| 中國哲學書電子化計劃 |
《卷四》 | 英文翻譯：W. P. Mei[?] | 電子圖書館 |
《兼愛上 - Universal Love I》 | 英文翻譯：W. P. Mei[?] | 電子圖書館 |
| 1 | 兼愛上: | 聖人以治天下為事者也，必知亂之所自起，焉能治之，不知亂之所自起，則不能治。譬之如醫之攻人之疾者然，必知疾之所自起，焉能攻之；不知疾之所自起，則弗能攻。治亂者何獨不然，必知亂之所自起，焉能治之；不知亂之所自起，則弗能治。聖人以治天下為事者也，不可不察亂之所自起。 |
| Universal Love I: | The wise man who has charge of governing the empire should know the cause of disorder before he can put it in order. Unless he knows its cause, he cannot regulate it. It is similar to the problem of a physician who is attending a patient. He has to know the cause of the ailment before he can cure it. Unless he knows its cause he cannot cure it. How is the situation different for him who is to regulate disorder? He too has to know the cause of the disorder before he can regulate it. Unless he knows its cause he cannot regulate it. The wise man who has charge of governing the empire must, then, investigate the cause of disorder. | |
| 2 | 兼愛上: | 當察亂何自起？起不相愛。臣子之不孝君父，所謂亂也。子自愛不愛父，故虧父而自利；弟自愛不愛兄，故虧兄而自利；臣自愛不愛君，故虧君而自利，此所謂亂也。雖父之不慈子，兄之不慈弟，君之不慈臣，此亦天下之所謂亂也。父自愛也不愛子，故虧子而自利；兄自愛也不愛弟，故虧弟而自利；君自愛也不愛臣，故虧臣而自利。是何也？皆起不相愛。 |
| Universal Love I: | Suppose we try to locate the cause of disorder, we shall find it lies in the want of mutual love. What is called disorder is just the lack of filial piety on the part of the minister and the son towards the emperor and the father; As he loves himself and not his father the son benefits himself to the disadvantage of his father. As he loves himself and not his elder brother, the younger brother benefits himself to the disadvantage of his elder brother. As he loves himself and not his emperor, the minister benefits himself to the disadvantage of his emperor. And these are what is called disorder. When the father shows no affection to the son, when the elder brother shows no affection to the younger brother, and when the emperor shows no affection to the minister, on the other hand, it is also called disorder. When the father loves only himself and not the son, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of the son. When the elder brother loves only himself and not his younger brother, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of the younger brother. When the emperor loves only himself and not his minister, he benefits himself to the disadvantage of his minister, and the reason for all these is want of mutual love. | |
| 3 | 兼愛上: |
雖至天下之為盜賊者亦然，盜愛其室不愛其異室，故竊異室以利其室；賊愛其身不愛人，故賊人以利其身。此何也？皆起不相愛。雖至大夫之相亂家，諸侯之相攻國者亦然。大夫各愛 其1家，不愛異家，故亂異家以利 其2家；諸侯各愛其國，不愛異國，故攻異國以利其國，天下之亂物具此而已矣。察此何自起？皆起不相愛。 |
| Universal Love I: |
This is true even among thieves and robbers. As he loves only his own family and not other families, the thief steals from other families to profit his own family. As he loves only his own person and not others, the robber does violence to others to profit himself. And the reason for all this is want of love. This again is true in the mutual disturbance among the houses of the ministers and the mutual invasions among the states of the feudal lords. As he loves only his own house and not the others, the minister disturbs the other houses to profit his own. As he loves only his own state and not the others, the feudal lord attacks the other states to profit his own. These instances exhaust the confusion in the world. And when we look into the causes we find they all arise from want of mutual love. 1. 其 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 4 | 兼愛上: |
若使天下兼相愛， 愛1人若愛其身， 猶有不孝者乎？視父兄與君若其身，2惡施不孝？猶有不慈者乎？視弟子3與臣若其身，惡施不慈？ 故4不孝 不慈5亡 有6，猶有盜賊乎？故視人之室若其室，誰竊？視人身若其身，誰賊？故盜賊亡有。猶有大夫之相亂家、諸侯之相攻國者乎？視人家若其家，誰亂？視人國若其國，誰攻？故大夫之相亂家、諸侯之相攻國者亡有。 |
| Universal Love I: |
Suppose everybody in the world loves universally, loving others as one's self. Will there yet be any unfilial individual? When every one regards his father, elder brother, and emperor as himself, whereto can he direct any unfilial feeling? Will there still be any unaffectionate individual? When every one regards his younger brother, son, and minister as himself, whereto can he direct any disaffection? Therefore there will not be any unfilial feeling or disaffection. Will there then be any thieves and robbers? When every one regards other families as his own family, who will steal? When every one regards other persons as his own person, who will rob? Therefore there will not be any thieves or robbers. Will there be mutual disturbance among the houses of the ministers and invasion among the states of the feudal lords? When every one regards the houses of others as one's own, who will be disturbing? When every one regards the states of others as one's own, who will invade? Therefore there will be neither disturbances among the houses of the ministers nor invasion among the states of the feudal lords. 1. 愛 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 5 | 兼愛上: |
