Webbed toes and branching fingers – are they not innate? Yet they exceed what is naturally needed. Fleshy growths and hanging warts – do they not arise from the body? Yet they go beyond the original form. Those who multiply and impose benevolence and righteousness, ranking them alongside the five vital organs – this is not the true correctness of the Way and its Virtue.
Therefore, webbed toes are merely a joining of useless flesh; branching fingers are merely the growing of a useless digit. Likewise, those who graft excess onto the inner nature – indulging in the practices of benevolence and righteousness, multiplying the uses of cleverness and perception – these are all deviations.
Thus, excess in vision confuses the five colors and overwhelms the patterns of ornamentation – are not the dazzling splendors of blue and yellow, of ceremonial embroidery, precisely this? And Li Zhu is the example! Excess in hearing confuses the five tones and overwhelms the six pitch-pipes – are not the sounds of bells, chimes, strings, flutes, the Yellow Bell and the Great Pitch, precisely this? And Shi Kuang is the example! Excess in benevolence means elevating virtue and stifling one’s nature in order to gather fame, making the whole world clamor to uphold standards beyond their reach – is this not so? And Zeng and Shi are the examples! Excess in debate means stacking words like tiles, knotting sentences like cords, letting the mind wander among the sophistries of “hard and white” and “same and different,” exhausting oneself for fleeting praise through useless words – is this not so? And Yang and Mo are the examples!
Therefore, all of these are paths of excess and branching – they are not the ultimate correctness of the world.
That which is truly correct does not lose the genuine nature of life and destiny. Therefore, what is naturally joined is not “webbed,” and what is naturally branched is not “excess.” What is naturally long is not “too much,” and what is naturally short is not “too little.”
Thus, though a duck’s legs are short, to lengthen them would cause sorrow; though a crane’s legs are long, to shorten them would cause grief. Therefore, what is naturally long should not be cut short, and what is naturally short should not be lengthened. In this way, there is no need to eliminate worry.
Alas! Could it be that benevolence and righteousness are not part of human nature? Then why do those who practice them have so much to worry about?
Consider: one whose toes are webbed will weep if you try to separate them; one whose fingers branch will cry if you try to bite them off. In one case there is excess, in the other deficiency – yet the suffering is the same. Today, the “benevolent” fret with troubled eyes over the world’s afflictions, while the “unbenevolent” abandon their true nature to gorge on wealth and rank. Alas! Could it be that benevolence and righteousness are not part of human nature? Since the Three Dynasties, how the world has clamored!
Moreover, to rely on hooks, lines, compasses, and squares to make things “correct” – this is to mutilate their nature. To rely on cords, glue, and lacquer to make things “firm” – this is to violate their virtue. To contort human nature with rites and music, to coax and cajole with benevolence and righteousness, in order to comfort the hearts of the people – this is to lose the Constant Nature.
The world has a Constant Nature. In this Constant Nature, the curved does not need a hook, the straight does not need a line, the round does not need a compass, the square does not need a square, things that join do not need glue, and things that bind do not need rope. Thus all things in the world grow spontaneously, without knowing why they grow; all things obtain what they need, without knowing how they obtain it. This has been the same from ancient times to the present – it cannot be diminished. Then why must benevolence and righteousness cling like glue and lacquer, winding themselves through the Way and its Virtue, bewildering the world?
Small confusion leads one astray in direction; great confusion changes one’s very nature. How do we know this? Ever since the Lord of Yu raised the banner of benevolence and righteousness to stir up the world, no one has failed to exhaust themselves in its pursuit. Is this not precisely changing human nature through benevolence and righteousness?
Therefore, let me argue: since the Three Dynasties, no one in the world has failed to exchange their nature for external things. The petty person sacrifices himself for profit; the scholar sacrifices himself for fame; the minister sacrifices himself for his family; the sage sacrifices himself for the world. These people differ in their pursuits and bear different titles – yet in harming their nature and sacrificing themselves, they are all the same.
Zang and Gu were two men who tended sheep together, and both lost their flock. When asked what Zang had been doing, they said he was clutching bamboo scrolls and reading. When asked what Gu had been doing, they said he was gambling and playing games. Their occupations were different, but in losing the sheep, they were equal.
Bo Yi died for fame at the foot of Mount Shouyang; Robber Zhi died for profit atop Mount Dongling. The causes of their deaths were different, but in destroying their lives and harming their nature, they were equal. Why must we say Bo Yi was right and Robber Zhi was wrong?
