The prominent schools of the world are Confucianism and Mohism. The pinnacle of Confucianism is Kong Qiu (Confucius); the pinnacle of Mohism is Mo Di (Mozi). Since the death of Confucius, Confucianism has split into eight sects: the Zizhang, Zisi, Yan, Meng, Qidiao, Zhongliang, Sun, and Yuezheng sects. Since the death of Mozi, Mohism has split into three sects: the Xiangli, Xiangfu, and Dengling sects. Thus, after Confucius and Mozi, Confucianism divided into eight and Mohism into three. Their choices and rejections are contradictory, yet all claim to be the true successors of Confucius and Mozi. Since Confucius and Mozi cannot be brought back to life, who can determine the true learning of the world? Confucius and Mozi both invoked Yao and Shun, but their choices differed, and both claimed to be the true interpreters of Yao and Shun. Since Yao and Shun cannot be brought back to life, who can determine the authenticity of Confucianism and Mohism?
For over seven hundred years of the Yin and Zhou dynasties, and over two thousand years of the Yu and Xia dynasties, it has been impossible to determine the truth of Confucianism and Mohism. Now, to attempt to examine the Way of Yao and Shun from three thousand years ago – is it not certain to be impossible? To assert something without verification is foolishness; to rely on what cannot be ascertained is deception. Therefore, those who clearly claim to follow the ancient kings and assert they know Yao and Shun are either foolish or deceptive. The learning of fools and deceivers, and conduct of mixed contradictions, are not accepted by enlightened rulers.
The Mohist funeral practice is frugal: winter clothes in winter, summer clothes in summer, a coffin of paulownia wood three inches thick, and mourning for three months. Rulers consider this frugal and treat it with respect. The Confucian practice is to bankrupt the family for funerals, mourn for three years, and damage one’s health so much that a staff is needed for support. Rulers consider this filial and treat it with respect. To approve of Mozi’s frugality is to condemn Confucius’ extravagance; to approve of Confucius’ filial piety is to condemn Mozi’s perversity. Now, both filial piety and perversity, extravagance and frugality, exist in Confucianism and Mohism, yet the ruler respects both.
The view of Qidiao is to show no fear in countenance and not to avert one’s eyes; if one’s conduct is crooked, one withdraws even from a slave; if straight, one defies princes. Rulers consider this integrity and respect it. The view of Song Rongzi is to avoid conflict, not to seek revenge, not to feel shame in prison, and not to feel insulted when humiliated. Rulers consider this tolerance and respect it. To approve of Qidiao’s integrity is to condemn Song Rongzi’s forbearance; to approve of Song Rongzi’s tolerance is to condemn Qidiao’s violence. Now, both tolerance and integrity, forbearance and violence, exist in these two men, yet the ruler respects both.
From the learning of fools and deceivers, and the strife of mixed and contradictory words, the ruler listens to all. Thus, the scholars of the land have no fixed principles in speech and no constant standards in conduct. Ice and charcoal cannot remain in the same vessel for long; cold and heat do not arrive at the same time. Contradictory teachings cannot stand together and bring order. If one listens to mixed learning and contradictory words, how can there be anything but chaos? If listening and acting are like this, governing people will certainly lead to chaos.
Scholars today who discuss governance often say, “Give land to the poor to replenish their lack of resources.” Now, if one associates with others and, without the benefit of abundant harvests or side incomes, manages to be self-sufficient, it is due to either diligence or frugality. If one associates with others and, without the calamity of famine, disease, or crime, ends up in poverty, it is due to either extravagance or laziness. The extravagant and lazy become poor; the diligent and frugal become rich. Now, if the ruler taxes the rich to distribute to the poor, he is taking from the diligent and frugal to give to the extravagant and lazy. To desire that the people work hard and use resources sparingly under such conditions is impossible.
