《卷九 - Book 9》

33

卷九:

非樂中

Book 9:

Condemnation of Music II

34

卷九:

非樂下

Book 9:

Condemnation of Music III

《非命上 - Anti-Fatalism I》

1

非命上:

子墨子言曰：“古者王公大人，為政國家者，皆欲國家之富，人民之眾，刑政之治。然而不得富而得貧，不得眾而得寡，不得治而得亂，則是本失其所欲，得其所惡，是故何也？”子墨子言曰：“執有命者以集於民閒者眾。執有命者之言曰：‘命富則富，命貧則貧；命眾則眾，命寡則寡；命治則治，命亂則亂；命壽則壽，命夭則夭；命雖強勁，何益哉？’以上說王公大人，下以駔百姓之從事，故執有命者不仁。故當執有命者之言，不可不明辨。”

Anti-Fatalism I:

Mozi said: At present, in governing the states the rulers all desire to have their countries wealthy, their population large, and their administration orderly. But instead of wealth they obtain poverty, instead of an increase they obtain a decrease in population, instead of order they obtain chaos; i.e. they lose what they like but obtain what they dislike. What is the reason for this? Mozi said: It is due to the large number of fatalists among the people. The fatalists say: "When fate decrees that a man shall be wealthy he will be wealthy; when it decrees poverty, he will be poor; when it decrees a large population, this will be large; and when it decrees a small population this will be small; if order is decreed, there will be order; if chaos, there will be chaos. If fate decrees old age, there will be old age; if untimely death, there will be untimely death. Even if a man sets himself against his fate, what is the use?" With this doctrine the rulers are urged above and the people are kept away from their work below. Hence the fatalists are unmagnanimous. And their doctrines must be clearly examined.

2

非命上:

然則明辨此之說將柰何哉？子墨子言曰：“必立儀，言而毋儀，譬猶運鈞之上而立朝夕者也，是非利害之辨，不可得而明知也。故言必有三表。”何謂三表？子墨子言曰：“有本之者，有原之者，有用之者。於何本之？上本之於古者聖王之事。於何原之？下原察百姓耳目之實。於何用之？廢以為刑政，觀其中國家百姓人民之利。此所謂言有三表也。

Anti-Fatalism I:

Now, how is this doctrine to be examined? Mozi said: Some standard of judgment must be established. To expound a doctrine without regard to the standard is similar to determining the directions of sunrise and sunset on a revolving potter's wheel. By this means the distinction of right and wrong, benefit and harm, cannot be known. Therefore there must be three tests. What are the three tests? Mozi said: Its basis, its verifiability, and its applicability. How is it to be based? It should be based on the deeds of the ancient sage-kings. How is it to be verified? It is to be verified by the senses of hearing and sight of the common people. How is it to be applied? It is to be applied by adopting it in government and observing its benefits to the country and the people. This is what is meant by the three tests of every doctrine.

3

非命上:

然而今天下之士君子，或以命為有。蓋嘗尚觀於聖王之事，古者桀之所亂，湯受而治之；紂之所亂，武王受而治之。此世未易民未渝，在於桀紂，則天下亂；在於湯武，則天下治，豈可謂有命哉！

Anti-Fatalism I:

Some of the gentlemen of the world assume there to be fate. Now let us examine the deeds of the sage-kings. In ancient times, the confusion produced by Jie was replaced by an orderly government by Tang, the chaos of Zhou was turned into order by King Wu. The times did not alter and the people did not change, yet under Jie and Zhou the world was chaotic and under Tang and Wu it was orderly. Can it be said that there is fate?

4

非命上:

然而今天下之士君子，或以命為有。蓋嘗尚觀於先王之書，先王之書，所以出國家，布施百姓者，憲也。先王之憲，亦嘗有曰‘福不可請，而禍不可諱，敬無益，暴無傷’者乎？所以聽獄制罪者，刑也。先王之刑亦嘗有曰‘福不可請，禍不可諱，敬無益，暴無傷’者乎？所以整設師旅，進退師徒者，誓也。先王之誓亦嘗有曰：‘福不可請，禍不可諱，敬無益，暴無傷’者乎？”是故子墨子言曰：“吾當未鹽數，天下之良書不可盡計數，大方論數，而五者是也。今雖毋求執有命者之言，不必得，不亦可錯乎？今用執有命者之言，是覆天下之義，覆天下之義者，是立命者也，百姓之誶也。說百姓之誶者，是滅天下之人也”。然則所為欲義在上者，何也？曰：“義人在上，天下必治，上帝山川鬼神，必有幹主，萬民被其大利。”何以知之？子墨子曰：“古者湯封於亳，絕長繼短，方地百里，與其百姓兼相愛，交相利，移則分。率其百姓，以上尊天事鬼，是以天鬼富之，諸侯與之，百姓親之，賢士歸之，未歿其世，而王天下，政諸侯。昔者文王封於岐周，“絕長繼短，方地百里，與其百姓兼相愛、交相利，則，是以近者安其政，遠者歸其德。聞文王者，皆起而趨之。罷不肖股肱不利者，處而願之曰：‘柰何乎使文王之地及我，吾則吾利，豈不亦猶文王之民也哉。’是以天鬼富之，諸侯與之，百姓親之，賢士歸之，未歿其世，而王天下，政諸侯。鄉者言曰：義人在上，天下必治，上帝山川鬼神，必有幹主，萬民被其大利。吾用此知之。

Anti-Fatalism I:

But the gentlemen of the world still assume that there is fate. Now let us look at some of the writings of the early kings. The writings of the early kings that were issued to the whole country and distributed among the people were the laws. Did any of the laws of the early kings ever say: "Blessing cannot be invoked and disaster cannot be avoided; reverence will not do any good and cruelty will not do any harm"? The standards according to which lawsuits were tried and punishments were meted out were the codes of punishment. Did any of the codes of punishment of the early kings say: "Blessing cannot be invoked and disaster cannot be avoided; reverence will not do any good and cruelty will not do any harm"? The inspiration by which the armies were organized and the soldiers were commanded to advance or to retreat came from the declarations. Did any of the declarations of the early kings say: "Blessing cannot be invoked and disaster cannot be avoided; reverence will do no good and cruelty will do no harm"? Mozi said: I have not enumerated the good books of the empire completely. As they cannot be exhaustively enumerated, I limit myself to the most prominent ones, namely, the three above mentioned. And try as we may, we cannot find any belief in the doctrine of fatalism. Should it not then be abandoned? To adopt the fatalists' doctrine is to overthrow righteousness in the world. To overthrow righteousness in the world will establish fate, which is a temptation to the people. And to offer people temptation is to destroy the people. Now, why is it that we desire righteousness to be with the superiors? Because when the righteous are in authority, the world will have order, God, hills and rivers, and the spirits will have their chief sacrificer, and the people will be visited by the great blessings therefrom. How do we know? Mozi said: In ancient times, Tang was given a fief at Bo. Taking allowance for the irregular boundary lines, his land amounted to about a hundred li square. He worked with the people for mutual love and reciprocal benefit, and shared with them what was in abundance. And he led his people to reverence Heaven and worship the spirits. Thereupon, Heaven and the spirits enriched him, the feudal lords befriended him, the people loved him, and the virtuous came to him. Within a single generation he ruled over the empire and headed the feudal lords. Again in ancient times, King Wen was assigned to the state of Qi Zhou. Making allowance for the irregular boundary lines, his land amounted to about a hundred li square. He worked with his people for mutual love and reciprocal benefit. So those near him enjoyed his government and those distant submitted themselves to his virtues. All who heard of King Wen rose up and rushed over to him. The stupid and insolent and those weak in limbs remained where they were and complained: "Why not let the land of King Wen extend to this place. Wouldn't I then also be a subject of King Wen?" Thereupon Heaven and the spirits enriched him, the feudal lords befriended him, the people loved him and the virtuous came to him. Within a single generation he ruled over the whole empire and headed the feudal lords. As we have said: When the righteous are in authority the world will have order, God, hills and rivers, and the spirits will have their chief sacrificer, and the people will be visited by the great benefits therefrom. And this is how we know it to be so.

