Chapter 48: Gong Meng
On the Metaphor of the Bell
Gong Meng Zi said to Master Mo Zi, “A gentleman should wait respectfully, speaking only when asked and remaining silent when not asked, just like a bell: it sounds when struck, and remains silent when not struck.” Mo Zi replied, “Your statement involves three scenarios, yet you only know one and do not understand its true meaning. If a ruler acts tyrannically and the state is in imminent danger like a triggered crossbow, a gentleman must remonstrate even without being asked, for it is in the ruler’s best interest. If a ruler commits unrighteous acts, such as plotting to attack an innocent state, it will result in mutual destruction. In such cases, a gentleman must speak up even without being asked. Furthermore, right now no one has struck you like a bell, yet you are speaking. Does this not mean you are sounding without being struck? Are you then not acting contrary to your own definition of a gentleman?”
On Actively Promoting Righteousness
Gong Meng Zi said, “Those who truly do good are known to all. Like fine jade or a beautiful woman, if they stay hidden, people will still seek them; but if they parade themselves, no one will want them. Now you exhaust yourself persuading everyone.” Mo Zi replied, “In these chaotic times, many seek beautiful women, so a beauty can stay hidden and still be sought. But few seek goodness; if we do not actively persuade, people will not know of it. Suppose there are two diviners: one actively offers his services, while the other stays home. Who will earn more?” Gong Meng Zi said, “The active one.” Mo Zi said, “Righteousness is equal in value. The one who actively persuades others achieves greater merit. Why should we not actively persuade?”
On Conduct Versus Attire
Gong Meng Zi, wearing a Confucian cap, holding a tablet, and dressed in Confucian robes, visited Mo Zi and asked, “Does a gentleman act righteously because of his attire, or does he wear the attire because of his actions?” Mo Zi said, “Conduct does not depend on attire.” He cited Duke Huan of Qi, Duke Wen of Jin, King Zhuang of Chu, and King Goujian of Yue, who wore vastly different garments – from elaborate crowns to tattoos and rough cloth – yet all successfully governed their states. Gong Meng Zi offered to change his clothes before visiting again. Mo Zi replied, “If you must change your clothes before we can meet, then conduct indeed depends on attire.”
On Ancient Words and Confucius as Son of Heaven
Gong Meng Zi claimed, “A gentleman must use ancient words and wear ancient clothes to be benevolent.” Mo Zi refuted this by pointing out that both sages and tyrants used the same language and wore the same clothes, proving that benevolence lies in actions, not attire. He also noted that Gong Meng Zi modeled himself on the Zhou dynasty rather than the Xia, so his “ancient” was not truly ancient. When Gong Meng Zi praised Confucius’s vast knowledge and suggested he should be made Son of Heaven, Mo Zi retorted, “True wisdom requires revering Heaven, serving spirits, loving people, and being frugal. Saying Confucius can be Son of Heaven merely because he is learned is like counting another man’s teeth and claiming to be rich.”
On Fatalism and Contradictions
Gong Meng Zi stated that wealth, poverty, longevity, and premature death are fated and unchangeable, yet also insisted that gentlemen must study. Mo Zi pointed out the contradiction: “Teaching people to study while believing in fatalism is like telling someone to wear a turban while taking off their hat.” Similarly, Gong Meng Zi claimed there are no ghosts or spirits but insisted gentlemen must learn sacrificial rites. Mo Zi compared this to learning guest etiquette without having guests, or weaving fishing nets without fish.
On Mourning and Music
Mo Zi criticized the Confucian mourning rituals and their constant musical performances, arguing they would exhaust the ruler’s time for governance and the commoners’ time for production. When Gong Meng Zi argued that music should only be made when the state is peaceful and wealthy, Mo Zi replied, “Peace and wealth are the results of governance and labor. Abandoning them for music is like digging a well when choking, or seeking a doctor after death.” When asked why music is made, Confucians answered, “Music is for music’s sake.” Mo Zi dismissed this as a tautology, equivalent to saying “a house is for a house’s sake,” rather than providing functional reasons like shelter from cold or heat.
