Two toes webbed together, a sixth finger forking off—these come from the inborn nature but are excretions as far as Virtue is concerned.[1] Swelling tumors and protruding wens—these come from the body but are excretions as far as the inborn nature is concerned. Men over-nice in the ways of benevolence and righteousness try to put these into practice, even to line them up with the five vital organs![2] This is not the right approach to the Way and its Virtue. Therefore he who has two toes webbed together has grown a flap of useless flesh; he who has a sixth finger forking out of his hand has sprouted a useless digit; and he who imposes overnice ways, webs, and forked fingers on the original form of the five vital organs will become deluded and perverse in the practice of benevolence and righteousness, and overnice in the use of his hearing and sight. Thus he who is web toed in eyesight will be confused by the five colors, bewitched by patterns and designs, by the dazzling hues of blue and yellow, of embroidery and brocade—am I wrong? So we have Li Zhu.[3] He who is overnice in hearing will be confused by the five notes, bewitched by the six tones, by the sounds of metal and stone, strings and woodwinds, the huangzhong and dalü pitch pipes—am I wrong? So we have Music Master Kuang.[4] He who is fork fingered with benevolence will tear out the Virtue given him and stifle his inborn nature in order to seize fame and reputation, leading the world on with pipe and drum in the service of an unattainable ideal—am I wrong? So we have Zeng and Shih.[5] He who is web toed in argumentation will pile up bricks, knot the plumb line, apply the curve,[6] letting his mind wander in the realm of “hard” and “white,” “likeness” and “difference,” huffing and puffing away, lauding his useless words—am I wrong? So we have Yang and Mo.[7] All these men walk a way that is overnice, web toed, wide of the mark, fork fingered, not that which is the True Rightness of the world.

He who holds to True Rightness[8] does not lose the original form of his inborn nature. So for him, joined things are not webbed toes; things forking off are not superfluous fingers; the long is never too much; the short is never too little.[9] The duck’s legs are short, but to stretch them out would worry him; the crane’s legs are long, but to cut them down would make him sad. What is long by nature needs no cutting off; what is short by nature needs no stretching. That would be no way to get rid of worry. I wonder, then, whether benevolence and righteousness are part of man’s true form? Those benevolent men—how much worrying they do!

The man with two toes webbed together would weep if he tried to tear them apart; the man with a sixth finger on his hand would howl if he tried to gnaw it off. Of these two, one has more than the usual number; the other has less; but in worrying about it, they are identical. Nowadays the benevolent men of the age lift up weary eyes,[10] worrying over the ills of the world, while the men of no benevolence tear apart the original form of their inborn nature in their greed for eminence and wealth. Therefore I wonder whether benevolence and righteousness are really part of man’s true form? From the Three Dynasties on down,[11] what a lot of fuss and hubbub they have made in the world!

If we must use curve and plumb line, compass and square, to make something right, this means cutting away its inborn nature; if we must use cords and knots, glue and lacquer, to make something firm, this means violating its natural Virtue. So the crouchings and bendings of rights and music, the smiles and beaming looks of benevolence and righteousness, which are intended to comfort the hearts of the world, in fact destroy their constant naturalness.

For in the world, there can be constant naturalness. Where there is constant naturalness, things are arced not by the use of the curve, straightened not by the use of the plumb line, rounded not by the compasses, squared not by T squares, joined not by glue and lacquer, bound not by ropes and lines. Then all things in the world, simple and compliant, live and never know how they happen to live; all things, rude and unwitting,[12] get what they need and never know how they happen to get it. Past and present, it has been the same; nothing can do injury to this [principle]. Why, then, come with benevolence and righteousness, that tangle and train of glue and lacquer, ropes and lines, and try to wander in the realm of the Way and its Virtue? You will only confuse the world!

A little confusion can alter the sense of direction; a great confusion can alter the inborn nature. How do I know this is so? Ever since that man of the Yu clan[13] began preaching benevolence and righteousness and stirring up the world, all the men in the world have dashed headlong for benevolence and righteousness. This is because benevolence and righteousness have altered their inborn nature, is it not?

Let me try explaining what I mean. From the Three Dynasties on down, everyone in the world has altered his inborn nature because of some [external] thing. The petty man?—he will risk death for the sake of profit. The knight?—he will risk it for the sake of fame. The high official?—he will risk it for family; the sage?—he will risk it for the world. All these various men go about the business in a different way and are tagged differently when it comes to fame and reputation; but in blighting their inborn nature and risking their lives for something, they are the same.

