Memoirs of a fallen Sith - tripartite virtues
January 2, 2018
Image Credit: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0303461/
(Gaozu’s adherence to the mysterious scholar assured the continuation of Han culture into distant galaxies. Sadly, no genetic Han person was evacuated in the final days of Earth, resulting in Han culture surviving only as crude expletives pronounced with an American accent. Such is Heaven’s will!)
Han, Reign of Gaozu year 1, Luoyang, Imperial Palace
“Tell me of your assessment of Xiang Yu.”
“The self-proclaimed Ba Wang is less of a man and more of a beast. He is akin to a tiger, rather than a ruler, a general, or a soldier.”
“What do you mean?”
“What is a measure of a man, your Majesty? What separates man from lowly beasts of the wild? Three qualities, your Majesty:
- Discipline over his passions,
- Command over his appetites
- Alignment of his will to that of Heaven.
It is seldom in human history that men are gifted with a ruler so bereft of all three qualities, as found lacking in the Ba Wang.”
“Quite the harsh criticism. I have little affection for the late Xiang Yu, but to compare him to a beast . . . He was instrumental in the fall of the Qin, without him, I may not even be sitting on this throne. Surely, for all his faults, Xiang Yu remains a hero?”
“It detracts little from your accomplishments, your Majesty, in besting the beast. For to defeat such a fearsome force of nature is indeed a great victory. Despite the imagination of the poets in writing their so-called history, it was not the fantastic talents of Xiang Yu that enflamed the rebellion of the Six Kingdoms, but rather, the shrewd calculations of his uncle Xiang Liang, who held the leash that kept the beast in check. After Xiang Liang’s untimely death, it was Fan Zeng, who led the Chu kingdom to some semblance of organization, despite the chaotic rampages of the beast. Xiang Yu belongs more on the Ordos plain with the barbaric Xiongnu than in the civilized cities of the Zhung-gua.”
“How did Xiang Yu’s lack of human qualities affect his governing of Chu? Is it with his cruelty you find objection? ”
“Ha ha! Strategic cruelty and ruthlessness are tools of effective governance and military policy. Xiang Yu’s petty tantrums are not cruelty, but mere petulance. I was present, when Advisor Wang Ben used the water assault tactic* to conquer Daliang and with it the entire Chu state. That was cruelty, your Majesty, and I neither begrudge nor condemn such actions.”
“Wang Ben diverted the Yellow River, flooding the entire praefecture, killing over 100,000 subjects and causing the desolation of Daliang that still is felt to this day! You find no objections in such an act?”
“What is the first principle in war, your Majesty?”
“ . . . are you referring to Sun Tzu’s Bing Fa? All wars are based on deception.”
“And what was the stated purpose of Confucius, your Majesty?”
“Zhengming, the rectification of names.”
“You surprise me with your familiarity with Confucianism, your Majesty.”
“As I stated earlier, having read your philosophy, I find it of little value.”
“Zhengming aims for truth not only in policies and law, but in the very language and thought itself. It exists as opposite to bing fa, much like ordered society stand as opposite to chaos of war. The analects have no place in the fierce battlefields of war, much as the bing fa is unsuitable for civilized society. Yet, both are necessary to govern a state in reality; life can seldom be condensed into a single philosophy.”
“Was Xiang Yu’s failure due to an adherence to a single philosophy in managing his government?”
“The ba wang’s failure lies in having no philosophy to govern his life, much less his kingdom. His actions were without any intent, but were merely reactions to circumstances that offended his delicate egotism. Having yoked himself entirely to his passions and appetites, the ba wang had no consistency in thought, will, or action. Bereft of any faculty of reason, the ba wang abandoned himself entirely to his vanity, solely adhering to the counsel of his prideful voice. A man, whose head is filled with his own voice and whose heart overflows with the love for himself, has no room left for wisdom, virtue, or Will of Heaven.”
“How did such failure manifest itself?”
