- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Let me check my undersanding. Am I to believe that the Tao, the un-nameable name; ‘The Wondrous’; the root of existence; the irreducible fact, produces good and evil impartially and without conscience?
Without conscience?! Or is the Tao not conscious, like the creatures it has begotten? If not, then are not the creatures greater than the Tao, in possessing consciousness? If the Tao is conscious then, a conscious entity, being the root of consciousness, would it prefer good actions or evil actions? Would it demand compassion or hatred? Or does it not matter?…
ok 45 viewers, not inclined towards theological discussion then….
Maybe this is a cult – no question or dissension allowed….
Maybe the Tao doesn’t share your perception of good and evil.
As a matter of interest, did the master’s master have any special words about the problem of evil, or the problem of pain? For it is a formidable problem….
Thanks Nancy, but you may have to expound a bit on that….
As an after thought – I have not stated any perception of good and evil; only that the distinction between good and evil manifestly exists, and is obvious.
Or, Nancy, does not what is manifestly evil not offend you?
The Tao does not differentiate between good and evil or anything else for that matter. When you make the split into dualism( yin/yang) you are creating the ten thousand things (ie., classifications).
I think you might be anthropomorphizing the Tao.Am I “offended” by evil? Yes, but I am not theTao and I am not enlightened. So, I guess I will have to live with it for now.
Hi Guy!
Some random thoughts prompted by your good questions …
Maybe good and evil do exist, they are real, but they are also defined by each other? If there was no evil, how could we recognise good?
In my experience, those who deny any reality to good and evil at all sometimes do so because they want to feel free to behave any way they want!
They will also deny that there is any reality to this desire …In my limited direct experience of Bruce himself, he appears to me to be VERY strongly focused on the need for each person to deeply consider issues of right and wrong, and for each person to do this for themselves. I respect this. He is unambiguous about the importance of living one’s life in what at times can be a sharply bright light of the difference between what one might want to do and what one should do. The stories he tells in seminars are commonly heavily laden with ethical issues and he can be brutally honest about himself in this respect. He also seems to me to unambiguously think that if one hasn’t got ‘ethical behaviour’ fundamentally on-line, then forget deep engagement with genuine spirituality. Thinking about others than oneself matters. It matters big time. This is all to his credit, but only really matters to me because it’s his lectures that I’m trying to understand.
I try to understand anything he says about the Tao te Ching in the light of the above experience of his practical orientation. This can feel like trying to make sense of a contradiction, but that is perhaps the point. One cannot ‘think’ oneself beyond this seeming (or real) contradiction. It is the ‘practice’ associated with each chapter which may ultimately enable one to see ‘good and evil’ as unreal, yet to act appropriately in a spontaneous and unforced way. The words ‘good’ and ‘appropriate’ can be used to refer to the same thing, but aren’t always so used by everyone. And they can mean something different if we use them about ourself, rather than another. (Isn’t there somewhere in the Tao te Ching that this is discussed?)
In short, the Tao is beyond good and evil, it is not beneath them.
Best regards,
Colin
I like that reply, Nancy, I really do.
But you avoid my question. Does evil offend you?
Hi Colin, and thanks for replying.
I understand what you are all saying; that the Tao is beyond good and evil etc. As a side-note, isn’t it interesting that the one among us who is closest to the Tao is the one most insistent on emphasing the importance of morality?
But anyway, my main question I return to. Whatever the Tao is in itself, whether beyond good and evil or not, is it conscious? Because if it is conscious, then it, as a conscious entity, condones evil. And condones evil in the only reality most of us know, and which is a true reality. If the Tao is not conscious, then it is a blind force, and the creatures that proceed from it are higher than it, being conscious.
Guy,
I wouldn’t say the Tao is conscious, nor good, nor evil, nor that it gives a damn. It is a mystery to me. I don’t know what it is.
I don’t believe there is a purely theoretical answer to your questions. There is an answer, but it can only be found in practice, not through abstract thinking alone. understanding comes through doing, not through thinking (unless one can have one’s thinking become a ‘doing’).
Your reflections are shared within the Western philosophical tradition where they would be framed more in terms of trying to reconcile God’s omniscience, omnipotence and goodness with the reality of evil. The various answers all seem to effectively deny reality to at least one of these four, in sime way or another, rather than accept all four as real and make sense of that.