The slave boy and the slave girl were out together herding their sheep, and both of them lost their flocks. Ask the slave boy how it happened: well, he had a bundle of writing slips and was reading a book.[14] Ask the slave girl how it happened: well, she was playing a game of toss-and-wait-your-turn. They went about the business in different ways, but in losing their sheep, they were equal. Bo Yi died for reputation at the foot of Shouyang Mountain; Robber Zhi died for gain on top of Eastern Mound.[15] The two of them died different deaths, but in destroying their lives and blighting their inborn nature, they were equal. Why, then, must we say that Bo Yi was right and Robber Zhi wrong?

Everyone in the world risks his life for something. If he risks it for benevolence and righteousness, then custom names him a gentleman; if he risks it for goods and wealth, then custom names him a petty man. The risking is the same, and yet we have a gentleman here, a petty man there. In destroying their lives and blighting their inborn nature, Robber Zhi and Bo Yi were two of a kind. How then can we pick out the gentleman from the petty man in such a case?

He who applies his nature to benevolence and righteousness may go as far with it as Zeng and Shi, but I would not call him an expert. He who applies his nature to the five flavors may go as far with it as Yu Er,[16] but I would not call him an expert. He who applies his nature to the five notes may go as far with it as Music Master Kuang, but I would not call this good hearing. He who applies his nature to the five colors may go as far with it as Li Zhu, but I would not call this good eyesight. My definition of expertness has nothing to do with benevolence and righteousness; it means being expert in regard to your Virtue, that is all. My definition of expertness has nothing to do with benevolence or righteousness;[17] it means following the true form of your inborn nature, that is all. When I speak of good hearing, I do not mean listening to others; I mean simply listening to yourself. When I speak of good eyesight, I do not mean looking at others; I mean simply looking at yourself. He who does not look at himself but looks at others, who does not get hold of himself but gets hold of others, is getting what other men have got and failing to get what he himself has got. He finds joy in what brings joy to other men but finds no joy in what would bring joy to himself. And if he finds joy in what brings joy to other men but finds no joy in what brings joy to himself, then whether he is a Robber Zhi or a Bo Yi, he is equally deluded and perverse. I have a sense of shame before the Way and its Virtue, and for that reason I do not venture to raise myself up in deeds of benevolence and righteousness or to lower myself in deluded and perverse practices.

1. Virtue (de) here seems to mean inner power or vital force; see p. 58, n. 10. This and the following three sections are much closer in thought to the Daodejing of Laozi than the preceding sections, and the use of the word de seems to accord with its use in the Daodejing. Also, here we encounter for the first time in Zhuangzi the term xing or “inborn nature,” which is so important to Confucian thought.

2. The five vital organs—liver, lungs, heart, kidneys, and spleen—were related to the five elements and later to the five Confucian virtues—benevolence, propriety, good faith, righteousness, wisdom.

3. Also called Li Lou; noted for his exceptionally keen eyesight.

4. Famous musician mentioned on p. 12. With this passage, compare Daodejing XII: “The five colors confuse the eye, the five sounds dull the ear.”

5. Zeng Shen, a disciple of Confucius, and Shih Yu, historiographer of the state of Wei, paragons of benevolence and righteousness, respectively.

6. All seem to be building metaphors, though the meaning of the last is doubtful. I read gou instead of ju.

7. The hedonist philosopher Yang Zhu and the advocate of universal love Mo Di. We would expect a reference to the logicians, however, since they were the ones who argued about “hard,” “white,” etc.; see p. 12, n. 9.

8. Reading zhizheng as in the preceding sentence.

9. At this point, the meaning of the symbolism seems to shift (with some violence to the logic of the argument). The webbed toes and extra fingers, which earlier represented the forced and unnatural morality of Confucianism, now become natural deformities such as we have seen in the earlier chapters, which it would be wrong to try to correct.

10. Following Ma Xulun’s interpretation.

11. The Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties.

12. Following Fukunaga, I read tong with the man radical. A similar phrase, tonghu, appears in sec. 9, and tongran in sec. 23.

13. The sage ruler Shun, idol of the Confucian philosophers.

14. An unusual slave boy who, in true Confucian fashion, was attempting to improve his mind.

15. On Bo Yi, the model of righteousness; see p. 126, n. 3; Robber Zhi, who appears later as the subject of sec. 29, represents the ultimate in greed and violence.

16. Apparently a famous chef and connoisseur of flavor.

17. This clause is excessively wordy and merely repeats what was said earlier. I suspect that it is corrupt and that in its original form it contained some reference to the five flavors.