墨子 MOZI

Stopping: Another, on the basis of these being so, says this is so. I, on the basis of these not being so, call in question this being so.

In speaking of four-footed animals, they are different from ox and horse, and different from the totality of things, being a larger (class than the former) and a smaller (class than the latter). If these being so meant that this was necessarily so, then all would be confused.

The same name: Both ‘contend’ but not both ‘are in two minds’ is the example of ‘being in two minds’ and ‘to contend’. One’s offspring and one’s liver and lungs are related to ‘nurture’ and ‘love’. Mao and mao are for ‘feeding’ and ‘calling’ respectively. Most of a white horse is white, most of a blind horse is not blind; this is ‘white’ and ‘blind’. Being termed li does not necessarily mean beauty; being termed bao does not necessarily mean cruel. Being deemed ‘wrong’ by others is not being ‘wrong’. Being deemed ‘a brave man’ is not being deemed ‘a man’. Being deemed ‘shoes’ when linked in ‘buying clothes’ is being ‘shoes’; this is ‘man’ and ‘shoes’.

If one of two is lost, it is not joined with the one remaining. If a part is gone, it is not there. What is there is the entity, and afterwards one speaks of it. What is not an entity is not spoken of. It is not like ‘flower’ and ‘beautiful’. If one speaks of ‘this’, then ‘this’ is inherently beautiful. If one speaks of something else, then ‘this’ is not beautiful. If one does not speak of it, then it is reported on.

The seen and the not-seen are separate; one and two do not fill each other; length and breadth; hard and white.

Lifting a weight is not equivalent to lifting a needle, which is not the strength’s responsibility. Taking counters that are grasped to be odd or even is not the intellect’s responsibility. It is like ears and eyes.

Of wood and night, which is the longer? Of knowledge and grain, which is the greater? Of the four things – rank, family, good conduct and price – which is the most valuable? Of the tailed deer and the crane, which is the higher? Of the cicada and the zither, which is the more mournful?

Part: In both being one there is no change.

False: False is necessarily wrong and only then is false. ‘Dog’ is falsely taken as being ‘crane’; like a family name is ‘crane’.

A thing: Someone wounding him is how it is so. Seeing it is knowing [it]. Informing them is causing [others] to know.

Doubt: If one comes upon someone engaged in affairs, then one takes him to be an officer. If one comes upon an ox in a shelter, then one takes the summer to be cold. This is ‘coming upon’. If one raises it, it is light; if one casts it away, it is heavy – like stone and feathers. It is not that there is strength. A wooden writing strip follows paring. This is not skill. This is ‘following’. Whether the concealment of contention is through the drinking of wine or the conduct of business cannot be known. This is ‘meeting with’. Is it known? Is it through already being so? This is ‘being past’.

Both: Both being one. For example [both] ox and horse have four feet. Being specifically this fits [both] ox and horse. If you count oxen and you count horses, then ox and horse are two. If you count ox-horse, then ox and horse are one. It is like counting fingers; the fingers are five yet the five are one.

Length: There is movement in space and there is position (rest) – (this is) space. Space is north and south at sunrise and also at sunset – (this is) space moving in time.

Touching hard, one obtains white; they necessarily mutually fill.

‘Placing’: [To say that] Yao was skilled at ruling is to examine the past from the perspective of the present. If one examines the present from the perspective of the past, Yao would not be able to rule.

A shadow: When the light arrives, the shadow disappears. If it stays, it remains indefinitely.

A shadow: Two lights double one light and the shadow produced by one light.

The image (shadow): The light reaches the person shining like an arrow. The lowest [light] that reaches the person is the highest [in the image] and the highest [light] that reaches the person is the lowest [in the image]. The feet conceal the lowest light and therefore become the image (shadow) at the top. The head conceals the highest light and therefore becomes the image (shadow) at the bottom. This is because either far or near there is an aperture with light in it, therefore the image (shadow) turns around within it.