If there is a man here who, in the name of righteousness, will not enter a besieged city, will not serve in the army, and would not trade a single hair from his shin for the great benefit of the world, the ruler will surely respect him, valuing his wisdom and praising his conduct as one who values life over material things. Now, the reason the ruler displays fine fields and large houses, and establishes titles and salaries, is to exchange them for the lives of the people. If the ruler honors those who value life over material things, yet seeks to have the people risk death and sacrifice heavily for the ruler’s affairs, it is impossible.
Those who store books and strategies, practice debate, gather followers, and engage in literary discussions are surely respected by the ruler, who says, “Respecting worthy scholars is the Way of the ancient kings.” Now, the officials tax the farmers, but the ruler supports the scholars. If farmers are heavily taxed while scholars are generously rewarded, to seek that the people work hard and talk less is impossible. Those who establish high moral standards, hold to their principles without infringement, and draw swords at the slightest complaint heard, are respected by the ruler as men of self-respect. If the merit of cutting off heads in battle is not rewarded, but the bravery of private feuds is honored and exalted, to seek that the people fight swiftly against enemies and avoid private fights is impossible.
In times of peace, the state supports Confucians and knights-errant; in times of crisis, it uses armored soldiers. Those supported are not those used; those used are not those supported. This is the cause of chaos. When a ruler listens to teachings, if the words are correct, he should promulgate them in the government and employ the person; if the words are incorrect, he should dismiss the person and stop the source. To consider them correct but not employ them, and to consider them incorrect but not stop the source – this is the path to chaos and ruin.
Tantai Ziyu had the appearance of a gentleman. Confucius appreciated him and accepted him, but after associating with him for a long time, his conduct did not match his appearance. Zai Yu’s speech was elegant and refined. Confucius appreciated him and accepted him, but after associating with him for a long time, his wisdom did not match his eloquence. Thus, Confucius said, “If I judge people by appearance, I err in Ziyu; if I judge people by speech, I err in Zai Yu.” Even with the wisdom of Confucius, there were complaints of misjudgment. Today, new sophistry is more rampant than Zai Yu’s, and rulers are more dazzled than Confucius. If they are pleased by words and thus appoint the person, how can they not err? Thus, Wei employed Meng Mao for his eloquence and suffered the disaster at Huaxia; Zhao employed the son of the Marquis of Ma fu for his eloquence and suffered the disaster at Changping. These two cases are the errors of employing eloquence.
To examine the metal and observe the color, even Ou Yezi (a famous swordsmith) cannot be certain of the sword’s quality. But if it strikes geese in the water and cuts horses on land, even a slave has no doubt about its sharpness. To examine the teeth and appearance, even Bo Le (a famous horse judge) cannot be certain of the horse’s quality. But if harnessed to a carriage and observed on a long journey, even a slave has no doubt about whether it is a nag or a thoroughbred. To observe appearance and listen to words, even Confucius cannot be certain of a scholar’s worth. But if tested in office and their merits assessed, even an ordinary person has no doubt about their stupidity or wisdom. Therefore, in the administration of an enlightened ruler, prime ministers must rise from the local districts, and fierce generals must emerge from the ranks of soldiers. If those with merit are surely rewarded, titles and salaries will be generous and more encouraging; if promotion follows rank, offices will be large and better governed. When titles and salaries are generous and offices well governed, this is the Way of the King.
A thousand li of rock cannot be called wealth; a million clay figures cannot be called strength. The rock is not small in size, and the number is not small, yet they cannot be called wealthy or strong because rock does not grow grain, and clay figures cannot be made to resist the enemy. Now, merchants, officials, and artisans also eat without plowing. This is land unplowed, identical to rock. Confucians and knights-errant have no military merit, yet they are prominent and honored. This means the people cannot be employed, identical to clay figures. To know the disaster of rock and clay figures, yet not know the disaster of merchants, officials, Confucians, and knights-errant as unplowed land and unemployable people, is to not understand analogy.
