Presumably with some discernment. If I understand Joss correctly Confucianism was the singular scholarly method and background for all scholarship by the time we are talking about any serious textual references. While there exists the possibility(and references both in Eastern and Western tradition) that non-referenced scholars were extant or that something like the Holy Fool(we do see references, but how much can we really know) existed, how much does it impact what we can know about methodology today? I'm sure modern scholars, in their dry and forensic way, have been all over this, however the question exists:what can be reconstructed from paper and what can be rediscovered(if you will, from a perennial truth)? There is the rub, between praxis and premis, between action and theory. Or could it be both? What gain without risk and what risk without gain? Perhaps it was Eliade, I am not sure, who stated that the difference between the Second Function(Dumezilian Tripartite theory) and the Third Functionis that the Third will never risk themselves for anything other than the material. Modern scholasticism is rarely a risk. It can be a useful tool, of course, to be grasped when needed.
Here is a question: how do you know that any experiences you have had( in the realm of forms, the spiritual realm, the celestial realm, Hurqayla, or what have you) are real as opposed to just your imagination? Do you feel there is a difference? How can you know? Are there people who might feel moved by both the false and the real and not be able to tell the difference? I am interested in your replies.