Follow us on Facebook to receive important updates Follow us on Twitter to receive important updates Follow us on sina.com's microblogging site to receive important updates Follow us on Douban to receive important updates
Chinese Text Project
Show translation:[None] [Modern Chinese] [English]
Show statistics Edit searchSearch details:
Scope: Universal Love III Request type: Paragraph
Condition 1: Contains text "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" Matched:1.
Total 1 paragraphs. Page 1 of 1.

兼愛下 - Universal Love III

English translation: W. P. Mei [?] Library Resources
5 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
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。。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.

Total 1 paragraphs. Page 1 of 1.