若使天下兼相愛，國與國不相攻，家與家不相亂，盜賊無有，君臣父子皆能孝慈，若此則天下治。故聖人以治天下為事者，惡得不禁惡而勸愛？故天下兼相愛則治， 交1相惡則亂。故子墨子曰：「不可以不勸愛人者，此也。」 |
| Universal Love I: |
If every one in the world will love universally; states not attacking one another; houses not disturbing one another; thieves and robbers becoming extinct; emperor and ministers, fathers and sons, all being affectionate and filial -- if all this comes to pass the world will be orderly. Therefore, how can the wise man who has charge of governing the empire fail to restrain hate and encourage love? So, when there is universal love in the world it will be orderly, and when there is mutual hate in the world it will be disorderly. This is why Mozi insisted on persuading people to love others. 1. 交 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 |
《兼愛中 - Universal Love II》 | 英文翻譯：W. P. Mei[?] | 電子圖書館 |
| 1 | 兼愛中: | 子墨子言曰：「仁人之所以為事者，必興天下之利，除去天下之害，以此為事者也。」然則天下之利何也？天下之害何也？子墨子言曰：「今若國之與國之相攻，家之與家之相篡，人之與人之相賊，君臣不惠忠，父子不慈孝，兄弟不和調，此則天下之害也。」 |
| Universal Love II: | Mozi said: The purpose of the magnanimous is to be found in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. But what are the benefits of the world and what its calamities? Mozi said: Mutual attacks among states, mutual usurpation among houses, mutual injuries among individuals; the lack of grace and loyalty between ruler and ruled, the lack of affection and filial piety between father and son, the lack of harmony between elder and younger brothers - these are the major calamities in the world. | |
| 2 | 兼愛中: | 然則察1此害亦何用生哉？以不相愛生邪？子墨子言：「以不相愛生。今諸侯獨知愛其國，不愛人之國，是以不憚舉其國以攻人之國。今家主獨知愛其家，而不愛人之家，是以不憚舉其家以篡人之家。今人獨知愛其身，不愛人之身，是以不憚舉其身以賊人之身。是故諸侯不相愛則必野戰。家主不相愛則必相篡，人與人不相愛則必相賊，君臣不相愛則不惠忠，父子不相愛則不慈孝，兄弟不相愛則不和調。天下之人皆不相愛，強必執弱，富必侮貧，貴必敖賤，詐必欺愚。凡天下禍篡怨恨，其所以起者，以不相愛生也，是以仁者非之。」 |
| Universal Love II: |
But whence did these calamities arise, out of mutual love? Mozi said: They arise out of want of mutual love. At present feudal lords have learned only to love their own states and not those of others. Therefore they do not scruple about attacking other states. The heads of houses have learned only to love their own houses and not those of others. Therefore they do not scruple about usurping other houses. And individuals have learned only to love themselves and not others. Therefore they do not scruple about injuring others. When feudal lords do not love one another there will be war on the fields. When heads of houses do not love one another they will usurp one another's power. When individuals do not love one another they will injure one another. When ruler and ruled do not love one another they will not be gracious and loyal. When father and son do not love each other they will not be affectionate and filial. When older and younger brothers do not love each other they will not be harmonious. When nobody in the world loves any other, naturally the strong will overpower the weak, the many will oppress the few, the wealthy will mock the poor, the honoured will disdain the humble, the cunning will deceive the simple. Therefore all the calamities, strifes, complaints, and hatred in the world have arisen out of want of mutual love. Therefore the benevolent disapproved of this want. 1. 察 : 原作「崇」。自孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》改。 | |
| 3 | 兼愛中: |
既以非之，何以易之？子墨子言曰：「以兼相愛交相利之法易之。」然則兼相愛交相利之法將柰何哉？子墨子言：「視人之國若視其國，視人之家若視其家，視人之身若視其身。是故諸侯相愛則不野戰，家主相愛則不相篡，人與人相愛則不相賊， 君臣相愛則惠忠，父子相愛則慈孝，兄弟相愛則和調。天下之人皆相愛，強不執弱，眾不劫寡，富不侮貧，1貴不敖賤，詐不欺愚。凡天下禍篡怨恨可使毋起者， 以相愛生也，是2以仁者譽之。」 |
| Universal Love II: |
Now that there is disapproval, how can we have the condition altered? Mozi said it is to be altered by the way of universal love and mutual aid. But what is the way of universal love and mutual aid? Mozi said: It is to regard the state of others as one's own, the houses of others as one's own, the persons of others as one's self. When feudal lords love one another there will be no more war; when heads of houses love one another there will be no more mutual usurpation; when individuals love one another there will be no more mutual injury. When ruler and ruled love each other they will be gracious and loyal; when father and son love each other they will be affectionate and filial; when older and younger brothers love each other they will be harmonious. When all the people in the world love one another, then the strong will not overpower the weak, the many will not oppress the few, the wealthy will not mock the poor, the honoured will not disdain the humble, and the cunning will not deceive the simple. And it is all due to mutual love that calamities, strife, complaints, and hatred are prevented from arising. Therefore the benevolent exalt it. 1. 君臣相愛則惠忠，父子相愛則慈孝，兄弟相愛則和調。天下之人皆相愛，強不執弱，眾不劫寡，富不侮貧， : 從第4條移到此處。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 4 | 兼愛中: |
