Of the many human vices, none is more damaging to society than envy. Greed, luxury, and defamation are other notable vices, but properly considered, they are not vices in the quality of the actions themselves. Circumstances sometimes neutralize them as vices, i.e. their degree and purpose are contributing factors. For example, greed is an insatiable love of money, but love of money is a part of human nature. They can hardly be blamed if a person satisfies this love in accordance with human nature. Only if he mistakes its proper place by seeking to gain money by unjust means, thereby overstepping the principle and purpose of the possession of money, can it be called the vice of greed. Therefore we cannot immediately label it a vice every time we come across a mind which appreciates money. A certain principle demarcates the borderline of virtue and vice. Those who remain within this borderline can be called frugal and economical. Indeed, such an attitude is one of the excellent virtues for which men should strive.
It is the same with luxury. It becomes a virtue or vice depending entirely on how far it goes. It is human nature to want to wear warm clothes and live in a safe house. How can it be called a vice to comfort oneself according to human nature? To accumulate and spend, but to spend without going beyond the proper limits, may also be called one of the finer virtues of man.
Again, there is hardly any difference between defamation and refutation of another. Maliciously to distort another person’s statements is called defamation; to state what one thinks to be the truth by exposing another’s contradictions is called refutation. Accordingly, as long as the right road of truth has not yet been found, discussions between men cannot be determined as either good or bad. Until right and wrong are determined, we may say that public opinion should serve as the truth, but it is extremely difficult to clarify just what public opinion is. Therefore we cannot immediately call it slander when we see one person attacking another. In fact, it may be necessary to seek the truth all over the world in order to distinguish whether it is slander or true refutation.
In addition to the above, arrogance and bravery, coarseness and frankness, stubbornness and steadiness, levity and sharpness are all relative opposites. They become virtues or vices only by the circumstances, degree, and purpose of each act. It is only envy which is a vice through and through in the nature of the actions, regardless of circumstance or purpose.
For envy is a completely negative thing and never has a positive side. It is a discontent with the conditions of another, demanding too much of one, without reflecting upon oneself. Such a means to gratify one’s discontent does one’s self no good, and harms the other as well. For example, when a person compares his own bad luck with another’s good fortune while not taking the means to better his own condition, but instead downgrades the condition of the other and thereby seeks to bring the other down to his own level—this is what you might call “hating another and wishing his death.” Therefore to feed this discontent only by depreciating the fortunes of others can be of no positive value at all.
Some men say that deception and lies rank with envy for being evil in essence. I reply that while this may seem to be so, they cannot be put in the same category once their causes and results are distinguished. Deception and lies are, of course, great evils, but they are rather the results than the causes of envy. Envy is, as it were, the mother of a whole brood of vices. Suspicion, jealousy, fear, cowardice are all her offspring. It appears inwardly in the forms of furtive talk, whispering, confidential remarks, secret intrigues; outwardly it assumes the destructive forms of cliques, assassinations, rebellions, civil wars. They bring not the slightest benefit to the nation. No one escapes from the trouble which they bring in their wake. They can be called promoting one’s own private interests at the public expense.
Such is the damage to society caused by envy. Now to consider its causes, it lies in a kind of impasse which people get into. This is not an impasse in financial matters. It is something which drives man’s natural functions to extremity by impeding human communication and enterprise. If financial distress were the cause of envy, the poor of the nation would all be complaining of injustice, the rich and noble would be the focus of their wrath, and human intercourse would not last a single day. But this is not the actual fact. Even the poorest of people, if they realize that the causes of their poverty and low station lie in themselves, do not recklessly vent their envy on others. We need not write up all the evidences as this is obvious from the fact that men maintain social relations despite the differences between rich and poor, high and low throughout the world today. Therefore I say that, in themselves, wealth and high station are not the objects of anger, nor are poverty and low station necessary causes of discontent.
Envy is accordingly not produced by poverty and low station. Rather it thrives in conditions where people’s natural functions are blocked and all human fortunes are considered accidental. Confucius once sighed and said that it was difficult to deal with women and small-minded men. But now as I see it, I must say that this was a situation which Confucius himself brought about, and he himself was displaying this vice. For there is no principle in terms of which human nature can be differentiated according to sex. Again, when he spoke of small-minded men, did he mean lowly persons? The children of the lowly are not necessarily inferior, and, needless to say, there are no innate distinctions between noble and inferior. But why, then, was Confucius troubled only by women and small-minded people? This was because Confucius taught people in general to be servile. He thus lumped together the weak women and lowly people, and did not allow them any individual freedom in any of their actions at all. Thereby Confucius implanted a spirit of envy in them, and when it reached an extreme, even he had to lament about it.
When a person’s nature cannot find free expression, he will inevitably become envious of others. The law of cause and effect is as clear as barley growing from barley seeds. Confucius may have had the reputation of being a sage, but he did not understand this principle. It was quite untrustworthy of him simply to complain about the stupidity of others without doing anything constructive about it. Of course, since Confucius lived in an age of barbarism and primitivism over two thousand years ago, he must have followed the custom and human sentiment of the time and knowingly resorted to the expedient of labeling people to preserve lofty public mindedness in his own day. But if Confucius had been a true sage whose wisdom provided insight for all times, he would not have been satisfied with the expedient teaching of that time. And therefore, by taking the ideas of his time into account, those who study Confucius in later times must deal with his thought selectively. Those who would apply unchanged to Meiji Japan the teachings of two thousand years ago do not know the true value of things.
