Mair 20:4

[Marblehead]

When Confucius was besieged in the area between Ch'en and Ts'ai, he went without cooked food for seven days.

The old gentleman Jen went to console him, asking, "Were you close to death?"

"Yes."

"Do you dislike death?"

"Yes."

"Let me try to explain the Way to avoid death," said Jen.  "In the Eastern Sea there is a bird named the lazybird.  It flip-flops along as if it had no power.  The lazybird will only fly when there are others to lead it on and will only roost when there are others that press close to its sides.  When it goes forward it dares not take the lead; when it retreats it does not take the rear; when it eats it dares not take the first bite, always preferring to take the leftovers.  Therefore, their ranks are seldom broken and outsiders rarely can harm them, hence they escape calamity.

The straight tree is the first to be felled;
The well with sweet water is the first to be exhausted.

You seem intent on ornamenting your knowledge to amaze those who are ignorant and on cultivating your person to highlight those who are vile.  You are as ostentatious as if you were walking along holding the sun and moon above you.  Hence you do not escape calamity.  In the past, I heard a man of great accomplishment say, 'Who is self-assertive has no merit; Merit that is complete will collapse; Fame that is complete will decline.'  Who can get rid of merit and fame, and return to be with the masses of men?

He flows with the Way
but does not rest in brilliance;
Walks with integrity
but does not dwell in fame.
He is so plain and ordinary
That he may be compared to an imbecile.

He erases his traces and renounces his influence, doing nothing for merit or fame.  For this reason he does not blame others, nor is he blamed by others.  The ultimate man does not seek renown.  Why, sir, do you like it so much?"

"Excellent!" said Confucius, whereupon he bid adieu to his associates, sent his disciples away, and retired to a great marsh.  He dressed in skins and haircloth, and ate acorns and chestnuts.  He went among animals without disturbing their herds, went among birds without disturbing their flocks.  If even birds and animals were not afraid of him, how much less were men!

[wandelaar]

14 hours ago, Marblehead said:

When Confucius was besieged in the area between Ch'en and Ts'ai, he went without cooked food for seven days.

The old gentleman Jen went to console him, asking, "Were you close to death?"

"Yes."

"Do you dislike death?"

"Yes."

"Let me try to explain the Way to avoid death," said Jen.

 

All the rest simply follows from disliking death and protecting oneself against unnecessary harm. That's why I doubt that the real Confucius would have simply answered "yes". He must have been aware of the heavy risks he took in promoting his moral ideals the way he did. And we cannot say that Confucius's approach was ineffective because he had a huge influence after his death. On the other hand Lao tzu en Chuang tzu (or those who wrote in their name) didn't like to risk their lives, but equally had a huge influence after their death. So who was right here?

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by wandelaar

[OldDog]

Who was right? How can they be compared?

 

I have always looked upon Laozi and Zhuangzi as instruction at the personal level.for.the most.part. Sure there was general advice.on how to govern but it seemed.it was typical that the ruler should conduct himself in a sage like manner and encourage the people to.do.the same.

 

Confucius seemed to advocate a whole range of guidlines that prescribed a standard of conduct and proprietary that spanned a wide range of society including governing.

 

The daoist development was focused inwardly. Confician development was focused on outward social interaction.

 

It always seemed wrong to compare them directly.

[wandelaar]

The comparison was not meant to refer to the content of their doctrines but to their method of proselytising. Confucius went out into the world to preach his doctrine, while Lao tzu and Chuang tzu kept a low profile, wrote some texts, said what they had to say, and hoped for the best. As we can see - both methods bore fruit.

 

So Lao tzu/Chuang tzu and Confucius were both partially wrong in their criticism of each others way of spreading the message. 

[rideforever]

One problem with this text is that many unconscious cowardly nobodies already follow these ideas and it leads to nothing, because they make no effort they do nothing just flock like sheep.

 

In fact it is by stepping outside to get new information and then stepping back to integrate that information with the existing .... that something new is created.

 

The ideas are correct in the sense that you should not appear to society to be that much different from them ... you should connect with society as it is, if you bring something new it can be a new leaf on the existing tree ... but a leaf cannot be so far away from the tree where there are no branches .... in midair ... then it cannot be connected and people will not appreciate you, and may even attack you.

 

This is a general principle, for instance with migration or with mixing paints, that you can bring a drop of something new and make beautiful new colours  .... but too much and you destroy the existing.

Also this text does not describe the growth of intelligence in the actor who is understanding society and making decisions.

 

Another factor is that texts and systems that survive often survive because the power structure likes them.   For instance texts that teach the populace to be a sheep are appreciated by the powerful and encouraged.

And it is possible that you can take a "sly" way were you develop yourself to very great extents ... whilst appearing outwardly to be ordinary.

There are many people in society doing and needing many different things, there can be a place for you if you can find it.