[6A1] Gaozi said, “Human nature is like the willow tree; rightness is like cups and bowls. To make humaneness and rightness out of human nature is like making cups and bowls out of the willow tree.”
Mencius said, “Are you able to make cups and bowls while following the nature of the willow tree? You must do violence to the willow tree before you can make cups and bowls. If you must do violence to the willow tree in order to make cups and bowls, must you also do violence to human beings in order to bring forth humaneness and rightness? The effect of your words will be to cause everyone in the world to think of humaneness and rightness as misfortunes.”
[6A2] Gaozi said, “Human nature is like swirling water. Open a passage for it in the east, and it will flow east; open a passage for it in the west, and it will flow west. Human nature does not distinguish between good and not-good any more than water distinguishes between east and west.”
Mencius said, “It is true that water does not distinguish between east and west, but does it fail to distinguish between up and down? The goodness of human nature is like the downward course of water. There is no human being lacking in the tendency to do good, just as there is no water lacking in the tendency to flow downward. Now, by striking water and splashing it, you may cause it to go over your head, and by damming and channeling it, you can force it to flow uphill. But is this the nature of water? It is force that makes this happen. While people can be made to do what is not good, what happens to their nature is like this.”
[6A3] Gaozi said, “Life is what is called nature.”
Mencius said, “When you say that ‘life is what is called nature,’ is this like saying that ‘white is what is called white’?”
“Yes.”
“Is the whiteness of a white feather like the whiteness of snow, and the whiteness of snow like the whiteness of white jade?”
“Yes.”
“Then is the nature of a dog like the nature of an ox, and the nature of an ox like the nature of a human being?”
[6A4] Gaozi said, “The appetites for food and sex are human nature. Humaneness is internal rather than external; rightness is external rather than internal.”
Mencius said, “Why do you say that humaneness is internal while rightness is external?”
Gaozi said, “One who is older than I, I treat as an elder. This is not because there is in me some sense of respect due to elders. It is like something being white and my recognizing it as white; I am responding to the whiteness, which is external. Therefore I call rightness external.”
Mencius said, “There is no difference between the whiteness of a white horse and the whiteness of a white man. But is there no difference between the age of an old horse and the age of an old man? What is it that we speak of as rightness—the man’s being old or my regarding him with the respect due to one who is old?”
Gaozi said, “Here is my younger brother; I love him. There is the younger brother of a man from Qin; him I do not love. The feeling derives from me, and therefore I describe it as internal. I treat an elder from Chu as old, just as I treat our own elders as old. The feeling derives from their age, and therefore I call it external.”
Mencius said, “Our fondness for the roast meat provided by a man of Qin is no different from our fondness for the roast meat provided by one of our own people. Since this is also the case with a material thing, will you say that our fondness for roast meat is external as well?”
[6A5] Meng Jizi asked Gongduzi, “Why do you say that rightness is internal?”
Gongduzi said, “We are enacting our respect, and therefore it is internal.”
“Suppose there were a villager who was one year older than your older brother—whom would you respect?”
“I would respect my older brother.”
“For whom would you pour wine first when serving at a feast?”
“I would pour it first for the villager.”
“You respect the one, but treat the other as older. So in the end, rightness is external and not internal.”
Gongduzi, being unable to reply, told Mencius about it. Mencius said, “Ask him, whom does he respect more, his uncle or his younger brother? He will say that he respects his uncle. You then ask him, if his younger brother were impersonating the deceased at a sacrifice, whom would he respect more? He will say that he would respect his younger brother. Then ask, where is the respect due to his uncle? He will say that it is because of his younger brother’s position that he shows him greater respect. Then you may also say that it is because of the position of the villager that you show him respect. While ordinarily the respect belongs to your brother, on occasion the respect belongs to the villager.”
Jizi heard this and said, “When respect is due to my uncle, I show him respect; when respect is due to my brother, I show the respect to him. So respect is after all determined by externals and is not internally motivated.”
Gongduzi said, “In the winter we drink hot water, while in the summer we drink cold water. Does this mean that drinking and eating too are externally determined?”
[6A6] Gongduzi said, “Gaozi said that human nature is neither good nor not-good. Others say that human nature can be made to be good or not-good, which is why, during the reigns of Kings Wen and Wu, the people were inclined to goodness, whereas under the reigns of You and Li, the people were inclined to violence. Still others say that the natures of some are good and the natures of others are not good, which is why, when Yao was the ruler, there could be Xiang,1 while, with a father like Gusou, there could be Shun,2 and with Zhou3 as the son of their older brother as well as their ruler, there could be Qi, the Viscount of Wei, and Prince Bigan. Now, you say that human nature is good. Does this mean that these others are all wrong?”
