Mencius

卷一 梁惠王上 孟子见梁惠王。王曰：“叟！不远千里而来，亦将有以利吾国乎？”孟子对曰：“王！何必曰利？亦有仁义而已矣。王曰：‘何以利吾国？’大夫曰：‘何以利吾家？’士庶人曰：‘何以利吾身？’上下交征利而国危矣。万乘之国，弑其君者，必千乘之家；千乘之国，弑其君者，必百乘之家。万取千焉，千取百焉，不为不多矣。苟为后义而先利，不夺不餍。未有仁而遗其亲者也，未有义而后其君者也。王亦曰：仁义而已矣，何必曰利？”孟子见梁惠王。王立於沼上，顾鸿雁麋鹿，曰：“贤者亦乐此乎？”孟子对曰：“贤者而后乐此，不贤者，虽有此不乐也。《诗》云：‘经始灵台，经之营之，庶民攻之，不日成之。经始勿亟，庶民子来。王在灵囿，麀鹿攸伏，麀鹿濯濯，白鸟鹤鹤。王在灵沼，於牣鱼跃。’文王以民力为台为沼，而民欢乐之，谓其台曰灵台，谓其沼曰灵沼，乐其有麋鹿鱼鳖。古之人与民偕乐，故能乐也。 汤誓曰：‘时日害丧，予及女皆亡。

Mengzi met Lord Hui of Liang. The lord asked, "You have come from a thousand li; do you bring advantage to my state?" Mengzi replied, "Why speak of advantage? Let us speak only of humaneness and righteousness. If everyone seeks gain for themselves or their faction, the state becomes dangerous. Only the ruler who practices benevolence with his people can truly enjoy the pleasures he finds in them."

For a reader today This passage invites modern readers to reflect on how prioritizing mutual care over self-interest strengthens communities. It encourages us to consider whether our actions foster shared well-being or deepen division.

English translation by Eastern Lens, from the revised daizhige Chinese classics corpus. The original Chinese is published alongside it for verification.

卷三 公孙丑上 公孙丑问曰：“夫子当路於齐，管仲、晏子之功，可复许乎？”孟子曰：“子诚齐人也，知管仲、晏子而已矣。或问乎曾西曰：‘吾子与子路孰贤？’曾西蹴然曰：‘吾先子之所畏也。’曰：‘然则吾子与管仲孰贤？’曾西艴然不悦，曰：‘尔何曾比予於管仲？管仲得君，如彼其专也，行乎国政，如彼其久也，功烈如彼其卑也，尔何曾比予於是？’”曰：“管仲，曾西之所不为也，而子为我愿之乎？”曰：“管仲以其君霸，晏子以其君显。管仲、晏子犹不足为与？”曰：“以齐王，由反手也。”曰：“若是，则弟子之惑滋甚。且以文王之德，百年而后崩，犹未洽於天下。武王、周公继之，然后大行。今言王若易然，则文王不足法与？”曰：“文王何可当也？由汤至於武丁，贤圣之君六七作，天下归殷久矣，久则难变也。武丁朝诸侯有天下，犹运之掌也。纣之去武丁未久也，其故家遗俗，流风善政，犹有存者。

In the third volume regarding Gongsun Chou, Mencius responds to his student's query about replicating the achievements of Guan Zhong and Yan Zi by first referencing a conversation with Zeng Xi, who expresses strong disdain for being compared to Guan Zhong due to the latter's low moral standing despite his political power. Mencius then argues that while ruling the Qi state would be as easy as turning one's hand over, claiming such ease ignores the fact that even King Wen of Zhou ruled for a century before death without fully unifying the world, requiring his successors to complete the great work, and notes that King Wu Ding's dominance over states persisted long after King Zhou's time due to lingering traditions from previous virtuous rulers.

For a reader today This passage invites readers to consider how historical context shapes political achievements and warns against oversimplifying the path to leadership or unification.

English translation by Eastern Lens, from the revised daizhige Chinese classics corpus. The original Chinese is published alongside it for verification.

陈相见孟子，道许行之言曰：“滕君则诚贤君也。虽然，未闻道也。贤者与民并耕而食，饔飧而治。今也滕有仓禀府库，则是厉民而以自养也，恶得贤？”孟子曰：“许子必种粟而后食乎？”曰：“然。”“许子必织布然后衣乎？”曰：“否。许子衣褐。”“许子冠乎？”曰：“冠。”曰：“奚冠？”曰：“冠素。”曰：“自织之与？”曰：“否；以粟易之。”曰：“许子奚为不自织？”曰：“害於耕。”曰：“许子以釜甑爨，以铁耕乎？”曰：“然。”“自为之与？”曰：“否。以粟易之。” “以粟易械器者，不为厉陶冶；陶冶亦以其械器易粟者，岂为厉农夫哉？且许子何不为陶冶，舍皆取诸其宫中而用之？何为纷纷然与百工交易？何许子之不惮烦？”曰：“百工之事固不可耕且为也。”“然则治天下独可耕且为与？有大人之事，有小人之事。且一人之身，而百工之所为备，如必自为而后用之，是率天下而路也。

When Chen Xian visited Mencius, he relayed Xu Xing's teaching that a virtuous ruler should till fields alongside his people and cook their food while governing them; yet since Teng possessed granaries and treasuries, Xu argued this was oppressing the common folk to sustain oneself, asking how such a man could be considered wise. Mencius replied by questioning whether Xu Xing sowed millet before eating, wove cloth before wearing it (noting he wore rough hemp and wore a plain cap made of unbleached thread), exchanged grain for tools, used bronze vessels and iron ploughs, and explained that the myriad crafts require full attention to practice. Mencius then argued that just as exchanging grain for implements does not exploit the potter or smith—since they exchange their wares for grain too—one cannot expect every individual to perform all trades themselves, otherwise everyone would be forced into poverty trying to make everything alone.

