Mair 13:5

[Marblehead]

Fancypants Scholar {{Shih Ch'engch'i (literally, "Scholar" [also a surname]  Complete[ly] - Variegated Silk/Elegant Clothes").  With a name like this, it is not likely that we can expect to learn more about him from other, more historically reliable sources.}} went to see the Old Master and inquired of him, saying, "I have heard, sir, that you are a sage.  By no means would I shirk the long journey, so I have come here wishing to see you.  Though I developed thick calluses during the hundred stages of my trip, I dared not rest.  Now that I have observed you, I find you're not a sage.  There is leftover grain beside the rat holes, but he who throws things away carelessly is inhumane.  Raw and cooked food that you haven't consumed piles up in front of you limitlessly."

Indifferent, the Old Master did not reply.

Fancypants Scholar went back to see him again the next day and said, "Yesterday I criticized you, but today I'm feeling really disheartened.  Why is this?"

"I believe," said the Old Master, "that I have freed myself of wanting to be a person of clever knowledge and spiritual sagacity.  Yesterday, if you had called me an ox, I would have agreed with you and, if you had called me a horse, I would have agreed with you too.  If there is a fact and someone gives it a name that I refuse to accept, I'll be in double jeopardy.  I acceded because I always accede, not for the sake of acceding itself."

Fancypants Scholar waddled backward out of the Old Master's shadow, then gingerly stepped forward and asked him, "How should I cultivate my person?"

The Old Master said, "Your appearance is haughty; your look is aggressive; your forehead is protruding; your mouth is snarly; your demeanor is self-righteous.  You are like a horse restrained by its tether.  You wish to move but are held back.  You are set to release like the trigger of a crossbow.  You are inquisitorial and judgmental.  Your knowledge is cunning and your gaze is overbearing.  All of this invites mistrust.  If such a person were to be found on the borders, he would be labeled a brigand."

[Stosh]

If anyone requests it, I'm willing to take the part of Fancypants and tell off the other guy. 

But, in this story the two characters are mirror images of a sort. 

The suggestion to treat all men as straw dogs , comes to mind. 

Fancypants is untrained, but sincere and humbly seeking to learn. His garb belies his sincerity, and he blurts out a reaction in his momentary dismay at having traveled so long , only to find the guy he did. 

Inversely, the 'Master' is wasteful and a slob, it gives a hint to his true lack of sincerity , and the face he begins with , of self discipline and humility , falls away the next day as soon as the opportunity appears.  

He has been hurt , and has stewed in his upset overnight, the acceptance of the labeling is gone, whereas Fancypants regrets his outburst as having potentially stomped on the feelings of the 'master' - which he did. 

If anyone should be mistrusted its the phony 'Master' , not Fancypants , who, though dressed ostentatiously , actually has concern for his fellow man and so , with his humility, can indeed learn the face of Mastery from the slob. And in fact ,once he takes a step back ,  he comes out of the shadow of the slob, and is revealed as the greater of the two. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

You sure operated on that well.

 

I can't say that I agree with you but that doesn't matter.

 

Fancypants is a Confucian wanting to learn the Way of Tao.

 

The Old Master may have unlearned too much?

 

But yes, we have to give Fancypants credit for wanting to become a better person.

 

[Stosh]

14 hours ago, Marblehead said:

You sure operated on that well.

 

I can't say that I agree with you but that doesn't matter.

 

Fancypants is a Confucian wanting to learn the Way of Tao.

 

The Old Master may have unlearned too much?

 

But yes, we have to give Fancypants credit for wanting to become a better person.

 

Oh ! so you think I did some cosmetic surgery on that?   hmmm , well , I did do the version from the alternate perspective, that the so called master really was a master ,,, and there is a big hump to giving it equal credibility.  

This certainly could be a Confucian spin on some daoist writing such as it stands , and it has some elements which I don't think are entirely consistent with some of the other stuff. 

I think its my view that Fancypants actually IS the better person already , and more in line with the true Daoist ideals. 

Standing on reputation, there is the 'Master', how do you know he is a master of anything? 

Drop that assumption. 

Fancypants , is being judged by his clothes or presentation, as is the master ,, drop that presumption as well. (judging a book by its cover)

The story reads quite differently when you do not take sides or get wrapped up in these presumptions. 

