"The Perspicuity of Ghosts and Spirits" and the problem of intellectual affiliations in early China.

• Author: Brindley, Erica
• Position: Critical essay

This paper examines the short, recently published text from the Shanghai Museum collection of excavated Chu manuscripts, "The Perspicuity of Ghosts and Spirits [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] "Ghosts and Spirits" for short)," in light of what it can tell us about intellectual affiliations in early Chinese thought. (1) I will first provide a tentative translation of this brief text. Next, I will analyze the text, drawing out the author's main arguments and pointing out what might be considered "Mohist" about it. I compare the author's main claims concerning ghosts and spirits with a variety of passages from the Mohist corpus and other relevant texts. (2) Lastly, I comment on the construction of "Mohism" in a critical way, highlighting problems intrinsic to the study of intellectual affiliation in early China. This will reveal how even a brief manuscript such as "Ghosts and Spirits" might complicate our understandings of how knowledge was constructed, reformulated, and transmitted in early China. It will also highlight the difficulties associated with assigning any unknown text a set label such as "Mohist," "Ru," etc., and provide added fuel for recent skepticism regarding the "schools of thought" approach to intellectual history of the period. (3)

TRANSLATION OF "THE PERSPICUITY OF GHOSTS AND SPIRITS"

The "Perspicuity of Ghosts and Spirits," published in the fifth volume of Shanghai bowuguan cang Zhanguo Chu zhushu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], is written on five bamboo strips, as part of an eight-strip sequence of text. The text consists of 197 characters and is followed by parts of what the editors consider to be a separate text, referred to as "Rong shi you Cheng shi" [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. (4)

The author of "Ghosts and Spirits" writes in an expository and reflective manner, often posing rhetorical questions and frankly revealing his own uncertainties. For the sake of analysis, I break the text down into four sections: 1) introductory statements, 2) evidence from ancient times, 3) evidence from more recent times, 4) concluding questions and remarks.

In his introductory statements, the author begins with a simple, declarative statement about the nature of supernatural efficacy.

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (5)

Now, there are areas in which ghosts and spirits are perspicuous and areas in which they are not perspicuous. (6) This is how they reward the good and punish the unprincipled. (7) The author next justifies his introductory statement by providing real examples and evidence from the age of the ancient rulers:

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

In ancient times, Emperors Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang were benevolent, righteous, sagely, and knowledgeable. All under Heaven modeled themselves after them. [On account of their superior qualities], they were honored as Sons of Heaven, bringing prosperity to all under Heaven, and enjoying long lives and fame. The people of later generations carried on [their models]. Thus, it is clear from these [examples] that ghosts and spirits rewarded them. As for the [unprincipled] rulers Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, they incinerated sages, murdered those who admonished them, robbed the people of the hundred surnames, and brought disorder to the state. (8) Of these, Jie was cut at the waist al Ge Mountain, and Zhou's head was placed in Qi Altar. (9) They did not live out their years and were made the laughing-stock of the entire world. Thus, (it is clear from these [examples]) that ghosts (and spirits punished them). (10) In the third section, the author complicates his discussion by providing evidence from more recent times, which runs counter to the previous examples:

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

But then [we turn] to Wu Zixu, a sage of the world, who was stuffed into a "wineskin" and killed. (11) Rong Yigong, a world-famous villain, expired in old age. (12) Considering it this way, then of the good, some are not rewarded, and of the bad, [some are not punished]. (13) The concluding section brings the reader back to the initial problem of the inconsistent efficaciousness of ghosts and spirits. The author introduces important questions and provides honest responses:

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Therefore, is it not as I have claimed before? (14) Ghosts and spirits are [in some areas] not perspicuous. There must be a reason for it. Is it that their strength is sufficient to meet the task (i.e., to reward the worthy and punish the unworthy), but that they do not do it? I do not know. Or is it perhaps that from the start their strength is not sufficient to meet the task? Again, I do not know. These are the two divergent [possibilities]. Thus, I say, there are areas in which ghosts and spirits are perspicuous arid areas in which they are not perspicuous. This is what [the saying] refers to. (15) TEXTUAL ANALYSIS: THE SPOTTY PERSPICUITY OF GHOSTS AND SPIRITS

