Master Shen said: “The flying dragon rides the clouds; the soaring serpent roams the mists. When the clouds disperse and the mists clear, the dragon and serpent are no different from earthworms and ants, because they have lost what they ride. If worthy men are subdued by the unworthy, it is because their authority is light and their rank low. If the unworthy can make the worthy submit, it is because their authority is heavy and their rank high. If Yao were a common man, he could not govern three people; yet Jie, as Son of Heaven, could throw the world into disorder. From this I know that power and position are sufficient to rely upon, while worthiness and wisdom are not worthy of admiration. A weak crossbow sends an arrow high because it is driven by the wind. A man who is not worthy yet causes his orders to be carried out is helped by the multitude. When Yao instructed people as a private man, they did not listen; but when he faced south and ruled the world, his commands were obeyed and his prohibitions heeded. From this it follows that worthiness and wisdom are not enough to subdue the multitude, while power and position can overwhelm even the worthy.”
In reply to Master Shen it is said: “I do not deny that dragons and serpents depend on the power of clouds and mists. Yet if one abandons the worthy and relies exclusively on power, can this produce order? I have not seen it. That clouds and mists can be ridden is due to the fine nature of dragons and serpents. When clouds are abundant, earthworms cannot ride them; when mists are thick, ants cannot roam in them. Those who possess the advantage of abundant clouds and thick mists yet cannot ride or roam do so because their nature is thin. Now Jie and Zhou faced south and ruled the world, using the majesty of the Son of Heaven as their clouds and mists; that the world still fell into great disorder shows that the nature of Jie and Zhou was thin.”
Moreover, if one says that Yao used power to bring order and Jie used power to bring disorder, how are their powers different? Power itself cannot ensure that the worthy will use it and the unworthy will not. When the worthy use it, the world is ordered; when the unworthy use it, the world is disordered. Human nature is such that the worthy are few and the unworthy many. If the advantage of authority and power is used to aid unworthy men in a disordered age, then many will use power to disorder the world, and few will use it to bring order. Power is convenient for order and advantageous for disorder. Hence the Book of Zhou says, “Do not add wings to a tiger; it will fly into the city, choose people, and eat them.” To place an unworthy person in power is to add wings to a tiger. Jie and Zhou built high terraces and deep ponds, exhausting the people’s strength, and created the torture of the brazen pillar, injuring human nature. They could indulge their recklessness because the majesty of ruling gave them wings. Had they been commoners, they would have been punished and executed before committing even one such act. Power nourishes the heart of tigers and wolves and brings about violent disorder; this is a great calamity under heaven. With respect to order and disorder, power has its root and its branches. To claim that power alone is sufficient to govern the world shows shallow understanding.
Good horses and a sturdy carriage, if driven by a bondservant, make people laugh; if driven by Wang Liang, they cover a thousand li a day. The carriage and horses are not different; yet one reaches a thousand li while the other becomes a laughingstock, because skill and clumsiness are far apart. If one takes the throne as the carriage, power as the horse, commands as the reins, and punishments as the whip, then Yao and Shun driving it will bring order, while Jie and Zhou driving it will bring disorder, for the worthy and the unworthy are far apart. To seek speed and distance yet not entrust Wang Liang, to seek benefit and remove harm yet not employ the worthy and able, is the error of not understanding analogy. Yao and Shun are indeed the Wang Liangs of governing the people.
Replying again, it is said: “That person holds that power is sufficient to govern offices; you, sir, say, ‘Only when the worthy appear can there be order.’ This is incorrect. Power is one in name but varies without limit. If power were necessarily natural, there would be no need to speak of it. What I call power is what human beings can establish. If Yao and Shun are born into the highest position, even ten Jies and Zhous could not create disorder; this is power producing order. If Jie and Zhou are born into the highest position, even ten Yaos and Shuns could not restore order; this is power producing disorder. Hence it is said, ‘When power produces order, it cannot be disordered; when power produces disorder, it cannot be ordered.’ This is natural power, not something humans can establish. What I speak of is merely the power that humans can grasp. What then does worthiness have to do with it? How can this be shown? You, sir, said, ‘There was a man selling a spear and a shield. He praised his shield, saying, “Nothing can pierce it.” Then he praised his spear, saying, “My spear pierces everything.” Someone asked, “What if you use your spear to pierce your shield?” He could not answer.’ An unpierceable shield and an all-piercing spear cannot both stand. The power of worthiness cannot be restrained, yet the way of power restrains everything. To invoke an unrestrainable power of worthiness is to fall into the spear-and-shield contradiction. That worthiness and power are incompatible is clear.
