University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XII.

Wrong Notions on Unhappiness (Huo-hsü).

Since what the world calls happiness and divine grace is believed
to be the outcome of moral conduct, it is also a common
belief that the victims of misfortune and disgrace are thus visited
because of their wickedness. Those sunk in sin, and steeped in
iniquity Heaven and Earth punish, and the spirits retaliate upon
them. These penalties, whether heavy or light, will be enforced,
and the retributions of the spirits reach far and near.

Tse Hsia[1] is related to have lost his sight, while mourning for
his son. Tsêng Tse[2] by way of condolence wept. Tse Hsia thereupon
exclaimed "O Heaven, I was not guilty!" Tsêng Tse grew
excited, and said "In what way are you innocent, Shang?"[3] I served
our master with you between the Chu[4] and the Sse, but you retired
to the region above the West River,[5] where you lived, until you
grew old. You misled the people of the West River into the belief
that you were equal to the master. That was your first fault.
When mourning for your parents, you did nothing extraordinary,
that people would talk about. That was your second fault. But
in your grief over your son, you lost your eye-sight. That was
your third fault. How dare you say that you are not guilty?"

Tse Hsia threw away his staff, went down on his knees and
said, "I have failed, I have failed! I have left human society, and
also led a solitary life for ever so long."[6]

Thus Tse Hsia having lost his sight, Tsêng Tse reproved him for
his faults. Tse Hsia threw away his stick, and bowed to Tsêng Tse's
words. Because, as they say, Heaven really punishes the guilty,
therefore evidently his eyes lost their sight. Having thus humbly

acknowledged his guilt, he is reported to have regained his sight
by degrees. Everybody says so, nevertheless a thorough investigation
will show us that this belief is illusory.

Loss of sight is like loss of hearing. Loss of sight is blindness,
and loss of hearing, deafness. He who suffers from deafness,
is not believed to have faults, therefore it would be erroneous to
speak of guilt, if a man becomes blind. Now the diseases of the
ear and the eye are similar to those of the heart and the stomach.
In case the ear and the eye lose their faculties, one speaks of guilt
perhaps, but can any fault be inferred, when the heart or the
stomach are sick?

Po Niu was ill. Confucius grasped his hand through the window
saying "It will kill him, such is his fate! Such a man to get
such a disease!"[7] Originally Confucius spoke of Po Niu's bad luck,
and therefore pitied him. Had Po Niu's guilt been the cause of his
sickness, then Heaven would have punished him for his wickedness,
and he would have been on a level with Tse Hsia. In that case
Confucius ought to have exposed his guilt, as Tsêng Tse did with Tse
Hsia. But instead he spoke of fate. Fate is no fault.

Heaven inflicts its punishments on man, as a sovereign does
on his subjects. If a man thus chastised, submits to the punishment,
the ruler will often pardon him. Tse Hsia admitted his guilt,
humiliated himself, and repented. Therefore Heaven in its extreme
kindness ought to have cured his blindness, or, if Tse Hsia's loss of
sight was not a retribution from Heaven, Tse Hsia cannot have been
thrice guilty.

Is not leprosy much worse than blindness? If he who lost
his sight, had three faults, was then the leper[8] ten times guilty?

Yen Yuan[9] died young and Tse Lu came to a premature end,
being chopped into minced meat.[10] Thus to be butchered is the
most horrid disaster. Judging from Tse Hsia's blindness, both Yen
Yuan and Tse Lu must have been guilty of a hundred crimes. From
this it becomes evident that the statement of Tsêng Tse was preposterous.

Tse Hsia lost his sight, while bewailing his son. The feelings
for one's children are common to mankind, whereas thankfulness
to one's parents is sometimes forced. When Tse Hsia was mourning
for his father and mother, people did not notice it, but, when
bewailing his son, he lost his sight. This shows that his devotion
to his parents was rather weak, but that he passionately
loved his son. Consequently he shed innumerable tears. Thus
ceaselessly weeping, he exposed himself to the wind, and became
blind.

