Mencius:
Gao Zi I (告子上)
Author: Mencius (孟子) English translation: James Legge (理雅各)
Chapters
告子曰：“性，犹杞柳也；义，犹桮棬也。以人性为仁义，犹以杞柳为桮棬。”
The philosopher Gao said, ‘Man’s nature is like the qi-willow , and righteousness is like a cup or a bowl. The fashioning benevolence and righteousness out of man’s nature is like the making cups and bowls from the qi-willow.’
孟子曰：“子能顺杞柳之性而以为桮棬乎？将戕贼杞柳而后以为桮棬也？如将戕贼杞柳而以为桮棬，则亦将戕贼人以为仁义与？率天下之人而祸仁义者，必子之言夫！”
Mencius replied, ‘Can you, leaving untouched the nature of the willow, make with it cups and bowls? You must do violence and injury to the willow, before you can make cups and bowls with it. If you must do violence and injury to the willow in order to make cups and bowls with it, on your principles you must in the same way do violence and injury to humanity in order to fashion from it benevolence and righteousness! Your words, alas! would certainly lead all men on to reckon benevolence and righteousness to be calamities.’
告子曰：“性犹湍水也，决诸东方则东流，决诸西方则西流。人性之无分于善不善也，犹水之无分于东西也。”
The philosopher Gao said, ‘Man’s nature is like water whirling round in a corner. Open a passage for it to the east, and it will flow to the east; open a passage for it to the west, and it will flow to the west. Man’s nature is indifferent to good and evil, just as the water is indifferent to the east and west.’
孟子曰：“水信无分于东西，无分于上下乎？人性之善也，犹水之就下也。人无有不善，水无有不下。今夫水，搏而跃之，可使过颡；激而行之，可使在山。是岂水之性哉？其势则然也。人之可使为不善，其性亦犹是也。”
Mencius replied, ‘Water indeed will flow indifferently to the east or west, but will it flow indifferently up or down? The tendency of man’s nature to good is like the tendency of water to flow downwards. There are none but have this tendency to good, just as all water flows downwards. Now by striking water and causing it to leap up, you may make it go over your forehead, and, by damming and leading it you may force it up a hill – but are such movements according to the nature of water? It is the force applied which causes them. When men are made to do what is not good, their nature is dealt with in this way.’
告子曰：“生之谓性。”
The philosopher Gao said, ‘Life is what we call nature!’
孟子曰：“生之谓性也，犹白之谓白与？” 曰：“然。”
Mencius asked him, ‘Do you say that by nature you mean life, just as you say that white is white?’ ‘Yes, I do,’ was the reply.
“白羽之白也，犹白雪之白；白雪之白犹白玉之白与？” 曰：“然。”
Mencius added, ‘Is the whiteness of a white feather like that of white snow, and the whiteness of white snow like that of white jade?’ Gao again said ‘Yes.’
“然则犬之性犹牛之性，牛之性犹人之性与？”
‘Very well,’ pursued Mencius. ‘Is the nature of a dog like the nature of an ox, and the nature of an ox like the nature of a man?’
告子曰：“食色，性也。仁，内也，非外也；义，外也，非内也。”
The philosopher Gao said, ‘To enjoy food and delight in colours is nature. Benevolence is internal and not external; righteousness is external and not internal.’
孟子曰：“何以谓仁内义外也？”
Mencius asked him, ‘What is the ground of your saying that benevolence is internal and righteousness external?’
曰：“彼长而我长之，非有长于我也；犹彼白而我白之，从其白于外也，故谓之外也。”
He replied, ‘There is a man older than I, and I give honour to his age. It is not that there is first in me a principle of such reverence to age. It is just as when there is a white man, and I consider him white; according as he is so externally to me. On this account, I pronounce of righteousness that it is external.’
曰：“异于白马之白也，无以异于白人之白也；不识长马之长也，无以异于长人之长与？且谓长者义乎？长之者义乎？”
Mencius said, ‘There is no difference between our pronouncing a white horse to be white and our pronouncing a white man to be white. But is there no difference between the regard with which we acknowledge the age of an old horse and that with which we acknowledge the age of an old man? And what is it which is called righteousness? The fact of a man’s being old? Or the fact of our giving honour to his age?’
