《墨子》Vol. 4

Action is like looking at something out of the corner of one’s eye. “Knowing” means engaging with things through what one already knows, and being able to grasp and present what they are like, as if seeing them with one’s own eyes. “Understanding” means recognizing things through what one already knows; the grounds on which one recognizes them must be clear, like seeing something distinctly.

“Considering” means seeking something out through what one already knows, without necessarily reaching a result, like looking at something askance. “Knowing” means engaging with things through what one already knows, and being able to grasp and present what they are like, as if seeing them with one’s own eyes. “Understanding” means examining things through what one already knows and recognizing them clearly, like seeing something distinctly.

“Humaneness” means caring for oneself, not for the sake of making use of oneself; this care is less evident than caring for a horse. “Righteousness” means resolving to regard the benefit of all under Heaven as something good, and doing one’s utmost to benefit everyone, though one may not personally carry it out. “Ritual” is the shared standard of those in honored positions and the common distinction observed by those of low status. Both involve differences between reverence and neglect; they are judgments shaped by different ranks.

“Conduct” means doing something bad; doing something good is called “skill,” as in the case of a thief. “Substance” means letting one’s inner resolve and spirit show, so that others become like oneself; this is less conspicuous than the sound of gold and the display of jade. “Loyalty” does not mean harming a helpless child. When action is about to begin, one should know when to stop and yield.

“Filial piety” means regarding one’s parents’ benefit as something good and doing one’s utmost to benefit them, though one may not be able to succeed. “Feeling” does not depend on whether one’s words are fitting; it lies in making someone see a scene in which gold has been found in the city. “Togetherness” means meeting and living alongside others, with everyone following a shared standard. “Agreement” means calling something right and regarding the other person as right as well; if one disagrees, one does not speak this way.

“Integrity” means persisting in what one does while recognizing the temptation involved. “What one commands” means that if others are ordered to do something, one should not demand it of them without carrying it out oneself. “Assuming a burden” means bearing what one dislikes in order to fulfill what another urgently needs. “Courage” means praising someone as brave for daring to do a particular thing; one should not call that person harmful simply because they do not dare to do something else.

“Strength” means being able to bear a heavy load, which is called “inferior”; by comparing oneself with the heavy load, one can know its weight. “Growth” means growing like a pillar, while success in commerce cannot be guaranteed. “Outside” means an external thing. “Dream” means a dream. “Level” means broad and flat.

“Benefit” means obtaining something and feeling pleased by it; this is called advantageous. Any harm it brings does not lie in the thing itself. Obtaining something and feeling displeased by it is called harmful; any benefit it brings likewise does not lie in the thing itself. “Order” means saying, “My affairs have been put in order”; yet others may say that affairs in the south or north have not been put in order.

Praise for a person must be based on whether his actual conduct and words are trustworthy, and must be verified through investigation. Criticism of a person must likewise be based on whether his actual conduct and words are trustworthy. When praising someone, one should describe his reputation and deeds and cite genuine evidence. Thus, words can help distinguish right from wrong.

Words are available for everyone to use, and arise among the common people. The words of the people sometimes resemble one another and sometimes differ. What is called “word” is like a stone that conveys information. The term “and” can refer to something continuing from the past into the present, or from the present into the future; it can also describe something that is in a particular state at a given time. Like a stone, it is something that endures. “Lord” is a title used to address a ruler.

Merit need not wait for a particular moment to count as merit, just as clothing and fur garments do not. A reward is a response to a subordinate’s merit; a punishment is a response to a subordinate’s offense. Punishment for an offense must not harm the innocent. If it does, it will bring danger.

When two people both see this pillar, their seeing can illustrate the idea of “seeing together,” just as those who serve a ruler jointly face a matter. As for “long-lasting,” something may or may not continue through past and present. “Space” refers to the extent of an area, including the east-west and north-south directions. “Limited” means having bounds: if it cannot contain even one foot, it is limited. “Boundless” has no edge; not even a foot can contain all of it. “Exhausted” means that activity has stopped and reached its end.

“Beginning” means a start. Some things continue for a long time after they begin, while others do not; a beginning itself need not last. “Transformation” can be illustrated by a caterpillar turning completely into a quail. “Loss” means that something has diminished. When some parts of a whole depart while others remain, the remaining parts too can be said to have suffered a reduction. “Encircling” describes the condition of surrounding the people. A “storehouse” is like a hollow or cavity: a space of a particular shape.

“Movement” means departing from one’s original position. The movement of attendants during a sacrifice, or the turning of a door pivot, can serve as examples. “Rest” means stopping. If something resumes activity after stopping, it cannot be said to have remained at rest throughout—just as an ox cannot be called a horse, and just as a person passes by a pillar. If the state of rest continues, some parts of a thing may depart while others remain; the remaining parts can also be said to have diminished. If something was originally a horse but later is no longer a horse, this is like a person passing over a bridge.

“Certain” means that something is definitively so. For example, if there are two brothers and one is a certain way while the other is not, then the matter cannot be said to be necessarily so. “Same” means that two things are alike in some respect, as Jie and Kuang are the same height. To judge two things in one’s mind as the same is to compare them and consider them similar.

“Great” means that nothing can be greater than it. A circle is a shape drawn with a compass. A square is a shape measured with a carpenter’s square. “Double” means that two units of length exceed one unit by one unit.

An endpoint is a point that can no longer be divided and is distinct from other points. “There is an interval” means that something lies between two things; an “interval” is what lies between them. The ruler’s position is before the gap and after the endpoint: it lies neither between the endpoint and the gap nor in the same place as either of them.

The “reaching” in “reaching the endpoint” differs from the “level” described by “equal.” Here, “reaching” means that two things touch but remain distinct. “There is an interval” means that something lies between two things; an “interval” is what lies between them. The ruler’s position is before the gap and after the endpoint: it lies neither between the endpoint and the gap nor in the same place as either of them. “Reaching” means touching, not being level with one another.

“Void” refers to an empty space. The place between two pieces of wood where there is no wood is called “no wood.” “Full” means having no gaps and no thickness: anywhere within the range that a ruler can measure can be measured.

Two hard objects occupy different positions and cannot occupy the same place. If they repel one another, they are separate. “Jie” (possibly a term for a boundary or point of contact) refers to the case where two rulers meet but neither may have reached its end. An “end” has no length; one can only say whether it has been reached. When a ruler meets something, it may or may not reach its end. At the point where hardness and whiteness intersect, one can say that each reaches its limit; distinct parts of a physical object cannot be said to reach one another’s limits. An “end” requires two endpoints in order to be established. “Ci” refers to something without thickness that can nevertheless exist within a situation that has thickness.

A “standard” is something that can serve as a measure, such as an intention, a compass, or a balance. “Bi” means that the people act in accordance with the rules. The pivot of an ox is not the ox itself. Since the two are different, neither can be used to negate the other.

“Argument” means that one person says it is an ox while another says it is not; this is a dispute between the two sides. Their claims cannot both be correct. Since they cannot both be correct, one side must be wrong; it would be better to judge it a dog.

“Acting” refers to this: wanting to injure one’s own finger without knowing what harm this would cause is a failure of understanding. If one carefully examines the matter and fully understands the harm, yet still wishes to cut the finger, then go ahead and cut it. This is like eating dried meat. Wanting to cut the finger while still unaware of the harm or benefit is not a matter of using doubt to restrain one’s desire.

The benefits and harms one might encounter by going out are not yet certain. If one stays in out of worry, one is using doubt to restrain one’s desire. Observe and investigate until you understand the relation between an action and a desire. Eating dried meat is not an act of benevolence, and cutting one’s finger is not foolish; what matters is whether the action is appropriate. If one remains unsure whether to approve or reject an action, one cannot be said to have made a plan.

“Complete” means that a garment has been made; to treat an illness is to make the illness go away. “Command” means to order, while “call” means to designate. An undertaking does not necessarily succeed, so one must wait until the action has produced a result before saying it is complete.

A “name” is used to refer to things in general; where there is an actual object, there must be corresponding words to express it. Calling something a “horse” is naming it by its category; if it really is a horse, this is the name to use. Calling something “salty” is a specific designation for a particular thing, and the name applies only to that actual object.

The moment a sound is uttered, it has a corresponding name, like a surname or a given name. Calling a dog “quan” is naming it; saying “dog” or “quan” is pointing out the thing. Shouting at a dog adds a command. When “knowledge” comes from someone else’s instruction, it refers to knowledge that has been heard and accepted.

The moment a sound is uttered, it has a corresponding name, like a surname or a given name. Calling a dog “quan” is naming it; saying “dog” or “quan” is pointing out the thing. Shouting at a dog adds a command. When “knowledge” comes from someone else’s instruction, it refers to what has been heard.

A thing’s being square and not slanted is a description; observing it for oneself is direct sight. What is used to refer to a thing is its name; what a name refers to is the actual thing. When a name corresponds to the actual thing, this is called agreement. Having an intention in the mind and putting it into action is called acting. Hearing something from another person is hearsay; observing it oneself is direct witness. Seeing a thing at a particular moment is seeing its concrete form. Both direct witness and hearsay can give people knowledge.

In ancient warfare, establishing systems and bringing conduct back to the right path served to correct intentions and make duties appropriate. What is meant by “xian zhi wei” is doing what is fitting. If things are otherwise, the corresponding outcome will certainly not occur; this is called necessity. Though sages make judgments, they do not declare every matter to be necessary. Necessity means that there is no longer any room for doubt. In upholding principles, one must consider both sides and avoid favoring either.

“Zao tai” means preservation; “illness” means decline. “Buying a fast” means exchange; “xiao jin” means clearing away. Governing means following the growth of things; “jin mai” refers to change.

When two names point to the same actual thing, this is called sameness of name and thing. Being alike in every respect is called sameness of form. Being in the same room is called sameness of place. Being alike in some shared respect is called sameness of kind. To be different means that the two must differ in some way. Having no connection to one another is called difference of form; being in different places is called difference of place; having nothing in common is called difference of kind. Clarifying how sameness and difference relate helps in judging good fortune and misfortune.

“Shu” concerns presence and absence. “Bi” means comparison; “du” means measuring quantity. “Mian ren huan yuan” refers to departure and return; “wu zhe yong tong” refers to hardness and softness; “jian you zao” refers to death and life. “Those in one room, whether young or old” means that people sharing a room are not distinguished by age. “Liang jue sheng” refers to white and black. “Center” and “side” are opposites, meaning the middle and the edge. “Lun xing xing xing xue shi” concerns right and wrong; “nan su” concerns completion and incompletion. Brothers can go together; the body staying here while the mind goes elsewhere concerns presence and absence. “Huo wei xing” refers to cause; “jia yi” refers to dear and cheap. “Agreed, cross the city and bear stillness” concerns action and stopping. Mutual following and parting, prior knowledge, right and wrong, what can and cannot be done, and the five colors are all examples used to distinguish differences among things.

Judgments about length and shortness, what comes before and after, and lightness and heaviness all depend on comparison. Sound arguments are not easy to establish, so one should strive to state one’s reasons clearly. Only by following the nine methods of argument can one test and grasp the force of an argument.

What is called a “method” is to examine cases that share the same features, then use them to teach and apply standards of judgment. When adopting a single example as a standard, one must also choose an appropriate case, ask for the reasons behind it, and consider whether it fits.

For example, someone might say, “Some people are black and some are not, so we should stop calling Black people black.” Another might say, “Some people love others and some do not; then what kind of affection in the heart counts as proper?” Having offered one example that seems sound, the speaker assumes that all other cases are the same. In response, one should bring forward a counterexample and ask them to account for it.

Even a sage may sometimes say something incorrect. We cannot assume that a statement is right simply because its speaker is a sage. Judgments about statements require standards, and their reasons must be made clear. A promise or claim that goes beyond proper limits is like carrying a heavy burden without good reason: it has no sound basis, and its reasons cannot be explained. Applying these standards is what makes an argument seem reasonable.

To determine whether something is so, one must not accept it merely because others have judged it to be so, nor deny it merely because one believes it is not so. One should also examine whether the claim is doubtful and whether it has a basis.

To say “it is a four-footed animal”: does that mean it was born a crow? Or does it mean that it belongs to the category of all things? Or does it simply mean that it comes in different sizes? If all these claims necessarily hold, then they should all apply to it at once. To classify a deer and another beast together gives them the same name, but does not make them entirely alike. If different things are lumped together indiscriminately, their distinctions become confused, and two things may become one category—or three, or many.

There may be affection among the womb, liver, lungs, and children. An orange and thatch grass differ in nature: one can be eaten, while the other can be gathered. A white horse is white, but looking at a horse is not the same as looking only at its whiteness; “white” and “looking” are distinct concepts. Calling something “beautiful” does not mean it truly is beautiful; nor does something’s not being beautiful mean that it must be coarse or violent.

To call someone “wrong” is to judge what they have done; if they have done nothing wrong, they cannot be called wrong. A brave person, for instance, may not have performed a particular brave deed. Someone making shoes is making shoes, not clothes. Bravery and a brave deed, shoes and the making of shoes, must not be confused. When two things are combined into one, one disappears while the other remains: such a claim is flawed.

