Creel, H. G.

OpenSIUC

MO TSEBY H. G. CREELTHE thinkers of every race and every age show a distincttendency to emphasize their differences from each other, whileignoring the most complete identities in their fundamental premises.It is said that, during the Middle Ages, many Franciscan monkswould sooner show charity to the blackest heretic than to one oftheir Dominican brothers in Christ. The bitterest enmities grew upbetween medieval theologians over such questions as how manyangels could stand on the point of a needle. But today, we lumpall of these men together as representatives of a single, and a nar-rowly dogmatic, system of thought.This tendency has shown itself to an almost unbelievable extentin the history of Chinese thought. Here we have the spectacleof various men, expounding the same philosophy with no more of dif-ference than that one emphasizes more strongly one phase, whileanother places most stress on another factor, each of whom de-clares the views of the others to be so dangerous that their spreadendangers the very foundations of the universe. These petty quar-rels (they were often no more than that) mean little in themselves,but when we consider that the accusations exchanged in them have,in many cases, been written into the accepted histories of Chinesethought, it becomes apparent that they have obscured our under-standing of the history of Chinese philosophy to an alarming de-gree.In the cases of the thinkers already dealt with, the error is dif-ficult to apprehend. As between Lao Tse and Confucius, there arenot only mutual recriminations, but apparent dififerences of thewidest scope. It is only when we penetrate the surface, and look,beyond grandiose generalizations, at their fundamental assumptions697and their practical programs, that we observe the similarities. Butwhen we come to take up Mo Tse the case is quite otherwise. Tobe sure, Mo Tse was considered the deadly enemy of the Confucianschool, and Mencius excoriates him, while he returned attacks withgood will and a ready wit. Thus there has grown up the legendthat Moism is one of the doctrines antithetic to "Confucianism"or Sinism. But if any student of average intelligence were giventhe Analects and the writings of Mo Tse to study side by side, itis doubtful if he could fail to see the fundamental identity of thetwo systems, unless he had had the "advantage" of a previous ac-quaintance with the tradition which denies it.The dates of Mo Tse^^^ are in some doubt. Those given byYi Pao ]\Iei, 470-391 B.C.,^^^ are probably accurate enough for thepresent purpose. Mo Tse was given the usual education of a yovingscholar of the "Confucian" school, destined for government. HiiaiNan Tse (chap. 21) says of him:Mo Tse was trained in the orthodox school and disciplinedin Confucian ideas. But he felt that the code of propriety wastoo troublesome and annoying and that elaborate funerals con-sumed too much money and impoverished the people ; that theywere unwholesome to life and obstacles to industrv. There-upon he rebelled against the norms of Chou and adopted theregime of Hsia.Like Confucius, ]\Io Tse traveled about a great deal, looking foran opportunity to serve as minister to some state, and so put hisideas into practice. He seems, however, to have found only onepost, and that for a short time, in Sung. He gathered a number ofdisciples about him, but did not succeed in founding a permanentschool. This was due in great part, no doubt, to the opposition ofthe "regular" Confucianists to his teachings. "It is no exaggerationto say that the neglect of Motse the man, his system, and his workssince the Christian era had been all but universal until the middleof the eighteenth century A.D."^^^ The recent interest in Mo Tsehas been largely due to certain real or fancied resemblances of histeachings to Christianity.294 Mo Tse means, of course "Master Mo" or "The Philosopher Mo." Hisfull name was Mo Ti. The character 7)w is pronounced either mo or met, sothat the philosopher may be referred to as Mo Tse, Mei Tse, Mo Ti, Mei Ti,or by the latinization "Micius."