本文認為墨「辯」主要關注的問題是「我們如何能將載於文字口語的道實現於實際行為中」或「我們如何能從『不含取之知』過渡到『含取之知』」，而墨「辯」所扮演的正是這個橋樑的角色。與「辯」關係密切的「法」概念及「類」概念能不能擔負該橋樑角色？墨「法」的主要內容是天與古聖王，然而天與古聖王或者他們意圖、實現行為的途徑、行為等等性質脫離了生活實踐脈絡，以至無法橋接「不含取之知」到「含取之知」。本文分析並發現墨「類」是一種生活行動劇，它將行動者的意圖、實現行為的途徑、行為等等成分密切連結到行動者的日常生活處境中，它是一個動態的流程：將你投入一個生活處境中，你產生一個意圖，這個處境將促使並提供你實現意圖的工具，進而做出行動。據此，本文認為「類」足以橋接「不含取之知」與「含 取之知」。

The main concern of Mohist conception of bian（辯）is to the question “what enables one realizing Dao in script in practice?” or “what is it to bridge the gap between knowledge without qu（取）and knowledge with qu?” This paper advocates that, for Mohist, it is bian that plays that bridge role. Mohist conceptions of fa（法）and lei（類）are the keys to bian. I argue that fa, paradigmatically tian（天）and sage, fails in principle to uphold the bridge role. This is so, because fa is considered as being detached from everyday life and therefore subject to various interpretations, thereby rendering Dao-following activity impossible. On the other hand, Mohist lei represents a kind of life world action-drama which includes agent, her intention, and practical pathway to her goal. This paper argues that lei thus understood will suffice the bridge function.