Thus, although the rulers of enemy states may praise our righteousness, I will not offer tribute and submit as a vassal. Although the nobles within the passes may criticize my conduct, I will surely make them hold birds of tribute and attend court. Therefore, if one has much power, others will attend court; if one has little power, one will attend court at others’. Thus, the enlightened ruler strives for power. In a strict household, there are no rebellious slaves; but a loving mother has spoiled sons. From this, I know that authority and power can prohibit violence, but abundant virtue is insufficient to stop chaos.
The sage governs the state not by relying on people doing good for his sake, but by using methods that prevent them from doing wrong. Relying on people doing good for his sake, there are not even ten such people in the state. Using methods that prevent them from doing wrong, the whole state can be made uniform. In governing, one uses the many and discards the few. Thus, one does not strive for virtue but for law. If one must rely on self-straight arrows, there will be no arrows for a hundred generations. If one must rely on self-round wood, there will be no wheels for a thousand generations. Self-straight arrows and self-round wood do not exist in a hundred generations, yet everyone rides in carriages and shoots birds. Why? Because the method of shaping (using tools) is used. Even if there were self-straight arrows and self-round wood without shaping, a good craftsman would not value them. Why? Because the rider is not just one person, and the shooter does not shoot just once. A ruler who does not rely on rewards and punishments but relies on self-good people is not valued by an enlightened ruler. Why? Because state laws cannot be lost, and those governed are not just one person. Thus, a ruler with method does not follow accidental goodness but walks the inevitable path.
If someone says to another, “I will make you necessarily wise and long-lived,” the world will surely consider him mad. Wisdom is nature; longevity is fate. Nature and fate are not learned from others. To please people with what they cannot do is why the world calls him mad. To say it is impossible is to explain; to explain is to understand nature. To teach people with benevolence and righteousness is like pleasing them with wisdom and longevity. A ruler with standards will not accept it. Thus, to praise the beauty of Mao Qiang and Xi Shi is of no benefit to my face. But to use grease, powder, and eyebrow paint is to double one’s initial appearance. To speak of the benevolence and righteousness of ancient kings is of no benefit to governance. To clarify laws and ensure rewards and punishments is the grease and powder of the state. Thus, the enlightened ruler hastens to use what helps and delays praise. Therefore, he does not speak of benevolence and righteousness.
If a shaman prays for someone, saying, “May you live for a thousand autumns and ten thousand years,” the sound of “thousand autumns and ten thousand years” fills the ears, but not even one day of life is verified in the person. This is why people slight shamans. The Confucians of today, when persuading rulers, do not discuss what makes for good governance now, but speak of the achievements of already-governed pasts. They do not examine the matters of officials and laws, nor investigate the nature of treachery, but all speak of the transmitted praises of antiquity and the successes of ancient kings. Confucians decorate their words, saying, “Listen to my words, and you can become a Hegemon or a King.” These persuaders are the shamans of speech. A ruler with standards will not accept them. Thus, the enlightened ruler performs solid deeds, discards the useless, does not speak of benevolence and righteousness, and does not listen to the words of scholars.
Those who do not understand governance surely say, “Win the hearts of the people.” If winning the hearts of the people is enough for governance, then Yi Yin and Guan Zhong would have no use; one would simply listen to the people. The wisdom of the people cannot be used, just like the mind of an infant. If an infant’s head is not shaved, he will have abdominal pain; if his abscess is not lanced, it will worsen. Shaving the head and lancing the abscess require one person to hold him and a loving mother to perform the operation, yet he still cries endlessly. The infant does not know that suffering a small pain leads to a great benefit.
Now, the ruler urgently plows fields and clears weeds to increase the people’s wealth, yet the people consider him cruel. He rectifies punishments and imposes heavy penalties to prohibit evil, yet the people consider him harsh. He levies taxes in money and grain to fill the warehouses, to save from famine and prepare for the army, yet the people consider him greedy. Within the borders, all must know to armor up and not seek private exemptions, to unite strength and fight quickly to capture prisoners, yet the people consider him violent. These four things are what bring order and security, yet the people do not know to rejoice in them. To seek sage and enlightened scholars is because the people’s wisdom is insufficient to be a teacher or to be used.