然而今天下之士 君臣相愛則惠忠，父子相愛則慈孝，兄弟相愛則和調。天下之人皆相愛，強不執弱，眾不劫寡，富不侮貧，1君子2曰：「然，乃若兼則善矣，雖然，天下之難物于故也。」子墨子言曰：「天下之士君子，特不識其利，辯其故也。今若夫攻城野戰，殺身為名，此天下百姓之所皆難也，苟君說之，則士眾能為之。況於兼相愛，交相利，則與此異。夫愛人者，人必從而愛之；利人者，人必從而利之；惡人者，人必從而惡之；害人者，人必從而害之。此何難之有！特上弗以為政，士不以為行故也。 |
| Universal Love II: |
But the gentlemen of the world would say: "So far so good. It is of course very excellent when love becomes universal. But it is only a difficult and distant ideal." Mozi said: This is simply because the gentlemen of the world do not recognize what is to the benefit of the world, or understand what is its calamity. Now, to besiege a city, to fight in the fields, or to achieve a name at the cost of death -- these are what men find difficult. Yet when the superior encourages them, the multitude can do them. Besides, universal love and mutual aid is quite different from these. Whoever loves others is loved by others; whoever benefits others is benefited by others; whoever hates others is hated by others; whoever injures others is injured by others. Then, what difficulty is there with it (universal love)? Only, the ruler fails to embody it in his government and the ordinary man in his conduct. 1. 君臣相愛則惠忠，父子相愛則慈孝，兄弟相愛則和調。天下之人皆相愛，強不執弱，眾不劫寡，富不侮貧， : 移到第3條。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 5 | 兼愛中: |
昔者晉文公好士之惡衣，故文公之臣皆牂羊之裘，韋以帶劍，練帛之冠，入以見於君，出以踐 於1朝。是其故何也？君說之，故臣為之也。昔者楚靈王好士細要，故靈王之臣皆以一飯為節，肱息然後帶，扶牆然後起。比期年，朝有黧黑之色。是其故何也？君說之，故臣能之也。昔越王句踐好士之勇，教馴其臣，和合之焚舟失火，試其士曰：『越國之寶盡在此！』越王親自鼓其士而進之。 曰2士聞鼓音，破碎亂行，蹈火而死者左右百人有餘。越王擊金而退之。」 |
| Universal Love II: |
Formerly, Lord Wen of the state of Jin (about 630 B.C.) liked the uncouth uniform of the soldier. And so all his ministers and officers wore sheepskin jackets, carried their swords in leather girdles, and put on silk-spun hats. (1) Thus attired, they attended the Lord when they went in and paced the court when they stayed out. What was the reason for this? It was that what the ruler encourages the ruled will carry out. And Lord Ling of the state of Chu (about 535 B.C.) liked slender waists. And so all his ministers and officers limited themselves to a single meal (a day). They tied their belts after exhaling, and could not stand up without leaning against the wall. Within a year the court looked grim and dark. What was the reason for this? It was that what the ruler encourages the ruled will carry out. Again, Lord Goujian of the state of Yue (about 480 B.C.) liked the warrior's courage, and trained his subjects accordingly. He had his palace boat set on fire. To test his soldiers he proclaimed that all the treasures of the state were contained therein. And he beat the drum himself to urge them on. Hearing the drum the soldiers rushed on in disorder. More than a hundred strong perished in the flames. Thereupon the Lord beat the gong to let them retreat. 1. 於 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 6 | 兼愛中: | 是故子墨子言曰：「乃若夫少食惡衣，殺身而為名，此天下百姓之所皆難也，若苟君說之，則眾能為之。況兼相愛，交相利，與此異矣。夫愛人者，人亦從而愛之；利人者，人亦從而利之；惡人者，人亦從而惡之；害人者，人亦從而害之。此何難之有焉，特上不以為政而士不以為行故也。」 |
| Universal Love II: | Therefore Mozi said: Now, things like scanty diet, coarse clothing, and the achievement of a name at the cost of death are those in which people find difficulty. Yet when the ruler encourages them the multitude can stand them. Besides, universal love and mutual aid are different from these. Whoever loves others is loved by others; whoever benefits others is benefited by others; whoever hates others is hated by others; whoever injures others is injured by others. Then what difficulty is there with it (universal love)? Only, the ruler fails to embody it in his government and the ordinary man in his conduct. | |
| 7 | 兼愛中: | 然而今天下之士君子曰：「然，乃若兼則善矣。雖然，不可行之物也，譬若挈太山越河濟也。」子墨子言：「是非其譬也。夫挈太山而越河濟，可謂畢劫有力矣，自古及今未有能行之者也。況乎兼相愛，交相利，則與此異，古者聖王行之。何以知其然？古者禹治天下，西為西河漁竇，以泄渠孫皇之水；北為防原泒，注后之邸，呼池之竇，洒為底柱，鑿為龍門，以利燕、代、胡、貉與西河之民；東方漏之陸防孟諸之澤，灑為九澮，以楗東土之水，以利冀州之民；南為江、漢、淮、汝，東流之，注五湖之處，以利荊、楚、干、1越與南夷之民。此言禹之事，吾今行兼矣。昔者文王之治西土，若日若月，乍光于四方于西土，不為大國侮小國，不為眾庶侮鰥寡，不為暴勢奪穡人黍、稷、狗、彘。天屑臨文王慈，是以老而無子者，有所得終其壽；連獨無兄弟者，有所雜於生人之閒；少失其父母者，有所放依而長。此文王之事，則吾今行兼矣。昔者武王將事泰山隧，傳曰：『泰山，有道曾孫周王有事，大事既獲，仁人尚作，以祗商夏，蠻夷醜貉。雖有周親，不若仁人，萬方有罪，維予一人。』此言武王之事，吾今行兼矣。」 |
| Universal Love II: |
Nevertheless. the gentlemen in the empire think that, though it would be an excellent thing if love can be universalized, it is something quite impracticable. It is like carrying Mt. Tai and leaping over the Ji River. Mozi said: The illustration is a faulty one. Of course to be able to carry Mt. Tai and leap over the Ji River would be an extreme feat of strength. Such has never been performed from antiquity to the present time. But universal love and mutual aid are quite different from this. And the ancient sage-kings did practise it. How do we know they did? When Yu was working to bring the Deluge under control, he dug the West River and the Youdou River in the west in order to let off the water from the Qu, Sun, and Huang Rivers. In