曰：“吾弟则爱之，秦人之弟则不爱也，是以我为悦者也，故谓之内。长楚人之长，亦长吾之长，是以长为悦者也，故谓之外也。”
Gao said, ‘There is my younger brother; I love him. But the younger brother of a man of Qin I do not love: that is, the feeling is determined by myself, and therefore I say that benevolence is internal. On the other hand, I give honour to an old man of Chu, and I also give honour to an old man of my own people: that is, the feeling is determined by the age, and therefore I say that righteousness is external.’
曰：“耆秦人之炙，无以异于耆吾炙，夫物则亦有然者也，然则耆炙亦有外与？”
Mencius answered him, ‘Our enjoyment of meat roasted by a man of Qin does not differ from our enjoyment of meat roasted by ourselves. Thus, what you insist on takes place also in the case of such things, and will you say likewise that our enjoyment of a roast is external?’
孟季子问公都子曰：“何以谓义内也？”曰：“行吾敬，故谓之内也。”
The disciple Meng Ji asked Gong Du, saying, ‘On what ground is it said that righteousness is internal?’ Gong Du replied, ‘We therein act out our feeling of respect, and therefore it is said to be internal.’
“乡人长于伯兄一岁，则谁敬？”曰：“敬兄。”
The other objected, ‘Suppose the case of a villager older than your elder brother by one year, to which of them would you show the greater respect?’ ‘To my brother,’ was the reply.
“酌则谁先？”曰：“先酌乡人。”
‘But for which of them would you first pour out wine at a feast?’ ‘For the villager.’
“所敬在此，所长在彼，果在外，非由内也。”
Meng Ji argued, ‘Now your feeling of reverence rests on the one, and now the honour due to age is rendered to the other – this is certainly determined by what is without, and does not proceed from within.’
公都子不能答，以告孟子。孟子曰：“‘敬叔父乎？敬弟乎？’彼将曰：‘敬叔父。’曰：‘弟为尸，则谁敬？’彼将曰：‘敬弟。’子曰：‘恶在其敬叔父也？’彼将曰：‘在位故也。’子亦曰：‘在位故也。庸敬在兄，斯须之敬在乡人。’”
Gong Du was unable to reply, and told the conversation to Mencius. Mencius said, ‘You should ask him, “Which do you respect most, your uncle, or your younger brother?” He will answer, “My uncle.” Ask him again, “If your younger brother be personating a dead ancestor, to which do you show the greater respect, to him or to your uncle?” He will say, “To my younger brother.” You can go on, “But where is the respect due, as you said, to your uncle?” He will reply to this, “I show the respect to my younger brother, because of the position which he occupies,” and you can likewise say, “So my respect to the villager is because of the position which he occupies. Ordinarily, my respect is rendered to my elder brother; for a brief season, on occasion, it is rendered to the villager.”‘
季子闻之，曰：“敬叔父则敬，敬弟则敬，果在外，非由内也。”
Meng Ji heard this and observed, ‘When respect is due to my uncle, I respect him, and when respect is due to my younger brother, I respect him; the thing is certainly determined by what is without, and does not proceed from within.’
公都子曰：“冬日则饮汤，夏日则饮水，然则饮食亦在外也？”
Gong Du replied, ‘In winter we drink things hot, in summer we drink things cold; and so, on your principle, eating and drinking also depend on what is external!’
