A debate in another forum led me to ask this question: "If Art of War is indeed so potent, why was it published?" Whoever published Sun Tzu's Art of War must have contemplated that the book would also be read by his enemies. Anyone would have thought that King Ho-lu would have kept Sun Tzu's The Art of War in high secrecy on pain of death, not only to the traitor who exposed the secret but also to his entire clan. Remember that China was then in a perpetual state of war which eventually deteriorated into the Warring States Period sometime in the 5th century BC. So why was Sun Tzu's Art of War published? An attempt to answer this question is made at my blog at Blogging Dummipedia. All comments are welcome as I myself do not have a clear answer after deliberating over the matter.

You might be confusing the history and the nature of the Art of War.

Sun Zi's Art of War was by no means the only military manual written at the time. Its potency also depended as much on the application as the contents, not to mention the intelligence of the reader.

It was presented to King Helu after it was completed. But Sun Zi left the king's service subsequently. The manual was not mass-published as we know it today but rather passed from one hand to another, some copies made along the way.

If King Helu did recognise the full potential of the manual, he could not fail to recognise that the author of the manual must be more formidable than the manual itself. Yet he was unable even to keep Sun Zi in his service or prevent Sun Zi from departing, so it was less likely that he could prevent the manual from being circulated.

Hi Snowybeagle, I didn't quite get you regarding this sentence: "You might be confusing the history and the nature of the Art of War." As your comments are very matured, I believe that I may be able to learn something from you. I shall therefore treat this as an exploratory topic to collect more information, unlike in another forum where we throw mud at each other, LOL.

Jordan, probably accessing my blog from Sonshi.com, left me a beautiful note that directed me to an interesting article entitled Preface and Introduction to The Art of War for Women. In that article, Chin-Ning Chu mentioned: "The fact that Sun Tzu wrote in such a cryptic, abstract fashion supports the argument that he intended his work to be read only by himself—and his employer... But I believe there is a second reason the original text is so difficult to understand. To safeguard his knowledge, Master Sun deliberately made it obscure, so that the king would be forced to rely on him for interpretation, once he was hired.... This tactic had three benefits:

1. It ensured that Sun Tzu would remain employed. The king could not simply read The Art of War, implement the strategy, and fire Sun (or execute him, as was so common in those days). He needed the author around to explain exactly what the text meant and how to best implement it.
2. By making the text difficult to parse, Sun Tzu did not have to be overly concerned about losing his secrets, in the event the enemy got hold of his manuscript. (One of the reasons Gen. George S. Patton was able to defeat German general Erwin Rommel in Africa during World War II is that Patton had studied Rommel’s book on warfare and knew the moves Rommel was likely to make in certain situations.)
3. By keeping the knowledge obscure, Sun Tzu could protect himself against threats from others in his own army. His decision not to make all his knowledge immediately accessible calls to mind the kung fu master who never teaches his final, deadliest move to his students. If he taught them everything he knew, they could use those moves one day to eliminate him. His indiscretion could mean his death."

So the question now arises. Who decoded the cryptic text or was it ever decoded? Could what we are reading now be something that is totally different from what Sun Tzu actually meant? And the question still remains: Why did the one who finally decoded it published it?

I totally disagree.

First, it only seems obscure or cryptic to modern readers or those inexperienced in statesmanship, warfare or the military.

Second, reading any (military or scientific) treatise by itself will not make anyone an expert. You can read Einstein's theory of relativity but it won't make you an expert. But to those who understand or takes time to understand, the value is indismissable.

Third, Art of War was never intended to be an FAQ for armchair general, or looking for answers such as "In specific situation A, do B.". It was not into specifics but into principles.

Stephen Covey's book 7 Habits of Highly Effective People illustrates well what "principles" mean. He explains it much better than I can. Anyone can read the book, but not anyone can just become a highly effective person.

The value of Sun Zi in publishing the treatise is like Stephen Covey after publishing his famous book. It promoted him as a consultant who can assist clients on specific projects.