the north he built a dam across the Yuan and Gu Rivers in order to fill the Houzhidi (a basin) and the Huzhi River. Mt. Dizhu was made use of as a water divide, and a tunnel was dug through Mt. Lungmen. All these were done to benefit the peoples west of the (Yellow) River and various barbarian tribes, Yan, Dai, Hu, Ho, of the north. In the east he drained the great Plain and built dykes along the Mengzhu River. The watercourse was divided into nine canals in order to regulate the water in the east and in order to benefit the people of the District of Ji. In the south he completed the Yangtze, Han, Huai, and Ru Rivers. These ran eastward and emptied themselves into the Five Lakes. This was done in order to benefit the peoples of Jing, Qi, Gan, Yue, and the barbarians of the south. All these are the deeds of Yu. We can, then, universalize love in conduct. When King Wen was ruling the Western land, he shone forth like the sun and the moon all over the four quarters as well as in the Western land. He did not allow the big state to oppress the small state, he did not allow the multitude to oppress the singlehanded, he did not allow the influential and strong to take away the grain and live stock from the farmers. Heaven visited him with blessing. And, therefore, the old and childless had the wherewithal to spend their old age, the solitary and brotherless had the opportunity to join in the social life of men, and the orphans had the support for their growth. This was what King Wen had accomplished. We can, then, universalize love in conduct. When King Wu was about to do service to Mt. Tai it was recorded thus: "Blessed is Mt. Tai. Duke of Zhou by a long descent is about to perform his duty. As I have obtained the approval of Heaven, the magnanimous arise to save the people of Shang Xia as well as the barbarians (from the tyranny of Emperor Zhou). Though (Emperor Zhou) has many near relatives, they cannot compare with the magnanimous. If there is sin anywhere, I am solely responsible." This relates the deeds of King Wu. We can, then, universalize love in conduct. 1. 荊、楚、干、 : 原作「楚荊」。自孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》改。 | |
| 8 | 兼愛中: |
是故子墨子言曰：「今天下之君子，忠實欲天下之 士1富，而惡其貧；欲天下之治，而惡其亂，當兼相愛，交相利，此聖王之法，天下之治道也，不可不務為也。」 |
| Universal Love II: |
Therefore Mozi said: If the rulers sincerely desire the empire to be wealthy and dislike to have it poor, desire to have it orderly and dislike to have it chaotic, they should bring about universal love and mutual aid. This is the way of the sage-kings and the way to order for the world, and it should not be neglected. 1. 士 : 刪除。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 |
《兼愛下 - Universal Love III》 | 英文翻譯：W. P. Mei[?] | 電子圖書館 |
| 1 | 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，天下之害孰為大？曰：「若大國之攻小國也，大家之亂小家也，強之劫弱，眾之暴寡，詐之謀愚，貴之敖賤，此天下之害也。又與為人君者之不惠也，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。」姑嘗本原若眾害之所自 生1，此胡自生？此自愛人利人生與？即必曰非然也，必曰從惡人賊人生。分名乎天下惡人而賊人者，兼與？別與？即必 曰2別也。然即之交別者，果生天下之大害者與？是故別非也。」 |
| Universal Love III: |
Mozi said: The purpose of the magnanimous lies in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now among all the current calamities, which are the most important? The attack on the small states by the large ones, disturbances of the small houses by the large ones, oppression of the weak by the strong, misuse of the few by the many, deception of the simple by the cunning, disdain towards the humble by the honoured - these are the misfortunes in the empire. Again, the lack of grace on the part of the ruler, the lack of loyalty on the part of the minIster, the lack of affection on the part of the father, the lack of filial piety on the part of the son - these are further calamities in the empire. Also, the mutual injury and harm which the unscrupulous do to one another with weapons, poison, water, and fire is still another calamity in the empire. When we come to think about the cause of all these calamities, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of love of others and benefiting others? Of course we should say no. We should say they have arisen out of hate of others and injuring others. If we should classify one by one all those who hate others and injure others, should we find them to be universal in love or partial? Of course we should say they are partial. Now, since partiality against one another is the cause of the major calamities in the empire, then partiality is wrong. 1. 生 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 2 | 兼愛下: | 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。然即兼之可以易別之故何也？曰：藉為人之國，若為其國，夫誰獨舉其國以攻人之國者哉？為彼者由為己也。為人之都，若為其都，夫誰獨舉其都以伐人之都者哉？為彼猶為己也。為人之家，若為其家，夫誰獨舉其家以亂人之家者哉？為彼猶為己也，然即國、都不相攻伐，人家不相亂賊，此天下之害與？天下之利與？即必曰天下之利也。姑嘗本原若眾利之所自生，此胡自生？此自惡人賊人生與？即必曰非然也，必曰從愛人利人生。分名乎天下愛人而利人者，別與？兼與？即必曰兼也。然即之交兼者，果生天下之大利者與。」是故子墨子曰：「兼是也。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。 |
