How Confucius is depicted in Mozi Texts

One example of his criticism for Confucius can be found from the following tale from Mozi 46, "Geng Zhu” (耕柱):

Zigao, the Duke of She, asked Zhongni about governance, saying, “What sort of person is good at governing?” Zhongni responded, “Someone who is good at governing attracts the distant and renews the old.” Mozi learned of this and said, “Zigao did not grasp what to ask, and Zhongni did not grasp how to answer. How could Zigao not know that those who are good at governing attract the distant and renew the old? He should have asked how this is accomplished. [Kongzi] didn’t tell [Zigao] what he didn’t know; he told him what he [already] knew. That is why Zigao did not grasp what to ask, and Kongzi did not grasp how to answer.”

叶公子高问政于仲尼曰:善为政者若之何?仲尼对曰:善为政者，远 者近之，而旧者新之。子墨子闻之曰:叶公子高未得其问也，仲尼亦 未得其所以对也。叶公子高岂不知善为政者之远者近也，而旧者新是 哉?问所以为之若之何也。不以人之所不智告人，以所智告之，故叶 公子高未得其问也，仲尼亦未得其所以对也。

Mozi thus assumes the function traditionally attributed to Confucius, that of the authority who "learns of" (wen闻) and remarks on events he could not have experienced directly. Formally, this Mozi sample bears no resemblance to previous ‘Kongzi yue’ prompt texts. The distinction is merely due to the fact that Mozi lacked other masters’ interpretive ethos.

The Mozi's enmity toward Confucius is also clear in the “Fei Ru” 非儒 (Against the Ru) chapter, where another manufactured phrase is attributed to Confucius as part of a tale about his travails with Chen and Cai: 

When Kong Qiu was in dire straits between Cai and Chen, he had only simple broth without any grain. After ten days, Zilu boiled a pig for him, and Kong ate it without asking where the meat came from. Zilu stole another’s clothing and sold it to buy wine, and Kong Qiu drank it without asking where it came from. But when Duke Ai received Kongzi, he refused to sit on a mat that was not properly arranged and refused to eat meat that was not correctly cut.128 Zilu came forward to ask, “Why do you act differently now compared with when you were between Chen and Cai?” Kong Qiu said, “Come, I shall tell you: at that time we were worried about our survival, and now we are worried about what is proper.” 

When starving and destitute, he did not refuse what was wrongly acquired in order to stay alive, and when full and well-off, he faked his conduct in order to make a show of himself. What could be more depraved and hypocritical than this?! 

孔丘穷于蔡陈之间，藜羹不糂，十日，子路为享豚，孔丘不问肉之所 由来而食;号人衣以酤酒，孔丘不问酒之所由来而饮。哀公迎孔丘， 席不端弗坐，割不正弗食，子路进，请曰:何其与陈、蔡反也?孔丘 曰:来!吾语女:曩与女为苟生，今与女为苟义。夫飢约则不辞妄 取，以活身，赢饱则伪行以自饰，污邪诈伪，孰大于此!

It is not necessary to point out that Confucius’ retort to Zilu exists nowhere else in our current existing literature texts. Therefore, we can conclude that Mozi most likely fabricated a hypocritical Confucius statement for polemical reasons. No matter to criticize or support Kongzi, writers like Mozi who utilized Confucius' words as subjects of discussion reinforced the perception that Confucius was much more than a useful source of remarks and commentary on other cultural artifacts—that Confucius has his own dao (道).

As one of Confucius's fiercest critics, most of Mozi’s quotes revealed the fact that his thoughts were much different from Confucius. However, Confucius was still respected by Mozi as shown in a brief dialogue from“Gong Mengzi” (公孟子):

Mozi was engaged in disputation with Chengzi when he cited Kongzi. Chengzi asked him, “How can you criticize the Ru and cite Kongzi?” Master Mo said, “This is a case of something being both appropriate and unalterable. When birds become aware of vexing heat and drought, they fly upward, and when fish become aware of vexing heat and drought, they swim downward. In situations like these, not even the best-laid plans of Yu and Tang could change this fact. Although birds and fish can be called foolish, even Yu and Tang would follow them at times. Now, should I never cite Kongzi?”

子墨子与程子辩，称于孔子。程子曰:非儒，何故称于孔子也?子墨 子曰:是亦当而不可易者也。今鸟闻热旱之忧则高，鱼闻热旱之忧则 下，当此虽禹汤为之谋，必不能易矣。鸟鱼可谓愚矣，禹汤犹云因焉。今翟曾无称于孔子乎? 

Therefore, despite his earlier criticisms of Confucius as a hypocrite, and a proponent of clichés, even Mozi is obliged to admit Confucius's importance as a quotable authority.

​

References:

1. Hunter, M. (2017). 2 a dozen perspectives on “Confucius” beyond the analects. Confucius Beyond the Analects, 96–164. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004339026_004 

2. Mo, D., Ghiglione, A., & Li, S. (2018). Mozi. Pressess de l'Université Laval. 

​