To Chen Boda
(February 1, 1939)
Comrade Boda:
I have read your article "The Philosophical Thought of Mozi."¹ It is a great contribution of yours to have identified a Chinese Heraclitus.² I have a few specific
comments, which you will find on another sheet, for your reference. They are
mere reflections in the course of a casual reading, and not results of serious study.

Salutations,

Mao Zedong, on the night of February 1

1. The title

It might be better if it were changed to "The Philosophical Ideas of Mozi-An
Ancient Materialist Philosopher" or "The Materialist Philosophy of Mozi."³

2. The existence of things does not depend solely on their properties; there is
also their basic nature. Nature and properties are inseparable, but there is a distinction. An object can lose some of its properties and yet remain the same, because
the object still retains its nature. In [the expression] zhiqi,⁴ zhi seems to refer to the
nature of the thing, something that will never change (within the compass of the
thing itself), while qi seems to indicate quantity as well as properties, things that
do change.

3. The meaning of the sentence "The superior man [junzi] cannot distinguish
between what is benevolent and what is not on the basis of his behavior" might be

expressed somewhat more clearly by saying that when the superior man acts, he
ends up doing only what is not benevolent, rather than doing what is benevolent.⁵

4. The paragraph discussing cause and effect seems to be dealing with the question of necessity and contingency at the same time. "The matter being what it is"
indicates necessity, yet the form in which this necessity manifests itself is accidental. All the forms in which necessity manifests itself are, as a rule, contingent. It
always manifests itself in the form of contingency. Therefore it is correct to say
"there could have been no Wuchang Uprising of October 10 without this partial
cause." However, the necessity of the 1911 Revolution (major cause) must have
necessarily been provoked by another contingency (minor cause), and completed
by way of numerous contingent causes. It might well have been the Hanyang Uprising of October 10 or an uprising in some other place on some other date. It is also
right to say that "had it not been for the fact that it broke out at that most appropriate moment, it might not have spread like a prairie fire." But it would have necessarily broken out at some other appropriate moment and become a prairie fire.

5. The question of the Doctrine of the Mean

Such doctrines of the Moist school as "in desiring it, one weighs the benefit; in
aversion to it, one weighs the loss,"⁶ "maintaining a balance between the two without veering to one side,"⁷ and "establish a position that is unshakable"⁸ mean the
same thing as Confucian concepts such as "hold the two extremes and employ the
Mean,"⁹ "choose the Mean, grasp it firmly, and do not lose it,"¹⁰ "stand erect in the
middle and do not incline to either side," and "maintain this course to death with-

Our source for this letter is Mao Zedong shuxin xuanji, pp. 140-43, where it is reproduced
from the manuscript.
1. Chen Boda's article was published in Jiefang, nos. 82, 102, and 104, in 1939 and
1940.
2. Heraclitus had been called by Lenin "one of the founders of dialectics."
3. Chen Boda did not follow Mao in this, and the title of the published article remained
as indicated above.
4. In modern Chinese, this two-character compound has the meaning of "will" or "aspiration." Mao is discussing it here as used in the writings of Mencius, and also of Confucius.
Chen Boda's explanation of the meaning of the term (in part 1 of his article, Jiefang, no. 82,
p. 22) is in harmony with Mao's brief comment here.

5. Chen Boda's article does not contain the exact words quoted by Mao, but the reference is clearly to Chen's statement (Jiefang, no. 82, p. 22) that "the so-called 'superior
man' . . . can tell you that this is benevolent and that is not, but when it comes to his behavior, his actions end up being only those lacking in benevolence rather than benevolent ones,
which means that he has no idea what benevolence actually is."
6. This is from Mozi, book 10, chapter 40, "The Canon" (Jing), part I. The context is a
definition of the system of merit, in which officials are rewarded or punished according to
their deeds.
7. This is from Mozi, book 10, chapter 42, "Exposition of the Canon" (Jingshuo), part I.
A standard commentary to the text states that this is a gloss on the previous expression, and
it is likely that Mao had this in mind in devising his interpretation.
8. From Mozi, book 10, chapter 41, "The Canon" (Jing), part II.
9. The Doctrine of the Mean, VI, reads: "The Master said, 'There was Shun-He indeed
was greatly wise! Shun loved to question others, and to study their words, though they
might be shallow. He concealed what was bad in them, and displayed what was good. He
took hold of their two extremes, determined the Mean, and employed it in his government
of the people. It was by this that he was Shun!'" (Legge, Vol. I, p. 388). Mao is referring to
the penultimate sentence of this paragraph.
10. The reference is to the Doctrine of the Mean, VIII, which reads: "The Master said,
'This was the manner of Hui-he made choice of the Mean, and whenever he got hold of
what was good, he clasped it firmly, as if wearing it on his breast, and did not lose it'"
(Legge, Vol. I, p. 389).


