Destruction vs Creation

[Everything]

Short Version

If Destructive and Constructive behaviour are both perfect, which one should be choose? Both at the same time?

 

Long Version

Hi, I'm new to Tao and like to know more about it.

 

Lao Tzu wrote Tao Te Ching right? I read the 81 verses from Wayne W. Dyer. I am always sceptical of everything untill I test it in my own life and it has to work. So far Tao Te Ching brought me some peaceful feelings. But I never blindly believe anything and challenging my own believes is a daily hobby lol. Its just fun and allows me to grow higher character not being limited by negative believes.

 

So my question for you guys, if Tao considers bad same as good, and all is perfect, then why is destruction not perfect too? Ofcourse it is, we consider "bad" people as our student and "good" as our teachers. Eventually the only person you can control is your own body. You navigate trough the universes making either destructive or constructive decisions every single moment of your life. And when you die, you are completely one with the universe... Where do you want to die? One where you made more constructive decisions or destructive? So rather go to hell or heaven? Well, frankly for a Tao centered person, it doesn't matter right? Because Tao trusts good is the very nature of your being? I don't get this... Destructive can be the nature of things too. There are forests that are fire centered and depend on fire to create life. If I was a universe, I'd look with an open jaw and see beauty in a world where people nuke themselves to death, because there is a nature behind it all. Destruction is creation.

 

The thing is that people have a believe that says that only should I do constructive behaviour. And always be good. But this is ofcourse insignificant for Tao Te Ching right? Because if you're Tao centered, heaven or hell are the same. Is this a good or bad thing? Don't know what to think of it.

 

I think the diffrents is that in physics nothing can be possibly created, only recycled. And in Tao there is only creation. Infinite creation only. That is the nature of Tao? When I die, I believe my body is being abosrbed by the universe yes I become one with for the eternity that it lasts, but I'm also recycled as many things. How does this differ to Tao believe?

Edited March 24, 2010 by Everything

[3bob]

How about the middle?

 

I think (lol) that the Buddhist four-fold negation statement reminds the mind that it has certain limits to its type of knowing... which may not be Taoist like you are asking about but is still of good use imo.

 

Suggestion: some of Alan Watts older books can help one get a sort of handle on "eastern" type sayings and teachings. Have you read any of his work?

 

Regards, Bob

[Uncle Screwtape]

If you drop an egg on the floor then the mess that results is perfect. It is perfect in that that is what happens when you drop eggs. But does that mean you have to leave the mess there and not clear it up? Of course not! If you want a clean floor then you are perfectly entitled, as a Taoist, to get out the mop.

 

Bad is not the same as good. Not even for Lao Tzu, or he would not have made the distinction. They both have their place. But you still have choices to make. Taoism has something to say about how you make those choices and then carry them out. Plenty, actually. The I Ching is based on the idea that we can choose between possibilities. There is nothing wrong with that at all. The I Ching talks about choices leading to fortune or misfortune. The rest is up to you.

 

I want to be happy, but I accept I will often be sad; I want to succeed, but I accept I will sometimes fail; I want to gain, but I accept I will occasionally lose.

 

Richard

Edited March 24, 2010 by Uncle Screwtape

[Marblehead]

Hi Everything,

 

Good points you brought forward.

 

First let me suggest that creation and destruction are process with nature (Tzujan).

 

The processes cannot be values as either good or evil - they just are.

 

Tao is consistent with physics in the nothing is really created or destroyed - it is recycled. As I have said many times over, 'Everything that is, is, always has been, and always will be. Things just take different form over time.'

 

Yes, most of us prefer creation over destruction, good over evil. Tao doesn't care. The great Sages don't concern themselves with such matters because they understand that all is Tao and everything that is at any given moment and every action that is performed is exactly what is is supposed to be at that given moment so everything is perfect.

 

But we normal(?) humans think and live in a dualistic reality so we classify things as good or evil, beautiful or ugly, etc. And this is okay because it too is Tao and Tao is always perfect at any given point in time.

 

However, we must live according to our nature, our Te (virtue) so we will descriminate. Yes, the good man is the teacher of the good and the bad man is the lesson for the good. From the view of Tao, all things have a purpose because all thing are parts of the whole (One). If we leave any part out we no longer have the whole (One).

