3 THEORIGINOFTHESCHOOLS

In the last chapter I said that Confucianism and Taoism are the two main streams of Chinese thought. They became so only after a long evolution, however, and from the fifth through the third centuries B.C. they were only two among many other rival schools of thought. During that period the number of schools was so great that the Chinese referred to them as the "hundred schools."

● Ssu-ma T'an and the Six Schools

Later historians have attempted to make a classification of these "hundred schools." The first to do so was Ssu-ma T'an (died 110 B.C.), father of Ssu-ma Ch'ien (145-ca. 86 B.C.), and the author with him of China'S first great dynastic history, the Shih Chi or Historical Records . In the last chapter of this work Ssu-ma Ch'ien quotes an essay by his father, titled "On the Essential Ideas of the Six Schools." In this essay Ssu-ma T'an classifies the philosophers of the preceding several centuries into six major schools, as follows:

The first is the Yin-Yang chia or Yin-Yang school, which is one of cosmologists. It derives its name from the Yin and Yang principles, which in Chinese thought are regarded as the two major principles of Chinese cosmology, Yin being the female principle, and Yang the male principle, the combination and interaction of which is believed by the Chinese to result in all universal phenomena.

The second school is the Ju chia or School of Literati. This school is known in Western literature as the Confucianist school, but the word ju literally means "literatus" or scholar. Thus the Western title is somewhat misleading, because it misses the implication that the followers of this school were scholars as well as thinkers; they, above all others, were the teachers of the ancient classics and thus the inheritors of the ancient cultural legacy. Confucius, to be sure, is the leading figure of this school and may rightly be considered as its founder. Nevertheless the term ju not only denotes "Confucian" or "Confucianist," but has a wider implication as well.

The third school is that of the Mo chia or Mohist school. This school had a close-knit organization and strict discipline under the leadership of Mo Tzu. Its followers actually called themselves the Mohists. Thus the title of this school is not an invention of Ssu-ma T'an, as were some of the other schools.

The fourth school is the Ming chia or School of Names. The followers of this school were interested in the distinction between, and relation of, what they called "names" and "actualities."

The fifth school is the Fa chia or Legalist school. The Chinese word fa means pattern or law. The school derived from a group of statesmen who maintained that good government must be one based on a fixed code of law instead of on the moral institutions which the literati stressed for government.

The sixth school is the Tao-Te chia or School of the Way and its Power. The followers of this school centered their metaphysics and social philosophy around the concept of Non-being, which is the Tao or Way, and its concentration in the individual as the natural virtue of man, which is Te , translated as "virtue" but better rendered as the "power" that inheres in any individual thing. This group, called by Ssu-ma T'an the Tao-Te school, was later known simply as the Tao chia , and is referred to in Western literature as the Taoist school. As pointed out in the first chapter, it should be kept carefully distinct from the Taoist religion.

● Liu Hsin and His Theory of the Beginning of the Schools

The second historian who attempted to classify the "hundred schools" was Liu Hsin (ca. 46 B.C.-A.D. 23). He was one of the greatest scholars of his day, and, with his father Liu Hsiang, made a collation of the books in the Imperial Library. The resulting descriptive catalogue of the Imperial Library, known as the "Seven Summaries," was taken by Pan Ku (A.D. 32-92) as the basis for the chapter, Yi Wen Chih or "Treatise on Literature," contained in his dynastic history, the History of the Former Han Dynasty. In this "Treatise" we see that Liu Hsin classifies the "hundred schools" into ten main groups. Out of these, six are the same as those listed by Ssu-ma T'an. The other four are the Tsung-Heng chia or School of Diplomatists, Tsa chia or School of Eclectics, Nung chia or School of Agrarians, and Hsiao-shuo chia or School of Story Tellers. In conclusion, Liu Hsin writes:"The various philosophers consist of ten schools, but there are only nine that need be noticed." By this statement he means to say that the School of Story Tellers lacks the importance of the other schools.

In this classification itself, Liu Hsin did not go very much further than Ssu-ma T'an had done. What was new, however, was his attempt for the first time in Chinese history to trace systematically the historical origins of the different schools.

Liu Hsin'S theory has been greatly elaborated by later scholars, especially by Chang Hsüeh-Ch'eng (1738-1801) and the late Chang Pinglin. In essence, it maintains that in the early Chou dynasty (1122?-256 B.C.), before the social institutions of that age disintegrated, there was "no separation between officers and teachers." In other words the officers of a certain department of the government were at the same time the transmitters of the branch of learning pertaining to that department. These officers, like the feudal lords of the day, held their posts on a hereditary basis. Hence there was then only "official learning" but no "private teaching." That is to say, nobody taught any branch of learning as a private individual. Any such teaching was carried on only by officers in their capacity as members of one or another department of the government.