BUT, this does not mean that the book is obscure that it can only be interpreted by Sun Zi alone.

Like Covey's book, many others can master the contents and become consultant themselves. But the original writer who first formulated everything systematically into black and white will always have an edge when it comes to the subject matter, especially if he continues working in the field.

There're many consultants and corporate trainers today who qualified to conduct 7 Habits courses, but Stephen Covey himself remains as the head guru.

It's the same with Sun Zi and his Art of War.

That's what I meant about you confusing the nature of the Art of War.

Ekompute,

I think you will first need to get some chinese historical facts and logical understanding correct. Your lack of understanding of chinese history could be one reason why your interpretation is incorrect.

Firstly, printing technology was not yet invented in China during the Spring/Autumn period. It would be absurb to even think of 'publishing it'. Block printing was only invented in China in Sui/Tang period (almost 1000 years later). That means to say 'mass publishing' was not possible during the Spring/Autumn period (i.e. during the times of Sun Tzu).

What Sun Tzu has done was merely to write out his thoughts on bamboo annals (at that time, paper was not yet invented) and probably write another copy for He Lu.

Thus, it wasn't as easy as what you think like "publishing a book" today where you can just go to a publisher to 'publish' a book. In the old days, printing technology was not available, not to mention "publisher' was also not available.

The only way where you can present your military thoughts was to write them out yourself on bamboo annals and present that to King He Lu to 'impress him'. That's what Sun Tzu has done. Thus, I wouldn't call this "publishing". In fact, I would think only 1 copy is available in the state of Wu.

Secondly, Sun Tzu's Art of War was not easily available in China in ancient times. It was only available in the state of Wu initially. Other than the reason that 'printing/publishing' was impossible during that time, only those who had contact with Sun Tzu probably was able to learn the art of war from him. In fact, during the Warring States period (later period), only a small number of people (in particular the scholars of Military School 兵家） knew about the Sun Tzu's Art of War.

The entire history of spreading of Sun Tzu's Art of War is as follow:

During the warring states period, Gui Guzi (master ghost valley - a famous military scholar) was traveling around China. He came to the state of Wu during the times when Goujian of Yue state conquered Wu state and burnt the tower of Gusu (姑苏台）. Sun Tzu had once buried his only written copy of Sun Tzu's Art of War (13 chapters) in a metal box and hide it in the wall. When the tower of Gusu collapsed, it revealed the metal box. Gui Guzi brought the metal box and went up to the mountain (ghost valley) where he preserved the Sun Tzu's Art of War for many years. For years, Gui Guzi did not spread Art of War to his disciples such as Su Qin, Zhang Yi, Pang Juan. But when Sun Bin (one of his disciples) was leaving, he passed the secret of Sun Tzu's Art of War to Sun Bin (Sun Tzu was supposedly the Grandfather of Sun Bin). Within one month's time, Sun Bin had memorized the entire passage of Sun Tzu's Art of War and then returned the book to Gui Guzi.

For several dynasties later, Sun Tzu's Art of War was only available to the Imperial Court or Military officer. Cao Cao made a commentary on Sun Tzu's Art of War.

The Sun Tzu's Art of War only spreaded out of China to Japan during Tang dynasty (around 700 AD) through a Japanese scholar called Kibi no Makibi, who was also credited with the invention of Katagana.

Sun Tzu's Art of War only spreaded to the West in 1772 with the 1st French translation of Art of War.

I'm sorry. If you have read the original chinese text, the language of Sun Tzu's Art of War is not too difficult, even though it is in classical chinese. King He Lu certainly was able to read it, as they were not too difficult compared to writings by other schools such as Confucianism, Daoism etc.

I've read the english translation of Art of War before. The language used is rather figurative, poetic, abstract that makes it rather difficult to catch the essence of the military thoughts. Thus, translation appears to be problem here. I would favour a more concrete translation.



Sorry, can't agree with this.

