| Chinese Text Project |
《兼愛下 - Universal Love III》 | English translation: W. P. Mei [?] | Library Resources |
| 1 | 兼愛下: |
子墨子言曰：「仁人之事者，必務求興天下之利，除天下之害。」然當今之時，天下之害孰為大？曰：「若大國之攻小國也，大家之亂小家也，強之劫弱，眾之暴寡，詐之謀愚，貴之敖賤，此天下之害也。又與為人君者之不惠也，臣者之不忠也，父者之不慈也，子者之不孝也，此又天下之害也。又與今人之賤人，執其兵刃、毒藥、水、火，以交相虧賊，此又天下之害也。」姑嘗本原若眾害之所自 生1，此胡自生？此自愛人利人生與？即必曰非然也，必曰從惡人賊人生。分名乎天下惡人而賊人者，兼與？別與？即必 曰2別也。然即之交別者，果生天下之大害者與？是故別非也。」 |
| Universal Love III: |
Mozi said: The purpose of the magnanimous lies in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now among all the current calamities, which are the most important? The attack on the small states by the large ones, disturbances of the small houses by the large ones, oppression of the weak by the strong, misuse of the few by the many, deception of the simple by the cunning, disdain towards the humble by the honoured - these are the misfortunes in the empire. Again, the lack of grace on the part of the ruler, the lack of loyalty on the part of the minIster, the lack of affection on the part of the father, the lack of filial piety on the part of the son - these are further calamities in the empire. Also, the mutual injury and harm which the unscrupulous do to one another with weapons, poison, water, and fire is still another calamity in the empire. When we come to think about the cause of all these calamities, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of love of others and benefiting others? Of course we should say no. We should say they have arisen out of hate of others and injuring others. If we should classify one by one all those who hate others and injure others, should we find them to be universal in love or partial? Of course we should say they are partial. Now, since partiality against one another is the cause of the major calamities in the empire, then partiality is wrong. 1. 生 : Inserted. 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 2 | 兼愛下: | 子墨子曰：「非人者必有以易之，若非人而無以易之，譬之猶以水救火也，其說將必無可焉。」是故子墨子曰：「兼以易別。然即兼之可以易別之故何也？曰：藉為人之國，若為其國，夫誰獨舉其國以攻人之國者哉？為彼者由為己也。為人之都，若為其都，夫誰獨舉其都以伐人之都者哉？為彼猶為己也。為人之家，若為其家，夫誰獨舉其家以亂人之家者哉？為彼猶為己也，然即國、都不相攻伐，人家不相亂賊，此天下之害與？天下之利與？即必曰天下之利也。姑嘗本原若眾利之所自生，此胡自生？此自惡人賊人生與？即必曰非然也，必曰從愛人利人生。分名乎天下愛人而利人者，別與？兼與？即必曰兼也。然即之交兼者，果生天下之大利者與。」是故子墨子曰：「兼是也。且鄉吾本言曰：『仁人之事者，必務求興天下之利，除天下之害。』今吾本原兼之所生，天下之大利者也；吾本原別之所生，天下之大害者也。」是故子墨子曰：「別非而兼是者，出乎若方也。 |
| Universal Love III: | Mozi continued: Whoever criticizes others must have something to replace them. Criticism without suggestion is like trying to stop flood with flood and put out fire with fire. It will surely be without worth. Mozi said: Partiality is to be replaced by universality. But how is it that partiality can be replaced by universality? Now, when every one regards the states of others as he regards his own, who would attack the others' states? Others are regarded like self. When every one regards the capitals of others as he regards his own, who would seize the others' capitals? Others are regarded like self. When every one regards the houses of others as he regards his own, who would disturb the others' houses? Others are regarded like self. Now, when the states and cities do not attack and seize each other and when the clans and individuals do not disturb and harm one another -- is this a calamity or a benefit to the world? Of course it is a benefit. When we come to think about the several benefits in regard to their cause, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of hate of others and injuring others? Of course we should say no. We should say they have arisen out of love of others and benefiting others. If we should classify one by one all those who love others and benefit others, should we find them to be partial or universal? Of course we should say they are universal. Now, since universal love is the cause of the major benefits in the world, therefore Mozi proclaims universal love is right. And, as has already been said, the interest of the magnanimous lies in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now that we have found out the consequences of universal love to be the major benefits of the world and the consequences of partiality to be the major calamities in the world; this is the reason why Mozi said partiality is wrong and universality is right. | |