The whole world is sacrificing itself: those who sacrifice for benevolence and righteousness are called “gentlemen” by convention; those who sacrifice for wealth and goods are called “petty men.” Their sacrifice is the same – yet some are called gentlemen and some petty men. If we judge by the destruction of life and the harm to nature, then Robber Zhi is no different from Bo Yi. How, then, can we distinguish between gentlemen and petty men?
Moreover, one who binds his nature to benevolence and righteousness – even if he is as accomplished as Zeng and Shi – is not what I call “good.” One who binds his nature to the five flavors – even if he is as accomplished as Yi Er – is not what I call “good.” One who binds his nature to the five tones – even if he is as accomplished as Shi Kuang – is not what I call “keen of hearing.” One who binds his nature to the five colors – even if he is as accomplished as Li Zhu – is not what I call “clear of sight.”
What I call “good” is not what is meant by benevolence and righteousness – it is simply being good to one’s own Virtue. What I call “good” is not what is meant by benevolence and righteousness – it is simply following the genuine nature of one’s life and destiny. What I call “keen of hearing” is not hearing others – it is hearing oneself. What I call “clear of sight” is not seeing others – it is seeing oneself.
One who does not see himself but sees others, who does not obtain himself but obtains others – this is one who obtains what others have obtained, but not what is his own; who adapts to what others find comfortable, but not to what is comfortable for himself. And one who adapts to the comfort of others rather than his own – whether he be Robber Zhi or Bo Yi – is equally lost in excess and deviation.
As for me, I stand in awe of the Way and its Virtue. Therefore, above, I dare not practice the rigid conduct of benevolence and righteousness; and below, I dare not engage in depraved behavior.
Note
This Zhuangzi ‑ Pianmu excerpt uses webbed‑toe metaphors. It argues artificial virtues like benevolence, righteousness are excrescences, urging people to abide by inherent nature rather than sacrificing themselves for external ideals.
The Title – “Webbed Toes and Branching Fingers” (骈拇枝指):
Pian Mu refers to webbed toes (the big toe fused with the second toe); Zhi Zhi refers to a supernumerary (extra) finger. Zhuangzi uses these physical anomalies as a metaphor: just as extra toes or fingers are unnecessary growths on the body, so too are the Confucian moral codes of “benevolence and righteousness” unnecessary and even harmful additions to human nature.
Li Zhu (离朱):
A legendary figure in ancient China renowned for his extraordinarily keen eyesight – said to be able to spot the tip of an autumn hair from a hundred paces away. Zhuangzi uses him to represent the excess of visual perception.
Shi Kuang (师旷):
Shi Kuang was a famous blind musician of the State of Jin during the Spring and Autumn period. Despite his blindness, his hearing was considered supernatural. He represents the excess of auditory perception.
Zeng and Shi (曾、史):
Refers to Zeng Shen (曾参), a devoted disciple of Confucius celebrated for his filial piety, and Shi Qiu (史䲡/史鱼), a minister of Wei known for his unwavering integrity. They represent the extreme pursuit of Confucian moral virtue.
Yang and Mo (杨、墨):
Yang Zhu (杨朱), who advocated “each one for himself”, and Mo Di (Mozi), who preached “universal love”. Though their philosophies were diametrically opposed, Zhuangzi groups them together as masters of debate who waste their energy on verbal sophistry.
Bo Yi (伯夷) and Robber Zhi (盗跖):
Bo Yi was a nobleman from the late Shang dynasty who famously starved to death on Mount Shouyang rather than eat the grain of the Zhou dynasty, which he considered illegitimate – dying for the sake of reputation. Robber Zhi was a notorious bandit leader who died pursuing wealth and plunder. Zhuangzi’s radical argument: though society calls one a “gentleman” and the other a “villain,” both destroyed their own lives and nature for external things – they are fundamentally the same.
Zang and Gu (臧与谷):
Two shepherds in a famous parable. Zang was absorbed in reading bamboo scrolls while tending the flock; Gu was gambling. Though their activities differed in social status, both lost their sheep. This illustrates that “noble” and “base” pursuits alike can lead to the same loss of one’s essential nature.