5

非命上:

是故古之聖王發憲出令，設以為賞罰以勸賢，是以入則孝慈於親戚，出則弟長於鄉里，坐處有度，出入有節，男女有辨。是故使治官府，則不盜竊，守城則不崩叛，君有難則死，出亡則送。此上之所賞，而百姓之所譽也。執有命者之言曰：‘上之所賞，命固且賞，非賢故賞也。上之所罰，命固且罰，不暴故罰也。’是故入則不慈孝於親戚，出則不弟長於鄉里，坐處不度，出入無節，男女無辨。是故治官府則盜竊，守城則崩叛，君有難則不死，出亡則不送。此上之所罰，百姓之所非毀也。執有命者言曰：‘上之所罰，命固且罰，不暴故罰也。上之所賞，命固且賞，非賢故賞也。’以此為君則不義，為臣則不忠，為父則不慈，為子則不孝，為兄則不良，為弟則不弟，而強執此者，此特凶言之所自生，而暴人之道也。

Anti-Fatalism I:

The ancient sage-kings published laws and issued orders to be standards of reward and punishment, and to encourage the virtuous and to obstruct the evil. And so the people were filial to their parents at home and respectful to the elders in the village or the district. They observed propriety in conduct, moderation in going out and coming in, and decency between men and women. And when they were made to look after the court they would not steal, when they were made to defend a city they would not raise an insurrection. When the lord met with death they would commit suicide, and when the lord was banished they would follow him. This is what the superior will reward and what the people will applaud. Now, the fatalists say: "Whoever is rewarded by the superior is destined to be rewarded. It is not because of his virtue that he is rewarded." Under these conditions the people would not be filial to their parents at home, and respectful to the elders in the village or the district. They would not observe propriety in conduct, moderation in going out and coming in, or decency between men and women. And, if they were made to look after the court they would steal, if they were made to defend a city they would raise an insurrection. If the lord met with death they would not commit suicide, and if the lord were banished they would not accompany him. This is what the superior will punish, and what the people will condemn. The fatalists say: "Whoever is punished by the superior is destined to be punished. It is not because of his vice that he is punished." Believing in this, the ruler would not be righteous, the minister would not be loyal, the father would not be affectionate, the son would not be filial, the elder brother would not be brotherly, and the younger brother would not be respectful. The unnatural adherence to this doctrine is responsible for pernicious ideas and is the way of the wicked.

6

非命上:

然則何以知命之為暴人之道？昔上世之窮民，貪於飲食，惰於從事，是以衣食之財不足，而飢寒凍餒之憂至，不知曰‘我罷不肖，從事不疾’，必曰‘我命固且貧’。昔上世暴王不忍其耳目之淫，心涂之辟，不順其親戚，遂以亡失國家，傾覆社稷，不知曰‘我罷不肖，為政不善’，必曰‘吾命固失之。’於仲虺之告曰：‘我聞于夏人，矯天命布命于下，帝伐之惡，龔喪厥師。’此言湯之所以非桀之執有命也。於太誓曰：‘紂夷處，不用事上帝鬼神，禍厥先神禔不祀，乃曰吾民有命，無廖排漏，天亦縱棄之而弗葆。’此言武王所以非紂執有命也。今用執有命者之言，則上不聽治，下不從事。上不聽治，則刑政亂；下不從事，則財用不足，上無以供粢盛酒醴，祭祀上帝鬼神，下無以降綏天下賢可之士，外無以應待諸侯之賓客，內無以食飢衣寒，將養老弱。故命上不利於天，中不利於鬼，下不利於人，而強執此者，此特凶言之所自生，而暴人之道也。”

Anti-Fatalism I:

Now how do we know fatalism is the way of the wicked? In ancient times, the miserable people indulged in drinking and eating and were lazy in their work. Thereupon their food and clothing became insufficient, and the danger of hunger and cold was approaching. They did not acknowledge: "I was stupid and insolent and was not diligent at work." But they would say: "It is but my lot to be poor." The ancient wicked kings did not control the sensuality of their ears and eyes and the passions of their mind. They did not follow their ancestors and so they lost their country and ruined their state. They did not know that they should confess: "I am stupid and insolent and was not diligent in attending to government." But they would say: "It is but my fate to lose it." The "Announcement of Zhong , Hui" says: "I have heard that the man of Xia issued orders, pretending them to be fate of Heaven. God was displeased and destroyed his forces." This tells how Tang showed Jie's belief in fate to be wrong. "The Great Declaration" says: "Zhou became insolent and would not worship God and pushed away the ancestors and spirits without offering them sacrifices. And he said: 'Fortune is with my people,' and neglected and betrayed his duty. Heaven thereupon deserted him and withdrew its protection." This tells how King Wu showed Zhou's belief in fate to be wrong. If the doctrine of the fatalist were put to practice, the superiors would not attend to government and the subordinates would not attend to work. If the superior does not attend to government, jurisdiction and administration will be in chaos. If the subordinates do not attend to work, wealth will not be sufficient. Then, there will not be wherewith to provide for the cakes and wine to worship and do sacrifice to God, ghosts and spirits above, and there will not be wherewith to tranquillize the virtuous of the world below; there will not be wherewith to entertain the noble guests from without, and there will not be wherewith to feed the hungry, clothe the cold, and care for the aged and weak within. Therefore fatalism is not helpful to Heaven above, nor to the spirits in the middle sphere, nor to man below. The eccentric belief in this doctrine is responsible for pernicious ideas and is the way of the wicked.

7

非命上:

是故子墨子言曰：“今天下之士君子，忠實欲天下之富而惡其貧，欲天下之治而惡其亂，執有命者之言，不可不非，此天下之大害也。”

Anti-Fatalism I:

Therefore Mozi said: If the gentlemen in the world really desire to have the world rich and do not want to have it poor, desire to have it orderly and dislike to have it in confusion, the doctrine of fatalism must be rejected. It is a great calamity to the world.

