¶ … closely bound up with the thing which would be the hardest for me to internalize, namely that goodness is not related to obtaining some standard of morality (such as a total lack of anger or a perfect pacifism or an ideal altruism), but that it is bound up in abandoning one's self entirely to the pattern.
On the one hand, I am very drawn to the idea expressed in these words: "The sage is joyous because according to the nature of things before him he should be joyous, and he is angry because according to the nature of things before him he should be angry. Thus the joy and anger of the sage do not depend on his own mind but on things." This seems like the ultimately reasoned approach to life -- to react to circumstances as they demand, and as instinct and the pattern of one's self (as guided by actually inner belief) dictates. This seems far more reasoned than to try to force one's self to comply with an external stricture that dictates how one ought properly to feel or reacts. Yet this ideal leads quickly into an ideal which seems far more difficult for me and yet intimately linked with this concept, namely "The constant pattern of the sage is that his feelings are in accord with all creation, and yet he has no feeling of his own..."
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.