White Horse Discourse (白馬論) - full text database, fully browsable and searchable on-line; discussion and list of…ctext.org
「白馬非馬」，可乎？White Horse Discourse:…:
[A]: Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?
曰：可。White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: It can.
曰：何哉？White Horse Discourse:…:
[A]: How so?
曰：馬者，所以命形也；白者，所以命色也。命色者非命形也。故曰：「白馬非馬」。White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: “Horse” is how the shape is named; “white” is how the color is named. That which names color does not name shape. Thus I say: “a white horse is not a horse”.
曰：有白馬，不可謂無馬也。不可謂無馬者，非馬也？有白馬為有馬，白之，非馬何也？White Horse Discourse:…:
[A]: Having a white horse cannot be said to be having no horses. Is not that which cannot be said to be having no horses a horse? Having a white horse is having a horse; how can a white one not be a horse?
曰：求馬，黃、黑馬皆可致；求白馬，黃、黑馬不可致。使白馬乃馬也，是所求一也。所求一者，白馬1不異馬也；所求不異，如黃、黑馬有可有不可，何也？可與不可，其相非明。故黃、黑馬一也，而可以應有馬，而不可以應有白馬。是白馬之非馬，審矣！White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: Requesting a horse, a brown or a black horse may arrive; requesting a white horse, a brown or a black horse will not arrive. By making a white horse the same as a horse, what is requested [in these two cases] is the same. If what is requested is the same, then a white horse is no different to a horse; if what is requested is no different, then how is it that in one case brown and black horses are acceptable, and in the other they are not? Acceptable and unacceptable are clearly in opposition to each other. Thus brown and black horses are also one in that one can reply that there is a horse, yet one cannot reply that there is a white horse. It is clear indeed that a white horse is not a horse.
1. 馬 : Originally read: “者”. 從《百子全書》本改。
曰：以馬之有色為非馬，天下非有無色之馬也。天下無馬可乎？White Horse Discourse:…:
[A]: If a horse with color is not a horse, then since there are no colorless horses in the world, can it be that there are no horses in the world?
曰：馬固有色，故有白馬。使馬無色，有馬如已耳，安取白馬？故白者非馬也。白馬者，馬與白也；馬與白馬也，故曰：白馬非馬也。White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: A horse necessarily has color; thus there are white horses. If one makes horses have no color, then there are merely horses — how can one pick out a white horse? Thus that which is white is not a horse. A white horse is horse and white, horse and white horse. Thus I say: “a white horse is not a horse”.
曰：馬未與白為馬，白未與馬為白。合馬與白，復名白馬。是相與以不相與為名，未可。故曰：白馬非馬未可。White Horse Discourse:…:
[A]: A horse not yet with white is a horse, and white not yet with a horse is white. Combining horse with white, it is together named a “white horse”. This is to use an uncombined name for a combined thing, and is inadmissible. Thus I say: “a white horse is not a horse” is inadmissible.
曰：以「有白馬為有馬」，謂有白馬為有黃馬，可乎？White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: Taking their being white horses as there being horses, as calling there being white horses there being brown horses — is this admissible?
曰：未可。White Horse Discourse:…:
曰：以有馬為異有黃馬，是異黃馬於馬也；異黃馬於馬，是以黃馬為非馬。以黃馬為非馬，而以白馬為有馬，此飛者入池而棺槨異處，此天下之悖言亂辭也。White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: Taking their being horses as different to there being brown horses, is to take brown horses as different to horses. Taking brown horses to be different to horses, is to take it that brown horses are not horses. To take brown horses as not horses, and yet take white horses as being horses, is to have the flying in a pond and the inner and outer coffins in different places: a contradictory claim and misuse of statements as there is under heaven!
曰：有白馬，不可謂無馬者，離白之謂也。不1離者有白馬不可謂有馬也。故所以為有馬者，獨以馬為有馬耳，非有白馬為有馬。故其為有馬也，不可以謂馬馬也。White Horse Discourse:…:
[A]: Having white horses cannot be called having no horses, this is what is meant by the separation of white. Not separating it, having white horses cannot be said to be having horses. Thus the reason why it is taken as having horses, is merely that “horses” are taken as “having horses”, and “having white horses” is not “having horses”. Thus on your taking it as having horses, one cannot call a horse a horse.
1. 不 : Another version reads: “是”. 《百子全書》本「不」作「是」。
曰：白者不定所白，忘之而可也。白馬者，言白定所白也。定所白者，非白也。馬者，無去取于色，故黃、黑皆所以應。白馬者，有去取于色，黃、黑馬皆所以色去，故唯白馬獨可以應耳。無去者非有去也；故曰：「白馬非馬」。White Horse Discourse:…:
[B]: White does not fix what is white, this can be put aside. “White horse” speaks of white fixing what is white. That which fixes what is white is not white. “Horse” does not pick or exclude color, thus a brown or black horse can be brought. “White horse” does pick or exclude color; brown and black horses are excluded by color, thus only a white horse can be brought. That which does not exclude is not that which does exclude. Thus I say: “a white horse is not a horse”.