
The Chinese Farmer story
Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.”
The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”
The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.”
The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”
This story from an unknown author has been used by Allan Watts in one of his famous lectures to open the mind of the westerners to the Taoist and Buddhists view of the world and is often referred to in the circles of spiritual/self-development arena as reminder of a principle of “equanimity of the mind”, that we can cultivate in order to navigate life events more freely, away from the extreme positions and prompt conclusions too often presented by society and by our own eagerness to avoid uncertainty as if it necessarily means danger…
How quick are we to take side, based on what emotional ties do we decide that one event means opportunity or danger? Whether it be a software malfunction, the introduction of a new team member or a global event affecting our routine operations, perhaps we could reflect on that story and allow some space to acknowledging the tension and in the midst of it, allowing natural movement of creative energy to emerge rather than jumping into uninspired action dictated by an urge to solve some issues which root causes and variables are not always accessible, even to the sharpest intellect.
Although rational thinking will always be prompt to invoke the Murphy’s law in times of crisis or simply when facing the unknown, perhaps we can also consider that the opposite is also valid. Let’s call it “the Smurph’s law”: If something can turn out we’ll, it will.
If both can be seen as valid, as two extreme views, which one to choose?
Perhaps we don’t have to choose. This is the middle way, available to the equanimous mind.
Now, should this mean that we should not set goals and strive to achieve them? Of course not. Responding comes from a place of equanimity, reacting comes from a place of fear.
Which option best serves your wellbeing? Open question
Sharing practices and information that help people live more connected to their aspirations and take inspired action…