TL;DR: Tử Bình is the common name for the method of fate reading based on the four pillars of year, month, day and hour, each pillar made of one heavenly stem and one earthly branch, eight characters in all. Tradition attributes its systematisation to Từ Tử Bình of the Song, building on the year-based method of Lý Hư Trung of the Tang. Direct historical records on both figures are thin: Hàn Dũ wrote a tomb inscription for Lý Hư Trung but did not say he had written any book, and the Đề yếu Tứ khố states that Từ Tử Bình's biography cannot be verified. Source texts such as Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư and Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú both show signs of later interpolation and name attribution, so the genuine text must be read apart from the legend.
What is Tử Bình and why trace its origins?
Tử Bình is the common name for the method of fate reading based on the four pillars of year, month, day and hour, each pillar consisting of one heavenly stem and one earthly branch, eight characters in all. The name is tied to Từ Tử Bình (徐子平) of the Song dynasty, whom tradition regards as the founding figure of the four-pillar method. Before him, Tang-era fate reading generally used only the year, month and day of birth, and is associated with the name of Lý Hư Trung (李虛中).
Tracing origins is not a purely academic matter. It determines how we read the old books: what is the original text, what was added by later hands, and what is legend attached to a name to lend it authority. Three questions run through this article: what contemporary historical records say, what the source texts claim about themselves, and how the compilers of the Tứ khố assessed them.
Was Lý Hư Trung of the Tang a real historical figure?
Lý Hư Trung is a real figure in the historical record. The Đề yếu Tứ khố toàn thư states that his courtesy name was Thường Dung, that he was an eighth-generation descendant of Lý Xung, that he passed the imperial examination and served as Điện trung thị ngự sử in the Nguyên Hòa era[1]. Hàn Dũ wrote his tomb inscription, and this inscription survives in the Xương Lê văn tập[1].
What stands out is that Hàn Dũ's inscription says only that Lý Hư Trung was skilled in the arts of the five phases, that he used the year, month and day of birth together with the stems and branches of the day to weigh generation and restraint, waxing and waning, and to forecast lifespan, rank, advantage and disadvantage, and that his predictions were often accurate[1]. The inscription praises that art as vast and deep, but does NOT say Lý Hư Trung left any writing. The Đường thư Nghệ văn chí also records no book under his name[1].
This is the key point: the nearest contemporary record confirms Lý Hư Trung as a fate reader, but does not confirm him as an author. The image of "founding ancestor of fate studies" that later ages attached to him goes far beyond what the tomb inscription and contemporary bibliographies record.
Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư: source text or falsely attributed book?
Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư (李虛中命書) is preserved in the Tứ khố toàn thư, in three juan, the old edition attributing composition to Quỷ Cốc Tử and commentary to Lý Hư Trung[1]. The Đề yếu Tứ khố analyses this book in some detail and concludes that it was not entirely written by Lý Hư Trung[1].
Three main reasons are given:
- The opening section discusses the sixty hoa giáp and does not use the hour of birth or the stems and branches of the hour, which matches Hàn Dũ's description of Lý Hư Trung using only year, month and day[1].
- The second half discusses the four pillars extensively, and this way of speaking in fact begins in the Song, contradicting the first half[1].
- The official titles appearing in the book mostly belong to the Song, showing it cannot have been entirely written by Lý Hư Trung[1].
The Đề yếu suspects that a book of this kind already existed in the Tang, and that Song-era writers on astral fate slipped their own views into it and borrowed the name of Lý Hư Trung to lend their art authority[1]. The Tứ khố edition also notes that the book was reassembled from the Vĩnh Lạc đại điển, and the compiling officials left editorial notes pointing out the false attributions[1].
As for content, the opening section interprets the sixty hoa giáp, for instance saying of Giáp Tý that "the heavenly officer is stored", and of Ất Sửu that "the salary officer rides", with commentary explaining how the officer is taken and how the qi is weighed[2]. This is a characteristic mode of argument in ancient fate reading, different from the later Tử Bình approach centred on the day master.
