《南華真經義海纂微》Vol. 27

To guard against thieves who pry open boxes, rifle through bags, and break into cabinets, people tie sacks tight and lock cabinets firm. The world calls this cleverness. Yet when a great thief comes, he hoists the cabinet onto his back, flips open the chest, and carries off the bags—and his only worry is that the knots and locks are not strong enough. From this angle, those earlier “clever” measures are really just stockpiling wealth for the great thief.

Consider: among what the world calls clever, which sort does not pile up goods for the great thief? Among the regulations of the sages, which sort does not stand watch over property for the great thief? How do we know?

Long ago in Qi, neighboring towns lay within sight of one another; cockcrow and dogs’ barking crossed from city to city. Nets were cast far and wide, plows worked the fields, and the domain stretched more than two thousand li. Within Qi they raised ancestral temples and altars of soil and grain (shrines to ancestors and to the gods of land and harvest), and they ordered towns, villages, and hamlets—which of these was not taken from the sages?

Yet Tian Chengzi one day killed the ruler of Qi and took the whole state. Did he steal only the land of Qi? He stole the very code the sages had laid down. So Tian Chengzi wore the name of thief while living in a seat like Yao or Shun; small states dared not blame him, great states dared not punish him, and the Tian house held Qi for twelve generations. Is that not stealing Qi and taking the sages’ institutions along with it, so as to fix one’s place as a thief?

Guo Xiang’s commentary: Saying that worldly cleverness “piles up goods for the great thief” and that sage regulations “guard property for the great thief” shows that ordinary cleverness cannot be trusted. Copying the sages is only imitating traces already left behind; traces belong to the past and cannot meet what changes—why esteem or cling to them? Using ready-made old devices against change that has no fixed pattern, when change comes those devices are blocked. Those who guard a state end up guarding it for someone else; unless the great thief takes the sages’ institutions, he cannot seize the state. How sage law works depends on who wields it, so it is not necessarily a complete rule that always fits.

Lü Huiqing’s commentary: Tying with cord and fastening with locks to fend off thieves who pry boxes, rifle bags, and break cabinets—that is what the world calls clever. Yet when the great thief arrives and runs off with the chest on his back, he only fears the knots and locks are too weak. So is there any worldly cleverness that does not pile up goods for the great thief? Raising temples and altars of soil and grain, and ordering towns, villages, and hamlets, to guard the realm…

People commonly speak of the “sage,” yet when Tian Chengzhi (a minister of Qi in the Spring and Autumn period who later seized control of the state) stole Qi, he also took over the so-called sage’s standards and used them to shore up his own banditry. The worldly notions of sagely clarity and clever wisdom became the very props by which great thieves guarded their gains—can such things fail to happen? Yet true sagely clarity and wisdom were never like this in the first place.

Yidu’s commentary says: qu means to open something in secret; sealing chests, binding ropes tight, then barring and locking doors is the wisdom of the world, good only for keeping petty thieves at bay. When a great robber arrives, he carries off chest and contents together; those seals and locks do not stop the thief—they become the thief’s convenience. The wisdom people call wisdom is not wisdom that penetrates all things, so it cannot help serving as the great thief’s tool for amassing wealth; the sagacity people call sagacity is not sagacity that rises above worldly distinctions and cannot be pinned down, so it cannot help becoming the great thief’s protection. This is precisely why Laozi and Zhuangzi wanted people to discard conventional sagacity and cleverness.

Tian Chengzi stole Qi and then borrowed the laws the sages had framed to sustain his rule—does that show that whatever sages left behind and fixed in law is bound to be exploited by robbers? Someone may ask: to liken Tian Chengzi to Yao and Shun—is that not going too far? The answer: anyone with form and body who accepts the charge of governing the world is, in the Dao’s view, mere dregs and leftover threads; why must we rank who is higher or lower? As for why Yao and Shun did not treat the realm as a possession to be held for themselves—that is not something Tian Chengzi could measure himself against or presume to judge.