The king did not need Sun Tzu to explain the entire 'theory' of his writing. But what he needed was only for Sun Tzu to be able to prove himself and win the battle in order to make the state of Wu strong. It would be useless if Sun Tzu was able to present his book but not able to prove himself in real battle. Only by proving himself and winning real battle was King He Lu able to trust Sun Tzu.

Just to let you know, Sun Tzu's once killed King Helu's favorite concubine as a demonstration of the seriousness of military law, when these concubine failed to obey the command of drills (in a demontration).



This argument is flawed.

There was probably only 1 copy of the Sun Tzu's book in the state of Wu. It would be naive to think you will be invincible just by gaining this book. It would certainly help to improve one's strategy and strengthen/enrich the military thoughts. But alot of military thoughts had to be effective only if one was able to apply or use them effectively in battle or 'proven' to be successful.

Furthermore, it would be absurb that just by getting Sun Tzu's book, you are able to know what Sun Tzu's 'secret military plan' is or what he is exactly thinking. In real battle situation, the real 'military intent' is often 'hidden' and designed to make you fall into the wrong path/trap.



Sorry, this is wrong again.

You don't need to 'make your knowledge obscure' in order to protect yourself against threats from others in your own army.

Sun Tzu was a valuable talent and a 'talent' that many states often competed to 'obtain it'. By obtaining his talent, many states hoped that he was able to help many states win the battle. Sun Tzu certainly does have some reservation for choosing his disciples or whom he wants to teach. He probably would not pass his teaching to a disciple who is dishonorable.



There is no so-called "cryptic text" or any form of decoding. Everything that is presented today is what was written 2,000 years ago. There was also many commentaries on Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Over the course of chinese history, there were different version of Sun Tzu's Art of War and its commentary.

For e.g.

Cao Cao's Commentary and Explanation of Sunzi bingfa 《孙子略解》 - 3 kingdoms period

11 School's Explanation on Sun Tzu 《十一家注孙子》 - Song period

Wei Wudi's Explanation on Sun Tzu 《魏武帝注孙子》 - Qing period

Thank you, Snowybeagle, for "explaining" the nature of Art of War. Seems like you either don't understand what you read or else we are talking about a totally different book altogether. Let me bold the relevant words:

Chin-Ning Chu mentioned: "The fact that Sun Tzu wrote in such a cryptic, abstract fashion supports the argument that he intended his work to be read only by himself — and his employer. But I believe there is a second reason [why] the original text is so difficult to understand. To safeguard his knowledge, Master Sun deliberately made it obscure so that the king would be forced to rely on his interpretation, once he was hired."

Snowybeagle, can you visit Sonshi Forum to see (only see) whether some of your questions are already answered there? Not asking you to participate there, though. Any forum will kill me if I suggest that, LOL. I posted my question in two forums simultaneously as I was unsure which one would attract more participation. Apparently, the other forum seems to be more vigorous, LOL.

Hi General Zhaoyun, can you show me the passage where I said Sun Tzu personally published The Art of War? In my blog at Blogging Dummipedia, I only said: "Whosoever published Sun Tzu’s The Art of War…" and NOT "Sun Tzu published The Art of War…"

Thanks for sharing the entire history of spreading Sun Tzu's Art of War. I used to think that whatever is in black and white is gospel truth until I found out that many are just disinformation (deliberate or organized misinformation) and dramatization, eg. the United States wanted the whole world to believe that North Vietnam attacked two American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, thereby forcing U.S. to be directly involved in the Vietnam War. 41 years later, in 2005, it was revealed in an official NSA declassified report that that there may not have been any North Vietnamese boat at the 4 August incident. Read Wikipedia’s Gulf of Tonkin incident. Anyway, can you imagine a boat attacking a destroyer and an American destroyer at that? LOL.

I would have tended to believe in the Gui Guzi story if the recipient of Sun Tzu's Art of War was not Sun Bin but someone else. For all I know, Art of War was handed over to Sun Bin’s father and then to him. But this would have not have sounded very dramatic, does it?

