The farmers at Mount Lishan encroached on each other’s field boundaries. Shun went there to farm, and after one year the boundaries were properly restored. The fishermen by the river fought over the small islets in the water. Shun went there to fish, and after one year the elder fishermen were given precedence. The potters among the Eastern Yi produced vessels that were crude and fragile. Shun went there to make pottery, and after one year the vessels became sturdy. Confucius sighed and said, “Farming, fishing, and pottery were not Shun’s official duties; yet he went and did them in order to remedy a decline in public morals. How truly humane Shun was! He personally endured hardship, and the people followed him. Hence it is said: ‘The virtue of the sage transforms the people.’”
Someone asked a Confucian scholar, “At that time, where was Yao?” The scholar replied, “Yao was the Son of Heaven.” “Then how can Confucius praise Yao as a sage? If a sage, clear-sighted and occupying the highest position, truly governed, he would ensure that there was no wrongdoing in the world. If farming and fishing were no longer disputed, and pottery was no longer crude, what need was there for Shun’s virtue to transform the people? If Shun had to remedy a decline, then Yao must have failed in his governance. To praise Shun’s worth is to deny Yao’s clear-sightedness; to praise Yao as a sage is to deny Shun’s moral transformation. One cannot have both.
There was a man of Chu who sold shields and spears. He praised his shield, saying, ‘My shield is so strong that nothing can pierce it.’ He also praised his spear, saying, ‘My spear is so sharp that there is nothing it cannot pierce.’ Someone asked, ‘What if you use your spear to pierce your shield?’ The man could not answer. A shield that cannot be pierced and a spear that can pierce everything cannot coexist in the same world. In the same way, Yao and Shun cannot both be praised without contradiction. This is the doctrine of ‘contradiction.’
Moreover, Shun remedied one fault in a year and three faults in three years. Shun’s life was finite, but the faults of the world were endless. To pursue the endless with the finite means that very few faults would be corrected. If rewards and punishments were established so that all under heaven must follow them, and an order declared, ‘Those who meet the standard shall be rewarded; those who do not shall be punished,’ then an order issued in the morning would bring change by evening, and one issued in the evening would bring change by morning. Within ten days the whole realm would be transformed. Why wait a whole year? If Shun did not persuade Yao to issue such orders and make the people obey, but instead acted in person, was this not a lack of method?
To transform the people by personally enduring hardship was difficult even for Yao and Shun. To rely on one’s position of power and thereby command those below is easy even for an ordinary ruler. If one wishes to govern the world, yet abandons what is easy for an ordinary ruler and follows the difficult path of Yao and Shun, one cannot be said to understand the art of governance.”
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 36.2 advances the famous spear and shield paradox. It critiques Confucian moral example governance via Yao and Shun tales, arguing institutional rewards punishments outperform sages’ personal toil.
Han Feizi’s “Nan” chapters:
These chapters test famous stories by exposing logical tensions. Here, Han Fei challenges the Confucian belief that moral example alone can govern the world.
Yao and Shun:
In Confucian tradition, Yao and Shun are ideal sage-kings. Confucians often present them as models of virtue-based rule. Han Fei questions whether their reputations can both be fully true.
Shun’s personal labor:
The story shows Shun farming, fishing, and making pottery to improve public behavior. Confucians see this as moral influence; Han Fei sees it as inefficient.
The “contradiction” / spear-and-shield story:
This is one of the earliest Chinese versions of the logical paradox later expressed as “an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.” The Chinese word for “contradiction” still relates to “spear” and “shield.”
Legalist preference for law:
Han Fei argues that clear laws, rewards, and punishments can transform society faster than a sage’s personal example.
Method versus moral effort:
For Han Fei, good government should not depend on extraordinary sages. It should rely on institutions that even an average ruler can use.
二
历山之农者侵畔，舜往耕焉，期年。甽亩正。河滨之渔者争坻，舜往渔焉，期年而让长。东夷之陶者器苦窳，舜往陶焉，期年而器牢。仲尼叹曰：“耕、渔与陶，非舜官也，而舜往为之者，所以救败也。舜其信仁乎！乃躬藉处苦而民从之。故曰：“圣人之德化乎！”
或问儒者曰：“方此时也，尧安在？”其人曰：“尧为天子。”“然则仲尼之圣尧奈何？圣人明察在上位，将使天下无奸也。今耕渔不争，陶器不窳，舜又何德而化？舜之救败也，则是尧有失也。贤舜，则去尧之明察；圣尧，则去舜之德化：不可两得也。楚人有鬻盾与矛者，誉之曰：‘盾之坚，莫能陷也。’又誉其矛曰：‘吾矛之利，于物无不陷也。’或曰：‘以子之矛陷子之盾，何如？’其人弗能应也。夫不可陷之盾与无不陷之矛，不可同世而立。今尧、舜之不可两誉，矛盾之说也。且舜救败，期年已一过，三年已三过。舜有尽，寿有尽，天下过无已者，有尽逐无已，所止者寡矣。赏罚使天下必行之，令曰：‘中程者赏，弗中程者诛。’令朝至暮变，暮至朝变，十日而海内毕矣，奚待期年？舜犹不以此说尧令从己，乃躬亲，不亦无术乎？且夫以身为苦而后化民者，尧、舜之所难也；处势而骄下者，庸主之所易也。将治天下，释庸主之所易，道尧、舜之所难，未可与为政也。”
Leave a Reply