'The Art of War' Evaluation: How to appreciate 'Sun Tzu' (孫子) ?

When asked ’What in your opinion are the important elements in the reading and understanding of the Sun Tzu?’ I would say, ‘There are two points to remember while reading Sun Tzu’. The first point that the reader ought to keep in mind while reading the Sun Tzu (or ‘The Art of War’) is that the book was written some 2500 years ago by a man named Sun Bu. You may find this statement quite obvious?it states a fact that is known to everyone. However, I reiterate my contention that the above is the first important point in developing an appreciation of the value of the Sun Tzu.

Let us imagine how long a period of time 2500 years actually is. The time would have been 500 BC; Sun Tzu was written 500 years before Jesus Christ was born. Sun Tzu was already an ancient work lying in the tombs of kings by the time Jesus Christ lived in the Middle East, seeding his twelve apostles with new words of God which were to become the basis for one of the most influential thought systems of human history.

Buddha in India and Confucius in China are said to have lived in almost the same era as Sun Tzu. The truth, however, shall never be known. Even in China, techniques for accurately recording history were not established until many years later.

It is only in Sima-Qian’s famous history book ‘Shiji’?　　published 400 years after Sun Tzu’s time?that we find a written account stating that Sun Tzu was a native of the Shan-Tung Province and had actively served Wu as a war general. Therefore, it is undeniable that many facets of Sun Tzu remain a mystery, both in terms of the conception of the book and the facts surrounding the author.

However, one should not arrive at the hasty decision of treating the Sun Tzu as a mythical classic which contains ideas that have diminished in importance simply because the book is too old for its chronological accuracy to be verifiable by external evidence. Such reactions are typical of readers who are excessively preoccupied with the trappings of modern science. For example, if it is asserted that the reliability of Christianity or Buddhism is suspect because the miracles attributed to Jesus or Buddha lack scientific credibility in the 21st century, such an assertion fails the reality check: people continue to go to church every Sunday and the Buddhist monasteries admit ever greater numbers of devotees and seekers into their midst.

Indeed, there were times in history when science decisively broke certain unrealistic religious beliefs that had devolved from ancient times. For instance, the heliocentric system literally turned the structure of the medieval Christian world upside down. The awakening of modern science played a significant role in destroying the old European paradigm of the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, although modern science can be an effective tool to prove that ‘something is not scientific’, it cannot be used as an instrument to refute the truth of a given conceptual entity. The emergence of the heliocentric system led to the dissolution of the power structure of the medieval Christian world; it did not, however, affect the value of Christ’s thought and by no means disrupted the lives of people who were devoted to him. Thus, Christianity exists today as one of the most important religions in human history. The same is true of other religions such as Islam and Buddhism.

The point here is that the founding ideas of each civilization came through the filter of thousands of years and thus acquired something akin to an eternal value. Such value can sometimes be regarded as superior to contemporary values that put too much importance on numerical accuracy and factual evidence. It is possible that modern scientific methods fail to capture the essence of thousands of years of ‘existence’ because they accept only measurable facts and evidence. ‘Years bring wisdom’, as the proverb goes. It is the essence, the fundamental content, and not the size and the numbers that should be considered.

There is no perfect original copy of the Sun Tzu. Therefore, the book should be read today as it has been throughout its history. In other words, just as with Cao Cao in the later Han period, we owe it to ourselves to delve into this book with a certain degree of aggression. In his time, Sun Tzu never prevented anyone from questioning or participating in the development of the content of his book. It was rather, if I may venture to add, that the book was brought closer to the light of truth with every pulse that transformed it from its original shape. ‘Years bring wisdom’. That is the foremost distinction of ‘Sun Tzu’.

