兼愛(下)

If we classify all those in the realm who hate and harm others, is their approach universal or partial? We must say: 'It is partial.' Since those who practice partiality indeed produce the greatest harms in the realm, therefore partiality is wrong. Master Mozi said: 'One who condemns must have something to replace it with. If one condemns without having anything to replace it with, it is like trying to put out fire with fire -- the doctrine will surely lead nowhere.' Therefore Master Mozi said: 'Replace partiality with universality.'

Master Mozi said: 'If something is impracticable, even I would condemn it. But how can there be something good that is impracticable?' Let us try presenting both approaches side by side. Suppose there are two scholars: have one hold the partial view and the other the universal view. The partialist says: 'How can I care for my friend's person as for my own person? How can I care for my friend's parents as for my own parents?' Therefore when he sees his friend in need, he does not feed the hungry, clothe the cold, tend the sick, or bury the dead. Such are the partialist's words and such is his conduct. The universalist's words and conduct are otherwise. He says: 'I have heard that a superior scholar in the realm must care for his friend's person as for his own person, and for his friend's parents as for his own parents. Only then can he be called a superior scholar in the realm.' Therefore when he sees his friend in need, he feeds the hungry, clothes the cold, tends the sick, and buries the dead. Such are the universalist's words and such is his conduct.

Then let me ask: suppose on this broad plain and wide wilderness, donning armor and helmet, you are about to go to war, and whether you live or die is uncertain; or suppose you are sent by your lord on a distant mission to Ba, Yue, Qi, or Jing, and whether you will return is uncertain. Let me ask: not knowing what will happen, to whom would you entrust your family, commend your relatives, and consign your wife and children? To the universalist or to the partialist? I believe that at such a time, there is no foolish man or foolish woman in the realm -- even those who condemn universality -- who would not entrust them to the universalist. This means condemning universality in words but choosing universality when it matters -- words and actions contradict each other.

Therefore universality is the Way of the sage kings, the means by which kings and great men find security, and the means by which the myriad people have sufficient clothing and food. The gentleman should carefully examine universality and strive to practice it. As a ruler one must be generous; as a minister one must be loyal; as a father one must be kind; as a son one must be filial; as an elder brother one must be friendly; as a younger brother one must be respectful. Therefore the gentleman who wishes to be a generous ruler, a loyal minister, a kind father, a filial son, a friendly elder brother, or a respectful younger brother must practice universality. It must not go unpracticed. This is the Way of the sage kings and the great benefit of the myriad people.