兼愛下Impartial Care III

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。

Master Mozi said: The task of the benevolent is to strive to promote the benefit of the world and to eliminate the harm of the world. In the present age, then, which of the world's harms is greatest? I say: great states attacking small states, great households throwing small households into disorder, the strong plundering the weak, the many oppressing the few, the cunning scheming against the simple, the noble scorning the humble: these are the harms of the world. And further, rulers who are ungenerous, ministers who are disloyal, fathers who are unkind, sons who are unfilial: these too are harms of the world. And further, the base people of today who take up weapons, poison, water, and fire to injure and do violence to one another: this too is a harm of the world. Let us try to trace these many harms to their source: from what do they arise? Do they arise from caring for others and benefiting others? We must surely say that it is not so; we must say that they arise from hating others and doing violence to others. If we sort by name those in the world who hate others and do violence to others, are they impartial, or are they partial? We must surely say that they are partial. Then is it not mutual partiality that in fact produces the great harms of the world? This is why partiality 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。

Master Mozi said: Whoever condemns something must have something to replace it with. To condemn something with nothing to replace it is like trying to put out a fire with fire; such an argument will surely be of no avail. Therefore Master Mozi said: Replace partiality with impartiality. Then why is it that impartiality can replace partiality? I say: if people acted for the states of others as they act for their own state, who would then mobilize his own state to attack the state of another? To act for others would be to act for oneself. If people acted for the cities of others as they act for their own city, who would then mobilize his own city to assault the city of another? To act for others would be to act for oneself. If people acted for the households of others as they act for their own household, who would then mobilize his own household to throw the household of another into disorder? To act for others would be to act for oneself. Then, when states and cities do not attack and assault one another, and persons and households do not disorder and do violence to one another, is this a harm to the world, or a benefit to the world? We must surely say it is a benefit to the world. Let us try to trace these many benefits to their source: from what do they arise? Do they arise from hating others and doing violence to others? We must surely say that it is not so; we must say that they arise from caring for others and benefiting others. If we sort by name those in the world who care for others and benefit others, are they partial, or are they impartial? We must surely say that they are impartial. Then is it not mutual impartiality that in fact produces the great benefits of the world? This is why Master Mozi said: Impartiality is right.

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？

Moreover, I said at the outset: the task of the benevolent is to strive to promote the benefit of the world and to eliminate the harm of the world. Now I have traced impartiality to its source as what produces the great benefits of the world, and I have traced partiality to its source as what produces the great harms of the world. This is why Master Mozi said: that partiality is wrong and impartiality is right follows from just this method. Now if I sincerely seek to promote the benefit of the world and to secure it, I take impartiality as the standard. Then those with keen ears and clear eyes will see and hear on one another's behalf; those with strong limbs will labor on one another's behalf; and those who possess the Way will earnestly teach one another. Then those who are old and without wife or children will have someone to support and care for them to the end of their days, and the young and weak, orphans without father or mother, will have something to rely upon as they grow. Now if only impartiality were taken as the basis of government, such would be its benefits. I cannot understand why the officers of the world, upon hearing of impartiality, all condemn it. What is the reason?

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 the world who condemn impartiality have still not ceased. They say: 'Impartiality may be good; even so, how can it be put to use?' Master Mozi said: If it could not be put to use, even I would condemn it. But how could there be something good that cannot be put to use? Let us try setting the two side by side and following them through. Suppose there are two officers: let one of them hold to partiality, and let the other hold to impartiality. The partial officer says: 'How could I act for the person of my friend as I act for my own person, or act for the parents of my friend as I act for my own parents?' And so, when he turns to look at his friend, he does not feed him when he is hungry, does not clothe him when he is cold, does not nurse him when he is sick, and does not bury him when he dies. Such are the partial officer's words, and such is his conduct. The impartial officer's words are not like this, nor is his conduct. He says: 'I have heard that one who would be a lofty officer in the world must act for the person of his friend as he acts for his own person, and act for the parents of his friend as he acts for his own parents; only then can he be a lofty officer in the world.' And so, when he turns to look at his friend, he feeds him when he is hungry, clothes him when he is cold, nurses him when he is sick, and buries him when he dies. Such are the impartial officer's words, and such is his conduct. These two officers: do their words contradict each other and their actions run opposite? Let us suppose that these two officers are both true to their word and resolute in action, so that their words and deeds fit together like the two halves of a tally, and there is nothing they say that they do not do. Then may I ask: suppose here is a broad plain, an open field, and one must put on armor and helmet and go forth to battle, with no way of knowing whether one will live or die; or suppose a ruler or great officer is sending one on a distant mission to Ba, Yue, Qi, or Jing, with no way of knowing whether one will return. Then may I ask: which would one choose? One's house and home, the care of one's parents, the keeping of one's wife and children: to whom would one entrust them? Would one entrust them to the impartial officer, or to the partial one? I believe that in such a case there is no man or woman in the world so foolish that, even though they condemn impartiality, they would not entrust these to the impartial officer. In words they condemn impartiality, but when they must choose, they choose impartiality: here words and conduct are at odds. I cannot understand why the officers of the world, upon hearing of impartiality, all condemn it. What is the reason?