The shadow: When the sun’s light returns to illuminate the person, the shadow is situated between the sun and the person.

A shadow (image): When the post is oblique the shadow is short and broad whereas, when the post is upright, the shadow (image) is long and narrow. When the light source is smaller than the post, the shadow (image) is larger than the post and vice versa (and not only in the case of small). Form and appearance, brightness and darkness, far and near, oblique and upright, are opposite to the illuminated [object]. The mirror faces and the image (shadow) doubles. In coming towards and going away there is also facing and doubling, the doubling using the ‘back’. With respect to the mirror, its post is in the mirror and there is nothing which is not mirror. The image’s (shadow’s) post is without number, and necessarily exceeds the upright. Therefore in the same place its body is double; nevertheless, the mirror separates.

A mirror: When the object is within the centre and approaches the centre, what is mirrored becomes larger and the image also becomes larger. When it moves away from the centre, what is mirrored becomes smaller and the image also becomes smaller, yet necessarily upright.

Bearing: In the case of a horizontal piece of wood, if a weight is added to it and it does not incline, the counterweight ‘is equal to’ the weight. If the point of suspension of the counterweight is moved to the right, and without adding to it, it does incline, the counterweight ‘is not equal to’ the weight. When horizontal, if a weight is added to one of its sides, it necessarily inclines downwards. When both are horizontal, the ‘root’ is short and the ‘branch’ is long. When the two are added to with equivalent weights, the ‘branch’ necessarily falls, as it acquires the ‘force’.

Raising: In raising, there is force; in lowering, there is no force. It is not necessary that what raises it stops in action (is direct or oblique). The rope restrains raising it; it is like an awl piercing it. In lifting, what is long and heavy descends, what is short and light ascends. What ascends increasingly gains; what descends increasingly loses. If the rope is straight and the counterweight and weight are alike, then it is in balance. In lowering, what ascends increasingly loses, what descends increasingly gains. Ascending involves the counterweight, the weight then completely falling.

Leaning: Two wheels being high and two wheels being small and without spokes are [the features of] a mobile ladder. There is a weight at its front and a drawing cord at its front. In the case of this ladder, you lift. Moreover, when you lift, it then goes up. In general, with a weight, if it is not lifted up from above, or if it is not received from below, or if it does not have a lateral force applied, then it goes downwards vertically. If it is slanting or something ‘harms’ it, it is unstable. The ladder itself does not have instability – it is upright. In the present case, when the weight is placed on level ground, the weight is necessarily down and not to the side. Leaning against, resisting, firm, ladder; if it is leaning against something, it is not upright.

Piling up: A square (reference) stone is placed 1 chi away from the ground, and a connecting stone is placed at its lower surface. A suspending cord is attached to its upper surface and is caused to reach to the square (reference) stone, so it doesn’t fall down, and there is a column. If the cord remains attached but the (supporting) stone is removed, this is lifting. If the cord is cut, this is ‘drawing down’. If there is no change (in the cord), but the stone changes, this is ‘receiving’.

Price: Money and grain are mutually related in terms of price. If money is low (in value), grain is not expensive, whereas if money is high (in value), grain is not cheap. The royal coinage does not change but grain does change, and if the year changes [the amount of] grain, then the year changes money.

Price: ‘Completeness’ is to completely do away with whatever makes it not sell. If what makes it not sell is done away with, then it sells, ‘correcting’ the price. Whether it is appropriate or not appropriate ‘corrects’ whether (the item) is desired or not desired. It is like a defeated country where houses are sold and offspring given in marriage.

If one’s son is in the army, one is not certain whether he is dead or alive. If one hears of a battle, one is also not certain whether he is dead or alive. In the former case, there is no fear; in the latter case, there is fear.

Huo (something, someone): One knows ‘this’ is not ‘this’ and also knows ‘this’ is not at ‘this’. Nevertheless, one calls ‘this’ south or north, having passed through and taken it already to be so. At first one called ‘this’ the south, so now one calls ‘this’ the south.

