Follow us on Facebook to receive important updates Follow us on Twitter to receive important updates Follow us on sina.com's microblogging site to receive important updates Follow us on Douban to receive important updates
Chinese Text Project
Simplified Chinese version
Search details:
Scope: Request type: Paragraph
Condition 1: References "所谓仁义之兵也" Matched:2.
Total 2 paragraphs. Page 1 of 1.

先秦两汉 - Pre-Qin and Han

Related resources

儒家 - Confucianism

Related resources

荀子 - Xunzi

[Warring States (475 BC - 221 BC)]
Books referencing 《荀子》 Library Resources
Related resources

议兵

Books referencing 《议兵》 Library Resources
21 议兵:
孙卿子曰:非汝所知也!汝所谓便者,不便之便也;吾所谓仁义者,大便之便也。彼仁义者,所以修政者也;政修则民亲其上,乐其君,而轻为之死。故曰:凡在于军,将率末事也。秦四世有胜,諰諰然常恐天下之一合而轧己也,此所谓末世之兵,未有本统也。故汤之放桀也,非其逐之鸣条之时也;武王之诛纣也,非以甲子之朝而后胜之也,皆前行素修也,所谓仁义之兵也。今女不求之于本,而索之于末,此世之所以乱也。

道家 - Daoism

Related resources

庄子 - Zhuangzi

[Warring States] 350 BC-250 BC
Books referencing 《庄子》 Library Resources
Source
Related resources
[Also known as: 《南华真经》]

外篇 - Outer Chapters

Library Resources

骈拇 - Webbed Toes

English translation: James Legge [?]
Books referencing 《骈拇》 Library Resources
3 骈拇:
故尝试论之,自三代以下者,天下莫不以物易其性矣。小人则以身殉利,士则以身殉名,大夫则以身殉家,圣人则以身殉天下。故此数子者,事业不同,名声异号,其于伤性以身为殉,一也。臧与谷,二人相与牧羊,而俱亡其羊。问臧奚事,则挟厕读书;问谷奚事,则博塞以游。二人者,事业不同,其于亡羊均也。伯夷死名于首阳之下,盗跖死利于东陵之上。二人者,所死不同,其于残生伤性均也,奚必伯夷之是而盗跖之非乎?天下尽殉也。彼其所殉仁义也,则俗谓之君子;其所殉货财也,则俗谓之小人。其殉一也,则有君子焉,有小人焉;若其残生损性,则盗跖亦伯夷已,又恶取君子小人于其间哉?且夫属其性乎仁义者,虽通如曾、史,非吾所谓臧也;属其性于五味,虽通如俞儿,非吾所谓臧也;属其性乎五声,虽通如师旷,非吾所谓聪也;属其性乎五色,虽通如离朱,非吾所谓明也。吾所谓臧者,非仁义之谓也,臧于其德而已矣;吾所谓臧者,非所谓仁义之谓也,任其性命之情而已矣;吾所谓聪者,非谓其闻彼也,自闻而已矣;吾所谓明者,非谓其见彼也,自见而已矣。夫不自见而见彼,不自得而得彼者,是得人之得而不自得其得者也,适人之适而不自适其适者也。夫适人之适而不自适其适,虽盗跖与伯夷,是同为淫僻也。余愧乎道德,是以上不敢为仁义之操,而下不敢为淫僻之行也。
Webbed Toes:
I will therefore try and discuss this matter. From the commencement of the three dynasties downwards, nowhere has there been a man who has not under (the influence of external) things altered (the course of) his nature. Small men for the sake of gain have sacrificed their persons; scholars for the sake of fame have done so; great officers, for the sake of their families; and sagely men, for the sake of the kingdom. These several classes, with different occupations, and different reputations, have agreed in doing injury to their nature and sacrificing their persons. Take the case of a male and female slave; they have to feed the sheep together, but they both lose their sheep. Ask the one what he was doing, and you will find that he was holding his bamboo tablets and reading. Ask the other, and you will find that she was amusing herself with some game. They were differently occupied, but they equally lose their sheep. (So), Bo-yi died at the foot of Shou-yang to maintain his fame, and the robber Zhi died on the top of Dong-ling in his eagerness for gain. Their deaths were occasioned by different causes, but they equally shortened their lives and did violence to their nature; why must we approve of Bo-yi, and condemn the robber Zhi? In cases of such sacrifice all over the world, when one makes it for the sake of benevolence and righteousness, the common people style him 'a superior man,' but when another does it for the sake of goods and riches, they style him 'a small man.' The action of sacrificing is the same, and yet we have 'the superior man' and 'the small man!' In the matter of destroying his life, and doing injury to his nature, the robber Zhi simply did the same as Bo-yi - why must we make the distinction of 'superior man' and 'small man' between them? Moreover, those who devote their nature to (the pursuit) of benevolence and righteousness, though they should attain to be like Zeng (Shen) and Shi (Qiu), I do not pronounce to be good; those who devote it to (the study of) the five flavours, though they attain to be like Shu-er, I do not pronounce to be good; those who devote it to the (discrimination of the) five notes, though they attain to be like Shi Kuang, I do not pronounce to be quick of hearing; those who devote it to the (appreciation of the) five colours, though they attain to be like Li Zhu, I do not pronounce to be clear of vision. When I pronounce men to be good, I am not speaking of their benevolence and righteousness; the goodness is simply (their possession of) the qualities (of the Dao). When I pronounce them to be good, I am not speaking of what are called benevolence and righteousness; but simply of their allowing the nature with which they are endowed to have its free course. When I pronounce men to be quick of hearing, I do not mean that they hearken to anything else, but that they hearken to themselves; when I pronounce them to be clear of vision, I do not mean that they look to anything else, but that they look to themselves. Now those who do not see themselves but see other things, who do not get possession of themselves but get possession of other things, get possession of what belongs to others, and not of what is their own; and they reach forth to what attracts others, and not to that in themselves which should attract them. But thus reaching forth to what attracts others and not to what should attract them in themselves, be they like the robber Zhi or like Bo-yi, they equally err in the way of excess or of perversity. What I am ashamed of is erring in the characteristics of the Dao, and therefore, in the higher sphere, I do not dare to insist on the practice of benevolence and righteousness, and, in the lower, I do not dare to allow myself either in the exercise of excess or perversity.

Total 2 paragraphs. Page 1 of 1.