What is the Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú and how did Từ Tử Bình comment on it?
Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú (珞琭子三命消息賦註) is one of the key texts linking Lý Hư Trung to Từ Tử Bình. It is preserved in the Tứ khố toàn thư, in two juan, the old edition attributing composition to Từ Tử Bình of the Song[3].
The Đề yếu Tứ khố states that Lạc Lộc Tử's book is the origin of the method of reading salary and fate, using the eight characters of year, month, day and hour to infer fortune, misfortune, calamity and blessing[3]. On the authorship of the phú, the Đề yếu cites Lý Thục in the Hàm Đan thư mục, who held that the name Lạc Lộc Tử takes its sense from "salary like jade, falling like stone", but does not know who wrote it[3]. Chu Biện in the Khúc Vị cựu văn says the phú circulated in the world without a known author, and that a preface writer claimed it was a prince of Tấn of the Zhou, but the Đề yếu rejects this because the phú cites both Hà Thượng Công of the Qin and the stories of Hồ Công and Phí Trường Phòng of the late Later Han, so it cannot be a Zhou figure[3].
On Từ Tử Bình, the Đề yếu Tứ khố states plainly: "Từ Tử Bình's biography cannot be verified"[3]. The book also notes that from the Song onward there were four commentators on this phú, Vương Đình Quang, Lý Đồng, Thích Đàm Oánh and Từ Tử Bình, but only Từ Tử Bình was later honoured as founding master[3]. The Đề yếu cites Lưu Ngọc in the Dĩ ngược biên, who says Từ Tử Bình's name was Cư Dịch, a man of the Ngũ Quý period, who lived in reclusion on Hoa Sơn with the Daoist Ma Y, Trần Đồ Nam and Lữ Động Tân, and holds that later ages called the eight-character method Tử Bình after his name[3]. But the Đề yếu also states directly: "there is no knowing what this claim is based on, and the words of practitioners are not one part in a hundred true, nor can they be traced"[3].
This sentence matters greatly: the Đề yếu Tứ khố itself, an authoritative scholarly text, admits that Từ Tử Bình's biography cannot be verified and does not believe the oral stories about him.
What historical shift occurred from Lý Hư Trung to Từ Tử Bình?
One sentence in the Đề yếu Tứ khố is often quoted: "the method of salary and fate down to Lý Hư Trung of the Tang still used only year, month and day for its calculations, and there was no such thing as the eight characters"[3]. This shows that the shift from the year-month-day method to the full four-pillar method was a historical turning point, not a natural continuation.
The Đề yếu Tứ khố also notes that Lạc Lộc Tử's book first appears in the Tống sử Nghệ văn chí, and Triều Công Vũ in the Quận trai độc thư chí says the book circulated around the Tuyên Hòa and Kiến Viêm eras, that is, the early twelfth century[3]. Thus both Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư and Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú appear clearly in bibliographies only from the Song onward.
As for method, the opening of Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư uses the sixty hoa giáp and does not use the hour of birth[1]. Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú already uses all eight characters[3]. Tam mệnh thông hội by Vạn Dân Anh of the Ming (1578) later synthesised both strands, discussing thái tuế, đại vận, the ten stem combinations, and tiến giao thoái phục, showing that the four-pillar method had taken shape as a complete system[4].
What do Tam mệnh thông hội and other source texts contain?
Tam mệnh thông hội (三命通會) by Vạn Dân Anh, completed in 1578, is a major compendium of Chinese fate studies. Its second juan discusses thái tuế, đại vận, the ten stem combinations, and tiến giao thoái phục[4]. For instance, the book defines thái tuế as "the emperor of the year", the honoured place among the year's spirit stars, and says that meeting a clash with thái tuế is an inauspicious sign[4]. The book also discusses the ten heavenly stem combinations, taking as an example that Giáp is the yang elder brother and Ất the yin younger sibling, and that Giáp gives Ất in marriage to Canh, so Ất combines with Canh[4].