When there is knowledge, one can discuss it; when there is not knowledge, there is no means (to do so).

Calling: If what is called [something] is not the same, then it is different. The case of being the same is one person saying, ‘This is a dog’ and another saying, ‘This is a pup.’ The case of being different is one person saying, ‘This is an ox’ and another saying, ‘This is a horse.’ In both there is not overcoming. When in both there is not overcoming, it is not disputation. Disputation is where one person says, ‘This is this’ and another says, ‘This is not [this]’, and the one who is correct, overcomes.

In respect to yielding, there is that in relation to wine; where there is proximity, it is not permissible to yield.

A stone is one [thing]; hard and white are two [things] and are in the stone. Therefore ‘there is the known in it and there is the not known in it’ is permissible.

There is zhi: If you know this and also know this which I previously raised, this is double. Then, if you know this, but do not know that which I previously raised, this is one. This is to say there is the known in it and there is the not known in it is admissible. If you know it, then it is valid to zhi it (represent it, point it out). If knowledge informs me, then I know it. A combined zhi is through two. A crosswise zhi is when three are met with. Moreover, if what is known is this and what is not known is this, then this is known and this is not known, so how can you make it one and say: ‘There is the known in it, there is the not known in it.’

That which: In the case of spring, its state cannot be represented (pointed out). In the case of a runaway servant, there is not knowing his whereabouts. In the case of pup/dog, there is not knowing its name. In the case of what is lost, despite skill, one is not able to regain (duplicate) it.

Knowing: If to know a pup (gou) duplicates to know a dog (quan), then it is a mistake. If it does not duplicate this, then it is not a mistake.

Understanding: The questioner asks: ‘Do you know the sojourner?’ The one replying says: ‘What is the sojourner called?’ The other says: ‘The sojourner is Shi.’ Then you know him. If you don’t ask what the sojourner is called but directly respond with ‘I don’t know’, then it is a mistake. Moreover, the response must be appropriate to the question in terms of time.

Place: The room or hall is the place where they are. His sons are those who are there. To rely on who is there and ask about the room or hall, one says: ‘Where (in what) are they?’ To take as primary the room or hall and ask about who is there, one says: ‘Who is there?’

Five: If you combine water, earth and fire, fire loses. Nevertheless, fire melts metal, fire being greater, and metal extinguishes charcoal, metal being greater. If you combine the ‘treasury’ wood [with itself, then] wood ‘loses’ wood. It is like distinguishing the numbers of deer and fish – it simply depends on circumstances.

Desiring and detesting injure life and harm longevity. This is explained by reducing what is offered and liking this only. When there is a lot of grain, there may be the wish not to have it because it can also be injurious – like the effect of wine on people. Moreover, when a wise person benefits others, it is love. Then wisdom alone is not controlling.

Loss: In the case of eating one’s fill, to set aside what is superfluous having eaten enough is not harmful. Eating to satiety can be harmful. It is like the injured deer being without a haunch. Moreover, there are instances of loss before there is gain. It is like the fever in a febrile illness.

Knowledge (knowing): Seeing is by means of the eyes and the eyes see by means of fire, and yet fire does not see. If knowledge was only by way of the ‘five roads’ (five senses), it would not relate to duration. Seeing is by means of the eyes is like seeing is by means of fire.

Fire: Calling the fire hot is not to take the fire’s heat as something I have. It is like looking at the sun. / Knowing: If you lump together what he knows and what he doesn’t know and question him, then he has to say: ‘This is what I know; this is what I don’t know.’ Choosing and discarding both make this possible; these are the two kinds of knowing.

Not being: For example, with something not being there, there was this and afterwards there is not. In the case of there not being ‘heaven falling’, this was not so (before) and is not so (now).

Quoting a precedent: If there is doubt it is not said. ‘If Zang has recently died and the same thing also affects Chun, he will also die’ is permissible.