《非命中 - Anti-Fatalism II》

1

非命中:

子墨子言曰：“凡出言談，由文學之為道也，則不可而不先立義法。若言而無義，譬猶立朝夕於員鈞之上也，則雖有巧工，必不能得正焉。然今天下之情偽，未可得而識也，故使言有三法。三法者何也？有本之者，有原之者，有用之者。於其本之也，考之天鬼之志，聖王之事；於其原之也，徵以先王之書；用之柰何，發而為刑。此言之三法也。

Anti-Fatalism II:

Mozi said: To make any statement or to publish any doctrine, there must first be established some standard of judgment. To discuss without a standard is like determining the directions of sunrise and sunset on a revolving potter's wheel. Even skilful artisans could not get accurate results in that way. Now that the truth and error (of a doctrine) in the world is hard to tell, there must be three tests. What are the three tests? They are the test of its basis, the test of its verifiability, and the test of its applicability. To test the basis of a doctrine we shall examine the will of Heaven and spirits and the deeds of the sage-kings. To test its verifiability we shall go to the books of the early kings. As to its applicability it is to be tested by its use in the administration of justice and government. These then are the three tests of a doctrine.

2

非命中:

今天下之士君子或以命為亡，我所以知命之有與亡者，以眾人耳目之情，知有與亡。有聞之，有見之，謂之有；莫之聞，莫之見，謂之亡。然胡不嘗考之百姓之情？自古以及今，生民以來者，亦嘗見命之物，聞命之聲者乎？則未嘗有也。若以百姓為愚不肖，耳目之情不足因而為法，然則胡不嘗考之諸侯之傳言流語乎？自古以及今，生民以來者，亦嘗有聞命之聲，見命之體者乎？則未嘗有也。然胡不嘗考之聖王之事？古之聖王，舉孝子而勸之事親，尊賢良而勸之為善，發憲布令以教誨，明賞罰以勸沮。若此，則亂者可使治，而危者可使安矣。若以為不然，昔者，桀之所亂，湯治之；紂之所亂，武王治之。此世不渝而民不改，上變政而民易教，其在湯武則治，其在桀紂則亂，安危治亂，在上之發政也，則豈可謂有命哉！夫曰有命云者亦不然矣。

Anti-Fatalism II:

Among the gentlemen of to-day some think there is fate, some think there is no fate. That I am able to judge whether there is fate or not is by the sense testimony of the multitude. If some have heard it and some have seen it I shall say there is fate. If none has heard it, if none has seen it, I shall say there is no fate. Why not then let us inquire into the sense testimony of the people? From antiquity to the present, since the beginning of man, has any seen such a thing as fate, or has heard the sound of fate? Of course, there is none. If the common people are considered stupid and their senses of hearing and sight unreliable, then why not inquire into the recorded statements of the feudal lords? But from antiquity to the present, since the beginning of man, has any of them heard the sound of fate or seen such a thing as fate? Of course, none of them has. Again, why not let us inquire into the deeds of the sage-kings? The ancient kings promoted the filial sons and encouraged them to continue to serve their parents, and respected the virtuous and gentle and encouraged them to continue to do good. They published their orders to instruct (the people), and made reward and punishment fair to encourage (the good) and obstruct (the evil). In this way confusion could be reduced to order and danger could be converted to peace. If anyone doubts this, let us recall: In ancient times the confusion of Jie was reduced to order by Tang, and that of Zhou by King Wu. Now, the times did not change and the people did not alter. Yet when the superior changed a regime the subordinates modified their conduct. Under Tang and Wu it was orderly, but under Jie and Zhou it was disorderly. Hence peace and danger, order and disorder, all depend on the government of the superior. How can it be said everything is according to fate? So, assertions about there being fate are quite false.

3

非命中:

今夫有命者言曰：‘我非作之後世也，自昔三代有若言以傳流矣。今故先生對之？’曰：夫有命者，不志昔也三代之聖善人與？意亡昔三代之暴不肖人也？何以知之？初之列士桀大夫，慎言知行，此上有以規諫其君長，下有以教順其百姓，故上得其君長之賞，下得其百姓之譽。列士桀大夫聲聞不廢，流傳至今，而天下皆曰其力也，必不能曰我見命焉。

Anti-Fatalism II:

The fatalists tell us: "This doctrine has not been invented by us in a late generation. Such a doctrine has appeared and been handed down since the Three Dynasties. Why do you, sir, now oppose it?" (In answer,) Mozi asked: Was it from the sages and good men of the Three Dynasties or from the wicked and the vicious of the Three Dynasties that the fatalistic doctrine came? How can we find this out? In the beginning secretaries and ministers were careful in speech and intelligent in conduct. They could persuade their ruler above and instruct the people below. Thus they obtained reward from their ruler and applause from the people. And the fame of those secretaries and ministers has come down to the present day. The whole world remarks: "This is the result of endeavour." And it will never say: "I see fate there."

4

非命中:

是故昔者三代之暴王，不繆其耳目之淫，不慎其心志之辟，外之敺騁田獵畢弋，內沈於酒樂，而不顧其國家百姓之政。繁為無用，暴逆百姓，使下不親其上，是故國為虛厲，身在刑僇之中，不用曰：我罷不肖，‘我為刑政不善’，必曰：‘我命故且亡。’雖昔也三代之窮民，亦由此也。內之不能善事其親戚，外不能善事其君長，惡恭儉而好簡易，貪飲食而惰從事，衣食之財不足，使身至有饑寒凍餒之憂，必不能曰：‘我罷不肖，我從事不疾’，必曰：‘我命固且窮。’雖昔也三代之偽民，亦猶此也。繁飾有命，以教眾愚樸人久矣。聖王之患此也，故書之竹帛，琢之金石，於先王之書仲虺之告曰：‘我聞有夏，人矯天命，布命于下，帝式是惡，用闕師。’此語夏王桀之執有命也，湯與仲虺共非之。先王之書太誓之言然曰：‘紂夷之居，而不用事上帝，棄闕其先神而不祀也，曰：“我民有命，毋僇其務。”天不亦棄縱而不葆。’此言紂之執有命也，武王以太誓非也。有於三代不國有之曰：‘女毋崇天之有命也。’命三不國亦言命之無也。於召公之執令於然，且：“‘敬哉！無天命，惟予二人，而無造言，不自降天之哉得之。’在於商、夏之詩書曰：‘命者暴王作之。’且今天下之士君子，將欲辯是非利害之故，當天有命者，不可不疾非也。”執有命者，此天下之厚害也，是故子墨子非也。

Anti-Fatalism II:

