University of Virginia Library

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Four Things to be Avoided (Sse-hui).

There are four things which, according to public opinion, must
be avoided by all means. The first is to build an annex to a building
on the west side, for such an annex is held to be inauspicious, and
being so, is followed by a case of death. Owing to this apprehension,
nobody in the world would dare to build facing the west.
This prohibition dates from days of yore.

Whe have a record that [Duke Ai of Lu[1722] wished to build
an annex to the west. The astrologer opposed this scheme as unpropitious.
Duke Ai flushed up and got angry; his attendants
remonstrated several times, but he would not hear and asked the
prime minister Chih Sui saying, "I wish to build an annex on the
west-side, and the astrologer declares it to be unpropitious. What
do you mean?"

`There are three unpropitious things in the world,' replied Chih
Sui, `but building an annex on the west side is not among them.'

The duke cheered up, and shortly afterwards again asked which
were the three unpropitious things. The other said, `Not to act
fairly and justly is the first unpropitious thing. To give way to
one's unrestrained desires is the second, and not to listen to a proper
remonstrance is the third.'

The duke became meditative and, having pondered for awhile,
he frankly acknowledged his fault and changed his mind. The
annex was not built],[1723] for the astrologer and the prime minister
both received the order to stop building.

The annex in the west caused useless trouble, it is true, but
we know not whether it was auspicious or inauspicious. Should
the astrologer and Chih Sui have been of opinion that an annex
in the west was inauspicious indeed, then both would be on a par
with the common people of the present day.[1724] On all the four sides
of a house there is earth; how is it that three sides are not looked
upon as of ill omen, and only an annex in the west is said to
be unpropitious? How could such an annex be injurious to the

body of earth, or hurtful to the spirit of the house? In case an
annex in the west be unpropitious, would a demolition there be a
good augury? Or, if an annex in the west be inauspicious, would
it be a lucky omen in the east? For if there be something inauspicious,
there must also be something auspicious, as bad luck
has good luck as its correlate.

A house has a form, and a spirit disposes of good and bad
luck; a cultivation of virtue leads to happiness, and an infringement
of the laws brings about misfortune. Now, if an annex in the west is
believed to be unpropitious, where must it be built to be propitious?
Moreover, who is it that takes exception at people extending their
house to the west? Should earth resent it, what damage does it
do to earth, if the west side of an eastern house be enlarged and,
at the same time, the east side of a western building be diminished?

Provided that the spirit of the house dislike an annex to the
west, a spirit resembles man, and every man would gladly see his
residence enlarged; for why should he dislike it? Supposing that
the spirit of the house dislikes the trouble caused by the alteration,
then all annexes on the four sides ought to be ill-omened.

The experts in the various arts and professions, in explaining
omens, specify the different cases. The house builders state that
in erecting a house mischievous spirits may be met with, in removing
one's residence care should be taken to avoid the spirits of the year
and the months, in sacrificing, certain days may be encountered
when bloodshed is to be shunned, and in burying one may fail
against the odd and even days. In all these instances these prohibitions
are given in view of ghosts and spirits, and evil influences.
Those who do not avoid them, fall sick and die, but as for building
an annex in the west, what harm is there, that it is held to be
inauspicious, and how does the subsequent calamity manifest itself?

Properly speaking, this prohibition of something inauspicious
is based on reason, and not to be observed on account of good or
bad luck:—The west is the region of elders and the seat of the
honoured. The honoured and the elders being in the west, the
inferiors and youngsters are in the east. The superiors and elders
are the masters, the inferiors and youngsters, their assistants. Masters
are few, and assistants many. There can be no two superiors above,
but there are a hundred inferiors below. When in the west an
addition is made to the master,[1725] whereas the assistants are not increased,

there are two superiors, but not a hundred inferiors (for
each). That is contrary to justice, and therefore called unpropitious.[1726]
Being unpropitious it should not be done. Yet though being contrary
to justice, it is not of ill omen for the following reason:

A tomb is a place where a dead man is interred; a field one
whence man gets his food and drink; and a house the place where
man lives. In respect to auspiciousness these three places are the
same for man. Now, an annex to a house in the west is considered
inauspicious, whereas nobody pretends the same of an annex made
in the west of a tomb or a field. A tomb, being the residence of
a dead man, is somewhat neglected and treated with indifference,
and in a field which is not inhabited by man, the distinction between
superiors and inferiors is not drawn. In a house old and young
live together, therefore great care is taken to carry out this idea,
and the prohibition is insisted upon. The rule is diligently observed
in houses, but great laxity prevails in regard to graves
and fields.