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 the world who condemn impartiality have still not ceased. They say: 'Perhaps it may serve for choosing an officer, but can it serve for choosing a ruler?' Let us try setting the two side by side and following them through. Suppose there are two rulers: let one of them hold to impartiality, and let the other hold to partiality. The partial ruler says: 'How could I act for the persons of my myriad people as I act for my own person? That is utterly contrary to the way of the world. A person's life on this earth lasts no time at all; it is like a team of four horses galloping past a crack in a wall.' And so, when he turns to look at his myriad people, he does not feed them when they are hungry, does not clothe them when they are cold, does not nurse them when they are sick, and does not bury them when they die. Such are the partial ruler's words, and such is his conduct. The impartial ruler's words are not like this, nor is his conduct. He says: 'I have heard that one who would be an enlightened ruler in the world must put the persons of his myriad people first and his own person last; only then can he be an enlightened ruler in the world.' And so, when he turns to look at his myriad people, he feeds them when they are hungry, clothes them when they are cold, nurses them when they are sick, and buries them when they die. Such are the impartial ruler's words, and such is his conduct. Then, comparing these two rulers: do their words contradict each other and their actions run opposite? Let us suppose that these two rulers are both true to their word and resolute in action, so that their words and deeds fit together like the two halves of a tally, and there is nothing they say that they do not do. Then may I ask: suppose this year there is plague and pestilence, and great numbers of the myriad people suffer hardship, cold, and hunger, and those who have perished and been tumbled into ditches and gullies are already many. I wonder: if one had to choose between these two rulers, which would one follow? I believe that in such a case there is no man or woman in the world so foolish that, even though they condemn the impartial ruler, they would not follow the impartial ruler. In words they condemn impartiality, but when they must choose, they choose impartiality: here words and conduct are at odds. I cannot understand why the whole world, upon hearing of impartiality, condemns it. What is the reason?

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 the world who condemn impartiality have still not ceased. They say: 'Impartiality is benevolent, and it is righteous. Even so, how can it be done? We would compare the impossibility of doing impartiality to lifting up Mount Tai and leaping across the Yangzi and the Yellow River. So impartiality is merely something to wish for; how could it be something that can be done?' Master Mozi said: As for lifting up Mount Tai and leaping across the Yangzi and the Yellow River, from antiquity to the present, since there have been people, this has never once been done. But caring for one another impartially and benefiting one another reciprocally is something the six sage kings of former times practiced in person. How do we know that the six sage kings of former times practiced it in person? Master Mozi said: I did not live in their age and time, nor did I hear their voices or see their faces with my own senses. I know it from what they wrote on bamboo and silk, engraved on metal and stone, and carved on basins and bowls to hand down to their descendants in later generations. The 'Great Declaration' says: 'King Wen was like the sun and like the moon, shining forth, shedding light over the four quarters and over the western lands.' This tells of the vastness of King Wen's impartial care for the world; it is compared to the sun and the moon, which shine impartially on the world without favoritism. This is the impartiality of King Wen. Even what Master Mozi calls impartiality takes its model from King Wen. Nor is it only the 'Great Declaration' that is so; the 'Declaration of Yu' is the same. Yu said: 'All you assembled multitudes, listen to my words. It is not that I, the little one, dare to raise up strife; it is that the Miao are stirring in their stupidity, and I apply Heaven's punishment. So I will lead you, the assembled lords, to go and chastise the Miao.' Yu's expedition against the Miao was not to increase his wealth and honor, to seek blessings and emoluments, or to please his ears and eyes; it was to promote the benefit of the world and eliminate the harm of the world. This is the impartiality of Yu. Even what Master Mozi calls impartiality is sought in Yu. Nor is it only the 'Declaration of Yu' that is so; the 'Words of Tang' are the same. Tang said: 'I, the little one, Lü, presume to use a dark bull to announce to the Sovereign of Heaven above: Now Heaven sends a great drought; let it fall upon my own person, Lü. I do not know whether I have offended above or below. The good I dare not conceal; the guilty I dare not pardon; the judgment lies in the heart of the Lord. If in the myriad regions there is fault, let it fall upon my own person; if my own person has fault, let it not extend to the myriad regions.' This tells how Tang, honored as Son of Heaven and possessing the wealth of the whole world, still did not hesitate to offer his own person as a sacrifice, to pray and plead with the Lord on High and the ghosts and spirits. This is the impartiality of Tang. Even what Master Mozi calls impartiality takes its model from Tang. Nor is it only the Declarations and the 'Words of Tang' that are so; the Odes of Zhou are the same. The Odes of Zhou say: 'The king's way is broad and wide, without partiality, without faction. The king's way is level and even, without faction, without partiality. Straight as an arrow, smooth as a whetstone. It is what the gentleman treads, and what the lesser man looks upon.' Is this not just what my words speak of as the Way? In antiquity, Wen and Wu governed with fairness: they rewarded the worthy and punished the violent, and showed no favoritism to kin or brothers. This is the impartiality of Wen and Wu. Even what Master Mozi calls impartiality takes its model from Wen and Wu. I cannot understand why the people of the world, upon hearing of impartiality, all condemn it. What is the reason?

