capable in the same way, and so did not assign to all officials the same sorts of tasks. People were assigned offices on the basis of the facts of their actual performance, and the appropriateness of their rank and role was determined on the basis of what was suitable (for their talents). This is called promoting prosperity through intelligent selection.

Comment: Although it occurs in one of the later chapters of the Zhuangzi, this passage belongs to a genre of writing that one might call bureaucratic theory. It makes use of Zhuangzi’s perspectivalism to argue that all persons are individual in their talents and proclivities and that, therefore, they are suitable for different kinds of official tasks. This, of course, is the fundamental premise of meritocracy. In the privilege based systems of classical China or, say, medieval Europe, official duties were ill-defined and expertise was rarely required because any nobleman was presumed to have the authority to take charge of the adjudication of justice, the punishment of crimes, or any other aspect of government. The principle espoused here takes for granted a concept of political authority that is situated in the office and that all persons, in principle, can hold an office if they are qualified. Social status and lineage do not enter into the equation.

 

Know Thyself

Master Lü’s Annals (3rd c. BCE):

If you want to conquer others, you must first conquer yourself; if you want to convince others, you must first convince yourself; if you want to know others, you must first know yourself.

Comment: The sentiment expressed here is common among thinkers of a Daoist persuasion, but is by no means limited to that tradition. The notion that one’s fate is determined largely by one’s own knowledge and effort underlies meritocracy and the civil service examination system as well as the performance based civil appointment and promotion system of late imperial China.

 

Practice Toleration

MASTER ZUO’S ANNALS (4th c. BCE):

Among men, who has never made a mistake? To make a mistake and then to change, there can be no greater virtue than that.

Comment: In China’s tradition of moral thought, toleration was not generally conceived as a virtue recommended by God. Toleration was founded, instead, on the understanding that all humans are, well, human. We are all fallible, and therefore, while we should strive to improve ourselves, we should be tolerant of others who make mistakes. By the late 11th century, Su Shi (1037–1101) had expanded on the premise that we’re all human and fallible (renqing), and made it the basis of his influential moral theory. His theory, in turn, seems to have been adapted by Lv Zuqian, cited below.

 

All Men are Brothers

SU WU (140–60 BCE):

The bonds of blood are like the leaves and branches of trees;
They shoot forth and sprout, in mutual support.
Within the four seas, all men are brothers;
Who then is a stranger, and who is not?

Comment: Su Wu (140–60 BCE) and Li Ling (d. 74 BCE) were two fast friends, like brothers, whose fates were both tied to the Han military struggle with nomadic tribes to the north. While exiled among the nomads Su Wu wrote a famous poetic letter to Li Ling, and these are the opening lines. Living among non-Chinese peoples, Su Wu’s argument presumes the common humanity of all persons, for “within the four seas” refers to the entire world, not just to China. The fourth line, “who is a stranger, and who is not?” is brilliant, for it highlights the fact that, from a universal perspective, no one is in a position to determine where the center is, or where the periphery is. This sentiment almost certainly derived from Zhuangzi’s theory of equality, discussed elsewhere in this section. Following Zhuangzi’s logic, all centers are relative to ourselves, but no one can stand above the system and declare where the “real” center is, although simple-minded people easily convince themselves that their own, local center is the same as the universal center. In reality, there is no center. We are all locals; we are all strangers; and that makes us all equal.

 

No Thought Should Be Forbidden

LV ZUQIAN (1137–1181) on the human condition:

If you pursue the matter to its logical end, there is nothing in nature that you can do away with. Within the heart of man, there is no thought that should be forbidden. How should it be possible that greedy or stingy thoughts could be eradicated? How would you accomplish that? How should the possibility exist? How would you get rid of such thoughts? There is no way you can force greedy or stingy thoughts to disappear—but—there is also no need to force them to disappear . . . The fact is that while actions may be good or bad, thoughts are without good or evil. It is only when a thought leads to good actions that we call it a good thought, and when a thought augments bad actions, we call it a bad thought. Both originally are merely thoughts. In origins there is no difference.

Comment: Lv Zuqian was an influential Confucian philosopher of the Southern Song period. He is often ranked close to Zhu Xi, the most influential thinker of that period, but in this passage his thought is closer to that of Su Shi, who held that human passions are neither good nor evil, but merely human. Good and evil apply only to actions, not to thoughts. It follows that the authority of government extends only to our actions, not to our thoughts. This principle was practiced in certain respects in that people were not obliged to follow any particular religion, or no religion if they chose. People complaining about government through the Grievance Offices also could do so anonymously, an official recognition of the idea that they could not be blamed for their thoughts. Needless to say, such an attitude implies toleration for the thoughts of others, however they may differ from our own.

Back to top