The manuscript has a fairly straightforward message: ghosts and spirits are sometimes efficacious in punishing the bad and rewarding the good, and they sometimes are not. (16) From the beginning of the text, we see that the author addresses an issue most dear to both the early and later Mohists: ghosts and spirits as arbiters of punishment and reward. Moreover, the author seems to take for granted the fact that ghosts and spirits exist--something the early Mohists vehemently argued in favor of in their writings. (17)

This all suggests that the text is related to Mohist groups in some way, which has led Cao Jinyan [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] the commentator to the text in the Shanghai manuscript edition, to go so far as to say that it represents a "lost writing of the Mozi" (18) Cao also asserts that the text was probably part of a larger dialogue between Mo Di [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] and his disciples, and that Mozi in fact acts as the narrating voice in this text. (19)

Ding Sixin has already taken issue with the former two of these claims. Ding states that since the text's main thesis appears to refute the early Mohist claim in the unbending perspicuity of ghosts and spirits, it is unconvincing to say that "Ghosts and Spirits" should belong to the Mohist corpus. Indeed, as we will see below, all the writings in the Mohist corpus argue for the full and consistent efficacy of the ghosts and spirits, not for "spotty" perspicuity, as suggested by the author of "Ghosts and Spirits here. Ding furthermore notes that there is little basis in the text for claiming that it represents a dialogue between Mo Di and his disciples. (20)

Like Ding, I contend that the identification of this text as Mohist (early or late) is far from clear. I also agree that one cannot view this text as part of a larger dialogue between Mozi and his disciples. And lastly, I would argue against Cao's claim that the narrator of the test represents the fabled Mo Di. (21) As I will show in this analysis, the author of "Ghosts and Spirits" makes no attempt to hide behind a shield of authority such as that of Mo Di, nor does he hint in any way that the perspective he embraces (that of "I"--wu [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]--in the text) is anything more than his own, honest declaration of agnosticism with regard to a vexing religious question at the time.

If we are to understand better how this text and its viewpoints fit into the intellectual context of the day, we might begin by trying to ascertain who this author was--if not in name, then perhaps in terms of his social milieu or intellectual orientation. We might further try to evaluate the level of his affiliation with any of the known groups or lineages of thought of the day. Let us begin by analyzing Cao's proposals individually and in greater detail. First, does this text bear close relationship to the earlier or later chapters of the current, extant corpus, and if so, what type of relationship might we be able to posit? Second, does the voice of the narrator attempt to represent Mo Di's views, even though we know from the core chapters that Mo Di was a firm believer in the undivided power and efficacy of ghosts and spirits'? And third, how might this text have fit into a larger debate on ghosts and spirits of the day? In order to answer these questions, we will need to compare some passages in the extant Mohist corpus with this text, noting differences in style, argument, and vocabulary. We will also need to evaluate the various textual references to ghosts and spirits and their powers during the Warring States period to see how the author of "Ghosts and Spirits" fits in.

While the first two of three essays titled "Explaining Ghosts" in Mozi are lost, the third is long and holds together as a textual unit, providing us with ample evidence of an early Mohist perspective on this topic. (22) Of interest is the fact that the main question posed by the early Mohist is not, 'To what extent are ghosts and spirits perspicuous?" but "Do ghosts and spirits exist?" Similarly, whereas the aim of the author of "Ghosts and Spirits" is to declare that he does not know why ghosts and spirits are sometimes perspicuous and sometimes not, the early Mohist author wishes to prove the existence of ghosts and spirits to the doubtful reader. (23) Significantly, he insists that the problems and disorderliness of the world come about not just because of people's agnosticism concerning the existence of spirits, but also because they "do not understand that ghosts and spirits have the capability of rewarding the worthy and punishing the wicked." (24) This contrasts directly with the claim made in "Ghosts and Spirits," in which the author reveals that, while he understands that ghosts and spirits possess such a capability some of the time, he is unsure whether they have it at other times: "Now, there are areas in which ghosts and spirits are perspicuous and areas in which they are not perspicuous. This is how they reward the good and punish the unprincipled."

Let us now turn to the term...