On the other hand, the wicked kings of the Three Dynasties did not control the lust of their ears and eyes and did not restrain the passions of their heart. When they went out they indulged in racing, hunting, and trapping. When they stayed indoors they revelled in wine and music. They did not attend to the government of the country and of the people, but they did much that was of no use. They oppressed the people, causing the subordinates not to love their superior. Hence the country became empty and without any future, and they themselves were in punishment and disaster. Bat they would not confess and say: "I am stupid and insolent and poor in administering the government." But they would say: "It is but my fate to perish." Even the miserable people of the Three Dynasties were like this. Within they could not well serve their parents, without they could not well serve their ruler. They disliked politeness and frugality but liked licence and ease. They indulged in drinking and eating and were lazy. The means of food and clothing became insufficient and they placed themselves in danger of hunger and cold. They would not confess: "I am stupid and insolent and was not diligent at work." But they would say: "It is but my fate to be poor." Such, then, also were the miserable people of the Three Dynasties. Fatalism has been glossed over and taught the stupid people. This was of great concern to the sage-kings, and they put it down on the bamboos and silk and cut it in metals and stone. Among the books of the early kings, "The Announcement of Zhong Hui" says: "I have heard the man of Xia issue orders, pretending them to be fate of Heaven. God was displeased and destroyed his forces." This shows how King Jie of Xia believed in fate and how both Tang and Zhong Hui thought it to be wrong. Among the books of early kings "The Great Declaration" says: "Zhou became insolent and would not worship God, and pushed away the ancestors and spirits without offering them sacrifices. And he said: 'Fortune is with my people,' and neglected and betrayed his duty. Heaven thereupon deserted him and withdrew its protection." This shows how Zhou believed in fate, and how King Wu proclaimed it to be wrong with "The Great Declaration." Again, "The Three Dynasties and Hundred States " says: " Do not place too much faith in the fate in Heaven." So "The Three Dynasties and Hundred States" also says there is no fate. Also "Shao Gong" in the same way discredits the belief in fate. It says: "Assuredly there is no fate in Heaven. Let us two not teach false doctrines. (One's destiny) does not come from Heaven, but is shaped by one's self." And it is said in the odes and books of Shang and Xia: "Fate is born of the wicked kings." So, then, if the gentlemen of the world desire to distinguish right and wrong, benefit and harm, fate of Heaven must be strenuously discredited. To hold there is fate is the great disaster of the world. And therefore Mozi refuted it.

《非命下 - Anti-Fatalism III》

1

非命下:

子墨子言曰：“凡出言談，則必可而不先立儀而言。若不先立儀而言，譬之猶運鈞之上而立朝夕焉也。我以為雖有朝夕之辯，必將終未可得而從定也。是故言有三法。何謂三法？曰：有考之者，有原之者，有用之者。惡乎考之？考先聖大王之事。惡乎原之？察眾之耳目之請？惡乎用之？發而為政乎國，察萬民而觀之。此謂三法也。

Anti-Fatalism III:

Mozi said: In order to expound a doctrine there must be established some standard of judgment. To expound without a standard is similar to determining the directions of sunrise and sunset on a potter's wheel that is turning. I should think even such obvious distinctions as that between the directions of sunrise and sunset cannot be thus determined. Therefore every doctrine must stand three tests. What are the three tests? They are the test of its basis, the test of its verifiability, and the test of its applicability. How is it to be based? It is to be based on the deeds of the early sage-kings. How is it to be verified? It is to be verified by the testimony of the ears and eyes of the multitude. How is it to be applied? It is to be applied by being adopted in government and its effects on the people being shown. These are called the three tests.

2

非命下:

故昔者三代聖王禹湯文武方為政乎天下之時，曰：必務舉孝子而勸之事親，尊賢良之人而教之為善。是故出政施教，賞善罰暴。且以為若此，則天下之亂也，將屬可得而治也，社稷之危也，將屬可得而定也。若以為不然，昔桀之所亂，湯治之；紂之所亂，武王治之。當此之時，世不渝而民不易，上變政而民改俗。存乎桀紂而天下亂，存乎湯武而天下治。天下之治也，湯武之力也；天下之亂也，桀紂之罪也。若以此觀之，夫安危治亂存乎上之為政也，則夫豈可謂有命哉！故昔者禹湯文武方為政乎天下之時，曰‘必使飢者得食，寒者得衣，勞者得息，亂者得治’，遂得光譽令問於天下。夫豈可以為命哉？故以為其力也！今賢良之人，尊賢而好功道術，故上得其王公大人之賞，下得其萬民之譽，遂得光譽令問於天下。亦豈以為其命哉？又以為力也！然今夫有命者，不識昔也三代之聖善人與，意亡昔三代之暴不肖人與？若以說觀之，則必非昔三代聖善人也，必暴不肖人也。然今以命為有者，昔三代暴王桀紂幽厲，貴為天子，富有天下，於此乎，不而矯其耳目之欲，而從其心意之辟，外之敺騁、田獵、畢弋，內湛於酒樂，而不顧其國家百姓之政，繁為無用，暴逆百姓，遂失其宗廟。其言不曰‘吾罷不肖，吾聽治不強’，必曰‘吾命固將失之’。雖昔也三代罷不肖之民，亦猶此也。不能善事親戚君長，甚惡恭儉而好簡易，貪飲食而惰從事，衣食之財不足，是以身有陷乎飢寒凍餒之憂。其言不曰‘吾罷不肖，吾從事不強’，又曰‘吾命固將窮。’昔三代偽民亦猶此也。

Anti-Fatalism III:

When the ancient sage-kings of the Three Dynasties, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu, ruled, they said: "We must promote the filial sons and encourage them in serving their parents, and we must honour the virtuous and good men and instruct them in doing good." In this way they administered the government and published instructions, rewarded the good and punished the evil. It seems in this way the confusion in the world could be reduced to order, and the danger of the state could be transformed into safety. If this is doubted, (let us recall): In ancient times, the disorder of Jie was reduced to order by Tang, that of Zhou was reduced to order by King Wu. Then the times did not change nor did the people alter. Yet when the superior changed regime the subordinates modified their conduct. With Jie and Zhou the world was chaotic, under Tang and Wu it became orderly. That the world became orderly was due to the endeavour of Tang and Wu. That the world was chaotic was due to the sin of Jie and Zhou. Judging from this, safety and danger, order and chaos all depend on the way the superior conducts the government. How can it be said, there is fate? In ancient times when Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu ruled the empire, they said: "We must feed the hungry, clothe the cold, give the weary rest, and the disturbed peace." Thus their good name was heard all over the world. Can this be ascribed to fate? It is really due to endeavour. The virtuous and gentle of today respect virtue and pursue the ways and means (to benefit the world). Hence they are rewarded by the rulers above and praised by the people below. And their good name is heard all over the world. Can this be ascribed to fate? This is also due to their endeavour. Now, were those who believed in fate the sages of the Three Dynasties or the wicked of the Three Dynasties? Judging from the nature of this doctrine, it could not be the sages of the Three Dynasties, but must be the wicked that believed in fate. The ancient wicked kings of the Three Dynasties, Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, were honoured as emperors and possessed the whole world in wealth. Yet they could not control the sensuality of their ears and eyes, but gave rein to their passions. Going out they would race, hunt, and trap. Staying indoors they revelled in wine and music. They did not attend to the government of the country and the people, but did much that was of no use. And they oppressed and violated the people. Thus they lost their ancestral temple. They would not confess: "I am insolent and stupid. I did not attend to government diligently." But they would say: "It is but my fate that I lose it." Even the insolent people of the Three Dynasties were like this. They could not well serve their parents and their lord. They greatly hated politeness and frugality but liked licence and ease. They indulged in eating and drinking and were lazy at work. Their means of clothing and food became insufficient, and they incurred the danger of hunger and cold. They would not confess: "I am stupid and insolent, I am not diligent in my work." But they also said: "It is but my fate that I am poor." Thus the insolent people of the Three Dynasties also believed in fate.