According to this theory, however, when the Chou ruling house lost its power during the later centuries of the Chou dynasty, the officers of the governmental departments lost their former positions and scattered throughout the country. They then turned to the teaching of their special branches of knowledge in a private capacity. Thus they were then no longer "officers," but only private "teachers." And it was out of this separation between teachers and officers that the different schools arose.

Liu Hsin'S whole analysis reads as follows: "The members of the Ju school had their origin in the Ministry of Education…. This school delighted in the study of the Liu Yi [the Six Classics or six liberal arts] and paid attention to matters concerning human-heartedness and righteousness. They regarded Yao and Shun [two ancient sage emperors supposed to have lived in the twenty-fourth and twenty-third centuries B.C.] as the ancestors of their school, and King Wen [1120?-1108? B.C. of the Chou dynasty] and King Wu [son of King Wen] as brilliant exemplars. To give authority to their teaching, they honored Chung-ni [Confucius] as an exalted teacher. Their teaching is the highest truth. 'That which is admired must be tested.' The glory of Yao and Shun, the prosperity of the dynasties of Yin and Chou, and the achievements of Chung-ni are the results discovered by testing their teaching.

"Those of the Taoist school had their origin in the official historians. By studying the historical examples of success and failure, preservation and destruction, and calamity and prosperity, from ancient to recent times, they learned how to hold what is essential and to grasp the fundamental. They guarded themselves with purity and emptiness, and with humbleness and meekness maintained themselves…. Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the Yin-Yang school had their origin in the official astronomers. They respectfully followed luminous heaven, and the successive symbols of the sun and moon, the stars and constellations, and the divisions of times and seasons. Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the Legalist school had their origin in the Ministry of Justice. They emphasized strictness in rewarding and punishing, in order to support a system of correct conduct. Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the School of Names had their origin in the Ministry of Ceremonies. For the ancients, where titles and positions differed, the ceremonies accorded to them were also different. Confucius has said: 'If names be incorrect, speech will not follow its natural sequence. If speech does not follow its natural sequence, nothing can be established.' Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the Mohist school had their origin in the Guardians of the Temple. The temple was built with plain wooden rafters and thatched roofs; hence their teaching emphasized frugality. The temple was the place where the Three Elders and Five Experienced Men were honored; hence their teaching emphasized universal love. The ceremony of selecting civil officials and that of military exercises were also held in the temple; hence their teaching emphasized the preferment of virtue and ability. The temple was the place for sacrifice to ancestors and reverence to fathers; hence their teaching was to honor the spirits. They accepted the traditional teaching of following the four seasons in one'S conduct; hence their teaching was against fatalism. They accepted the traditional teaching of exhibiting filial piety throughout the world; hence they taught the doctrine of 'agreeing with the superior.' Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the Diplomatist school had their origin in the Ministry of Embassies… [They taught the art of] following general orders [in diplomacy], instead of following literal instructions. Herein lies the strength of their teaching.

"Those of the Eclectic school had their origin in the Councillors. They drew both from the Confucianists and the Mohists, and harmonized the School of Names and the Legalists. They knew that the nation had need of each of these, and saw that kingly government should not fail to unite all. Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the Agricultural school had their origin in the Ministry of Soil and Grain. They taught the art of sowing the various kinds of grain and urged people to plow and to cultivate the mulberry so that the clothing and food of the people would be sufficient…. Herein lies the strong point of this school.

"Those of the School of Story Tellers had their origin in the Petty Offices. This school was created by those who picked up the talk of streets and alleys and repeated what they heard wherever they went…. Even if in their teaching but a single word can be chosen, still there is some contribution." ("Treatise on Literature" in the History of the Former Han Dynasty .)

This is what Liu Hsin says about the historical origin of the ten schools. His interpretation of the significance of the schools is inadequate, and his attribution of certain of them to certain "Ministries" is in some cases arbitrary. For instance, in describing the teaching of the Taoists, he touches only on the ideas of Lao Tzu, and omits those of Chuang Tzu altogether. Moreover, there appears to be no similarity between the teaching of the School of Names and the functions of the Ministry of Ceremonies, save that both emphasized the making of distinctions.

● A Revision of Liu Hsin'S Theory

Yet though the details of Liu Hsin'S theory may be wrong, his attempt to trace the origin of the schools to certain political and social circumstances certainly represents a right point of view. I have quoted him at length because his description of the various schools is itself a classic in Chinese historiography.