Mencius said, “One’s natural tendencies enable one to do good; this is what I mean by human nature being good. When one does what is not good, it is not the fault of one’s native capacities. The mind of pity and commiseration is possessed by all human beings; the mind of shame and dislike is possessed by all human beings; the mind of respectfulness and reverence is possessed by all human beings; and the mind that knows right and wrong is possessed by all human beings. The mind of pity and commiseration is humaneness; the mind of shame and dislike is rightness; the mind of respectfulness and reverence is propriety; and the mind that knows right and wrong is wisdom. Humaneness, rightness, propriety, and wisdom are not infused into us from without. We definitely possess them. It is just that we do not think about it, that is all. Therefore it is said, “Seek and you will get it; let go and you will lose it.”4 That some differ from others by as much as twice, or five times, or an incalculable order of magnitude is because there are those who are unable fully to develop their capacities. The ode says,
Heaven, in giving birth to humankind,
Created for each thing its own rule.
The people’s common disposition
Is to love this admirable Virtue.5
Confucius said, ‘How well the one who made this ode knew the Way!’ Therefore, for each thing, there must be a rule, and people’s common disposition is therefore to love this admirable Virtue.”
[6A7] Mencius said, “In years of abundance, most of the young people have the wherewithal to be good, while in years of adversity, most of them become violent. This is not a matter of a difference in the native capacities sent down by Heaven but rather of what overwhelms their minds.
“Now, let barley be sown and covered with earth; the ground being the same, and the time of planting also the same, it grows rapidly, and in due course of time,6 it all ripens. Though there may be differences in the yield, this is because the fertility of the soil, the nourishment of the rain and the dew, and the human effort invested are not the same.
“Things of the same kind are thus like one another. Why is it that we should doubt this only when it comes to human beings? The sage and we are the same in kind. So Longzi7 said, ‘If someone makes shoes without knowing the size of a person’s feet, I know that he will not make baskets.’ That shoes are similar is because everyone in the world has feet that are alike. And when it comes to taste, all mouths are alike in their preferences. Yi Ya was first to apprehend what all mouths prefer. If, with regard to the way mouths are disposed to tastes, human nature differed from person to person, as is the case with dogs and horses differing from us in kind, why should it be that everyone in the world follows Yi Ya in matters of taste? The fact that everyone in the world takes Yi Ya as the standard in matters of taste is because we all have mouths that are similar. It is likewise with our ears: when it comes to sounds, everyone in the world takes Music Master Kuang as the standard because the ears of everyone in the world are similar. And so likewise with our eyes: when it comes to Zidu,8 there is no one in the world who fails to recognize his beauty because one who failed to recognize the beauty of Zidu would have to be without eyes. Therefore I say mouths find savor in the same flavors; ears find satisfaction in the same sounds; eyes find pleasure in the same beauty. When it comes to our minds, could they alone have nothing in common? And what is it that our minds have in common? It is order and rightness.9 The sage is just the first to apprehend what our minds have in common. Thus order and rightness please our minds in the same way that meat pleases our mouths.”
[6A8] Mencius said, “The trees on Ox Mountain were once beautiful. But being situated on the outskirts of a large state, the trees were cut down by axes. Could they remain beautiful? Given the air of the day and the night, and the moisture of the rain and the dew, they did not fail to put forth new buds and shoots, but then cattle and sheep came along to graze upon them. This accounts for the barren appearance of the mountain. Seeing this barrenness, people suppose that the mountain was never wooded. But how could this be the nature of the mountain? So it is also with what is preserved in a human being: could it be that anyone should lack the mind of humaneness and rightness? If one lets go of the innate good mind, this is like taking an ax to a tree; being cut down day after day, can [one’s mind] remain beautiful? Given the rest that one gets in the day and the night, and the effect of the calm morning qi, one’s likes and dislikes will still resemble those of other people, but barely so. And then one can become fettered and destroyed by what one does during the day; if this fettering occurs repeatedly, the effect of the night qi will no longer be enough to allow one to preserve his mind, and he will be at scant remove from the animals. Seeing this, one might suppose that he never had the capacity for goodness. But can this be a human being’s natural tendency? Thus, given nourishment, there is nothing that will not grow; lacking nourishment, there is nothing that will not be destroyed. Confucius said, ‘Hold on and you preserve it; let it go and you lose it. The time of its going out and coming in is not fixed, and there is no one who knows the place where it goes.’ In saying this, he was referring to the mind.”
[6A9] Mencius said, “The king’s lack of wisdom is hardly surprising. Take something that is the easiest thing in the world to grow. Expose it to the heat for a day, and then expose it to cold for ten days. It will not be able to grow. I see the king but seldom, and when I withdraw, the agents of cold arrive. Even if I have caused some buds to appear, what good does it do?
