Appendix Major Commentators on the Laozi 1 Pre- Qin to Sui Han Fei 韩非 (d. 233 BCE) i The Jie Lao 解老 [Explaining the Laozi] Chapter of the Hanfeizi Among extant explications of Laozi’s thought, Jie Lao is the earliest text we have. This exegesis of quotes from the Laozi is included as a chapter of the Hanfeizi 韩非子 [Writings of Master Han Fei]. Jie Lao interprets and explains passages from the following chapters of the received text of the Laozi: 1, 14, 38, 46, 50, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 67, although not in that order. From Han Fei’s selection and arrangement of passages, as well as the content of his explica- tion, we find an interesting characteristic: among the two volumes that comprise the Laozi— the Daojing 道经 [Classic of the Way] and the Dejing 德经 [Classic of Efficacy], which taken together form the alternative title of Daodejing 道德经 [Classic of the Way and Virtue]—Han Fei lays stronger emphasis on chapters from the Dejing (that is, Chapters 38–81 of the received Laozi). Moreover, Han Fei also stresses Laozi’s philoso- phy of life and political philosophy. Within the text of Jie Lao, we find little emphasis on Laozi’s metaphysical thinking. Rather, Han Fei focuses on utility and efficacy, and therefore Jie Lao engages and develops this aspect of Laozi’s thought. There is an instance in which Jie Lao clearly distorts and appropriates the Laozi’s original meaning, and another in which it misinterprets the Laozi. These are as follows: 1. Han Fei writes, “Repeatedly changing the law while governing a large country makes the lives of the people harsh. This means that a ruler who follows the Dao values emptiness and tranquility while approaching changes to the law with solemn wariness.” Han Fei’s claim that Laozi advocates “approaching changes to the law with solemn wariness” (重变法) is a clear distortion of Laozi’s thought. As Wang Li 王力 (d. 1986) states in Laozi yanjiu 老子研究 [Research on the Laozi], “[Han] Fei discusses ‘approaching changes to the law with solemn wariness,’ and this is serious violation of the purport of Lao Dan 老聃 (one appellation for the historical figure of Laozi, dis- cussed in the Introduction). As this thought was about eliminating the human law [so as to follow the self- so], how could it be possible to advocate changes to it with solemn wariness?” 2. Han Fei explains the phrase “of ten there are three (十有三)” as meaning “thir- teen” in the line “The follower of life, of ten there are three, the follower of death, of ten there are three” from Chapter 50 of the Laozi. This, he believes, refers to the four © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004421646_084 Guying Chen - 9789004421646 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:51PM via free access 408 Appendix limbs and nine cavities, and he thus derives his misreading by adding the four limbs and nine cavities together, which happens to amount to exactly “thirteen.” However, “ten having three” refers not to “thirteen” but rather to the idea of “three out of ten,” or thirty percent. Wang Bi’s 王弼 (d. 249) commentary here accurately reflects this. He writes, “ ‘Ten having three’ is alike to saying ‘three parts out of ten.’ ” In another instance, Han Fei states, “The Way is comparable to water. If a drowning person drinks excessively of it, he will die; If a thirsty person drinks the right amount of it, he will live…. Thus, obtaining it one may bring death, and yet obtaining it may bring life; obtaining it may bring failure, and yet obtaining it may bring success.” The Laozi, however, claims that only through the Dao are the myriad things generated and develop— that is, it only gives life and helps things achieve success. It does not associ- ate “death” and “failure” with acquisition or alignment with the Dao. This passage from Han Fei can thus only be seen as portraying his own conceptions, which are unrelated to Laozi’s thought. Despite these two instances of misleading interpretation, Jie Lao gives us many accurate and insightful explications. Here I will focus specifically on Han Fei’s com- ments regarding the Dao and de 德 [virtue, virtuosity, efficacy, potency, power]. Regarding the Dao, Han Fei holds that “the Dao is that by which the myriad things are as they are, and that in the myriad principles (万理) are hoarded/dwell (稽)…. The myriad things each have their own different principles, while the Dao hoards up the principles of the myriad things.” This asserts the Dao to be the common prin- ciple of all things, which is also their universal pattern or regularity. The conception of the Dao Han Fei gives here refers principally to its regularity. Han Fei also writes that “the Dao is that by which the myriad things are completed (成).” Here, Han Fei’s discussion of the Dao refers principally to its generation and fos- tering the development of the myriad things. This is also the metaphysical conception of the Dao as true existence. Regarding de 德 [virtue, virtuosity, efficacy, potency, power]: Han Fei tells us, “De 德 [virtue, virtuosity, efficacy, potency, power] is the efficacy of the Dao.” That is to say, de 德 [virtue, virtuosity, efficacy, potency, power] is the functioning of the Dao. This explanation is quite straightforward and clear. Moreover, Han Fei’s explication of the character se 啬 [frugal, parsimonious] in Chapter 59 is particularly on the mark. He defines this term as “a stint (爱) of spirit,” further telling us, “The sage’s use of spirit is tranquil; and through being tranquil is not wasteful, and through being not wasteful is se 啬 [frugality, parsimonious].” Laozi’s conceptions of se 啬 [frugality, parsimonious] and jian 俭 [frugal, economi- cal, restrained] are interrelated. Both refer to treasuring spirit and thus not wasting spiritual energy. On this point, Han Fei’s explication far surpasses those of later com- mentators who often misunderstood se 啬 [frugality, parsimonious] and jian 俭 [frugal, economical, restrained] to refer exclusively to frugality in terms of money and wealth. Guying Chen - 9789004421646 Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:54:51PM via free access Major Commentators on the Laozi 409 ii The Yu Lao 喻老 [Illustration of the Laozi] Chapter of the Hanfeizi Overall, the text of Jie Lao is quite valuable as an explication of the Laozi, whereas the Yu Lao hugely misconstrues its meaning. This has led some scholars to suspect that these two chapters of the Hanfeizi were not authored by the same hand. (As Wang Li tells us, “The Jie Lao is abundant in prudent and well-thought words, while the Yu Lao is crude and superficial, thereby missing the profound meaning of the original text. They therefore were likely penned by two different authors.”) Yu Lao employs historical figures and stories to illustrate its misleading interpreta- tions of the Laozi throughout. As Wang Li has written, “Han Fei was fond of teachings regarding punishment (刑), names (名), laws (法), and tactics (术), and therefore endorsed authoritarian ruling (or rulership). His authorship of Yu Lao gives a strained interpretation of the Laozi following this line of thought.” The crudest misrepresenta- tions of Laozi’s thought found in Yu Lao are the following: 1. For restraint to occur in oneself is considered heaviness; to not stray from one’s posi- tion is considered tranquility. Heaviness makes one capable of commanding those who are light; tranquility makes one capable of commanding the impetuous…. Those without power of position (势) are called light; those who stray from their positions are called impetuous. This gives rise to obscurity and thereby death. It is thus said [in the Laozi]: ‘Through lightness one loses one’s ministers; through impetuousness one loses one’s ruler- ship.’ This can be said to describe Zhao Yong 赵雍 (d. 295 BCE). This interpretation clearly explicates the Laozi in a manner that supports Han Fei’s own teachings, which emphasize that a ruler should be careful not to stray from his position, nor give up the power derived through it. 2. Heavy power of position is the depth of rulership. The ruler is the one with heavy power of position among the ministers. Once this is lost, it cannot be regained…. Reward and punishment are the sharp instruments of the state. When they belong to the ruler, there is institutionalization of his rulership; when they belong to the ministers, there is the prevailing over the ruler by the ministers. When the ruler presents rewards, the min- isters reduce this to the enactment of virtue; when the ruler presents punishments, the ministers augment this so as to see it as authority. This passage shows reward and punishment by the ruler to be the effective instru- ments of governance. Subordinates are not to be given access to them, as this would imperil the power and position of the ruler. 3. The King of Yue 越 (Gou Jian 勾践, d. 465 BCE) served as slave in the state of Wu 吴, where he directed its attack on the state of Qi 齐 in order to weaken Wu. Wu forces defeated the Qi troops at Ailing 艾陵, and expanded to the Jiang 江 river and Ji 济 river while growing strong in Huangchi 黄池. The King of Yue was therefore able to defeat Wu forces at Wuhu 五湖. It is thus said [in the Laozi]: ‘If [one] wants to xi 歙 [inhale, accumulate] zhi 之 [it, that], must gu 固 [solid, abide by, necessarily] extend it; if [one] wants to weaken it, [one] must strengthen it.’ Duke Xian 献 of Jin 晋 desired to attack the 虞 知伯 state of Yu , and gave them jade and horses.