| | 兼愛下: |
然而天下之士非兼者之言，猶未止也。曰：「意可以擇士，而不可以擇君乎？」「姑嘗兩而進之。誰以為二君，使其一君者執兼，使其一君者執別，是故別君之言曰『吾惡能為吾萬民之身，若為吾身，此泰非天下之情也。人之生乎地上之無幾何也，譬之猶駟馳而過隙也』。是故退睹其萬民，飢即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不侍養，死喪不葬埋。別君之言若此，行若此。兼君之言不然，行亦不然。曰：「吾聞為明君於天下者，必先萬民之身，後為其身，然後可以為明君於天下。」是故退睹其1萬民，飢即食之，寒即衣之，疾病侍養之，死喪葬埋之。兼君之言若此，行若此。然即交若之二君者，言相非而行相反與？常使若二君者，言必信，行必果，使言行之合猶合符節也，無言而不行也。然即敢問，今歲有癘疫，萬民多有勤苦凍餒，轉死溝壑中者，既已眾矣。不識將擇之二君者，將何從也？我以為當其於此也，天下無愚夫愚婦，雖非兼者，必從兼君是也。言而非兼，擇即取兼2，此言行拂也。不識天下所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？」 |
| Universal Love III: |
Yet the objection is not all exhausted. It is objected: Maybe it is a good criterion to choose among ordinary men, but it may not apply to the rulers. Let us again consider the matter from both sides. Suppose there are two rulers. Let one of them hold partiality and the other universality. Then the partial ruler would say to himself, how can I take care of the people as I do of myself? This would be quite contrary to common sense. A man's life on earth is of short duration, it is like a galloping horse passing by. Therefore when he finds his people hungry he would not feed them, and when he finds them cold he would not clothe them. When they are sick he would not minister to them, and upon their death he would not bury them. Such is the word and such is the deed of the partial ruler. The universal ruler is quite unlike this both in word and in deed. He would say to himself, I have heard that to be an upright ruler of the world one should first attend to his people and then to himself. Therefore when he finds his people hungry he would feed them, and when he finds them cold he would clothe them. In their sickness he would minister to them, and upon their death he would bury them. Such is the word and such is the deed of the universal ruler. These two rulers, then, are opposed to each other in word and also in deed. Suppose they are sincere in word and decisive in deed so that their word and deed are made to agree like the two parts of a tally, and that there is no word but what is realized in deed, then let us consider further: Suppose, now, that there is a disastrous pestilence, that most people are in misery and privation, and that many lie dead in ditches (Under such circumstances) let us inquire, if a person could choose one of the two rulers, which would he prefer? It seems to me on such occasions there are no fools in the world. Even if he is a person who objects to universal love, he will choose the universal ruler. This is verbal objection to the principle but actual selection by it - this is self-contradiction between one's word and deed. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it. 1. 其 : Inserted.
2. 取兼 : Inserted.
|
| | 兼愛下: |
然而天下之士非兼者之言也，猶1未止也。曰：「兼即仁矣義矣，雖然，豈可為哉？吾譬兼之不可為也，猶挈泰山以超江河也。故兼者直願之也，夫豈可為之物哉？」子墨子曰：「夫挈泰山以趙江河，自古之及今，生民而來，未嘗有也。今若夫兼相愛、交相利，此自先聖六王者親行之。」何知先聖六王之親行之也？子墨子曰：「吾非與之並世同時，親聞其聲，見其色也。以其所書於竹帛，鏤於金石，琢於槃盂，傳遺後世子孫者知之。」《》曰：「文王若日若月，乍照光於四方於西土。」即此言文王之兼愛天下之博大也，譬之日月，兼照天下之無有私也。即此文王兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於文王取法焉。 |
| Universal Love III: |
Yet the objection is still not exhausted. It points out that universal love may be magnanimous and righteous, but how can it be realized? Universal love is impracticable just as carrying Mt. Tai and leaping over rivers. So, then, universal love is but a pious wish, how can it be actualized? Mozi replied: To carry Mt. Tai and leap over rivers is something that has never been accomplished since the existence of man. But universal love and mutual aid has been personally practised by six ancient sage-kings. How do we know they have done it? Mozi said: I am no contemporary of theirs, neither have I heard their voice or seen their faces. The sources of our knowledge lie in what is written on the bamboos and silk, what is engraved in metal and stones, and what is cut in the vessels to be handed down to posterity. The "Great Declaration" proclaims: "King Wen was like the sun and the moon, shedding glorious and resplendent light in the four quarters as well as over the Western land." This is to say that the love of King Wen is so wide and universal that it is like the sun and the moon shining upon the world without partiality. Here is universal love on the part of King Wen; what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the example of King Wen. 1. 猶 : Originally read: "獨". Corrected by 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》
|
| | 兼愛下: |
然而天下之非兼者之言，猶未止，曰：「意不忠親之利，而害為孝乎？」子墨子曰：「姑嘗本原之孝子之為親度者。吾不識孝子之為親度者，亦欲人愛利其親與？意欲人之惡賊其親與？以說觀之，即欲人之愛利其親也。然即吾惡先從事即得此？若我先從事乎愛利人之親，然後人報我愛利吾親乎？意我先從事乎惡人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親乎？即必吾先從事乎愛利人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親也。然即之交孝子者，果不得已乎，毋先從事愛利人之親者與？意以天下之孝子為遇而不足以為正乎？姑嘗本原之先王之所書，《》之所道曰：『無言而不讎，無德而不報』『』即此言愛人者必見愛也，而惡人者必見惡也。不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？ |
| Universal Love III: |
Yet the objection is still not exhausted. It raises the question, when one does not think in terms of benefits and harm to one's parents would it be filial piety? Mozi replied: Now let us inquire about the plans of the filial sons for their parents. I may ask, when they plan for their parents, whether they desire to have others love or hate them? Judging from the whole doctrine (of filial piety), it is certain that they desire to have others love their parents. Now, what should I do first in order to attain this? Should I first love others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return, or should I first hate others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return? Of course I should first love others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return. Hence those who desire to be filial to one another's parents, if they have to choose (between whether they should love or hate others' parents), had best first love and benefit others' parents. Would any one suspect that all the filial sons are stupid and incorrigible (in loving their own parents)? We may again inquire about it. It is said in the "Da Ya" among the books of the ancient kings: "No idea is not given its due value; no virtue is not rewarded. When a peach is thrown to us, we would return with a prune." This is to say whoever loves others will be loved and whoever hates others will be hated. It is then quite incomprehensible why people should object to universal love when they hear it. |