Tsêng Tse following the common prejudice invented three faults
for Tse Hsia. The latter likewise stuck to the popular belief. Because
he had lost his sight, he humbly acknowledged his guilt.
Neither Tsêng Tse nor Tse Hsia could rid of these popular ideas.
Therefore in arguing, they did not rank very high among Confucius
followers.

King Hsiang of Ch`in[11] sent a sword to Po Ch`i,[12] who thereupon
was going to commit suicide, falling on the sword. "How
have I offended Heaven?," quoth he. After a long while he rejoined:—
"At all events I must die. At the battle of Ch`angp`ing[13]
the army of Chao, several hundred thousand men, surrendered,
but I deceived them, and caused them to be buried alive.
Therefore I deserve to die." Afterwards he made away with
himself.[14]

Po Ch`i was well aware of his former crime, and acquiesced
in the punishment consequent upon it. He knew, how he himself
had failed, but not, why the soldiers of Chao were buried alive.
If Heaven really had punished the guilty, what offence against
Heaven had the soldiers of Chao committed, who surrendered? Had
they been wounded and killed on the battle-field by the random
blows of weapons, many out of the four hundred thousand would
certainly have survived. Why were these also buried in spite of
their goodness and innocence? Those soldiers being unable to obtain
Heaven's protection through their virtue, why did Po Ch`i alone
suffer the condign punishment for his crime from Heaven? We see
from this that Po Ch`i was mistaken in what he said.

The Ch`in emperor Erh Shih Huang Ti[15] sent an envoy to Mêng
T`ien,[16] and commanded him to commit suicide. Mêng T`ien heaving
a deep sigh said "How have I failed against Heaven? I die innocent."
After a long while, he slowly began, "Yet I am guilty,
therefore I am doomed to die. When I was constructing the Great
Wall connecting Liao-tung[17] with Lin-t`ao,[18] ten thousand Li in a
straight line, I could not avoid cutting the veins of the earth.
That was my guilt." Upon this he swallowed a drug, and expired.[19]

The Grand Annalist Sse Ma Ch`ien finds fault with him. "When
the Ch`in dynasty, he said, had exterminated the feudal princes, and
peace was not yet restored to the empire, nor the wounds healed,
Mêng T`ien, a famous general at that time, did not care to strongly
remonstrate with the emperor, or help people in their distress,
feeding the old, befriending the orphans, or bringing about a general
concord. He flattered those in power, and instigated them to great
exploits. That was the fault of men of his type, who well deserved
to be put to death. Why did he make the veins of the earth
responsible?"[20]

If what Mêng T`ien said was wrong, the strictures of the
Grand Annalist are not to the point either. How so? Mêng T`ien
being guilty of having cut the veins of the earth, deserved death
for this great crime. How did the earth, which nourishes all beings,
wrong man? Mêng T`ien, who cut its veins, knew very well that
by doing so he had committed a crime, but he did not know, why
by lacerating the veins of the earth he had made himself guilty.[21]
Therefore it is of no consequence, whether Mêng T`ien thus impeached
himself, or not. The Grand Annalist blames Meng T`ien
for not having strongly protested, when he was a famous general,

that therefore he met with this disaster, for those that do not
speak, when they ought to remonstrate, will have to suffer a violent
death.

Sse Ma Ch`ien himself had to suffer for Li Ling in the warm
room.[22] According to the Grand Annalist's own view the misfortune
suffered tells against a person. Consequently capital punishment takes
place by Heaven's decree. If Sse Ma Ch`ien censures Mêng T`ien for
not having strongly remonstrated with his sovereign, wherefore he
incurred his disaster, then there must have been something wrong
about himself likewise, since he was put into the warm room. If
he was not wrong, then his criticisms on Mêng T`ien are not just.

