Mair 8:1

[Marblehead]

Webbed toes and extra fingers may issue from one's nature, but they are superfluous to one's integrity.  Attached cysts and appended tumors may issue from one's form, but they are superfluous to one's nature.  Humaneness and righteousness may be arrayed among the five viscera of one who is meddlesome in their use, but they are not the correct approach according to the Way and its integrity.  Thus a web between the toes is but the addition of a useless piece of flesh and an appendage on a hand is but the implanting of a useless finger.  One who adds webs and appendages to the attributes of the five viscera, {{Heart, liver, spleen, lungs, and kidneys.  These were not, of course, considered to be mere physical organs but were also considered to be the seats of the emotions and of thought.}} so that they are debauched and perverted by humane and righteous conduct, is to be meddlesome in the use of keen hearing and eyesight.

Thus, will not adding a web to one's eyesight bring chaos to the five colors, {{Cyan, yellow, red, white, and black - the primary colors plus black and white.  Note that in Chinese the word for "color" may also mean sex.}} profligacy to patterned ornament, and dazzling resplendence to colorful brocades?  This is what happened to Spidersight.  {{Lichu, a legendary figure of phenomenal eyesight who supposedly could see the tip of a feather or of a needle at a hundred paces.}}  Will not adding something extra to one's hearing bring chaos to the five sounds, {{The five notes of the ancient Chinese pentatonic scale.}} profligacy to the six pitch-pipes {{These determined the modes of ancient Chinese music (see also Yellow Bell).}} and the tones of musical instruments made of metal, stone, silk, and bamboo, of the Yellow Bell and the Great Tube?  {{The names of two of the six pitch-pipes.}}  This is what happened to Maestro K'uang.  Will not the appendage of humaneness promote virtue and stopple one's nature, so as to receive name and fame, causing the emulation of an unattainable model to the raucous accompaniment of all the reeds and drums under heaven?  This is what happened to Tseng Shen {{(Master Tseng)  A beloved disciple of Confucius who was a paragon of filial devotion.  Nonetheless, he was despised by his own father who, according to one account, nearly beat him to death for having damaged the roots of some plants when he was weeding a melon patch.}} and Shih Ch'iu.  {{A wise minister of the state of Wey who was an exemplar of Confucian rectitude.}}  Will not adding a web to one's disputation, piling up and knotting together forged phrases and hammered words, so as to let the mind wander amid "hard" and "white," "identical" and "different;" merely lead to the waste of useless words for a temporary reputation?

This was what happened to Yang Chu and Mo Ti.  Therefore, these are all examples of the way of superfluous webs and extraneous branches, not of the ultimately correct way for all under heaven.

That which is ultimately correct does not lose the characteristics of its nature and destiny.  Therefore, joining is accomplished without a web, branching is accomplished without extraneousness, lengthening is accomplished without a surplus, shortening is accomplished without inadequacy.  Thus, although a duck's legs are short, if we extend them it will come to grief; although a crane's legs are long, if we cut them short, it will be tragic.  Therefore, if what by nature is long is not cut short, and if what by nature is short is not extended, there will be no grief to dispense with.  One suspects that humaneness and righteousness are not attributes of humanity!  Otherwise, why would those humane men be so full of grief.

Furthermore, he whose big toe is joined to his second toe by a web would weep if it were torn apart; he whose hand has an extra finger would scream if it were bitten off.  Of these two, in the one case there is a surplus in number and in the other there is a deficit, but the grief is the same.  In today's world, the humane people grieve over the world's troubles with bleary eyes; the inhumane people cast aside the characteristics of nature and destiny in their greed for honor and wealth.  Therefore, one suspects that humaneness and righteousness are not attributes of humanity.  From the Three Dynasties {{The Hsia, Shang, and Chou.}} on down, how much shrill contention there has been under heaven!

Furthermore, if we must depend upon the bevel, the ruler, the compass, and the L-square to make things correct, that would be to slice away their nature.  If we must depend upon cords, twine, glue, and lacquer to make things solid, that would be to invade their integrity.  Bowing and scraping to the rites and music, simpering and smirking with humaneness and righteousness to console the hearts of all under heaven, this is to forfeit constancy.  Constancy implies the making of angles without a bevel, the making of straight lines without a ruler, the making of circles without a compass, the making of squares without an L-square, sticking things together without glue or lacquer, tying things together without cords or twine.  Therefore, all under heaven are drawn into life but do not know why they are alive, and all are alike in attaining their ends without knowing why.  Therefore, in ancient times and today, it has always been the same:  imperishable.  Then why should humaneness and righteousness wander incessantly amid the Way and its integrity like glue, lacquer, cords, and twine, causing confusion for all under heaven?