A thing must have an actual manifestation before it can be named; without one, it should not be named arbitrarily. For example, if something is said to be “beautiful,” it is indeed beautiful. But if it is merely called “beautiful,” it may not be; and if it is not named at all, its beauty or lack of beauty cannot be judged on that basis. Seeing and not seeing are distinct, and one and two cannot stand in for each other. Qualities such as breadth, hardness, and whiteness should likewise be examined according to their own distinctions.

Being unable to lift a heavy object does not, by itself, justify any conclusion. A needle is not supported by strength, and the difference in weight one feels when holding something is not determined by wisdom. Ears and eyes each have their own functions. Which is longer, wood or night? Which is greater in quantity, wisdom or grain? Which is more valuable: rank, kinship, conduct, or possessions? Which is taller, the deer or huo, a plant or thing whose identity is uncertain? Which is more like huo, the deer or huo? Which is more like a zither, thread or the zither itself? Each comparison depends on the aspect being considered. To say only that things are “the same” erases their differences.

What is called “borrowing” requires that the thing borrowed first belong to someone else. A dog that borrows huo remains a dog; it does not thereby become huo. That something can harm a person is a fact; seeing it with one’s own eyes is a kind of knowledge; knowing something can also be called wisdom.

Péng grass may look like a useful material, but it must be processed to make an implement. Used to build a cattle shed, it serves different purposes in summer and winter. Something may feel light when lifted and heavy when set down; this does not mean that it possesses strength of its own. Water rushing swiftly and wearing something smooth is not the work of a skilled craftsperson. A stone and a feather differ in weight when measured according to a given standard.

Someone who loses composure after drinking is like someone who acts irrationally at midday. This is not wisdom but folly. Does believing oneself to be right prove that one is wise? If one judges only by one’s own conviction, that too is folly.

Several things taken together form a whole, just as an ox and a horse each have four legs. But only when they are identified separately as an ox and a horse can they be said to belong to two kinds. Counting oxen and horses gives two kinds; grouping them together as “oxen and horses” gives one kind. When counting fingers, the five fingers are five things; taken together, they can also be counted as one whole.

Space takes on different locations as position changes; this is “yu” (space). Space has directions such as north and south, as well as locations where things are and are not. Space can move, while time continues. A white horse cannot be casually conflated with the ideas of whiteness or hardness. If horses, too, are counted in the category of oxen and horses, then oxen and horses form a whole. When counting fingers, the five fingers are five things, but they can also be taken together as one whole.

Space has different locations as position changes. It has directions such as north and south, and states of existence and nonexistence. Space can move, while time continues. Hardness and whiteness do not imply one another; they must coincide in the same object before one can say that it is both hard and white. Yao, the legendary ancient sage king, was skilled at governing. This judgment comes from looking back at antiquity from the present. Seen from antiquity, however, Yao could not govern affairs in the present.

A shadow—the dark image formed when an object blocks light—appears when light arrives and disappears when light is gone. When the light is completely blocked, the shadow ceases to exist. The patch of darkness between two beams of light is a shadow. Light strikes a person as if it were an arrow: someone below appears tall in the shadow, while someone above appears short. The feet block the light below, so the shadow falls beside the feet; the head blocks the light above, so the shadow falls beneath the body. Differences in distance and position between the object and the light cause the shadow to take different forms.

A shadow forms when light strikes a person, and lies between the light source and the person. When a piece of wood tilts, its shadow becomes short and broad; when the wood stands upright, its shadow becomes long and narrow. The shadow changes in size relative to the wood; it does not simply become smaller. The distance between an object and a mirror, and whether the object is placed upright, both affect the size, shape, and light and dark tones of its reflection. As the object’s distance and position change, the reflection changes with the light.

A reflection appears and moves with the object it faces; when the object moves away, the reflection moves away as well. Reflections in a mirror all face north. A mirror can show objects in front of it, and the forms of their reflections can change in countless ways, yet they must pass through the direction directly opposite the mirror’s surface. Although an object and its reflection occupy corresponding positions and have the same shape, the direction shown in the mirror is reversed. When an object approaches the center of the mirror, its reflection grows larger; farther from the center, the reflection is smaller, though it still faces the object. The reflection begins at the edge of the center and extends along a straight line. Beyond the center of the mirror, the closer the object is to the center, the larger the image shown in the mirror, and the larger the reflection becomes.

A mirror surface used in ancient times lies near a person, the area it can show is large, and the image is large; farther away, the area it can show is smaller, and the image is smaller. The image also shifts as the distance changes. If the mirror is set upright, the image will be upright as well.

Why does a crossbar holding a heavy load not bend? Because its supporting force is sufficient to overcome the load. If a weight is hung from one side of the bar, it will sag because the supporting force is insufficient. Adding weight to one side of a balance beam must make it tilt. The beam balances only when the weights on both sides are equal. If one arm is shorter and the other longer, the longer side will sink. Even when equal weights are added to both sides, the beam will still tilt toward the longer arm, because that side exerts a greater effect.

Lifting an object takes force, while pulling one can be done with a rope. A rope can restrain and pull a heavy object, much as an awl can pierce an object. When a heavy load hangs from one end of a rope, the longer end hangs down and the shorter end rises. The rising end climbs higher and higher, while the hanging end drops lower and lower. When the rope is taut and the weights on both sides are equal, balance is reached. If the rope is then drawn in further, the upper end gradually descends and the lower end gradually rises. When the force of gravity on the upper end has been entirely overcome, the load is lifted.

When two wheels are raised and joined to form a frame, they make something like a ladder-shaped vehicle. Place a heavy load at the front and tighten the rope there; alternatively, tie the rope to the axle and hang the load at the front. The frame can then be adjusted until it balances. As the rope is drawn in, the load above gradually descends and the load below gradually rises. Once the weight above has been fully taken off, the object is lifted and the vehicle moves with it.

Any heavy object with nothing lifting it from above, supporting it from below, or blocking it from the side will fall straight down. If something obstructs it, it cannot fall straight. Lay a ruler flat on the ground, and a heavy object will not fall downward because the ground supports it. Pulling an axle with a rope is like a person on a boat pulling a crossbar.

Leaning, doubling, resisting, and supporting can all affect whether an object is level. An object that leans at an angle will not be upright. As for stones and white stones of this kind…

Using a broom to hold an object in place can serve as a test. Place a square stone one foot above the ground. Tie a weight beneath the stone, then attach a silk thread to the weight. Let the weight just touch the square stone without pulling it down: this is called “support.” Stick the thread to the stone, then remove the weight: this is called “lifting.” If the thread breaks, this is called “drawing.” If the object remains unchanged but its name changes, this is called “gathering.”

In a transaction, a knife and a piece of jade are weighed against each other in value. If the knife is light, tie the jade to it until the jade just touches the square stone without pulling it down; this is called “support.” Stick the thread to the stone, then remove the weight: this is called “lifting.” If the thread breaks, this is called “drawing.” If the object remains unchanged but its name changes, this is called “gathering.” In a transaction, if the knife is light, the jade is not valuable; if the knife is heavy, the jade is hard to sell. The king’s knife remains unchanged, but the price of jade changes. The price of jade changes each year, and the value of the knife changes along with it.

It is like the “fasting child.” What is called “exhausting the price” means removing all irrelevant factors; if some are left out, they cause bias. “Is the price of the earthenware jar right or not? Do the parties want the jar or not?” This concerns whether the jar’s price is fair and whether buyer and seller want the trade. For example, a state may fall and a household decline; a daughter may marry out and have no son. In the army, one should not decide in advance whether someone will live or die; hearing that there is a battle does not prove that he will survive. In the past, he was unafraid, but now he is afraid.

Some people know that a matter does not belong to the object under discussion, and that the relevant knowledge is not contained in that object, yet they still call the object before them south or north, insisting that their judgment is correct. At first they said it was in the south, so they continue to say it is in the south. To discuss right and wrong, one must be able to judge; without that ability, there is no way to distinguish them.

“To call” means to name something. If what is named is the same, it is called “the same”; if it differs, it is called “different.” In the case of sameness, one person calls it a “dog” and another calls it a “hound.” In the case of difference, one person calls it an “ox” and another calls it a “horse.” If neither side can prevail, the debate is incomplete. To debate is for one person to claim that something is right and another to claim it is wrong, with the side that accords with the facts prevailing.

“Wine without yielding” means that no one yields at a drinking feast. Before anyone yields, things are just beginning; one might also say that there is no possibility of yielding at all. A stone, taken as a whole, is one; hardness and whiteness are two qualities, yet both are present in the stone. Thus, one can say that it contains something knowable, and one can also say that it contains something unknowable.

The statement “there is a referent” cannot count as a debate. To debate is for one person to claim that something is right and another to claim it is wrong, with the side that accords with the facts prevailing. “Wine without yielding” means that no one yields; before anyone yields, things are just beginning, which is to say that yielding is impossible. The stone as a whole is one, while hardness and whiteness are two, yet both are present in it. Thus, it can be understood as containing both what is knowable and what is unknowable.

If someone uses “the referent” as an example and says it is knowable, then what I earlier proposed as “having knowledge” should also count as knowable. In that case, what you call “knowable” is the same as what I proposed earlier.

When we say, “Some know, and some do not,” if we claim that someone knows something, we should point out that thing and tell me; only then will I know that he knows it. If we point out two things together, they become confused as two; if we point out three together, they become confused as three. Suppose we set a rule that we may point out only the things I have named, and not those I have not named. Then that rule alone cannot single out any one thing. The object to be examined has not been made clear, so it is as though its meaning has not yet been checked.

Moreover, if the things he knows are real, and the things he does not know are also real, then what he knows is precisely what he does not know. How, then, can “knowing” and “not knowing” be treated as the same? That is why we say there are things one knows and things one does not know. As for the object being referred to, if it has not yet been clearly examined, no judgment can be made.

Some things, of course, cannot be pointed out directly. For example, an official who has fled does not know where he is, and a dog does not know its own name. If we apply “knowing” to a dog and say it knows the animal called “dog,” we would treat “dog” and “hound” as two things, creating a duplication. If there is no duplication, then there is no error.

To understand how “knowing” should be answered, we must first clarify what the other person is asking. Someone asks, “Do you know hunger?” The reply is, “What do you mean by ‘know’?” If the other person means “offering and giving,” then we can judge on that basis whether he knows. If we do not ask what the word “muscle” refers to and answer “I don’t know” straight away, we may answer incorrectly. A reply must address the question; when questions differ in depth, their answers should differ as well.

Heavenly time moves constantly in its proper course, soldiers each have their own place, and things each have their own location. A house is a place that contains things, while a child is something situated within it. If we ask where the house is by asking about what is situated somewhere, how can that tell us the house’s location? If we ask what is inside by taking the house as our object, then whom should we ask about what is within? This is the distinction between asking about the container by referring to what is inside it, and asking about what is inside by referring to the container.

The Five Phases—Metal, Wood, Water, Fire, and Earth—combine and transform. Water, earth, fire, and the others each undergo change: fire can melt metal, showing the strength of fire; metal can wear down charcoal, showing the power of metal. They also transform when combined. When wood meets wood, their individual forms can still be distinguished.

If you understand the numbers of deer and fish, you should take only what is actually needed, without acting out of preference or aversion. If you say that harming life and shortening one’s lifespan result from eating too little grain, whom, then, are you claiming to protect? Someone once ate a great deal of millet and may not have suffered any harm from it.

For example, when it comes to wine, forgiving others and helping them is a kind of love. But forgiveness without correction does not yet put love into practice. Reducing the excess food of someone who has eaten too much, until he has just enough, keeps him from being harmed. Letting him continue to eat his fill would instead do him harm. This is like injuring a deer’s spleen.

Some things can increase understanding when they are reduced. Consider investigating an illness: understanding depends on what the eyes observe, and the eyes need firelight in order to see, but the firelight itself cannot see anything. Relying only on the five senses can, over time, lead to mistaken judgments; observing with the eyes is like observing by means of firelight. Here, “fire” means the light of a flame, not its heat.

At times, I seem to be observing the sun. If you ask about what is known and what is unknown as though they were mixed together, someone will surely say, “This is known, and that is unknown.” Either taking both together or setting both aside may be called knowing; in this way, both cases are treated as “known.” What is called “nonexistence” may be something that existed and then disappeared, or something that was absent from the start. To say “there is no collapse of Heaven” is to say that it never existed in the first place. Removing what is doubtful and calling that “nonexistence” is not an appropriate way to speak.

Zang has now died, and Chun later died as well; it is equally valid to say that Chun “died.” Things are generally like this. Whatever has already come to be so must be so; whatever has already stopped must stop. If something can stop only through exertion, it must stop only after that exertion.

Balance means suspending an object so that its weight is evenly distributed. If its weight is uneven, it will break when force is applied; this is imbalance. If the weight is balanced, then even if it breaks, one side will not break first.