Hi General Zhaoyun, in its article, Sun Tzu, Wikipedia says: "Contrary to popular perceptions, [Art of War] contains not only the writing of the original author, but also commentary and clarifications from later military philosophers, such as Li Ch'uan and Tu Mu."

May I therefore ask you whether you are reading Sun Tzu's original text or a modified version? To me, the only reason why your copy is not cryptic is obviously because you are not reading the original. By the way, Chinese classical characters have evolved since history. Are the Chinese characters in the book that you have read written in the classical style of the 5th century BC? Can we have an image of a sample page uploaded here so that we can determine to which century the text of your book originates?

The rest of your post pertains to extracts from Chin-Ning Chu’s book, The Art of War for Women. Let her defend it then, if you think her argument is flawed. Too many comments from various forums to respond to, LOL. Will try to do justice to everyone who sincerely wants a response from me although my responses may not be as prompt as I want them to be.

(P/S: I like the interface for this forum as compared to that in Sonshi.com. Very user-friendly!)

If you know good publishers and sources, then the commentary is seperate from original text and is added afterwards for the reader's enjoyment. Border's Classics, actually did such a version if you'd like a lead to a copy in English.

The unaltered chinese manuscript is the only 'real' version because its in the original language, however certain publishers have been more loyal to accuracy then others obviously. It's the same with Miyamoto Musashi's - Book of Five Rings, which is also written in an aesthetically deep context. It takes time, careful broad minded thought, and elimination of the ego to come to a fuller grasp of its precepts. Its relative to ones dedication.

There's nothing in the thread in sonshi.com you posted that indicated why it should be accepted as a premise that Sun Zi wrote the AoW in a cryptic, abstract fashion as claimed by Chin-Ning Chu.

I read AoW in original classical Chinese. While I'm not well versed in classical Chinese myself, I find it comprehensible enough.

If you think that's not the original text, then can you post what is the original text here?

Hi Lu Su, thanks for your reply. Actually Sonshi.com, supported by over 40 major authors and scholars, has the full text in English and many other resources. It is the largest website on Sun Tzu's Art of War, devoting itself only to this book. Its forum is also very active.

Surprisingly, I don't find Sonshi participants any more knowledgeable on Art of War than any other forum. Anyway, that's my personal perception so far. In particular, I would like to know if the present Art of War is actually totally different from the original copy. To be sure, no one will ever know, but the circumstantial evidence does seem to point to the fact that although the current version of Art of War is based on Sun Tzu's original text as a starting point (if Sun Tzu indeed existed), it was just a basis, ie. no one could actually decrypt what Sun Tzu's book was about, and a lot was guesswork. This is the hypothesis that I am working on. Or could Sun Bin have "decrypted" it with his father's help? It is not impossible that Sun Tzu did teach his son The Art of War as a family secret.

I would very much like to see the classical Chinese characters of the bamboo slips discovered in 1972. Won't it be nice to see the Chinese characters written some 2,200 years ago during the second century BC? As far as I know, the Chinese characters have evolved so much over time. Any image on the internet? I couldn't find any in Google image search. Also hoping General Zhaoyun will upload a page of the book he is reading.

Hi Snowybeagle, can any forum thread support Chin-Ning Chu's claim that "Sun Zi wrote the AoW in a cryptic abstract fashion"? You need to be more authoritative than Chin-Ning Chu to do that! I don't think any forum participant is more qualified than her. Jordan said in my blog: "While one can certainly gain more from reading the text in Chinese, the writing Chin-Ning Chu refers to is accessible for non-Chinese readers." Should I ask him what the name of Chin-Ning Chu's source is?

Snowybeagle, you mentioned: "If you think that's not the original text, then can you post what is the original text here?" If I have the original text, I won't even be in this forum. I will be an exceedingly rich man, what with everyone cashing in on the popularity of Art of War. So what makes you think that you are reading the original text? Is it written in 5th century BC Chinese characters that makes you so certain?