On the Four Policies That Ruin the World
Mo Zi told Cheng Zi that four Confucian policies would ruin the world: denying the spirits, promoting extravagant mourning, indulging in music, and believing in fatalism. Cheng Zi accused Mo Zi of slandering Confucianism. Mo Zi replied, “If Confucianism did not have these, my words would be slander. Since it does, I am merely stating the truth.” Later, Cheng Zi returned and said, “Your previous words had some merit. Following your logic, one would neither praise Yu nor condemn Jie and Zhou.” Mo Zi replied, “One must respond to arguments with appropriate weight. Responding to a mature argument with rigid moderation is like carrying a carriage pole to strike a mosquito.”
On Citing Confucius and Practicing Righteousness
During a debate, Mo Zi cited Confucius. Cheng Zi asked, “If you condemn Confucianism, why cite Confucius?” Mo Zi replied, “Because some of his words are undeniably correct. Even Yu and Tang would follow the natural instincts of birds and fish to avoid heat and drought. Why can I not cite what is correct?” Mo Zi also taught that one should practice righteousness independently, not based on whether others do so, just as people naturally pursue beauty and wealth regardless of their family’s habits.
On Divine Retribution and Self-Criticism
When a disciple complained that he received no blessings despite following Mo Zi, Mo Zi explained that failing to praise the virtues of others is akin to hiding criminals, which brings heavy sin. When Mo Zi fell ill, Die Bi questioned whether this proved the spirits were not wise. Mo Zi replied, “Illness has many causes, like cold, heat, or exhaustion. If a house has a hundred doors and you close only one, how can thieves not enter through the others?” He also advised his disciples to know their limits, refusing to let them learn archery while studying, as even elite warriors cannot multitask in battle. Regarding the critic Gao Zi, Mo Zi instructed his disciples not to abandon him, for Gao Zi’s verbal praise of righteousness, even if accompanied by bad conduct or criticism of Mo Zi, was better than complete silence. Finally, when Gao Zi claimed he could govern the state, Mo Zi retorted, “You cannot even govern your own bodily actions; how can you govern the state?”
Note
This chapter records debates between Mozi and Confucian Gong Mengzi. Mozi refutes Confucian views on passive conduct, ancient robes, fatalism, elaborate funerals and empty music, denouncing four harmful Confucian doctrines while acknowledging Confucius’ valid ideas.
Gong Meng Zi (公孟子) & Cheng Zi (程子):
Prominent Confucian scholars and frequent interlocutors of Mo Zi in this chapter. They represent orthodox Confucian views on ritual, music, and fatalism, serving as the primary targets for Mo Zi’s logical critiques.
Gao Zi (告子):
A philosopher often associated with early Confucianism or independent thought. Mo Zi acknowledges Gao Zi’s rhetorical skills and his verbal endorsement of righteousness, demonstrating Mo Zi’s pragmatic tolerance for partial agreement over complete rejection.
The Four Tyrants (桀、纣、幽、厉):
Jie of Xia, Zhou of Shang, King You and King Li of Zhou. Mo Zi repeatedly cites them as historical evidence of how indulgence in music and neglect of governance lead to national ruin.
Confucius:
Though Mo Zi heavily critiques Confucianism, he pragmatically cites Confucius when the latter’s statements align with undeniable truths or natural laws, showcasing Mohist objective logic over sectarian bias.
Mohist Pragmatism vs. Confucian Ritualism:
This chapter perfectly encapsulates the clash between Mohist utilitarianism and Confucian traditionalism. Mo Zi attacks elaborate mourning, music, and attire as economically draining and practically useless, whereas Confucians view them as essential for moral cultivation and social harmony.
The Doctrine of Fatalism:
Mo Zi fiercely attacks the Confucian concept of fate. He argues that believing outcomes are predetermined destroys the motivation to work, study, or govern, leading to societal collapse.