The second thing to be avoided is that a convict having
suffered corporeal punishment ascends a tumulus. People merely
know that this should not be allowed, but do not understand the
reason of this interdiction, and if you inquire of those insisting upon
this prohibition, they ignore the meaning of this avoidance; nor do
those complying with this advice trouble much about it. One
imitates the other; this goes so far, that when the father and
the mother of a culprit die, he does not bury the dead, and being
near their tomb, does not venture to approach and inter them.
He does not even condole, and looks upon the coffin as if it belonged
to a stranger.

A good man, being convicted, after having suffered corporeal
punishment is called a convict.[1727] Such a one may ascend a tumulus.
The two parents after their death are said to be deceased. What
difference is there between a house and a tomb, or between living
and deceased parents?

If convicts be reproved by their ascendants for having suffered
punishment, then they ought not to enter their home, or see their
parents either, and if, on the other hand, convicts be not allowed

to have commerce with the dead, then, when their parents have
expired in their hall, they should not cry by their coffins. If, in
fine, convicts be not permitted to ascend a tumulus, then they
should not be allowed to mount hills or mountains either.

Which reasons have those people to give who enforce this
prohibition? As a matter of fact, there are two reasons why convicts
do not ascend a tumulus; the injunction is based on these causes,
and there can be no question of any avoidance of unlucky influences:

The convicts are aware that their ancestors have generated
them complete, and that the descendants should also return their
bodies complete. [Wherefore Tsêng Tse being ill called to him the
disciples of his school, and said, "Uncover[1728] my feet, uncover my
hands ...... Now and hereafter, I know my escape, my young
friends."][1729]

Tsêng Tse was so considerate, that before his end he wanted
to show that his body was intact, and he was glad that he
had escaped all bodily injury. Confucius said, "The body, the
hair, and the skin, we received them from our parents, and dare
not impair them."[1730]

A dutiful son dreads falling into the clutches of the law:
the cutting and branding of the body as well as the disfiguring
and scathing of the hair and the skin, are the upshot of a lack
of virtue, of unworthy dealings, and carelessness. A criminal is
ashamed of having suffered the disgrace of a punishment, and most
earnestly reproaches himself. It is for this reason that he does
not ascend a tumulus.

According to the ancient rites, the sacrifices to ascendants
were performed in temples, the modern custom is to offer them at
the grave. Consequently, a convict does not ascend a tumulus out
of shame lest he should cause displeasure to his ascendant. That
is the first reason.

A tomb is the abode of ghosts and spirits. As regards the
place of sacrifice and the sacrificial rites, it is of the utmost importance
that there should be penance and absolute purity. Now,
people that have suffered punishment are disgraced, and not fit to
attend at an offering, or to worship their ascendants. Their modesty
and reverence demand that they should retire and humiliate themselves,
for their ancestors, remarking that their descendants have

suffered punishment, would commiserate them, and feel unhappy,
and most likely, at the sacrifice, not be able to enjoy the offering.
This is the second reason why the former do not ascend a tumulus.

In times of old, T`ai Po noticed that Wang Chi had a holy
son, Wên Wang, and he knew that T`ai Wang wished to raise him
to the throne. Therefore he repaired to Wu, where he collected
medicinal herbs, cut off his hair, and tattooed his body, to follow
the customs of Wu. At the decease of T`ai Wang, T`ai Po returned,
and Wang Chi intended to yield the supreme power to him. T`ai
Po again declined, but Wang Chi would not hear of it. So he
declined three times, saying, "I went to Wu and Yüeh, and, in accordance
with their customs, cut off my hair, and tattooed my
body. I am like a man who has been subjected to torture, and
cannot be the chief of the ancestral temple and of the altars of
the land and grain." Wang Chi admitted that it was impossible, and,
much against his will, accepted his resignation.[1731]

A convict not ascending a burial mound is like T`ai Po declining
the royal dignity, which means that he is unqualified to
perform the sacrificial rites, but not, to conduct the funeral, when
a coffin is to be buried.

At the burial of a descendant the ancestors are grieved, and
the aspect of a convict fills them with sorrow. When such a
person, worthy of pity, buries somebody whose death is a cause
of grief to his ascendants, the latter, provided that they are conscious,
would feel grieved at the death, and commiserate the disgrace
of their descendant, wherefore then should he be abashed?
Should they be unconscious, then the burial mound is nothing but
a piece of uncultivated land, and there is still less any occasion
for shame.

These convicts are said to stand abashed before their ascendants,
because their body is mutilated by torture and not like that
of other people. Anciently, by torture the body was in fact,
racked, and did not remain intact, which may have rendered it unfit.
But, at present, the penalties are merely symbolical,[1732] the gravest
consisting in shaving the head and in an iron collar. The lesser
delinquents whose punishments are less than forced labour at building
a wall, may wear coloured silk dresses and caps and girdles
different to those worn by common people, why should they be unfit
for a funeral? The public believes them all to be obnoxious, and

carries its error to the length of not allowing such persons to condole
at the death of a fellow-villager, or to ascend the tumulus
of a stranger; a great mistake this.

