Impartial Love, Part Three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，天下之害孰爲大？曰：若大國之攻小國也，大家之亂小家也，强之劫弱，衆之暴寡，詐之謀愚，貴之敖賤，此天下之害也。又與爲人君者之不惠也，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。姑嘗本原若衆害之所自生，此胡自生？此自愛人、利人生與？卽必曰非然也，必曰從惡人、賊人生。分名乎天下惡人而賊人者，兼與？別與？卽必曰別也。然卽之交別者，果生天下之大害者與？是故別非也。
Mozi said, "The work of the benevolent man is surely to strive to raise up what benefits all under heaven and to remove what harms all under heaven.
Then in this present time, which of the harms of all under heaven is great? It is said: the great state attacking the small state, the great house throwing the small house into disorder, the strong pressing the weak, the many being violent toward the few, the cunning plotting against the foolish, and the noble being proud toward the low. This is a harm of all under heaven.
Again, one who is a ruler of others not being kind, one who is a subject not being loyal, one who is a father not being loving, and one who is a son not being filial. This too is a harm of all under heaven.
Again, men of today holding others cheap, taking up their weapons and blades, poison, water, and fire, and injuring and harming one another. This too is a harm of all under heaven.
Let us try for a moment to dig to the root of where this crowd of harms is born from. Where is it born from? Is it born from loving others and benefiting others? Surely we must say it is not so, and must say it is born from hating others and harming others.
If we divide and name those in all under heaven who hate others and harm others, is it loving all alike or setting apart? Surely we must say it is setting apart. Then is this setting apart of one from another indeed what bears the great harm of all under heaven? Therefore setting apart is wrong."
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。然卽兼之可以易別之故何也？曰：藉爲人之國若爲其國，夫誰獨舉其國以攻人之國者哉？爲彼者由爲己也。爲人之都若爲其都，夫誰獨舉其都以伐人之都者哉？爲彼猶爲己也。爲人之家若爲其家，夫誰獨舉其家以亂人之家者哉？爲彼猶爲己也。然卽國都不相攻伐，人家不相亂賊，此天下之害與？天下之利與？卽必曰天下之利也。姑嘗本原若衆利之所自生，此胡自生？此自惡人、賊人生與？卽必曰非然也，必曰從愛人、利人生。分名乎天下愛人而利人者，別與？兼與？卽必曰兼也。然卽之交兼者，果生天下之大利者與？是故子墨子曰：兼是也。
Mozi said, "One who holds another wrong must have something to change it with. If he holds another wrong and has nothing to change it with, it is like trying to save water with water, and his words will surely come to nothing."
Therefore Mozi said, "Change setting apart with loving all alike.
Then what is the reason that loving all alike can change setting apart? It is said: if a man works for the state of another as he works for his own state, who alone would raise his state to attack the state of another? For working for the other comes from working for himself. If a man works for the city of another as he works for his own city, who alone would raise his city to strike the city of another? For working for the other is like working for himself. If a man works for the house of another as he works for his own house, who alone would raise his house to throw the house of another into disorder? For working for the other is like working for himself.
Then states and cities do not attack and strike one another, and men and houses do not throw one another into disorder or harm one another. Is this a harm of all under heaven, or a benefit of all under heaven? Surely we must say it is a benefit of all under heaven.
Let us try for a moment to dig to the root of where this crowd of benefits is born from. Where is it born from? Is it born from hating others and harming others? Surely we must say it is not so, and must say it is born from loving others and benefiting others.
If we divide and name those in all under heaven who love others and benefit others, is it setting apart or loving all alike? Surely we must say it is loving all alike. Then is this loving of one another all alike indeed what bears the great benefit of all under heaven?"
Therefore Mozi said, "Loving all alike is right."
Interlinear notes 1
譬之猶以水救火也
The source text has 以水救火, taken here as an error for 以水救水; putting out fire with water works well, which contradicts "nothing can come of it." ― Translator
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。今吾將正求興天下之利而取之，以兼爲正。是以聰耳明目相爲視聽乎，是以股肱畢强相爲動宰乎，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。今唯毋以兼爲政，卽若其利也。不識天下之士所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？
Again, earlier I said at the root, "The work of the benevolent man is surely to strive to raise up what benefits all under heaven and to remove what harms all under heaven." Now I have dug to the root and found that loving all alike bears the great benefit of all under heaven, and I have dug to the root and found that setting apart bears the great harm of all under heaven.