About to be so: It is like this. What is about to be so is necessarily so. What is about to come to an end necessarily comes to an end. With regard to being about to put forth effort for something to come to an end, it is necessary to put forth the effort and afterwards it comes to an end.

Balanced: If a hair is balanced it suspends light [or heavy things] but if the hair breaks, it is not balanced. Balanced is when what might break does not break.

Yao and crane: The one is shown to people through the name; the other is shown to people through the object. When you raise Yao’s perfection, this is to use the name to show people. When you point to this crane, this is to use the object to show people. In the case of Yao’s yi, the hearing of it may be in the present, but what is yi is located in the past.

A pup: A pup is a dog. So to call killing a pup killing a dog is admissible. It is like the two buttocks.

Causing: Ordering is causing. Righteously to cause is yi; righteously not to cause is also yi. There is causing to employ: Yi also applies to causing to employ; not yi also applies to causing to employ.

Jing (Chu): Shen is Jing’s (Chu’s) tool. Then Shen’s weakness is not Jing’s (Chu’s) weakness. It is like changing one part of five. In the case of the pillar’s roundness, when we see it, its being in the concept doesn’t change from prior knowledge. A concept is an image.

A hammer: That hammering block and hammer both serve in [the making of] shoes is ‘being possible to use’. Completing the decorating of shoes goes beyond the hammer and the hammer goes beyond the decorating of shoes – they are the same in this respect. This is going beyond matching.

One: Five has one in it; one has five in it; ten is (means) two.

Not: In dividing in half, you progress by taking what is in front. The front, then, is the centre of what was not halved; it is like a point. If you take both what is in front and what is behind, then a point is the centre. In dividing, there must be a half for, if there is not and there is not a half, it is not possible to divide.

Admissible: Not being (non-being) is admissible. Once something has already been, then it must have been so and [its] not being (non-being) is inadmissible. (Duration is both limited and without limit.)

Regular: With a ball there is nowhere it can be placed where it does not hang from its centre because it is spherical.

Space: When a region cannot be partially raised (demarcated), there is space. What moves forward first spreads out near and afterwards spreads out far.

Travelling: The one travelling is necessarily near before and far after. Far and near are distances. Before and after are durations. If people travel distances, it must involve duration.

One: When squares complete a class they all have the criterion, although they may be different. If some are wood and some are stone, this doesn’t harm their being grouped together as squares. They complete a class such as ‘squares’. Things are all like this.

‘Wild’: Ox and horse are certainly different but to take ‘ox has incisors’, ‘horse has tail’ as an explanation of ‘ox is not horse’ is inadmissible. These are what both have and not what one has and one doesn’t have. If you say, ‘ox and horse are not of a class’ on the basis of ox having horns and horse not having horns, this is the class not being the same. But if you do [not] raise, ‘ox has horns, horse does not have horns’ as the basis for the classes not being the same, this is wild raising. It is like ‘ox has incisors, horse has tail’.

Therefore, it is never admissible to say that ‘ox-horse is not ox’ and it is never admissible to say that ‘ox-horse is ox’, since it is admissible of some but inadmissible of others. Furthermore, if ox is not two and horse is not two, but ox-horse is two, then ‘ox is not not-ox’, ‘horse is not not-horse’ and ‘ox-horse is not ox and not horse’ are without difficulty.

That: In the correction of names, with respect to that and this [there are three cases]. (i) That and this are admissible: That [name] applies to that [entity] and stops at that [entity]; this [name] applies to this [entity] and stops at this [entity]. (ii) That and this are not admissible: That [name] but this [entity]. (iii) That-this is also admissible: That-this stops at that-this.

Leading: In leading without exception, there is not what is comprehensive – like weeds. In following without exception, there is being directed – there is no choice. Leading but not following – this is not to learn. If you do not learn when your knowledge is slight, your merit must be diminished. Following but not leading – this is not to teach. If you do not teach when your knowledge is great, your merit comes to an end. For example, if you cause a person to seize another’s garment, the fault in one is slight and in the other is great. If you cause a person to give wine to another, the merit in one is great and in the other is slight.