Appeal to authority? It still must be backed by actual basis.


This is contradictory.

If you think the original text is unavailable today, then what did Chin-Ning Chu use a basis the assertion that it was cryptic?

Ekompute,

I'm reading AoW in original classical chinese version with baihua explanation 《孙子译注》(上海古籍出版社1984年版), published by Shanghai publisher in 1984.

There are many version of Sun Tzu Aow, but most of today's chinese publishing were evolved from 7 military classics Wujing Qishu 《武经七书》 (Song period), Shiyi Jiazhu Sunzi, 《十一家注孙子》 (Song period) and Weiwudi Zhu Shunzi 《魏武帝注孙子》 (3 kingdoms period). They were the original writings of Sun Tzu.

If I'm not wrong, the 1972 archaeological discovery of the Sun Tzu's Art of War and Sun Bin's Art of War were exactly as what they are published today. The 1972 discovery clarified a mystery whereby many people used to think that the author of AoW was Sun Bin and not Sun Tzu. But the discovery has proven that Sun Tzu was indeed the author of Sunzi Bingfa.

I found Sun Tzu's writing quite easy to understand, nothing abstract or 'hidden' (cryptic) about it. The military thoughts are quite directly presented.

Just a few common and famous Sun Tzu's military thoughts from the original chinese writing.



It can be simply be explained as "Deception is the Tao of military". The 'Tao' refers to the nature/law/rules. Only 4 chinese characters are used to represent the deep meaning of chinese military philosophy.



Can be translated as "attack where there are no preparation, appear where it is unexpected". It underlies the 'surprise' element in Sun Tzu's Art of War. It shows that when mobilizing the troops to attack the enemy or in maneouvring, one has to catch the enemy by surprise.




Can be translated as "know your enemy and know yourself, only then will you not be in danger or perilous position during the countless battle". It stresses the importance of understanding not only your enemy, but also yourself. The understanding of enemy involves not just collecting overall intelligence but also understanding the 'nature', 'character' and 'behaviour' of your enemy, including their strength/weakness, surrounding environment etc. It also applies the same to yourself and your army.



It can be explained as "The army relies on speed for attack, takes advantage of the fact the enemy does not have enough time to react, follows the Tao of unexpectedness, and attacks where there is no prepared defence". This underlies the importance of 'raiding' the enemy by surprise.



Can be explained as "the military uses deception as its foundation, manoeuvre itself based on interests, and changes based on partition and combination". The military will uses deception as its basis for formulating plans, it will move according to its best interests, and will "change" by either separating its troops or combining them. It underlies the 'change' in a military manoeuvre so as to shift and change the 'power of control in a war' to your side (i.e. make yourself in full control of the war, rather than you being controlled by the enemy during the war)




Can be explained as "avoid the enemy when the enemy is in high morale, attack only when the enemy is slack". This is because when the enemy is in high morale (strong position), you will encounter great difficulty in overwelming them. You will then need to wait till the enemy become slack, gradually become weaken. Only then will you attack.



Can be explained as "avoid what it appears to be real and attack where it appears to be faked". It underlies how to react in times of deception.



Can be explained as "A military places great value on winning. It does not place great value on long-protracted war". It emphasizes the 'speed' of winning.

Your hypothesis is possible, but it would be very difficult to prove it, since the earliest known comments on the average reader's ability to understand the Sunzi text are those of Cao Cao. I quote (from the preface to his commentary):
而但世人未之深亮训说，况文烦富，行于世者，失其旨要，故撰为略解焉。

Lionel Giles translated this line as: "My contemporaries, however, have failed to grasp the full meaning of his instructions, and while putting into practice the smaller details in which his work abounds, they have overlooked its essential purport. That is the motive which has led me to outline a rough explanation of the whole."

We may deduce from this that while the more straightforward, tactical aspects of the text were widely applied by generals in Cao Cao's day, there was disagreement over interpreting the larger strategic principles. It may not have been very different in the early days of the original text's circulation.