Bozang — In Favor of Plain Burial薄葬篇
聖賢之業，皆以薄葬省用為務。然而世尚厚葬，有奢泰之失者，儒家論不明，墨家議之非故也。墨家之議右鬼，以為人死輒為神鬼而有知，能形而害人，故引杜伯之類以為效驗。儒家不從，以為死人無知，不能為鬼，然而賻祭備物者，示不負死以觀生也。陸賈依儒家而說，故其立語不肯明處。劉子政舉薄葬之奏，務欲省用，不能極論。是以世俗內持狐疑之議，外聞杜伯之類；又見病且終者，墓中死人來與相見，故遂信是，謂死如生。閔死獨葬，魂狐無副，丘墓閉藏，谷物乏匱，故作偶人以侍尸柩，多藏食物，以歆精魂。積浸流至，或破家盡業以充死棺，殺人以殉葬，以快生意。非知其內無益，而奢侈之心外相慕也；以為死人有知，與生人無以異。孔子非之而亦無以定實。然而陸賈之論兩無所處。劉子政奏，亦不能明儒家無知之驗，墨家有知之故。事莫明於有效，論莫定於有証。空言虛語，雖得道心，人猶不信。是以世俗輕愚信禍福者，畏死不懼義，重死不顧生，竭財以事神，空家以送終。辯士文人有效驗，若墨家之以杜伯為據，則死無知之實可明，薄葬省財之教可立也。今墨家非儒，儒家非墨，各有所持，故乖不合，業難齊同，故二家爭論。世無祭祀復生之人，故死生之義未有所定。實者死人暗昧與人殊途，其實荒忽難得深知。有知無知之情不可定，為鬼之實不可是。通人知士，雖博覽古今，窺涉百家，條入葉貫，不能審知。唯聖心賢意，方比物類，為能實之。夫論不留精澄意，苟以外效立事是非，信聞見於外，不詮訂於內，是用耳目論，不以心意議也。夫以耳目論，則以虛象為言；虛象效，則以實事為非，是故是非者不徒耳目，必開心意。墨議不以心而原物，苟信聞見，則雖效驗章明，猶為失實。失實之議難以教，雖得愚民之欲，不合知者之心，喪物索用，無益於世。此蓋墨術所以不傳也。
The work of sages and worthies takes simple burial and sparing use as its task. Yet the age honors lavish burial, and the fault of extravagance and excess is there, because the Confucians argue it unclearly and the Mohists argue it wrongly. The Mohist argument exalts ghosts. It holds that when a man dies he at once becomes a spirit and a ghost that has knowledge, able to take form and harm men, and so it draws in the likes of Du Bo as its proof. The Confucians do not follow this. They hold that the dead have no knowledge and cannot become ghosts, yet they furnish gifts and offerings with full goods to show that they do not turn their backs on the dead, and so to be seen by the living. Lu Jia leaned on the Confucians in his explanation, and so in setting down his words he was unwilling to stand plainly anywhere. Liu Zizheng raised a memorial for simple burial and worked to spare expense, but he could not argue it to the end. For this reason the common world holds a doubting argument within and hears of the likes of Du Bo without. They also see that one who is sick and about to end meets a dead man from the tomb who comes to him, and so at last they believe it and say that death is like life. They pity the dead for being buried alone, the soul lonely and without a companion, the grave shut and hidden, grain and goods lacking, and so they make wooden figures to attend the coffin and hide away much food for the spirit to feed on. This soaks and spreads until some break up their households and exhaust their estates to fill the coffin of the dead, and kill men to follow them into the grave, to please the hearts of the living. It is not that they do not know there is no gain in it within; it is that a lavish heart admires what is without. They hold that the dead have knowledge and are no different from the living. Confucius called this wrong, but neither could he settle the truth of it. And so Lu Jia's argument stands nowhere on either side. Liu Zizheng's memorial too could not make clear the proof of the Confucians that there is no knowledge, nor the ground of the Mohists that there is. Nothing makes a matter clearer than proof; nothing settles an argument like evidence. Empty words and hollow talk, though they catch the heart of the Way, men still do not believe. For this reason the light and foolish of the age who believe in blessing and calamity fear death and do not fear duty, weigh death heavily and give no thought to life, spend their wealth to serve spirits and empty their houses to send off the dead. If the debaters and men of letters had proof, as the Mohists take Du Bo as their ground, then the truth that the dead have no knowledge could be made clear, and the teaching of simple burial and sparing wealth could be set up. Now the Mohists call the Confucians wrong and the Confucians call the Mohists wrong. Each holds to something, and so they diverge and do not meet; their work is hard to make even and alike, and so the two houses dispute. In the world there is no man who has come back to life from the offerings, and so the meaning of death and life has not been settled. In truth the dead are dark and dim and walk a road apart from men, and the truth of it is vague