Therefore Mozi said, "That setting apart is wrong and loving all alike is right comes out from this ground."
Now, if I would rightly seek to raise up the benefit of all under heaven and take hold of it, I make loving all alike my standard. In this way those with keen ears and clear eyes see and hear for one another, those strong in limb move and work for one another, and those who have the way strive to teach one another. In this way those who are old and have no wife or children get a place to be served and nourished and so end their years, and the young and weak, orphans without father or mother, get a place to lean on and so grow in body.
Now if only loving all alike be made the government, its benefit is like this. I cannot tell what the reason is that the officers of all under heaven all hear of loving all alike and hold it wrong.
然而天下之士非兼者之言猶未止也，曰：「兼卽善矣，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，設以爲二士，使其一士者執別，使其一士者執兼。是故別士之言曰：「吾豈能爲吾友之身若爲吾身，爲吾友之親若爲吾親？」是故退睹其友，飢卽不食，寒卽不衣，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：「吾聞爲高士於天下者，必爲其友之身若爲其身，爲其友之親若爲其親，然後可以爲高士於天下。」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。然卽敢問：今有平原廣野於此，被甲嬰胄，將往戰，死生之權未可識也；又有君大夫之遠使於巴、越、齊、荆，往來及否未及否，未可識也。然卽敢問不識將惡擇之也？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？我以爲當其於此也，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，擇卽取兼，卽此言行費也。不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？
And yet the words of those officers of all under heaven who hold loving all alike wrong do not stop, and they say, "Loving all alike is good. Yet how could it be used?"
Mozi said, "If it could not be used, then even I would hold it wrong. And how could there be a thing that is good and yet cannot be used?
Let us try for a moment to set two side by side and bring them forward. Let there be two officers, and let one of them hold to setting apart and one of them hold to loving all alike.
So the words of the officer who holds to setting apart are these. 'How could I work for the body of my friend as I work for my own body, or work for the parent of my friend as I work for my own parent?' So he withdraws and looks on his friend, and when his friend is hungry he does not feed him, when he is cold he does not clothe him, when he is sick he does not serve and nourish him, and when he dies he does not bury him. The words of the officer who holds to setting apart are like this, and his conduct is like this.
The words of the officer who holds to loving all alike are not so, and his conduct is not so. He says, 'I have heard that one who would be a high officer in all under heaven must work for the body of his friend as he works for his own body, and work for the parent of his friend as he works for his own parent, and only then can he be a high officer in all under heaven.' So he withdraws and looks on his friend, and when his friend is hungry he feeds him, when he is cold he clothes him, when he is sick he serves and nourishes him, and when he dies he buries him. The words of the officer who holds to loving all alike are like this, and his conduct is like this.
Do these two officers hold each other's words wrong and go against each other in conduct? Let us grant that these two officers have words that are surely trusted and conduct that is surely firm, so that their words and their conduct fit together as the two halves of a tally fit, and there is nothing they say that they do not do.
Then I dare to ask. Suppose there is here a level plain and a wide field, and a man puts on armor and a helmet and is about to go and fight, and the balance of death and life cannot be known. Or suppose a ruler or a great officer goes far away as an envoy to Ba, to Yue, to Qi, or to Jing, and whether he will get there and come back or not cannot be known.
Then I dare to ask. Which of the two would he choose? When he entrusts his household, and has his parents upheld and his wife and children led and cared for, would this lie with loving all alike, or would it lie with setting apart?
When it comes to this, I hold that in all under heaven there is no foolish man or foolish woman, and even one who holds loving all alike wrong, who would not entrust it to the one who loves all alike. This is to hold loving all alike wrong in words and yet to take loving all alike when choosing, and so his words and his conduct go against each other. I cannot tell what the reason is that the officers of all under heaven all hear of loving all alike and hold it wrong."
