The Sage not acting for reward

[Rara]

I want to ask a question that has been grinding on me for some time.

 

Let me put to you this every day scenario.

 

A lives with B. A is a sage, goes about his way and acts out of goodness. He does a lot of work around the house, cooks meals for both and ensures that B is well looked after, regardless of the amount of time and effort he puts in. It is often tiring, but A looks past this and carries on day to day. He doesn't seek acknowledgement and praise for what he does, he just continues out of sheer kindness.

 

B is a busy person, but no more busy than A. B is not a sage but prioritises himself before the home environment. B still helps A out, but nowhere near as regularly and when he does clean the place, or cook a meal, he boasts and seeks praise and acknowledgement.

 

Regardless of A's efforts, A cannot help but feel frustrated by the fact that despite all his day-to-day work, it is B that wants to make themselves feel good. A begins to get sad because it is as if he doesn't do much!

 

--------

 

Now, A being a sage, well, if he IS a sage, should he be paying attention to B's ego? Should he be letting it affect him and speak up and put them back in their place? Or should he be calm, breathe and just let them carry on in this same way for the rest of their lives?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rara

[GrandmasterP]

Being a sage A is wise enough to realise that attempting to change anyone but oneself is a recipe for discord.

 

[Silent Answers]

B is actually outside of the equation - A should not attempt to change B, and therefore the answer lies with A.

 

The return question: What does A see in B that keeps A in the situation. If A is not satisfied with the answer he finds - and yet feels stress from B's ways - then either A needs to make a change to his own character so that he may better fit the situation he has knowingly put himself in.. OR spend his effort wisely elsewhere.

[gatito]

@ Rara

 

Interesting question.

 

I dealt with this quite thoroughly in the Buddhism 101 Course that I ran but as you seem to have missed it I'll answer it again by PM by the end of next week (or in person, if you want to meet up over a tea/coffeee).

[manitou]

A should love B for who he is, accepting his shortcoming. If A can't do that under those conditions, A could work on himself so he doesn't attract people who will victimize him, because if A leaves B, A is going to create the exact same situation until A deals with his own inner issues.

 

My very best wishes to both A and B. I have a 30 year history with this enigma, lol.

[ChiDragon]

If A is a sage....

A looks past this and carries on day to day. He doesn't seek acknowledgement and praise for what he does, he just continues out of sheer kindness.

Then, why would he....???

A cannot help but feel frustrated by the fact that despite all his day-to-day work

 

It contradicts the title of the OP. Isn't it....???

Now, A being a sage, well, if he IS a sage, he should be calm, breathe and just let them carry on in this same way for the rest of their lives; or A may leave the scene completely.

Edited June 21, 2014 by ChiDragon

[Rara]

B is actually outside of the equation - A should not attempt to change B, and therefore the answer lies with A.

 

The return question: What does A see in B that keeps A in the situation. If A is not satisfied with the answer he finds - and yet feels stress from B's ways - then either A needs to make a change to his own character so that he may better fit the situation he has knowingly put himself in.. OR spend his effort wisely elsewhere.

Yes, so an either/or response...

 

Lao Tzu implies that we should be patient and accepting regardless. If A's opinion is that he is being taken advantage of, why should he stick around?

 

But he COULD change his character. But why should he?

 

Which, to you, is the best option?

[Rara]

@ Rara

 

Interesting question.

 

I dealt with this quite thoroughly in the Buddhism 101 Course that I ran but as you seem to have missed it I'll answer it again by PM by the end of next week (or in person, if you want to meet up over a tea/coffeee).

Thanks Gatito...a PM sounds good. I don't know where you are on the radar but a meet up sounds cool, if not now, one day.

[Rara]

A should love B for who he is, accepting his shortcoming. If A can't do that under those conditions, A could work on himself so he doesn't attract people who will victimize him, because if A leaves B, A is going to create the exact same situation until A deals with his own inner issues.

 

My very best wishes to both A and B. I have a 30 year history with this enigma, lol.

Haha, so I think I know what you mean.

 

But your answer...depends on variables...depends on whether A can be ok with being "walked over". Otherwise, he has to look for other types to hang out with.