If there is but small confusion, there will be a change of direction; if there is great confusion, there will be a change of nature.  How do we know this is so?  The clansman of the freehold at Yŭ summoned humaneness and righteousness to vex all under heaven.  When everyone under heaven goes rushing about at the behest of humaneness and righteousness, does this not change their nature through humaneness and righteousness?  Therefore, I shall try to discuss this matter.

From the Three Dynasties on down, everyone has altered his nature for the sake of something.  The petty man sacrifices himself for the sake of gain; the nobleman sacrifices himself for the sake of a name; the great officer sacrifices himself for the sake of his family; the sage sacrifices himself for the sake of all under heaven.  Therefore, these various people, although of different occupations and dissimilar reputations, in damaging their nature through personal sacrifice are identical.  A slave boy and a serf were out herding their sheep together and both lost their sheep.  When the slave boy was asked how it happened, he said that he was holding his bamboo strips and reading.  When the serf was asked how it happened, he admitted that he was playing at dice and making bets.  Although the two of them were differently occupied, their loss of the sheep was equivalent.  Poyi died for fame at the foot of Shouyang; {{The name of a mountain in Shansi.}} Robber Footpad died for gain on top of Tungling.  {{"The Eastern Mound," that is, the famous and sacred Mount T'ai in Shantung.}}  Although the two of them died for different reasons, the damage to their lives and the harm to their natures was equivalent.  Why must we approve of Poyi and disapprove of Robber Footpad?  Of all those under heaven who sacrifice themselves, those who do so for humaneness and righteousness are commonly called "superior men" while those who do so for goods and wealth are commonly called "petty men."  Their sacrifice is the same, but one of them is accounted a superior man {{Chiintzu, the ideal person of Confucius; elsewhere also translated as "gentleman."}} and the other a petty man.  In regard to damaging life and injuring nature, Robber Footpad was just like Poyi.  Why then should we choose a superior man and a petty man from between them?

Furthermore, he who subordinates his nature to humaneness and righteousness, although he may do so as thoroughly as Tseng Shen and Shih Ch'iu, is not what I would call "good."  He who subordinates his nature to the five flavors, {{Acrid, sour, sweet, bitter, salty.}} although he may do so as thoroughly as Shu'erh, {{A legendary gastronomical authority of ancient China.}} is not what I would call "expert."  He who subordinates his nature to the five sounds, although he may do so as thoroughly as Maestro K'uang, is not what I would call "keen of hearing."  He who subordinates his nature to the five colors, although he may do so as thoroughly as Spidersight, is not what I would call "keen sighted."  What I mean by calling a person "good" does not refer to her humaneness or righteousness, for such a person would be "good" only in her virtue.  What I mean by calling a person "good" does not refer to so-called humaneness and righteousness, but simply to her acceptance of the characteristics of her nature and destiny.  What I mean by calling a person "keen of hearing;" does not refer to her hearing anything else, but only to her hearing herself.  What I mean by calling a person "keen sighted" does not refer to her seeing anything else, but only to her seeing herself.  He who does not see himself but only sees other things, and who does not realize himself but only realizes other things, is one who realizes what others realize but does not himself realize what he realizes.  He strives to delight others but does nothing to delight himself.  He who strives to delight others but does nothing to delight himself, though he be a Robber Footpad or a Poyi, is equally debauched and perverted.  Because I feel shame before the Way and its integrity, I dare not engage in the elevated manipulation of humaneness and righteousness, nor in the debased conduct of debauchery and perversity.

 

[morning dew]

Okay, I'll get the ball rolling. Also, I think it might be handy to have something such as this somewhere or other – I'm not quite sure where it should go, though:

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/zhuangzi/#H2

 

---------

 

So the gloves are off against the Confucians!  

 

I think here is the most explicit criticism of Confucianism I've seen so far (I could easily have missed something in the inner chapters, though):
 

Quote

This is what happened to Tseng Shen {{(Master Tseng)  A beloved disciple of Confucius who was a paragon of filial devotion.  Nonetheless, he was despised by his own father who, according to one account, nearly beat him to death for having damaged the roots of some plants when he was weeding a melon patch.}}

 

From the little I know of Confucianism, it all revolves around power structures and respect that are mirrored throughout society: people respect emperor > family members respect father/husband > younger children respect older children? The problem with all of this, IMO, is that respect should be earned, not given freely. It's not much use blindly following an emperor if he's completely incompetent and a tyrant, etc.

 

I guess this criticism isn't that surprising given chapter 8 was supposedly written by Anarchist Utopianists (see my link above). I have some sympathy with this argument, but anarchism has its own problems as we discussed earlier with Michael: it's only going to work if everybody is a Daoist (in a benevolent universe); otherwise, you're going to end up with a mess.

Edited July 3, 2017 by morning dew

[Marblehead]

Nice link.  Thanks.  I scanned it and will read it later.

 

And true, I think that from this point on we will see more overt objections of Confucius.