In the past, when Yu dredged the rivers, the people gathered stones to obstruct him. When Zichan opened fields and planted mulberry trees, the people of Zheng slandered him. Yu benefited the world, and Zichan saved Zheng, yet both were slandered. That the wisdom of the people is insufficient to be used is clear. Thus, to elevate scholars and seek the wise and intelligent, and to govern in hopes of suiting the people, are all beginnings of chaos and cannot be used for governance.
Note
This chapter, “Xianxue” or “Prominent Schools,” is from the Hanfeizi, a foundational Legalist text from the late Warring States period. It argues that a ruler should not be dazzled by moral rhetoric, empty debate, or fashionable scholars, but should instead rely on law, verified performance, and state power.
The author. He was a prince of the State of Han and the most systematic representative of Legalism. His thought centers on fa (law), shu (statecraft), and shi (authority).
Confucius and Confucianism:
Confucius, or Kong Qiu, was the founder of Confucianism, which emphasized ritual, moral cultivation, and filial piety. After his death, his followers split into eight sects, which Han Fei uses to argue that Confucian truth cannot be verified.
Mozi and Mohism:
Mo Di, or Mozi, founded Mohism, which advocated impartial care, frugality, and simple funerals. Mohism later split into three sects. Han Fei treats Mohist frugality and Confucian mourning as contradictory practices that a ruler should not honor at the same time.
Legendary sage-kings revered by Confucians and Mohists as models of ancient virtue. Han Fei argues that because they cannot return, claims about their “true Way” cannot be proved.
Qidiao Shi and Song Rongzi:
Two thinkers representing opposite ideals of conduct. Qidiao Shi stands for unyielding integrity; Song Rongzi stands for non-contention and tolerance. Han Fei says a ruler who praises both is accepting contradictory values.
Tantai Ziyu and Zai Yu:
Disciples of Confucius. Confucius once judged Ziyu by his dignified appearance and Zai Yu by his elegant speech, but both later disappointed him. See Confucius’ stern rebuke of Zai Yu. The episode warns rulers not to select officials by looks or eloquence.
Meng Mao and Zhao Kuo:
Meng Mao was a Wei statesman known for persuasive speech; Zhao Kuo, son of the Marquis of Mafu, was an Zhao commander famous for theoretical military talk. Han Fei cites their failures at Huaxia and Changping as disasters caused by appointing eloquent but untested men.
Ou Yezi and Bo Le:
Ou Yezi was a legendary swordsmith; Bo Le was a famous judge of horses. Han Fei uses them to show that even experts cannot judge quality by appearance alone; real value must be tested in use.
A legendary ruler who controlled floods by dredging rivers. Han Fei says ordinary people once tried to obstruct him, proving that popular opinion is not always reliable.
Zichan:
A capable statesman of the State of Zheng. When he expanded fields and planted mulberry trees, people slandered him, though his policies strengthened the state.
Two legendary beauties. Han Fei says praising their beauty does not improve one’s own face; only cosmetics do. He uses this to argue that praising ancient benevolence is less useful than applying clear laws and rewards.
Yi Yin and Guan Zhong:
Celebrated ministers in early Chinese political tradition. Han Fei mentions them to reject the idea that simply “winning the people’s hearts” is enough for governance.
Filial mourning and Mohist frugality:
Confucian mourning could last three years and damage the mourner’s health, while Mohist funerals were brief and simple. Han Fei sees them as incompatible models that rulers should not honor together.
Knights-errant:
Wandering men who prized personal honor and private revenge. Han Fei criticizes rulers who praise them, because they undermine military discipline and public order.
Statecraft and Legalism:
Han Fei’s core message is that a strong state depends on tested officials, agricultural and military productivity, clear laws, and reliable rewards and punishments, not on unverifiable ancient ideals or popular applause.