公都子曰：“告子曰：‘性无善无不善也。’ 或曰：‘性可以为善，可以为不善；是故文武兴，则民好善；幽厉兴，则民好暴。’ 或曰：‘有性善，有性不善；是故以尧为君而有象；以瞽瞍为父而有舜；以纣为兄之子，且以为君，而有微子启、王子比干。’ 今曰 ‘性善’，然则彼皆非与？”
The disciple Gong Du said, ‘The philosopher Gao says, “Man’s nature is neither good nor bad.” Some say, “Man’s nature may be made to practise good, and it may be made to practise evil, and accordingly, under Wen and Wu, the people loved what was good, while under Yu and Li, they loved what was cruel.” Some say, “The nature of some is good, and the nature of others is bad. Hence it was that under such a sovereign as Yao there yet appeared Xiang; that with such a father as Gu Sou there yet appeared Shun; and that with Zhou for their sovereign, and the son of their elder brother besides, there were found Qi, the viscount of Wei, and the prince Bi Gan. And now you say, “The nature is good.” Then are all those wrong?’
孟子曰：“乃若其情，则可以为善矣，乃所谓善也。若夫为不善，非才之罪也。恻隐之心，人皆有之；羞恶之心，人皆有之；恭敬之心，人皆有之；是非之心，人皆有之。恻隐之心，仁也；羞恶之心，义也；恭敬之心，礼也；是非之心，智也。仁义礼智，非由外铄我也，我固有之也，弗思耳矣。故曰：‘求则得之，舍则失之。’或相倍蓰而无算者，不能尽其才者也。《诗》曰：‘天生蒸民，有物有则。民之秉彝，好是懿德。’ 孔子曰：‘为此诗者，其知道乎！故有物必有则；民之秉彝也，故好是懿德。’”
Mencius said, ‘From the feelings proper to it, it is constituted for the practice of what is good. This is what I mean in saying that the nature is good. If men do what is not good, the blame cannot be imputed to their natural powers. The feeling of commiseration belongs to all men; so does that of shame and dislike; and that of reverence and respect; and that of approving and disapproving. The feeling of commiseration implies the principle of benevolence; that of shame and dislike, the principle of righteousness; that of reverence and respect, the principle of propriety; and that of approving and disapproving, the principle of knowledge. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and knowledge are not infused into us from without. We are certainly furnished with them. And a different view is simply owing to want of reflection. Hence it is said, “Seek and you will find them. Neglect and you will lose them.” Men differ from one another in regard to them – some as much again as others, some five times as much, and some to an incalculable amount – it is because they cannot carry out fully their natural powers. It is said in the Book of Poetry, “Heaven in producing mankind, Gave them their various faculties and relations with their specific laws. These are the invariable rules of nature for all to hold, And all love this admirable virtue.” Confucius said, “The maker of this ode knew indeed the principle of our nature!” We may thus see that every faculty and relation must have its law, and since there are invariable rules for all to hold, they consequently love this admirable virtue.’
孟子曰：“富岁，子弟多赖；凶岁，子弟多暴，非天之降才尔殊也，其所以陷溺其心者然也。今夫麰麦，播种而耰之，其地同，树之时又同，浡然而生，至于日至之时，皆熟矣。虽有不同，则地有肥硗、雨露之养、人事之不齐也。故凡同类者，举相似也，何独至于人而疑之？圣人，与我同类者。故龙子曰：‘不知足而为屦，我知其不为蒉也。’ 屦之相似，天下之足同也。口之于味，有同耆也；易牙先得我口之所耆者也。如使口之于味也，其性与人殊，若犬马之与我不同类也，则天下何耆皆从易牙之于味也？至于味，天下期于易牙，是天下之口相似也。惟耳亦然，至于声，天下期于师旷，是天下之耳相似也。唯目亦然。至于子都，天下莫不知其姣也。不知子都之姣者，无目者也。故曰，口之于味也，有同耆焉；耳之于声也，有同听焉；目之于色也，有同美焉。至于心，独无所同然乎？心之所同然者何也？谓理也，义也。圣人先得我心之所同然耳。故理义之悦我心，犹刍豢之悦我口。”
Mencius said, ‘In good years the children of the people are most of them good, while in bad years the most of them abandon themselves to evil. It is not owing to any difference of their natural powers conferred by Heaven that they are thus different. The abandonment is owing to the circumstances through which they allow their minds to be ensnared and drowned in evil. There now is barley. Let it be sown and covered up; the ground being the same, and the time of sowing likewise the same, it grows rapidly up, and, when the full time is come, it is all found to be ripe. Although there may be inequalities of produce, that is owing to the difference of the soil, as rich or poor, to the unequal nourishment afforded by the rains and dews, and to the different ways in which man has performed his business in reference to it. Thus all things which are the same in kind are like to one another; why should we doubt in regard to man, as if he were a solitary exception