The study of Chinese history has made great progress in China in recent times, especially during the few years just before the Japanese invasion of 1937. In the light of recent research, therefore, I have formed a theory of my own in regard to the origin of the philosophic schools. In spirit this theory agrees with that of Liu Hsin, but it must be expressed in a different way. This means that things have to be seen from a new angle.

Let us imagine what China looked like politically and socially in, say, the tenth century B.C. At the top of the political and social structure, there was the King of the Chou royal house, who was the "common lord" of all the different states. Under him were hundreds of states, each owned and governed by its Princes. Some of them were established by the founders of the Chou dynasty, who had allotted the newly conquered territory as feudal fiefs to their relatives. Others were ruled by the former rivals of the Chou house, who now, however, acknowledged the King of Chou as their "common lord."

Within each state, under the Prince, the land was again divided into many fiefs, each with its own feudal lord, who were relatives of the Prince. At that time, political power and economic control were one and the same. Those who had the land were the political and economic masters of it, and of the people who lived on it. They were the chün tzu , a term which literally means "sons of the Princes," but which was used as a common designation of the class of the feudal lords.

The other social class was that of the hsiao jen , meaning small men, or shu min , meaning common people or the mass. These were the serfs of the feudal lords, who cultivated the land for the chün tzu in time of peace, and fought for them in time of war.

The aristocrats were not only the political rulers and landlords, but also the only persons who had a chance to receive an education. Thus the houses of the feudal lords were not only centers of political and economic power, but also centers of learning. Attached to them were officers who possessed specialized knowledge along various lines. But the common people, for their part, had no chance to become educated, so that among them there were no men of learning. This is the fact behind Liu Hsin'S theory that in the early Chou dynasty "there was no separation between officers and teachers."

This feudal system was formally abolished by the First Emperor of the Ch'in dynasty in 221 B.C. But hundreds of years before that, the system had already begun to disintegrate, whereas thousands of years later, economic remnants of feudalism still remained in the form of the power of the landlord class.

Historians of modern time are still not agreed as to what were the causes of the disintegration of the feudal system. Nor is it within the scope of this chapter to discuss these causes. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say that in Chinese history the period between the seventh and third centuries B.C. was one of great social and political transformation and change.

We are not sure just when the disintegration of the feudal system began. Already as early as the seventh century B.C. there were aristocrats who through the wars of the time, or for other reasons, lost their lands and titles, and thus fell to the level of the common people. There were also common people who through skill or favoritism became high officials of the state. This illustrates the real significance of the disintegration of the Chou dynasty. It was not only the disintegration of the political power of a particular royal house, but—and this is more important— of an entire social system.

With this disintegration, the former official representatives of the various branches of learning became scattered among the common people. They had either been actual nobles themselves, or had been specialists holding hereditary offices in the service of the aristocratic ruling families. This is the significance of a quotation made by Liu Hsin from Confucius in the course of the same "Treatise" partially quoted from above: "When ceremonies become lost [at the court], it is necessary to search for them in the countryside."

Thus when these former nobles or officials scattered throughout the country, they maintained a livelihood by carrying on, in a private capacity, their specialized abilities or skills. Those of them who expressed their ideas to other private individuals became professional "teachers," and thus there arose the separation between the teacher and the officer.

The word "school" in this chapter is a translation of the Chinese word chia , which at the same time is used to denote a family or home. Hence it suggests something personal or private. There could be no chia of thought before there were persons who taught their own ideas in a private capacity.

Likewise there were different kinds of chia because these teachers were specialists in varying branches of learning and of the arts. Thus there were some who were specialists in the teaching of the classics and the practicing of ceremonies and music. These were known as the ju or literati. There were also specialists in the art of war. These were the hsieh or knights. There were specialists in the art of speaking, who were known as the pienche or debaters. There were specialists in magic, divination, astrology, and numerology, who were known as the fang-shih , or practitioners of occult arts. There were also the practical politicians who could act as private advisers to the feudal rulers, and who were known as fa-shu chih shih or "men of methods." And finally, there were some men who possessed learning and talent, but who were so embittered by the political disorders of their time that they retired from human society into the world of nature. These were known as the yin-che or hermits or recluses.

According to my theory, it is from these six different kinds of people that the six schools of thought as listed by Ssu-ma T'an originated. Paraphrasing Liu Hsin, therefore, I would say:

Members of the Ju school had their origin in the literati.

Members of the Mohist school had their origin in the knights.

Members of the Taoist school had their origin in the hermits.

Members of the School of Names had their origin in the debaters.

Members of the Yin-Yang school had their origin in the practitioners of occult arts.

Members of the Legalist school had their origin in the "men of methods."

The explanations of these statements will be found in the chapters that follow.