out changing."11 They all confirm the stability of substantive disposition and make
an argument for the stability of such substantive disposition along two lines: opposition to excess and to falling short. 12 Here are a few of my objections: (a) That a
two-line struggle is being waged or that the method of a two-line battle is being
used to determine the relativity of substantive disposition; (b) The two schools,
Confucian and Moist, mean the same thing although they use different words. The
Moists made no special advance; (c) "Correctness" is a concept concerned with
substantive disposition, which is the same as the Confucian's "mean" (not veering
to one side is called the mean). "To weigh" is not a concept concerned with substantive disposition but is, rather, a method for defining the distinction between one
particular substantive disposition and another, which is the same as the Confucian
school's "hold," as in "hold the two extremes and employ the Mean." The "correctness" of "desire" is "benefit," differentiating it from loss. The "correctness" of
"aversion" is "loss," differentiating it from benefit and avoiding any confusion between the two. "In weighing, maintaining a balance between the two without veering to one side"13 should be explained as defining the particular substantive
disposition of a thing and not letting it deviate to the left or to the right (that is, not
having it veer toward a different substantive disposition), but this phrase is not as
clear and appropriate as "excess is the same as falling short," so you should not say
that it "is a further development over 'excess is the same as falling short"; (d) To
say that "maintaining a balance between the two without veering to one side shows
precisely that Mozi saw that one particular substantive disposition contains two
different sides and not veering to either one side or the other is the only correct
way, the only way that truly conforms to that substantive disposition" is rather
inappropriate, as it makes the Moist school out to be eclectic. A substantive disposition does have two sides, but in the course of a single process only one is the

11. The reference is to the Doctrine of the Mean, X, 5 (Legge, Vol. I, p. 390), which
reads: "The superior man cultivates a friendly harmony, without being weak. How firm is
he in his energy! He stands erect in the middle, without inclining to either side. How firm is
he in his energy! When good principles prevail in the government of his country, he does
not change from what he was in retirement. How firm is his energy! When bad principles
prevail in the country, he maintains his course to death without changing. How firm is he in
his energy!"
12. Mao's analysis in all this hinges upon his interpretation of Mozi's use of the word
zheng, commonly translated as "appropriateness," "uprightness," "the Middle Way," and so
on. This word appears in the first and last of Mao's references to Mozi, and Mao clearly
takes it in the "traditional Confucian" sense as just described, whereas we have rendered it
in a more "neutral" way, as "it" in the first instance, and as "establish a position" in the
second. For a fuller and clearer exposition of Mao's ideas regarding the relation between
excess [guo] and falling short [buji], which he equated respectively with leftism and rightism, see below, his letter of February 20, 1939, to Zhang Wentian.
13. The original Mozi text reads, "The wise man maintains a balance between the two
without veering to one side," but the standard commentary takes "wise man" as "one who
weighs things," and Mao is clearly following him here.

principal side, and it is relatively stable, so there must necessarily be some inclination, a veering toward this side. What is meant by a particular substantive disposition, or one substantive disposition, is this particular side, which is the substance;
otherwise the substantive disposition will have been negated. Therefore, what Mozi
means by "without veering to either side" is to avoid deviation to the right or the
left, or veering toward a different substantive disposition, and not to avoid deviation toward one of the two sides of a particular substantive disposition (actually this
would not be deviation but, rather, precisely, correctness). This is the explanation
that should be made if the Moist school is, indeed, dialectical materialist.
6. The question of "halves" and "extremes"
This section in Mozi, and Hu Shi's¹4 interpretation of it in particular, cannot
provide proof regarding the issue of transformation of substantive disposition; it
seems to be a discussion of the question of limitation and limitlessness.

14. Regarding Hu Shi, see below the note to the text of February 22, 1939.