“Now, chess is one of the minor arts, but without concentrating one’s mind and applying one’s will, one cannot succeed in it. Chess Qiu is the finest chess player anywhere in the state; suppose that Chess Qiu is teaching two people to play chess. One of them concentrates his mind and applies his will, listening only to Chess Qiu. The other, while listening to him, is actually occupying his whole mind with a swan that he believes is approaching. He thinks about bending his bow, fitting his arrow, and shooting the swan. While he is learning alongside the other man, he does not compare with him. Is this because his intelligence is not comparable? I would say that this is not so.”
[6A10] Mencius said, “I desire fish, and I also desire bear’s paws. If I cannot have both of them, I will give up fish and take bear’s paws. I desire life, and I also desire rightness. If I cannot have both of them, I will give up life and take rightness. It is true that I desire life, but there is something I desire more than life, and therefore I will not do something dishonorable in order to hold on to it. I detest death, but there is something I detest more than death, and therefore there are some dangers I may not avoid. If, among a person’s desires, there were none greater than life, then why should he not do anything necessary in order to cling to life? If, among the things he detested, there were none greater than death, why should he not do whatever he had to in order to avoid danger? There is a means by which one may preserve life, and yet one does not employ it; there is a means by which one may avoid danger, and yet one does not adopt it.
“Thus there are things that we desire more than life and things that we detest more than death. It is not exemplary persons alone who have this mind; all human beings have it. It is only that the exemplary ones are able to avoid losing it; that is all.
“Suppose there are a basketful of rice and a bowlful of soup. If I get them, I may remain alive; if I do not get them, I may well die. If they are offered contemptuously, a wayfarer will decline to accept them; if they are offered after having been trampled upon, a beggar will not demean himself by taking them.10 And yet when it comes to a stipend of ten thousand zhong, I accept them without regard for decorum and rightness. What do the ten thousand zhong add to me? Is it because I can then get beautiful dwellings that I take them, or the service of wives and concubines, or the gratitude of poor acquaintances that I share them with? What formerly I would not accept even at the risk of death, I now accept for the sake of beautiful houses. What formerly I would not accept even at the risk of death, I now accept for the service of wives and concubines. What formerly I would not accept even at the risk of death, I now accept for the gratitude of poor acquaintances. Could such things not have been declined as well? This is what is called ‘losing one’s original mind.’”
[6A11] Mencius said, “Humaneness is the human mind. Rightness is the human path. To quit the path and not follow it, to abandon this mind and not know enough to seek it, is indeed lamentable. If a man has chickens and dogs that become lost, he knows enough to seek them. But when he has lost his mind, he does not know enough to seek it. The way of learning is none other than this: to seek for the lost mind.”
[6A12] Mencius said, “Now suppose there is a person whose fourth finger is bent so that it cannot be straightened. This may be neither painful nor incapacitating, and yet, if there is someone who is able to straighten it, the afflicted person will not consider the road from Qin to Chu too far to go because his finger is not like other people’s. When one’s finger is unlike the fingers of others, one knows enough to hate it, but when one’s mind is not like the minds of others, one does not know enough to hate it. This is what is called a failure to understand distinctions.”
[6A13] Mencius said, “Anyone who wants to grow a tung tree, or a catalpa, which can be grasped with the hands, will know how to nourish it. But when it comes to one’s person, one does not know how to nourish it. Could it be that one’s love for one’s own person is not comparable to one’s love for the tung or the catalpa? What a failure to think!”
[6A14] Mencius said, “Human beings love all parts of themselves equally, and loving all parts equally, nurture all parts equally. There being not an inch of flesh that one does not love, there is not an inch of flesh one does not nurture. In examining whether one is good at it or not, the only way is to observe what one chooses in oneself.
“Some parts of the body are superior and others inferior; some are small and others are great. One should not harm the great for the sake of the small, nor should one harm the superior for the sake of the inferior. One who nurtures the smaller part of oneself becomes a small person, while one who nurtures the greater part of oneself becomes a great person.
“Here is a master gardener who neglects his wu 
and jia 
trees while nurturing thorns and brambles: he is an inferior gardener. Here is a person who, unknowingly, nurtures a single finger while neglecting his back and shoulders: he is a confused animal. A person given to drinking and eating is considered by others to be inferior because he nourishes what is small in himself while neglecting what is great. Would a person who, while drinking and eating, was not neglectful, regard his mouth and stomach as just an inch of flesh?”
[6A15] Gongduzi asked, “All are equally persons, and yet some are great persons and others are small persons—why is this?”
Mencius said, “Those who follow the part of themselves that is great become great persons, while those who follow the part that is small become small persons.”
Gongduzi said, “Since all are equally persons, why is it that some follow the part of themselves that is great while others follow the part that is small?”