 

Either way, doesn't this make Lao Tzu's statements of doing the right thing without expecting reward somewhat pointless?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rara

[Rara]

If A is a sage....

 

Then, why would he....???

 

It contradicts the title of the OP. Isn't it....???

 

Now, A being a sage, well, if he IS a sage, he should be calm, breathe and just let them carry on in this same way for the rest of their lives; or A may leave the scene completely.

My point exactly CD! Why should he feel frustrated/get upset in any way?

 

So are we to think that if A is a sage, he MUST act in a certain way? Even if to an outsider it makes him seem weak/a walkover?

 

Other answers have also said, like you, that the other option is to walk away.

 

If one walks away, does that mean they are not a sage? And if so, does this make them any lesser a person, or lower down in a hierarchy?

 

Surely we are just dealing with decisions...

 

How can we determine which is right or wrong between the sage that "accepts" everything and a non-sage that can't, and so just walks away?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rara

[manitou]

Haha, so I think I know what you mean.

 

But your answer...depends on variables...depends on whether A can be ok with being "walked over". Othereise, he has to look for other types to hang out with.

 

Either way, doesn't this make Lao Tzu's statements of doing the right thing without expecting reward somewhat pointless?

 

I wish A the best on looking for other types. I've never found it to be that easy - the 'other type' seems like an 'other type' at the beginning, and then later on whoopie!, sure enough, the other B is the same type all over again. Just a little better hidden.

 

A might consider what it is in his background that causes him to be okay with being walked over. Perhaps one of A's parents or a sibling helped to cause the initial imprint in A's soul - that requires being walked over by another. If this has been a trend in A's relationships, there's something there to look at.

 

'Doing the right thing' isn't being walked over, and the idea of reward isn't pertinent here, I don't think. To allow someone to walk over us isn't doing the right thing for us.

[Rara]

I also wonder, why A shouldn't attempt to change B.

 

Reasoning, negotiation, and meeting in the middle is a good way to exist, surely? Isn't that how we learn from each other?

 

How will B ever learn not to hurt others if A doesn't step in and tell them his opinion?

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rara

[ChiDragon]

If one walks away, does that mean they are not a sage? And if so, does this make them any lesser a person, or lower down in a hierarchy?

 

Surely we are just dealing with decisions...

 

How can we determine which is right or wrong between the sage that "accepts" everything and a non-sage that can't, and so just walks away?

 

If he walked away and did no harm to others, then he did not violate any principles as a sage.

[Rara]

 

I wish A the best on looking for other types. I've never found it to be that easy - the 'other type' seems like an 'other type' at the beginning, and then later on whoopie!, sure enough, the other B is the same type all over again. Just a little better hidden.

 

A might consider what it is in his background that causes him to be okay with being walked over. Perhaps one of A's parents or a sibling helped to cause the initial imprint in A's soul - that requires being walked over by another. If this has been a trend in A's relationships, there's something there to look at.

 

'Doing the right thing' isn't being walked over, and the idea of reward isn't pertinent here, I don't think. To allow someone to walk over us isn't doing the right thing for us.

I see what you are saying. Almost, if one attracts a certain type, then they are likely to continue the trend...

 

So how would Lao Tzu's words relate to one in A's situation? If one is struggling to break free from their chains...do you mean to say that their mission may be to not be tolerant, leave and find person C? (The hypothetical ideal housemate that does appreciate A without filling A's ego?)

[Rara]

 

If he walked away and did no harm to others, then he did not violate any principles as a sage.

Hehe. Now we get deeper.

 

Define harm.

 

Attempting to change someone, to negotiate (as mentioned in a post just above yours) This doesn't sound popular among Taoists, but raising conflict in a way that shows someone of their own shortcomings/faults...they might get hurt by that.

 

But if they can overcome the hurt, and change, and therefore land themselves in a more harmonious relationship in the long run. Can you say this is a bad thing?

 

The job of a teacher is to change someone, after all, right? So if A is a sage, or is wise, and sees a fault in B, why not teach them the better way?

[dawei]

IMO, your scenario is fraught with incorrect ideas about the sage.