Terms such as “Yao Huo” can sometimes refer to people by name, and sometimes by their actual circumstances. For instance, “recommending a friend, a wealthy merchant” refers to people by category; pointing out that someone is jumping refers to what is actually happening. The “rightness” in Yao’s name is a sound used in the present, while the actual meaning of “rightness” took shape in antiquity. The same is probably true of “city gate” and “Zang.”

A dog is a canine. One can also say “kill the canine,” but that phrasing may allow two interpretations, as though the object or the expression had been split apart. “Command” means to order or compel someone. It is a sound used in the present, while the meaning it refers to took shape in antiquity. A dog is a canine; one can also say “kill the canine,” though the sentence may give rise to two different interpretations.

When I command myself, I am the one compelling myself; even if I do not deliberately command myself, I am still compelled. “Dian-ge” can also make someone act this way; even if Dian-ge is not beautiful, the same applies. “Dian,” however, is a different expression.

The agarwood of Jing is carved from shell. Saying that it is heavy or shallow does not mean that it has been carved deeply or shallowly.

If a piece is made from a fifth of a length of timber and fashioned into a pillar, seeing that pillar does not change what one understands of it; one’s earlier understanding remains the same. If the pillar is as light as a leaf falling in autumn, one’s response to it becomes open and carefree.

A length of wood, a mallet, and an awl can all be used to make shoes, each in its own way. Making the shoes and then striking them with a mallet, or first working the material with the mallet and then making the shoes, comes to the same thing: both follow the same set of steps. Five can be divided into one, and one can be divided into five parts; together they make twelve. One cannot take only half of something new and use it to advance; one must take from the front. As one moves forward, there is nothing in the middle that can serve as a half; it remains only an endpoint. Taking from both the front and the back leaves endpoints in the middle. Something new must have a half; if a part that is not half is mixed into it, it cannot be called “new.” Some things need not be taken. Once enough has been given, it should be given to the proper measure, with nothing further lacking. Time has an end, yet it can also be said to have no end.

To make something upright and place it in the central position is to keep it from straying from the center, wherever it is put; this is like the positions described in combat. A pivot and a house cannot be raised on just one side; this refers to the whole. In any undertaking, one must lay the near part first, then the far part. The same applies to a journey: one must travel the nearby distance before the far one. Work on both the near and the far must follow an order and takes a long time to complete. The people, too, must act and cultivate themselves through sustained effort.

An object may have a complete shape and still differ from others in its rules and standards. Some are made of wood, others of stone, yet this does not prevent them all from having a square shape. The same holds for all kinds of forms. Cows and horses are different: cows have teeth, and horses have tails. But it does not follow that a cow is not a horse simply because cows have teeth and horses have tails; each has its own features, rather than one having them while the other has none.

Someone says, “Cows and horses are not of the same kind: cows have horns, while horses do not, so they belong to different categories.” This is a poor example, like saying that cows have teeth and horses have tails. Even if at times one says “not a cow” and at other times “is a cow,” both expressions may be used. But it still does not follow that “cows and horses are not cows” or that “cows and horses are cows.” Since one can say it at some times but not at others, one cannot conclude on that basis that “cows and horses are cows.” Besides, a cow is not two things, and a horse is not two things; yet when “cow” and “horse” are spoken of together, they do refer to two kinds of things named by two terms.

Thus, it is acceptable to say that an ox is not an ox, a horse is not a horse, and “ox and horse” is neither an ox nor a horse. But saying that “ox and horse are an ox” is not necessarily valid; nor can we conclude that “ox and horse are ox and horse” is valid simply by saying so. Some claims can be valid and others cannot. Yet to say every day that “ox and horse are ox and horse” is neither valid nor invalid makes no sense either. There is not more than one ox, nor more than one horse, but the combined term “ox and horse” refers to two kinds of things. Thus, it is not hard to understand how an ox is not an ox, a horse is not a horse, and “ox and horse” is neither an ox nor a horse.

“Other” and “this” are relative terms. If “other” is restricted to what is other, and “this” to what is this, then the two cannot be exchanged. If what is other can also be this, then it makes sense to say that the two are connected. If both “other” and “this” are defined only in relation to one another, then in this relationship what is other can also be this.

To put forward a claim without anyone responding is like having no one discuss it. To respond without putting forward a claim is merely to follow another person and answer out of necessity. To put forward a claim but not respond is to fail to learn. If one lacks intelligence and does not learn, one’s understanding will inevitably be shallow. To respond without putting forward a claim is to fail to teach. If one has intelligence but does not teach, one’s capacity to be of use comes to a halt.

Making someone take another person’s clothes carries varying degrees of blame; making someone give wine to another may likewise involve giving more or less. We may not know those who are outside. Someone might say that a person indoors looks to have this complexion, but that is to treat something uncertain as certain. It is like calling white black: which claim is correct? If something is white, it must be white. We now know its color resembles white, and so say that we know it is white. But names serve to use what is already understood to clarify what is not yet understood; we cannot use what is not yet understood to cast doubt on what is understood. It is like using a measuring rod to measure a length that has not yet been determined. If something is white, it must be white. To know that its color resembles white and thereby know that it is white still requires a known standard as the basis for inference. When people are outside, they come to know through close contact; indoors, they come to know through explanation. One cannot make a judgment using vague expressions. If what is said upon entering and leaving can both be accepted, yet the accounts are not clear and consistent, that shows that some claims, though usable, are imprecise.

To say that someone’s words cannot be trusted requires careful judgment. A claim can be called valid only when it truly holds. Even then, we cannot therefore treat the very expression “Huo” as “not Huo.” If we do not accept the other person’s judgment, we should not force ourselves to follow it. If the other person persists in their claim, our own position will be difficult to advance. If they do not persist in their claim, that does not necessarily mean our own position can be advanced.

The claim “there is no south” can be examined exhaustively if its scope is limited; if its scope has no end, it cannot be examined exhaustively.

Whether things are finite or infinite cannot be determined; therefore, whether they can all be exhausted cannot be determined either. Whether people’s desires can be satisfied is likewise uncertain, so whether their desires can be exhausted is also uncertain. In any case, people should do their utmost to love others. This point must be made clear.

If people’s desires cannot be satisfied, they will continue to pursue them; in this sense, human desire is infinite. Even exhausting a finite number of things presents no difficulty, but satisfying infinite desires has no end. Since we cannot know the number of desires with certainty, how can we conclude that there is a limit to loving the people? Someone might overlook this point: once everyone is taken into account, love should be extended to those being considered. Even if we do not know how many people there are, it is not difficult to know that we should do our utmost to extend our love to them.

Humaneness means loving people; righteousness means benefiting people. Finite matters are not difficult to manage. If we do not know how many people there are, how can we know that there should be a limit to loving the people? Someone might overlook this point: once everyone is taken into account, love should be extended to those being considered. Even if we do not know how many people there are, it is not difficult to know that we should do our utmost to extend our love to them. Humaneness means loving people; righteousness means benefiting people.

Love and benefit are what the giver offers; those who are loved and benefited are the recipients. Giving love and benefit, and receiving love and benefit, cannot simply be divided into inner and outer. To call humaneness inner and righteousness outer, while also confusing loving with benefiting, is to make a confused argument. It is as unreasonable as saying that something comes out of the left eye and enters through the right. If learning truly brings no benefit, then telling people so counts as instruction. But if someone knows that learning is beneficial and still teaches people that it is not, that is improper instruction, and the distinction should be made clear.

In debate and criticism, what matters is whether the criticism is justified. If its grounds are sound, then even extensive criticism is right; if its grounds are unsound, then even a little criticism is still wrong. To say that criticism becomes wrong when there is too much of it is like using length and shortness to judge something they should not be used to judge. Refraining from criticism does not mean that criticism itself is wrong; nor does refraining from opposing criticism mean that it is necessarily right. Only when there is no reason to oppose it does withholding opposition count as being in the right.

Some things are very long, and others very short. The longest and the shortest mark the limits of length and shortness. To say that something does not accord with these limits is more inappropriate than anything else.

In judging what is high or low, one should use what is good and bad as the standard; yet this is less reliable than taking the relative heights of mountains and water as the measure. Being in a low place is sometimes more suitable than being in a high place. What is called “low” is simply low in relation to what is high. If something is said to be right, then it is right. Today, some writings are considered to accord with right and wrong in one place, but not in another. Their statements therefore cannot be called consistent from beginning to end. Since their statements are inconsistent, even if some of them are correct, they cannot be said to be clear. Today, some writings are not considered to accord with right and wrong in one place, yet are considered to do so in another. Thus, whether the wording is consistent and whether judgments of right and wrong are consistent are, in fact, questions of the same kind.

End of Volume Ten of the Mozi.

The textual notes explain differences in wording among various editions and record commentators’ judgments about erroneous, missing, and superfluous characters.

Wang Yinzhi considers the character “jin” (“now”) to be superfluous.

Wang Yinzhi emends “qie” (“and”) to “dan” (“then”); this is correct.

Below “pian” (“partial”), Wang Yinzhi emends the text to “ju” (“raise”).

The sentence “Gong, gong bu dai shi, ruo yi qiu” (“Achievement does not wait for the right time, like clothing and furs”) appears twice. Bi Yuan suspects that the repetition is an interpolation.

Below “pian” (“partial”), Wang Niansun supplies the character “qu” (“remove”).

Below “qu” (“remove”), Wang Yinzhi supplies the character “huo” (“or”).

Wang Yinzhi considers “fu” to be a mistake for “shi” (“arrow”); this is correct.

Xian Gu (Mozi Xian Gu, the Qing dynasty commentary by Sun Yirang) has “zhi” (“hold”), not “shu” (“who”).

Based on the meaning, Bi Yuan emends “wen” (“hear”) to “wen” (“ask”).

Before “xu” (“empty”), Wang Niansun supplies “wen” (“ask”), based on the Jing chapter.

Xian Gu emends this sentence to “Duan yu duan ju jin” (“Both ends are entirely exhausted”).

Below “wei” (“not yet”), Xian Gu supplies “ke” (“can”).

Based on the Hao manuscript, Xian Gu emends “fu” (“carry”) to “fu” (“carry”).

Xian Gu emends “tai” (“lift”) to “zhao” (“beckon”).

Wang Yinzhi emends “ji” (“auspicious”) to “gao” (“announce”).

Based on the Jingxia chapter, Xian Gu emends “xun” (“follow”) to “xun” (“follow”).

See note 21.

Xian Gu emends “zhi” (“stop”) to “shang” (“above”).

Based on the meaning, Lu Yilu emends “ku” (“storehouse”) to “ku” (“storehouse”).

Xian Gu has “tuo” (“drag”); the same reading occurs below.

Wang Yinzhi considers the character “yu” to be missing “zhong” (“middle”) after it.

Wang Yinzhi emends “yi” (“also”) to “yuan” (“origin”).

The character “ru” was emended to “jia” by Bi Yuan based on the context.

The character “xin” was emended to “zheng” by Bi Yuan based on the context. The same interpretation should apply to the character “xin” in the sentence below, “If the cord is straight and the weights are equal, then the heart is balanced.”

The character “k” was emended to “j” by Bi Yuan based on the preceding text. The Hao manuscript also has “j.”

The character “ye” appears as “ke” in the Xiangu edition.

The character “tian” appears as “da” in the Xiangu edition.

The character “mu” appears as “shui” in the Xiangu edition.

Wang Yinzhi argues that the two characters “qie qie” should read “qie ran.”

Wang Yinzhi argues that the character “er” should be added after “gong.”

Sun Xingyan added the character “zhong” after “qing,” drawing on the Liezi.

The character “jian” was emended to “wu” by Zhang Zhongru, drawing on the Jing.

Zhang Zhongru argues that the two characters “xing zhe” are a redundant interpolation.

Yu Quyuan argues that the character “xiu” is unnecessary.

Wang Yinzhi argues that “mao jin” should read “jin lei.”

The character “tai” was emended to “he” by Wang Yinzhi.

Lu Yihuang argues that the character “niu” should be added before “zhi.”

Wang Yinzhi added the character “you” after “niu,” based on the context.

The Xiangu edition does not contain the character “ke.”

The character “yu” appears as “yu” in the Xiangu edition.

Chapter Forty-Four of the Daqǔ.

Heaven cares for people, though its concern is less heartfelt than that of a sage. Yet the benefits Heaven brings to people are greater than those a sage brings them. The great care for the small, though their concern is less heartfelt than the small’s concern for the great. Yet the benefits the great bring to the small are greater than those the small bring to the great.

If one regards some benefit as beneficial to one’s relatives and therefore cares for them, this is not true care for one’s relatives. If one regards it as beneficial to them and therefore brings them profit, this does not truly benefit them either. If one believes that happiness is good for a child and wishes the child to have it, that is loving the child. But if one believes that happiness is good for a child and seeks happiness on the child’s behalf, this does not truly benefit the child.

To weigh the greater and lesser in different circumstances is called quan (weighing and choosing). Weighing does not mean simply calling what is right right and what is wrong wrong; it means determining what is appropriate to do. When facing benefits, choose the greater; when facing harms, choose the lesser. Avoiding a lesser harm is not choosing harm for its own sake, but preserving benefit amid harm. What people choose is precisely what they believe they ought to uphold.

