兼爱下Impartial Care III

子墨子言曰：仁人之事者，必务求兴天下之利，除天下之害。然当今之时，天下之害孰为大？曰：若大国之攻小国也，大家之乱小家也，强之劫弱，众之暴寡，诈之谋愚，贵之敖贱，此天下之害也。又与为人君者之不惠也，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。又与今人之贱人，执其兵刃毒药水火，以交相亏贼，此又天下之害也。姑尝本原若众害之所自生，此胡自生？此自爱人、利人生与？即必曰非然也，必曰从恶人、贼人生。分名乎天下恶人而贼人者，兼与？别与？即必曰别也。然即之交别者，果生天下之大害者与？是故别非也。

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。若非人而无以易之，譬之犹以水救火也，其说将必无可焉。是故子墨子曰：兼以易别。然即兼之可以易别之故何也？曰：藉为人之国若为其国，夫谁独举其国以攻人之国者哉？为彼者由为己也。为人之都若为其都，夫谁独举其都以伐人之都者哉？为彼犹为己也。为人之家若为其家，夫谁独举其家以乱人之家者哉？为彼犹为己也。然即国都不相攻伐，人家不相乱贼，此天下之害与？天下之利与？即必曰天下之利也。姑尝本原若众利之所自生，此胡自生？此自恶人、贼人生与？即必曰非然也，必曰从爱人、利人生。分名乎天下爱人而利人者，别与？兼与？即必曰兼也。然即之交兼者，果生天下之大利者与？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.