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，設以爲二君，使其一君者執兼，使其一君者執別。是故別君之言曰：「吾惡能爲吾萬民之身若爲吾身，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，飢卽不食，寒卽不衣，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：「吾聞爲明君於天下者，必先萬民之身，後爲其身，然後可以爲明君於天下。」是故退睹其萬民，飢卽食之，寒卽衣之，疾病侍養之，死喪葬埋之。兼君之言若此，行若此。然卽交若之二君者，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。然卽敢問：今歲有癘疫，萬民多有勤苦凍餒，轉死溝壑中者，旣已衆矣。不識將擇之二君者，將何從也？我以爲當其於此也，天下無愚夫愚婦，雖非兼君，必從兼君是也。言而非兼，擇卽取兼，卽此言行拂也，不識天下所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？
And yet the words of those officers of all under heaven who hold loving all alike wrong do not stop, and they say, "Perhaps it can be used to choose an officer, but can it not be used to choose a ruler?"
Let us try for a moment to set two side by side and bring them forward. Let there be two rulers, and let one of them hold to loving all alike and one of them hold to setting apart.
So the words of the ruler who holds to setting apart are these. "How could I work for the bodies of my myriad people as I work for my own body? This goes greatly against the feeling of all under heaven. A man's life on the earth is not long. It is like a team of four horses galloping past a crack." So he withdraws and looks on his myriad people, and when they are hungry he does not feed them, when they are cold he does not clothe them, when they are sick he does not serve and nourish them, and when they die he does not bury them. The words of the ruler who holds to setting apart are like this, and his conduct is like this.
The words of the ruler who holds to loving all alike are not so, and his conduct is not so. He says, "I have heard that one who would be a bright ruler in all under heaven must put the bodies of his myriad people first and his own body after, and only then can he be a bright ruler in all under heaven." So he withdraws and looks on his myriad people, and when they are hungry he feeds them, when they are cold he clothes them, when they are sick he serves and nourishes them, and when they die he buries them. The words of the ruler who holds to loving all alike are like this, and his conduct is like this.
Then do these two rulers hold each other's words wrong and go against each other in conduct? Let us always grant that these two rulers have words that are surely trusted and conduct that is surely firm, so that their words and their conduct fit together as the two halves of a tally fit, and there is nothing they say that they do not do.
Then I dare to ask. Suppose this year there is a fierce plague, and among the myriad people those who toil and suffer, who freeze and starve and roll dead into the ditches and valleys, are already many. I cannot tell, but if one were to choose between these two rulers, which would he follow?
When it comes to this, I hold that in all under heaven there is no foolish man or foolish woman, and even one who holds the ruler who loves all alike wrong would surely say it is right to follow the ruler who loves all alike. He holds loving all alike wrong in words, and yet takes loving all alike when choosing, and so his words and his conduct go against each other. I cannot tell what the reason is that all under heaven hears of loving all alike and holds it wrong.
然而天下之士非兼者之言猶未止也，曰：兼卽仁矣，義矣。雖然，豈可爲哉？吾譬兼之不可爲也，猶挈泰山以超江河也。故兼者，直願之也，夫豈可爲之物哉？子墨子曰：夫挈泰山以超江河，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。何以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，于西土。」卽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，卽此文王兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於文王取法焉。且不唯《泰誓》爲然，雖《禹誓》卽亦猶是也。禹曰：「濟濟有衆，咸聽朕言，非惟小子敢行稱亂，蠢茲有苗，用天之罰，若予旣率爾羣對諸羣以征有苗。」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，卽此禹兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於禹求焉。且不唯《禹誓》爲然，雖《湯說》卽亦猶是也。湯曰：「惟予小子履，敢用玄牡，告於上天后曰：今天大旱，卽當朕身履，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，卽當朕身。朕身有罪，無及萬方。」卽此言湯貴爲天子，富有天下，然且不憚以身爲犧牲，以祠說于上帝鬼神，卽此湯兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於湯取法焉。且不唯《誓命》與《湯說》爲然，周《詩》卽亦猶是也。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？古者文武爲正，均分賞賢罰暴，勿有親戚弟兄之所阿，卽此文武兼也。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？
And yet the words of those officers of all under heaven who hold loving all alike wrong do not stop, and they say, "Loving all alike is benevolent and right. Yet how could it be done? I liken loving all alike, which cannot be done, to lifting Mount Tai and leaping over the Jiang and the He. So loving all alike is only something to wish for. How could it be a thing that can be done?"
Mozi said, "To lift Mount Tai and leap over the Jiang and the He is a thing that, from old times down to now, since men were born, has never yet been. But loving one another all alike and benefiting one another in their dealings was carried out in person by the six sage kings before us.
How do we know that the six sage kings before us carried it out in person?"