Let me give an example closer to our own times. Of those who were filled with the poison of envy and did the most harm to human relations, the worst were the many ladies in the castles of the feudal lords of Japan. Generally speaking, the palaces were packed with ignorant and unlettered females who served a single ignorant and unvirtuous lord. Study went unrewarded, indolence unpunished; remonstrance produced no reaction; it was irrelevant whether one spoke out or remained silent, whether one told the truth or not. The only thing that mattered was whether they had the good luck to be in the lord’s favor and affection by adapting themselves to the changing circumstances which each new day brought. It was like shooting a bow without a target; to hit or miss the target was not a matter of skill. They may be said to have lived in another world in which the nature of their emotions—delight, anger, sorrow, and pleasure—were subject to change, making them different from the rest of society. When some lady established herself in the lord’s favor through her contacts, the others could only be jealous of her since there was no way to study the method by which she established herself. In the excess of their jealousy, they could only seethe with hate.
Since they were so burning with jealousy and envy, what time did they have to consider the good of the lord’s house? Their loyalty and integrity were pronouncements in name only. But in actual fact, even if they spilled oil on the mat floor, if no one saw it, they would leave it there without wiping it up. Even worse, when the lord was mortally sick, they were so entangled in glaring daggers of hate at one another that many could not even care for their sick lord, even though they might have wished to. But the most vicious extreme of envy and jealousy was when it sometimes took the form of poisoning. If we had statistics of this crime of all times and could compare the ratios of poisonings in the castles of old and in the world, we would clearly see how much more prevalent poisoning was in the feudal castles. It would serve to prove how terrible the harm of envy is.
I think that we can infer the general condition of society even from this one example of the castle ladies. Envy is the worst of human ills. Therefore, since the causes of envy lie in a kind of spiritual impasse, the avenues of human expression must be opened. People must be given the opportunity to give free rein to their actions. Let us compare conditions in England or America with Japan. Let me pose the question: Which country, in its social relations, is most removed from the above-described situation of the feudal castles? I am not implying that Japan’s situation is exactly equal to the above case, but if the point is the relative distance from it, Japan is closer to it than England or America. It is not that the English and Americans are not covetous and extravagant, or coarse and disruptive, or false and deceitful. Their manners and customs are not all good either; but when it comes to suppressing envy, they differ in mentality from the Japanese. Nowadays, intellectuals are talking about the need of a Diet elected by the people and about freedom of the press. Passing over the merits and demerits of their arguments, their basic reason lies in wanting to make Japan different from the castles of old, and to make the Japanese people different from the castle ladies. They want to replace envy with action, to put a stop to resentment by encouraging free competition, to win fame and fortune through their own efforts. They want to make the people of the whole country reap what they have sown.
The obstruction of free expression and free enterprise among the people is generally considered a political question. If someone suddenly heard talk of this question, he might ascribe it exclusively to the defects of the government. But this kind of sickness is not limited to government only. It has infected the people as well with extremely harmful results. Hence it cannot be cured only by reform of government. Let me say a few more words about this problem outside of government at the end of this section.
Human beings are by nature social animals; they can come to dislike society only through the force of habit. There are eccentric and odd persons who purposely cut themselves off from society by living in mountain villages or remote hamlets. We call them recluses. Even persons who are perhaps not true recluses may dislike being involved with the world. They make proud faces as they lock up their homes and have no intercourse with worldly affairs. Their intention does not necessarily lie in withdrawing themselves over dissatisfaction with the actions of the government. Their minds and wills are timid and weak. They do not have the courage to get involved with things. They are narrow-minded and intolerant of others. Because they do not tolerate others, others do not tolerate them either. Both sides thus step further and further backwards. Their differences become glaring, and finally they become enemies and end up hating each other. This must be said to be a great evil for society.
Again, in reference to human relations, there are people who look at another’s deeds without interest in the person himself, or listen to the report of his words from a distance. When the other does not accord with their own wills, they never are sympathetic or loving; on the contrary, they nurture thoughts of dislike and disapproval. Many, in fact, go to the extreme of hate. This also is the result of human nature and habit. If people would discuss things personally more often, matters which cannot be solved through intermediaries or letters may be completely cleared up. People usually say: “Actually, this is the case. But if I have to face that person, I cannot tell him exactly what I think.” In other words, there are sincere feelings of human nature which incline a person toward being tolerant. Once there is tolerance on both sides, they will understand one another, and envy will vanish away. For example, I have often said that the many assassinations of past and present times might not have happened, if there had been the opportunity for the one assassinated and his murderer to have been together for several days to express their true minds. Even such enemies might have not only made peace, but perhaps even become rare friends.
From the above consideration we can see that the obstruction of free expression and human enterprise is not merely a sickness of the government. It is prevalent among the people of the whole country. Even scholars have not avoided its contamination. The vital energies of human life cannot develop unless they are in contact with things. Let men speak and work freely, and leave fortune and social station to the persons themselves to attain, without being impeded by others.