Perhaps there is an underlying assumption in such questioning that isn’t valid? Namely, that the tribunal of ‘reason’ is the highest court? Perhaps the Tao is also beyond reason, not beneath it?
Colin
I don’t have a clear answer to the question of good and evil, but I have a few observations.
1. I think your question implies that there is something called evil that is external to humanity, an intrinsic quality that manifests through other agencies. Of course, that there is good as well. I personally don’t believe ievil, or good for that matter, works this way. If true, though, then your question applies, but this seems to be more of a theological question.
2. Saying the Tao creates evil is a little like saying the weather or the geological movement or the earth is evil. It may have truly devastating effects on humanity, but I don’t think a hurricane, like Sandy, is evil. It’s just one of the ways the Li of the Tao plays out in the world.
3. It sure seems to me that the Tao is ultimate consciousness. Is it personalized, like a bearded man in heaven? Don’t think so.
4. I think Taoism is in accord with a lot of natural science. The Big Bang theory sure seems to be one way to articulate the Taoist creation story. In that sense, again, I don’t think nature is evil or good, it just follows its prinicple or nature. Another way of saying the same thing again, I guess.
This is an interesting thread and I’m not sure how well I’ve articulated my ideas. I look forward to othe comments.
Hi Colin, I don’t mean to offend with any posts – I am a fully paid-up supporter of Energyarts, I only mean to stimulate constructive debate, but if that’s not good or is unwelcome, I hope someone will let me know. I am not used to forums, and sometimes get carried away.
I have not mentioned anything to do with ‘God’ or all those other things, but am only going on verifiable experience. As for reason, it is a higher mental function, similar to consciousness, and as such, the Tao is of course is greater than it, but only if you admit with the same breath that if the Tao is greater or above reason and consciousness, then it must by definition possess both, albeit in modes incomprehensible to us, and in unimaginably greater abundance.
I would be cautious about discarding reason, though. For example, you say these things can only be discovered experientially by practice. Well, Master Bruce I am sure we all agree has practiced far more than any of us. How strange, then, that as one approaches the realm of being ‘beyond good and evil’ etc, one in actual fact is driven to emphasise the importance of morality more and more. Would you not expect the reverse?
Hello Matthew Nicoll, it is always very good to hear a post from you. You know what would be helpful? Being able to see the post being replied to while typing a reply – I have just had to make notes! Before asking for other comments, I want to clarify a few points, although not strictly in the order you put them, if that is ok…
What is this comment? An old bearded man in the sky? Blimey, where did that come from. I’ll hazard a guess; we are all westerners of course, and the classical image of ‘God’ as a bearded old man in the sky is well ingrained somewhere….but this is a real debate. What does it mean to be ‘personalized’ or ‘personal’? How is it defined? By personality? Higher mental processes such as reason? Emotions? Surely not! These things come and go like the weather. Surely to be a person, or personal, is being conscious, or having awareness, whether or not anything at any one moment happens to be passing through it or not. Do you agree? Then how can the Tao, being ultimately conscious, not be personal?
It is interesting that you draw a parallel between natural disasters and evil. One could easily include pestilence and famine for starters. Surely these are natural events in a fixed environment, I agree. But it is the devastation it causes to humanity that is evil. Neutral events cause devastaion that is perceived as manifestly evil, in the pain and suffering it causes.
I agree with you about natural science, by the way. I have already said I am a great supporter of Taoism.
I am not sure I have implied that good or evil is an intrinsic force external to humanity; in fact thinking about it, I am quite sure that I have not. You are not thinking of the devil, complete with horns and hooves I hope. No, I have not suggested any such thing. It is interesting that nobody has flatly denied the existence of evil; it’s obviousness and manifest reality. Or that it offends us. Or that we find it in ourselves. And we have a moral conscience that convicts us of it, and makes us ashamed.
Basic questions, really. The same questions that have always (maybe) been obvious and pressing to human beings. The basic problems come first; the great towering theologies that attempt to resolve them come second…
I’ve waffled on for way too long…
They will also deny that there is any reality to this desire …This is an archived forum (read only). Go to our active forum where you can post and discuss in real time.