Bixu’s commentary says: zhi (knowing) refers to the cleverness that makes chests, seals, bars, and locks; ji (accumulation) means gathering and hoarding treasure; sheng (sage) means holding the tokens of power—seals, scales, axes, and halberds; shou (guarding) means guarding ancestral temples, altars of soil and grain, and territorial boundaries. When Qi established institutions and fixed laws, was it not imitating the sages? Yet Tian Heng (i.e., Tian Chengzi) seized those sage-made systems and used them to possess Qi—so so-called sagacity and wisdom can indeed become the great thief’s instruments.

Yanzhai says: Worldly wisdom was originally meant to guard against small thieves; when the great robber comes, he takes the whole chest away. The Tian clan usurped Qi: they lent grain to the people with their private measure but collected repayment with the public measure—read the relevant passages in the Zuo Commentary, and you see how he used the sage’s law to carry out a robber’s design. Most of the Warring States period was like this, which is why Zhuangzi used this case as a parable.

Using seals, ropes, bars, and locks to prevent theft is the wisdom of the world; breaking through walls, hauling off chests, and picking pockets is a “wisdom” beyond ordinary convention. How many people under heaven possess such extraordinary talent? Applied upward, it becomes stealing heaven’s harmony (the harmony nature bestows) to nourish the body and preserve spirit; applied downward, it exploits earthly advantage to fill the household and enrich the state.

What is there that one cannot accomplish, yet people willingly indulge in secret fantasies, coveting the wealth in others' homes and hoping to gain ill-gotten gains? They heed neither public opinion nor fear that a bad name cannot be escaped or concealed. How unwilling they are to think things through! I have looked into the reasons: if no one in the world amassed property and guarded it, from where would thieves take anything? Yet from the wish to seize what is in another's chests and trunks, the progression to stealing an entire state truly shows that the saying "when frost appears underfoot, solid ice is near" (lü shuang jian bing zhi)—one must take it with utmost seriousness.

One who steals a state cannot steal along with it the sage's wisdom and laws; even if he gains the state, he may not be able to hold it by that alone. Therefore the sage's wisdom and laws are like sharp tools under heaven; what matters is who wields them. If they fall into a schemer's trap, they often end up controlled by the schemer instead. The text below says: "He who steals a belt hook is put to death, yet he who steals a state becomes a feudal lord; and in the houses of feudal lords, benevolence and righteousness are preserved." Small thieves are punished while great thieves go unchecked—is this a way to make the people equal? Once those men have stolen the state and become rulers, they still forbid the people to be thieves; clearly they too know that benevolence and righteousness cannot be discarded. Is this not using the sage's wisdom and laws to shield their own thieving conduct? Zhuangzi of Zhuang Garden (漆园) put forward this argument in indignation to expose the designs of schemers through the ages. A stern brush like that of the "Lin Classic" (麟经, the Spring and Autumn Annals) can stand alongside it in the world.

Consider further: is what the world calls supreme wisdom not used by great thieves to amass wealth? Are those called supreme sages not used by great thieves to guard wealth? How do we know this is so? In former times Long Feng was killed, Bi Gan had his heart cut out, Chang Hong was disemboweled, and Wu Zixu was driven to suicide. These four worthy men in the end could not escape slaughter. Therefore Robber Zhi's disciple asked Zhi: "Is there a Way (Dao) in thievery too?" Zhi replied: "Where would there be no Way? To scheme after another household's property is sagacity; to go in first is courage; to come out last is righteousness; to judge whether a thing can be done is wisdom; to divide spoils equally is benevolence. Without these five, no one in the world has ever succeeded as a great thief."

Seen in this light, good people cannot establish themselves without the sage's Way; and Zhi could not make his robbery succeed without the sage's Way either. Good people are few in the world and not-good people are many, so the sage's power used to benefit the world is small, while the power used to harm the world is great. Hence the saying: "When the lips are gone, the teeth feel cold; in Lu the wine was thin…".

When sages appear, great thieves arise as well; only when both sages and great thieves are overthrown and cast out does the world begin to settle. When rivers run dry, valleys stand empty; when hills are leveled, deep pools are filled in. When sages perish, great thieves do not rise, and the world knows peace.