_29.'5Yi-pao Mei, Ethical and Political Philosophy of Motse (Ph.D. Thesis,Chicago), p. 31.296 Mei, op.cit., p. 51.Wa THE OPEN COURTMo Tse, like Confucius, was tremendously in earnest. He wasgenuinely concerned over the poverty and suffering of his people,and no sacrifice of time or personal comfort was too great for himto make for the cause of their welfare, to which he had devoted hislife. Like Confucius, Mencius, and Lao Tse, he looked with thegreatest abhorrence on the wholesale slaughter which characterizedthe China of his day, and the eradication of war waged for meregreed was his chief passion. It was this practical interest, thisdesire above all other things to ameliorate the condition of humanity,which was responsible for the attacks made upon him by the Con-fucianists, much more than any difference in basic philosophy. HadMo Tse not preached against the ruinous funerals which oftenwiped out the patrimony of the poor, and against the prescribedthree years of complete inaction in mourning, Mencius and otherswould probably have been a little more willing to see that his doc-trine of "universal love" was, after all, only another way of statingthe plea of Confucius for human cooperation and social harmony.Nevertheless, it was about this doctrine of "universal love" thatthe fight on Mo Tse centred. Let Mo Tse state it in his own words:Partiality is to be replaced by universality. . . Now wheneveryone regards the states of others as he regards hisown, who would attack the other's state? Others areregarded like one's self. When everyone regards thehouses of others as he regards his own, who would disturbthe others' houses?. . .Now, when the states and citiesdo not attack and seize each other and when the clans andindividuals do not disturb and harm one another—is thisa calamity or a benefit to the world? Of course it is abenefit. When we come to think about the several benefitsin regard to their cause, how have they arisen? Have theyarisen out of hate of others and injuring others ? Of coursewe should say no. We should say that they have arisenout of love of others and benefiting others. If we shouldclassify one by one all those who love others and benefitothers, should we find them to be partial or universal? Ofcourse we should say they are universal. Now, since uni-versal love is the cause of the major benefits of the world,therefore Motse proclaims universal love to be right.-^'^This doctrine has been conceived, in modern as well as in ancienttimes, to strike at the very roots of Sinism and the teachings ofConfucius. In this connection, four questions are pertinent con-297 Mei, op.cit., (pt. 2) p. 96.699cerning the doctrine of "universal love": (1) Does it remove thesanction of "the will of Heaven"? (2) Does it undermine filialpiet}- ? ( 3 ) Does it weaken the political system by doing away withany special loyalty to one's rulers? (4) Does it condemn the punish-ment of criminals and e\il-doers generally? If it can be shownthat the doctrine, as interpreted b_\- !\Io Tse. did none of thesethings, it can hardl_\- be held that the teaching was a menace toSinism.(1) "The will of Heaven" was specificall_\- invoked as the sanc-tion abo\e all others for the doctrine of universal love.-^'^(2) It did not undermine filial piety, !\Io Tse held, since it pre-scribed, not less love for one's parents, but only more love towardother people, and was in the end designed directl}- to benefit one'sparents, by bettering the condition of the world.(3) The practice of universal love, as prescribed b}- ^lo Tse,could not interfere with the government, because of the other cen-tral tenet of Aloism, that of "identification with the superior."All }'ou people of the district shall identify yourselves withthe lord of the state, and shall not unite with the subor-dinates. \\'hat the lord thinks to be right, all shall thinkto be right ; what he thinks to be wrong, all shall think tobe wrong.. . For the lord of the state is naturally the(most) virtuous of the state. If all the people in the statefollow the example of their lord, then how can the state bein disorder ?-''•-Righteousness is the standard. A standard is not to begiven by the subordinates to the superior, but by the su-perior to the subordinates. Therefore, wdiile the commonpeople should spare no pains at work, they may not makethe standard at will. . . The emperor may not make thestandard at will (either). There is Heaven to give him thestandard. . . . The emperor gives the standard to the HighDuke, to the feudal lords, to the scholars, and ( throughthese intermediaries) to the common people.^''*^As a safeguard against incompetent officials, the moral sense ofthe people is trusted to cause them to refuse to identify their willwith that of such persons.All of this is very regular, Confucian, and Sinistic.