If attacked by bandits, having a finger cut off to save one’s body is beneficial, though the attack itself is harmful. If cutting off a finger and cutting off a wrist bring equal benefit to the world, there is no need to distinguish between them. The same applies if life and death bring equal benefit. Killing one person to save the world does not mean killing that person for his own benefit; killing oneself to save the world, by contrast, means benefiting the world through one’s own death.

To weigh the greater and lesser when dealing with affairs is called qiu (examining and seeking an appropriate course of action). Pursuing a particular result single-mindedly is wrong. When choosing the lesser injury amid harm, calling that choice “seeking righteousness” does not make it truly righteous. To explain to a cruel person why the Way of Heaven is as it is and what human nature is like, or to preach to such a person about right and wrong in the Way of Heaven and human nature, is simply futile.

If the person being addressed already holds a position, and I restate that position for him, what he says is grounded in his own prior view. If he has no position, and I state one for him, then that position rests on what I have said. When a cruel person presents human contrivances as the Way of Heaven and claims that what is made by people is ordained by Heaven, such claims cannot be corrected. Yet the fact that they cannot be corrected does not make it right to treat what is wrong as right.

Choosing the greater benefit is not always a matter of necessity; choosing the lesser harm is a weighing made under necessity. Gaining what one did not previously possess is choosing the greater benefit; giving up what one already possesses is choosing the lesser harm.

When something accords with righteousness, make it as complete as possible where that can be done, and reduce it appropriately where less will suffice. This is called lunlie (arranging things in degrees according to reason and circumstance). Virtue, rulers, elders, and relatives are all to be treated with generosity. One should treat elders generously without thereby treating the young ungenerously; one should also draw close to and treat relatives generously. Treating relatives generously is choosing the lesser among various harms.

Those who deserve special consideration should receive it; those who deserve less should receive less. This is called treating people differently according to rank. People of high virtue, rulers, elders, and relatives are all entitled to special consideration. Elders should be treated generously; giving younger people less consideration must not mean ignoring the distinction between young and old. Relatives should also be treated generously. Among relatives, too, there are degrees of closeness: those nearer to us should receive more consideration, and those more distant, less.

To treat relatives well according to what is right, we must look not only at how close they are to us, but also at what they actually do. To honor Yu the Great, the legendary sage ruler of antiquity, for the sake of the world is still to honor Yu the Great; to cherish him for the sake of the world is to direct the world’s regard for him toward him. The benefits Yu brought to the world do not lose their value simply because they were not bestowed directly upon us. Likewise, we loathe bandits who harm the world not merely because they have not harmed us directly.

In caring for others, we must not exclude ourselves; we too belong among those who deserve care. We are cared for because we follow this order: caring for ourselves as well as for others. The sage abhors illness but does not therefore flee from danger. He rectifies himself and avoids acting recklessly in order to benefit others, not merely to keep himself from harm, for he too is among those who deserve care.

The sage does not seek benefits only for his own household. If he seeks to benefit it, the aim should also be to help it achieve something worthwhile. Nor does the sage regard caring for his children as merely a private matter. The sage’s principle is that even when relatives die, the world must come first. Relatives should be given due consideration, but even if they must be sacrificed for the sake of the world, the purpose should be to benefit the people and bring good works to completion. Treating near and distant relatives without any order, or using acts of kindness merely to pursue one’s own gain, is contrary to what is right.

The so-called “Discourse on Language” sets out principles for speech and debate. One must not call a “white horse” simply a “horse” in a way that confuses the terms, nor rely only on the fact that it is a “young colt” as proof; such an argument does not hold. Calling a “large fish” simply “large” is also wrong. To judge a matter, one must have three conditions in place before drawing a conclusion from them.

Benefiting oneself does not mean loving only oneself, nor does it mean acting so that others will love oneself. In treating others well, one must not exclude oneself. Treating all kinds of people alike, without any distinction in degree, and placing oneself among them in exactly the same way, is not wisdom. To judge right and wrong, we must ask whether something accords with what is right: what is right brings benefit, while what is wrong brings harm. We must also examine people’s intentions and the consequences of their actions.

When speaking of a “Qin horse,” one can say, “There is a horse belonging to Qin,” or simply, “There is a horse.” To know whether the horse being led by someone is a Qin horse, however, we must judge from the particular circumstances.

Loving people of many generations to the same degree as people of only a few generations is what impartial care means: caring for everyone equally, without distinguishing between those close to us and those distant from us. People of high antiquity should be cared for just as people of later generations are, and just as people of the present are. Ghosts are not living people, but an elder brother’s ghost is still one’s elder brother. The sage cares about the benefit of all under Heaven but does not seek private gain. “Ni Ri” put it this way; that is someone else’s claim. “There is no one under Heaven” is Mozi’s saying. Such claims still exist.

Wanting something because one has no choice is not the same as truly wanting it, nor is it the same as not wanting it at all. The aim is not to kill good people, but specifically to kill thieves. This is not a desire to kill people in general, but to target thieves. Anyone who studies caring for others should understand it this way.

The roundness of a small circle is the same as that of a large circle. A length that reaches one chi and one that falls short of one zhong are no different in this respect. We say it falls short because the distance between them varies. This is a huang, a semicircular jade ornament, and it is also jade.

Thinking of a pillar is not thinking of wood in general, but of the piece of wood made into that pillar.

Thinking of the person indicated by a finger is not thinking of “a person” in general; thinking of the prey is thinking of an animal. Intention and outcome must not be confused.

Benefiting someone is done for that person’s sake; making someone wealthy is not necessarily done for that person’s sake. There may be some other purpose in making that person wealthy. Making someone wealthy may also be a way of governing them.

Thinking of the person indicated by a finger is not thinking of “a person” in general; thinking of the prey is thinking of an animal. Intention and outcome must not be confused.

Benefiting someone is done for that person’s sake; making someone wealthy is not necessarily done for that person’s sake. There may be some other purpose in making that person wealthy. Making someone wealthy may also be done for the sake of ghosts and spirits. Helping one person for the sake of reward, reputation, or gain is not the same as helping everyone for the sake of reward, reputation, or gain; but this does not mean that one should not respect others. Knowing that one can benefit one’s parents but not actually doing so cannot count as filial devotion; yet this does not mean that seeking one’s parents’ benefit is not filial devotion.

Knowing that there are thieves in the world does not mean hating everyone in the world. Knowing that there is a thief in this room does not mean hating everyone in the room. Knowing that one person is a thief does not mean treating another person as a thief. Even if one knows that someone is a thief, if one does not know where that person is, one will still hate those who harm the weak.

The sage’s first task is to clarify the names of things and what they actually refer to. A name and its referent do not have to correspond one to one. If this stone is white, then “white” also applies to other white things. But this stone is merely large; that does not make it identical to all large things. It can be called “large” precisely because it has that attribute.

When something is named by its shape or appearance, one must know what kind of thing is being referred to in order to know its name. If it cannot be named by its appearance, knowing what class it belongs to is enough to know what it is. Names based on location or action apply to anyone who is in that place or engaged in that action; once they leave, the name no longer applies. This is true of “one’s home district,” named by where one lives, and of “Qi” and “Jing,” names associated with action or region. The same applies to things named by their appearance, such as hills, houses, and ancestral temples.

Knowledge and intention are not the same. Two things can be equal in weight, alike in composition, or connected. So long as a person is among them, the relevant designation applies; once they leave, it no longer does. This is true of names based on location or action, such as “one’s home district,” “Qi,” and “Jing,” and of names based on appearance, such as hills, houses, and ancestral temples.

Knowledge and intention are not the same. There are many kinds of sameness: sameness of weight, composition, connection, kind, name, place, relation to King Zhou, judgment, circumstance, and origin. Difference, too, takes different forms: sometimes one side does not hold; sometimes one side does not accord with the facts. Things may differ while still being the same in some respect; even things of the same kind may differ from one another.

There are four kinds of judgment: first, judging that something is so when it is in fact so; second, judging that it is so when it is not; third, a judgment that shifts as circumstances change; and fourth, a judgment made under compulsion. One should ensure that what is deep remains deep, what is shallow remains shallow, what is abundant grows further, and what is honored continues to receive respect. Examine sequence, comparison, grounds, and results; then carefully distinguish sounds and names. Repeatedly verify them in response to what is asked. Correcting faults in speech allows people to obtain what they seek through their own requests. But when people are affected by events and become attached to them, giving rise to likes and dislikes, they may not get what they want simply by asking.

When sages discuss the value of things, they begin from benevolence, yet do not focus only on immediate gain. Judgments about benevolence and gain arise from deliberation. What was considered in the past is not the same as what is considered today; nor is loving others in the past the same as the way we love them today.

One may love someone because one thinks that loving them will bring some benefit, though that benefit may not be for that person’s sake. Even when one loves someone for their benefit, it may simply come from love for that person. Whether one can set aside this partiality and benefit everyone under Heaven is another matter. The wall one knew in the past is not entirely the same as the wall one knows today. Even an emperor’s benefits may come only from favoring and caring for a particular person. He, too, may be unable to set aside that partiality and benefit everyone under Heaven. The extent to which an emperor benefits people is not necessarily greater than that of an ordinary person.

Two sons serve their parents. One lives through a year of plenty, the other through a year of famine. Though their circumstances differ, their affection for their parents may be the same. This does not necessarily mean that one has done more, or made some extra effort; external conditions cannot guarantee an increase in the benefit we receive. For example, even if Zangwu were to die and the whole world suffer as a result, my caring for Zangwu ten thousand times better would not make my love for him any deeper.

Tall people and short people differ in some ways and resemble one another in others. They are called alike because they share the same appearance. A finger and a head, by contrast, are different: the human body does not have just one shape, so they are called different. A sword and a thrusting sword are different too. “Sword” is named for its shape and appearance; when the shapes differ, the names refer to different things. Poplar and peach are both trees, so they are alike in belonging to the category “wood.” Things that are named without specific examples, measures, or counts are often liable to confusion. A person’s finger is therefore not the same as the person, though it is indeed that person’s finger. One face of a square object is not the whole object; one face of a square block is still part of that block.

Things arise through causes, develop according to patterns, and operate within categories. When making an argument, if we fail to clarify what gives rise to things and which categories they belong to, we can easily confuse parts with wholes, and names with the things they refer to.

Things arise because they have a basis; they develop because they accord with reason; and they are carried out by following the patterns of their kind. To put forward an argument without understanding where it comes from is careless. If people today do not understand the Dao—the fundamental principles for acting—they will not know what to do. Even if they rely only on the brute strength of their hands and feet, without understanding the Dao, hardship will soon follow. Arguments should unfold according to the principles governing their kind. To put forward an argument without understanding which kind it belongs to is certain to lead to difficulty.

Thus, words that gradually deepen and spread belong to the category called “drum and shiver.” The sage’s governance of the world belongs to the category called “pursuing delusion.” Some people live long and others die young, yet their contributions to the world are equally evident; this belongs to the category called “praise and stone.” A million lives may be born in a single day, yet the feeling of care does not grow deeper as a result; this belongs to the category called “evil and harm.” To love the people of two generations with different degrees of affection, yet claim that one loves both generations equally, belongs to the category called “serpent pattern.” To feel equal affection for two people and choose one of them to kill belongs to “the actual,” not to “the thorn.”

Asking about someone’s illness is asking about that person; disliking someone’s illness is not disliking that person. A person’s ghost is not the person himself; a brother’s ghost is a brother’s ghost. Sacrificing to ghosts is not sacrificing to a living person; sacrificing to a brother’s ghost is sacrificing to one’s brother.

If a horse’s eyes are crossed, one says that the horse has “crossed eyes”; if its eyes are large, one does not say that the horse is “large.” If a cow’s hair is yellow, one says that the cow has “yellow hair”; if it has a great deal of hair, one does not say that the cow is “hairy.” One horse is a horse, and two horses are also horses. A horse has four legs means that one horse has four legs; it does not mean that two horses have four legs between them. When one horse is sometimes white, this means that one of two horses is white; it does not mean that one horse is sometimes white. This is a case in which one statement is correct and the other is incorrect.

Mozi criticized Geng Zhuzi, saying, “Do I not surpass other people?” He then asked, “If I were traveling to a distant place with a fine horse and a sheep, which would you whip?” Geng Zhuzi replied, “The fine horse.” Mozi asked, “Why whip the fine horse?” Geng Zhuzi said, “Because the fine horse deserves blame.” Mozi said, “I, too, consider you deserving of blame.”

Wu Ma Zi asked Mozi, “Between spirits and sages, who is more perceptive and wise?” Mozi replied, “The perception and wisdom of spirits far surpass those of sages, just as people with keen hearing and clear sight surpass the deaf and blind.