As long as sages do not perish, great thieves will not cease. Even to honor sages and use them to govern the world is to swell the gains of Daozhi (the legendary bandit). Fashion bushels and pecks to measure grain, and thieves steal the bushels and pecks along with the grain; fashion weights and balances to weigh goods, and thieves steal the weights and balances along with the goods; fashion tallies and seals to vouch for trust, and thieves steal the tallies and seals along with the authority; promote benevolence and righteousness to set the world right, and thieves steal benevolence and righteousness too. How do we know? One who steals a belt hook is punished, while one who steals a realm becomes a feudal lord. In such lords’ houses benevolence and righteousness are preached—is that not stealing benevolence and righteousness and the sage’s wisdom? So people follow great thieves and uphold feudal lords; those who steal the profits of benevolence and righteousness and of bushels, pecks, weights, balances, tallies, and seals cannot be turned back by rewards of high rank and rich emoluments, nor checked by the terror of axe and executioner’s block. That only swells Daozhi’s gains and makes theft impossible to stop—and it is also the sage’s fault. Hence the saying: “Fish cannot leave the deep abyss; the weighty tokens of state must not be shown to the people.” The sage is the weighty token of the world and ought not to be displayed before the world.

Guo Xiang’s commentary: Tyrants use the ruler’s might to kill worthy ministers, and none dare resist—all of this comes from the sage’s laws. Without the sage’s laws, how could tyrants like Jie and Zhou run riot and force everyone to look on in fear? The five qualities—sagacity, courage, righteousness, wisdom, and benevolence—were meant to guard against theft, yet in time they became what thieves lean on. The sage does little good for the world and much harm; that judgment has force, yet one cannot for that reason discard the sage. The world’s wisdom cannot vanish entirely, so the sage’s way is still needed to steady the age. When everyone’s wit is abroad, to discard sage wisdom alone would harm the world all the more. The harm sages do is great, yet it still beats a world without sages and without order; even so, beating that is not the same as every harm disappearing. No one under heaven fails to chase profit, yet they cannot make all wisdom disappear—why are they so lost that they abandon the root?

Chapped lips are not made so the teeth may feel cold, yet the teeth feel cold because of them; Lu’s wine was not brewed thin so that Handan might be besieged, yet Handan was besieged because of it.

Sages did not appear in order to give rise to great robbers, yet great robbers arose from them all the same—this is the inevitable course of natural development.

Moreover, if sages do not esteem external things, they still cannot keep the world from esteeming them. People have ranks high and low; affairs have true and false sides. Once the way of the sages is esteemed, everyone under heaven falls silent and submits. Jie and Zhi (legendary tyrant and great robber) relied on just these conditions to become great robbers.

If esteem for sages could be abolished, plainness kept, prohibitions cast aside, and governance turned toward reducing desire, then even while criticizing sages one’s own plainness could be preserved; even while leaving robbers unchecked, their treachery would fade on its own. Draining a river is not done in order to empty a valley, yet the valley ends up empty; leveling hills is not done in order to fill a ravine, yet the ravine ends up full. Abandoning the way of the sages is not done in order to stop robbers, yet robbers cease for that reason; when robbers cease, the fashion for flashiness and esteeming external things disappears as well.

If sages were heavily employed to govern the world, people like Jie and Zhi would also make use of their methods. What is highly valued never yields small profit; petty thieves live off it, great robbers profit from it. Court robes, carriages and horses, axes and yue, rewards and punishments—all were originally heavy implements for forbidding theft—yet great robbers chase them down and steal them, then turn them around to complete their career as great robbers. They use benevolence and righteousness to carry out theft, use weights and measures to weigh it, use tallies and seals to win trust, use robes and carriages to entice, and use axes and yue to intimidate. Once these public instruments are stolen, the rank of feudal lord can be seized as well. Thus what benevolence, righteousness, and reward-and-punishment can punish is often only the petty thief who steals a hook. Zhi could not be wiped out because what he stole was too great a profit; profit became so weighty because sages held it in such high regard.

When fish leave the deep, people catch them; when sharp implements are displayed, they become what robbers lean on—so they must not be shown to people lightly.

Commentary by Lu: What the vulgar call “wisdom” and “sagacity” are all erected according to some standard. So-called highest wisdom and sagacity are nothing beyond the labels “sage, brave, righteous, knowing, benevolent”—without knowing why wisdom is wisdom or why sagacity is sagacity. The four worthies Boyi, Shuqi, Confucius, and Yan Hui could not preserve themselves, while people like Zhi borrowed what they esteemed to practice robbery. Clearly, vulgar sagacity and wisdom inevitably become tools for amassing and guarding the robbers’ gains.