, 3

非命下:

昔者暴王作之，窮人術之，此皆疑眾遲樸，先聖王之患之也，固在前矣。是以書之竹帛，鏤之金石，琢之盤盂，傳遺後世子孫。曰何書焉存？禹之總德有之曰：‘允不著，惟天民不而葆，既防凶心，天加之咎，不慎厥德，天命焉葆’？仲虺之告曰：‘我聞有夏，人矯天命，于下，帝式是增，用爽厥師。’彼用無為有，故謂矯，若有而謂有，夫豈為矯哉！昔者，桀執有命而行，湯為仲虺之告以非之。太誓之言也，於去發曰：‘惡乎君子！天有顯德，其行甚章，為鑑不遠，在彼殷王。謂人有命，謂敬不可行，謂祭無益，謂暴無傷，上帝不常，九有以亡，上帝不順，祝降其喪，惟我有周，受之大帝。’昔紂執有命而行，武王為太誓、去發以非之。曰：子胡不尚考之乎商周虞夏之記，從十簡之篇以尚，皆無之，將何若者也？”

Anti-Fatalism III:

The ancient wicked kings originated it and the miserable people practised it. It was shaking the convictions of the multitudes and converting the stupid. And this was already of great concern to the ancient sage-kings. They put it down on the bamboos and silk and cut it in metal and stone and engraved it on dishes and cups to be handed down to their descendants. In what books are they embodied? "Zong De" of Yu says: "When promises are not fulfilled even a subject of Heaven will not be protected. When one has touched the evil star, Heaven will visit him with its curse. When one is not careful about one's conduct, how can fate of Heaven protect him?" "The Announcement of Zhong Hui" says: "I have heard that the man of Xia issued orders, pretending them to be fate of Heaven. God was displeased and destroyed his armies." He made use of what did not exist as if it had existed, and therefore it was called pretension. If he declared to be existent what really existed, how would this be pretension? In ancient times, Jie believed in fate and acted accordingly. Tang here showed it to be wrong through "The Announcement of Zhong Hui." "The Great Declaration " says: "Therefore the Prince Regent Fa said: 'Ah, my lords, Heaven blesses the virtuous. Its way is clear. Example need not be sought far. It is in the King of Yin. He claimed each man had his own fate, worship should not be practised, sacrifices were of no avail, and wickedness could do no harm. God withdrew his blessing and the nine districts are lost to him. God is not pleased and is visiting him with ruin. Hence it is that our Zhou (the dynasty, the empire) is given by the Great God.'" That is, Zhou believed in fate and acted accordingly. King Wu refuted him in "The Great Declaration." So, why not examine the records of Yu, Xia, Shang, and Zhou, and see that all of them held there is no fate? How would you account for this?

4

非命下:

是故子墨子曰：“今天下之君子之為文學出言談也，非將勤勞其惟舌，而利其脣呡也，中實將欲其國家邑里萬民刑政者也。今也王公大人之所以蚤朝晏退，聽獄治政，終朝均分，而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以為強必治，不強必亂；強必寧，不強必危，故不敢怠倦。今也卿大夫之所以竭股肱之力，殫其思慮之知，內治官府，外斂關市、山林、澤梁之利，以實官府，而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以為強必貴，不強必賤；強必榮，不強必辱，故不敢怠倦。今也農夫之所以蚤出暮入，強乎耕稼樹藝，多聚叔粟，而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以為強必富，不強必貧；強必飽，不強必飢，故不敢怠倦。今也婦人之所以夙興夜寐，強乎紡績織紝，多治麻絲葛緒捆布縿，而不敢怠倦者，何也？曰：彼以為強必富，不強必貧，強必煖，不強必寒，故不敢怠倦。今雖毋在乎王公大人，蕢若信有命而致行之，則必怠乎聽獄治政矣，卿大夫必怠乎治官府矣，農夫必怠乎耕稼樹藝矣，婦人必怠乎紡績織紝矣。王公大人怠乎聽獄治政，卿大夫怠乎治官府，則我以為天下必亂矣。農夫怠乎耕稼樹藝，婦人怠乎紡織績紝，則我以為天下衣食之財將必不足矣。若以為政乎天下，上以事天鬼，天鬼不使；下以持養百姓，百姓不利，必離散不可得用也。是以入守則不固，出誅則不勝，故雖昔者三代暴王桀紂幽厲之所以共抎其國家，傾覆其社稷者，此也。”是故子墨子言曰：“今天下之士君子，中實將欲求興天下之利，除天下之害，當若有命者之言，不可不強非也。曰：命者，暴王所作，窮人所術，非仁者之言也。今之為仁義者，將不可不察而強非者，此也。”

Anti-Fatalism III:

And Mozi said: In expounding a doctrine or elaborating a system the gentlemen of the world should not do it just to exercise their voice and tongue and practise their lips. It must aim at being applied in the government of the country, the district, and the people. Now the rulers go to court early and retire late, hearing lawsuits and attending to government and meting out justice for the whole day, and dare not be negligent. Why do they do this? They think diligence will bring about order, and negligence chaos; diligence will produce safety, and negligence danger. Therefore they dare not be negligent. The ministers and secretaries exhaust the energy in their limbs and stretch the wisdom of their minds within to look after the court and without to collect taxes from passes, markets, and products from mountains, woods, ponds, and fields to fill the treasury, and dare not be negligent. Why do they do this? They think diligence will procure honour and negligence dishonour; diligence will procure glory and negligence disgrace. Therefore they dare not be negligent. The farmers set out at daybreak and come back at dusk, diligently sowing seeds and planting trees to produce much soy beans and millet, and dare not be negligent. Why do they do this? They think diligence will result in wealth, and negligence in poverty; diligence will produce plenty, and negligence famine. Therefore they dare not be negligent. The women get up at dawn and retire in the night, diligently weaving and spinning to produce much silk, flax linen, and cloth, and dare not be negligent. Why do they do this? They think diligence will produce wealth and negligence poverty; diligence will produce warmth and negligence cold. Therefore they dare not be negligent. Now, if they should believe in fate and behave accordingly, the rulers would be negligent in hearing lawsuits and attending to government; the ministers and secretaries would be negligent in attending to court; the farmers would be negligent in sowing seeds and planting trees; the women would be negligent in weaving and spinning. When the rulers are negligent in hearing lawsuits and attending to government and the ministers and secretaries in attending to court, then I should think the world would be in chaos. When the farmers are negligent in sowing seeds and planting trees and the women in weaving and spinning, then according to my opinion clothing and food for the world will be insufficient. As to the result of the application of the doctrine of fatalism to the government of the empire, to worship Heaven and the spirits above with it Heaven and the spirits will not be pleased, and to nurture the people below with it they will not be benefited but will be demoralized and cannot be employed. And, within, defence will not be strong, and, without, attack will not be victorious. And that for which the wicked kings of the Three Dynasties, Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, lost their country and ruined their state was just this (doctrine). Therefore Mozi said: If the gentlemen of the world really desire to procure benefits for the world and destroy its calamities they cannot but vigorously refute the doctrine of fatalism. For fatalism was an invention of the wicked kings and the practice of miserable men. It was not a doctrine of the magnanimous. Therefore those who practise magnanimity and righteousness must examine it and vigorously refute it.