Hearing: What is outside is what you know. What is in the room is what you don’t know. Someone says: ‘The colour of what is in the room is like the colour of this.’ This is to hear that what you don’t know is like what you do know. Now you know its colour is like white, therefore you know it is white. Names are the means whereby what is not known is made clear and corrected and not the means whereby doubt is cast on what is clear. It is like using chi as a measurement for an unknown length. What is outside you know by direct experience; what is in the room you know by being told.

To take: False equates with inadmissible. If this person’s words are admissible and this is not false, then this is also admissible. If this person’s words are inadmissible in terms of validity, they are certainly not valid.

Responding: To say this huo (crane, a person’s name) is admissible, but it is still not huo in general. To say ‘that’ and ‘this’ are ‘this’ is inadmissible. What is spoken of does not correspond to what he says. If ‘that’ corresponds to what he says, then what I say works. If ‘that’ does not correspond to what he says, then what the other says does not work.

Objection: In the case of the south, if it has a limit, then it can be ‘exhausted’; if it has no limit, then it cannot be ‘exhausted’. If it can never be known whether it does or does not have a limit, then whether it can or cannot be ‘exhausted’ can never be known. So, of necessity, the claim that people can love exhaustively (i.e. universally) is perverse. Response: With respect to people, if they do not ‘fill’ what is ‘without limit’, then people are ‘with limit’. ‘Exhausting’ what is ‘with limit’ presents no difficulty. If (people) ‘fill’ what is ‘without limit’, then what is ‘without limit’ is ‘exhausted’. ‘Exhausting’ what is ‘without limit’ presents no difficulty.

Objection: If you don’t know their number, how do you know that loving the people is something that ‘exhausts’ it? Response: There are some who are left out in his questioning. If he exhaustively questions people, then he exhaustively loves those who are questioned. Then not to know the number, yet to know loving them ‘exhausts’ it, is without difficulty.

Ren: Ren equates with love; yi equates with benefit. Love and benefit relate to ‘this’ (the self); what is loved and what is benefited relate to ‘that’ (the other). Love and benefit are neither internal nor external; what is loved and what is benefited are neither external nor internal. To say that ren is internal and yi is external and to conflate love with what is benefited are examples of ‘wild raising’. It is like the left eye being external and the right eye being internal.

In the case of learning, consider taking someone as not knowing that learning is without benefit and therefore teaching him [this]. Causing him to know that learning is without benefit is, in fact, to teach him. To take learning to be of no benefit and yet to teach is contradictory.

Criticism: In sorting out whether criticism is admissible or inadmissible, if you take the principle as susceptible to criticism, then even if the criticism is excessive, it is right. If its principle is not susceptible to criticism, even if the criticism is slight, it is wrong. Nowadays it is said that what is much criticized is not admissible. This is like using the long to discuss the short.

Negating: If the criticism is negatable, my criticism of it is not negatable; it is criticism inadmissible to negate. Being inadmissible to negate, this is not negatable criticism.

A thing: If it is extremely long (the longest) or extremely short (the shortest), there is nothing longer than ‘this’, or nothing shorter than ‘this’. In the cases of ‘this’ being ‘this’ or not being ‘this’, there is nothing more extreme than ‘this’.

Choosing: High and low are judged by the standards of good and bad. It is not like mountain and marsh. If being situated low is better than being situated high, [then] low is what is called high.

(In the case of) ‘this-this’, there is ‘this’ as well as ‘this’ in it. Now in the case of ‘this’, there is ‘this’ in ‘this’ and ‘not this’ in ‘this’, therefore ‘this-not this’. In the case of ‘this-not this’, then there is ‘this’ and ‘not this’ in it. Now in the case of ‘this’, there is ‘not this’ in ‘this’ and ‘this’ in ‘this’, therefore ‘this’ and ‘this-not this’ are both said.