Desmond_Desfables

Not acording to my IQ, or any expert on the field. In fact, I have been evaluated with higher-than-average inteligence.

30.

The original context (Confuncian phylosophy on morality, filial piety and family, where this phrase comes from) is even less forgiving of the child. Confuncian chinese fathers are expected to do absolutely everything they want at any times, as long as they: *give food to their sons *teach them how to worship the ancestors *find them spouses *leave them heritage. They do not have a duty to protect them from violence and/or hardships in life. Quite the contrary, the father is expected to be harsh and give their sons hardship and perharps even occasional beatings, so they can "learn to be real men". This idea of "a father should protect his children at all costs" is completely modernized western fantasy on the role of parenthood, and does not apply to the "teacher for a day/ father for a life" phrase.

To forsake one's own pride for his students? Did your kindergarden teacher live for you? Did she forgot husband, house and her own pleasures for the sake of serving you for eternity? Was she present on your college graduation? That's not a teacher's obligation. That's an entitled kids dream. A teacher has the obligation to teach, preferably in a respectful manner, for the time and extent of its own role. A primary teacher, who isn't even ascended, has no obligation to teach one until they ascend. At maximum until they reach a certain level of maestry, like foundation building. Forgeting oneself and donating one's own existence to others is no one's obligation. Only some people's disease.

First, I AM a father. So I do know about that. It is a plague that takes most people in my situation - the kid is born, you become a lifeless husk with no desires or reasons to live life except "because you need to raise the child". I've managed to surpass that, but not without letting go of childish needs about my own parents and their role in my life. Parents help you, dedicate themselves to you, until a certain point in life. Any more than that, and you'll become a parasite feeding on their lives and efforts. Second, his disciples aren't protected from all evil in the world - as any kid will ever be. They do, however, have more than enough strenght and life experiences to stand up for themselves and face the dangerous world. Parents and Masters aren't "safety appendages" one is entitled to cary with them as a forever-there escape route from the world. We are people who help our children to become capable enough to live in society and carve their own path in life. But we are still people and we are still walking our own paths. At a certain point, the child will need to grow up and stand for themselves. Pay their own bills, have their own needs taken care by themselves, the same way we had to. That includes safety and personal responsibility. "The ethernal parent" might be a dream for the insecure child, but it is draining and unfair to the one parenting.

He said so earlier in the novel - that he would try that in order to go beyond. And I do understand the reasoning - and I also see it as a very sad ending for someone who had ambition enough to challenge death. To become an useful babysitter for people he liked, but didn't take as his goal in life, is like saying one should live for their kids, even when they are already grown up and ready to live their own lives. That ignores his existence as a person and reduces him to a convenient role and stepping stone for others, forever deemed between dedicating his time and energy to others' success without getting nothing back, or pretty much suicide. That's the reasoning. Very commom and very dreamy for those who see the world through the eyes of the protagonist (a forever-living, all-caring father), terrible for anyone who knows what being a parent is and can relate to the character (basically being forced to give himself to someone ethernaly because the "child" tricked him into that, and he has too much of a sense of attachment and debt to renege the role, or meaninglessness of existence).

Yeah, he said it himself, that he would make his master live to keep having support in the sect and eventually "retire" him in some forsaken place once he got to the top. And even if he did it by the purest love and gratitude, it would still be immense disrespect, tyranny and trickery. I wouldn't like to be his master, and if not killed him with my own hands (there is some afection by his side, after all), would at least do my best to make it clear that there are limits NO ONE is allowed to cross with me. Not even to stop my own death. This is the most basic principle of personal agency and consensuality, and preserving one's own life is secondary to it. That's what I think he should do. Not that there is any chance of that happening, though.

Not much, no. But I do think it is something one must do in order to stand against an atitude and worldview that is sickly and curently being propagated as acceptable or even desirable.

Not really accurate, no. Quite the oposit, as I have friends, loved ones and people who care about me and whom I care about. Anyhow, he is a coward, this "lifestyle" of shutting yourself in without another cause but fear (diference from staying home in covid times: you do it because of SOCIAL REAPONSABILITY, NOT FEAR) because you're afraid to die is a form of sickness and so on.

I'm not. I have stopped reading a few chapters ahead. You, sir , have summoned me here again. Now, about my life, I actually have overcomed fear trauma more than once, with me having lived this "protect my life by secluding myself" "lifestyle" more than once. It is because I have lived it and overcome it that I cannot endure people glorifying this kind of thing and trying to portray it as normal. So I comment.