| 3 | 兼愛下: |
今吾將正求與天下之利而取之，以兼為正，是以聰耳明目相與視聽乎，是以股肱畢強相為動 為1宰乎，而有道肆相教誨。是以老而無妻子者，有所侍養以終其壽；幼弱孤童之無父母者，有所放依以長其身。今唯毋以兼為正，即若其利也，不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非者，其故何也？」 |
| Universal Love III: |
When we try to develop and procure benefits for the world with universal love as our standard, then attentive ears and keen eyes will respond in service to one another, then limbs will be strengthened to work for one another, and those who know the Dao will untiringly instruct others. Thus the old and those who have neither wife nor children will have the support and supply to spend their old age with, and the young and weak and orphans will have the care and admonition to grow up in. When universal love is adopted as the standard, then such are the consequent benefits. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it. 1. 為 : Deleted. 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 4 | 兼愛下: |
然而天下之士非兼者之言，猶未止也。曰：「即善矣。雖然，豈可用哉？」子墨子曰：「用而不可，雖我亦將非之。且焉有善而不可用者？姑嘗兩而進之。誰以為二士，使其一士者執別，使其一士者執兼。是故別士之言曰：『吾豈能為吾友之身，若為吾身，為吾友之親，若為吾親。』是故退睹其友，飢即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不侍養，死喪不葬埋。別士之言若此，行若此。兼士之言不然，行亦不然，曰：『吾聞為高士於天下者，必為其友之身，若為其身，為其友之親，若為其親，然後可以為高士 於1天下。』是故退睹其友，飢則食之，寒則衣之，疾病侍養之，死喪葬埋之。兼士之言若此，行若此。若之二 士2者，言相非而行相反與？當使若二士者，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，今有平原廣野於此，被甲嬰冑將往戰3，死生之權未可識也；又有君大夫之遠使於巴、越、齊、荊，往來及否未 及否未4可識也，然即敢問，不識將惡也家室，奉承親戚，提挈妻子，而寄託之？不識於兼之有是乎？於別之有是乎？我以為當其於此也，天下無愚夫愚婦，雖非兼之人，必寄託之於兼之有是也。此言而非兼，擇即取兼，即此言行費也。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 not all exhausted. It is asked, "It may be a good thing, but can it be of any use?" Mozi replied: If it were not useful then even I would disapprove of it. But how can there be anything that is good but not useful? Let us consider the matter from both sides. Suppose there are two men. Let one of them hold to partiality and the other to universality. Then the advocate of partiality would say to himself, how can I take care of my friend as I do of myself, how can I take care of his parents as my own? Therefore when he finds his friend hungry he would not feed him, and when he finds him cold he would not clothe him. In his illness he would not minister to him, and when he is dead he would not bury him. Such is the word and such is the deed of the advocate of partiality. The advocate of universality is quite unlike this both in word and in deed. He would say to himself, I have heard that to be a superior man one should take care of his friend as he does of himself, and take care of his friend's parents as his own. Therefore when he finds his friend hungry he would feed him, and when he finds him cold he would clothe him. In his sickness he would serve him, and when he is dead he would bury him. Such is the word and such is the deed of the advocate of universality. These two persons 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 a war is on, and one is in armour and helmet ready to join the force, life and death are not predictable. Or suppose one is commissioned a deputy by the ruler to such far countries like Ba, Yue, Qi, and Jing, and the arrival and return are quite uncertain. Now (under such circumstances) let us inquire upon whom would one lay the trust of one's family and parents. Would it be upon the universal friend or upon the partial friend? It seems to me, on occasions like these, there are no fools in the world. Even if he is a person who objects to universal love, he will lay the trust upon the universal friend all the same. 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. 於 : Inserted. 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 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 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. | |
