Against Fatalism, Part Two非命中

Mozi (The Book of Master Mo) 墨子 · Mo Di and his disciples · About the 4th century BC · 3 passages · 1,070 Chinese characters · reading time 4.3 min

Mozi (The Book of Master Mo) The writings of the school that in the Warring States period stood beside the Confucians as one of the "two great companies." It is not the work of one man but what Mo Di and his disciples added generation after generation, and so many chapters set down the same argument in three versions — upper, middle and lower. These are taken as the traces of the branches of the school, each copying it out in its own way. Ten doctrines are the backbone — exalting the worthy, conforming upward with what is right, loving all alike, condemning aggression, thrift in use, thrift in burial, following the will of Heaven, making ghosts clear, condemning music, and condemning fate. "If a man looked on the house of another as on his own house, who would steal?" is in the chapters on loving all alike. The ladder of "Condemning Aggression" — that a man who steals peaches and plums from another's orchard is punished, while a man who attacks another's state is praised — and the three gauges of "Condemning Fate," that to speak without a measure is "like setting the marks of sunrise and sunset upon a turning potter's wheel," stand there too. The last chapter, "Gongshu," is a story. When Chu made cloud ladders to attack Song, Mozi walked ten days and ten nights, met Gongshu Ban, and beat him nine times over with a belt and pieces of wood; and on the way home he met rain and was not let in to shelter inside the gate of that very Song village.

子墨子言曰：凡出言談、由文學之爲道也，則不可而不先立義法。若言而無義，譬猶立朝夕於員鈞之上也，則雖有巧工，必不能得正焉。然今天下之情僞，未可得而識也，故使言有三法。三法者何也？有本之者，有原之者，有用之者。於其本之也，考之天鬼之志，聖王之事。於其原之也，徵以先王之書。用之奈何？發而爲刑政。此言之三法也。今天下之士君子，或以命爲亡。我所以知命之有與亡者，以衆人耳目之情知有與亡。有聞之，有見之，謂之有；莫之聞，莫之見，謂之亡。然胡不嘗考之百姓之情？自古以及今，生民以來者，亦嘗有見命之物、聞命之聲者乎？則未嘗有也。若以百姓爲愚不肖，耳目之情不足因而爲法。然則胡不嘗考之諸侯之傳言流語乎？自古以及今，生民以來者，亦嘗有聞命之聲、見命之體者乎？則未嘗有也。然胡不嘗攷之聖王之事？古之聖王，舉孝子而勸之事親，尊賢良而勸之爲善，發憲布令以教誨，明賞罰以勸沮。若此，則亂者可使治，而危者可使安矣。若以爲不然，昔者桀之所亂，湯治之；紂之所亂，武王治之。此世不渝而民不改，上變政而民易教。其在湯武則治，其在桀紂則亂。安危治亂在上之發政也，則豈可謂有命哉？夫曰有命云者，亦不然矣。

Mozi said, "In all putting forth of speech, and in taking writing and learning as one's way, the rule of righteousness must first be set up. If one speaks and there is no righteousness, it is like setting the marks of sunrise and sunset upon a turning potter's wheel. Though there be a skilled craftsman, he surely cannot get it right.

Now the true and the false of all under heaven cannot be gained and known, and so speech is made to have three rules. What are the three rules? There is what is taken as the root. There is what is traced to the source. There is what is put to use.

In taking the root, one examines the will of Heaven and the ghosts and the affairs of the sage kings. In tracing the source, one proves it by the books of the former kings. How is it put to use? It is sent out as punishment and government. These are the three rules of speech.

Now some of the officers and gentlemen of all under heaven hold that there is fate. The reason I know whether there is fate or not is that I know it by the witness of the ears and eyes of the many. If some have heard it and some have seen it, it is said to be. If none has heard it and none has seen it, it is said not to be.

Then why not examine the witness of the common people? From of old down to now, since men were born, has there ever been one who saw the thing called fate or heard the sound of fate? There has never been.

If it be said that the common people are foolish and unfit, and that the witness of their ears and eyes is not enough to be followed as a rule, then why not examine the handed down words and the current words of the feudal lords? From of old down to now, since men were born, has there ever been one who heard the sound of fate or saw the body of fate? There has never been.

Then why not examine the affairs of the sage kings? The sage kings of old raised up filial sons and urged them to serve their parents. They honored the worthy and good and urged them to do good. They sent out statutes and spread commands to teach and instruct, and they made rewards and punishments clear to urge men on and to hold them back. If it is like this, the disorderly can be made orderly and the endangered can be made safe.

If one thinks it is not so, then in old times what Jie threw into disorder King Tang set in order, and what Zhou threw into disorder King Wu set in order. This age was not altered and the people were not changed, yet when those above changed the government the people readily followed the teaching. Under King Tang and King Wu there was order, and under Jie and Zhou there was disorder. Safety and danger, order and disorder, lie in the government that those above send out. How then can it be said that there is fate? To say that there is fate is also not so."

Interlinear notes 1

或以命爲亡

The source text has 亡, taken here as an error for 有, since the argument and its conclusion both press those who hold that there is fate. ― Translator

今夫有命者言曰：我非作之後世也，自昔三代有若言以傳流矣。今故先生對之？曰：夫有命者，不志昔也三代之聖善人與？意亡昔三代之暴不肖人也？何以知之？初之列士桀大夫，慎言知行，此上有以規諫其君長，下有以教順其百姓。故上得其君長之賞，下得其百姓之譽。列士桀大夫聲聞不廢，傳流至今，而天下皆曰其力也，一見命焉。

Now those who say there is fate say, "I did not make this in a later age. From the three dynasties of old there have been such words, handed down and passed on." Now therefore the master answers them.

