Universal Love III

The Master Mozi said: The benevolent person’s task must be to strive diligently to bring benefit to the world and to eliminate harm from the world. Now, in the present age, what is the greatest harm in the world? The answer is: things like large states attacking small states, great clans disturbing small clans, the strong coercing the weak, the many bullying the few, the cunning scheming against the simple, the noble looking down on the lowly—these are harms in the world. Again, things like rulers not being benevolent, ministers not being loyal, fathers not being loving, sons not being filial—these too are harms in the world. Again, things like people nowadays taking up weapons, poison, fire, and water to harm and injure each other—these too are harms in the world. Let us try to trace the origin of these harms: from where do they arise? Do they arise from loving others and benefiting others? Then surely the answer must be no, and surely it must be said that they arise from hating others and harming others. If we distinguish among those in the world who hate others and harm others, do they practice universal love or partial love? Then surely the answer must be partial love. If so, then is this mutual partial love indeed the cause of the great harms in the world? Therefore, partial love is wrong.

The Master Mozi said: To oppose something, one must have something to replace it. If one opposes something without having something to replace it, it is like using water to save water or using fire to save fire—this doctrine will surely not work. Therefore, the Master Mozi said: Use universal love to replace partial love. If so, then what is the reason that universal love can replace partial love? The answer: Suppose one regards another’s state as one’s own state—who would then single-handedly raise one’s own state to attack another’s state? One would treat others as oneself. Suppose one regards another’s city as one’s own city—who would then single-handedly raise one’s own city to attack another’s city? One would treat others as oneself. Suppose one regards another’s clan as one’s own clan—who would then single-handedly raise one’s own clan to disturb another’s clan? One would treat others as oneself. If so, then states and cities not attacking each other, clans not disturbing or harming each other—is this a harm in the world or a benefit in the world? Then surely the answer must be a benefit in the world. Let us try to trace the origin of this benefit: from where does it arise? Does it arise from hating others and harming others? Then surely the answer must be no, and surely it must be said that it arises from loving others and benefiting others. If we distinguish among those in the world who love others and benefit others, do they practice partial love or universal love? Then surely the answer must be universal love. If so, then is this mutual universal love indeed the cause of the great benefits in the world? Therefore, the Master Mozi said: Universal love is correct.

Moreover, I have said before: The benevolent person’s task must be to strive diligently to bring benefit to the world and to eliminate harm from the world. Now I have traced the principle by which universal love produces great benefits in the world, and the principle by which partial love produces great harms in the world. Therefore, the Master Mozi said: Partial love is wrong and universal love is correct—this is the reason. Now I will strive diligently to bring benefit to the world and choose it, taking universal love as the correct standard. Therefore, people use their keen ears and bright eyes to help each other see and hear, use their strong limbs to help each other work, and those with the Way teach each other. Thus, the elderly without wives or children are provided for to live out their natural span; the young and orphaned without parents have someone to rely on to grow up. Now, if one governs with universal love, there will be such benefits. I do not know why the scholars of the world, upon hearing of universal love, oppose it.

Yet the scholars of the world have not stopped their opposition to universal love. They say: “Universal love may be good, but can it actually be put into practice?” The Master Mozi said: If universal love could not be put into practice, even I would oppose it. How could there be something good that cannot be put into practice? Let us try from two perspectives. Suppose there are two scholars. Let one practice partial love and the other practice universal love. Therefore, the scholar who practices partial love says: “How can I regard my friend’s body as my own body, or my friend’s relatives as my own relatives?” Thus, when he turns and sees his friend, if the friend is hungry, he does not feed him; if cold, he does not clothe him; if sick, he does not tend to him; if dead, he does not bury him. Such are the words and deeds of the partial-love scholar. The universal-love scholar speaks differently and acts differently. He says: “I have heard that to be a noble scholar in the world, one must regard one’s friend’s body as one’s own body, and one’s friend’s relatives as one’s own relatives—only then can one be a noble scholar in the world.” Thus, when he turns and sees his friend, if the friend is hungry, he feeds him; if cold, he clothes him; if sick, he tends to him; if dead, he buries him. Such are the words and deeds of the universal-love scholar. Now, do these two scholars speak in opposition to each other and act in opposition as well? Suppose these two scholars are such that their words are always trustworthy and their actions always resolute, so that their words and deeds are consistent like matching tallies, and they never say something without doing it. If so, then I ask: Now here there is a broad plain. Someone puts on armor and helmet and is about to go to battle, where life and death are uncertain. Again, there is a lord or great minister sent far away to Ba, Yue, Qi, or Chu, where the possibility of return is uncertain. Then I ask: To whom would he entrust his family, his relatives, his wife, and his children? Would he entrust them to the one who practices universal love or to the one who practices partial love? I think that in such a case, even the most foolish man or woman in the world, even one who opposes universal love, would surely entrust them to the one who practices universal love. This shows that in words they oppose universal love, but in choice they select universal love—this is a contradiction between words and deeds. I do not know why the scholars of the world, upon hearing of universal love, oppose it.