The highest wisdom is not thinking oneself knowing; the highest sagacity is not seeking a name. Vulgar sagacity and wisdom instead subsidize robbers—showing that what they bring the world is little benefit and much harm is no empty saying. Lip and teeth depending on each other can illustrate this mutual entanglement… Lu’s commentary goes on to mention “Lu wine at Handan”; the text here breaks off.

From this we can see that things that seem opposed on the surface in fact depend on each other and can turn into one another. Therefore, the best way to govern the world is to set aside the way of the sage so that thieves have no opening to arise, and so that the split between good and evil is no longer something people cling to in their hearts.

The human heart is like a valley: if it cannot stay empty, the heart of a thief will grow there. That is because the way of the sage is treated like a ravine to be filled in and blocks the heart. If that way can be cleared so it no longer dams the heart, the valley can be empty again and thieves will not arise. The human heart is also like a deep pool: if it is not kept full, the heart of a thief will slip in. That is because the way of the sage is treated like a high hill that tilts the heart off balance. If that “hill of the sage” can be leveled, the heart can be full again and thieves will have no way in. This means: after the way of the sage has faded away, great thieves will not rise, and the world will be without disorder. “Fade away” here means no longer letting those ideas take root in the mind.

Once the heart of a thief has arisen, great thieves appear. Even if one then exalts the way of the sage to govern the world, that only feeds thieves’ pursuit of gain. The theft analogies below illustrate this: one who steals a hook may be put to death, while one who steals a state becomes a feudal lord—and no one can stop them. In the gates of such lords, “benevolence and righteousness” are kept on display; that is like stealing sagacity, wisdom, benevolence, and righteousness all at once. And there are greater thieves still who seize the rank of feudal lord. Even with titles, chariots, robes, axes, and punishments, they cannot be barred or dissuaded. All of this comes from turning away from the true Dao and forcibly setting up the name of “sage”; yet people still use the sage’s methods to teach the world—as if showing sharp tools to everyone, so that great thieves get their chance to take them.

Yiduzi commented: In the Dao there are noble persons and petty ones. If one embodies the Dao rightly, then sagacity, courage, duty, wisdom, and benevolence can all work for good; if those same qualities are used wrongly, they become the tools of great thieves. The “Dao” of thieves means they think they know how to hide, act first, judge what will work, and divide the loot. Those who master only one of these skills are small thieves; Robber Zhi (the legendary great bandit) mastered them all. Zhuangzi, in a miscellaneous chapter, tells a story in which Robber Zhi debates Confucius to show that the wisdom of a great thief and a great sage is essentially the same—only the use differs. Good people use benevolence, righteousness, ritual, music, sagacity, and knowledge to cultivate themselves; evil people use the very same things to steal. Good and evil both spring from the human heart; in the world those who do good are often few and those who do harm are often many—hence Zhuangzi’s deliberate criticism and correction.

“The wine of Lu was thin, and Handan was besieged” means: because Lu’s wine was weak, Chu attacked Zhao’s city of Handan. The point is that one thing can naturally lead to another; when a sage appears, great thieves arise in the same way—cause and effect, something that must follow. Sages make laws not intending to invite hypocrisy, yet people imitate the sage and turn it into pretense. The passage beginning “discard and strike down the sage…” continues in the original beyond this point.

People deeply resent the traces left by sages. As a saying in Chan (Zen) Buddhism puts it: “Had I seen Shakyamuni appear in the world in those days, I would have beaten him to death with a single blow.” Talk like that is no different from indulging thieves; it only hopes to quiet fraud and hypocrisy.

Streams link with one another; hills and deep pools help each other. The sage’s traces are exactly what robbers can turn to their use. When sages die and sagely wisdom is cut off, the scramble to put oneself forward also vanishes, and thieves have nothing to rise from. If you do not cast off sagely wisdom to stop thieves, but instead exalt the sage’s methods all the more to rule the world, then men like Robber Zhi will steal by them—you are only swelling their profit.