It is said: do those who hold that there is fate mean the sage and good men of the three dynasties of old, or do they mean the violent and unfit men of the three dynasties of old?

How is this known? The many officers and the outstanding great men of the early time were careful in speech and knowing in conduct. Above, they set their rulers and elders right by remonstrance. Below, they taught their people to follow. Therefore above they got the rewards of their rulers and elders, and below they got the praise of their people. The name and report of the many officers and the outstanding great men did not fall away but were handed down and have come to this day, and all under heaven says that it was their own strength. Not once has fate been seen in it.

是故昔者三代之暴王，不繆其耳目之淫，不慎其心志之辟，外之敺騁田獵畢弋，內沈於酒樂，而不顧其國家百姓之政。繁爲無用，暴逆百姓，使下不親其上。是故國爲虛厲，身在刑僇之中。必不能曰：「我罷不肖，我爲刑政不善。」必曰：「我命故且亡。」雖昔也三代之窮民，亦由此也。內之不能善事其親戚，外之不能善事其君長，惡恭儉而好簡易，貪飲食而惰從事，衣食之財不足，使身至有飢寒凍餒之憂，必不能曰：「我罷不肖，我從事不疾。」必曰：「我命固且窮。」雖昔也三代之僞民，亦猶此也。繁飾有命，以教衆愚樸之人矣。聖王之患此也，故書之竹帛，琢之盤盂，鏤之金石。於先王之書《仲虺之告》曰：「我聞有夏人矯天命，布命於下，帝式是惡，用闕師。」此語夏王桀之執有命也，湯與仲虺共非之。先王之書《太誓》之言然，曰：「紂夷之居，而不肎事上帝，棄闕其先神而不祀也。曰：『我民有命，毋僇其務。』天不亦棄縱而不葆。」此言紂之執有命也，武王以《太誓》非之。有於《三代》《不國》有之，曰：「女毋崇天之有命也。」命《三》《不國》亦言命之無也。於召公之《執令》於然，且：「敬哉！無天命，惟予二人，而無造言，不自降天之，哉得之。」在於商夏之詩書，曰：「命者，暴王作之。」且今天下之士君子，將欲辯是非利害之故，當天有命者，不可不疾非也。執有命者，此天下之厚害也，是故子墨子非之也。

Therefore the violent kings of the three dynasties of old did not bind the excess of their ears and eyes and were not careful of the crookedness of their hearts and wills. Abroad they galloped and hunted and netted and shot with corded arrows, and at home they sank into wine and music, and they did not look to the government of their states and their people. They made much ado over what was of no use, they were violent and contrary toward their people, and they made those below not draw close to those above. Therefore their states became waste ground and their own bodies were in the midst of punishment and killing.

Yet they could never say, "I am worn out and unfit, and I have not done well in punishment and government." They would surely say, "My fate was to perish from the first."

Even the hard pressed people of the three dynasties of old went by this. At home they could not serve their kin well, and abroad they could not serve their rulers and elders well. They hated respect and thrift and loved ease and looseness. They were greedy for food and drink and lazy in following their work, so that the goods for clothing and food were not enough, and their bodies came to the sorrow of hunger and cold and freezing. Yet they could never say, "I am worn out and unfit, and I am not quick in following my work." They would surely say, "My fate was to be hard pressed from the first."

Even the false people of the three dynasties of old were like this. They decked out the saying that there is fate with much ado, and taught it to the many foolish and simple men.

The sage kings were troubled by this, and so they wrote it on bamboo and silk, cut it into basins and bowls, and carved it on metal and stone.

The Announcement of Zhonghui, a book of the former kings, says, "I have heard that the men of Xia falsified the mandate of Heaven and spread their own command below. The Lord on High hated this and made them lose their host." This tells of Jie, the king of Xia, holding that there is fate, and King Tang and Zhonghui together held it wrong.

The words of the Great Declaration, a book of the former kings, are so. It says, "Zhou dwelt at ease and was not willing to serve the Lord on High. He cast off the spirits of his forebears and did not sacrifice to them, and he said, 'My people have their fate. Do not kill off their striving.' Heaven too let him go and did not keep him." This tells of Zhou holding that there is fate, and King Wu held it wrong by the Great Declaration.

In the Sandai (三代) and the Buguo (不國) there is this: "Do not exalt the saying that Heaven has a fate." The Sandai and the Buguo too say that there is no fate.

In the Zhiling (執令) of the Duke of Shao it is so: "Be reverent. There is no mandate of Heaven. There are only we two men. Do not make up words of yourselves. It did not come down of itself from Heaven, and so it was got."

The Odes and the Documents of Shang and Xia say, "Fate is what the violent kings made."

And now if the officers and gentlemen of all under heaven wish to judge the reasons of right and wrong and of benefit and harm, they cannot but quickly hold wrong those who say that Heaven has a fate. Those who hold that there is fate are a heavy harm to all under heaven, and therefore Mozi holds them wrong.

‹ Against Fatalism, Part Three Contents Against Fatalism, Part One ›Listen to this piece