“Long ago, King Qi of Xia sent people to gather copper from the mountains and rivers, then had a ritual vessel cast at Kunwu. Someone divined in a marsh thick with white cogongrass and said, ‘When the vessel is cast, it will be square and have three legs. It will cook food by itself without a fire, be stored away without anyone carrying it, and move from place to place without being moved. It can be used in sacrifices.’ They then held a sacrifice at the old site of Kunwu and offered the sacrificial gifts to the north. When people saw the omen, they said, ‘The spirits have already accepted the offerings.’ They saw vast white clouds moving first south, then north, then west, then east. Once the Nine Tripods had been cast, they were moved to the region between three states. When the Xia lost the Nine Tripods, the Shang obtained them; when the Shang lost them, the Zhou obtained them. The Xia, Shang, and Zhou possessed the Nine Tripods in succession for several hundred years.

“If sages gathered worthy ministers and outstanding assistants to deliberate, could they know what would happen several hundred years later? They could not, but spirits could. Therefore, the perception and wisdom of spirits surpass those of sages, just as people with keen hearing and clear sight surpass the deaf and blind.”

Zhi Tu Yu and Xian Zi Shuo asked Mozi, “What matters most in practicing righteousness?” Mozi replied, “It is like building a wall. Those skilled at laying bricks lay them; those skilled at packing earth pack it; and those able to carry earth carry it. Each does what they can, and the wall can be built. Practicing righteousness is the same: those skilled in argument should debate, those skilled at explaining the classical texts should explain them, and those able to get things done should carry out the work. In this way, righteous undertakings can be accomplished.”

Wu Ma Zi said, “To build a wall, for example, you need someone eloquent to argue the case, someone skilled in explaining the classics to explain them, and someone capable of getting things done to do the work. When each person contributes what they can, a righteous undertaking can be completed.”

Wu Ma Zi said to Mozi, “You care for all under Heaven, yet have brought no benefit. I do not care for all under Heaven, yet have caused no harm. Since neither of us has achieved anything, why do you insist that you are right and criticize me as wrong?”

Mozi said, “There is a fire here. One person brings water to put it out, while another brings firewood to feed it. Neither has acted yet. Which one do you think deserves approval?”

Wu Ma Zi said, “I approve of the one bringing water and oppose the one adding firewood.”

Mozi said, “I approve of my own position and oppose yours in just the same way.”

When Mozi went to the state of Chu, Geng Zhuzi was there. Several of Mozi’s disciples passed by Geng Zhuzi’s home, where he gave them only three sheng of grain to eat and treated them with little generosity. When they returned, they told Mozi, “Geng Zhuzi is of no use while he stays in Chu. When we passed by, he gave us only three sheng of grain and showed us little hospitality.”

Mozi said, “We cannot judge him on that basis yet.” Before long, Geng Zhuzi sent Mozi ten jin of gold and said, “I would not dare let you go to trouble, sir. Here are ten jin of gold; please use them as you wish.” Mozi said, “Just as I thought.” Later, several disciples again passed by Geng Zhuzi’s home. Once again, he gave them only three sheng of grain and treated them with little generosity. Mozi said, “It seems we still cannot judge him on that basis.” Soon afterward, Geng Zhuzi sent another ten jin of gold and said the same thing. Mozi said, “Indeed, we still cannot judge him on that basis.”

Wu Ma Zi criticized Mozi, saying, “You practice righteousness, but other people cannot see it, and neither can the spirits. You gain no good fortune from your actions, yet you persist. You truly have a kind of madness.”

Mozi said, “Suppose you had two ministers. One acts only when you can see him and stops when you cannot; the other acts the same way whether you see him or not. Which one would you value more?”

Wu Ma Zi said, “I would value the one who acts whether I see him or not.”

Mozi said, “Then you, too, value this kind of ‘madness.’”

One of Zixia’s disciples asked Mozi, “Should a gentleman have a state of his own?” Mozi replied, “A gentleman should not confine himself to a single state.” The disciple said, “Even dogs and pigs have their own pens. How can a scholar have no state of his own?” Mozi said, “How pitiful! They speak of Kings Tang and Wen, yet act like dogs and pigs. How pitiful!”

Wuma Zi asked Mozi, “How can a scholar have no state of his own?” Mozi said, “How pitiful! They speak of Kings Tang and Wen, yet act like dogs and pigs. How pitiful!”

Wuma Zi said to Mozi, “To abandon the people of the present and praise the kings of antiquity is like praising dry bones. It is like a craftsman who knows only dead wood and nothing of living wood.”

Mozi replied, “The world has been able to flourish because the way the ancient kings governed transformed it. To praise the ancient kings now is to praise the principles on which the world depends for its flourishing. To withhold praise from what deserves it is to be unbenevolent.”

Mozi continued, “The He Shi jade, the Suihou pearl, and the Three Thorned and Six Unusual treasures are all prized by the feudal lords. Can they make a state prosperous, increase its population, bring order to its laws and government, or secure its peace? They cannot. People value treasures because they bring benefit. The He Shi jade, the Suihou pearl, and the Three Thorned and Six Unusual treasures do not benefit people, so they are not truly the treasures of the world.

“If a state puts righteousness into practice, its population will grow, its laws and government will be brought into order, and the state will be secure. People value treasures because they benefit the people. Righteousness benefits people; therefore, righteousness is the true treasure of the world.”

Gongzi Ye Gao, a senior official of Chu, asked Confucius about the art of governing: “What should someone who is skilled in government do?” Confucius replied, “Someone skilled in governing draws people from afar close and renews what has grown old.”

After hearing this, Mozi said, “Gongzi Ye Gao did not ask the heart of the matter, and Confucius did not answer what he wanted to know. Did Gongzi Ye Gao not already know that governing well means drawing people from afar close and renewing what has grown old? He was asking how, in practice, to achieve this. Confucius did not explain a principle he did not already know, nor tell him what methods to use. So Gongzi Ye Gao’s question went unanswered, and Confucius did not address what he had truly asked.”

Mozi said to Lord Wenyun of Luyang, a fief-holder of Lu, “When a great state attacks a small one, it is like a child playing on a wooden horse. The child can ride it, but doing so takes effort. When a great state attacks a small one, the attacking side’s farmers cannot plow and its women cannot weave; everyone is occupied with warfare. The same is true of the side under attack: its farmers cannot plow and its women cannot weave; everyone is occupied with defense. Thus a great state attacking a small one is like a child riding a wooden horse: it simply wastes people’s labor.”

Mozi said, “If a saying can be put into practice, it should be repeated often. If it can only encourage a certain kind of conduct but cannot actually be carried out, do not keep proclaiming it. To know that something cannot be practiced and still keep talking about it is to waste words.”

Mozi sent Guan Qianche to accompany Gao Shizi to the state of Wei to persuade its ruler. The ruler of Wei granted Gao Shizi a generous stipend and gave him a post at court. Gao Shizi attended court three times in succession and did his utmost to offer counsel, but the ruler never took his advice. So he left Wei for the state of Qi. When he met Mozi, he said, “The ruler of Wei treated me generously out of respect for you, granting me a handsome stipend and arranging a post for me. I did my utmost to offer counsel at three court audiences, but none of my words were put into practice, so I left. I fear the ruler of Wei will think me arrogant.”

Mozi replied, “If leaving is in accordance with right conduct, what does it matter if people call you arrogant? In the past, the Duke of Zhou, Dan, resigned his post as one of the Three Ministers because he opposed Guan Shu, and withdrew to Shanggai. Everyone called him arrogant. Later, people praised his Virtue and spread his reputation, and they have continued to do so to this day. I have heard that one should not alter one’s practice of right conduct to avoid slander or seek praise. If leaving accords with right conduct, what does it matter if people call you arrogant?”

Gao Shizi said, “How could I have left Wei without following right conduct? You once said that when the world is without the Way, people of benevolence and right conduct should not settle comfortably into lavish treatment. The ruler of Wei is without the Way, yet if I still coveted his stipend and rank, I would be pursuing private gain and helping to strengthen another’s power.” Mozi was pleased. He called Ziqinzi over and said, “Listen to this for a moment. I often hear of people abandoning right conduct to pursue stipends. Gao Shizi is the first person I have met who gave up a stipend to pursue right conduct.”

Mozi said, “When someone tells a gentleman of the world that he is poor, he gets angry; when someone tells him he lacks right conduct, he is pleased. Is that not absurd?”

Gong Mengzi said, “The rules handed down by the ancients number only three.” Mozi said, “Who exactly do you mean by ‘the ancients’? How do you know they handed down only three rules? You do not understand what those who came before us did.”

Later, someone turned away from Mozi. Mozi said, “If someone among the younger generation opposes me and leaves me, does that mean I am at fault? I am the one left behind.” Mozi also said, “It is like an army in retreat, with the person left behind demanding a reward.”

Master Gong Meng said, “The gentleman does not devise new methods himself; he simply passes on those that already exist.”

Mozi replied, “That is not so. If worthy people in antiquity had not devised new methods themselves, later generations would have sought recognition and appointments.”

Master Gong Meng again said, “The gentleman does not devise new methods himself; he simply passes on those that already exist.”

Mozi replied, “That is not so. If worthy people in antiquity had never devised new methods, worthy people today would not devise them either. For those of lesser ability, the worthy people of antiquity did not finish things on their behalf. When they had a good idea, they carried it out themselves, hoping that the good deed would be their own. If people today neither commend the innovations of those who came before nor devise anything themselves, they are no different from those who refuse to see things through but are willing only to devise new methods. I believe that worthy people in antiquity devised new methods and brought things to completion, and worthy people today do the same; in this way, good practices can grow ever more numerous.”

Wuma Zi said to Mozi, “I am unlike you. I cannot practice universal love, loving everyone without distinction. I love the people of Zou more than the people of Yue, and the people of Lu more than the people of Zou. I love people from my own home region more than the people of Lu, and my own family more than people from my home region. I love my relatives more than the other members of my family, and myself more than my relatives. I believe this is because they are closer to me. When someone strikes me, I feel pain; when someone strikes another person, I do not feel pain as I would if I were struck myself. Why should I prevent people from harming me, but not prevent them from harming others? So I would rather kill another person to save myself than sacrifice myself for another person’s benefit.”

Mozi asked, “Do you intend to keep your views hidden, or tell them to others?” Wuma Zi replied, “Why should I hide my views? I intend to tell others.”

Mozi said, “Then if one person agrees with you, someone will want to kill you for their own benefit. If ten people agree with you, ten people will want to kill you for their own benefit. If everyone in the world agrees with you, everyone in the world will want to kill you for their own benefit. Even if some people disagree with you, someone will want to kill you because they think you are spreading ominous teachings. If ten people disagree with you, ten people will want to kill you; if everyone in the world disagrees with you, everyone in the world will want to kill you. Whether people agree with you or oppose you, someone may want to kill you. This is what is meant by saying: words invite calamity and ultimately put your own life at risk.”

Mozi continued, “What good will your views do? If expressing them brings no benefit, then you are merely wasting your breath.”

Mozi said to Lord Wen of Luyang, “Suppose there is a man with mutton, beef, and sacrificial meat laid out on his table. Others cut off only a little and mix it with other food, yet he finds it delicious. But when he sees a cake made by someone else, he turns around, steals it, and says, ‘This is food someone left over.’ Is this because he truly lacks food, or because he has a habit of stealing?” Lord Wen of Luyang replied, “He has a habit of stealing.”

Mozi said, “The State of Chu has vast tracts of vacant land lying uncultivated—so much that they could not all be cleared and reclaimed. It also has thousands of fields, more than could possibly all be farmed. Yet when this man sees the cities of Song and Zheng, he turns around and seizes them. Is this any different from stealing someone else’s cake?” Lord Wen of Luyang replied, “It is the same. He certainly has a habit of stealing.”

Mozi said, “Ji Sun Shao and Meng Bochang govern the affairs of Lu. They cannot trust one another, yet they go to the forbidden altar to pray, saying, ‘If only you would make us live in harmony…’ This is like covering one’s own eyes and still hoping to see things at the forbidden altar. Would it not be absurd to say that one could see everything this way?”

Mozi said to Luo Huawu, “I hear that you admire bravery.” Luo Huawu replied, “Yes. Whenever I hear that there is a brave man somewhere, I have to go and kill him.” Mozi said, “There is no one in the world who does not wish to draw near what they like and keep away from what they dislike. Now, when you hear of a brave man, you insist on going to kill him. That is not admiring bravery; it is hating it.”

End of Book Eleven of the Mozi

“Te” is written as “chi” in the Xian Gu edition. The character “yu” is absent from the Xian Gu edition.

Wang Yinzhi holds that “the same; what makes it so need not be the same” should be emended to “the outcome is the same, but what makes it so need not be the same.” This means that different things may produce the same result, though the causes behind that result may differ.

Below the character “you,” Wang Yinzhi adds “suo” on the basis of the following text. He holds that both occurrences of “hai” are corruptions of “zhou”; “shi” should be changed to “qin”; “gu ye” should be reordered as “ye gu” in accordance with the following text; a “bu” should be added before “dai”; and “wei” should be added below “hou.”