Bushels, half-bushels, scales, weights, tally strips, seals, and benevolence and righteousness are all tools sages used to govern the world. Zhuangzi means that whatever is a concrete implement or standard can become something great thieves lean on. Once a great thief becomes a thief of the state, bushels, weights, tally strips, and seals are all his; rewards and punishments issue from him alone.

Moreover, the implements and standards by which Yao, Shun, and the Three Dynasties ruled were not different from those of later ages; what differed was whether the age was ordered or chaotic. When they ruled, they too relied on such things, but once their work was done, even if those things remained, they need no longer be depended on. Later people lived in constant fear and knew only to cling to those standards. When power fell to the unscrupulous, what was meant to steady the realm often brought danger instead—Tian Chengzi’s seizure of power is a case in point.

The sage withdraws to a hidden, secluded place and holds the root lever of power, thereby turning the transformations of the myriad things. His force can reverse heaven and earth, yet the world does not see the mechanism; his might can bring the four seas to submit, yet no one calls it armed force. That is why he can move the myriad things within formless arts and techniques, and the world cannot withstand him—why would he lay sharp tools out in plain sight?

Xiang Dao’s commentary says: In using stratagem to govern others, none stood out like the state of Qi; in using stratagem to cultivate oneself, none stood out like the Four Masters; in using violence to disturb the world, none stood out like Robber Zhi. All of them once took the sages as models. Yet Qi still could not escape the Tian clan’s usurpation; the Four Masters still could not escape being killed by the rulers of their day; Robber Zhi, by contrast, died a natural death. So imitating sages to govern the world did no good; abusing the sage’s traces to do evil did no harm. Sage-rule over the world not only failed to stop thieves—it could actually help thieves arise.

Zhuangzi is not denying that sages respond aptly to things and times; he is saying that later calamities arose along with that. It is rather like the saying that when the lips are gone the teeth feel cold, or that when Lu’s wine was weak it made…

When Handan was besieged, it was like the lips losing the teeth’s protection and feeling the cold; since Handan was under siege, how could one blame it?

Attributing every fault to the sage is because the various traces the sage leaves behind become a burden instead.

Bixu’s annotation: When wisdom is displayed, it sometimes brings benefit and sometimes harm; when the sage is displayed, there is sometimes life and sometimes death. One whose mind is not confused by benefit and harm has true wisdom; one whom life and death cannot shake is a true sage. Those four men each relied on their own wisdom and boasted of being sages, yet they met destruction—how could they count as sages who truly had wisdom and virtue?

So-called sage wisdom and the rise of the great thief are tied to each other: when sage wisdom appears, the great thief rises with it; when the great thief ceases, sage wisdom vanishes. To discard the sage’s deeds is to cast these things off entirely; to let thieves roam and not prize goods is to leave thieves nothing to covet. When sage wisdom disappears, the people’s nature returns to simplicity, and the world is calm and untroubled.

Those who steal benevolence, righteousness, and sage wisdom want to gain honor thereby; those who steal gold, silver, pearls, and jade want to grow rich thereby. Yet what Heaven bestows is public; what people seize in private is private. If one takes the public as public and the private as private, can high rank and office truly urge people toward goodness, or can punishments truly forbid wrongdoing?

Yizhai’s comment: Though the four men were worthy, they all incurred guilt; Robber Zhi, by contrast, preserved himself. The point is that worthiness is not something one can lean on, while those who steal sage wisdom sometimes profit from it. Zhuangzi’s portrayal of the way of thieves is meant to satirize the age; the language is strange, but there is sense in it. When he speaks of many evildoers and few good people, and of the world receiving little benefit and much harm, those remarks are also extremely sharp.

The analogies of lips and teeth, of streams and valleys, show that the sage did not devise methods for the great thief, yet they became what the great thief could borrow. “Without the sage, there would be no great thief” means that without the sage, there would be no thieves in the world either, and the people would govern themselves naturally. “Honoring the sage to govern the world” means that after the sage reappears and establishes laws, crafty men use those laws to deceive the world.