 

You keep equating the sage with regular human ideas and outcomes and desires; and then a teacher.

 

If we understand the sage as one who treats all people as straw dogs (as does heaven and earth), then we know he thinks to change people as much as he thinks to change the weather...

 

An important chapter is 16:

 

Empty the mind of everything, let it reside in peace.

Being at peace you can watch the Ten Thousand Things rise and fall.

They follow their natural path and eventually return to the source of all things.

This is the way of Nature.

Returning to the source is stillness, for Nature is unchanging.

Knowing this constancy is having insight into all things.

Not knowing this leads to disaster.

Knowing the source, the mind is open.

When the mind is open the heart will be open too.

Being open hearted, you can act naturally.

Acting naturally, you will be at one with the Dao.

Being at one with the Dao, you will be at one with Heaven and Earth.

Being at one with Heaven and Earth, you can become eternal.

Although the body dies, the Dao will always be eternal.

-FH

Attain the utmost unoccupiedness.
Maintain the utmost stillness,
and do not interfere with all the things that rush together in activity and grow luxuriantly.
Then you can see how living things flourish and renew themselves.
Yet, they all must return to the root again, each to its simple source.
Knowing to return to the root is to be refreshed.
This is called subtle revitalization.
To restore one's vitality is to constantly renew oneself.
To know constant renewal is to have achieved clarity.
If one does not know constant self renewal and thus acts foolishly,
disaster will soon occur.
Knowing constancy in renewing oneself,
one can extend the duration of one's life.
If one can deeply understand the extension of life's duration,
one is able to contain all things within oneself.
To be all-inclusive is to be impartial.
To be impartial is to realize the positive, creative virtues of Heaven.
To be Heavenly is to be one with the subtle essence of the universe.
To be one with the subtle essence of the universe is to enjoy everlasting life.
Such a one will be preserved, even after the dissolution of his physical body.

-Ni

[ChiDragon]

1. Define harm.

 

2. Attempting to change someone, to negotiate (as mentioned in a post just above yours) This doesn't sound popular among Taoists, but raising conflict in a way that shows someone of their own shortcomings/faults...they might get hurt by that.

 

3. But if they can overcome the hurt, and change, and therefore land themselves in a more harmonious relationship in the long run. Can you say this is a bad thing?

 

4. The job of a teacher is to change someone, after all, right? So if A is a sage, or is wise, and sees a fault in B, why not teach them the better way?

 

1. Harm is something that is adversely effected to outcome intentionally.

2. Yes, attempting to change someone is not Wu Wei to a Taoist.

3. It is not a bad thing as long as the adverse feeling was not intentional but only if it was a natural cause during the course of a harmonious relationship.

4. Teaching is one thing but absorbing depends on the willingness of the receiver to make the change.

[Silent Answers]

Yes, so an either/or response...

 

Lao Tzu implies that we should be patient and accepting regardless. If A's opinion is that he is being taken advantage of, why should he stick around?

 

But he COULD change his character. But why should he?

 

Which, to you, is the best option?

Now we are going round in circles haha.. The simple fact is, there is no right or wrong decision here. Sometimes you just need to take the plunge and see how it plays out, whether the result is pleasant or not, would not be of concern.

 

Stress is an indication that something is causing conflict though- and if said sage feels conflic, he still has work to do..again either within himself or to move beyond the situation creating conflict.

 

In most cases such problems are rooted in the person noticing them.

Edited June 22, 2014 by Silent Answers

[Rara]

 

IMO, your scenario is fraught with incorrect ideas about the sage.

 

You keep equating the sage with regular human ideas and outcomes and desires; and then a teacher.

 

If we understand the sage as one who treats all people as straw dogs (as does heaven and earth), then we know he thinks to change people as much as he thinks to change the weather...

 

An important chapter is 16:

 

Empty the mind of everything, let it reside in peace.

Being at peace you can watch the Ten Thousand Things rise and fall.

They follow their natural path and eventually return to the source of all things.

This is the way of Nature.

Returning to the source is stillness, for Nature is unchanging.

Knowing this constancy is having insight into all things.

Not knowing this leads to disaster.