(4) We are at the heart of the testing of the Aloist doctrine of29s/&/rf. (pt.2) p. 167.299 Ibid, (pt.2) p. 66.300 Ibid, (pt.2) pp. 148-49.700 THE OPEN COURT"universal love" when we ask if its author advocated that it becarried to the point of condoning crime, or at least allowing it togo unpunished, because one must love even the criminal. To statethe question generally, did Mo Tse intend, by his principle, merelyto emphasize the need for an attitude of mutual cooperation withinsociety, or was he espousing a soft sentimentalism which he wouldcarry to the point of sacrificing the good of humanity in order tokeep from harming a single human being?It will be recalled that Confucius defined benevolence, on oneoccasion, as "to love men." Confucius was an outstanding preacherof cooperation, kindliness, and altruism. Yet this did not preventhim from advocating punishment when justice, and the good ofsociety, seemed to require it. The position of Mo Tse is difficultto distinguish, here, from that of Confucius, unless one concernhimself with very nice shades of emphasis indeed.Mo Tse was greatly concerned with the problem of war, as hasbeen noted. The arguments he used against it w^ere the good Con-fucian ones, that aggression did not accord with the laws of Heaven,and brought destruction in its wake for the aggressor. However,Mo Tse advocated defensive war, and is said to have trained hisscholars in the art of defensive warfare. There is a strong tradi-tion that he was himself an engineer of some accomplishment.^"^Mo Tse was such an opponent of offensive war that he is saidto have made long journeys to try to dissuade rulers, whom he hadheard were contemplating war, from carrying out their attacks..Yet he. like Confucius and Mencius, differentiated between just andunjust wars. Campaigns which were made in accordance withright and with the will of Heaven were not, he declared, to becalled "attacks," but "punishment," and these he approved.^"^^This is certainly sufficient to show that Mo Tse was not a meresentimentalist, but held the application of universal love and mutualhelp within the boundaries of definite standards of conduct.It is evident, then, that Mo Tse's doctrine of "universal love"was not calculated to remove the sanction of the will of Heaven, toundermine filial piety, to weaken the political system of gradedauthority, nor to make the enforcement of standards of conductimpossible by prohibiting punishments. It is true enough that MoTse did utter a heresy, from the standpoint of Confucius' teachings,301 Wieger, Histoire des Croyances, p. 209.301a Mei, op. cit., (pt. 2) p. 121.'01\vhen he said that men should love the parents of others as well asthey loved their own parents. But this, important as it may havebeen, can hardly be considered a difference of opinion on a pointfundamental to philosophy. On the contrary, the motive lyingback of it. which was the desire to promote social cooperation and toreduce friction and war within the Chinese world, was decidedly aConfucian motive.It has been shown that 'Slo Tse ma}- not properl}- be said to havediffered radicall}' from Confucius, in his philosoph\', on the basisof the ]\Ioist doctrine of "universal lo\-e."Again, the so-called "pragmatism" of ^lo Tse. his emphasis onthe "usefulness" of things, may be made to seem very diff'erent fromConfucius" own standard of ethics. \\ hen ]\Io Tse was askedwhether his principle of "universal love," although it might be agood thing, could be of any use. he replied, "If it were not useful,then even I would disapprove of it."^"- On another occasion, ^loasked a member of the Confucian school why the Confucians studiedmusic. The Confucian replied, "]\Iusic is pursued for music'ssake." ]^Io Tse proceeded to ridicule him.^*^^*^ It is worthwhile todwell on the incident, since one writer has declared that it makesclear ^lo Tse's "departure from the Confucian approach." Such astatement is t}pical of the carelessness with which some scholarshave interpreted Confucius. The fact is that the "Confucianist"mentioned had learned his lessons very poorly. Confucius wasver}' explicit in holding" that the study of music had a positive,normative value, as well as a definite usefulness in ceremonial.It is b}- the Odes that the mind is aroused.It is b>- // that the character is established.It is from ]\Iusic that the finish is received.^°'^The [Master said, "If a man be without the virtues properto humanity, what has he to do with lif If a man be with-out the virtues proper to humanit}-, what has he to do withmusic P"^*^'''Further citations, of similar purport, might be made from Con-fucius, and even from ]^Iencius.^'^*^ For Confucius, as for Mo Tse,302 ib{d_ (pt.2) p. 97.303 Ibid, (pt.2) p. 258.304 An. 8,8.305 ^„. 