| Universal Love III: | Mozi continued: Whoever criticizes others must have something to replace them. Criticism without suggestion is like trying to stop flood with flood and put out fire with fire. It will surely be without worth. Mozi said: Partiality is to be replaced by universality. But how is it that partiality can be replaced by universality? Now, when every one regards the states of others as he regards his own, who would attack the others' states? Others are regarded like self. When every one regards the capitals of others as he regards his own, who would seize the others' capitals? Others are regarded like self. When every one regards the houses of others as he regards his own, who would disturb the others' houses? Others are regarded like self. Now, when the states and cities do not attack and seize each other and when the clans and individuals do not disturb and harm one another -- is this a calamity or a benefit to the world? Of course it is a benefit. When we come to think about the several benefits in regard to their cause, how have they arisen? Have they arisen out of hate of others and injuring others? Of course we should say no. We should say they have arisen out of love of others and benefiting others. If we should classify one by one all those who love others and benefit others, should we find them to be partial or universal? Of course we should say they are universal. Now, since universal love is the cause of the major benefits in the world, therefore Mozi proclaims universal love is right. And, as has already been said, the interest of the magnanimous lies in procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its calamities. Now that we have found out the consequences of universal love to be the major benefits of the world and the consequences of partiality to be the major calamities in the world; this is the reason why Mozi said partiality is wrong and universality is right. | |
| 3 | 兼愛下: |
今吾將正求與天下之利而取之，以兼為正，是以聰耳明目相與視聽乎，是以股肱畢強相為動 為1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。今唯毋以兼為正，即若其利也，不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非者，其故何也？」 |
| Universal Love III: |
When we try to develop and procure benefits for the world with universal love as our standard, then attentive ears and keen eyes will respond in service to one another, then limbs will be strengthened to work for one another, and those who know the Dao will untiringly instruct others. Thus the old and those who have neither wife nor children will have the support and supply to spend their old age with, and the young and weak and orphans will have the care and admonition to grow up in. When universal love is adopted as the standard, then such are the consequent benefits. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it. 1. 為 : 刪除。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 4 | 兼愛下: |
然而天下之士非兼者之言，猶未止也。曰：「即善矣。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。誰以為二士，使其一士者執別，使其一士者執兼。是故別士之言曰：『吾豈能為吾友之身，若為吾身，為吾友之親，若為吾親。』是故退睹其友，飢即不食，寒即不衣，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：『吾聞為高士於天下者，必為其友之身，若為其身，為其友之親，若為其親，然後可以為高士 於1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2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。然即敢問，今有平原廣野於此，被甲嬰冑將往戰3，死生之權未可識也；又有君大夫之遠使於巴、越、齊、荊，往來及否未 及否未4可識也，然即敢問，不識將惡也家室，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？我以為當其於此也，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，擇即取兼，即此言行費也。不識天下之士，所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？」 |
| Universal Love III: |
Yet the objection is not all exhausted. It is asked, "It may be a good thing, but can it be of any use?" Mozi replied: If it were not useful then even I would disapprove of it. But how can there be anything that is good but not useful? Let us consider the matter from both sides. Suppose there are two men. Let one of them hold to partiality and the other to universality. Then the advocate of partiality would say to himself, how can I take care of my friend as I do of myself, how can I take care of his parents as my own? Therefore when he finds his friend hungry he would not feed him, and when he finds him cold he would not clothe him. In his illness he would not minister to him, and when he is dead he would not bury him. Such is the word and such is the deed of the advocate of partiality. The advocate of universality is quite unlike this both in word and in deed. He would say to himself, I have heard that to be a superior man one should take care of his friend as he does of himself, and take care of his friend's parents as his own. Therefore when he finds his friend hungry he would feed him, and when he finds him cold he would clothe him. In his sickness he would serve him, and when he is dead he would