Translation: Fine weapons are instruments of ill omen; all creatures detest them, and therefore one who possesses the Tao (道) does not employ them.
Analysis: The most widely accepted interpretation. No matter how fine the weapons may be, their essential nature is that of instruments of killing — fundamentally at odds with the Tao's Virtue (德) of nourishing all things. One who possesses the Tao does not rely on military force and does not take the initiative in using violence. This is the guiding principle of Laozi's anti-war thought.
Similar views: Chapter 30: "以道佐人主者，不以兵强天下" — "One who assists a ruler by means of the Tao does not use military force to dominate the realm."
Translation: One who adorns weapons possesses instruments of ill omen; all creatures detest such things, and therefore one who possesses the Tao does not dwell in such a place.
Analysis: Heshang Gong's gloss. He reads "佳" as "饰" (to adorn) — adorning weapons implies delighting in war and glorifying violence. "不处" means that one who possesses the Tao does not dwell in a state that glorifies military force. This interpretation directs its critique at bellicose rulers and militaristic tendencies.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "兵者，惊精神，浊和气，不善人之器也，不当修饰之" — "Weapons startle the spirit and pollute the harmonious Qi (气); they are instruments unfit for good people and should not be adorned."
Translation: A powerful military force is an instrument of ill omen; all creatures detest it, and therefore one who possesses the Tao does not rely upon it.
Analysis: This reading interprets "兵" as military power as a whole. A truly enlightened ruler does not take pride in military strength and does not build national power on the foundation of armed force. This is consistent with Chapter 30's teaching that "其事好还" — "military ventures inevitably bring retaliation."
Similar views: Chapter 30: "师之所处，荆棘生焉。大军之后，必有凶年" — "Where armies have camped, thorns and brambles grow. In the wake of great armies, there must follow years of famine."
Translation: The gentleman, in everyday life, honors the left side; when employing arms, he honors the right side.
Analysis: This uses the ancient ritual distinction between left and right to illustrate the fundamental difference between peace and war. The ancients regarded the left as Yang (阳) — representing life, generation, and auspiciousness; the right as Yin (阴) — representing death, killing, and inauspiciousness. In daily life, the gentleman esteems vitality (left), but in warfare, the business at hand is killing (right). The two value systems are diametrically opposed — implying that the military is fundamentally antithetical to the Way of the gentleman.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "此言兵道与君子之道反，所贵者异也" — "This says that the way of arms and the way of the gentleman are opposites; what each values is different."
Translation: The gentleman, in everyday life, esteems softness and yielding; when employing arms, he esteems firmness and strength.
Analysis: Heshang Gong directly maps left and right onto softness and hardness. The Way of the gentleman values softness and yielding (i.e., Laozi's "the soft and weak overcomes the hard and strong"), while the way of arms values firmness and strength. The two value orientations are precisely opposed. Employing arms means being compelled to temporarily depart from the Way of softness and yielding.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "贵柔弱也" — "He esteems softness and weakness." "贵刚强也" — "He esteems firmness and strength."
Translation: Weapons are instruments of ill omen, not instruments for a gentleman; he uses them only when he has no alternative, and calm detachment is the best attitude to maintain.
Analysis: The most widely accepted interpretation. Even when compelled to employ arms, one should maintain a disposition of calm detachment — neither coveting military glory nor delighting in killing, and certainly not taking pleasure in it. The three characters "不得已" (only when there is no alternative) are of critical importance: they show that Laozi does not entirely reject the use of military force, but insists that it is only a last resort, and that one must never initiate war.
Similar views: Chapter 30: "善有果而已，不敢以取强" — "The good commander achieves his result and stops; he does not dare to use it to seize dominance."
Translation: The military is an inauspicious means, not the means a gentleman relies upon; he uses it only when he has no alternative, and not coveting territory and treasure is best.
Analysis: Heshang Gong makes "calm detachment" concrete as "not coveting territory and plundering others' wealth." Even when compelled to take up arms, one should not use the occasion to annex another state's lands and riches. This gives "calm detachment is best" a specific political meaning — opposing territorial expansion and economic plunder through war.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "不贪土地，利人财宝" — "Do not covet territory or profit from others' wealth and treasure."
Translation: To conquer and yet not glorify the victory — those who glorify it take pleasure in killing. Those who take pleasure in killing cannot achieve their ambitions in the realm.
Analysis: The central proposition. Laozi equates "glorifying war" with "taking pleasure in killing" — an extraordinarily profound judgment. Any celebration or glorification of military victory is, in essence, a glorification of the loss of life. A ruler who takes pleasure in killing will inevitably lose the people's hearts and cannot long govern the realm.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "美得胜者，是为喜乐杀人者也" — "Those who glorify victory are those who delight in killing."
Translation: To conquer and yet not take pride in it — those who take pride in it take pleasure in killing. Those who take pleasure in killing cannot win the support of all under heaven.
Analysis: This interprets "得志" as "winning the hearts of the people." A bellicose ruler may prevail for a time, but will ultimately lose the support of all under heaven. For war inflicts harm upon the people, and the people will not support a ruler who takes pleasure in harming them. This interpretation emphasizes the fundamental contradiction between war and popular will.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "为人君而乐杀人者，此不可使得志于天下矣" — "A ruler who takes pleasure in killing cannot be permitted to achieve his ambitions in the realm."