and hard to know deeply. Whether there is knowledge or not cannot be settled, and the truth of becoming a ghost cannot be affirmed. Men of wide learning and knowing scholars, though they read broadly of old and new and peer across the hundred schools, entering by the twig and threading by the leaf, cannot examine it and know. Only a sage's heart and a worthy's mind, setting the kinds of things side by side, can make it real. Now if in arguing one does not hold the mind fine and clear, but carelessly sets up the right and wrong of a matter by outward proof, trusting what is heard and seen without and not weighing and correcting it within, this is to argue with the ears and eyes and not to deliberate with the heart and mind. Arguing with the ears and eyes, one speaks by empty appearances; and when empty appearances are proven, real matters are called wrong. Therefore right and wrong are not for the ears and eyes alone; one must open the heart and mind. The Mohist argument does not trace things by the heart but carelessly trusts what is heard and seen, and so though its proof is bright and plain it still loses the truth. An argument that loses the truth is hard to teach with; though it catches what the foolish people want, it does not meet the heart of the knowing. It loses goods and exhausts use, and is no gain to the age. This, it seems, is why the Mohist art has not been handed down.
魯人將以斂，孔子聞之，徑庭麗級而諫。夫徑庭麗級，非禮也，孔子為救患也。患之所由，常由有所貪。
The men of Lu were about to use jade in the shrouding. Confucius heard of it, cut across the courtyard and mounted the steps to remonstrate. Now cutting across the courtyard and mounting the steps is not ritual; Confucius did it to save them from harm. What harm comes from is always from there being something coveted.
，寶物也，魯人用斂，奸人之，欲心生矣。奸人欲生，不畏罪法，不畏罪法，則丘墓（抽）〔〕矣。孔子睹微見著，故徑庭麗級，以救患直諫。夫不明死人無知之義，而著丘墓必（抽）〔〕之諫，雖盡比干之執，人人必不聽。何則？諸侯財多不憂貪，威強不懼（抽）〔〕。死人之議，狐疑未定，孝子之計，從其重者。如明死人無知，厚葬無益，論定議立，較著可聞，則
Jade is a precious thing. If the men of Lu use it in the shrouding, the heart that covets the jade is born in wicked men. When wicked men have that want, they do not fear crime and law; and when they do not fear crime and law, the grave is dug open. Confucius saw the small and saw what it would come to, and so he cut across the courtyard and mounted the steps and remonstrated straight, to save them from harm. Now if one does not make clear the meaning that the dead have no knowledge, and only sets out the remonstrance that the grave will surely be dug open, then though he spend all the firmness of Bigan, no man at all will listen. Why? The feudal lords have wealth in plenty and do not worry about being coveted; their power is strong and they do not fear the digging. The argument over the dead is doubtful and unsettled, and the plan of a filial son follows the weightier side. If it were made clear that the dead have no knowledge and that lavish burial is no gain, so that the argument was settled and the case established, plain and fit to be heard, then
之禮不行，徑庭之諫不發矣。今不明其說而強其諫，此蓋孔子所以不能立其教。孔子非不明死生之實，其意不分別者，亦陸賈之語指也。夫言死無知，則臣子倍其君父。故曰：「喪祭禮廢則臣子恩泊，臣子恩泊則倍死亡先，倍死亡先則不孝獄多。」
the rite of jade would not be practiced and the remonstrance of cutting across the courtyard would never be uttered. Now the doctrine was not made clear and the remonstrance was forced; this, it seems, is why Confucius could not set up his teaching. It is not that Confucius could not make clear the truth of death and life; that his intent drew no distinction is the same as the drift of Lu Jia's words. Now if one says the dead have no knowledge, ministers and sons turn their backs on their rulers and fathers. Therefore it is said: "When the rites of mourning and offering fall away, the kindness of ministers and sons grows thin; when the kindness of ministers and sons grows thin, they turn their backs on the dead and forget their forebears; and when they turn their backs on the dead and forget their forebears, the trials for unfilial conduct are many."