“You have witnessed the ba wang’s fury at a lowly soldier under his command or a random beggar on the streets of conquered cities, who dared to utter even the slightest indication of disfavor towards him. Driven by his anxiety over criticism, the ba wang invested much of his inadequate mental faculties combating negative opinions of peasants, whose insignificant influence never reaches beyond the street of the slum he resides. That the hegemon-king of Zhung-gua deigned to boil alive a common soldier for an off-handed comment critical of Xiang Yu, reveals the grandiose pettiness of the ba wang. In his disorder of the soul, Xiang Yu confused cowardice for virtue, insecurity for dignity.”
“Hmf. Gou zhang ren shi”
“Yes, your Majesty. Xiang Yu is but a bully, no different from a barking dog acting fierce only when his master is present. Yet, it was his master, Xiang Liang who ultimately failed as his step-father and his mentor. Xiang Liang never could discipline his charge to persevere in any endeavor, thus raising a profligate without mastery in any subject, who solely relied upon his exaggerated talent and unbridled arrogance. Having never learned obedience, Xiang Yu never grasped the concept of authority. To him, command was but shouting threats at inappropriate occasions, while leadership was just another long word, like inspiration. Xiang Liang’s greatest failure was his ineptitude as a parent.”
“But Xiang Yu was devoted to his uncle. He buried alive 200,000 captured Qin soldiers as a tribute to his uncle.”
“You’ve identified yet another of Xiang Yu’s failures, your Majesty. Xiang Yu’s disorganized mind confounded the appearance of things for the actuality of reality. Did Xiang Yu’s profligate waste of such resources accomplish anything other than propitiation of his guilty mind regarding his failure as a stepson to Xiang Liang? If Xiang Yu truly cared for Xiang Liang, then perhaps he ought to have been a more disciplined, diligent, and obedient stepson. Failing that, Xiang Yu ought to have maintained the hegemony of the Chu kingdom, continuing his uncle’s legacy. Sadly, Xiang Liang, if remembered at all, is but a curious detail in the epic of Han ascendency, all due to the grand failures of his incompetent nephew.”
“Appearance over reality . . . is this the reason for Xiang Yu’s assassination attempt on me?”
“Xiang Yu having never possessed any legitimate authority, confused the title of king for the actual power of the king. What did the title of King of Guanzhong confer to you, your Majesty, when at the time, Han forces were but a fraction of Chu military alliance? What could King Huai confer that was of substance? Yet, Xiang Yu, whether overcome with envy or due to his monumental ignorance, antagonized his most competent subordinate and dismantled his political legitimacy by murdering King Huai. In the time it takes to drink a cup of tea, Xiang Yu demolished years’ worth of Xiang Liang’s political accomplishments.”
“Why didn’t Xiang Yu attack us with his army? Why the Feast at Hong Gate?”
“Xiang Yu would have attacked the Han army on sight, if it were not for Fan Zeng’s intervention. Do you honestly think that Xiang Yu could have even imagined such a subtle plan as that of the Feast? It was due to his lack of participation in formulating the political maneuver that Xiang Yu flippantly allowed your Majesty to flee from the trap. The ba wang could have ended the anticipated Han revolt had he merely allowed Fan Zeng’s plan to unfold. Yet, at the ineloquent censure from Fan Kuai, an enemy subordinate, Xiang Yu quickly changed his decision to assassinate your Majesty. While Fan Zeng schemed day and night for the stability of Chu, Xiang Yu was more concerned with approbation of enemy underlings. That such a man somehow became the leader of the rebellion exemplifies the adage: in civil strife, even villains rise to fame.”
“And the third? How was Xiang Yu’s last failing manifest itself?”
“Do you recall the report of Xiang Yu’s parting words on the bank of the Wu river?”
“That the fall of Chu was due to Heaven’s will?”