The Logic of Tautology:
Mo Zi’s critique of the Confucian definition of music (“music is for music’s sake”) is a classic example of his logical rigor. He demands functional definitions, rejecting circular reasoning.
Divine Retribution and Human Agency:
Mo Zi defends the belief in spirits and ghosts as a necessary tool for social control and moral encouragement. However, he also clarifies that divine punishment does not negate natural causes (like illness), maintaining a rational view of causality.
Counting Another’s Teeth:
A vivid metaphor used by Mo Zi to ridicule the idea that academic knowledge alone (like Confucius’s mastery of classics) qualifies someone for supreme political power, emphasizing that true wisdom requires practical virtue and action.
Digging a Well When Choking:
A famous idiom originating from this text, describing the absurdity of taking action only after a disaster has already occurred, highlighting Mo Zi’s proactive approach to governance.
Closing One Door Out of a Hundred:
An analogy explaining that illness or misfortune can come from countless natural causes; therefore, a single instance of sickness does not disprove the existence of divine justice.
公孟子谓子墨子曰：“君子共己以待，问焉则言，不问焉则止，譬若钟然，扣则鸣，不扣则不鸣。”墨子曰：“是言有三物焉，子乃今知其一身也，又未知其所谓也。若大人行淫暴于国家，进而谏，则谓之不逊；因左右而献谏，则谓之言议。此君子之所疑惑也。若大人为政，将因于国家之难，譬若机之将发也然，君子之必以谏，然而大人之利。若此者，虽不扣必鸣者也。若大人举不义之异行，虽得大巧之经，可行于军旅之事，欲攻伐无罪之国，有之也，君得之，则必用之矣。以广辟土地，著税伪材，出必见辱，所攻者不利，而攻者亦不利，是两不利也。若此者，虽不扣，必鸣者也。且子曰：‘君子共己以待，问焉则言，不问焉则止，譬若钟然，扣则鸣，不扣则不鸣。’今未有扣，子而言，是子之谓不扣而鸣邪？是子之所谓非君子邪？”
