nac Posted September 30, 2009 What do you guys think of this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ta.../ethics_1.shtml Is it correct about Taoism and non-interference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 30, 2009 What do you guys think of this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/ta.../ethics_1.shtml Is it correct about Taoism and non-interference? Excellent article. Although it speaks to Religious Taoism it is consistent with Taoist philosophy. I personally have no problem with anything that was presented in the article. In Taoist philosophy 'non-interference' is a tricky subject. If I see someone about to do harm to an innocent, whether man, woman, or child, you can bet that I will likely interfer in some way even if it is nothing more than notifying the police. Non-interference is based in the concept of wei wu wei. Sometimes we are called to action, sometimes we are not. Awareness is very important here. Virtue dictates when we move to action and when we remain at rest. Happy trails! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nac Posted September 30, 2009 Excellent article. Although it speaks to Religious Taoism it is consistent with Taoist philosophy. I personally have no problem with anything that was presented in the article. In Taoist philosophy 'non-interference' is a tricky subject. If I see someone about to do harm to an innocent, whether man, woman, or child, you can bet that I will likely interfer in some way even if it is nothing more than notifying the police. Non-interference is based in the concept of wei wu wei. Sometimes we are called to action, sometimes we are not. Awareness is very important here. Virtue dictates when we move to action and when we remain at rest. Great! Does that mean Taoism is not incompatible with western humanism as the article claims? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted September 30, 2009 Great! Does that mean Taoism is not incompatible with western humanism as the article claims? Okay, I had to go back to the article and I want to highlight this passage: "The constant and unmistakable teaching of the Tao Te Ching is that humans are indeed capable of intervening in life's events, but the evidence of life, which humans constantly ignore, is that such intervention is destructive to all involved, and that we therefore have a moral duty to refrain from taking such actions." This suggests that we Taoists are always 'wu wei' and fails to consider 'wei wu wei'. (It bugs me when I see a non-Taoist trying to explain Taoist concepts. Hehehe.) If only 'wu wei' were considered then the above passage would be true. However, without considering 'wei wu wei' it is a false statement. I am basically ignorant of Western Humanist concepts so it wouldn't be fair for me to compare/contrast. But again, like I said, I found no real problem with the article itself. Happy Trails! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zhuo Ming-Dao Posted October 1, 2009 If a Taoist wants to live well they should take all their decisions in the context of the Tao, trying to see what will fit best with the natural order of things. The problem here is that the author is viewing Daoism as just another set of ethics to be followed and to force your life to fit within. This is the conventional approach, but exact opposite of the Daoist approach. Instead of analyzing an event and trying to use your limited human reasoning to create a morally constructed response (e.g. "What would be the most harmonious thing to do in this situation?"), Daoists react spontaneously and naturally to the situation, without thought or contrivance. This state is not achieved through philosophizing, but through transformative spiritual practices. It disapproves of killing, stealing, lying and promiscuity, and promotes altruistic, helpful and kindly behaviour. The specifically proscriptive morality that Daoist schools suggest is intended for those disciples who have not yet achieved any stability in wu wei (or wei wu wei). These types of limiting rules do not apply to the sage, who responds as the situation demands, rather then by an externally imposed rule set. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capital Posted October 1, 2009 The problem here is that the author is viewing Daoism as just another set of ethics to be followed and to force your life to fit within. This is the conventional approach, but exact opposite of the Daoist approach. Instead of analyzing an event and trying to use your limited human reasoning to create a morally constructed response (e.g. "What would be the most harmonious thing to do in this situation?"), Daoists react spontaneously and naturally to the situation, without thought or contrivance. This state is not achieved through philosophizing, but through transformative spiritual practices. The specifically proscriptive morality that Daoist schools suggest is intended for those disciples who have not yet achieved any stability in wu wei (or wei wu wei). These types of limiting rules do not apply to the sage, who responds as the situation demands, rather then by an externally imposed rule set. Is one supposed to feel the nature of the world, and somehow follow its directions? How is one to know the response 'the situation demands'? When you say react naturally, what nature are you following? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 1, 2009 Is one supposed to feel the nature of the world, and somehow follow its directions? How is one to know the response 'the situation demands'? When you say react naturally, what nature are you following? Hi Capital, Very excellent questions. I will wait and give Zhuo time to respond. Happy Trails! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capital Posted October 1, 2009 Thank you for the response! I don't understand what that parable was trying to convey fully, as some parts rang true, and other made little sense to me. I will continue to reread it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marblehead Posted October 1, 2009 Thank you for the response! I don't understand what that parable was trying to convey fully, as some parts rang true, and other made little sense to me. I will continue to reread it. Hi Capital, Keep asking your questions though. This is important at the beginning of any search. Once you find a base for yourself then you can do your own questioning directly to nature itself on your own. Happy Trails! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