to this? The sage and we are the same in kind. In accordance with this the scholar Long said, “If a man make hempen sandals without knowing the size of people’s feet, yet I know that he will not make them like baskets.” Sandals are all like one another, because all men’s feet are like one another. So with the mouth and flavours – all mouths have the same relishes. Yi Ya only apprehended before me what my mouth relishes. Suppose that his mouth in its relish for flavours differed from that of other men, as is the case with dogs or horses which are not the same in kind with us, why should all men be found following Yi Ya in their relishes? In the matter of tastes all the people model themselves after Yi Ya; that is, the mouths of all men are like one another. And so also it is with the ear. In the matter of sounds, the whole people model themselves after the music-master Kuang; that is, the ears of all men are like one another. And so also it is with the eye. In the case of Zi Du, there is no man but would recognise that he was beautiful. Any one who would not recognise the beauty of Zi Du must have no eyes. Therefore I say, Men’s mouths agree in having the same relishes; their ears agree in enjoying the same sounds; their eyes agree in recognising the same beauty – shall their minds alone be without that which the similarly approve? What is it then of which they similarly approve? It is, I say, the principles of our nature, and the determinations of righteousness. The sages only apprehended before me that of which my mind approves along with other men. Therefore the principles of our nature and the determinations of righteousness are agreeable to my mind, just as the flesh of grass and grain-fed animals is agreeable to my mouth.’
孟子曰：“牛山之木尝美矣，以其郊于大国也，斧斤伐之，可以为美乎？是其日夜之所息，雨露之所润，非无萌蘖之生焉，牛羊又从而牧之，是以若彼濯濯也。人见其濯濯也，以为未尝有材焉。此岂山之性也哉？虽存乎人者，岂无仁义之心哉？其所以放其良心者，亦犹斧斤之于木也。旦旦而伐之，可以为美乎？其日夜之所息，平旦之气，其好恶与人相近也者几希；则其旦昼之所为，有梏亡之矣。梏之反复，则其夜气不足以存；夜气不足以存，则其违禽兽不远矣。人见其禽兽也，而以为未尝有才焉者，是岂人之情也哉？故苟得其养，无物不长；苟失其养，无物不消。孔子曰：‘操则存，舍则亡；出入无时，莫知其乡。’ 惟心之谓与？”
Mencius said, ‘The trees of the Niu mountain were once beautiful. Being situated, however, in the borders of a large State, they were hewn down with axes and bills – and could they retain their beauty? Still through the activity of the vegetative life day and night, and the nourishing influence of the rain and dew, they were not without buds and sprouts springing forth, but then came the cattle and goats and browsed upon them. To these things is owing the bare and stripped appearance of the mountain, and when people now see it, they think it was never finely wooded. But is this the nature of the mountain? And so also of what properly belongs to man; shall it be said that the mind of any man was without benevolence and righteousness? The way in which a man loses his proper goodness of mind is like the way in which the trees are denuded by axes and bills. Hewn down day after day, can it – the mind – retain its beauty? But there is a development of its life day and night, and in the calm air of the morning, just between night and day, the mind feels in a degree those desires and aversions which are proper to humanity, but the feeling is not strong, and it is fettered and destroyed by what takes place during the day. This fettering taking place again and again, the restorative influence of the night is not sufficient to preserve the proper goodness of the mind; and when this proves insufficient for that purpose, the nature becomes not much different from that of the irrational animals, and when people now see it, they think that it never had those powers which I assert. But does this condition represent the feelings proper to humanity? Therefore, if it receive its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not grow. If it lose its proper nourishment, there is nothing which will not decay away. Confucius said, “Hold it fast, and it remains with you. Let it go, and you lose it. Its outgoing and incoming cannot be defined as to time or place.” It is the mind of which this is said!’