Yet the scholars of the world have not stopped their opposition to universal love. They say: “Perhaps it can be used to select scholars, but it cannot be used to select rulers.” Let us try from two perspectives. Suppose there are two rulers. Let one practice universal love and the other practice partial love. Therefore, the ruler who practices partial love says: “How can I regard the bodies of the myriad people as my own body? This is utterly contrary to the common nature of the world. A person’s life in the world is brief, like a team of horses galloping past a crack.” Thus, when he turns and sees the myriad people, if they are hungry, he does not feed them; if cold, he does not clothe them; if sick, he does not tend to them; if dead, he does not bury them. Such are the words and deeds of the partial-love ruler. The universal-love ruler speaks differently and acts differently. He says: “I have heard that to be a wise ruler in the world, one must first consider the bodies of the myriad people and only then consider one’s own body—only then can one be a wise ruler in the world.” Thus, when he turns and sees the myriad people, if they are hungry, he feeds them; if cold, he clothes them; if sick, he tends to them; if dead, he buries them. Such are the words and deeds of the universal-love ruler. If so, then do these two rulers speak in opposition to each other and act in opposition as well? Suppose these two rulers are such that their words are always trustworthy and their actions always resolute, so that their words and deeds are consistent like matching tallies, and they never say something without doing it. If so, then I ask: Now in a year of plague, the myriad people suffer much hardship, cold, and hunger, and many die and are left in ditches. I ask: In such a case, which ruler would they choose? I think that in such a case, even the most foolish man or woman in the world, even one who opposes the universal-love ruler, would surely follow the universal-love ruler. This shows that in words they oppose universal love, but in choice they select universal love—this is a contradiction between words and deeds. I do not know why those in the world, upon hearing of universal love, oppose it.

However, the scholars of the world still have not ceased their objections to universal love, saying: "Universal love is indeed benevolent and righteous. Even so, can it actually be put into practice? I consider universal love to be impracticable, like lifting Mount Tai to cross the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers. Therefore, universal love is merely a wish—how could it be something that can be implemented?" Master Mozi said: Lifting Mount Tai to cross the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers—from antiquity to the present, since the existence of humankind, has never occurred. But now, mutual love and mutual benefit—these were personally practiced by the sage kings of old. How do we know that the sage kings of old personally practiced them? Master Mozi said: I did not live in the same era as them, nor did I personally hear their voices or see their countenances. I know this from the records written on bamboo and silk, engraved on metal and stone, carved on basins and vessels, and transmitted to future generations. The "Great Oath" says: "King Wen shone like the sun and moon, his brilliance illuminating the four quarters, reaching the western lands." This means that King Wen's universal love was as vast as the sun and moon shining impartially on all under heaven, without selfishness—this was King Wen's universal love. Even the universal love that I speak of is modeled after King Wen. Moreover, it is not only the "Great Oath" that says this; the "Oath of Yu" also says this. Yu said: "All you lords, listen to me. It is not that I, the young one, dare to cause disorder, but that the Miao tribes are stirring. Therefore, Heaven is about to punish them. Now I lead you, the lords, to campaign against the Miao." Yu's campaign against the Miao was not for seeking wealth, rank, blessings, or pleasure, but to promote benefit and eliminate harm for all under heaven—this was Yu's universal love. Even the universal love that I speak of is modeled after Yu. Moreover, it is not only the "Oath of Yu" that says this; the "Declaration of Tang" also says this. Tang said: "I, the young one Lü, dare to use a black bull to announce to the sovereign Heaven and Earth: Now all under heaven suffers a great drought; let it be upon me, Lü, to bear it. I do not know what offense I have committed against Heaven and Earth. I dare not conceal good deeds, nor dare I pardon faults; all this is clear in the heart of the Sovereign on High. If the myriad regions have transgressions, let them fall on me alone; if I alone have transgressions, let them not extend to the myriad regions." This means that Tang, though honored as the Son of Heaven and possessing all under heaven, did not fear making himself a sacrifice to offer to the Sovereign on High and the ghosts and spirits—this was Tang's universal love. Even the universal love that I speak of is modeled after Tang. Moreover, it is not only the "Oath of Yu" and the "Declaration of Tang" that say this; the "Poetry" of Zhou also says this. The Zhou "Poetry" says: "The kingly way is broad, without partiality or faction; the kingly way is level, without faction or partiality. It is straight as an arrow, smooth as a whetstone. The noble man treads it, the common man looks to it." If my words do not speak of this principle? In ancient times, when King Wen and King Wu governed the state, they distributed rewards equally to the worthy and punished the cruel, without favoring relatives or brothers—this was the universal love of King Wen and King Wu. Even the universal love that I speak of is modeled after King Wen and King Wu. I do not know why the people of the world, upon hearing of universal love, oppose it.