[Marblehead]

Yes, this is a difficult section.  By what standards do we judge others?  By Fancypants' standards or by the Old Master's standards.  Or maybe by our own?  Or perhaps we don't judge at all?

 

Both sides are presented in the section though.

 

The Confucian needs everything in its proper place.

 

The Old Master has determined that everything is already in its proper place.

 

And, of course, the Old Master pointed out Fancypants' concerns with externals more than internals.

 

 

 

[Stosh]

6 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Yes, this is a difficult section.  By what standards do we judge others?  By Fancypants' standards or by the Old Master's standards.  Or maybe by our own?  Or perhaps we don't judge at all?

 

Both sides are presented in the section though.

 

The Confucian needs everything in its proper place.

 

The Old Master has determined that everything is already in its proper place.

 

And, of course, the Old Master pointed out Fancypants' concerns with externals more than internals.

 

 

 

That's the rub, its not just choosing the standards by which one judges to decide if being flashy is worse than being .. untidy. 

What the supposed master said is both false and aggressive , which belies being a master of anything. 

And Old dude was just as concerned with externals , if not more so. 

[Marblehead]

I have no other perspectives from which to look at this.  Maybe a position somewhere between the two.  But that would be beyond the information in the section.

 

 

[Stosh]

Just now, Marblehead said:

I have no other perspectives from which to look at this.  Maybe a position somewhere between the two.  But that would be beyond the information in the section.

 

 

You really should just consider to see it from my view and only my view, the author made it perfectly clear that no other was valid.

[Marblehead]

Belly laughs.  Yes, I do accept your perspective as you have made a good argument in its favor.

 

But still, the Old Master has a point in the last paragraph.  And after all, Fancypants did go to the Old Master for guidance.  The Old Master was just fine in his surroundings and was asking nothing from no one.

 

[Stosh]

8 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Belly laughs.  Yes, I do accept your perspective as you have made a good argument in its favor.

 

But still, the Old Master has a point in the last paragraph.  And after all, Fancypants did go to the Old Master for guidance.  The Old Master was just fine in his surroundings and was asking nothing from no one.

 

That he was satisfied with things the way they were, is basically true but , What point did he make that was valid ? 

[dawei]

4 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Yes, this is a difficult section.  By what standards do we judge others?  By Fancypants' standards or by the Old Master's standards.  Or maybe by our own?  Or perhaps we don't judge at all?

 

 

I tried to show that in off-grid and it didn't go over well...  standards vs no standards ... outwardly vs inwardly...  

 

Judging or not isn't the issue...  because that presupposes it was spoken but judgement is from the heart and then spills over to speech.

 

Freeing oneself from the restraints of knowledge is to 'know' what judgement means.

[Marblehead]

13 hours ago, Stosh said:

That he was satisfied with things the way they were, is basically true but , What point did he make that was valid ? 

Point?  Don't trust someone who appears to be a crouching tiger.

 

[Marblehead]

9 hours ago, dawei said:

 

I tried to show that in off-grid and it didn't go over well...  standards vs no standards ... outwardly vs inwardly...  

 

Judging or not isn't the issue...  because that presupposes it was spoken but judgement is from the heart and then spills over to speech.

 

Freeing oneself from the restraints of knowledge is to 'know' what judgement means.

Indeed.  Lao Tzu told us that many times.  To unlearn all the prejudices that have been planted in our brain.

 

Now, understand, I'm not saying that I am beyond judging.  I still judge.  But I do try to rationalize my judgements.

 

In this section both the Old Master and Fancypants were judging each other.  Any constructive discussions after that would be very difficult indeed.

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Point?  Don't trust someone who appears to be a crouching tiger.

 

 Yes, Point , , you said -"But still, the Old Master has a point in the last paragraph" .

But the Old dude is accusing Fancypants falsely , whereas the person who sat there restrained like a drawn crossbow.. was the old thief himself.  I cant give him credit for making a valid point when he is lying.

[Marblehead]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as saying he was lying but he was judging based on externals and that's not good.

 

 

[Stosh]

 

ll lay it out, 

Who trusted what he was told and went on a long journey? 