孟子曰：“无或乎王之不智也。虽有天下易生之物也，一日暴之，十日寒之，未有能生者也。吾见亦罕矣，吾退而寒之者至矣，吾如有萌焉何哉？ “今夫弈之为数，小数也；不专心致志，则不得也。弈秋，通国之善弈者也。使弈秋诲二人弈，其一人专心致志，惟弈秋之为听。一人虽听之，一心以为有鸿鹄将至，思援弓缴而射之，虽与之俱学，弗若之矣。为是其智弗若与？曰：非然也。”
Mencius said, ‘It is not to be wondered at that the king is not wise! Suppose the case of the most easily growing thing in the world; if you let it have one day’s genial heat, and then expose it for ten days to cold, it will not be able to grow. It is but seldom that I have an audience of the king, and when I retire, there come all those who act upon him like the cold. Though I succeed in bringing out some buds of goodness, of what avail is it? Now chess-playing is but a small art, but without his whole mind being given, and his will bent, to it, a man cannot succeed at it. Chess Qiu is the best chess-player in all the kingdom. Suppose that he is teaching two men to play. The one gives to the subject his whole mind and bends to it all his will, doing nothing but listening to Chess Qiu. The other, although he seems to be listening to him, has his whole mind running on a swan which he thinks is approaching, and wishes to bend his bow, adjust the string to the arrow, and shoot it. Although he is learning along with the other, he does not come up to him. Why? Because his intelligence is not equal? Not so.’
孟子曰：“鱼，我所欲也，熊掌亦我所欲也；二者不可得兼，舍鱼而取熊掌者也。生亦我所欲也，义亦我所欲也；二者不可得兼，舍生而取义者也。生亦我所欲，所欲有甚于生者，故不为苟得也；死亦我所恶，所恶有甚于死者，故患有所不辟也。如使人之所欲莫甚于生，则凡可以得生者，何不用也？使人之所恶莫甚于死者，则凡可以辟患者，何不为也？由是则生而有不用也，由是则可以辟患而有不为也。是故所欲有甚于生者，所恶有甚于死者。 “非独贤者有是心也，人皆有之，贤者能勿丧耳。一箪食，一豆羹，得之则生，弗得则死，呼尔而与之，行道之人弗受；蹴尔而与之，乞人不屑也。万钟则不辨礼义而受之。万钟于我何加焉？为宫室之美、妻妾之奉、所识穷乏者得我与？乡为身死而不受，今为宫室之美为之；乡为身死而不受，今为妻妾之奉为之；乡为身死而不受，今为所识穷乏者得我而为之。是亦不可以已乎？此之谓失其本心。”
Mencius said, ‘I like fish, and I also like bear’s paws. If I cannot have the two together, I will let the fish go, and take the bear’s paws. So, I like life, and I also like righteousness. If I cannot keep the two together, I will let life go, and choose righteousness. I like life indeed, but there is that which I like more than life, and therefore, I will not seek to possess it by any improper ways. I dislike death indeed, but there is that which I dislike more than death, and therefore there are occasions when I will not avoid danger. If among the things which man likes there were nothing which he liked more than life, why should he not use every means by which he could preserve it? If among the things which man dislikes there were nothing which he disliked more than death, why should he not do everything by which he could avoid danger? There are cases when men by a certain course might preserve life, and they do not employ it; when by certain things they might avoid danger, and they will not do them. Therefore, men have that which they like more than life, and that which they dislike more than death. They are not men of distinguished talents and virtue only who have this mental nature. All men have it; what belongs to such men is simply that they do not lose it. Here are a small basket of rice and a platter of soup, and the case is one in which the getting them will preserve life, and the want of them will be death; if they are offered with an insulting voice, even a tramper will not receive them, or if you first tread upon them, even a beggar will not stoop to take them. And yet a man will accept of ten thousand zhong, without any consideration of propriety or righteousness. What can the ten thousand chung add to him? When he takes them, is it not that he may obtain beautiful mansions, that he may secure the services of wives and concubines, or that the poor and needy of his acquaintance may be helped by him? In the former case the offered bounty was not received, though it would have saved from death, and now the emolument is taken for the sake of beautiful mansions. The bounty that would have preserved from death was not received, and the emolument is taken to get the service of wives and concubines. The bounty that would have saved from death was not received, and the emolument is taken that one’s poor and needy acquaintance may be helped by him. Was it then not possible likewise to decline this? This is a case of what is called “Losing the proper nature of one’s mind.”‘
孟子曰：“仁，人心也；义，人路也。舍其路而弗由，放其心而不知求，哀哉！人有鸡犬放，则知求之；有放心而不知求。学问之道无他，求其放心而已矣。”
Mencius said, ‘Benevolence is man’s mind, and righteousness is man’s path. How lamentable is it to neglect the path and not pursue it, to lose this mind and not know to seek it again! When men’s fowls and dogs are lost, they know to seek for them again, but they lose their mind, and do not know to seek for it. The great end of learning is nothing else but to seek for the lost mind.’