In his memoir on Po Yi[23] the Grand Annalist, giving examples
of good and bad actions says, "Out of his seventy disciples Confucius
only recommended Yen Yuan for his ardent love of learning.
Yet Yen Yuan was often destitute. He lived on bran, of which he
could not even eat his fill, and suddenly died in his prime. Does
Heaven reward good men thus?"

"Robber Chê assassinated innocent people day after day, and
ate their flesh. By his savageness and imposing haughtiness he
attracted several thousand followers, with whom he scourged the
empire. Yet he attained a very great age after all. Why was he
so specially favoured?"

Yen Yuan ought not to have died so prematurely, and robber
Chê should not have been kept alive so long. Not to wonder at
Yen Yuan's premature death, but to say that Mêng T`ien deserved
to die, is inconsistent.

The Han general Li Kuang[24] said in a conversation which he
had with the diviner Wang Shê, "Ever since the Han[25] have fought
the Hsiung-nu,[26] I was there. But several tens of officers of a lower

rank than commander of a city gate, with scarcely moderate abilities,
have won laurels in the campaigns against the Hu[27] and marquisates
withal. I do not yield the palm to these nobles, but how
is it that I have not eveu acquired a square foot of land as a
reward of my services, and much less been enfeoffed with a city?
Are my looks not those of a marquis? Surely it is my fate."

Wang Shê asked him to think, whether there was anything
which always gave him pangs of conscience. Li Kuang replied,
"When I was magistrate of Lung-hsi,[28] the Ch`iang[29] continuously
rebelled. I induced over eight hundred to submission, and, by a
stratagem, had them all killed on the same day. This is the only
thing for which I feel sorry upto now."

Wang Shê rejoined:—"There can be no greater crime than
to murder those that have surrendered. That is the reason, why
you, general, did not get a marquisate."[30]

Li Kuang agreed with him, and others who heard of it, believed
this view to be true. Now, not to become a marquis is like
not becoming an emperor. Must he who is not made a marquis,
have anything to rue, and he who does not become emperor, have
committed any wrong? Confucius was not made an emperor, but
nobody will say of him that he had done any wrong, whereas,
because Li Kuang did not become a marquis, Wang Shê said that he
had something to repent of. But his reasoning is wrong.

Those who go into these questions, mostly hold that, whether
a man will be invested with a marquisate or not, is predestinated
by Heaven, and that marks of Heaven's fate appear in his body.
When the great general Wei Ch`ing[31] was in the Chien-chang palace,
a deported criminal with an iron collar predicted his fate to the
effect that he was so distinguished, that he would even be made
a marquis. Later on, he in fact became a marquis over ten thousand
families, owing to his great services. Before Wei Ch`ing had
performed his great achievements, the deported criminal saw those
signs pointing to his future rank. Consequently, to be raised to
the rank of a marquis depends on fate, and man cannot attain to
it by his works. What the criminal said turned out true, as shown
by the result, whereas Wang Shê's assertion is untenable and without
proof. Very often people are perverse and selfish without

becoming unhappy by it, and others who always follow the path
of virtue, may lose their happiness. Wang Shê's opinion is of the
same kind as the self-reproach of Po Ch`i, and the self-impeachment
of Mêng T`ien.

In this flurried, bustling world it constantly happens that
people rob and murder each other in their greed for wealth. Two
merchants having travelled together in the same cart or the same
boat a thousand Li, one kills the other, when they arrive at a far-off
place, and takes away all his property. The dead body is left
on the spot, uncared for, and the bones bleech in the sun unburied.
In the water, the corpse is eaten up by fish and turtles, on land,
ants and vermin feed upon it. The lazy fellows won't exert their
strength in agriculture, but resort to commerce, and even that reluctantly,
in order to amass grain and goods. When then in a
year of scarcity they have not enough to still the hunger of their
bellies, they knock down their fellow-citizens like beasts, cut them
to pieces, and eat their flesh. No difference is made between good
and bad men, they are all equally devoured. It is not generally
known, and the officials do not hear of it. In communities of over
a thousand men up to ten thousand only one man out of a hundred
remains alive, and nine out of ten die.[32] This is the height of lawlessness
and atrocity, yet all the murderers walk publicly about, become
wealthy men, and lead a gay and pleasant life, without Heaven
punishing them for their utter want of sympathy and benevolence.