bury him. Such is the word and such is the deed of the advocate of universality. These two persons then are opposed to each other in word and also in deed. Suppose they are sincere in word and decisive in deed so that their word and deed are made to agree like the two parts of a tally, and that there is no word but what is realized in deed, then let us consider further: Suppose a war is on, and one is in armour and helmet ready to join the force, life and death are not predictable. Or suppose one is commissioned a deputy by the ruler to such far countries like Ba, Yue, Qi, and Jing, and the arrival and return are quite uncertain. Now (under such circumstances) let us inquire upon whom would one lay the trust of one's family and parents. Would it be upon the universal friend or upon the partial friend? It seems to me, on occasions like these, there are no fools in the world. Even if he is a person who objects to universal love, he will lay the trust upon the universal friend all the same. This is verbal objection to the principle but actual selection by it - this is self-contradiction between one's word and deed. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it. 1. 於 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 5 | 兼愛下: |
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。誰以為二君，使其一君者執兼，使其一君者執別，是故別君之言曰『吾惡能為吾萬民之身，若為吾身，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，飢即不食，寒即不衣，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：「吾聞為明君於天下者，必先萬民之身，後為其身，然後可以為明君於天下。」是故退睹 其1萬民，飢即食之，寒即衣之，疾病侍養之，死喪葬埋之。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。然即敢問，今歲有癘疫，萬民多有勤苦凍餒，轉死溝壑中者，既已眾矣。不識將擇之二君者，將何從也？我以為當其於此也，天下無愚夫愚婦，雖非兼者，必從兼君是也。言而非兼，擇即 取兼2，此言行拂也。不識天下所以皆聞兼而非之者，其故何也？」 |
| Universal Love III: |
Yet the objection is not all exhausted. It is objected: Maybe it is a good criterion to choose among ordinary men, but it may not apply to the rulers. Let us again consider the matter from both sides. Suppose there are two rulers. Let one of them hold partiality and the other universality. Then the partial ruler would say to himself, how can I take care of the people as I do of myself? This would be quite contrary to common sense. A man's life on earth is of short duration, it is like a galloping horse passing by. Therefore when he finds his people hungry he would not feed them, and when he finds them cold he would not clothe them. When they are sick he would not minister to them, and upon their death he would not bury them. Such is the word and such is the deed of the partial ruler. The universal ruler is quite unlike this both in word and in deed. He would say to himself, I have heard that to be an upright ruler of the world one should first attend to his people and then to himself. Therefore when he finds his people hungry he would feed them, and when he finds them cold he would clothe them. In their sickness he would minister to them, and upon their death he would bury them. Such is the word and such is the deed of the universal ruler. These two rulers, then, are opposed to each other in word and also in deed. Suppose they are sincere in word and decisive in deed so that their word and deed are made to agree like the two parts of a tally, and that there is no word but what is realized in deed, then let us consider further: Suppose, now, that there is a disastrous pestilence, that most people are in misery and privation, and that many lie dead in ditches (Under such circumstances) let us inquire, if a person could choose one of the two rulers, which would he prefer? It seems to me on such occasions there are no fools in the world. Even if he is a person who objects to universal love, he will choose the universal ruler. This is verbal objection to the principle but actual selection by it - this is self-contradiction between one's word and deed. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it. 1. 其 : 舊脫。 | |
| 6 | 兼愛下: | 然而天下之士非兼者之言也，猶1未止也。曰：「兼即仁矣義矣，雖然，豈可為哉？吾譬兼之不可為也，猶挈泰山以超江河也。故兼者直願之也，夫豈可為之物哉？」子墨子曰：「夫挈泰山以趙江河，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，乍照光於四方於西土。」即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。即此文王兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於文王取法焉。 |
| Universal Love III: |