孟子曰：“今有无名之指屈而不信，非疾痛害事也，如有能信之者，则不远秦楚之路，为指之不若人也。指不若人，则知恶之；心不若人，则不知恶，此之谓不知类也。”
Mencius said, ‘Here is a man whose fourth finger is bent and cannot be stretched out straight. It is not painful, nor does it incommode his business, and yet if there be any one who can make it straight, he will not think the way from Qin to Chu far to go to him; because his finger is not like the finger of other people. When a man’s finger is not like those of other people, he knows to feel dissatisfied, but if his mind be not like that of other people, he does not know to feel dissatisfaction. This is called “Ignorance of the relative importance of things.”‘
孟子曰：“拱把之桐梓，人苟欲生之，皆知所以养之者。至于身，而不知所以养之者，岂爱身不若桐梓哉？弗思甚也。”
Mencius said, ‘Anybody who wishes to cultivate the tong or the zi, which may be grasped with both hands, perhaps with one, knows by what means to nourish them. In the case of their own persons, men do not know by what means to nourish them. Is it to be supposed that their regard of their own persons is inferior to their regard for a tong or zi? Their want of reflection is extreme.’
孟子曰：“人之于身也，兼所爱。兼所爱，则兼所养也。无尺寸之肤不爱焉，则无尺寸之肤不养也。所以考其善不善者，岂有他哉？于己取之而已矣。体有贵贱，有小大。无以小害大，无以贱害贵。养其小者为小人，养其大者为大人。今有场师，舍其梧，养其棘，则为贱场师焉。养其一指而失其肩背，而不知也，则为狼疾人也。饮食之人，则人贱之矣，为其养小以失大也。饮食之人无有失也，则口腹岂适为尺寸之肤哉？”
Mencius said, ‘There is no part of himself which a man does not love, and as he loves all, so he must nourish all. There is not an inch of skin which he does not love, and so there is not an inch of skin which he will not nourish. For examining whether his way of nourishing be good or not, what other rule is there but this, that he determine by reflecting on himself where it should be applied? Some parts of the body are noble, and some ignoble; some great, and some small. The great must not be injured for the small, nor the noble for the ignoble. He who nourishes the little belonging to him is a little man, and he who nourishes the great is a great man. Here is a plantation-keeper, who neglects his wu and jia, and cultivates his sour jujube-trees; he is a poor plantation-keeper. He who nourishes one of his fingers, neglecting his shoulders or his back, without knowing that he is doing so, is a man who resembles a hurried wolf. A man who only eats and drinks is counted mean by others; because he nourishes what is little to the neglect of what is great. If a man, fond of his eating and drinking, were not to neglect what is of more importance, how should his mouth and belly be considered as no more than an inch of skin?’
公都子问曰：“钧是人也，或为大人，或为小人，何也？”
The disciple Gong Du said, ‘All are equally men, but some are great men, and some are little men – how is this?’