 

And then too, we have the option of not defining opposites. There is no requirement to do so. We can just accept (or at least acknowledge the existence of) all things and actions/events.

 

Earthquakes are bad from a human perspective because they generally kill lots of people. But can we really say that an earthquake is bad? I don't think so because an earthquake is one of nature's processes. They just are.

 

Peace & Love!

[baiqi]

Destruction and creation are two parts of the same process. So is light and darkness, day and night, yin and yang, heat and cold...

 

Which one do you choose? The one that is adapted to the situation. Sometimes you need to create, sometimes to destroy!

 

I say that because reading your thread, I had the feeling that you said something like:

 

creation= good, destruction=bad.

 

This is just not true, both exist in nature, and both are needed,what is bad is to destroy what you should not, or create what you should not.

 

"I think the diffrents is that in physics nothing can be possibly created, only recycled. And in Tao there is only creation. Infinite creation only. That is the nature of Tao? When I die, I believe my body is being abosrbed by the universe yes I become one with for the eternity that it lasts, but I'm also recycled as many things. How does this differ to Tao believe?"

 

It doesn't differ. Taoists have different beliefs on what happens after death, yours sounds good to me.

 

Now about doing good and bad...

 

It is right that reading taoist texts you have the feeling they don't care much about morality. On of the Zen main texts (信心铭, if you can read Chinese it is in the appropriate section of this forum...) says that "clarity of mind appears when there is no thought about good and evil" and such.

 

This, for people of any culture is rather disturbing. We are told to do good and avoid evil. The taoists (early ones) attacked Confucianism for that, but we could do the same with Christianity and any moral code around the world. No wonder lots of people looked down on them.

 

I believe you have to look at nature to understand this: there is no "bad" nor "good" in nature. There is creation and destruction,or ultimately none of them: just changes. But nothing that judges. Or if it does, it has a human-like conscience.

 

But this doesn't mean ethics should be given up. Depravity won't get you closer to the Tao. You'll only hurt yourself and others.

I think the best ethical behavior is:

 

1) unlearn what you've learnt. Some "moral values" are simply stupid. This is probably one of the hardest things to do for most men. Which is why taoists emphasized "lose virtue" so much.

 

2) get another ethical code. Based on experience this time, on what is really right to do, from the heart. You may find that some of your education was right, other wrong. You have to have enough courage to see the truth inside.

 

What you said: " But I never blindly believe anything and challenging my own believes is a daily hobby lol." indicates you're on the path!

 

A Tao man is "good" to the people like the sun, or a fire, bringing light and heat to all. But not because he wants to; he does it spontaneously. (However, to get to that state of being, you may need to do "good deeds" calculating them, sometimes to see they're not so good!).

The sun can also be "bad", if you stay too long outside in the summer...But you don't blame it for that?

[Uncle Screwtape]

Yes, most of us prefer creation over destruction, good over evil. Tao doesn't care. The great Sages don't concern themselves with such matters because they understand that all is Tao and everything that is at any given moment and every action that is performed is exactly what is is supposed to be at that given moment so everything is perfect.

 

I am sure the great sages did concern themselves with such matters. Even Lao Tzu had ideas of how a society could be run to make it better. Fuxi, Shennong, Yu the Great, King Wen all appeared to concern themselves deeply with the path events took. Although everything is perfect as it is, change is inevitable and the direction of that change has yet to be decided. The difference is that a sage has an innate sense of the right thing to do and does not have to contrive it. But as you say, for those of us who are not sages, contriving to do the right thing is better than contriving to do the wrong thing.

 

And Lao Tzu, at least, didn't think all is Tao. He spoke of Tao being lost and of actions contradicting Tao. To him it was something to wield, to use and to utilise. It was a way that you used or didn't. Tao is what causes galaxies to spin, stars to be born; it holds planets in their orbits and makes the earth turn, the winds blow, the rains fall and the grasses grow. I cannot do that; therefore I am not Tao. I may harness Tao, though. But that doesn't make me it.

 

That's how I see it anyway.