| 6 | 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。」《泰誓》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》 | |
| 7 | 兼愛下: | 「且不唯《泰誓》為然，雖《禹誓》即亦猶是也。禹曰：『濟濟有群，咸聽朕言，非惟小子，敢行稱亂，蠢茲有苗，用天之罰，若予既率爾群對諸群，以征有苗。』禹之征有苗也，非以求以重富貴、干福祿、樂耳目也，以求興天下之利，除天下之害。」即此禹兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於禹求焉。 |
| Universal Love III: | Moreover it is true not only in the "Great Declaration" but also with the "Oath of Yu". Yu said (therein) "Come all you hosts of people, take heed and hearken to my words. It is not that I, a single person, would willingly stir up this confusion. The Prince of Miao is more and more unreasonable, he deserves punishment from Heaven. Therefore I lead you to appoint the lords of the states and go to punish the Prince of Miao." It was not for the sake of increasing his wealth and multiplying his felicitations, and indulging his ears and eyes but for that of procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its annoyances that Yu went to war against the Prince of Miao. This is universal love on the part of Yu, and what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the example of Yu. | |
| 8 | 兼愛下: | 「且不唯《禹誓》為然雖《湯說》即亦猶是也。湯曰：『惟予小子履，敢用玄牡，告於上天后曰：「今天大旱，即當朕身履，未知得罪于上下，有善不敢蔽，有罪不敢赦，簡在帝心。萬方有罪，即當朕身，朕身有罪，無及萬方。」即此言湯貴為天子，富有天下，然且不憚以身為犧牲，以祠說于上帝鬼神。』即此湯兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於湯取法焉。 |
| Universal Love III: | Again it is true not only in the "Oath of Yu" but also with the "Oath of Tang." Tang said: "Unworthy Lu presumed to do sacrifice with a first-born male animal to Heaven on high and mother Earth, saying, 'Now there is a great drought from heaven. It happens right in my, Lu's, time. I do not know whether I have wronged Heaven or men. Good, I dare not cover up; guilt, I dare not let go -- this is clearly seen in the mind of God. If there is sin anywhere hold me responsible for it; if I myself am guilty may the rest be spared.'" This is to say that though having the honour of being an emperor and the wealth of possessing the whole world, Tang did not shrink from offering himself as sacrifice to implore God and the spirits. This is universal love on the part of Tang, and what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the example of Tang. | |
| 9 | 兼愛下: | 「且不惟《誓命》與《湯說》為然，《周詩》即亦猶是也。《周詩》曰：『王道蕩蕩，不偏不黨，王道平平，不黨不偏。其直若矢，其易若厎，君子之所履，小人之所視』，若吾言非語道之謂也，古者文武為正，均分賞賢罰暴，勿有親戚弟兄之所阿。」即此文武兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於文武取法焉。不識天下之人，所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？ |
| Universal Love III: | Still again, it is true not only in the "Oath of Yu" and the "Oath of Tang" but also with the " Poems of Zhou." To quote: "the way of the (good) emperor is wide and straight, without partiality and without favouritism. The way of the (good) emperor is even and smooth, without favouritism and without partiality. It is straight like an arrow and just like a balance. The superior man follows it, (even) the unprincipled looks on (without resentment)." Thus the principle that I have been expounding is not to be regarded as a mere doctrinaire notion. In the past, when Wen and Wu administered the government both of them rewarded the virtuous and punished the wicked without partiality to their relatives and brothers. This is just the universal love of Wen and Wu. And what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the examples of Wen and Wu. It is incomprehensible then why people should object to universal love when they hear it. | |