显学第五十
世之显学，儒、墨也。儒之所至，孔丘也。墨之所至，墨翟也。自孔子之死也，有子张之儒，有子思之儒，有颜氏之儒，有孟氏之儒，有漆雕氏之儒，有仲良氏之儒，有孙氏之儒，有乐正氏之儒。自墨子之死也，有相里氏之墨，有相夫氏之墨，有邓陵氏之墨。故孔、墨之后，儒分为八，墨离为三，取舍相反不同，而皆自谓真孔、墨，孔、墨不可复生，将谁使定世之学乎？孔子、墨子俱道尧、舜，而取舍不同，皆自谓真尧、舜，尧、舜不复生，将谁使定儒、墨之诚乎？殷、周七百余岁，虞、夏二千余岁，而不能定儒、墨之真；今乃欲审尧、舜之道于三千岁之前，意者其不可必乎！无参验而必之者，愚也；弗能必而据之者，诬也。故明据先王，必定尧、舜者，非愚则诬也。愚诬之学，杂反之行，明主弗受也。
墨者之葬也，冬日冬服，夏日夏服，桐棺三寸，服丧三月，世主以为俭而礼之。儒者破家而葬，服丧三年，大毁扶杖，世主以为孝而礼之。夫是墨子之俭，将非孔子之侈也；是孔子之孝，将非墨子之戾也。今孝、戾、侈、俭俱在儒、墨，而上兼礼之。漆雕之议，不色挠，不目逃，行曲则违于臧获，行直则怒于诸侯，世主以为廉而礼之。宋荣子之议，设不斗争，取不随仇，不羞囹圄，见侮不辱，世主以为宽而礼之。夫是漆雕之廉，将非宋荣之恕也；是宋荣之宽，将非漆雕之暴也。今宽、廉、恕、暴俱在二子，人主兼而礼之。自愚诬之学、杂反之辞争，而人主俱听之，故海内之士，言无定术，行无常议。夫冰炭不同器而久，寒暑不兼时而至，杂反之学不两立而治。今兼听杂学缪行同异之辞，安得无乱乎？听行如此，其于治人又必然矣。
今世之学士语治者，多曰：“与贫穷地以实无资。”今夫与人相善也，无丰年旁入之利而独以完给者，非力则俭也。与人相善也，无饥馑、疾疚、祸罪之殃独以贫穷者，非侈则堕也。侈而堕者贫，而力而俭者富。今上征敛于富人以布施于贫家，是夺力俭而与侈堕也，而欲索民之疾作而节用，不可得也。
今有人于此，义不入危城，不处军旅，不以天下大利易其胫一毛，世主必从而礼之，贵其智而高其行，以为轻物重生之士也。夫上所以陈良田大宅，设爵禄，所以易民死命也。今上尊贵轻物重生之士，而索民之出死而重殉上事，不可得也。藏书策，习谈论，聚徒役，服文学而议说，世主必从而礼之，曰：“敬贤士，先王之道也。”夫吏之所税，耕者也；而上之所养，学士也。耕者则重税，学士则多赏，而索民之疾作而少言谈，不可得也。立节参明，执操不侵，怨言过于耳，必随之以剑，世主必从而礼之，以为自好之士。夫斩首之劳不赏，而家斗之勇尊显，而索民之疾战距敌而无私斗，不可得也。国平则养儒侠，难至则用介士。所养者非所用，所用者非所养，此所以乱也。且夫人主于听学也，若是其言，宜布之官而用其身；若非其言，宜去其身而息其端。今以为是也，而弗布于官；以为非也，而不息其端。是而不用，非而不息，乱亡之道也。