“Yes, your Majesty. Even at the final moments of his life, Xiang Yu displayed absolute adherence to the belief of his infallibility. Was it Heaven that dismissed Fan Zeng as an advisor at the critical juncture of Chu-Han contention? Was it Heaven that sent the seemingly numberless Chu soldiers into fighting on ten-thousand different fronts? Was it Heaven that insulted virtually all rebel leaders by appointing their subordinates as kings of the newly recreated 13 states? Was it Heaven that alienated closest allies of Chu with arrogant words? Was it Heaven that murdered the only political legitimacy to Chu Hegemony, King Huai? Having exhausted every excuse and scapegoats for his failures, Xiang Yu finally accuses Heaven itself for his failings as a man. A human would not be so puffed-up in the belief of his own divinity to renounce any and all responsibility for his life.”
“A full cup is unable to hold new tea.”
“Ha ha! Your majesty has the makings of a philosopher!”
“How then, can Han avoid the fate of Qin and Chu?”
--To be continued--
*NB: A military tactic so effective that 1000 years later, Toyotomi Hideyoshi will have used it no less than on three occasions during the Sengoku Jidai in his quest for the Shogunate.
Philosophers have been debating the issue of what distinguishes man from beast for a long time. Most find his logical faculties or mind to be the main distinguishing trait, but Hume says to them "reason is the slave of the passions". One could easily argue that we only discipline our passions to put them in the service of a greater one. Also, most of these historical thinkers viewed animals as nature presents them to us, as distinct species, rather than the continuum that we necessarily were as we evolved.
I prefer to see the difference merely as consciousness: some organisms are literally more conscious than others. And some humans more conscious than other humans! Take Shakespeare for example, his characters are more 3D than real people. He's reached a kind of God-status, where he creates humans that are better than the original model! And why are they better? Because they're more complex, deeper, have more and stronger passions. If he were to put real people down into writing he would get accused of creating caricatures.
In general, I wouldn't say we've surpassed our passions so much as enriched them, which is part of being more conscious. We're aware of more things to be passionate about, so to speak.
P.S. I liked the series, but Firefly the movie blew my mind.
I prefer the Roman proverb: passion makes a good slave, but a poor master. Intensified passion brings harm to the human creature. Fear may be beneficial survival trait, but intensified, becomes panic, which destroys armies, casts down empires, and fragments societies. Greater passions result in the deadly sins of pride, envy, anger, sloth, greed, gluttony, and lust; those in service of such unregulated passions, we modern day men deem addicts.
Indeed very true, and thus, the ancient authors condemned those lacking in virtues to be akin to beasts. Such comparison, in our modern sensibility of evolutionary science and tendency of animal rights would not be so biting an insult in our era.
Passion is a useful tool to fuel men's actions towards a goal. Amidst the million different desires that assault our senses, without reason, men would become lost in a sea of transient pleasure and pain, accomplishing nothing and becoming empty. Men, under the thrall of passion, will pursue a single desire, intensely, for good or ill, without wisdom to discriminate benefit or hazard in pursuing such activities.
Firefly would have been a great series, but was canceled prematurely. They should have produced the series in Australia, like Farscape; they would have had the time needed to fully develop their plot. As it is, Farscape is the only sci-fi series centered on misfits, anti-heroes, and grey universe that had longevity.
Never heard of Farscape. It looks like a Guardians of the Galaxy before there was Guardians of the Galaxy.
You may want to watch a few episodes of Farscape. The production is in Australia, but all of the cast speak with American accent for some reason (maybe because the main protagonist is American?).
Have I ever asked you if you've read any John Keay? By far my favorite historian. His China: A History is excellent, and his India: A History is the single best history of India, bar none.
He is on the list of authors to be read, after reading your book reviews on him. So many books, so little time.
My death will inevitably be a result of my to-read pile collapsing onto me.
That's why I have a library card, which forces me to read certain books in a certain timeframe. Unfortunately, most interesting books are not on the shelves at the local library.
somebody took fire from the gods & give it to man .
I don't understand the relevance of Prometheus reference.
whaterever are gods, they higher consciousness let them forget basics that has any stucture of creature. Each closed doors of ''peace of yourself'' provokes cultivation of something whos never happen before , but its still pease of something whos is same entily. Anything cant win behind higher minds - the most cleanest language will dominate until it realease by his self wishes until it becomes saturated.