They kill one another, when they meet on the roads, not
because they are so poor, that they cannot undertake anything, but
only because they are passing through hard times, they feed on
human flesh, thus bringing endless misery on their fellow-creatures,
and compassing their premature deaths. How is it possible that
they can make their guilt public, openly showing to the whole
world the indelible proofs thereof? Wang Shê's opinion can certainly
not be right.

The historians tell us that Li Sse,[33] envious that Han Fei Tse[34]
equalled him in talent, had him assassinated in jail[35] in Ch`in, but

that, afterwards, he was torn to pieces by carts,[36] furthermore that
Shang Yang,[37] under pretence of his old friendship, captured Ang,
prince of Wei, but that, subsequently, he had to suffer death. They
wish to imply that those men had to endure these misfortunes as
a punishment for their having destroyed a wise man, or broken an
old friendship. For what cause had Han Fei Tse given, to be incarcerated
by Li Sse, or what fault had prince Ang committed, to
be taken prisoner by Shang Yang? How did the murder of a
scholar, who died in prison, and the breaking of an old friendship
resulting in the arrest of the prince, bring about the violent death
of the culprit, torn to pieces by carts,[38] or the decapitation? If
Han Fei Tse or prince Ang were wicked, and Heaven had placed
retribution in the hands of Li Sse and Shang Yang, then the latter
would have acted by Heaven's order, and be deserving of his
reward, not of misfortune. Were Han Fei Tse and prince Ang
blameless, and not punished by Heaven, then Li Sse and Shang
Yang ought not to have imprisoned and captured them.

It will be argued that Han Fei Tse and Prince Ang had concealed
their crimes, and hidden their faults so, that nobody heard
about them, but Heaven alone knew, and therefore they suffered
death and mishap. The guilt of men consists, either in outrages
on the wise, or in attacks on the well-minded. If they commit
outrages on the wise, what wrong have the victims of these outrages
done? And if they attack the well-minded, what fault have
the people thus attacked committed?[39]

When misery or prosperity, fortune or mishap are falling to
man's share with greater intensity, it is fate, when less so, it is

time. T`ai Kung[40] was in great distress, when he happened to be
enfeoffed with a territory by the Chou king Wên Wang. Ning Ch`i[41]
was living in obscurity and difficulties, when Duke Huan of Ch`i
gave him an appointment. It cannot be said that these two men,
when they were poor and miserable, had done wrong, but had
reformed, when they obtained their investment or appointment.
Calamity and prosperity have their time, and good or bad luck
depend on fate.

T`ai Kung and Ning Ch`i were worthies, but they may have
had their faults. Sages, however, possess perfect virtue. Nevertheless
Shun was several times almost done to death by the foul
play of his father and brother.[42] When he met with Yao, the
latter yielded the throne to him, and raised him to the imperial
dignity. It is evident that, when Shun had to endure these insidious
attacks, he was not to blame, and that he did not behave
well, when he was made emperor. First, his time had not yet
come, afterwards, his fate was fulfilled, and his time came.

When princes and ministers in olden days were first distressed,
and afterwards crowned with success, it was not, because they had
at first been bad, and Heaven sent them calamities, or that subsequently
they suddenly improved, and then were helped and protected
by the spirits. The actions and doings of one individual
from his youth to his death bear the same character from first to
last. Yet one succeeds, the other fails, one gets on, the other
falls off, one is penniless, the other well-to-do, one thriving, the
other ruined. All this is the result of chance and luck, and the
upshot of fate and time.