公孟子谓子墨子曰：“实为善，人孰不知？譬若良玉，处而不出有余糈。譬若美女，处而不出，人争求之，行而自炫，人莫之取也。今子遍从人而说之，何其劳也！”子墨子曰：“今夫世乱，求美女者众，美女虽不出，人多求之；今求善者寡，不强说人，人莫之知也。且有二生于此，善筮，一行为人筮者，一处而不出者，行为人筮者，与处而不出者，其糈孰多？”公孟子曰：“行为人筮者，其糈多。”子墨子曰：“仁义钧。行说人者，其功善亦多，何故不行说人也！”
公孟子戴章甫，搢忽，儒服，而以见子墨子，曰：“君子服然后行乎？其行然后服乎？”子墨子曰：“行不在服。”公孟子曰：“何以知其然也？”子墨子曰：“昔者齐桓公高冠博带，金剑木盾，以治其国，其国治。昔者晋文公大布之衣，牂羊之裘，韦以带剑，以治其国，其国治。昔者楚庄王鲜冠组缨，绛衣博袍，以治其国，其国治。昔者越王勾践剪发文身，以治其国，其国治。此四君者其服不同，其行犹一也。翟以是知行之不在服也。”公孟子曰：“善！吾闻之曰：宿善者不祥。请舍忽、易章甫，复见夫子，可乎？”子墨子曰：“请因以相见也。若必将舍忽、易章甫而后相见，然则行果在服也。”
公孟子曰：“君子必古言服，然后仁。”子墨子曰：“昔者商王纣，卿士费仲，为天下之暴人；箕子、微子，为天下之圣人。此同言，而或仁不仁也。周公旦为天下之圣人，关叔为天下之暴人，此同服，或仁或不仁。然则不在古服与古言矣。且子法周而未法夏也，子之古，非古也。”
公孟子谓子墨子曰：“昔者圣王之列也，上圣立为天子，其次立为卿大夫。今孔子博于《诗》、《书》，察于礼乐，详于万物，若使孔子当圣王，则岂不以孔子为天子哉！”子墨子曰：“夫知者，必尊天事鬼，爱人节用，合焉为知矣。今子曰‘知孔子博于《诗》、《书》，察于礼乐，详于万物’，而曰可以为天子，是数人之齿，而以为富。”
公孟子曰：“贫富寿夭，齰然在天，不可损益。”又曰：“君子必学。”子墨子曰：“教人学而执有命，是犹命人葆而去其冠也。”
公孟子谓子墨子曰：“有义不义，无祥不祥。”子墨子曰：“古圣王皆以鬼神为神明，而为祸福，执有祥不祥，是以政治而国安也。自桀纣以下皆以鬼神为不神明，不能为祸辐，执无祥不祥，是以政乱而国危也。故先王之书子亦有之曰：‘其傲也出，于子不祥。’此言为不善之有罚，为善之有赏。”
子墨子谓公孟子曰：“丧礼，君与父母、妻、后子死，三年丧服；伯父、叔父、兄弟期；族人五月；姑、姊、舅、甥有数月之丧。或以不丧之间，诵《诗》三百，弦《诗》三百，歌《诗》三百，舞《诗》三百。若用子之言，则君子何日以听治？庶人何日以从事？”公孟子曰：“国乱则治之，国治则为礼乐；国治则从事，国富则为礼乐。”子墨子曰：“国之治，治之废，则国之治亦废。国之富也，从事故富也；从事废，则国之富亦废。故虽治国，劝之无餍，然后可也。今子曰，国治则为礼乐，乱则治之，是譬犹噎而穿井也，死而求医也。古者三代暴王桀、纣、幽、厉，（草头下尔）为声乐，不顾其民，是以身为刑戮，国为戾虚者，皆从此道也。”
公孟子曰：“无鬼神。”又曰：“君子必学祭祀。”子墨子曰：“执无鬼而学祭礼，是犹无客而学客礼也，是犹无鱼而为鱼罟也。”
公孟子谓子墨子曰：“子以三年之丧为非，子之三日之丧亦非也。”子墨子曰：“子以三年之丧非三日之丧，是犹裸谓撅者不恭也。”
公孟子谓子墨子曰：“知有贤于人，则可谓知乎？”子墨子曰：“愚之知有以贤于人，而愚岂可谓知矣哉？”
公孟子曰：“三年之丧，学吾之慕父母。”子墨子曰：“夫婴儿子之知，独慕父母而已，父母不可得也，然号而不止，此其故何也？即愚之至也。然则儒者之知，岂有以贤于婴儿子哉？”
子墨子曰问于儒者：“何故为乐？”曰：“乐以为乐也。”子墨子曰：“子未我应也。今我问曰：‘何故为室？’曰：‘冬避寒焉，夏避暑焉，室以为男女之别也。’则子告我为室之故矣。今我问曰：‘何故为乐？’曰：‘乐以为乐也。’是犹曰：‘何故为室？’曰：‘室以为室也。’”