38

卷九:

非儒上

Book 9:

Anti-Confucianism I

《非儒下 - Anti-Confucianism II》

1

非儒下:

儒者曰：“親親有術，尊賢有等。”言親疏尊卑之異也。其禮曰：“喪父母三年，妻，後子三年，伯父叔父弟兄庶子其，戚族人五月。”若以親疏為歲月之數，則親者多而疏者少矣，是妻後子與父同也。若以尊卑為歲月數，則是尊其妻子與父母同，而親伯父宗兄而卑子也，逆孰大焉。其親死，列尸弗斂，登屋窺井，挑鼠穴，探滌器，而求其人矣。以為實在則贛愚甚矣；如其亡也必求焉，偽亦大矣！取妻，身迎，袨端為僕，秉轡授綏，如仰嚴親，昏禮威儀，如承祭祀。顛覆上下，悖逆父母，下則妻子，妻子上侵事親，若此可謂孝乎？儒者：“迎妻，妻之奉祭祀，子將守宗廟，故重之。”應之曰：“此誣言也，其宗兄守其先宗廟數十年，死喪之其，兄弟之妻奉其先之祭祀弗散，則喪妻子三年，必非以守奉祭祀也。夫憂妻子以大負絫，有曰‘所以重親也’，為欲厚所至私，輕所至重，豈非大姦也哉！”

Anti-Confucianism II:

The Confucianist says: Love among relations should depend upon the degree of relationship, and honour to the virtuous should be graded. This is to advocate a discrimination among the near and the distant relations and among the respectable and the humble. But, according to his code of propriety: Mourning for the death of the parent should be three years; for the wife or the eldest son three years; for an uncle, a brother, or one of the other sons, a year; and for a near relative, five months. If the periods are based on the degree of relationship, evidently mourning for the closer relative should be longer and for the more distant shorter. Thus the wife and the eldest son are the same as the parents (in nearness). If the periods are based on degrees of respect which are severally due then it means that the wife and the eldest son are respected as much as the parents, and the uncles and brothers are placed on the same level with the other sons. What perversity can be greater than this? When his parent dies he first lets him lie there without dressing him for burial. He climbs on the roof, looks into the well, reaches into the rat holes, and searches in the washing basins to look for the dead man. Assuming that the man still exists this procedure is certainly stupid. If he does not exist this insistent search is the height of hypocrisy. When a Confucianist takes a wife, he has to escort her in person, dressed in ceremonial garments as a servant. He drives the cart himself, as if waiting on a revered parent. The dignity and solemnity of the marriage ceremony compare with that of sacrifice and worship. High and low are turned upside down. Father and mother are disobeyed. Parents are brought down to the level of the wife and the wife is exalted to interfere with service to parents. Can such conduct be called filial? The Confucianist tells us: "A wife is taken to share in continuing the worship and sacrifice (to ancestors) and the son will attend to the ancestral temple, therefore they are highly regarded." We answer him: This is all false representation. For, his brothers attend to the ancestral temple for tens of years. Yet when they die he will mourn for them only one year. The brothers' wives continue the worship and sacrifice of his ancestors. Yet, there is no mourning (upon their death) whatsoever. Then the three years' mourning for the death of his wife and eldest son is evidently not for the reason of their attending to the ancestral temple and continuing the worship and sacrifice. Now, to be partial to one's wife and son is already quite wayward. Yet the Confucianist pretends it to be for the sake of the parents. This is partiality to the most favourite but neglect of the most important. Isn't this great perversity?

2

非儒下:

有強執有命以說議曰：“壽夭貧富，安危治亂，固有天命，不可損益。窮達賞罰幸否有極，人之知力，不能為焉。”群吏信之，則怠於分職；庶人信之，則怠於從事。吏不治則亂，農事緩則貧，貧且亂政之本，而儒者以為道教，是賊天下之人者也。

Anti-Confucianism II:

Further, he holds tenaciously to the dogma of fate and argues: "Old age or early death, poverty or wealth, safety or danger, order or chaos are destined by the fate of Heaven and cannot be modified. Failure or success, reward or punishment, luck or adversity, are all settled; the wisdom and power of man can do nothing." When the different officers believe this they will neglect their several duties. When the common people believe this they will neglect their work. Lax government will lead to disorder; inefficient agriculture will lead to poverty. And poverty is the root of disorder and insurrections. Yet the Confucianists take this teaching about fate to be the Dao and the principle of life. This is to destroy the people of the empire.

3

非儒下:

且夫繁飾禮樂以淫人，久喪偽哀以謾親，立命緩貧而高浩居，倍本棄事而安怠傲，貪於飲食，惰於作務，陷於飢寒，危於凍餒，無以違之。是若人氣，鼸鼠藏，而羝羊視，賁彘起。君子笑之。怒曰：“散人！焉知良儒。”夫夏乞麥禾，五穀既收，大喪是隨，子姓皆從，得厭飲食，畢治數喪，足以至矣。因人之家翠，以為，恃人之野以為尊，富人有喪，乃大說，喜曰：“此衣食之端也。”

Anti-Confucianism II:

Moreover, the Confucianist glosses over the elaborate ceremonials and music to make man extravagant; he extends mourning and pretends grief to cheat his parents. He introduces fate and causes poverty, and lives in idleness. He overthrows the fundamentals and avoids work, and is indolent and proud. Self-indulgent in drinking and eating and too lazy to work, he often suffers from hunger and cold and is in danger of freezing and starvation, without ability to avert them. He behaves like a beggar; grasps food like a hamster, gazes at things like a he-goat, and rises up like a wild boar. The gentlemen all laugh at him. He becomes angry and exclaims: "What does the undisciplined man know about the good Confucianist?" In spring and summer he begs for grains. When the five grains are all gathered in he resorts to the funerals. All the sons and grandsons are taken along and are filled with drink and food. It is sufficient for him to manage but a few funerals. He depends on others' houses for his wealth and uses others' fields to uphold his dignity. When a death takes place in a rich family he will rejoice greatly, for it is his opportunity for clothing and food.

4

非儒下:

儒者曰：“君子必服古言然後仁。”應之曰：“所謂古之言服者，皆嘗新矣，而古人言之，服之，則非君子也。然則必服非君子之服，言非君子之言，而後仁乎？”

Anti-Confucianism II:

The Confucianist says: "The superior man must be ancient in mode of speech and in dress before be can be magnanimous." We answer him: The so-called ancient speech and dress were all modern once. When the ancients first used that speech and wore that dress they would not be superior men (according to the Confucianists' criteria). Do you therefore mean to say that one has to wear the dress of the non-superior man and speak the speech of the non-superior man before he can be magnanimous?