Knowing the source, the mind is open.

When the mind is open the heart will be open too.

Being open hearted, you can act naturally.

Acting naturally, you will be at one with the Dao.

Being at one with the Dao, you will be at one with Heaven and Earth.

Being at one with Heaven and Earth, you can become eternal.

Although the body dies, the Dao will always be eternal.

-FH

 

Attain the utmost unoccupiedness.

Maintain the utmost stillness,

and do not interfere with all the things that rush together in activity and grow luxuriantly.

Then you can see how living things flourish and renew themselves.

Yet, they all must return to the root again, each to its simple source.

Knowing to return to the root is to be refreshed.

This is called subtle revitalization.

To restore one's vitality is to constantly renew oneself.

To know constant renewal is to have achieved clarity.

If one does not know constant self renewal and thus acts foolishly,

disaster will soon occur.

Knowing constancy in renewing oneself,

one can extend the duration of one's life.

If one can deeply understand the extension of life's duration,

one is able to contain all things within oneself.

To be all-inclusive is to be impartial.

To be impartial is to realize the positive, creative virtues of Heaven.

To be Heavenly is to be one with the subtle essence of the universe.

To be one with the subtle essence of the universe is to enjoy everlasting life.

Such a one will be preserved, even after the dissolution of his physical body.

-Ni

I see what you're saying but I did say IF he was a sage...

 

In the scenario, I'm questioning the method of the particular practice of acceptance and tolerance. Even if person A isn't a sage, he his still practicing the Way of the sage...in order to one day get there...

 

For the sage has returned to his/her true nature, right? A place where all Taoists are on their way to...

[Rara]

 

1. Harm is something that is adversely effected to outcome intentionally.

2. Yes, attempting to change someone is not Wu Wei to a Taoist.

3. It is not a bad thing as long as the adverse feeling was not intentional but only if it was a natural cause during the course of a harmonious relationship.

4. Teaching is one thing but absorbing depends on the willingness of the receiver to make the change.

Ok cool. What, in your opinion,causes change? Or natural change?

 

Do you mean that person B would have to realise their own ego before wanting to make a change to themselves? If so, who will be the one that lets them know they are being hurtful to person A?

 

Is Lao Tzu suggesting that, even if not in this lifetime, all will evenutually be at one with the Tao, so there is no need to change people?

 

Does this mean we should avoid conflict altogether in this scenario? A should walk away from B and just hang out with someone else?

Edited June 22, 2014 by Rara

[Rara]

Now we are going round in circles haha.. The simple fact is, there is no right or wrong decision here. Sometimes you just need to take the plunge and see how it plays out, whether the result is pleasant or not, would not be of concern.

 

Stress is an indication that something is causing conflict though- and if said sage feels conflic, he still has work to do..again either within himself or to move beyond the situation creating conflict.

 

In most cases such problems are rooted in the person noticing them.

I know! Been going round in circles with this in my own head! Haha

 

Good answer though, because I cannot see how there can be a right or wrong. And therefore, verses in TTC don't necessarily define the methods that the sage uses....but implies that he has to make informed decisions in a rational, intelligent way.

[manitou]

The sage wouldn't try to change anyone. He would know that change must come from Within. The sage would look at B with realistic eyes and see him for what he is, not what A wanted him to be. The only decisions the sage has to make, are....Do I love this person enough to work on myself so that his foibles don't drive me nuts? Or.....time to move on. You can waste half your life trying to hammer that person into the configuration you want him to be. Accept, or move on......

[ChiDragon]

Ok cool. What, in your opinion,causes change? Or natural change?

 

Do you mean that person B would have to realise their own ego before wanting to make a change to themselves? If so, who will be the one that lets them know they are being hurtful to person A?

 

Is Lao Tzu suggesting that, even if not in this lifetime, all will evenutually be at one with the Tao, so there is no need to change people?

 

Does this mean we should avoid conflict altogether in this scenario? A should walk away from B and just hang out with someone else?

Well, IMO, attempting to change someone that is a "causes change".

 

Yes, that person B would have to realise his own ego before wanting to make a change to himself. If person is a sage, then he should know better. I don't know if person A has been hurt, even though, he was sad and frustrated. I don't think he was hurt that serious.