Mozi said, "It is not that I stood in the same age and the same time with them and heard their voices and saw their faces myself. I know it from what they wrote on bamboo and silk, cut into metal and stone, and carved on basins and vessels, and handed down and left to the sons and grandsons of later ages.
The Taishi says, 'King Wen was like the sun and like the moon; his shining went forth, and there was light over the four quarters and over the western lands.' This says that King Wen's loving of all under heaven all alike was broad and great. It is like the sun and the moon lighting all under heaven all alike, with nothing of their own in it. This is the loving all alike of King Wen. Even what Mozi calls loving all alike takes its rule from King Wen.
And it is not only the Taishi that is so. The Yushi (禹誓) too is like this. Yu said, 'You many and many multitudes, hear all of you my words. It is not that I, the little one, dare to call up disorder and act. It is that these Youmiao are stirring, and the punishment of Heaven is used upon them. Now I will lead you, my many multitudes, and go against the Youmiao.' Yu's going against the Youmiao was not to make his riches and rank heavier, or to seek blessings and pay, or to please his ears and eyes. It was to seek to raise up what benefits all under heaven and to remove what harms all under heaven. This is the loving all alike of Yu. Even what Mozi calls loving all alike was sought from Yu.
And it is not only the Yushi that is so. The Tangshuo (湯說) too is like this. Tang said, 'I, the little one, Lü (履), dare to use a black bull and announce to the Heaven above and to what comes after. Now Heaven is greatly dry, and this is a matter that lies with my own body, Lü. I do not know whether I have got guilt above or below. If there is good, I dare not hide it. If there is guilt, I dare not pardon it. The choosing lies in the heart of the Lord on high. If the myriad regions have guilt, let it lie with my body. If my body has guilt, let it not reach the myriad regions.'
This says that Tang, noble as the Son of Heaven and rich in having all under heaven, still did not shrink from making his own body the offering, to pray to the Lord on high and to the spirits. This is the loving all alike of Tang. Even what Mozi calls loving all alike takes its rule from Tang.
And it is not only the Shiming (誓命) and the Tangshuo that are so. The Shi of Zhou too is like this. The Shi of Zhou says, 'The way of the king is broad and broad, not leaning and not taking sides. The way of the king is level and level, not taking sides and not leaning. Its straightness is like an arrow, its evenness like a whetstone. It is what the gentleman treads, and what the small man looks to.'
Are my words not speaking of the way? In old times King Wen and King Wu made this their standard. They divided evenly, rewarded the worthy and punished the violent, and gave no favor to kin or younger brother or elder brother. This is the loving all alike of King Wen and King Wu. Even what Mozi calls loving all alike takes its rule from King Wen and King Wu. I cannot tell what the reason is that the men of all under heaven all hear of loving all alike and hold it wrong."
然而天下之非兼者之言猶未止，曰：意不忠親之利，而害爲孝乎？子墨子曰：姑嘗本原之孝子之爲親度者。吾不識孝子之爲親度者，亦欲人愛利其親與？意欲人之惡賊其親與？以說觀之，卽欲人之愛利其親也。然卽吾惡先從事卽得此？若我先從事乎愛利人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親乎？意我先從事乎惡賊人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親乎？卽必吾先從事乎愛利人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親也。然卽之交孝子者，果不得已乎？毋先從事愛利人之親者與？意以天下之孝子爲遇，而不足以爲正乎？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。」卽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？意以爲難而不可爲邪？嘗有難此而可爲者。昔荆靈王好小要，當靈王之身，荆國之士飯不踰乎一，固據而後興，扶垣而後行。故約食爲其難爲也，然後爲而靈王說之，未踰於世而民可移也，卽求以鄉其上也。昔者越王句踐好勇，教其士臣三年，以其知爲未足以知之也。焚舟失火，鼓而進之。其士偃前列、伏水火而死者，不可勝數也。當此之時，不鼓而退也，越國之士可謂顫矣。故焚身爲其難爲也，然後爲而越王說之，未踰於世而民可移也，卽求以鄉其上也。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。故苴服爲其難爲也，然後爲而文公說之，未踰於世而民可移也，卽求以鄉其上也。是故約食、焚舟、苴服，此天下之至難爲也，然後爲而上說之，未踰於世而民可移也。何故也？卽求以鄉其上也。今若夫兼相愛、交相利，此其有利且易爲也，不可勝計也。我以爲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，我以爲人之於就兼相愛、交相利也，譬之猶火之就上、水之就下也，不可防止於天下。
And yet the words of those in all under heaven who hold loving all alike wrong do not stop, and they say, "Perhaps it is not loyal to the benefit of one's parents and so harms the doing of filial duty."