5

非儒下:

又曰：“君子循而不作。”應之曰：“古者羿作弓，杼作甲，奚仲作車，巧垂作舟，然則今之鮑函車匠皆君子也，而羿、杼、奚仲、巧垂皆小人邪？且其所循人必或作之，然則其所循皆小人道也？”

Anti-Confucianism II:

Again, the Confucianist says: "The superior man conforms to the old but does not make innovations." We answer him: In antiquity Yi invented the bow, Yu invented armour, Xi Zhong invented vehicles, and Qiao Cui invented boats. Would he say, the tanners, armourers, and carpenters of to-day are all superior men, whereas Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Cui were all ordinary men? Moreover, some of those whom he follows must have been inventors. Then his instructions are after all the ways of the ordinary men.

6

非儒下:

又曰：“君子勝不逐奔，揜函弗射，施則助之胥車。”應之曰：“若皆仁人也，則無說而相與。仁人以其取舍是非之理相告，無故從有故也，弗知從有知也，無辭必服，見善必遷，何故相？若兩暴交爭，其勝者欲不逐奔，掩函弗射，施則助之胥車，雖盡能猶且不得為君子也。意暴殘之國也，聖將為世除害，興師誅罰，勝將因用儒術令士卒曰毋逐奔，揜函勿射，施則助之胥車。”暴亂之人也得活，天下害不除，是為群殘父母，而深賤世也，不義莫大焉！”

Anti-Confucianism II:

Again he says: "When the superior man is victorious he does not pursue the fleeing enemy. When the enemy is kept at bay he does not shoot. When the enemy retreat he will help them pushing their carts." We answer him: If the magnanimous are here referred to, they have no occasion for strife. The magnanimous remind each other of the principle of right and wrong and of what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected. He who has no cause follows him who has it. He who has no knowledge follows him who has knowledge. Running short of argument he would acknowledge defeat, seeing good he would be converted. How can there be any strife? If the contestants are both wicked, though the victor does not pursue the fleeing enemy, though he does not shoot the enemy at bay, though he helps pushing the enemy's carts in retreat - though he does all these, still he cannot be a superior man. On the other hand, suppose a sage starts out to destroy a curse on behalf of the empire. He raises an army to punish the wicked and cruel state. When he is victorious, let us suppose him to follow the Confucian way and command his army: "Don't pursue the fleeing enemy. Don't shoot when the enemy is at bay. Help them pushing the carts when they retreat." The wicked men will thus be set free and the curse of the world will not yet be removed. This is to harm the parents of the multitudes and greatly to ruin the world. Nothing can be more unrighteous!

7

非儒下:

又曰：“君子若鍾，擊之則鳴，弗擊不鳴。應之曰：“夫仁人事上竭忠，事親得孝，務善則美，有過則諫，此為人臣之道也。今擊之則鳴，弗擊不鳴，隱知豫力，恬漠待問而後對，雖有君親之大利，弗問不言，若將有大寇亂，盜賊將作，若機辟將發也，他人不知，己獨知之，雖其君親皆在，不問不言。是夫大亂之賊也！以是為人臣不忠，為子不孝，事兄不弟，交，遇人不貞良。夫執後不言之朝物，見利使己雖恐後言，君若言而未有利焉，則高拱下視，會噎為深，曰：‘唯其未之學也。’用誰急，遺行遠矣。夫一道術學業仁義者，皆大以治人，小以任官，遠施周偏，近以脩身，不義不處，非理不行，務興天下之利，曲直周旋，利則止，此君子之道也。以所聞孔某之行，則本與此相反謬也。”

Anti-Confucianism II:

Again the Confucianist says: "The superior man is like a bell. It will sound when it is struck. It will remain silent when it is not struck." We answer him: The magnanimous, in serving his superior, should be loyal, and in serving his parents, should be filial. When there is excellence (in the superior) he should adore, when there is fault he should give counsel. This is the way of a minister. Now, if one sounds only when struck, and remains silent when not struck, then he will hide his knowledge and spare his efforts, waiting to be questioned before he answers. Even if there is some great advantage at stake to the lord or parents, he will not speak up without being asked. And, if a great invasion or insurrection is approaching or a conspiracy is afoot, and none know it but he; yet even in the presence of his lord and parents he will not speak up without being questioned. What a criminal, producing confusion! Such a man will not be loyal as a minister, filial as a son, respectful in serving an elder brother or gentle in treating the people. When benefit is in sight, the only fear should be that counsel may be late. When the ruler starts something not beneficial, one should fold his hands high on the breast and look down and utter with difficulty: "This I have not learned." Upon emergency one should withdraw and set out on a long journey. For, every principle, doctrine, and standard of magnanimity and righteousness are to be used on the large scale to rule men and on the small scale to hoId office; widely, to exercise a universal influence and, narrowly, to cultivate one's person. What is not righteous should not be tolerated; what is not according to principle should not be practised. One should endeavour to procure benefits for the empire directly and indirectly, avoiding that which brings no profit: such is the way of the superior man. But what we hear of the conduct of Kong Mo is diametrically opposed to this.

8

非儒下:

齊景公問晏子曰：“孔子為人何如？”晏子不對，公又復問，不對。景公曰：“以孔某語寡人者眾矣，俱以賢人也。今寡人問之，而子不對，何也？”晏子對曰：“嬰不肖，不足以知賢人。雖然，嬰聞所謂賢人者，入人之國必務合其君臣之親，而弭其上下之怨。孔某之荊，知白公之謀，而奉之以石乞，君身幾滅，而白公僇。嬰聞賢人得上不虛，得下不危，言聽於君必利人，教行下必於上，是以言明而易知也，行明而易從也，行義可明乎民，謀慮可通乎君臣。今孔某深慮同謀以奉賊，勞思盡知以行邪，勸下亂上，教臣殺君，非賢人之行也；入人之國而與人之賊，非義之類也；知人不忠，趣之為亂，非仁義之也。逃人而後謀，避人而後言，行義不可明於民，謀慮不可通於君臣，嬰不知孔某之有異於白公也，是以不對。”景公曰：“嗚乎！貺寡人者眾矣，非夫子，則吾終身不知孔某之與白公同也。”

Anti-Confucianism II:

Lord Jing of Qi asked Yanzi: "What kind of a man is Confucius?" Yanzi answered not. The Lord reiterated the question and there was still no answer. Lord Jing said: "Many have told me about Kong Mo and all said he was a virtuous man. Now that I am asking you about him, why should you not answer?" Yanzi replied: "Ying is not wise and cannot know virtuous men. Yet Ying has heard that a virtuous man must be one who, upon entering a state, will endeavour to bring about friendly relations between the ruler and the ministers and dissolve the grudges between superior and subordinates. This man, Confucius once visited the state of Jing. He heard of the plans of Duke Bo and told them to Shi Qi. As a result, the lord almost perished and Duke Bo was executed. Ying has also heard that the virtuous man does not obtain confidence of the superior by flattery or that of the subordinates by threat. If his counsels are listened to by the lord they will benefit the people, if his instructions are followed by the subordinates they will benefit the superior. His speech is plain and easy to understand and his conduct is plain and easy to follow. His righteous conduct enlightens the people and his thoughtful counsel convinces the lord and his ministers. Now, this man Confucius with elaborate plans conspired with the rebels and with devious plots committed depravity. To persuade the subordinates to plot against their superior and tell the ministers to assassinate their lord is not the conduct of a virtuous man. To enter a country and join with its traitors is not akin to the righteous. To urge those who are known to be disloyal to revolt does not fit the way of the magnanimous. Plotting against one at a distance and condemning one behind his back, his conduct enlightening not the people and his counsel convincing not the lord - how Confucius is different from Duke Bo, your servant Ying does not see. This is why I did not answer you." Lord Jing said: "Oh! I have been benefited. If it were not for you, I would never in my life understand Kong Mo to be of the same kind as Duke Bo."