聖人懼開不孝之源，故不明死無知之實。異道不相連，事生厚，化自生，雖事死泊，何損於化？使死者有知，倍之非也。如無所知，倍之何損？明其無知，未必有倍死之害。不明無知，成事已有賊生之費。
The sage feared to open a source of unfilial conduct, and so did not make clear the truth that death has no knowledge. Different roads do not join. If the serving of the living is generous, transformation comes of itself; and though the serving of the dead be thin, what is lost to transformation? If the dead have knowledge, to turn one's back on them is wrong. If they know nothing, what is lost by turning one's back? To make clear that they have no knowledge need not bring the harm of turning one's back on the dead. Not to make clear that they have no knowledge has, in what is already done, brought the cost of harming the living.
孝子之養親病也，未死之時，求卜迎醫，冀禍消、葯有益也。
When a filial son tends a parent's illness, while they are not yet dead he seeks divination and welcomes the physician, hoping the calamity may pass and the medicine may do good.
既死之後，雖審如巫咸，良如扁鵲，終不復生。何則？知死氣絕，終無補益。治死無益，厚葬何差乎！倍死恐傷化，絕卜拒醫，獨不傷義乎！親之生也，坐之高堂之上，其死也，葬之黃泉之下。黃泉之下非人所居，然而葬之不疑者，以死絕異處，不可同也。如當亦如生存，恐人倍之，宜葬於宅，與生同也。不明無知，為人倍其親，獨明葬黃泉，不為離其先乎？親在獄中，罪疑未定，孝子馳走以救其難。如罪定法立，終無門戶，雖曾子、子騫，坐泣而已。何則？計動無益，空為煩也。今死親之魂，定無所知，與拘親之罪決不可救何以異？不明無知，恐人倍其先，獨明罪定，不為忽其親乎！聖人立義，有益於化，雖小弗除；無補於政，雖大弗與。今厚死人，何益於恩？倍之弗事，何損於義？
After the death, though the seer be as Wu Xian and the healer as good as Bian Que, in the end there is no living again. Why? Because he knows that once dead the breath is cut off and there is no mending it at last. If treating the dead is no gain, how is lavish burial any different! To fear that turning one's back on the dead will wound transformation, and yet to cut off divination and turn away the physician, does that alone not wound duty! While a parent lives he is seated high in the hall; at his death he is buried below the Yellow Springs. Below the Yellow Springs is no place for men to dwell, yet they bury him there without doubting, because death is cut off and set in another place and cannot be the same. If it should be just as when he was alive, and one feared that men would turn their backs on him, then he ought to be buried in the house, the same as in life. To leave it unclear that there is no knowledge, so that men turn their backs on their parents, and yet to make clear alone that burial is below the Yellow Springs, is that not to part them from their forebears? When a parent is in prison and the charge is doubtful and unsettled, the filial son runs about to save him from his trouble. When the charge is settled and the law is set and there is no door left at last, then even a Zengzi or a Ziqian can only sit and weep. Why? Because planning and moving is no gain and only makes trouble for nothing. Now the soul of a dead parent, settled and knowing nothing, how does it differ from the settled charge of an imprisoned parent that cannot be saved? To leave it unclear that there is no knowledge, for fear men will turn their backs on their forebears, and yet to make clear alone that the charge is settled, is that not to slight one's parent! When a sage sets up a duty, if it is a gain to transformation he does not remove it though it be small; if it is no help to government he does not grant it though it be great. Now what gain to kindness is there in treating the dead lavishly? What is lost to duty by turning away and not serving them?