Yet the objection is still not exhausted. It points out that universal love may be magnanimous and righteous, but how can it be realized? Universal love is impracticable just as carrying Mt. Tai and leaping over rivers. So, then, universal love is but a pious wish, how can it be actualized? Mozi replied: To carry Mt. Tai and leap over rivers is something that has never been accomplished since the existence of man. But universal love and mutual aid has been personally practised by six ancient sage-kings. How do we know they have done it? Mozi said: I am no contemporary of theirs, neither have I heard their voice or seen their faces. The sources of our knowledge lie in what is written on the bamboos and silk, what is engraved in metal and stones, and what is cut in the vessels to be handed down to posterity. The "Great Declaration" proclaims: "King Wen was like the sun and the moon, shedding glorious and resplendent light in the four quarters as well as over the Western land." This is to say that the love of King Wen is so wide and universal that it is like the sun and the moon shining upon the world without partiality. Here is universal love on the part of King Wen; what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the example of King Wen. 1. 猶 : 原作「獨」。自孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》改。 | |
| 7 | 兼愛下: | 「且不唯《泰誓》為然，雖《禹誓》即亦猶是也。禹曰：『濟濟有群，咸聽朕言，非惟小子，敢行稱亂，蠢茲有苗，用天之罰，若予既率爾群對諸群，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。」即此禹兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於禹求焉。 |
| Universal Love III: | Moreover it is true not only in the "Great Declaration" but also with the "Oath of Yu". Yu said (therein) "Come all you hosts of people, take heed and hearken to my words. It is not that I, a single person, would willingly stir up this confusion. The Prince of Miao is more and more unreasonable, he deserves punishment from Heaven. Therefore I lead you to appoint the lords of the states and go to punish the Prince of Miao." It was not for the sake of increasing his wealth and multiplying his felicitations, and indulging his ears and eyes but for that of procuring benefits for the world and eliminating its annoyances that Yu went to war against the Prince of Miao. This is universal love on the part of Yu, and what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the example of Yu. | |
| 8 | 兼愛下: | 「且不唯《禹誓》為然雖《湯說》即亦猶是也。湯曰：『惟予小子履，敢用玄牡，告於上天后曰：「今天大旱，即當朕身履，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，即當朕身，朕身有罪，無及萬方。」即此言湯貴為天子，富有天下，然且不憚以身為犧牲，以祠說于上帝鬼神。』即此湯兼也。雖子墨子之所謂兼者，於湯取法焉。 |
| Universal Love III: | Again it is true not only in the "Oath of Yu" but also with the "Oath of Tang." Tang said: "Unworthy Lu presumed to do sacrifice with a first-born male animal to Heaven on high and mother Earth, saying, 'Now there is a great drought from heaven. It happens right in my, Lu's, time. I do not know whether I have wronged Heaven or men. Good, I dare not cover up; guilt, I dare not let go -- this is clearly seen in the mind of God. If there is sin anywhere hold me responsible for it; if I myself am guilty may the rest be spared.'" This is to say that though having the honour of being an emperor and the wealth of possessing the whole world, Tang did not shrink from offering himself as sacrifice to implore God and the spirits. This is universal love on the part of Tang, and what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the example of Tang. | |
| 9 | 兼愛下: | 「且不惟《誓命》與《湯說》為然，《周詩》即亦猶是也。《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，古者文武為正，均分賞賢罰暴，勿有親戚弟兄之所阿。」即此文武兼也。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？ |
| Universal Love III: | Still again, it is true not only in the "Oath of Yu" and the "Oath of Tang" but also with the " Poems of Zhou." To quote: "the way of the (good) emperor is wide and straight, without partiality and without favouritism. The way of the (good) emperor is even and smooth, without favouritism and without partiality. It is straight like an arrow and just like a balance. The superior man follows it, (even) the unprincipled looks on (without resentment)." Thus the principle that I have been expounding is not to be regarded as a mere doctrinaire notion. In the past, when Wen and Wu administered the government both of them rewarded the virtuous and punished the wicked without partiality to their relatives and brothers. This is just the universal love of Wen and Wu. And what Mozi has been talking about is really derived from the examples of Wen and Wu. It is incomprehensible then why people should object to universal love when they hear it. | |
| 10 | 兼愛下: | 然而天下之非兼者之言，猶未止，曰：「意不忠親之利，而害為孝乎？」子墨子曰：「姑嘗本原之孝子之為親度者。吾不識孝子之為親度者，亦欲人愛利其親與？意欲人之惡賊其親與？以說觀之，即欲人之愛利其親也。然即吾惡先從事即得此？若我先從事乎愛利人之親，然後人報我愛利吾親乎？意我先從事乎惡人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親乎？即必吾先從事乎愛利人之親，然後人報我以愛利吾親也。然即之交孝子者，果不得已乎，毋先從事愛利人之親者與？意以天下之孝子為遇而不足以為正乎？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。』即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？ |