3,3.306 ^n 17,4; 17,11. Men. 1(2), 1; 4(1),27.702 THE OPEN COURTthe ultimate value of any practice is that it contributes to the wel-fare of human beings.It must be remembered that, for all of the genuinely Sinistphilosophers, the cosmic order was naturally oriented to harmonizewith a flourishing human society. We are not surprised, therefore,when Mo Tse asks, "But how can there be anything that is goodbut not useful ?" For all of these men, the ultimate measure of valueis the capacity to contribute to human welfare.The formula for Mo Tse's pragmatism ran somewhat as follows:The doctrines and practices of the ancient sage-kings were a perfectexpression of the will of Heaven. The will of Heaven is that thepeople shall be peaceful, prosperous, and happy. Therefore, if (asis often the case) the doctrines and practices of the ancient sage-kings are in some doubt, it is only necessary to find out what willmake the people peaceful, prosperous, and happy, in order to re-cover the w^ays of the ancient sage-kings in their pristine purity.But there is never any doubt that Mo Tse is a confirmed tradi-tionalist. Doctrines "should be based on the deeds of the ancientsage-kings. "^'^^ His faith in the absolute perfection of the ways ofthose kings who had been approved by Sinist history is well shownin the following passage :Mo Tse said : "Any word, any action, that is beneficial toHeaven, the spirits, and the people, is to be carried out.Any word, any action, that is harmful to Heaven, thespirits, and the people, is to be abandoned. Any word, anyaction, that is in harmony with the (ways of the) sage-kings of the three dynasties, Yao, Shun, Yii, T'ang, Wen,and W^u, is to be carried out. Any word, any action, thatis in agreement with the wicked kings of the three dy-nasties .... is to be abandoned.^*^^Time after time, Mo Tse appeals to tradition for support of hiscontentions. The citations which he thus makes have provided nounimportant source for criticism of some of the older historicaldocuments.But it would be a mistake to give the impression that Mo appealsto precisely the same traditions to which Confucius and his followershad recourse. There were certain practices, such as the three yearsof mourning, in support of which the Confucianists could cite per-fectly good tradition, but which Mo Tse could not approve, since307 Mei, op. cit. (pt.2) p. 200.308/ftjj. (pt.2) p. 244.703he believed that their strict apphcation would result in great harmto society.^*^^ He used the well-known method of "appealing fromantiquity, to antiquity more remote." As he told Kung ]\Ieng Tse,a Confucianist, "aou are following only Chow and not Hsia. Yourantiquity does not go back far enough. "'^i*' The practical con-clusions which ^lo drew from his appeal to antiquity were in somecases ver}- different from the practices approved b}' Confucius andthe Confucians, and these differences are sufficient to account forthe bitter enmit_\- between the two factions. But the underlyingphilosophy (in which we are primaril}- interested) wai lie same.The mere fact that !\Io Tse selected his traditions does not differ-entiate him, for Confucius and ]\Iencius did the same thing, andadmitted that they did.-^^^The fundamental philosoph}- of Mo Tse is Sinism, simple, pure,and unmixed. He believes, with an unquenchable faith, in the basicgoodness of the cosmos, and in the existence of a natural tendenc}"which is always working to reinstate, for man, that good life in agood world which was the ancient and the natural state. Govern-ment was established b}- Heaven, for the benefit of the people. Tolead them, Heaven chose the most virtuous man in the empire to beemperor. The rulers are, therefore, the recipients of a sacred trust,which the}' can not forsake with impunity. ^^- Likewise, the minorrulers and their fiefs were ordained by Heaven, and those who useforce to steal the latter are destroying the harmony of the worldand making prosperity impossible.^^"^ With Confucius. ^lo Tseholds that the most eft'ective way to restore order and felicitv is toexalt the virtuous men of the empire, and to place them in office, sothat they may direct the government.This discussion of ]\Io Tse could not be closed more fittinglvthan b}- a statement of his own, in which he sums up his Sinisticfaith, simph' and unequivocall}-:He who obeys the will of Heaven, loving universallv andbenefitting others, will obtain rewards. He who opposesthe will of Heaven, b}' being partial and unfriendly andharming others, will incur punishment.^^'*^09 Cf. ibid, (pt.2) pp. 135-41. Mo Tse makes out a convincing case hereagainst the mourning regulations approved bv Confucius.310 //nW. (pt.2) p. 254.311--^n. 9,3; 15,10. Men. 7 (2), 3.312 Mei, op. cit. (pt.2) p. 77. Wieger, Hisfoirc dcs Croyanccs, p. 210.313 Wieger, Histoire dcs Croyances, p. 211.314 Mei, op. cit. (pt.2) p. 149.

Mo Tse.

http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4175&context=ocj

Mo Tse.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

OpenSIUC