See-And-Not-See
Time for another collective attempt to interpret the Han Feizi
A while back a bunch of Twitter Sinology guys got together at my behest to interpret a single paragraph of the Han Feizi. A few months back we had another, somewhat less formal, go with a different chapter, which I’m only getting round to writing up now.
The paragraph we’re taking on is this one, with a focus on the third sentence:
道在不可見，用在不可知。虛靜無事，以闇見疵。見而不見，聞而不聞， 知而不知。知其言以往，勿變勿更，以參合閱焉。官有一人，勿令通言，則萬物皆盡。函掩其跡， 匿其端，下不能原。去其智，絕其能，下不能意。
The secret to governing lies in what is unseen, the secret to making use of people lies in what is unknown. Empty, silent and unbiased, take advantage of the darkness to see the cracks. Seeing and unseen, hearing and unheard, knowing and unknown. Learn their arguments and then neither change nor add to them, but check their consistency with their actions. Each official should be observed by one of your own partisans - do not let them speak together. Then they will exert themselves to the utmost in all things. Cover your tracks and hide your sources; your subordinates will be unable to fathom you. Cast off your wisdom and abandon your skills; your subordinates will be unable to interpret you.[1]
The major difficulty lies in these characters: 見而不見，聞而不聞， 知而不知. This literally reads something like “see-and-not-see, hear-and-not-hear, know-and-not-know”. It might just be a Daoist assimilation of contradictions intended to trigger a wordless revelation among receptive readers. Modern Chinese translations, on the other hand, seem to favour 看見好像沒看見，聽到好像沒聽到，知道好像不知道 - that is “see while seeming not to see, hear while seeming not to hear, know while seeming not to know”. This is partially backed up by, for example, Oda Ho’s commentary, which reads it as “see and pretend not to see” but observes that this seemingly contradicts the arguments that immediately precede it, which argue that the ruler should not allow anyone to know what he knows, not that he should feign ignorance. That is to say, if he pretends to be ignorant he will simply see how they would behave in the presence of an ignorant individual, while if he maintains strict neutrality he can expect to see something closer to their true positions:
君無見其所欲，君見其所欲，臣自將雕琢；君無見其意，君見其意，臣將自表異。
The lord should not show his desires. If he shows his desires, his servants will pattern themselves accordingly. The lord should not show his ideas. If he shows his ideas, his servants will alter their attitudes accordingly.[2]
However, classical Chinese did not always mark the passive voice. Bearing this in mind, W. K. Liao offers a different translation for the paragraph:
Tao exists in invisibility; its function, in unintelligibility. Be empty and reposed and have nothing to do - then from the dark see defects in the light. See but never be seen. Hear but never be heard. Know but never be known. If you hear any word uttered, do not change it nor move it but compare it with the deed and see if word and deed coincide with each other. Place every official with a censor. Do not let them speak to each other. Then everything will be exerted to the utmost. Cover tracks and conceal sources. Then the ministers cannot trace origins. Leave your wisdom and cease your ability. Then your subordinates cannot guess at your limitations.
When asked for their own interpretations, the Sinologists of Twitter were split. Nautilus134 maxed out both literalism and mysticism:
I’d have to look through the dictionary for a while to read the passage, but here is my stab at a translation: ‘See but don’t see. Hear but don’t hear. Know but don’t know.’
purplcabbage agreed:
to see and not see, to hear and not hear, to know and not know better to keep the parallelism imo, than to use a different word for different sense of 見 or 聞 or 知, the author is clearly setting up a contrast between doing the thing while not doing the thing
MichaelMjfm, on the other hand, agreed with Liao:
道在不可見，
The way lies in being invisible;
用在不可知。
Its use lies in being imperceptible.
虛靜無事，
Empty, still and without undertaking;
以闇見疵。
Making faults visible through being obscure.
見而不見，
Seeing without being seen;
聞而不聞，
Hearing without being heard;
知而不知。
Knowing without being known.
知其言以往，
Know their words by where they are heading,
勿變勿更，
—do not adapt, do not alter—
以參合閱焉。
And read them through comparing and matching them with it.
官有一人，
When for every office there is a single person,
勿令通言，
And you do not give out orders to communicate,
則萬物皆盡。
Then all things will be done to their fullest extent.
保吾所以往而稽同之，
Stick to what you are after but examine it to confirm it;
謹執其柄而固握之。
Be careful in managing one’s handles but hold on to them firmly.
絕其能望，
Cut off what one can hope for;
破其意，
Expend with one’s intentions,
毋使人欲之。
And do not let others covet them.