孔子又謂：為明器不成，示意有明，俑則偶人，象類生人。故魯用偶人葬，孔子嘆，睹用人殉之兆也，故嘆以痛之。即如生當備物，不示如生，意悉其教，用偶人葬，恐後用生殉，用明器，獨不為后用善器葬乎！絕用人之源，不防喪物之路，重人不愛用，痛人不憂國，傳議之所失也。救漏防者悉塞其穴，則水泄絕。穴不悉塞，水有所漏，漏則水為患害。論死不悉，則奢禮不絕。不絕則喪物索用，用索物喪，民貧耗（之）〔乏〕，至危亡之道也。
Confucius also said that spirit vessels are made unfinished, to show that the intent has clarity in it, but that yong are wooden figures, made in the likeness of living men. So when Lu used wooden figures in burial, Confucius sighed. He saw in it the sign of using men to follow the dead into the grave, and so he sighed and grieved over it. If things ought to be furnished as in life, and yet one does not show them as in life, then the intent exhausts his teaching. Using wooden figures in burial, he feared that later men would be used to follow the dead; then in using spirit vessels, does it alone not lead to later burials with good vessels! To cut off the source of using men and not to block the road of losing goods, to weigh men heavily and not to spare expense, to grieve for men and not to worry for the state, this is where the handed-down argument goes wrong. One who mends a leak and blocks it stops up every hole, and then the water ceases to run out. If the holes are not all stopped, the water has somewhere to leak; and when it leaks, the water becomes a trouble and a harm. If the argument on death is not exhausted, lavish rites are not cut off. Not being cut off, goods are lost and use exhausted; use exhausted and goods lost, the people grow poor and worn and fall into want. This is the road to danger and ruin.
蘇秦為燕使，齊國之民高大丘冢，多藏財物，蘇秦身弗以勸勉之，財盡民（貪）〔貧〕，國空兵弱，燕軍卒至，無以自衛，國破城亡，主出民散。今不明死之無知，使民自竭以厚葬親，與蘇秦奸計同一敗。墨家之議自違其術，其薄葬而又右鬼，右鬼引效以杜伯為驗。杜伯死人，如謂杜伯為鬼，則夫死者審有知；如有知而薄葬之，是怒死人也。〔人〕情欲厚而惡薄，以薄受死者之責，雖右鬼，其何益哉？如以鬼非死人，則其信杜伯非也；如以鬼是死人，則其薄葬非也。術用乖錯，首尾相違，故以為非。非與是不明，皆不可行。夫如是，世欲之人，可一詳覽。詳覽如斯，可一薄葬矣。
Su Qin served as envoy for Yan. The people of Qi raised high and great grave mounds and hid much wealth in them, and Su Qin himself urged and pressed them on in it. Their wealth was spent and the people poor, the state empty and the army weak; and when the army of Yan came suddenly there was nothing to defend themselves with. The state was broken and the walled city fell, the ruler went out and the people scattered. Now, to leave it unclear that death has no knowledge, so that the people exhaust themselves to bury their parents lavishly, is one and the same ruin as Su Qin's wicked plan. The Mohist argument goes against its own art. It holds to simple burial and also exalts ghosts, and in exalting ghosts it draws in proof and takes Du Bo as its evidence. Du Bo was a dead man. If Du Bo is said to have become a ghost, then the dead do indeed have knowledge; and if they have knowledge and are buried simply, this is to anger the dead. Men's feeling wants generosity and hates thinness. To take the reproach of the dead by being thin, though one exalt ghosts, what gain is there in it? If ghosts are held not to be dead men, then their belief in Du Bo is wrong. If ghosts are held to be dead men, then their simple burial is wrong. Art and use go crooked and astray, head and tail at odds with each other, and so I hold it wrong. When wrong and right are not clear, neither can be put into practice. This being so, the men of the age may look at it closely once. Looking closely in this way, they may bury simply once and for all.