Bi Yuan emends “sha” to “ran.” Below “tong,” he adds “lei” based on the preceding text. Wang Niansun adds a “bu” above “ran.” Yu Quping holds that “shi” is superfluous. Wang Yinzhi also points out that five characters are interpolations, and that four other characters are interpolations as well.

As for omissions and emendations, Wang Yinzhi holds that the character “ren” is missing below “ji.” Bi Yuan holds that “zi” should be changed to “bai” to fit the meaning; that “wo” should be changed to “zi” based on the Yiwen Leiju and the Taiping Yulan; and that the two characters “Zimo” are missing above “zi.” Bi Yuan also holds that “ren” should be changed to “you,” with an “yi” missing before it; that “jian” should be changed to “mou”; and that the order of the two characters “ci yu” has been reversed.

Following the Yuhai, the Xian Gu adds the two characters “zhi yi yi” before “bu.”

Mozi said, “Of all the things in the world, nothing is more important than Yi (moral rightness). Suppose someone said to you, ‘I’ll give you a hat and shoes, but you must let me cut off your hands and feet. Would you agree?’ You certainly would not, because a hat and shoes are not as precious as your hands and feet.

“Now suppose someone else said, ‘I’ll give you the whole world, but you must die. Would you agree?’ You certainly would not, because the whole world is not as precious as life. Yet some people kill one another over a single point of argument. This shows that they value Yi more than their own lives. Thus, of all the things in the world, nothing is more important than Yi.”

Mozi was traveling from the state of Lu to the state of Qi when he stopped to visit an old friend. His friend said to him, “Nowadays, no one in the world practices righteousness, yet you exhaust yourself practicing it alone. You would be better off stopping. Your body matters more than righteousness. People even kill one another over a single remark. Doesn’t that show they value righteousness more than their own bodies? So there is nothing in the world more precious than righteousness.”

Mozi was traveling from the state of Lu to the state of Qi again when he stopped to visit an old friend. His friend said to him, “Nowadays, no one in the world practices righteousness, yet you exhaust yourself practicing it alone. You should simply stop.” Mozi replied, “Suppose there were a man with ten sons. One worked the fields while the other nine sat idle. The one who worked the fields would have no choice but to work harder. Why? Because there are many mouths to feed and few people farming. Nowadays, no one in the world practices righteousness. Shouldn’t you be urging me to work harder at it? Why instead urge me to stop?”

Mozi traveled south to the state of Chu and sought an audience with King Xianhui of Chu. The king declined, citing his old age, and sent Mu He to receive Mozi. Mozi explained his arguments to Mu He. Mu He found them entirely convincing and said to him, “Your words are indeed very good. But the king is the ruler of the world. I fear he may think this is something for people of low status to do and refuse to adopt it.”

Mozi said, “If something works, it should be adopted. Take medicinal herbs, for example. If the Son of Heaven takes them to cure an illness, would he refuse them because they are only herbs? Farmers pay taxes to the nobles, who use these offerings of food and wine to make sacrifices to the Lord on High and the spirits. Would they refuse to partake of them because the offerings come from lowly farmers? So even people of low status can be likened to farmers or medicinal herbs. Are they really worth less than a medicinal herb?

“Besides, you have heard the story of King Tang of Shang, haven’t you? Once, King Tang was going to meet Yi Yin and told a man named Peng’s son to drive his carriage. On the way, Peng’s son asked, ‘Where are you going?’ King Tang replied, ‘To meet Yi Yin.’ Peng’s son said, ‘Yi Yin is only a man of low status. If you want to see him, just send someone to summon him and question him. He would consider that a favor.’ King Tang said, ‘You cannot understand this. If there were a medicine that could make my hearing sharper and my sight clearer, I would gladly make myself take it. In governing my state, Yi Yin is like a good physician and good medicine. If you keep me from meeting Yi Yin, you do not want me to improve.’ So King Tang dismissed Peng’s son and no longer let him drive the carriage. That was the right thing to do.”

Mozi said: Whatever people say or do, if it benefits Heaven, the spirits, and the people, they should pursue it. Whatever people say or do, if it harms Heaven, the spirits, and the people, they should abandon it. Whatever people say or do, if it accords with the conduct of the sage kings of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties—Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, King Wen, and King Wu—they should pursue it. If it accords with the conduct of the tyrants of those dynasties—Jie, Zhou, King You of Zhou, and King Li of Zhou—they should abandon it.

Mozi said: Practices handed down from ancient times should be followed if they can guide one’s conduct. If they cannot guide one’s conduct, they should not be followed. To know that a practice cannot guide conduct yet still insist on it is merely empty talk.

Mozi said: One must eliminate six kinds of failings. When silent, reflect; when speaking, teach; when acting, get things done. Let the sage kings of the Three Dynasties guide your words and conduct, and hold fast to these principles: only then can you become a sage. One must also set aside the likes and dislikes of joy, anger, pleasure, sorrow, and affection, and act in accordance with benevolence and righteousness. Use your hands, feet, mouth, nose, and ears to do what is right, and you can become a sage.

Mozi said to his disciples: If you wish to practice righteousness but cannot manage it, do not reject the way of righteousness. This is like a carpenter who wants to cut wood but does not know how; that is no reason to throw away the carpenter’s ink line.

Mozi said: A gentleman in the world may be asked to supervise a small office and decline because he cannot do the job. Yet when asked to serve as the prime minister of a state, he accepts, even though he clearly cannot do it. Is this not a contradiction?

Mozi said, “Ask a blind person: ‘Large objects are white, and black things are black.’ Even someone with good eyesight could not put this more clearly. But if white and black things are mixed together and the blind person is asked to pick them out, he cannot tell them apart. So I say that the blind do not know white and black not because they do not know their names, but because they cannot distinguish between them.

“Today, gentlemen throughout the world all call themselves benevolent. Even the Great Yu and Tang of Shang could not make this name more fitting. But if benevolence and its opposite were mixed together and the gentlemen of the world were asked to choose between them, they too would be unable to tell them apart. So I say that the gentlemen of the world do not understand benevolence not because they do not know the name ‘benevolence,’ but because they cannot recognize and choose what is truly benevolent.”

Mozi said, “Scholars are less careful in their conduct and use of themselves than merchants are when using a piece of cloth. A merchant cutting a piece of cloth would not dare join or cut it carelessly, but would always choose good-quality cloth. Scholars do not act this way in how they use themselves: they simply do whatever they feel like doing. If the consequences are serious, they are punished; if less serious, they are slandered and humiliated. Scholars are less careful in their conduct than merchants are when using a piece of cloth.”

Mozi said, “Gentlemen in the world hope to succeed in their practice of righteousness, yet they become angry when others help them cultivate themselves. This is like hoping a wall will be built, yet getting angry at the people helping to build it. Is that not contradictory?”

Mozi said, “The sage kings of antiquity hoped to pass down their Dao…”

Mozi said: “The sage kings of antiquity wanted to pass their teachings on to later generations. So they wrote them on bamboo slips and silk, carved them on metal and stone, and left them to their descendants, hoping that those who came after would follow their example. Today, to hear the teachings left by the former kings and then fail to put them into practice is to abandon their legacy.

“Mozi traveled south to the state of Wei, with many books loaded onto his carriage. When Xian Tangzi saw this, he was puzzled and said, ‘I heard our teacher tell Gongsang Guo that it is enough simply to judge whether things are right or wrong. Why, then, does the teacher have so many books on his carriage?’

“Mozi replied: ‘In the past, the Duke of Zhou, Dan, read a hundred texts in the morning and received ten scholars in the evening. As a result, he assisted the Son of Heaven in governing the state, and his cultivation and achievements have been passed down to this day. I have neither assisted a ruler in handling affairs of state above me nor made a living by farming below me. How could I dare neglect my studies? I have heard that things aimed at the same goal can sometimes still go wrong, and people differ in what they hear and how they understand it. That is why I read so widely. Gongsang Guo is quick-witted and often probes into matters with great subtlety. He has already grasped the essentials of things directed toward the same goal, so I need not teach him through reading. Why, then, should you find this strange?’

“Mozi said to Gongsang Huanzi: ‘Wei is a small state, caught between Qi and Jin, like a poor household living next door to a rich one. If the poor household imitates the rich in fine food and clothing and lavish spending, it will soon be ruined. These days, Jianzi’s household has hundreds of splendidly decorated carriages, hundreds of horses fed on beans and millet, and hundreds of women dressed in brocade and fine silk. If I saved the money spent on decorating carriages and horses and making brocade clothes, and used it to support scholars, I could surely support more than a thousand of them. If trouble came, which arrangement would be safer: placing a hundred people in front and several hundred behind, with several hundred women lined up in front and behind, or supporting scholars? I believe supporting scholars would be safer.’”

Mozi once held office in the state of Wei. Later, a man he had appointed went there and then returned. Mozi asked, “Why have you come back?” The man replied, “Someone promised me a thousand pen—an ancient unit of measure whose precise equivalent is unknown—but gave me only five hundred, so I left.” Mozi said, “You left because they gave you five hundred? If they had given you more than a thousand, would you still have left?” The man replied, “No.” Mozi said, “Then you did not leave because the other person broke their word, but because you thought the amount was too small.”

Mozi said, “The gentlemen of the world treat people who uphold the Way worse than they treat people carrying a load of grain. Suppose someone carrying grain rests by the roadside and, when he tries to get up, cannot. If a gentleman sees him, he will help him to his feet, regardless of whether the person is young or old, noble or lowly. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. Yet when someone upholds the Way and follows the teachings of the former kings to advise a gentleman, even if the gentleman disagrees with his views, the adviser continues to act in accordance with the Way, and the gentleman instead joins in slandering him. This shows that the gentlemen of the world treat people who uphold the Way worse than they treat people carrying a load of grain.”

Mozi said, “When merchants travel from place to place to trade, they go wherever they see a chance to make a profit. Even when there are barriers at checkpoints and ferries along the way, and the danger of bandits, they still go. Yet today, scholars sit and discuss principles of right, facing neither barriers nor bandits. They regard putting these principles into practice as something they could do, and their numbers are beyond counting, but in reality they do not act on them. This shows that, when weighing what is advantageous, scholars are less astute than merchants.

Mozi was traveling north to the state of Qi when he met someone who practiced divination and chose auspicious days. The man said, ‘Today the Lord on High will kill a black dragon in the north. Your complexion is dark, Master, so it is not suitable for you to travel north.’ Mozi ignored him and continued north. Later, on his way back, he encountered misfortune. The diviner said, ‘I told you long ago that it was unsuitable for you to travel north.’

Mozi replied, ‘Does this mean that people from the south cannot go north, or people from the north cannot go south? Some people have dark skin and others light skin; does that mean none of them may travel? Besides, according to the directions assigned to the Heavenly Stems, on the days Jia and Yi the Lord on High kills a green dragon in the east; on Bing and Ding, a red dragon in the south; on Geng and Xin, a white dragon in the west; and on Ren and Gui, a black dragon in the north. If people followed your advice, everyone in the east, south, west, and north would be forbidden to travel. That would confine people to their own regions and leave the world empty. Your teaching cannot be adopted.’

Mozi said, ‘My words are already sufficient to guide action. To discard useful teachings and turn instead to idle speculation is like abandoning the harvest and clinging only to the grain. To use your own words to refute mine is like throwing eggs at a stone: throw every egg in the world at it, and the stone will remain as it was, unharmed.’

Gong Meng, Chapter 48

Gong Mengzi said to Mozi, “A gentleman makes himself upright and waits for others to ask him. Only when they ask does he answer; if they do not ask, he says nothing. He is like a bell: it rings when struck and stays silent when it is not.”

Mozi said, “There are three points in what you have said. You understand only one of them and do not yet grasp what it truly means. Suppose a powerful person tyrannizes the state at will. If a gentleman steps forward to remonstrate, he will be called disobedient; if he asks someone close to the ruler to pass on his remonstrance, he will be accused of gossiping. This is the predicament a gentleman faces.

“If a powerful person’s policies will bring the state to ruin, like a crossbow poised to fire, a gentleman must remonstrate. This benefits the powerful person, so he must speak even if no one strikes the bell.

“If a powerful person acts unjustly, and even if he obtains ingenious methods of governing to use in state affairs, those methods will bring the state to ruin, like a crossbow poised to fire. A gentleman must remonstrate. Such counsel benefits the powerful person, so he must speak even if no one strikes the bell.

“If a powerful person acts unjustly and obtains brilliant military plans for attacking an innocent state, then, once the ruler adopts them, he will impose harsh taxes and seize wealth in order to expand his territory. The expedition will end in disgrace. The state under attack will gain nothing, and the attacking state will gain nothing either; both will suffer losses. In such a case, a gentleman must speak even if no one strikes the bell.

“You say that a gentleman makes himself upright and waits for others to ask; he speaks only when asked and stays silent otherwise, like a bell that rings only when struck. But no one has struck you, and yet you have spoken first. Is this not what you call ‘ringing without being struck’? By your own argument, are you not failing to be a gentleman?”