| 10 | 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，《大雅》之所道曰：『無言而不讎，無德而不報』『投我以桃，報之以李。』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. | |
| 11 | 兼愛下: |
意以為難而不可為邪？嘗有難此而可為者。昔荊靈王好小要，當靈王之身，荊國之士飯不踰乎一，固據而後興，扶垣而後行。故約食為其難為也，然後為而靈王說之，未踰於世而民可移也，即求以鄉其上也。昔者越王句踐好勇，教其士臣三年，以其知為未足以知之也，焚舟失火，鼓而進之，其士偃前列，伏水火而死，有不可勝數也。當此之時，不鼓而退也，越國之士可謂顫矣。故焚身為其難為也，然後為之越王說之，未踰於世而民可移也，即求以鄉上也。昔者晉文公好苴服，當文公之時，晉國之士，大布之衣，牂羊之裘，練帛之冠，且苴之屨，入見文公，出以踐之朝。故苴服為其難為也，然後為而文公說之，未踰於世而民可移也，即求以鄉其上也。是故約食、焚舟、苴服，此天下之至難為也，然後為而上說之，未踰於世而民可移也。何故也？即求以鄉其上也。今若夫兼 相愛，交1相利，此其有利且易為也，不可勝計也，我以為則無有上說之者而已矣。苟有上說之者，勸之以賞譽，威之以刑罰，我以為人之於就兼相愛交相利也，譬之猶火之就上，水之就下也，不可防止於天下。 |
| Universal Love III: |
Is it because it is hard and impracticable? There are instances of even much harder tasks done. Formerly, Lord Ling of the state of Jing liked slender waists. In his time people in the state of Jing ate not more than once a day. They could not stand up without support, and could not walk without leaning against the wall. Now, limited diet is quite hard to endure, and yet it was endured. While Lord Ling encouraged it, his people could be changed within a generation to conform to their superior. Lord Goujian of the state of Yue admired courage and taught it to his ministers and soldiers three years. Fearing that their knowledge had not yet made them efficient he let a fire be set on the boat, and beat the drum to signal advance. The soldiers at the head of the rank were even pushed down. Those who perished in the flames and in water were numberless. Even then they would not retreat without signal. The soldiers of Yue would be quite terrified (ordinarily). To be burnt alive is a hard task, and yet it was accomplished. When the Lord of Yue encouraged it, his people could be changed within a generation to conform to their superior. Lord Wen of the state of Jin liked coarse clothing. And so in his time the people of Jin wore suits of plain cloth, jackets of sheep skin, hats of spun silk, and big rough shoes. Thus attired, they would go in and see the Lord and come out and walk in the court. To dress up in coarse clothing is hard to do, yet it has been done. When Lord Wen encouraged it his people could be changed within a generation to conform to their superior. Now to endure limited diet, to be burnt alive, and to wear coarse clothing are the hardest things in the world, yet when the superiors encouraged them the people could be changed within a generation. Why was this so? It was due to the desire to conform to the superior. Now, as to universal love and mutual aid, they are beneficial and easy beyond a doubt. It seems to me that the only trouble is that there is no superior who encourages it. If there is a superior who encourages it, promoting it with rewards and commendations, threatening its reverse with punishments, I feel people will tend toward universal love and mutual aid like fire tending upward and water downwards - it will be unpreventable in the world. 1. 相愛，交 : Inserted. 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 12 | 兼愛下: | 故兼者聖王之道也，王公大人之所以安也，萬民衣食之所以足也。故君子莫若審兼而務行之，為人君必惠，為人臣必忠，為人父必慈，為人子必孝，為人兄必友，為人弟必悌。故君子莫若欲為惠君、忠臣、慈父、孝子、友兄、悌弟，當若兼之不可不行也，此聖王之道而萬民之大利也。 |
| Universal Love III: | Therefore, universal love is really the way of the sage-kings. It is what gives peace to the rulers and sustenance to the people. The gentleman would do well to understand and practise universal love; then he would be gracious as a ruler, loyal as a minister, affectionate as a father, filial as a son, courteous as an elder brother, and respectful as a younger brother. So, if the gentleman desires to be a gracious ruler, a loyal minister, an affectionate father, a filial son, a courteous elder brother, and a respectful younger brother, universal love must be practised. It is the way of the sage-kings and the great blessing of the people. |
URN: ctp:mozi/universal-love-iii