澹台子羽，君子之容也，仲尼几而取之，与处久而行不称其貌。宰予之辞，雅而文也，仲尼几而取之，与处久而智不充其辩。故孔子曰：“以容取人乎，失之子羽；以言取人乎，失之宰予。”故以仲尼之智而有失实之声。今之新辩滥乎宰予，而世主之听眩乎仲尼，为悦其言，因任其身，则焉得无失乎？是以魏任孟卯之辩，而有华下之患；赵任马服之辩，而有长平之祸。此二者，任辩之失也。夫视锻锡而察青黄，区冶不能以必剑；水击鹄雁，陆断驹马，则臧获不疑钝利。发齿吻形容，伯乐不能以必马；授车就驾，而观其末涂，则臧获不疑驽良。观容服，听辞言，仲尼不能以必士；试之官职，课其功伐，则庸人不疑于愚智。故明主之吏，宰相必起于州部，猛将必发于卒伍。夫有功者必赏，则爵禄厚而愈劝；迁官袭级，则官职大而愈治。夫爵禄大而官职治，王之道也。
磐石千里，不可谓富；象人百万，不可谓强。石非不大，数非不众也，而不可谓富强者，磐不生粟，象人不可使距敌也。今商官技艺之士亦不垦而食，是地不垦，与磐石一贯也。儒侠毋军劳，显而荣者，则民不使，与象人同事也。夫祸知磐石象人，而不知祸商官儒侠为不垦之地、不使之民，不知事类者也。
故敌国之君王虽说吾义，吾弗入贡而臣；关内之侯虽非吾行，吾必使执禽而朝。是故力多则人朝，力寡则朝于人，故明君务力。夫严家无悍虏，而慈母有败子。吾以此知威势之可以禁暴，而德厚之不足以止乱也。
夫圣人之治国，不恃人之为吾善也，而用其不得为非也。恃人之为吾善也，境内不什数；用人不得为非，一国可使齐。为治者用众而舍寡，故不务德而务法。夫必恃自直之箭，百世无矢；恃自圜之术，千世无轮矣。自直之箭，自圜之术，百世无有一，然而世皆乘车射禽者何也？隐栝之道用也。虽有不恃隐栝而有自直之箭、自圜之术，良工弗贵也。何则？乘者非一人，射者非一发也。不恃赏罚而恃自善之民，明主弗贵也。何则？国法不可失，而所治非一人也。故有术之君，不随适然之善，而行必然之道。
今或谓人曰：“使子必智而寿”，则世必以为狂。夫智，性也；寿，命也。性命者，非所学于人也，而以人之所不能为说人，此世之所以谓之为狂也。谓之不能然，则是谕也，夫谕性也。以仁义教人，是以智与寿说也，有度之主弗受也。故善毛啬、西施之美，无益吾面；用脂泽粉黛，则倍其初。言先王之仁义，无益于治；明吾法度，必吾赏罚者，亦国之脂泽粉黛也。故明主急其助而缓其颂，故不道仁义。
今巫祝之祝人曰：“使若千秋万岁。”千秋万岁之声括耳，而一日之寿无征于人，此人所以简巫祝也。今世儒者之说人主，不善今之所以为治，而语已治之功；不审官法之事，不察奸邪之情，而皆道上古之传誉、先王之成功。儒者饰辞曰：“听吾言，则可以霸王。”此说者之巫祝，有度之主不受也。故明主举实事，去无用，不道仁义者故，不听学者之言。
今不知治者必曰：“得民之心。”欲得民之心而可以为治，则是伊尹、管仲无所用也，将听民而已矣。民智之不可用，犹婴儿之心也。夫婴儿不剔首则腹痛，不揊痤则寖益。剔首、揊痤，必一人抱之，慈母治之，然犹啼呼不止，婴儿子不知犯其所小苦致其所大利也。今上急耕田垦草以厚民产也，而以上为酷；修刑重罚以为禁邪也，而以上为严；征赋钱粟以实仓库，且以救饥馑、备军旅也，而以上为贪；境内必知介而无私解，并力疾斗，所以禽虏也，而以上为暴。此四者，所以治安也，而民不知悦也。夫求圣通之士者，为民知之不足师用。昔禹决江濬河而民聚瓦石，子产开亩树桑郑人谤訾。禹利天下，子产存郑，皆以受谤，夫民智之不足用亦明矣。故举士而求贤智，为政而期适民，皆乱之端，未可与为治也。
Leave a Reply