Gong Mengzi said to Mozi, “Who could fail to recognize a truly good person? A piece of fine jade does not lose its luster just because it is kept out of sight. And even if a beautiful woman never goes out, people will still seek her out. But if she goes into the street to boast of herself, no one will want to approach her. You are always pursuing others to urge them on. Why put yourself to so much trouble?”

Mozi said, “The world is in disorder, and many people seek out beautiful women, so even if a beautiful woman never goes out, someone will look for her. But few people seek out good people. If you do not make an effort to urge others on, they will never learn of the good Way.

“Besides, suppose two people are both skilled in astrology. One goes out to cast horoscopes for others, while the other stays at home and never comes out. Which one puts his skill to greater use?” Gong Mengzi replied, “The one who goes out to cast horoscopes for others.” Mozi said, “The same is true of benevolence and righteousness. Those who go out to persuade others and promote benevolence and righteousness do more good. Why not go out and persuade others?”

Gongmengzi, wearing a zhangfu (an ancient style of cap) and a Confucian robe, came to visit Mozi. He asked, “Should a gentleman put on suitable clothes before going to do something, or do the work first and put on the clothes afterward?” Mozi replied, “A person’s conduct does not depend on their clothes.”

Gongmengzi asked, “How do you know this is so?” Mozi said, “In the past, Duke Huan of Qi wore a tall crown and a broad sash, carried a gold sword and held a wooden shield. He governed the state in this attire, and the state was well governed. Duke Wen of Jin wore coarse cloth, a sheepskin cloak, and a leather belt with a sword. He governed the state, and it too was well governed. King Zhuang of Chu wore a bright hat decorated with ribbons and crimson robes; he governed the state, and it was likewise well governed. King Goujian of Yue cropped his hair short and tattooed patterns on his body; he governed the state, and the state was well governed. These four rulers dressed differently, yet each governed the state well. From this, I, Mo Di, know that a person’s conduct does not depend on their clothes.”

Gongmengzi said, “Well said. I have heard that one should not stop doing good once one has begun. Please allow me to take off this hu garment (a type of clothing), put on a zhangfu, and come to visit you again. Would that be acceptable?” Mozi said, “You can see me now. If you insist on taking off the hu and putting on a zhangfu before you will come to see me, that would show that your conduct really does depend on your clothes.”

Gongmengzi said, “A gentleman must follow the words and clothing of the ancients in order to practice benevolence.” Mozi said, “In the past, Fei Zhong, a minister of King Zhou of Shang, was among the most cruel people under Heaven, while Jizi and Weizi were among its sages. They all spoke the same language, yet their conduct differed: some were benevolent and others were not. The Duke of Zhou was a sage under Heaven, while Guan Shu was cruel. They wore the same clothes, yet their conduct still differed: one was benevolent and the other was not. This shows that benevolence does not depend on the clothing or words of the ancients. Besides, you imitate the Zhou dynasty but not the Xia dynasty; the ‘ancient’ you speak of does not truly encompass antiquity.”

Gong Mengzi said to Mozi, “In the past, sage kings assigned official positions by appointing the wisest person as Son of Heaven, with the next most capable serving as ministers and high officials. Confucius today understands the Odes and the Documents, is well versed in ritual and music, and has broad knowledge of all things. If Confucius had lived in the age of the sage kings, shouldn’t he have been made Son of Heaven?”

Mozi said, “A truly wise person must honor Heaven, serve the spirits, care for the people, and use resources sparingly. Only someone who does all these things can be called wise. You say that Confucius understands the Odes and the Documents, is well versed in ritual and music, and knows about all things, and on that basis conclude that he could be Son of Heaven. That is like counting someone’s teeth and then declaring him wealthy.”

Gong Mengzi said, “Poverty and wealth, long life and early death are all determined by Heaven’s mandate; they cannot be increased or diminished. Yet you also say that a gentleman must study.”

Mozi said, “To teach people to study while insisting that everything is fixed by fate is like telling someone to care for his hair while also telling him to take off his hat.”

Gong Mengzi said to Mozi, “There are acts that accord with the Way and acts that do not, but there are no auspicious or inauspicious events.”

Mozi said, “The sage kings of antiquity all believed that the spirits see clearly and can bring misfortune or bestow blessings. They believed in auspicious and inauspicious signs, and so they governed well and their states remained secure. From the time of Jie of Xia and Zhou of Shang onward, rulers believed that the spirits did not see clearly and could neither bring misfortune nor bestow blessings. They did not believe in auspicious or inauspicious events, and so political affairs fell into disorder and their states faced danger. That is why the texts of the former kings also say: ‘If you are so arrogant, disaster will come upon you.’ This means that wrongdoing is punished and good deeds are rewarded.”

Mozi said to Gongsun Ziming: “According to the mourning rites, when a ruler, one’s parents, one’s wife, or a young son dies, one wears mourning for three years. For an uncle or a brother, one mourns for a year; for a member of one’s clan, for five months. For an aunt, sister, maternal uncle, or nephew, the mourning period also lasts several months, with the length varying by relation. Someone might ask: if that is so, should we simply not observe mourning? Yet people still recite the three hundred poems of the Classic of Poetry, set them to string music, sing them, and dance to them. If we truly observe all these mourning periods, when will gentlemen have time to attend to government, or ordinary people time to work?

“Gongsun Ziming replied: ‘When the state is in turmoil, govern it; once it is well governed, then make music and establish the rites. When the state is at peace, devote yourselves to work; once it is prosperous, then make music and establish the rites.’

“Mozi said: ‘Good government is maintained by governing continually. If governing stops, the state cannot remain at peace. The state’s prosperity is built up through the people’s labor; if work stops, its prosperity will disappear. So even when a state is already well governed, people must keep striving and not be satisfied with the status quo. You say that music and the rites should be established only once the state is at peace, and that it should be governed only when it is in turmoil. This is like beginning to dig a well only after choking, or seeking a doctor only after someone has died: it is already too late. The tyrants Jie, Zhou, Youwang, and Liwang of the ancient Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties indulged in music and ignored the people. In the end, they suffered punishment themselves, and their states lay in ruins. They all followed this path.’

“Gongsun Ziming said, on the one hand, that there are no ghosts or spirits, and, on the other, that gentlemen must learn the rites of sacrifice. Mozi said: ‘To believe there are no ghosts or spirits and yet learn the rites of sacrifice is like learning how to host guests when there are no guests, or weaving a fishing net when there are no fish.’”

Gongmengzi said to Mozi, “You think observing mourning for three years is wrong, so you must also think observing mourning for three days is wrong.” Mozi replied, “Because mourning for three years does not accord with mourning for three days, you conclude that mourning for three days is wrong too. That is like insisting that ‘one who reaches the utmost is not respectful.’”

Here, “mourning for three years” and “mourning for three days” refer to the periods of mourning observed after a parent’s death. “The utmost” means reaching the furthest extreme; Mozi uses this phrase to refute Gongmengzi’s inference.

Gong Mengzi asked Mozi, “If someone recognizes that another person is more worthy than himself, can he be called wise?”

Mozi replied, “Even a foolish person may have some strength greater than another’s. Does that mean he can be called wise?”

Gong Mengzi said, “People observe mourning for three years because they cherish their parents.”

Mozi said, “An infant knows only to cling to its parents. Even when they are no longer nearby, the infant keeps crying. Why? Because it is utterly ignorant. Is the wisdom of the Confucians really greater than an infant’s?”

Mozi then asked a Confucian, “Why do you perform music?” The Confucian replied, “Music is performed for enjoyment.” Mozi said, “You have not answered my question. If I asked why people build houses, a Confucian would say: to keep out the cold in winter and the heat in summer, and to distinguish the quarters of men and women. That would explain why houses are built. But when I ask why music is performed, you say, ‘Music is performed for enjoyment.’ That is like asking why people build houses and answering, ‘Houses are built in order to build houses.’”

Mozi said to Chengzi, “There are four Confucian practices that are enough to bring ruin upon the world. First, the Confucians claim that Heaven’s will is unclear and the spirits are ineffective, so neither Heaven nor the spirits will take pleasure in what people do. This is enough to bring ruin upon the world. Second, they bury the dead lavishly and mourn for a long time: the coffins are heavy, the burial goods abundant, and the funeral procession is like a household moving to a new home. They observe mourning for three years, weeping without end; they need someone to help them rise, lean on mourning staffs to walk, and can neither hear nor see clearly. This is enough to damage the people’s spirit. Third, they play zithers, sing, beat drums, dance, and devote themselves to studying music. This is enough to bring ruin upon the world. Fourth, they hold that people’s fates are fixed in advance, that poverty and wealth, long life and early death, good order and disorder, safety and danger are all predetermined and cannot be changed. If those in high positions believe this, they will not diligently govern public affairs; if those in low positions believe it, they will not work hard. This is enough to bring ruin upon the world.”

Chengzi said, “Sir, you have slandered the Confucians far too harshly.”

Mozi said, “If the Confucians did not actually follow these four practices, but I claimed that they did, that would be slander. But they really do follow these practices. When I describe them, I am not slandering them; I am stating the facts.”

Chengzi had no reply. He rose and left. Mozi said, “If you have lost your way, come back.” Chengzi then returned and sat down again. He said, “Some of what you said just now is worth considering. If we follow your reasoning, does that mean we should neither praise Yu nor condemn Jie and Zhou?”

Mozi said, “That is not so. To answer someone, you must respond to what they have said and to the matter under discussion; that is what it means to be quick-witted. If someone attacks fiercely, I rebut fiercely; if they attack mildly, I respond mildly. To ignore what the other person has said and simply apply a fixed set of arguments is like taking a chariot pole to swat a flying moth: it makes no sense at all.”

When Mozi was debating Chengzi, he quoted Confucius. Chengzi asked, “You are not a Confucian. Why quote Confucius?” Mozi replied, “What Confucius said accords with reason and cannot simply be changed. When crows sense that heat is coming, they fly to higher places; when fish sense that drought is coming, they swim to lower places. At such a time, even if Yu the Great or Tang of Shang were to advise them, they could not change their choice. Crows and fish may be called foolish, yet Yu the Great and Tang of Shang would still follow their nature. Can I not quote Confucius?”

One of Mozi’s students asked him, “Master, do you believe that ghosts and spirits are perceptive and can bring calamity upon people?” Mozi replied, “…”

One of Mozi’s students was strong and quick-witted, and wanted to study with him. Mozi said, “Come and study first. Later, I will arrange an official post for you.” Encouraged by these kind words, the man began to study. A year later, he asked Mozi to arrange a post for him. Mozi said, “I cannot give you an official post. Have you heard the story of the state of Lu? There were five brothers in Lu. After their father died, the eldest loved drinking and refused to bury him. His four younger brothers said to him, ‘If you bury our father, we will buy you wine.’ They persuaded him to bury their father with these kind words. After the burial, the eldest asked his four brothers for wine. They said, ‘We never promised to give you wine. You buried your own father, and we buried our own father. Is it only our father who needed to be buried? If you had not buried him, people would have laughed at you, so we urged you to do it. Now you practice righteousness, and we practice righteousness too. Are we the only ones who ought to practice righteousness? If you did not study, people would have laughed at you, so we urged you to study.’”

Someone came to study under Mozi. Mozi asked him, “Why aren’t you studying?” The man replied, “No one in my clan studies.”

Mozi said, “That is no reason. If someone likes beautiful things, would he stop liking them just because no one in his clan does? If someone desires wealth and status, would he stop pursuing them just because no one in his clan does? Even when people who admire beauty or seek wealth and status see others refusing to study, they still push themselves to do it. Those who do good are blessed by the spirits; those who do evil are visited with calamity. I have followed you for a long time, yet I have received no blessing. I wonder whether something you have said is mistaken, or whether the spirits are not truly discerning. Why have I received no blessing?”

Mozi said, “Even if you have received no blessing, how does that prove that what I say is mistaken? And how does it prove that the spirits are not discerning? Have you heard of the punishment for concealing criminals?” The man replied, “No.” Mozi said, “Suppose someone had ten sons. Could you praise them all your life without failing to praise even one of them?” The man said, “No.” Mozi asked again, “Suppose someone had a hundred sons. Could you praise them all your life without leaving any of them unpraised?” The man said, “No.” Mozi said, “Concealing even one criminal is a crime. Now you conceal so many criminals—your guilt is naturally much greater. What blessing could you expect?”

When Mozi was gravely ill, Di Bi came to visit him and said, “You believe that the spirits are discerning and can bring calamity or grant blessings, rewarding the good and punishing the wicked. Now, Master…”

When Mozi was ill, Diena came to ask him, “You believe that ghosts and spirits are clear-sighted and can bring misfortune or grant blessings, rewarding the good and punishing those who do wrong. Now you are a sage, so why are you ill? Is there something wrong in your words or actions, or are ghosts and spirits not clear-sighted after all?”

Mozi replied, “Even though I am ill, how can you conclude from that that ghosts and spirits are not clear-sighted? People fall ill for many reasons. Some become ill because of changes in heat and cold; others because of exhaustion and hardship. There are hundreds of causes of illness, and falling ill is only one among them. How could illness have no cause? As for right conduct, it is an important standard for all under Heaven. Why, simply on seeing another person, must one force oneself to live up to it?”

