Webbed Toes
駢拇 · Zhuangzi
Webbed Toes
**Extra toes and superfluous fingers** arise from nature, yet exceed what is proper to virtue. **Attached tumors and hanging warts** arise from physical form, yet exceed what is proper to nature. Those who employ numerous methods of benevolence and righteousness, listing them alongside the five organs—this is not the true course of the Way and its virtue. Therefore, extra toes on the foot are merely useless flesh joined together; superfluous fingers on the hand are merely useless digits sprouting forth. Those who employ numerous methods, extra and superfluous, in the true nature of the five organs—they are wayward and depraved in their practice of benevolence and righteousness, and excessive in their use of hearing and sight.
Therefore, those who are excessive in sight confuse the five colors, indulge in elaborate patterns—the splendor of blue and yellow, the embroidered designs on ceremonial robes—is this not so? Such was Li Zhu. Those who are excessive in hearing confuse the five tones, indulge in the six pitch-pipes—the sounds of metal, stone, silk, and bamboo, the notes of Huangzhong and Dalü—is this not so? Such was Shi Kuang. Those who are superfluous in benevolence elevate virtue and block their nature in order to win a reputation, causing the world to sound the drums and beat the drums to uphold standards none can attain—is this not so? Such were Zeng and Shi. Those who are excessive in disputation pile up tiles, tie knots in cords, twist sentences, let their minds roam among propositions of hard and white, same and different, and exhaust themselves in praising useless words—is this not so? Such were Yang and Mo. All these are ways of excess and superfluous growth—they are not the ultimate right course of the world.
Those who are truly right do not lose the true nature of their lives. Therefore, what joins is not considered extra; what branches is not considered superfluous; what is long is not considered excessive; what is short is not considered insufficient. Thus, the legs of the duck are short, but to lengthen them would bring sorrow; the legs of the crane are long, but to shorten them would bring grief. What is naturally long should not be cut; what is naturally short should not be extended—then there is nothing from which to remove sorrow. Could it be that benevolence and righteousness are contrary to true human feeling? Why do the benevolent have so much sorrow!
Now, when toes are joined together, to sever them brings weeping; when fingers are superfluous, to bite them off brings wailing. In these two cases, one is excessive in number and one is deficient in number, yet the sorrow is the same. The benevolent people of the present age gaze with anxious eyes upon the troubles of the world; the unbenevolent sever the true nature of their lives in greedy pursuit of wealth and rank. Therefore, could it be that benevolence and righteousness are contrary to true human feeling? Since the times of the Three Dynasties, why has the world been in such tumultuous confusion!
Now, to rely on hooks, marking lines, compasses, and squares to make things correct is to strip away their nature. To rely on ropes, bonds, glue, and lacquer to make things secure is to violate their virtue. To bend and twist with ritual and music, to coax and coddle with benevolence and righteousness, in order to comfort the hearts of the world—this is to lose what is constant and natural. The world has what is constant and natural. What is constant and natural means: the curved does not depend on the hook, the straight does not depend on the marking line, the round does not depend on the compass, the square does not depend on the square; adhesion does not depend on glue and lacquer, binding does not depend on ropes and cords. Thus, everything in the world is born in a flourishing manner without knowing how it is born; everything obtains its fulfillment without knowing how it obtains it. Therefore, from ancient times to the present, it has been one and the same—it cannot be diminished. Why then must benevolence and righteousness be connected endlessly like glue, lacquer, and ropes and cords, wandering between the Way and its virtue? This confuses the world!
A small confusion changes direction; a great confusion changes nature. How do we know this is so? Since Yu Shao raised up benevolence and righteousness to disturb the world, everyone in the world has rushed about in a frantic pursuit of benevolence and righteousness. Is this not using benevolence and righteousness to change their nature? Let me try to discuss this: Since the times of the Three Dynasties, everyone in the world has used external things to change their nature. The petty person sacrifices himself for profit; the scholar sacrifices himself for fame; the grand officer sacrifices himself for his family; the sage sacrifices himself for the world. Therefore, these several men differ in their undertakings and have different reputations, yet in damaging their nature and sacrificing themselves, they are the same.
Zang and Gu, two men tending sheep together, each lost his sheep. Asked what Zang was doing, it was found he had been reading from a bamboo slip. Asked what Gu was doing, it was found he had been playing dice and gambling. These two men differed in their activities, yet in losing their sheep they were equal. Bo Yi died for fame at the foot of Mount Shouyang; Zhi the Robber died for profit at the top of Mount Dongling. These two men differed in what they died for, yet in injuring their lives and damaging their nature they were equal. Why must Bo Yi be right and Zhi the Robber be wrong?
The whole world sacrifices itself. Those who sacrifice themselves for benevolence and righteousness are conventionally called gentlemen; those who sacrifice themselves for goods and wealth are conventionally called petty men. Their sacrifice is the same—yet some are called gentlemen and some are called petty men. If we consider those who injure their lives and impair their nature, then Zhi the Robber and Bo Yi are the same—what basis is there for choosing between gentleman and petty man?