9

非儒下:

孔某之齊見景公，景公說，欲封之以尼谿，以告晏子。晏子曰：“不可夫儒浩居而自順者也，不可以教下；好樂而淫人，不可使親治；立命而怠事，不可使守職；宗喪循哀，不可使慈民；機服勉容，不可使導眾。孔某盛容脩飾以蠱世，弦歌鼓舞以聚徒，繁登降之禮以示儀，務趨翔之節以觀眾，博學不可使議世，勞思不可以補民，絫壽不能盡其學，當年不能行其禮，積財不能贍其樂，繁飾邪術以營世君，盛為聲樂以淫遇民，其道不可以期世，其學不可以導眾。今君封之，以利齊俗，非所以導國先眾。”公曰：“善！”於是厚其禮，留其封，敬見而不問其道。孔某乃恚，怒於景公與晏子，乃樹鴟夷子皮於田常之門，告南郭惠子以所欲為，歸於魯。有頃，閒齊將伐魯，告子貢曰：“賜乎！舉大事於今之時矣！”乃遣子貢之齊，因南郭惠子以見田常，勸之伐吳，以教高、國、鮑、晏，使毋得害田常之亂，勸越伐吳。三年之內，齊、吳破國之難，伏尸以言術數。孔某之誅也。

Anti-Confucianism II:

Kong Mo visited the state of Qi and saw Lord Jing. Lord Jing was pleased and was going to assign Ni Xi to him. He told Yanzi about it. Yanzi said: "Please do not. A scholar of his school would sit crouching and take things easy, therefore he cannot be made to teach the subordinates. He likes music and will corrupt the people, and therefore cannot be trusted to govern. He believes in fate and will neglect his duty, therefore be cannot be given an office. He lays emphasis on mourning, and makes much of grief, therefore he cannot be made to take care of the people. He will be formal in dress and affected in manners, therefore he cannot lead the multitudes. Kong Mo dresses elaborately and puts on adornments to mislead the people, promotes music and dancing to attract the multitudes, performs elaborate ceremonies of going up and coming down the steps, and practises the etiquette of rushing and soaring to dazzle the multitudes. With all his extensive learning he cannot plan for the world; with all his laborious thought he cannot help the people. A whole lifetime cannot exhaust his learning; the grown man cannot observe his ceremonies; and even the wealthy cannot enjoy his music. He elaborates and adorns his improper ways to keep the lords busy; he profusely furnishes sounds and music to corrupt the people. His principles cannot instruct the world; his learning cannot lead the multitudes. Now you, my lord, commission him to change the customs of Qi. It really is not the way to lead a country and bring forward the multitudes." The Lord said: "This is well." Thereupon the Lord gave him valuable gifts but retained the commission, received him with respect but did not inquire into his teaching. Kong Mo became angry, angry with Lord Jing and Yanzi. So, he placed Chi Yi Ze Pi in the following of Tian Chang, and communicated his plans to Hui-tzu of the South City. Then he returned to Lu. Before long, Qi desired to attack Lu. He remarked to Zi Gong: "Oh, Ci, now is the time to do the great deed." Thereupon he sent Zi Gong to Qi and, through the introduction of Huizi of the South City, saw Tian Chang. Zi Gong persuaded him to attack Wu (instead of Lu). He also told Gao Guo Bao Yan not to interfere with Tian Chang's insurrection. Then he went on and persuaded Yue to attack Wu. For three years, both Qi and Wu were threatened with ruin. The bodies of those killed amounted to hundreds of thousands. And this was the revenge of Kong Mo.

10

非儒下:

孔某為魯司寇，舍公家而奉季孫。季孫相魯君而走，季孫與邑人爭門關，決植。

Anti-Confucianism II:

Kong Mo was once the Chief Justice of Lu. But he abandoned the cause of the lord and entered the service of Jisun. Jisun was the Chancellor of Lu but deserted his trust and ran away. As he was trying to force the gate against the guards, Kong Mo lifted the beam (for him).

11

非儒下:

孔某窮於蔡陳之閒，藜羹不糝，十日，子路為享豚，孔某不問肉之所由來而食；號人衣以酤酒，孔某不問酒之所由來而飲。哀公迎孔子，席不端弗坐，割不正弗食，子路進，請曰：“何其與陳、蔡反也？”孔某曰：“來！吾語女，曩與女為苟生，今與女為苟義。”夫飢約則不辭妄取，以活身，贏飽則偽行以自飾，汙邪詐偽，孰大於此！

Anti-Confucianism II:

Once, Kong Mo was in straits between Cai and Chen having only vegetable soup without even rice to eat. After ten days of this, Zi Lu cooked a pig for him. Kong Mo did not inquire whence the meat came, and ate. Zi Lu robbed some one of his garment and exchanged it for wine. Kong Mo did not inquire whence the wine came, and drank. But when Lord Ai received Confucius, Confucius would not sit on a mat that was not placed straight and would not eat meat that was not cut properly. Zi Lu went to him and asked: "Why the reverse to what you did on the borders of Chen and Cai? Kong Mo answered: "Come, let me tell you. Then, our goal was to keep alive. Now our goal is to behave righteously." Now when hunger-stricken he was not scrupulous about the means of keeping alive, and when satiated he acted hypocritically to appear refined. What foolery, perversion, villainy, and pretension can be greater than this!

12

非儒下:

孔某與其門弟子閒坐，曰：“夫舜見瞽叟孰然，此時天下圾乎！周公旦非其人也邪？何為舍其家室而託寓也？”孔某所行，心術所至也。其徒屬弟子皆效孔某。子貢、季路輔孔悝亂乎衛，陽貨亂乎齊，佛肸以中牟叛，桼雕刑殘，莫大焉。夫為弟子後生，其師，必脩其言，法其行，力不足，知弗及而後已。今孔某之行如此，儒士則可以疑矣。

Anti-Confucianism II:

Kong Mo was lounging with his disciples. He remarked: "When Shun saw Gu Sou, he felt uneasy. The empire at the time must be in danger. Was not Dan, the Duke of Zhou, unmagnanimous? Why did he resign from his public office and retire to his private home? This shows Kong Mo's conduct and the attitude of his mind. His followers and disciples all imitated him: Zi Gong and Ji Lu assisted Kong Li and committed high treason against the state of Wei. Yang Huo rebelled against Qi. Fei Gan was entrusted with Zhong Mou and became independent. Qi Diao had a ferocious appearance. Nothing can be more... than this! Of course the disciples and pupils, following a teacher, will advocate his doctrines and imitate his conduct. Only, they are not as powerful and not as clever. Now, since such was the conduct of Kong Mo, the Confucian scholars are naturally to be objects of suspicion.