The way refers to the way things are done, as they should be. The way things are best done, according to this argument, is when they cannot be seen. To best govern people, you cannot be seen doing so; to best use people, you cannot be known to be doing so.
In the immediate context of this text, 道 (way) is defined as follows: "the beginning of all things, and the principle of right and wrong 萬物之始，是非之紀." So 道 determines how all things take place, and what makes them either something that can be approved, or disapproved.
是非 (as a compound) in early Chinese discourse refers to "right and wrong" rather than "to be or not to be", or in other words: what one "approves 是's" (this is so) or "disapproves 非's" (this is not so).
He also added a scholarly perspective on the not see/not be seen debate:
The difference comes from the interpretation of 而. Both 高华平's (2010) and 张觉's (2012) translations read 而 as 如, which I am guessing agrees with 陈启天's (1940) and 陈奇猷's (1958) interpretations. 王先慎's (1896) collation is silent on the matter.
Reading 而 as 如 can be attested in other early Chinese texts, so grammatically that is permissible. Argumentatively, it does seem that 不見 no longer correlates well with the preceding 不可見, which I find more problematic.
To me, reading 見而不見 as "Seeing like [one is not] seeing" or "To see as if [one does] not see" makes most sense if we read them in relation to Laozi 48; two passages in the 君道 and 君子 chapters of the Xunzi; as well as the 精誠 chapter of the Huainanzi.
On the other hand, I would say an equally plausible reference to Laozi 18, which echoes in the 天運 chapter of the Zhuangzi and in the Daxue, as well as an interesting Shenzi fragment, point to the other direction.
Catcher4242 agreed with Oda but had a different take on the implications:
Attempt: (...quietly observe the mistakes of...) He should (pretend) not (to) see even if he's seen, (pretend) not (to) hear even if he's heard, (pretend) not (to) know even if he knows. Alt: He should act as if he has not seen, heard or knows of his subordinate's mistakes.
InternetNewsAg2 took a more Daoist perspective:
Here it feels like a Therefore… If you see it, then you aren’t actually seeing it, if you [think you] see it, you don’t see it. Seeing it hence is not seeing it.
The Way is [of the] unseen, [so] its use is not knowable.
The way can’t be seen, so its use can’t be known?
chintokkong was aligned with a more mystical Daoist perspective, but drew a slightly different conclusion:
- [The ruler] is seen but not seen, is heard but not heard, is known but not known. Basically the ruler is sort of concealed in plain sight. Kind of like universal Dao pervades everywhere but can’t be seen. Han Fei seems to like Daodejing, so might be making equivalence as such
And so the pun continues: - [The ruler] can see by being unseen [to others], can hear by being unheard, can know by being unknown. It is when the ruler cannot be deciphered that the officials can be themselves and be revealed thus to the ruler.
The ambiguity of this line/instruction can perhaps work to such an effect of having twofold meanings in this case.
Worth noting also that 見而不見，聞而不聞，知而不知 functions as a bridge here, facilitating the text to transit from the idea of 見 in "道在不可见...以暗见疵" to the idea of 知 in "知其言以往...勿令通言"
Ivoryfall offered a very different Daoist take:
[As a ruler, one must] be seen but not obtrusive, must attentive but not deafened [by all he hears], must possess knowledge but not be overt [in what he knows].
philipachand, on the other hand, considered and rejected a Dao De Jing style interpretation:
Huh, first it looked like a Daodejing-style "if you see it, you haven't really seen it," but in context, I think I'm leaning towards "the ruler sees without being seen"? So, like: "The [ruler's] way lies in [other people] not being able to make out [what you're doing]...
I'm back for a second bite of the cherry. What if the 见而不见 is all about the underlings as well? The ruler observes their faults from the dark. They see him but don't see him... ultimately, all they can do is follow his instructions to the letter.
And a third. I've stared at it for another hour, and I now agree with the Liao secret police reading. So: in 以暗见疵 read 现, which keeps the nice paradoxical flavour he's playing with. Use the darkness to illuminate people's faults. Then for the 见而不见...
zhihuachen, meanwhile, brought up something Han Fei tended to do a lot - using the same character in consecutive clauses but with different meanings or functions:
Important to get this part right: 道在不可见，用在不可知. The first 不可 is “unable to” but the second is “shall not”. The tao’s power lies in its invisibility, making use of it requires stealth.
The 见而不见，闻而不闻，知而不知 sentence is just expanding on the stealth. So “see but pretend not to see” sounds right. Or can we just preserve the ambiguity and just let people figure out from the context?