For a reader today This passage illustrates the inherent division of labor necessary for a functioning society and argues that specialization in governance is as natural as specialization in craft production.

English translation by Eastern Lens, from the revised daizhige Chinese classics corpus. The original Chinese is published alongside it for verification.

” 公都子曰：“匡章，通国皆称不孝焉。夫子与之游，又从而礼貌之，敢问何也？”孟子曰：“世俗所谓不孝者五：惰其四支，不顾父母之养，一不孝也；博奕好饮酒，不顾父母之养，二不孝也；好货财，私妻子，不顾父母之养，三不孝也；从耳目之欲，以为父母戮，四不孝也；好勇斗很，以危父母，五不孝也。章子有一於是乎？夫章子，子父责善而不相遇也。责善，朋友之道也。父子责善，贼恩之大者。夫章子，岂不欲有夫妻子母之属哉？为得罪於父，不得近，出妻屏子，终身不养焉。其设心以为不若是，是则罪之大者，是则章子已矣。” 曾子居武城，有越寇。或曰：“寇至，盍去诸？”曰：“无寓人於我室，毁伤其薪木。”寇退，则曰：“脩我墙屋，我将反。”寇退，曾子反。左右曰：“待先生如此其忠且敬也，寇至则先去以为民望；寇退则反，殆於不可。”沈犹行曰：“是非汝所知也。昔沈犹有负刍之祸，从先生者七十人，未有与焉。”子思居於卫，有齐寇。

Gongduzi asked, "Kuang Zhang is widely called unfilial throughout the state; why do you associate with him and treat him with respect?" Mencius replied, "There are five types of unfilial behavior: laziness that neglects parents' care; gambling and drinking that neglects care; hoarding goods to favor one's wife and children over parents; indulging senses causing parents disgrace; and fighting bravely endangering parents. Kuang Zhang lacks none of these, but he is trapped because demanding mutual perfection from father and son—appropriate for friends but destructive to familial love—led his father to exile him and abandon his family, which Kuang bears with unwavering devotion." When Zengzi lived in Wucheng under threat of Yue raiders, he refused to flee until his home was destroyed; after safety returned, he immediately resumed repairs. His servants protested leaving while he remained, but a companion noted that seventy followers had already shared this fate during the past tragedy led by Shen Youxing when Zengzi's own household faced disaster without him.

For a reader today This passage illustrates how Mencius redefines unfilial conduct as specific neglects of duty rather than emotional friction, while Zengzi's story highlights steadfastness in principle even amid personal danger.

English translation by Eastern Lens, from the revised daizhige Chinese classics corpus. The original Chinese is published alongside it for verification.

卷十一 告子上 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。”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！”告子曰：“性犹湍水也，决诸东方则东流，决诸西方则西流。人性之无分於善不善也，犹水之无分於东西也。”孟子曰：“水信无分於东西，无分於上下乎？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。” 告子曰：“生之谓性。”孟子曰：“生之谓性也，犹白之谓白与？”曰：“然。”“白羽之白也，犹白雪之白；白雪之白，犹白玉之白欤？”曰：“然。” “然则犬之性犹牛之性，牛之性犹人之性欤？”告子曰：“食、色，性也。仁，内也，非外也；义，外也，非内也。

Gaozi said, "Human nature is like the osier willow; righteousness is like a bowl made from it. To say that human nature is benevolence and righteousness is like saying that the osier willow is the bowl." Mencius replied, "Can you make a bowl by following the nature of the willow, or must you damage and kill the willow to make one? If you must damage the willow to make a bowl, does this mean you must harm people to create benevolence and righteousness? You are certainly the one who misleads the world against benevolence and righteousness!" Gaozi said, "Human nature is like rushing water; dammed on the east it flows east, dammed on the west it flows west. Just as water has no fixed direction of east or west, human nature has no fixed quality of good or bad." Mencius replied, "Water indeed has no fixed east or west, but does it not have a fixed up or down? The goodness of human nature is like water's tendency to flow downward. All people are good, just as all water flows down. Today, if you strike the water and leap it, it can rise above the forehead; if you stir it violently, it can be made to climb a mountain. Is this not water's nature but rather the force imposed on it? Similarly, people can be made to do evil, but that is due to external circumstances, not their nature." Gaozi said, "Life and vitality constitute human nature." Mencius replied, "To call life 'human nature' is like saying white means white. He agreed. Mencius continued, 'The whiteness of duck feathers is the same as the whiteness of snow, which is the same as the whiteness of jade?' Gaozi agreed. Mencius asked, 'Then is the nature of a dog like that of an ox, and the nature of an ox like that of a human?' Gaozi finally said, 'Eating and sexual desire are human nature. Benevolence arises from within, not from outside; righteousness comes from outside, not from within.'"

For a reader today This dialogue contrasts two views on whether moral qualities are innate or constructed, using metaphors to argue that while humans have basic instincts, they also possess an inherent goodness that can be clouded by circumstance. It suggests that labeling basic biological drives as 'nature' ignores the distinctively human capacity for benevolence found in all people.

English translation by Eastern Lens, from the revised daizhige Chinese classics corpus. The original Chinese is published alongside it for verification.