 

"Is Lao Tzu suggesting that, even if not in this lifetime, all will eventually be at one with the Tao, so there is no need to change people?"

 

In the TTC, Lao Tzu was suggesting that the rulers should make changes to care for the people equally and with respect. Actually, Lao Tzu was trying to change the people to follow the principles of Tao. Eventually, he was hoping the people are changing to the good.

 

In your scenario, A can make suggestions for B to change. If it didn't work out, then A can just continue with the daily routine to avoid conflict altogether or just walk away which is his choice.

[Rara]

Well, IMO, attempting to change someone that is a "causes change".

 

Yes, that person B would have to realise his own ego before wanting to make a change to himself. If person is a sage, then he should know better. I don't know if person A has been hurt, even though, he was sad and frustrated. I don't think he was hurt that serious.

 

"Is Lao Tzu suggesting that, even if not in this lifetime, all will eventually be at one with the Tao, so there is no need to change people?"

 

In the TTC, Lao Tzu was suggesting that the rulers should make changes to care for the people equally and with respect. Actually, Lao Tzu was trying to change the people to follow the principles of Tao. Eventually, he was hoping the people are changing to the good.

 

In your scenario, A can make suggestions for B to change. If it didn't work out, then A can just continue with the daily routine to avoid conflict altogether or just walk away which is his choice.

This is what I've been getting at

 

To hold a philosophy, you would want it to become popular amongst masses of people.

 

How much someone tries to change someone depends on the philosophy, and in Taoism, practitioners aren't too pushy. But still, to an extent, they would wish everyone else to have less ego...

 

Otherwise, what would be the point in engaging in such a practice? If one takes a path, then it has to be right for them. But also for others!

 

You are right, maybe person A wasn't hurt too badly. I was implying that he was hurt because person B only acknowledged when they did a good thing, and didn't even notice when person A did (which was about 90% of the time) Then I guess it is up to person A to cultivate and not get hurt!

[nestentrie]

[...], but A looks past this and carries on day to day. He doesn't seek acknowledgement and praise for what he does, he just continues out of sheer kindness.

 

 

[...]. B still helps A out, but nowhere near as regularly and when he does clean the place, or cook a meal, he boasts and seeks praise and acknowledgement.

 

Regardless of A's efforts, A cannot help but feel frustrated by the fact that despite all his day-to-day work, it is B that wants to make themselves feel good. A begins to get sad because it is as if he doesn't do much!

 

--------

 

Now, A being a sage, well, if he IS a sage, should he be paying attention to B's ego? Should he be letting it affect him and speak up and put them back in their place? Or should he be calm, breathe and just let them carry on in this same way for the rest of their lives?

 

 

2

All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing

this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; they all know the skill

of the skilful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what the

want of skill is.

 

So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to

(the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce the one (the

idea of) the other; that length and shortness fashion out the one the

figure of the other; that (the ideas of) height and lowness arise from

the contrast of the one with the other; that the musical notes and

tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; and

that being before and behind give the idea of one following another.

 

Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and

conveys his instructions without the use of speech.

 

All things spring up, and there is not one which declines to show

itself; they grow, and there is no claim made for their ownership;

they go through their processes, and there is no expectation (of a

reward for the results). The work is accomplished, and there is no

resting in it (as an achievement).

 

The work is done, but how no one can see;

'Tis this that makes the power not cease to be.

 

---------

 

The want of reward is the want to have our skill acknowledged. The recognition of that skill is the heirarchy you wanted to impose. If the sage feels no pull for acknowledgement why should he expect that for the other that pull (and the acknoweldgement) is good? To make no personal claim for the rewards in the game of skill is to place no value on reward for anyone. If I don't rest when I feel I could be rewarded why would I rest when another feels they should be rewarded?

 

Therefore the sage manages affairs without doing anything, and

conveys his instructions without the use of speech.

 

Like dawei said, the sage treats people like heaven and earth do: like straw dogs. Sincere words are not fine. Fine words are not sincere. One shouldn't really confuse one's own ego with another's.