Several disciples asked Mozi for permission to study archery while continuing their studies with him. Mozi said, “No. A wise person first considers their abilities, then does what lies within their power. Even an outstanding person of the state, while helping others in battle, may not be able to attend to anything else. You are not such men. How could you complete your studies and also become skilled at archery?”

Several disciples then asked Mozi, “Gaozi says that someone who speaks of right conduct but behaves badly would be better off not speaking of right conduct at all.”

Mozi said, “No. If others quote my words in order to criticize my actions, that is better than no one mentioning my words at all. Suppose someone as lacking in benevolence as I, Di, honors Heaven, serves the spirits, and cares for others. Even so, acting in this way is better than doing nothing. Now Gaozi is eloquent and speaks of benevolence and right conduct, yet he does not criticize my actions. If someone criticizes my words and actions, that is better than no one criticizing them.”

A disciple asked, “Is Gaozi more capable than you of practicing benevolence?”

Mozi said, “Not necessarily. Gaozi’s practice of benevolence is like a lame person insisting that his legs are long, or calling a narrow place wide. Such a way of doing things cannot last.”

Gaozi said to Mozi, “I govern the state and handle its affairs.”

Mozi said, “Governing affairs means that what you say, you must also do. Now you speak, but do not act. This means you cannot govern yourself. If you cannot manage yourself, how can you govern the state? You should leave now; you have already thrown yourself into disorder.”

1. Bi Yuan held that the order of the three characters “Qi ji shi” had been reversed.

2. Xian Gu writes “jun ruo” as “ruo jun.”

3. On the basis of the preceding sentence, Wang Niansun held that one or two characters had been omitted before “yi qian xing er chang zhi.”

4. Yu Quyuan held that the order of the two characters “zhe san” had been reversed.

5. On the basis of Qunshu Zhiyao, Wang Niansun held that the two characters “yi quan” had been omitted before “yi tan.”

6. Bi Yuan emended “mo” to “hei.”

7. Xian Gu writes “shi” as “shi”; this emendation is correct.

8. An earlier edition of Xian Gu also has the character “ren” before “yu.”

9. On the basis of Taiping Yulan, Bi Yuan changed “ye” to “zhi.”

10. Xian Gu writes “zhi” as “ye.”

11. Xian Gu writes “cai” as “ze”; this emendation is correct.

12. On the basis of Shiji Jijie: “Rizhe Lie Zhuan” and Shilei Fu, Bi Yuan inserted the five characters “zhi zi shui bu sui” before “er.” In addition, for “wei” in “er fan wei,” Xian Gu has “yan.”

13. Wang Niansun held that “jing yi” should read “jing,” as it does later in the text.

14. On the basis of the following passage, Wang Niansun held that “xing” should be emended to “shi.”

15. Based on the meaning of the passage, Bi Yuan emended “yi” to “dai.”

16. Xian Gu writes “hu” as “hu,” as it does later in the text.

17. Xian Gu writes “zhuan” as “bo,” as it does later in the text.

18. Xian Gu reverses the order of the two characters “yong jie.”

Duke Lu said to Mozi, “I fear that the state of Qi will attack Lu. Is there a way to save us?” Mozi replied, “There is. In the past, the sage kings of the three dynasties—Xia, Shang, and Zhou…” At this point, the text contains the character zhi. Bi Yuan thought it should be corrected to zhi, as in the word zhiti (“limbs and body”).

The ruler of Lu said to Mozi, “I fear that Qi will attack our state. Is there any way to save us?” Mozi replied, “There is. In the past, the sage kings of the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties—Yu, Tang, King Wen, and King Wu—each began as a lord with a fief of only a hundred li. They proclaimed loyalty and practiced what was right, and so they gained all under Heaven. The tyrants of those three dynasties—Jie, Zhou, King You of Zhou, and King Li of Zhou—harbored resentment and acted with cruelty, and so they lost all under Heaven.

“I hope Your Majesty will honor Heaven above and serve the spirits, care for the people below and work for their benefit; prepare ample gifts, speak humbly, and sincerely cultivate ties with the neighboring lords through gifts and courteous words. Have everyone in the state, from top to bottom, do their utmost to serve Qi. Perhaps this will avert the calamity. Beyond that, I have no other way.” Here, “gifts of hides and silk” refers to offerings such as leather and silk fabrics, while “humble words” means speaking deferentially in dealings with others.

Qi was about to attack Lu. Mozi said to Xiang Ziniu, “Attacking Lu would be a grave mistake for Qi. In the past, the King of Wu marched east to attack Yue and trapped the King of Yue at Kuaiji. He marched west to attack Chu and escorted King Zhao of Chu to Sui. He marched north to attack Qi, captured the crown prince of Qi, and took him back to Wu. The feudal lords then retaliated against Wu, and the people were worn down by the hardships of war. Wu gained nothing from these campaigns, and in the end its territory lay desolate and its king was killed. In the past, Zhi Bo attacked the Fan and Zhonghang clans and annexed three territories in Jin. This too brought retaliation from the feudal lords, while the people suffered the hardships of war and gained nothing. The result was the same: the state lay desolate, and Zhi Bo was killed. These are lessons from the past. When a great state attacks a small one, it harms both sides, and the consequences of its wrongdoing will eventually fall back on its own state.”

Mozi went to see the King of Qi and said, “Suppose there is a knife here. Try cutting someone’s head with it: if it severs the head in a single stroke, can we call it sharp?” The king said, “Sharp.” Mozi asked again, “If you use it to cut people’s heads many times, and each time it severs the head in a single stroke, can we still call it sharp?” The king said, “Yes.” Mozi said, “The knife is indeed sharp. But who must bear the calamity it brings?” The king said, “The knife earns a reputation for sharpness, while the person who tests it bears the calamity.” Mozi said, “When a state is annexed, an army destroyed, and the people harmed, who must bear the calamity that follows?” The king bowed his head, then raised it and considered the question. “I must bear that calamity,” he said.

Lord Wen of Luyang was preparing to attack Zheng. When Mozi heard of it, he went to dissuade him, saying, “Suppose a large city within Lu attacks a small city, or a wealthy household attacks a poor one, killing their people and seizing their oxen, horses, dogs, pigs, cloth, silk, and grain…”

Lord Wen of Luyang was preparing to attack Zheng. When Mozi, founder of the Mohist school, heard this, he went to dissuade him. “Suppose that within the borders of Lu, a large city attacked a small one, or a powerful clan attacked a smaller clan, killing the people and seizing their cattle, horses, pigs, dogs, cloth, food, and other possessions. What would you think of such conduct?”

Lord Wen of Luyang replied, “Everyone within the borders of Lu is my subject. If a large city attacked a small one, or a powerful clan plundered a smaller clan’s property, I would punish them severely.”

Mozi said, “Heaven rules the whole world just as you rule the people within the borders of Lu. Now you are sending troops to attack Zheng. Will Heaven not punish you for this?”

Lord Wen of Luyang said, “Why do you want to stop me from attacking Zheng? My attack follows Heaven’s will. For three generations, the people of Zheng have killed their own fathers. Heaven has punished them for this, leaving them in turmoil for three years. I am helping Heaven punish them.”

Mozi said, “The people of Zheng have killed their fathers for three generations, and Heaven has already punished them, leaving them in turmoil for three years. Heaven’s punishment has been sufficient. Now you are sending troops to attack Zheng as well, and claim that you are following Heaven’s will. This is like a son behaving wildly and refusing to mend his ways, so his father beats him with a whip. Then a neighbor picks up a stick and beats him too, saying, ‘I’m doing this in accordance with his father’s wishes.’ Isn’t that absurd?”

Mozi added, “Attacking a neighboring state, killing its people, and taking their possessions is like seeing someone else’s child behave wildly and refuse to mend his ways, then picking up a stick to beat him and claiming to be acting in accordance with the child’s father’s wishes. How could that make sense?”

Mozi said to Lord Wenyun of Luyang, “When a neighboring state is attacked, its people are killed, and its cattle, horses, grain, and property are seized, these deeds are then written on bamboo and silk, carved into bronze and stone, and cast as inscriptions on bells and ritual vessels, to be passed down to later generations. They say, ‘May what we have gained grow ever greater.’ Today, even a person of low status may attack a neighbor’s household, kill its people, and seize its dogs, pigs, grain, and clothing. He too records the deed on bamboo and silk, carves it on mats and ritual vessels, and leaves it to later generations, saying, ‘May what I have gained grow ever greater.’ Is this acceptable?”

Lord Wenyun replied, “Only after hearing your words do I understand that what people in the world call acceptable is not necessarily reasonable.”

Mozi then said to Lord Wenyun, “The gentlemen of the world notice only small matters and fail to see great ones. If someone steals a dog or a pig, people call him inhumane. But if someone seizes a state or a city, they call him righteous. It is like seeing something white up close and calling it white, but seeing the same white thing from far away and calling it black. This is what I mean when I say that the gentlemen of the world understand small matters but not great ones.”

Lord Wenyun said to Mozi, “In the south of Chu there is a cannibal kingdom called Qiao. When people there have a firstborn son, they kill and eat him, saying this will benefit the younger brother. If the child grows up handsome, they present him to the ruler. If the ruler is pleased, he rewards the child’s father. Is this custom not repugnant?”

Mozi replied, “The customs of the Central States are much the same. To kill another person’s father and reward his son—how is that different from eating one’s own son and then rewarding the child’s father? If we do not take benevolence and righteousness as our standards, on what grounds can we condemn the Yi people for eating their own children?”

A craftsman who made jade discs for the ruler of Lu died, and the ruler ordered that people be killed and buried with him. The people of Lu praised this practice and continued it. When Mozi heard of it, he said, “Killing people to accompany the dead in burial goes against the wishes of the deceased. To praise and continue such a practice is like sending the dead man’s head out for people to look at in the hope of winning their submission.”

Lord Wenyun of Lu said to Mozi, “Someone told me that a loyal minister is one who bows when told to bow, raises his head when told to raise it, falls silent when told to stop, and answers when called. Can such a person be called a loyal minister?”

Mozi replied, “Bowing when told to bow and raising his head when told to raise it is like a shadow; falling silent when told to stop and answering when called is like an echo. What can a ruler gain from a shadow or an echo? The loyal minister I, Mo Di, speak of tactfully remonstrates when the ruler does wrong, and reports and commends the ruler’s good conduct. He does not dare conceal the ruler’s faults, nor claim good deeds for himself or his subordinates. Instead, he gives the credit for what is good to the ruler and takes the blame upon himself. He lets the ruler enjoy peace and takes the worry upon himself. This is what I mean by a loyal minister.”

The ruler of Lu asked Mozi, “I have two sons. One loves to study; the other likes to give his possessions to others. Which should I appoint as heir?”

Mozi said, “There is not enough to judge yet. Perhaps they act as they do in order to gain a reward. A frugal person’s respectful conduct is not necessarily meant to win a gift; a mantis catches insects without compassion. I hope the ruler will judge them by considering their intentions together with the actual results of their conduct.”

A man from Lu sent his son to study under Mozi. Later, the son died in battle, and his father blamed Mozi. Mozi said, “You wanted your son to study, and now he has completed his learning. He went to the battlefield and died, yet you resent me for it…”

A man from the state of Lu had his son study under Mozi. Later, his son died on the battlefield, and the man blamed Mozi. Mozi said, “You originally wanted your son to study. Now he has learned what he was taught, yet he died in battle, and you are angry. This is like wanting a field to grow crops, then despising them once they have grown. Wouldn’t that make all your efforts pointless?”

In the southern borderlands of Lu, there was a man named Wu Lü who made pottery in winter and farmed in summer. He believed he could measure up to Shun. When Mozi heard of him, he went to meet him. Wu Lü said to Mozi, “The Way of right conduct is simply the Way of right conduct. Why make a point of explaining it?” Mozi asked, “Does the Way of right conduct you speak of also include working with your own hands, helping others, and sharing your possessions when you have them?” Wu Lü said, “It does.”

Mozi said, “I have thought about this: if I grew all the grain needed to feed everyone under Heaven, even if I farmed as much as I could, and divided it equally among all the people, each person would receive less than a sheng of millet. Even if everyone really did receive a sheng, it plainly would not be enough to feed all those going hungry under Heaven. If I wove cloth for everyone to wear, even if I wove as much as I could and divided it equally among everyone, each person would receive less than a chi of cloth. Even if everyone really did receive a chi, it plainly would not be enough to keep all those suffering from the cold under Heaven warm.

“If I put on armor, took up weapons, and went to rescue the feudal lords from danger, even if I gave it everything I had, I would still be only one person fighting. One person alone could plainly not withstand three armies. So instead of relying only on speaking about the Way of the former kings, we should seek out its underlying principles, understand the words of the sages, and examine their teachings carefully. Then we can urge the dukes, nobles, and great officials above, and the common people and scholars below, to follow them. If the dukes, nobles, and great officials are willing to adopt them…”