This presentation shows that by the Ming, the four-pillar method had a fairly stable system of terminology and rules, far from the fragmentary state of the Tang and Song texts. Tam mệnh thông hội also cites Lạc Lộc Tử in a few short lines, but the Đề yếu Tứ khố notes that those lines "do not match at all" the version of Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú in the Tứ khố, showing that the original text had been scattered and lost and later hands had attributed the name once more[3].
What is historical record and what is legend?
The information on the origins of Tử Bình can be stratified as follows:
| Content | Type | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Lý Hư Trung was a Tang official, skilled in the five-phase art, reading fate by year, month and day | Historical record | Hàn Dũ's tomb inscription, cited in the Đề yếu Tứ khố[1] |
| Lý Hư Trung wrote a book on fate studies | Unverified | The Đường thư Nghệ văn chí records no book under his name[1] |
| Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư is a book by Lý Hư Trung | Legend of attribution | The Đề yếu Tứ khố points to the four-pillar section and Song-era official titles[1] |
| Từ Tử Bình was a Song figure who commented on the Lạc Lộc Tử phú | Recorded in bibliographies | The Đề yếu Tứ khố names four commentators including Từ Tử Bình[3] |
| Từ Tử Bình's name was Cư Dịch, in reclusion on Hoa Sơn with Ma Y, Trần Đồ Nam and Lữ Động Tân | Legend | The Đề yếu Tứ khố says "there is no knowing what this is based on"[3] |
| The four-pillar method began with Từ Tử Bình | Tradition of attribution | The Đề yếu Tứ khố says his biography cannot be verified[3] |
| Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú circulated from the early twelfth century | Bibliographic record | Tống sử Nghệ văn chí and Quận trai độc thư chí[3] |
This table shows one thing: most of what we know about Lý Hư Trung and Từ Tử Bình belongs to the level of legend or tradition of attribution, not contemporary historical record. Only two points are confirmed by the record: Lý Hư Trung was a real figure, and Từ Tử Bình was one of four commentators on the Lạc Lộc Tử phú recorded in bibliographies.
Why were the source texts attributed to other names?
Name attribution is not peculiar to fate studies. In the culture of ancient Chinese book writing, borrowing the name of a famous figure to lend a work authority was common. The Đề yếu Tứ khố calls this phenomenon "false attribution" and devotes many editorial notes to pointing out the false attributions in Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư[1].
On Lạc Lộc Tử, the Đề yếu also states plainly: the theories attributing it to a prince of Tấn of the Zhou or to Đào Hoằng Cảnh are all false attributions, and the book must have been made by a Northern Song hand[3]. The Đề yếu even calls the versions of Lạc Lộc Tử appearing in Tam mệnh thông hội "false within false", because the original text had been scattered and lost and later hands attributed the name again[3].
This sets a principle for reading old books: the author's name on the cover is not evidence of the real author. It must be checked against bibliographies, against the content within, and against period markers such as official titles, place names and terminology.
How should one separate text layers from interpretation layers when reading Tử Bình today?
When reading the source texts of Tử Bình, it helps to keep three layers of words apart. The original words, such as the line "Giáp Tý thiên quan tàng" in Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư[2]. The commentary of earlier scholars, such as the four commentators Vương Đình Quang, Lý Đồng, Thích Đàm Oánh and Từ Tử Bình on the Lạc Lộc Tử phú[3]. And the views of later books: a line on thái tuế in Tam mệnh thông hội is the view of Vạn Dân Anh of the Ming, not the words of Lý Hư Trung of the Tang[4].
Gợi ý của Nhật Nguyệt: students of Tử Bình should read Lý Hư Trung mệnh thư and Lạc Lộc Tử tam mệnh tiêu tức phú chú as historical documents of the discipline, not as textbooks on fate. Their greatest value is showing where the discipline came from and where it went, not serving as references for personal fortune.