Fancypants 

So he trusts , and he puts his money where his mouth is, and he takes the thing to the bitter end. 

He, on his long journey , was NOt jailed as a brigand-thief. His calluses show he has indeed done plenty of walking and is not averse to making his efforts. 

He actually gets to this guy , who he doesn't know who has nothing to steal, and it proves he is on the level about his goals. 

He wears impulsive clothes and takes on impulsive missions , and he speaks what is on his mind impulsively. 

Understandably , he is dismayed , acts impulsively as he usually does, but later comes back to amend the situation instead of bailing out. He can 'cry all day because his motives are sincere' , he acts naturally and understandably and he is admitted universally . 

Try getting past  guards wearing a scowl and a stained  t-shirt .

 

[Marblehead]

Okay.  You have convinced me.  Three cheers for Fancypants.

 

Actually, I haven't been disagreeing with you.  It's just that Fancypants is likely a Confucian and I was trying to keep him from being placed so high.  Obviously I didn't succeed.

 

 

[Stosh]

On the other hand , the old thief sits there stunned , what has he to fear to lose? He thinks he is caught. Why is all this stuff laying around cooked and uncooked? because he stole it in whatever state he found it to be. Who does he sympathize with ? The rat! He literally feeds the vermin! 

When fancypants comes back self humbled , then he finds his cojones to lay into the guy, why? because he thinks the guy is duped. 

If they two are mirrors , which they are , then wherever one succeeds the other fails, and so the Old master is a master of thievery, and his two graces are that he is basically satisfied with the state he is in , and he isn't recklessly impulsive. 

[Stosh]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Okay.  You have convinced me.  Three cheers for Fancypants.

 

Actually, I haven't been disagreeing with you.  It's just that Fancypants is likely a Confucian and I was trying to keep him from being placed so high.  Obviously I didn't succeed.

 

 

It does fit more with Confucian ethic as I see it so be, but , that is not quite alien to Chuang-dao spirit as it might seem. I can tie the virtues exhibited easily to daoist canon. 

You didn't fail either , without gravity one cannot hold traction. 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Hehehe.  I can't fail because I don't compete.

 

But your points were well taken and I could no longer find justification to continue countering your points.

 

 

[Stosh]

3 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Hehehe.  I can't fail because I don't compete.

 

But your points were well taken and I could no longer find justification to continue countering your points.

 

 

If you countered them , you competed IMO.

But From my view , the author presented a slanted view of the event , to elicit an expected response. The important aspect of this event, is that the two fictional men represent light and dark aspects of personality , yin and yang , if you will.  

Your own view of Daoism , which you have told me in the past, aims one at a sort of moderation and balance.

Its not that one should really need to emulate the hermit and have magical rice fall out of the sky to feed his needs by sucking off the teat of nature. One need not be a recluse , to be daoist,  nor is there even a polemic perfection to strive for. Nor does one have to sit and do nothing. Because the world constantly turns beneath our feet , we age , burn calories, need warmth and shelter , we constantly need to shift to re-find that balance point , but that doesn't mean we have to be upset about the requirements this imposes on us. The scholar is fine with pursuing his betterment , and the thief , is fine with pursuing his minimalist food and shelter  (with a rat for a pet indulgence, rather than fine duds) . 

One wisely comes to a balance between the needs of their heart and body in material setting, nature-heaven is neutral about the morality of the decisions we make, we on the other hand, are not.

Both men live ,for now. 

 

[Stosh]

Its said that , The view of heaven is that the Dao is no respect-er of men. 

The next earth killing meteor , isnt going to veer off and avoid obscure wrinkly dudes with an odd sense of humor. 

It doesn't recognize 'the old master' as anything more than the rat ,or rice. Nor does it bless  'Joseph with the technicolor raincoat' .

Nor vice versa. 

Another mangled Daoist quote , is that the Dao laughs at us anyway.. a favorite of mine , (but you don't care for the anthropomorphism, if I remember correctly).

So from the view of heaven , the impartial view , the view of the full fledged sage , there is no master guy, nor scholar. A baby in their arms would just see the silk robes or the grizzled smile of either of them, totally oblivious to the labels the author introduced. He would take no sides, nor root for favorites, nor find himself validated, or invalidated. 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Stosh