Translation: In auspicious affairs, the left is honored; in inauspicious affairs, the right is honored. The lieutenant general occupies the left, and the supreme general occupies the right — this means that war should be conducted according to funeral rites.
Analysis: The most widely accepted interpretation. In ancient funeral rites, the right was the position of honor, and the supreme general's position is on the right — this implies a profound analogy: war is a funeral. As the highest military commander, the supreme general occupies the same position as the presiding officiant at a funeral. This is no mere coincidence, but reflects the ancients' deep understanding of the nature of war: to wage war is to send people to their deaths.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "上将军尊而居阴者，以其专主杀也" — "The supreme general holds the place of honor yet occupies the Yin position because he has sole charge of killing." "上将军居右，丧礼尚右，死人贵阴也" — "The supreme general stands on the right; in funeral rites the right is honored, for the dead belong to Yin."
Translation: Auspicious affairs esteem the left (Yang); inauspicious affairs esteem the right (Yin). The lieutenant general occupies the left — because he does not have sole charge of killing; the supreme general occupies the right — because he has sole charge of killing. This means that war should be treated as a funeral.
Analysis: Heshang Gong uses Yin and Yang (阴阳) theory to explain the arrangement. The lieutenant general is subordinate (a deputy) yet occupies the Yang position (left) because he does not have sole charge of killing; the supreme general holds the highest rank (the commander-in-chief) yet occupies the Yin position (right) because he presides exclusively over slaughter — and killing belongs to Yin. This arrangement itself implies that the essential nature of the military is Yin, death, and inauspiciousness — the exact opposite of the Yang, life, and auspiciousness of everyday affairs.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "偏将军卑而居阳者，以其不专杀也" — "The lieutenant general holds a lower rank yet occupies the Yang position because he does not have sole charge of killing." "上将军尊而居阴者，以其专主杀也" — "The supreme general holds a higher rank yet occupies the Yin position because he has sole charge of killing."
Translation: When multitudes have been slain, one should face it with grief and weeping; a victory in battle should be observed with funeral rites.
Analysis: The most powerfully moving conclusion of the entire chapter. Even the victor, confronted with the heaped corpses on the battlefield, should be deeply grieved and observe the occasion with funeral rites. This is not a prescription of mere ceremonial formality, but a demand of moral conscience — every fallen person was a being of flesh and blood; victory is nothing to celebrate. This is one of the earliest humanistic anti-war declarations in human history.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "古者战胜，将军居丧主礼之位，素服而哭之，明君子贵德而贱兵" — "In ancient times, after a battle was won, the general would assume the position of a chief mourner, don plain garments, and weep — showing that the gentleman values Virtue (德) and disdains arms."
Translation: When multitudes have been slain, one should mourn them with grief and weeping; a victory in battle should be observed with funeral rites.
Analysis: Heshang Gong specifies the reason for the grief: it is not only sorrow for the dead, but sorrow for one's own moral deficiency — "伤己德薄，不能以道化人，而害无辜之民" — "Grieving that one's own Virtue (德) is too thin to transform the people through the Tao (道), and that one has harmed innocent people." The reason a ruler must weep is that resorting to arms means his moral power was insufficient to bring about transformation through the Tao — and that itself is a kind of failure.
Similar views: Heshang Gong's commentary: "伤己德薄，不能以道化人，而害无辜之民" — "Grieving that his own Virtue is too thin, he was unable to transform the people through the Tao, and instead harmed the innocent." "知后世用兵不已故悲痛之" — "Knowing that later generations would wage war without ceasing, and therefore grieving bitterly."
This chapter contains 13 interpretation combinations.
[Core Divergences]
Chapter 31 is the most directly anti-war chapter of the Tao Te Ching and one of the earliest anti-war declarations in the history of Chinese thought. The chapter unfolds in four layers: (1) The general thesis — weapons are instruments of ill omen, and one who possesses the Tao does not use them; (2) The left–right analogy for the nature of war — employing arms is equivalent to an inauspicious affair; (3) The way of employing arms — use them only when there is no alternative, maintain calm detachment, and do not glorify victory; (4) The most shocking conclusion — "When multitudes have been slain, one should mourn them with grief and weeping; a victory in battle should be observed with funeral rites." Laozi is not a naive pacifist: he acknowledges that war is sometimes unavoidable. But his stance is unequivocal: (a) any glorification of war is tantamount to taking pleasure in killing; (b) a bellicose ruler will ultimately lose the hearts of the people; (c) even victory should be treated as a funeral, for behind every victory lies the loss of countless lives. It is noteworthy that Wang Bi left no commentary on this chapter; some scholars believe this implies reservations about its authenticity. Heshang Gong's commentary, by contrast, is extremely rich: he systematically explains the left–right distinction through Yin and Yang theory and, in particular, emphasizes that the ruler should engage in deep self-reproach for being "too thin in Virtue to transform the people through the Tao" — thereby elevating the anti-war argument from simple humanitarianism to the plane of moral self-examination.