The third thing to be shunned is a woman who, having born
a child, is believed to bring ill-luck. Those who have some lucky
undertaking in hand, go far away into mountains and forests, traversing
streams and lakes, and have no intercourse with such a
woman. They even avoid coming near her house, and only, after
having passed a month in the huts on burial grounds and on the
roads, they return. The unexpected sight of the woman appears
to them very unlucky.

If we study the question carefully, on what is this dislike
based? When a woman gives birth to a child, it comes into the
world, filled with the original fluid. This fluid is the finest essence of
Heaven and Earth, how could it be harmful and detestable? Man
is an organism, and so is a child. What difference is there between
the birth of a child and the production of all the other organisms?
If human birth be held to be baleful, is the creation of the myriads
of organisms baleful too?

The new-born issues with the placenta. If the placenta be
deemed foreshadowing evil, the human placenta is like the husk[1733]
of fruits growing on trees;[1734] wrapped round the infant's body, it
comes out with it like the egg-shell of a young bird. What harm
is there to justify people's aversion? Should it be due to its supposed
inauspiciousness, then all organisms with husks and shells
ought to be detestable.

There is such a plethora of organisms, that I am at a loss
where to begin with my deductions: Human birth does not distinguish
itself from that of the Six Domestic Animals.[1735] They
are all of them animated beings with blood, that breed and bring
forth their young not otherwise than man. Yet the aversion
applies to human birth only, and does not include that of animals.
Is it perhaps in view of the bigness of the human body and of
the quantity of its vital fluid and its blood? But the size of an
ox or a horse is much greater than that of man.

If, with reference to distasteful objects, there is no equality,
and only one singled out, irrespective of its similarity to all the
others, the case becomes rather doubtful. Now, the Six Animals
are hardly different from man, and they produce their young in
the same way. That, (notwithstanding this similarity between the
Six Animals and man), the latter is avoided, and not the former,
proves the ignorance of the people.

Supposing they could make a distinction between the birth
of a child and the breeding of the Six Animals, I would admit
their avoidance, but in case they are unable to draw a line, I must
say that this popular avoidance is unreasonable.

There is certainly nothing more loathsome for man than putrescence
and fetor; putrid and fetid smells make one sick. The
nose smelling stench, and the mouth eating something rotten,
people feel their stomach turn, make a wry face and begin spitting
and vomiting. Privies[1736] may be said to be fetid, and dried fish to
be putrid meat, yet there are persons that put up with privies
even, and do not shudder at them,[1737] and for many dried fish are a
relish from which they do not recoil. That which the mind does
not turn to, is thought of as disgusting, and its good or bad qualities
are left out of account.

Now, as for detestable things, (such as black varnish bespattering
one's body),[1738] after the eyes have seen, and the nose has
smelled them, and they have passed, everything is over. Why
still abhor them, when they have vanished, and are no more to
be seen?

If going out on the road, we behold a man carrying a pig
on his shoulders, or remark some foul stuff in a ditch, we do not
take this for evil omens, because the filth is on somebody else's
body, and not on our own. Now, a woman bearing a child, carries
it with her, why then must people be so scrupulous as to shun her?

North of the Yangtse, they do not leave the house when a
child is born, knowing that there is no harm in it, but when a
bitch whelps, they place her outside the house, which is likewise
an absurdity. North of the Yangtse, they are afraid of a
dog, but not of a human being, south of the Yangtse, they recoil

from a human being, but not from a dog. In either case the
superstitious attempts to avert evil are not the same, but what
difference is there between a human being and a dog, or a place
within or without the house? What the one detests, the other
does not, and what people of this side stagger at, the other side
does not fear. After all, there is no principle in all these popular
precautions.

As regards the darkening of the moon, a month is counted
from each conjunction of the sun and the moon in a solar mansion.
When, on the eighth day of a month, the moon is cut in two
halves, it is called a "crescent,"[1739] when, on the fifteenth, sun and
moon face each other, it is called the "facing moon,"[1740] and on the
thirtieth, when sun and moon are conjunct in a mansion, it is
called the "dark moon."[1741] The dark moon, the crescent, and the
facing moon are in reality the same. On the last day of the mouth,
the moonlight is no other than on the first day of the following
month. Why is this light called auspicious after the commencement
of the next month? If it be really ill-boding it cannot be
said to be auspicious in the next month, and if it really be so it
would make no difference that the new month had not yet begun.

As a matter of fact, the injunction to keep aloof from newborn
infants and puppies, is intended as an incentive to self-purification,
preventing people from polluting themselves with filth and
sordid things. When they are clean in their bodies, their minds
are pure, and their minds being pure, their proceedings are undefiled.
These irreproachable dealings are the basis of honesty and
unselfishness.