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 the world who condemn impartiality have still not ceased. They say: 'Might it not fail to serve the benefit of one's parents and so be harmful to filial devotion?' Master Mozi said: Let us try to trace to its source how a filial son plans for his parents. I wonder: does a filial son, planning for his parents, want others to care for and benefit his parents? Or does he want others to hate and do violence to his parents? Judging by the principle of the matter, he wants others to care for and benefit his parents. Then how should I first set about it so as to obtain this? Should I first set about caring for and benefiting the parents of others, so that others repay me by caring for and benefiting my parents? Or should I first set about hating and doing violence to the parents of others, so that others repay me by caring for and benefiting my parents? Surely I must first set about caring for and benefiting the parents of others, and then others will repay me by caring for and benefiting my parents. Then is it not the case that filial sons, in their dealings with one another, have no choice but to first set about caring for and benefiting the parents of others? Or are the filial sons of the world to be regarded as fools, not fit to serve as a standard? Let us try tracing it to its source in what the former kings wrote. The 'Greater Odes' say: 'No word goes unanswered, no virtue goes unrepaid. Throw me a peach, and I repay you with a plum.' This says that one who cares for others is sure to be cared for, and one who hates others is sure to be hated. I cannot understand why the officers of the world, upon hearing of impartiality, all condemn it. What is the reason? Do they think it hard and impossible to do? There have been things harder than this that were done. In former times King Ling of Jing liked slender waists. In King Ling's day the officers of Jing ate no more than one meal, braced themselves before they could rise, and held onto a wall before they could walk. Now restricting one's food is a hard thing to do, yet they did it because King Ling delighted in it; within a single generation the people could be changed, because they sought to conform to their superior. In former times King Goujian of Yue liked bravery. He trained his officers and ministers for three years, and thinking that their knowledge was still not enough to know it, he had a ship set on fire as if by accident and beat the drum to advance them. His officers fell forward in the front ranks, and those who plunged into the water and the fire and died were beyond counting. At that time, had he not beaten the drum for retreat, the officers of Yue would have been, one may say, utterly spent. Now burning one's own body is a hard thing to do, yet they did it because the King of Yue delighted in it; within a single generation the people could be changed, because they sought to conform to their superior. In former times Duke Wen of Jin liked coarse clothing. In Duke Wen's day the officers of Jin wore robes of coarse cloth and furs of ewe-skin, caps of plain silk, and shoes of rough hemp; thus they came in to appear before Duke Wen and went out to walk in the court. Now coarse clothing is a hard thing to do, yet they did it because Duke Wen delighted in it; within a single generation the people could be changed, because they sought to conform to their superior. So restricting one's food, burning the ships, and wearing coarse clothing are the hardest things in the world to do; yet they were done because those above delighted in them, and within a single generation the people could be changed. Why? Because they sought to conform to their superior. Now caring for one another impartially and benefiting one another reciprocally is both beneficial and easy to do, beyond all reckoning. In my view, it is only that there is no one above who delights in it. If only there were someone above who delighted in it, encouraging it with rewards and praise and holding people in awe of it with punishments and penalties, I believe people would take to caring for one another impartially and benefiting one another reciprocally as fire takes to rising and water to flowing downward; nothing in the world could stop it.

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。

Therefore impartiality is the way of the sage kings; it is the means by which kings, dukes, and great men find security, and the means by which the myriad people have enough food and clothing. So there is nothing better for the gentleman than to examine impartiality thoroughly and strive to practice it. As a ruler one must be generous; as a minister, loyal; as a father, kind; as a son, filial; as an elder brother, friendly; as a younger brother, respectful. So if the gentleman wishes to be a generous ruler, a loyal minister, a kind father, a filial son, a friendly elder brother, or a respectful younger brother, then impartiality is what cannot fail to be practiced. This is the way of the sage kings and the great benefit of the myriad people.