In the Warring States era, lords who seized states by usurpation were all great thieves. One who steals a belt hook is put to death, while one who steals an entire state becomes a feudal lord. After usurping a state and founding a regime, they likewise take loving the people and benefiting things as their banner—this too is stealing benevolence, righteousness, and sage wisdom. People all wish to drive away those called great thieves, yet when lords who stole states stand above everyone, the world does not use punishment to restrain them. The author vents indignation at the age on this account. Seen this way, what the world calls “ultimate wisdom” and “ultimate sage” often cannot escape becoming great thieves as well.

Constant accumulation is in fact inferior to governing without relying on so-called sagely wisdom, for once such things pile up, they become objects that thieves watch for and exploit, leaving people unaware. Hence the citation of four exemplary worthies here, to show that sagely wisdom alone is insufficient to order the world.

They relied on innate loyalty and talent to correct the ruler and support the state, holding fast to integrity—even facing death they harbored no second thought. Yet rulers sometimes refused to understand them, finding their words unwelcome and contrary to their wishes; at first they merely distanced them, but in severe cases they rebuked them, even put them to death. The loyal minister’s devotion could not be extinguished until death ended it. Alas—when loyal worthies are killed, that is precisely the good fortune of treacherous ministers. Such calamities have clear proof; how then can the state long endure?

Treacherous ministers and great bandits among subjects surely have their own methods. Those methods amount to nothing other than wielding the laws fashioned through sagely wisdom and benevolence-righteousness. Because what they lean on weighs so heavily, the profit they scheme for cannot be small. Yet the roots of disorder do not form in a single day. They must first discover where the ruler is easy to deceive and where officials are easy to mislead, then seize the moment and momentum to carry out acts that violate the right Way. Even so, they still cannot do without sagely wisdom and benevolence-righteousness to govern the realm. As the founder of states said earlier—when one side declines, the other rises, like rivers and valleys, high ground and deep abyss, waxing and waning in turn. When sages appear, thieves arise in their wake, like the misfortunes of Lu’s wine and Handan tied to one another. The more governance depends on sagely wisdom, the more it actually feeds great bandits like Robber Zhi—this is hardly surprising.

Moreover, petty thieves who steal hooks are constrained by laws made under sagely wisdom; but those who steal the state seize that very legal system to control others. Thus good people grow fewer and bad people more numerous—even high rank, rich salaries, punishments and executions cannot adequately reward virtue or punish vice. Truly, sagely wisdom is the sharp instrument of the realm; it must not be displayed lightly for others to see. If someone secretly glimpses its workings, they will turn around, seize it, and put it to use; then sagely wisdom is like a fish leaving the deep abyss and falling into the hands of ants, at their mercy.

As the saying goes: “The people may be made to follow along in action; there is no need to make them all understand the reasons.” Then, when sages govern the world, must there be some wondrous method that transforms people naturally?

From “How could one fail to take the sage as model?” through “The sage is the sharp instrument of the realm,” this passage has eleven instances written as “sage” (圣人), and the extant versions all agree. Only Chen Bixu’s commentary and Zhang Junfang’s collated edition read “sagely wisdom” (圣知) throughout. Considering earlier phrases such as “what the world calls knowledge” and “what the world calls sagacity,” either reading can be defended. But according to the intent of this chapter, the critique here targets the harm of proliferating laws and regulations, so the original reading “sage” should be retained. I privately surmise that Zhang at the time was commissioned by imperial order to collate this book; as for Chen Bixu—the original text breaks off here.

When the Shujie—a work devoted to explaining and interpreting the classic—was submitted for presentation, there was concern that passages speaking of the sage might be misread as disrespect or belittlement of the sage. The substitution of “sage wisdom” (sheng zhi) for “sage” (sheng ren) was very likely nothing more than a habit fixed by later copyists.

Yet in some passages “sage” is indeed the right reading. How could one fail to take the sage as model? Without following the Way of the sage, one has no ground on which to stand in life; without following the Way of the sage, actions are hard to bring to fruition. The sage may already be gone, but the Way of the sage has not disappeared—and that fact cannot be set aside. Where elsewhere “sage wisdom” was altered to “sage,” that too has its reasons. But where the text says the sage is the sharp instrument of the realm, there “sage wisdom” is surely the correct wording.

From Annotated Essentials of the Meaning-Sea of the True Scripture of Southern Florescence (Nanhua Zhenjing Yihai Zuanwei), fascicle 28.