The fourth thing to be shunned is the bringing up of children
born in the first or the fifth months, because such children
are supposed to kill their father and mother, and therefore on no
account can be reared. Father and mother having perhaps died
through some calamity, this assertion has found credence and is
taken for certain. Now, wherefore should children of the first or
the fifth months kill their father and mother?

The human embryo, filled with the fluid, remains in the womb,
where it develops ten months, when it is born. All are imbued

with the same original fluid; what difference is there between the
first and the second months, and what diversity between the
fifth and the sixth, that an ill omen might be found in them?

This opinion has long spread in the world, and all those who
cling to destiny dare not act against it. If men of vast erudition
and great talents carefully go into the question, and minutely examine
the difference between good and bad omens, they must arrive
at a clear understanding.

Of old, [a humble concubine of T`ien Ying, minister of Ch`i,
had a son, whom she named Wên. As Wên had been born in the
fifth moon, T`ien Ying told his mother not to bring him up, but
the mother clandestinely reared him. When he had grown up, the
mother took her son Wên together with his brothers, and introduced
him to his father.

T`ien Ying, very angry, said to her, "I ordered you to do
away with this son, how did you dare to keep him alive?" Wên
bowed his head, and interfering in the discussion, said, `What is
the reason that Your Honour does not want to rear a fifth month
child?'

"Because," replied T`ien Ying, "a fifth month child grows as
high as a door, and will do harm to his parents."

Wên rejoined, `Does the fate which man receives at his birth
depend on Heaven, or does it depend on a door?'

T`ien Ying made no reply. `No doubt,' said Wên, `it depends
on Heaven. Then, why are you dissatisfied? Should fate be received
from a door, and the child become as high as a door, who
could attain to that?'

T`ien Ying acquiesced and said, "Leave off, my son."] [Subsequently,
he entrusted him with the superintendence of his household
and the reception of guests. Their numbers increased daily,
and T`ien Wên's name became known to all the princes.][1742] He grew
higher than a door, but T`ien Ying did not die.

According to the reasons put forward by T`ien Wên and corroborated
by the fact that his father did not die, the common
dread is baseless. T`ien Ying was an ordinary father, but T`ien Wên
an exceptional son, the former trusted in the general prejudice,
and did not inquire into its reasons, whereas the latter confided
in fate, and did not admit the avoidance. As their parts were
different, ordinary and exceptional, so were their actions. T`ien

Ying's name is obscure and unknown, while his son's fame spread
far and wide, and never faded.

Still this common avoidance has also its reason: The first
month is the beginning of the year, and in the fifth the Yang
reaches its acme. A child being born in one of these months, its
original nature is fiery and impetuous and weighs heavily on its
parents. Not being strong enough to offer resistance, they must
come to grief.[1743]

This idea has gained ground, and no one contradicts it. It
is an unfounded assertion, and there is no proof of a real misfortune.
The world suffers itself to be imposed upon and to fall into
the greatest errors. Things to be avoided are manifold, but always
some prodigy is put forth, and if really somebody should happen
to die, then the public is convinced of the truth of the assertion,
and abides by it.

As to what is to be dreaded and shunned, different views prevail
everywhere. I shall give some instances of universal customs,
which I trust will be considered. There are innumerous minor rules
and observances, all meant to induce to virtue and to exhort to particular
carefulness.[1744] Nothing is to be feared from ghosts and spirits,
and no calamities are due to mischievous influences:

In making bean-sauce people dislike very much to hear thunder.[1745]
One person did not eat the sauce in order to induce people to hasten
its preparation, and not to allow the stuff to lie about in their
premises up to spring time.[1746]

One avoids grinding a knife over a well—lest it fall into the
well, or, as some say, because the character hsing (capital punishment)
[OMITTED] is composed of ching (a well) [OMITTED] and tao (a knife) [OMITTED].
Grinding a knife over a well, the knife and the well face each
other, and one apprehends suffering capital punishment (hsing [OMITTED]).[1747]

One must not sit under the eaves of a house—a tile might
fall down and hit one on the head.

One must not hang up a cap upside down—for it would resemble
the garments of a dead man, or, as some say, it should
not be turned, lest it be filled with dust.

One must not lie down flat—for one would be like a corpse.[1748]

One must not receive chopsticks from anybody—because they
are not solid.[1749]

One must not expect others to sweep the ground for one—
for a man building a grave might request one to sweep for him.[1750]

All these "One must not" are to induce people to exert particular
cautiousness, and to exhort them to do good. The Liki says,
["One must not roll the rice into a ball, and one must not slobber."][1751]
These are prohibitions regarding propriety and righteousness, and
not spoken in reference to good or bad fortune.