Mencius said, “The faculties of hearing and sight do not think and are obscured by things. When one thing comes into contact with another, it is led astray. The faculty of the mind is to think. By thinking, it apprehends; by not thinking, it fails to apprehend. This is what Heaven has given to us. If we first establish the greater part of ourselves, then the smaller part is unable to steal it away. It is simply this that makes the great person.”
[6A16] Mencius said, “There is the nobility of Heaven and the nobility of man. Humaneness, rightness, loyalty, and truthfulness—and taking pleasure in doing good, without ever wearying of it—this is the nobility of Heaven. The ranks of duke, minister, or high official—this is the nobility of man. Men of antiquity cultivated the nobility of Heaven and the nobility of man followed after it. Men of the present day cultivate Heavenly nobility out of a desire for the nobility of man, and, once having obtained the nobility of man, they cast away the nobility of Heaven. Their delusion is extreme, and, in the end, they must lose everything.”
[6A17] Mencius said, “In their desire to be honored, human beings are of like mind. And all human beings have in themselves what is honorable. It is only that they do not think about it; that is all. The honor that derives from men is not the original, good honor. Whom Zhao Meng honors, Zhao Meng can also debase. The ode says,
We have been plied with wine,
And satisfied with Virtue.11
To satisfy with virtue means that one is satisfied with humaneness and rightness, and therefore does not crave the flavors of the meat and grain served by men, and when a good reputation and widespread esteem accrue to one’s person, one does not crave the elegant embroidered garments worn by men.”
[6A18] Mencius said, “Humaneness overcomes inhumaneness just as water overcomes fire. Those today who practice humaneness do it as if they were using a cup of water to put out the fire consuming a cartload of firewood, and then, when the flames are not extinguished, they say that water does not overcome fire. This is to make an enormous concession to what is not humane, and in the end it must inevitably result in the destruction of humaneness.”
[6A19] Mencius said, “The five kinds of grain are the finest of all seeds. But if they are not mature, they are not even as good as the tares or weeds. With humaneness, too, maturity is everything.”
[6A20] Mencius said, “When Yi12 taught people archery, he was always determined to draw the bow to the full, and the students necessarily did the same. When the master carpenter instructs others, he always uses the compass and the square, and the students necessarily use the compass and the square as well.”
Notes
1. According to this view of human nature, which is obviously not that of Mencius, the fact that a violent man like Xiang could have lived during the reign of the sage-king Yao is evidence that people differ widely in their natures. Xiang was the depraved brother of Yao’s exemplary successor, Shun.
2. Gusou, the Blind Man, was the paradigm of the cruel father, to whom Shun nonetheless remained filial and devoted.
3. Zhou, the last ruler of the Shang dynasty, was universally believed to have been a monstrous tyrant. His older brother, Qi, and his uncle, Bigan, attempted, with notable lack of success, to counsel him.
4. See also the statement attributed to Confucius at the end of 6A8.
5. Ode 260 (Legge, Chinese Classics, 4:541–45).
6. David S. Nivison takes zhi yu ri zhi zhi shi 
to mean “by midsummer,” with ri zhi meaning “the summer solstice” (“On Translating Mencius,” in The Ways of Confucianism: Investigations in Chinese Philosophy, ed. Bryan W. Van Norden [La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1996], 184).
8. A man famous for his good looks.
9. Following A. C. Graham, Nivison points to a parallel here with a passage in chap. 4 of the Lushi chunqiu (The Springs and Autumns of Master Lu), in which the hedonist Zihuazi is quoted as saying: “‘True kings enjoy the conduct by which they rise to power, the ruined likewise enjoy the conduct by which they are ruined.’ . . . If this is so, true kings have a taste for order and duty, the ruined likewise have a taste for tyranny and idleness. Their tastes are not the same, so their fortunes are not the same” (A. C. Graham, “The Background of the Mencian (Mengzian) Theory of Human Nature,” cited in Nivison, “On Translating Mencius,” 183–84).
10. Most interpret Mencius to be saying that wayfarers or beggars simply would rather die than take food they must have in order to live if it is not given in a polite manner. The passage can be read, as it is here, as saying that wayfarers or beggars could die without food they desperately need, and they are willing to risk death if it is offered in a demeaning manner. There is a story in the Liji (Book of Rites) that suggests this more plausible reading. The Liji story is set in a time of famine. Someone is handing out food on the road but in an unintentionally demeaning manner. One man rejects the food that is rudely given, refuses to accept it even after an apology, and ends up dying. See the “Tangong” chapter in James Legge, trans., Li Chi: Book of Rites (repr., New York: University Books, 1967), 1:194–95.
11. Ode 247 (Legge, Chinese Classics, 4:475–78).
12. Yi was known as the greatest archer of antiquity.