The “Three Dynasties”:
Refers to the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties – traditionally regarded as the golden age of Chinese civilization. Zhuangzi argues that it was precisely from this era onward, when sage-kings began promoting “benevolence and righteousness,” that humanity lost its natural simplicity.
“Cutting the Crane’s Legs to Lengthen the Duck’s” (断鹤续凫):
One of the most celebrated metaphors in Chinese philosophy. A duck’s legs are naturally short; a crane’s legs are naturally long. To artificially lengthen the duck’s legs or shorten the crane’s would cause suffering. This became a lasting idiom meaning “to violate nature by forcing uniformity.”
骈拇第八
骈拇枝指出乎性哉，而侈于德；附赘县疣出乎形哉，而侈于性；多方乎仁义而用之者，列于五藏哉，而非道德之正也。是故骈于足者，连无用之肉也；枝于手者，树无用之指也；多方骈枝于五藏之情者，淫僻于仁义之行，而多方于聪明之用也。
是故骈于明者，乱五色，淫文章，青黄黼黻之煌煌非乎？而离朱是已！多于聪者，乱五声，淫六律，金石丝竹黄钟大吕之声非乎？而师旷是已！枝于仁者，擢德塞性以收名声，使天下簧鼓以奉不及之法非乎？而曾、史是已！骈于辩者，累瓦结绳窜句，游心于坚白同异之间，而敝跬誉无用之言非乎？而杨、墨是已！故此皆多骈旁枝之道，非天下之至正也。
彼正正者，不失其性命之情。故合者不为骈，而枝者不为跂；长者不为有余，短者不为不足。是故凫胫虽短，续之则忧；鹤胫虽长，断之则悲。故性长非所断，性短非所续，无所去忧也。
意仁义其非人情乎！彼仁人何其多忧也。且夫骈于拇者，决之则泣；枝于手者，龁之则啼。二者或有余于数，或不足于数，其于忧一也。今世之仁人，蒿目而忧世之患；不仁之人，决性命之情而饕贵富。故意仁义其非人情乎！自三代以下者，天下何其嚣嚣也。
且夫待钩绳规矩而正者，是削其性者也；待绳约胶漆而固者，是侵其德者也；屈折礼乐，呴俞仁义，以慰天下之心者，此失其常然也。天下有常然。常然者，曲者不以钩，直者不以绳，圆者不以规，方者不以矩，附离不以胶漆，约束不以纆索。故天下诱然皆生，而不知其所以生；同焉皆得，而不知其所以得。故古今不二，不可亏也。则仁义又奚连连如胶漆纆索而游乎道德之间为哉！使天下惑也！
夫小惑易方，大惑易性。何以知其然邪？自虞氏招仁义以挠天下也，天下莫不奔命于仁义。是非以仁义易其性与？故尝试论之：自三代以下者，天下莫不以物易其性矣！小人则以身殉利；士则以身殉名；大夫则以身殉家；圣人则以身殉天下。故此数子者，事业不同，名声异号，其于伤性以身为殉，一也。臧与穀，二人相与牧羊而俱亡其羊。问臧奚事，则挟筴读书；问谷奚事，则博塞以游。二人者，事业不同，其于亡羊均也。伯夷死名于首阳之下，盗跖死利于东陵之上。二人者，所死不同，其于残生伤性均也。奚必伯夷之是而盗跖之非乎？天下尽殉也：彼其所殉仁义也，则俗谓之君子；其所殉货财也，则俗谓之小人。其殉一也，则有君子焉，有小人焉。若其残生损性，则盗跖亦伯夷已，又恶取君子小人于其间哉！
且夫属其性乎仁义者，虽通如曾、史，非吾所谓臧也；属其性于五味，虽通如俞儿，非吾所谓臧也；属其性乎五声，虽通如师旷，非吾所谓聪也；属其性乎五色，虽通如离朱，非吾所谓明也。吾所谓臧者，非所谓仁义之谓也，臧于其德而已矣；吾所谓臧者，非所谓仁义之谓也，任其性命之情而已矣；吾所谓聪者，非谓其闻彼也，自闻而已矣；吾所谓明者，非谓其见彼也，自见而已矣。夫不自见而见彼，不自得而得彼者，是得人之得而不自得其得者也，适人之适而不自适其适者也。夫适人之适而不自适其适，虽盗跖与伯夷，是同为淫僻也。余愧乎道德，是以上不敢为仁义之操，而下不敢为淫僻之行也。
Leave a Reply