| Universal Love III: | Yet the objection is still not exhausted. It raises the question, when one does not think in terms of benefits and harm to one's parents would it be filial piety? Mozi replied: Now let us inquire about the plans of the filial sons for their parents. I may ask, when they plan for their parents, whether they desire to have others love or hate them? Judging from the whole doctrine (of filial piety), it is certain that they desire to have others love their parents. Now, what should I do first in order to attain this? Should I first love others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return, or should I first hate others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return? Of course I should first love others' parents in order that they would love my parents in return. Hence those who desire to be filial to one another's parents, if they have to choose (between whether they should love or hate others' parents), had best first love and benefit others' parents. Would any one suspect that all the filial sons are stupid and incorrigible (in loving their own parents)? We may again inquire about it. It is said in the "Da Ya" among the books of the ancient kings: "No idea is not given its due value; no virtue is not rewarded. When a peach is thrown to us, we would return with a prune." This is to say whoever loves others will be loved and whoever hates others will be hated. It is then quite incomprehensible why people should object to universal love when they hear it. | |
| 11 | 兼愛下: |
意以為難而不可為邪？嘗有難此而可為者。昔荊靈王好小要，當靈王之身，荊國之士飯不踰乎一，固據而後興，扶垣而後行。故約食為其難為也，然後為而靈王說之，未踰於世而民可移也，即求以鄉其上也。昔者越王句踐好勇，教其士臣三年，以其知為未足以知之也，焚舟失火，鼓而進之，其士偃前列，伏水火而死，有不可勝數也。當此之時，不鼓而退也，越國之士可謂顫矣。故焚身為其難為也，然後為之越王說之，未踰於世而民可移也，即求以鄉上也。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。故苴服為其難為也，然後為而文公說之，未踰於世而民可移也，即求以鄉其上也。是故約食、焚舟、苴服，此天下之至難為也，然後為而上說之，未踰於世而民可移也。何故也？即求以鄉其上也。今若夫兼 相愛，交1相利，此其有利且易為也，不可勝計也，我以為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，我以為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。 |
| Universal Love III: |
Is it because it is hard and impracticable? There are instances of even much harder tasks done. Formerly, Lord Ling of the state of Jing liked slender waists. In his time people in the state of Jing ate not more than once a day. They could not stand up without support, and could not walk without leaning against the wall. Now, limited diet is quite hard to endure, and yet it was endured. While Lord Ling encouraged it, his people could be changed within a generation to conform to their superior. Lord Goujian of the state of Yue admired courage and taught it to his ministers and soldiers three years. Fearing that their knowledge had not yet made them efficient he let a fire be set on the boat, and beat the drum to signal advance. The soldiers at the head of the rank were even pushed down. Those who perished in the flames and in water were numberless. Even then they would not retreat without signal. The soldiers of Yue would be quite terrified (ordinarily). To be burnt alive is a hard task, and yet it was accomplished. When the Lord of Yue encouraged it, his people could be changed within a generation to conform to their superior. Lord Wen of the state of Jin liked coarse clothing. And so in his time the people of Jin wore suits of plain cloth, jackets of sheep skin, hats of spun silk, and big rough shoes. Thus attired, they would go in and see the Lord and come out and walk in the court. To dress up in coarse clothing is hard to do, yet it has been done. When Lord Wen encouraged it his people could be changed within a generation to conform to their superior. Now to endure limited diet, to be burnt alive, and to wear coarse clothing are the hardest things in the world, yet when the superiors encouraged them the people could be changed within a generation. Why was this so? It was due to the desire to conform to the superior. Now, as to universal love and mutual aid, they are beneficial and easy beyond a doubt. It seems to me that the only trouble is that there is no superior who encourages it. If there is a superior who encourages it, promoting it with rewards and commendations, threatening its reverse with punishments, I feel people will tend toward universal love and mutual aid like fire tending upward and water downwards - it will be unpreventable in the world. 1. 相愛，交 : 舊脫。 孫詒讓《墨子閒詁》 | |
| 12 | 兼愛下: | 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，為人君必惠，為人臣必忠，為人父必慈，為人子必孝，為人兄必友，為人弟必悌。故君子莫若欲為惠君、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。 |
| Universal Love III: | Therefore, universal love is really the way of the sage-kings. It is what gives peace to the rulers and sustenance to the people. The gentleman would do well to understand and practise universal love; then he would be gracious as a ruler, loyal as a minister, affectionate as a father, filial as a son, courteous as an elder brother, and respectful as a younger brother. So, if the gentleman desires to be a gracious ruler, a loyal minister, an affectionate father, a filial son, a courteous elder brother, and a respectful younger brother, universal love must be practised. It is the way of the sage-kings and the great blessing of the people. |
URN: ctp:mozi/book-4