Now, those whose nature is subordinated to benevolence and righteousness, even if they are as penetrating as Zeng and Shi, are not what I call good. Those whose nature is subordinated to the five flavors, even if they are as penetrating as Yu Er, are not what I call good. Those whose nature is subordinated to the five tones, even if they are as penetrating as Shi Kuang, are not what I call acute of hearing. Those whose nature is subordinated to the five colors, even if they are as penetrating as Li Zhu, are not what I call clear of sight.
When I say "good," I do not mean benevolence and righteousness—I mean being good in one's virtue. When I say "good," I do not mean what is called benevolence and righteousness—I mean following the true nature of one's life. When I say "acute of hearing," I do not mean hearing others—it means hearing oneself. When I say "clear of sight," I do not mean seeing others—it means seeing oneself. To not see oneself but to see others, to not find fulfillment in oneself but to find it in others—this is obtaining what others obtain without obtaining one's own, suiting others without suiting oneself. To suit others without suiting oneself, whether one be Zhi the Robber or Bo Yi, is equally wayward and depraved.
I am ashamed before the Way and its virtue. Therefore, above I will not practice the conduct of benevolence and righteousness, and below I will not practice wayward and depraved deeds.
駢拇
駢拇枝指，出乎性哉，而侈於德；附贅縣疣，出乎形哉，而侈於性。多方乎仁義而用之者，列於五藏哉，而非道德之正也。是故，駢於足者，連无用之肉也；枝於手者，樹无用之指也；多方駢枝於五藏之情者，淫僻於仁義之行，而多方於聰明之用也。是故，駢於明者，亂五色，淫文章，青黃黼黻之煌煌，非乎？而離朱是已。多於聰者，亂五聲，淫六律，金石絲竹、黃鍾大呂之聲，非乎？而師曠是已。枝於仁者，擢德塞性，以收名聲，使天下簧鼔一作「鼓」，以奉不及之法，非乎？而曾一作「魯」、史是已。駢於辯者，纍瓦、結繩、竄句，遊心於堅白同異之間，而敝跬譽无用之言，非乎？而楊、墨是已。故此皆多駢旁枝之道，非天下之至正也。
彼正正者，不失其性命之情，故合者不爲駢，而枝者不爲跂，長者不爲有餘，短者不爲不足。是故，鳧脛雖短，續之則憂，鶴脛雖長，斷一作「短」之則悲。故性長非所斷，性短非所續，无所去憂也。意仁義其非人情乎？彼仁人何其多憂也！且夫駢於拇者，決之則泣；枝於手者，齕之則啼。二者，或有餘於數，或不足於數，其於憂，一也。今世之仁人，蒿目而憂世之患；不仁之人，決性命之情而饕貴富。故意仁義其非人情乎！自三代以下者，天下何其囂囂也！且夫待鉤繩規矩而正者，是削其性也；待繩約膠漆而固者，是侵其德也；屈折禮樂，呴俞仁義，以慰天下之心者，此失其常然也。天下有常然。常然者，曲者不以鉤，直者不以繩，圓者不以規，方者不以矩，附離不以膠漆，約束不以纆索。故天下誘然皆生，而不知其所以生，同焉皆得，而不知其所以得，故古今不二，不可虧也，則仁義又奚連連如膠漆纆索，而遊乎道德之間爲哉？使天下惑也！
夫小惑易方，大惑易性。何以知其然邪？自虞氏招仁義以撓天下也，天下莫不奔命於仁義。是非以仁義易其性與？故嘗試論之：自三代以下者，天下莫不以物易其性矣。小人則以身殉利，士則以身殉名，大夫則以身殉家，聖人則以身殉天下。故此數子者，事業不同，名聲異號，其於傷性，以身爲殉，一也。臧與穀，二人相與牧羊，而俱亡其羊。問臧奚事，則挾筴讀書；問穀奚事，則博塞以遊。二人者，事業不同，其於亡羊，均也。伯夷死名於首陽之下，盜跖死利於東陵之上。二人者，所死不同，其於殘生傷性，均也，奚必伯夷之是，而盜跖之非乎？天下盡殉也。彼其所殉，仁義也，則俗謂之君子；其所殉，貨財也，則俗謂之小人。其殉，一也，則有君子焉，有小人焉。若其殘生損性，則盜跖亦伯夷已，又惡取君子小人於其間哉？
且夫屬其性乎仁義者，雖通如曾、史，非吾所謂臧也；屬其性於五味，雖通如俞兒，非吾所謂臧也；屬其性乎五聲，雖通如師曠，非吾所謂聰也；屬其性乎五色，雖通如離朱，非吾所謂明也。吾所謂臧，非仁義之謂也，臧於其德而已矣；吾所謂臧者，非所謂仁義之謂也，任其性命之情而已矣；吾所謂聰者，非謂其聞彼也，自聞而已矣；吾所謂明者，非謂其見彼也，自見而已矣。夫不自見而見彼，不自得而得彼者，是得人之得而不自得其得者也，適人之適而不自適其適者也。夫適人之適而不自適其適，雖盜跖與伯夷，是同爲淫僻也。余愧乎道德，是以上不敢爲仁義之操，而下不敢爲淫僻之行也。