Moreover, Yao, Shun, Jie, and Zhou appear once in a thousand ages. If they were born shoulder to shoulder and heel to heel, that would be extraordinary. Those who govern the world are mostly men of middling quality. My discussion of power addresses such men. A middling ruler is not equal to Yao and Shun above, nor is he a Jie or Zhou below. If he holds the law and occupies power, there will be order; if he abandons the law and forsakes power, there will be disorder. Now to discard power and violate the law while waiting for Yao and Shun means that order comes only when they appear: one age of order in a thousand ages of disorder. To hold the law and occupy power, so that disorder comes only when Jie and Zhou appear, means one age of disorder in a thousand ages of order. A thousand ages of order with one age of disorder, compared with one age of order and a thousand ages of disorder, are as far apart as riders on fine steeds galloping in opposite directions. If one discards the methods for straightening wood and abandons measurement, even Xi Zhong could not make a single wheel. Without the encouragement of rewards and the authority of punishments, if one abandons power and neglects the law, even Yao and Shun, going from household to household to persuade and debate, could not govern three families. That power is useful is evident; to insist that one must wait for the worthy is incorrect.
Furthermore, to fast for a hundred days while waiting for fine grain and meat is to let the hungry die. To wait for the worthiness of Yao and Shun before governing the people of the present age is like waiting for delicacies to relieve starvation. You say, ‘With good horses and a sturdy carriage, a bondservant makes people laugh, but Wang Liang covers a thousand li a day.’ I do not accept this. To wait for a Yue man skilled in sea swimming to save a drowning person in the Central States is useless: though the Yue man swims well, the drowning person will not be saved. To wait for the ancient Wang Liang to drive today’s horses is the same. With good horses and a sturdy carriage, if relay stations are set every fifty li and a driver of middling skill is employed, speed and distance can be achieved, and a thousand li can be covered in a day. Why must one wait for the ancient Wang Liang? Moreover, driving is not a matter of either Wang Liang or a bondservant who ruins everything; governing is not a matter of either Yao and Shun or Jie and Zhou who bring disorder. This treats flavors as if they were either honey or bitter herbs, an extreme dichotomy. Such accumulated disputation departs from reason and method. How can it refute a discourse grounded in the Way? Your argument has not reached this level.”
Note
This Han Feizi ‑ Chapter 40 debates Shen Dao’s “shi” (positional‑power). It argues relying solely on power or sage‑rulers fails; ordinary middling rulers need both power and law to sustain stable political order.
Shen Dao / Master Shen:
A Warring States thinker associated with Legalism and the concept of shi, meaning situational power, authority, or positional advantage.
Shi / power and position:
A central Legalist idea. It means the authority attached to office, not personal virtue. Han Fei argues that power alone is not enough without law and suitable rulers.
Yao and Shun:
Jie and Zhou:
Traditional tyrants. Jie was the last ruler of Xia; Zhou was the last ruler of Shang.
South-facing rule:
“Facing south” symbolizes rulership, because ancient Chinese rulers sat facing south when receiving officials.
Wang Liang:
A legendary master charioteer, used here as a metaphor for a highly skilled administrator.
Xi Zhong:
A mythical master carriage-maker. Han Fei uses him to show that even genius cannot succeed without standards, tools, and institutions.
Spear and shield contradiction:
The Chinese word for contradiction comes from this story. It is the origin of the English idea of a self-defeating claim.
Book of Zhou:
An early classic cited here to warn against giving dangerous people more power.
Bondsman and servant:
“Zang” and “huo” refer to low-status servants or slaves, used here to represent unskilled or unreliable agents.
Yue swimmers:
People from Yue were known for water skills. Han Fei uses them to argue that distant excellence cannot solve urgent local problems.
Legalist debate:
The chapter contrasts Shen Dao’s emphasis on power with Han Fei’s insistence that power must be combined with law and applied by rulers of at least middling ability.