子墨子谓程子曰：“儒之道足以丧天下者四政焉。儒以天为不明，以鬼为不神，天、鬼不说，此足以丧天下。又厚葬久丧，重为棺椁，多为衣衾，送死若徙，三年哭泣，扶后起，杖后行，耳无闻，目无见，此足以丧天下。又弦歌鼓舞，习为声乐，此足以丧天下。又以命为有，贫富寿夭，治乱安危有极矣，不可损益也。为上者行之，必不听治矣；为下者行之，必不从事矣。此足以丧天下。”程子曰：“甚矣，先生之毁儒也。”子墨子曰：“儒固无此若四政者，而我言之，则是毁也。今儒固有此四政者，而我言之，则非毁也，告闻也。”程子无辞而出。子墨子曰：“迷之！”反，后坐。进复曰：“乡者先生之言有可闻者焉。若先生之言，则是不誉禹，不毁桀、纣也。”子墨子曰：“不然。夫应孰辞，称议而为之，敏也。厚攻则厚吾，薄攻则薄吾。应孰辞而称议，是犹荷辕而击蛾也。”
子墨子与程子辩，称于孔子。程子曰：“非儒，何故称于孔子也？”子墨子曰：“是亦当而不可易者也。今鸟闻热旱之忧则高，鱼闻热旱之忧则下，当此，虽禹、汤为之谋，必不能易矣。鱼鸟可谓愚矣，禹、汤犹云因焉。今翟曾无称于孔子乎？”
有游于子墨子之门者，身体强良，思虑徇通，欲使随而学。子墨子曰：“姑学乎，吾将仕子。”劝于善言而学。其年，而责仕于子墨子。子墨子曰：“不仕子，子亦闻夫鲁语乎？鲁有昆弟五人者，其父死，其长子嗜酒而不葬，其四弟曰：‘子与我葬，当为子沽酒。’劝于善言而葬。已葬而责酒于其四弟。四弟曰：‘吾未予子酒矣。子葬子父，我葬吾父，岂独吾父哉？子不葬则人将笑子，故劝子葬也。’今子为义，我亦为义，岂独我义也哉？子不学，则人将笑子，故劝子于学。”
有游于子墨子之门者，子墨子曰：“盍学乎？”对曰：“吾族人无学者。”子墨子曰：“不然。夫妤美者，岂曰吾族人莫之好，故不妤哉？夫欲富贵者，岂曰我族人莫之欲，故不欲哉？好美、欲富贵者，不视人犹强为之，夫义，天下之大器也，何以视人？必强为之?”
有游于子墨子之门者，谓子墨子曰：“先生以鬼神为明知，能为祸人哉福，为善者福之，为暴者祸之。今吾事先生久矣，而福不至，意者先生之言有不善乎，鬼神不明乎？我何故不得福也？”子墨子曰：“虽子不得福，吾言何遽不善，而鬼神何遽不明？子亦闻乎匿徒之刑之有刑乎？”对曰：“未之得闻也。”子墨子曰：“今有人于此，什子，子能什誉之，而一自誉乎？”对曰：“不能。”“有人于此，百子，子能终身誉其善，而子无一乎？”对曰：“不能。”子墨子曰：“匿一人者犹有罪，今子所匿者，若此亓多，将有厚罪者也，何福之求！”
子墨子有疾，跌鼻进而问曰：“先生以鬼神为明，能为祸福，为善者赏之，为不善者罚之。今先生圣人也，何故有疾？意者先生之言有不善乎？鬼神不明知乎？”子墨子曰：“虽使我有病，何遽不明？人之所得于病者多方，有得之寒暑，有得之劳苦。百门而闭一门焉，则盗何遽无从入？”
二三子有复于子墨子学射者，子墨子曰：“不可，夫知者必量其力所能至而从事焉，国士战且扶人，犹不可及也。今子非国士也，岂能成学又成射哉？”
二三子复于子墨子曰：“告子曰：‘言义而行甚恶。’请弃之。”子墨子曰：“不可，称我言以毁我行，俞于亡。有人于此：‘翟甚不仁，尊天、事鬼、爱人，甚不仁’。犹愈于亡也。今告子言谈甚辩，言仁义而不吾毁；告子毁，犹愈亡也！”
二三复于子墨子曰：“告子胜为仁。”子墨子曰：“未必然也。告子为仁，譬犹（足支）以为长，隐以为广，不可久也?”
告子谓子墨子曰：“我治国为政。”子墨子曰：“政者，口言之，身必行之。今子口言之，而身不行，是子之身乱也。子不能治子之身，恶能治国政？子姑亡子之身乱之矣！”
Leave a Reply