且乡吾本言曰：仁人之事者，必务求兴天下之利，除天下之害。今吾本原兼之所生天下之大利者也，吾本原别之所生天下之大害者也。是故子墨子曰：别非而兼是者，出乎若方也。今吾将正求兴天下之利而取之，以兼为正。是以聪耳明目相为视听乎，是以股肱毕强相为动宰乎，而有道肆相教诲。是以老而无妻子者，有所侍养以终其寿；幼弱孤童之无父母者，有所放依以长其身。今唯毋以兼为政，即若其利也。不识天下之士所以皆闻兼而非之者，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犹未止也，曰：「兼即善矣，虽然，岂可用哉？」子墨子曰：用而不可，虽我亦将非之。且焉有善而不可用者？姑尝两而进之，设以为二士，使其一士者执别，使其一士者执兼。是故别士之言曰：「吾岂能为吾友之身若为吾身，为吾友之亲若为吾亲？」是故退睹其友，饥即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不侍养，死丧不葬埋。别士之言若此，行若此。兼士之言不然，行亦不然，曰：「吾闻为高士于天下者，必为其友之身若为其身，为其友之亲若为其亲，然后可以为高士于天下。」是故退睹其友，饥则食之，寒则衣之，疾病侍养之，死丧葬埋之。兼士之言若此，行若此。若之二士者，言相非而行相反与？当使若二士者，言必信，行必果，使言行之合，犹合符节也，无言而不行也。然即敢问：今有平原广野于此，被甲婴胄，将往战，死生之权未可识也；又有君大夫之远使于巴、越、齐、荆，往来及否未及否，未可识也。然即敢问不识将恶择之也？家室，奉承亲戚，提挈妻子，而寄托之，不识于兼之有是乎？于别之有是乎？我以为当其于此也，天下无愚夫愚妇，虽非兼之人，必寄托之于兼之有是也。此言而非兼，择即取兼，即此言行费也。不识天下之士，所以皆闻兼而非之者，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犹未止也，曰：「意可以择士，而不可以择君乎？」姑尝两而进之，设以为二君，使其一君者执兼，使其一君者执别。是故别君之言曰：「吾恶能为吾万民之身若为吾身，此泰非天下之情也。人之生乎地上之无几何也，譬之犹驷驰而过隙也。」是故退睹其万民，饥即不食，寒即不衣，疾病不侍养，死丧不葬埋。别君之言若此，行若此。兼君之言不然，行亦不然，曰：「吾闻为明君于天下者，必先万民之身，后为其身，然后可以为明君于天下。」是故退睹其万民，饥即食之，寒即衣之，疾病侍养之，死丧葬埋之。兼君之言若此，行若此。然即交若之二君者，言相非而行相反与？常使若二君者，言必信，行必果，使言行之合，犹合符节也，无言而不行也。然即敢问：今岁有疠疫，万民多有勤苦冻馁，转死沟壑中者，既已众矣。不识将择之二君者，将何从也？我以为当其于此也，天下无愚夫愚妇，虽非兼君，必从兼君是也。言而非兼，择即取兼，即此言行拂也，不识天下所以皆闻兼而非之者，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犹未止也，曰：兼即仁矣，义矣。虽然，岂可为哉？吾譬兼之不可为也，犹挈泰山以超江河也。故兼者，直愿之也，夫岂可为之物哉？子墨子曰：夫挈泰山以超江河，自古之及今，生民而来未尝有也。今若夫兼相爱、交相利，此自先圣六王者亲行之。何以知先圣六王之亲行之也？子墨子曰：吾非与之并世同时，亲闻其声，见其色也。以其所书于竹帛，镂于金石，琢于槃盂，传遗后世子孙者知之。《泰誓》曰：「文王若日若月乍照，光于四方，于西土。」即此言文王之兼爱天下之博大也，譬之日月兼照天下之无有私也，即此文王兼也。虽子墨子之所谓兼者，于文王取法焉。且不唯《泰誓》为然，虽《禹誓》即亦犹是也。禹曰：「济济有众，咸听朕言，非惟小子敢行称乱，蠢兹有苗，用天之罚，若予既率尔群对诸群以征有苗。」禹之征有苗也，非以求以重富贵、干福禄、乐耳目也，以求兴天下之利，除天下之害，即此禹兼也。虽子墨子之所谓兼者，于禹求焉。且不唯《禹誓》为然，虽《汤说》即亦犹是也。汤曰：「惟予小子履，敢用玄牡，告于上天后曰：今天大旱，即当朕身履，未知得罪于上下。有善不敢蔽，有罪不敢赦，简在帝心。万方有罪，即当朕身。朕身有罪，无及万方。」即此言汤贵为天子，富有天下，然且不惮以身为牺牲，以祠说于上帝鬼神，即此汤兼也。虽子墨子之所谓兼者，于汤取法焉。且不唯《誓命》与《汤说》为然，周《诗》即亦犹是也。周《诗》曰：「王道荡荡，不偏不党。王道平平，不党不偏。其直若矢，其易若厎。君子之所履，小人之所视。」若吾言非语道之谓也？古者文武为正，均分赏贤罚暴，勿有亲戚弟兄之所阿，即此文武兼也。虽子墨子之所谓兼者，于文武取法焉。不识天下之人所以皆闻兼而非之者，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犹未止，曰：意不忠亲之利，而害为孝乎？子墨子曰：姑尝本原之孝子之为亲度者。吾不识孝子之为亲度者，亦欲人爱利其亲与？意欲人之恶贼其亲与？以说观之，即欲人之爱利其亲也。然即吾恶先从事即得此？若我先从事乎爱利人之亲，然后人报我以爱利吾亲乎？意我先从事乎恶贼人之亲，然后人报我以爱利吾亲乎？即必吾先从事乎爱利人之亲，然后人报我以爱利吾亲也。然即之交孝子者，果不得已乎？毋先从事爱利人之亲者与？意以天下之孝子为遇，而不足以为正乎？姑尝本原之先王之所书《大雅》之所道曰：「无言而不雠，无德而不报。投我以桃，报之以李。」即此言爱人者必见爱也，而恶人者必见恶也。不识天下之士所以皆闻兼而非之者，其故何也？意以为难而不可为邪？尝有难此而可为者。昔荆灵王好小要，当灵王之身，荆国之士饭不逾乎一，固据而后兴，扶垣而后行。故约食为其难为也，然后为而灵王说之，未逾于世而民可移也，即求以乡其上也。昔者越王句践好勇，教其士臣三年，以其知为未足以知之也。焚舟失火，鼓而进之。其士偃前列、伏水火而死者，不可胜数也。当此之时，不鼓而退也，越国之士可谓颤矣。故焚身为其难为也，然后为而越王说之，未逾于世而民可移也，即求以乡其上也。昔者晋文公好苴服。当文公之时，晋国之士大布之衣，牂羊之裘，练帛之冠，且苴之屦，入见文公，出以践之朝。故苴服为其难为也，然后为而文公说之，未逾于世而民可移也，即求以乡其上也。是故约食、焚舟、苴服，此天下之至难为也，然后为而上说之，未逾于世而民可移也。何故也？即求以乡其上也。今若夫兼相爱、交相利，此其有利且易为也，不可胜计也。我以为则无有上说之者而已矣，苟有上说之者，劝之以赏誉，威之以刑罚，我以为人之于就兼相爱、交相利也，譬之犹火之就上、水之就下也，不可防止于天下。

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，圣王之道也，王公大人之所以安也，万民衣食之所以足也。故君子莫若审兼而务行之。为人君必惠，为人臣必忠，为人父必慈，为人子必孝，为人兄必友，为人弟必悌。故君子莫若欲为惠君、忠臣、慈父、孝子、友兄、悌弟，当若兼之不可不行也。此圣王之道而万民之大利也。

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.