Secondly, it should be remembered that the Sun Tzu was seldom treated as a significant subject by the academic community. Even though I compared Sun Tzu with Christianity and Buddhism at the beginning of this essay, it is Confucianism which is generally accorded a status comparable with that of other major world ideas. Confucianism is often introduced in Western business school classes as the backbone of Eastern thought together with Taoism. Speaking of business schools in the West, a typical Asian business textbook of an MBA course explains that the basic difference between Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity on the one hand, and Confucianism on the other is that the former offers a path to individual salvation, whereas the latter promises mass salvation. It may be pointed out that Confucianism and groupism represent the grand backbone of the East. A strategist philosophy like the Sun Tzu, which resembles Chinese legalist philosophy in its core thought, is recognized as only a part of this backbone, limited to the narrower world of wars.

However, what is hard to understand here is the fact that during the course of actual Chinese history, Confucianism and Legalism, including their strategists and proponents, were never sorted into statures great and common or superior and inferior. It has been proven that over the course of Chinese history, emperors and bureaucrats used both ideas in complete harmony with each other to govern their vast estates. The way that Confucianism and Legalism were used in tandem is likened to the popular adherence to the ‘Yin and Yang’ (陰陽) philosophy, a thought system that is referred to as ‘Yang Ru Yin Fa’ (陽儒陰法). Confucianism is compared to 'Yang' (陽) which represents light and day, whereas Legalism is likened to 'Yin' (陰) which stands darkness and the night. It is therefore natural that the Sun Tzu may blend into and be glossed over in favour of the more distinguishable thought systems like Confucianism; however, historical facts tell us that this predisposition does not justify the acts of scholars who subordinate the Sun Tzu. ‘Yang Ru Yin Fa’ (陽儒陰法) may thus be regarded as the second distinction of the Sun Tzu.

There is a famous incident that is often recounted when Sun Tzu is discussed. Once, the King wanted to try Sun Tzu, who was then a new recruit. He said, ‘You are a great strategist. I wonder if your theory on managing soldiers can be tested on my concubines in the palace.’ Sun Tzu answered, ‘If you leave it to me’, and proceeded to divide 180 women into two groups that were each led by two of the king’s most favourite ladies, each of whom was known for her celestial beauty. Sun Tzu began training the women soldiers. Despite the fact that Sun Tzu had clarified his rules and commands, the women did not respond, reducing the two groups to a mass of coquettish voices and wriggling bodies. After ten failed attempts to train the women, and bereft of any support from the two group leaders, Sun Tzu said, ‘By now, the discipline is known and the commands are clear, but the groups have not responded. It is the responsibility of the group leaders’; Sun Tzu then ordered the beheading of the two ladies. His order stunned the King who fell on his knees and implored Sun Tzu to take back his order. The King said, ‘It was my fault that I tested my concubines. I had done so only in jest. Please obey my order to annul the death penalty my women have been sentenced to. Is not a king bound as well by a moral obligation toward his subjects?’ However, Sun Tzu said, ‘In a war, military discipline takes precedence over a king’s order’. Accordingly, the king’s favourite concubines were beheaded. After the execution, new leaders were chosen and the women turned out to be great soldiers who followed all commands without hesitation.

Although the veracity of this incident is suspect, it makes two symbolic suggestions that are in accordance with the two points I had earlier pointed out as being integral to the appreciation of the Sun Tzu. One, the value of the Sun Tzu should not be associated with the authenticity of the book but with the nature of the thought that was developed and crafted into stories that have now survived for two thousand five hundred years. Two, in such thought, one can see that the doctrines of Legalism, including strategic philosophy like the Sun Tzu, played as active a role as the tenets of Confucianism in administrating the estates and kingdoms of ancient China.

To conclude, the key to truly appreciating Sun Tzu lies in two sayings and three caveats.

The two sayings are ‘Years bring wisdom’ and ‘Yang Ru Yin Fa’. The three caveats are as follows:

It is suggested that the Sun Tzu should not be regarded as an ancient mythical book which is limited to the narrow field of war;

It is suggested that the Sun Tzu should not be regarded as the entire spectrum of thought of the ancient Chinese rulers;

It is suggested that the Sun Tzu should not be regarded as a source of aggressive war tactics that can be implemented in the modern world.