Mozi said, "Let us try for a moment to dig to the root of what a filial son plans for his parents. I cannot tell: when a filial son plans for his parents, does he wish others to love and benefit his parents, or does he wish others to hate and harm his parents? Looking at the matter by reason, he wishes others to love and benefit his parents.
Then what must I set about first to get this? Shall I first set about loving and benefiting the parents of others, and then others repay me by loving and benefiting my parents? Or shall I first set about hating and harming the parents of others, and then others repay me by loving and benefiting my parents? Surely I must first set about loving and benefiting the parents of others, and then others will repay me by loving and benefiting my parents.
Then are these filial sons who deal with one another so indeed doing it only because they cannot help it? Could they not first set about loving and benefiting the parents of others? Or do you hold the filial sons of all under heaven to be foolish, and not enough to make a standard of?
Let us try for a moment to dig to the root of what the Daya, written by the kings before us, speaks of. It says, 'There is no word that is not answered, and no virtue that is not repaid. Throw me a peach, and it is repaid with a plum.' This says that one who loves others will surely be loved, and one who hates others will surely be hated. I cannot tell what the reason is that the officers of all under heaven all hear of loving all alike and hold it wrong.
Do you hold it hard and therefore not to be done? There have been things harder than this that were still done.
In old times King Ling of Jing (荊) delighted in slender waists, and while King Ling was alive the officers of Jing took no more than one bowl of food. They braced themselves firmly and only then rose, and held to the wall and only then walked. So cutting down food is a hard thing to do, yet they did it because King Ling was pleased by it, and before one generation had passed the people could be moved. This was because they sought to turn toward the one above them.
In old times King Goujian of Yue delighted in bravery, and he taught his officers and ministers for three years. He held that his own knowledge was not enough to know them, so he set fire to a boat and let the flames loose and beat the drum to send them forward. His officers fell down in the front ranks, and those who lay down in water and fire and died could not be counted. At that time, had he not beaten the drum but called them back, the officers of Yue might be said to have trembled. So burning one's body is a hard thing to do, yet they did it because the king of Yue was pleased by it, and before one generation had passed the people could be moved. This was because they sought to turn toward the one above them.
In old times Duke Wen of Jin delighted in coarse clothes, and in the time of Duke Wen the officers of Jin wore clothes of thick cloth, robes of ewe skin, caps of plain silk, and coarse sandals. In this dress they went in to see Duke Wen and came out to tread the court. So coarse clothing is a hard thing to do, yet they did it because Duke Wen was pleased by it, and before one generation had passed the people could be moved. This was because they sought to turn toward the one above them.
So cutting down food, burning a boat, and wearing coarse clothes are the hardest things to do in all under heaven, yet they did them because those above were pleased by them, and before one generation had passed the people could be moved. What was the reason? It was because they sought to turn toward the one above them.
Now loving one another all alike and benefiting one another in their dealings has benefit in it, and is easy to do beyond all counting. I hold that there is only this, that no one above is pleased by it. If truly there were one above who was pleased by it, who urged it on with rewards and praise and made it awesome with punishments, I hold that men would go toward loving one another all alike and benefiting one another in their dealings as fire goes upward and water goes downward, and it could not be blocked or stopped in all under heaven."
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。爲人君必惠，爲人臣必忠，爲人父必慈，爲人子必孝，爲人兄必友，爲人弟必悌。故君子莫若欲爲惠君、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。
So loving all alike is the way of the sage kings, and that by which kings and dukes and great men are made secure, and that by which the clothing and food of the myriad people are made enough. So for the gentleman there is nothing like looking closely into loving all alike and striving to carry it out.
One who is a ruler of others must be kind. One who is a subject of others must be loyal. One who is a father must be loving. One who is a son must be filial. One who is an elder brother must be friendly. One who is a younger brother must be respectful.
So if the gentleman would be a kind ruler, a loyal subject, a loving father, a filial son, a friendly elder brother, or a respectful younger brother, he cannot but carry out loving all alike. This is the way of the sage kings and the great benefit of the myriad people.