孟子曰：“从其大体为大人，从其小体为小人。”
Mencius replied, ‘Those who follow that part of themselves which is great are great men; those who follow that part which is little are little men.’
曰：“钧是人也，或从其大体，或从其小体，何也？”
Gong Du pursued, ‘All are equally men, but some follow that part of themselves which is great, and some follow that part which is little – how is this?’
曰：“耳目之官不思，而蔽于物。物交物，则引之而已矣。心之官则思，思则得之，不思则不得也。此天之所与我者。先立乎其大者，则其小者不能夺也。此为大人而已矣。”
Mencius answered, ‘The senses of hearing and seeing do not think, and are obscured by external things. When one thing comes into contact with another, as a matter of course it leads it away. To the mind belongs the office of thinking. By thinking, it gets the right view of things; by neglecting to think, it fails to do this. These – the senses and the mind – are what Heaven has given to us. Let a man first stand fast in the supremacy of the nobler part of his constitution, and the inferior part will not be able to take it from him. It is simply this which makes the great man.’
孟子曰：“有天爵者，有人爵者。仁义忠信，乐善不倦，此天爵也；公卿大夫，此人爵也。古之人修其天爵，而人爵从之。今之人修其天爵，以要人爵；既得人爵，而弃其天爵，则惑之甚者也，终亦必亡而已矣。”
Mencius said, ‘There is a nobility of Heaven, and there is a nobility of man. Benevolence, righteousness, self-consecration, and fidelity, with unwearied joy in these virtues; these constitute the nobility of Heaven. To be a gong, a qing, or a da fu; this constitutes the nobility of man. The men of antiquity cultivated their nobility of Heaven, and the nobility of man came to them in its train. The men of the present day cultivate their nobility of Heaven in order to seek for the nobility of man, and when they have obtained that, they throw away the other – their delusion is extreme. The issue is simply this, that they must lose that nobility of man as well.’
孟子曰：“欲贵者，人之同心也。人人有贵于己者，弗思耳矣。人之所贵者，非良贵也。赵孟之所贵，赵孟能贱之。《诗》云：‘既醉以酒，既饱以德。’言饱乎仁义也，所以不愿人之膏粱之味也；令闻广誉施于身，所以不愿人之文绣也。”
Mencius said, ‘To desire to be honoured is the common mind of men. And all men have in themselves that which is truly honourable. Only they do not think of it. The honour which men confer is not good honour. Those whom Zhao the Great ennobles he can make mean again. It is said in the Book of Poetry, “He has filled us with his wine, He has satiated us with his goodness.” “Satiated us with his goodness,” that is, satiated us with benevolence and righteousness, and he who is so satiated, consequently, does not wish for the fat meat and fine millet of men. A good reputation and far-reaching praise fall to him, and he does not desire the elegant embroidered garments of men.’
孟子曰：“仁之胜不仁也，犹水胜火。今之为仁者，犹以一杯水救一车薪之火也；不熄，则谓之水不胜火，此又与于不仁之甚者，亦终必亡而已矣。”
Mencius said, ‘Benevolence subdues its opposite just as water subdues fire. Those, however, who now-a-days practise benevolence do it as if with one cup of water they could save a whole waggon-load of fuel which was on fire, and when the flames were not extinguished, were to say that water cannot subdue fire. This conduct, moreover, greatly encourages those who are not benevolent. The final issue will simply be this: the loss of that small amount of benevolence.’
孟子曰：“五谷者，种之美者也；苟为不熟，不如荑稗。夫仁，亦在乎熟之而已矣。”
Mencius said, ‘Of all seeds the best are the five kinds of grain, yet if they be not ripe, they are not equal to the ti or the bai. So, the value of benevolence depends entirely on its being brought to maturity.’
孟子曰：“羿之教人射，必志于彀；学者亦必志于彀。大匠诲人必以规矩，学者亦必以规矩。”
Mencius said, ‘Yi, in teaching men to shoot, made it a rule to draw the bow to the full, and his pupils also did the same. A master-workman, in teaching others, uses the compass and square, and his pupils do the same.’