难势第四十
慎子曰：飞龙乘云，腾蛇游雾，云罢雾霁，而龙蛇与蚓蚁同矣，则失其所乘也。贤人而诎于不肖者，则权轻位卑也；不肖而能服于贤者，则权重位尊也。尧为匹夫，不能治三人；而桀为天子，能乱天下：吾以此知势位之足恃而贤智之不足慕也。夫弩弱而矢高者，激于风也；身不肖而令行者，得助于众也。尧教于隶属而民不听，至于南面而王天下，令则行，禁则止。则此观之，贤智未足以服众，而势位足以缶贤者也。
应慎子曰：飞龙乘云，腾蛇游雾，吾不以龙蛇为不托于云雾之势也。虽然，夫释贤而专任势，足以为治乎？则吾未得见也。夫有云雾之势而能乘游之者，龙蛇之材美之也；今云盛而蚓弗能乘也，雾醲而蚁不能游也，夫有盛云醲雾之势而不能乘游者，蚓蚁之材薄也。今桀、纣南面而王天下，以天子之威为之云雾，而天下不免乎大乱者，桀、纣之材薄也。
且其人以尧之势以治天下也，其势何以异桀之势也，乱天下者也。夫势者，非能必使贤者用已，而不肖者不用已也。贤者用之则天下治，不肖者用之则天下乱。人之情性，贤者寡而不肖者众，而以威势之利济乱世之不肖人，则是以势乱天下者多矣，以势治天下者寡矣。夫势者，便治而利乱者也。故《周书》曰：“毋为虎傅翼，飞入邑，择人而食之。”夫乘不肖人于势，是为虎傅翼也。桀、纣为高台深池以尽民力，为炮烙以伤民性，桀、纣得成肆行者，南面之威为之翼也。使桀、纣为匹夫，未始行一而身在刑戮矣。势者，养虎狼之心而成暴风乱之事者也，此天下之大患也。势之于治乱，本末有位也，而语专言势之足以治天下者，则其智之所至者浅矣。
夫良马固车，使臧获御之则为人笑，王良御之而日取千里。车马非异也，或至乎千里，或为人笑，则巧拙相去远矣。今以国位为车，以势为马，以号令为辔，以刑罚为鞭策，使尧、舜御之则天下治，桀、纣御之则天下乱，则贤不肖相去远矣。夫欲追速致远，不知任王良；欲进利除害，不知任贤能：此则不知类之患也。夫尧舜亦治民之王良也。
复应之曰：其人以势为足恃以治官；客曰“必待贤乃治”，则不然矣。夫势者，名一而变无数者也。势必于自然，则无为言于势矣。吾所为言势者，言人之所设也。夫尧、舜生而在上位，虽有十桀、纣不能乱者，则势治也；桀、纣亦生而在上位，虽有十尧、舜而亦不能治者，则势乱也。故曰：“势治者则不可乱，而势乱者则不可治也。”此自然之势也，非人之所得设也。若吾所言，谓人之所得势也而已矣，贤何事焉？何以明其然也？客曰：“人有鬻矛与盾者，誉其盾之坚，‘物莫能陷也’，俄而又誉其矛曰：‘吾矛之利，物无不陷也。’人应之曰：‘以子之矛，陷子之盾，何如？’其人弗能应也。”以为不可陷之盾，与无不陷之矛，为名不可两立也。夫贤之为势不可禁，而势之为道也无不禁，以不可禁之势，此矛盾之说也。夫贤势之不相容亦明矣。
且夫尧、舜、桀、纣千世而一出，是比肩随踵而生也。世之治者不绝于中，吾所以为言势者，中也。中者，上不及尧、舜，而下亦不为桀、纣。抱法处势则治，背法去势则乱。今废势背法而待尧、舜，尧、舜至乃治，是千世乱而一治也。抱法处势而待桀、纣，桀、纣至乃乱，是千世治而一乱也。且夫治千而乱一，与治一而乱千也，是犹乘骥、駬而分驰也，相去亦远矣。夫弃隐栝之法，去度量之数，使奚仲为车，不能成一轮。无庆赏之劝，刑罚之威，释势委法，尧、舜户说而人辨之，不能治三家。夫势之足用亦明矣，而曰“必待贤”，则亦不然矣。
且夫百日不食以待粱肉，饿者不活；今待尧、舜之贤乃治当世之民，是犹待粱肉而救饿之说也。夫曰：“良马固车，臧获御之则为人笑，王良御之则日取乎千里”，吾不以为然。夫待越人之善海游者以救中国之溺人，越人善游矣，而溺者不济矣。夫待古之王良以驭今之马，亦犹越人救溺之说也，不可亦明矣。夫良马固车，五十里而一置，使中手御之，追速致远，可以及也，而千里可日致也，何必待古之王良乎？且御，非使王良也，则必使臧获败之；治，非使尧、舜也，则必使桀、纣乱之。此味非饴蜜也，必苦莱、亭历也。此则积辩累辞，离理失术，两末之议也，奚可以难夫道理之言乎哉？客议未及此论也
Leave a Reply