Yet the world's criticisms of universal love have still not ceased. They say: "Does it not conflict with the interests of one's own parents, and is it not harmful to filial piety?" Mozi said: "Let us for a moment examine from the root the situation of a filial son considering his parents. I do not know whether the filial son, in considering his parents, hopes that others will love and benefit his parents, or hopes that others will hate and harm his parents? According to common sense, he certainly hopes that others will love and benefit his parents. Then, what should I do first to achieve this result? Should I first love and benefit others' parents, so that others then love and benefit my parents in return? Or should I first hate and harm others' parents, so that others then love and benefit my parents in return? Surely it must be that I first love and benefit others' parents, and then others love and benefit my parents in return. Therefore, this mutual filial piety—is it truly unavoidable? Is it not rather that one ought first to engage in loving and benefiting others' parents? Or does one consider all filial sons under heaven to be foolish, insufficient to serve as a correct standard? Let us for a moment examine the records of the former kings. The 'Greater Elegies' say: 'No word is left unanswered, no kindness goes unrepaid. You throw me a peach, I repay you with a plum.' This means that one who loves others will surely be loved by them, and one who hates others will surely be hated by them. I do not know why the scholars of the world, upon hearing of universal love, criticize it—what is the reason for this? Do they consider it difficult to practice and therefore impracticable? There have been things more difficult than this that have been accomplished. In former times, King Ling of Chu admired slim waists. During King Ling's reign, the scholars of Chu ate no more than one meal a day, supporting themselves with canes to stand, and leaning against walls to walk. Fasting was indeed a very difficult thing, yet people did it because King Ling liked it. Within no more than a generation, the people's customs changed—this was to cater to the ruler's preference. In former times, King Goujian of Yue admired bravery. He trained his officers and men for three years, considering his own wisdom insufficient to understand the matter. Then he burned the boats, lit a fire, and beat the drum to order the advance. Those officers and men who fell forward and died in the fire and water were beyond count. At that time, if they had retreated without the drum, the officers of Yue could all be said to have been afraid. Thus, burning one's body was indeed a very difficult thing, yet people did it because the King of Yue liked it. Within no more than a generation, the people's customs changed—this was to cater to the ruler's preference. In former times, Duke Wen of Jin admired coarse clothing. During Duke Wen's reign, the scholars of Jin wore garments of coarse cloth, cloaks of sheepskin, caps of raw silk, and sandals of rough hemp, entering the court to see Duke Wen and walking in the assembly. Thus, wearing coarse clothing was indeed a very difficult thing, yet people did it because Duke Wen liked it. Within no more than a generation, the people's customs changed—this was to cater to the ruler's preference. Therefore, fasting, burning one's body, and wearing coarse clothing—these are the most difficult things in the world, yet people did them because the rulers liked them. Within no more than a generation, the people's customs changed. Why was this? It was to cater to the ruler's preference. Now, mutual love and mutual benefit are beneficial and easy to practice, with benefits too numerous to count. I think it is only because there is no ruler who likes it; if there truly were a ruler who liked it, encouraging it with rewards and praise, and deterring with punishments, I believe that people would rush toward mutual love and mutual benefit like fire rising upward and water flowing downward—under heaven, nothing could stop it.

Therefore, universal love is the great way of the sage kings, the foundation for kings, dukes, and great men to secure their position, and the guarantee for the myriad people to have ample clothing and food. So, the noble man should examine universal love and strive to practice it. The ruler must be benevolent, the minister must be loyal, the father must be loving, the son must be filial, the elder brother must be fraternal, and the younger brother must be respectful. Therefore, if the noble man wishes to become a benevolent ruler, a loyal minister, a loving father, a filial son, a fraternal elder brother, and a respectful younger brother, he must practice universal love. This is the great way of the sage kings and the greatest benefit for the myriad people.