“see but not see, hear but not hear, know but not know”
Hindumachiavel, for his part, gave the fullest interpretation:
“The gods love what is mysterious”
This statement from the Vedic literature, found in Śatapathabrāhmaṇa, Aitareyopaniṣad, Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad etc, along with the multiple commentators, makes it clear that the Gods love the mysterious, and the secret, but hate what is apparent.
Thus, when a scripture, or any significant work attracts a large number of commentaries, it is due to its being mysterious, and with no sole correct answer.
And so begins this interpretation of the sentence from the fifth chapter of the Han Feizi:
見而不見，聞而不聞，知而不知
“See but not be seen, hear but not be heard, know but not be known”
Han Fei speaks about the Dao of the sovereign, reaching into the esoteric aspects of the Dao, and combining it with his political theory.
Now while the language is very simple, and straightforward, it still merits an explanation, to show the links between success in politics and how being esoteric leads to it.
As it can be seen, the Sovereign is being urged to follow the Daoist sage in multiple aspects. These aspects will now be illustrated.
As seen in Chapter 14, according to Wang Bi, that which can not be seen, heard or grasped, can penetrate everything. (視之不⾒名⽈夷, 聽之不⾒名⽈希, 搏之不得名⽈微, 此三者不可致詰, 故混⽽為⼀).Towards the end of this chapter, clearly, it is recommended for the Sovereign to follow the Dao and regulate the entities (執古之道，以御今之有), again, according to Wang Bi.
Following on, in Chapter 15, Wang Bi describes the masters of Dao, as being indiscernible, as if they were crossing a river in the winter. This is explained by him as them having an expression which made it hard to read their feelings. Further, they are likened to those surrounded on all four sides by enemies, and not knowing which way to turn. In such a state, no clue of their feelings can be found.
He then explains the words where the masters are likened to a guest, ice that is about to melt, and so on, as denoting the formlessness and namelessness of the masters, which made them like the Dao.
Thus, when the sovereign is like this, he can make things attain clarity by regulating them, make them transparent by calming them, and make them live by moving them, being careful and slow.
In Chapter 17, the fourth kind of ruler is one who relies on contrivances to rule. Being thus, he is seen, heard and known, and for this reason, he gets circumvented. This is because he is the furthest from the Dao.
Since, as has been seen before, the Greatest, viz. Dao, is undecided. So its surface and intentions can never be defined or known.
And being so, his words are followed, and achievements are completed.
Chapter 18 speaks further upon how things go bad, once the Dao is lost.
This is explained as the time when contrivances and insight appear, along wih concepts like filial piety and loyalty to the sovereign.
When the former two appear, people take to trickery and their own contrivances to evade prohibitions.
When the latter two appear, it means that there are unfilial children, and disloyal ministers. This implies that chaos is afoot.
And as can be seen further in the fifth chapter of the Han Feizi, the words from the beginning to “See but never be seen, Hear but never be heard, know but never be known” further underscore why being obscure, yet being aware is important, and why not following it leads to chaos and being beguiled.
In addition, we may also refer to Machiavelli, who relates an account of the Emperor Maximilian, who tried to observe this, but failed. In the words of Father Luca, he was secretive, and never told about his plans, except when they were already in motion. But as soon as they were known, contradictory opinions would rise, and the Emperor ended up putting his plans on hold. Thus, no one understood what he wanted to do, and could not rely on his resolutions.
To this, it may be said that the Emperor was concerned with having unanimous approval of his council, but being too concerned with approval, instead of sticking to his decisions, he was, as Han Fei stated, a victim of delusion by the ministers impeding the sovereign. For when he is impeded, his viewpoint is lost. This means that whatever he had arrived at, after counsel or no counsel, should have been followed despite opposition, and not being followed thus, it made him unreliable.
Also, as a corollary, Machiavelli tells us, that a ruler who is not wise himself, will not have wise counsel, and good counsel arises from the prudence of the prince, and not prudence from good counsel.
And it also serves as a corollary to Han Fei's opinion in the same chapter, where he advises prudence in the matter of detecting the essence of the subordinates. There, the ruler should not exert and reveal himself, and should let everyone of his subordinates reveal themselves with their acts, so that everything is put into its proper place.
As for me…
Ngl working on this made me question whether the passive and causative moods even exist. 111th order logic.
Which is not entirely a cop-out. I’ve written before about how a core part of the information contained in Daoist texts is conveyed via the experience of attempting to interpret them. By disagreeing so radically, we are reading the text as it was probably intended.
[1] My own translation. I have tried to be relatively literal given that the whole point of the article is the diversity of the possible translations.
[2] Me again.
Really like these