 

Richard

[Marblehead]

Hi Richard,

 

Nice points and I will not argue them. However,

 

Let us not forget that in the end Lao Tzu said 'the heck with it' and walked off into the dessert and Chuang Tzu said 'the heck with it', 'let me drag my tail in the mud'.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Hi Baiqi,

 

Nice post.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sloppy Zhang]

Some people look at Daoism and say that, well, since good and bad are both natural processes, why should I be good?

 

Then they go off and do all sorts of things, sometimes "bad" things, sometimes "irresponsible", then when they are called out on it say things like, "on you're just judging", "oh creation and destruction are both parts of the universe, I choose destruction".

 

While I agree with the premise of the situation, that creation and destruction are both natural, and while I agree with the assertion that you should try to stay away from always trying to fit everything into a dualistic "good" and "bad", I still have a strong feeling that you should try and do "good" things, and try to avoid "bad" things.

 

But I can't explain why (maybe I'm just too young ) Is it societal/cultural conditioning? Is it a natural instinct to "be nice"? Do others have a natural instinct to "be nice"? Or do some of them have a natural instinct to "be good"? I personally found that if you just think about it, it doesn't always pay off to "be bad", it bites you in the end, then again, there are situations in which "being bad" only helps you and there's really no downside, then again, there are situations where if you want to get something done, you have to "be bad", does that mean you shouldn't be wanting to do the things that you need to "be bad" to get done?

 

I don't know

[Marblehead]

 

But I can't explain why (maybe I'm just too young ) Is it societal/cultural conditioning? Is it a natural instinct to "be nice"? Do others have a natural instinct to "be nice"? Or do some of them have a natural instinct to "be good"? I personally found that if you just think about it, it doesn't always pay off to "be bad", it bites you in the end, then again, there are situations in which "being bad" only helps you and there's really no downside, then again, there are situations where if you want to get something done, you have to "be bad", does that mean you shouldn't be wanting to do the things that you need to "be bad" to get done?

 

I don't know

 

Hi Sloppy,

 

What a lovely set of questions. All worthy of discussion.

 

Peace & Love!

[3bob]

I am sure the great sages did concern themselves with such matters. Even Lao Tzu had ideas of how a society could be run to make it better. Fuxi, Shennong, Yu the Great, King Wen all appeared to concern themselves deeply with the path events took. Although everything is perfect as it is, change is inevitable and the direction of that change has yet to be decided. The difference is that a sage has an innate sense of the right thing to do and does not have to contrive it. But as you say, for those of us who are not sages, contriving to do the right thing is better than contriving to do the wrong thing.

 

And Lao Tzu, at least, didn't think all is Tao. He spoke of Tao being lost and of actions contradicting Tao. To him it was something to wield, to use and to utilise. It was a way that you used or didn't. Tao is what causes galaxies to spin, stars to be born; it holds planets in their orbits and makes the earth turn, the winds blow, the rains fall and the grasses grow. I cannot do that; therefore I am not Tao. I may harness Tao, though. But that doesn't make me it.

 

That's how I see it anyway.

 

Richard

 

 

Hello Richard,

 

I agree with the drift what you say - although I see most possible forms of "harnessing" the Tao as actually being a harnessing and or attunement with aspects of the Tao or the energies that arise or result from what are named as the Two, the Three, etc... for only the Tao can directly contact the Tao, which makes It It. (so to speak)

 

We as human beings can be like helpless leaves in the wind turning every which way, or we can be rooted as much as possible in the Tao which does not get turned every which way by the winds.(of the world) Is not such the great concern of all that would keep to the root? (and the vast ramifications related to same)

 

Sages that have done their work and then retire or disappear to mountain forests or other places have earned that rest set by the standard of the Tao which they serve, thus not by our culture driven standards which we would judge them by; besides a new position is then made for their students to step into and fulfill, in other words the position that their teacher has graduated from is then turned over to the student who is also ready to graduate to the next step.

 

Om

[ralis]

Just found this article that gives an added perspective to this discussion. Seems as though physics is getting away from a purely mechanistic view of the universe. I liked the part where one can change the past.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-you-only-live-once-exp_b_508440.html

 

ralis

[Uncle Screwtape]

Let us not forget that in the end Lao Tzu said 'the heck with it' and walked off into the dessert and Chuang Tzu said 'the heck with it', 'let me drag my tail in the mud'.

 

We don't know why Lao Tzu left, where he went and what he went on to do. not for sure anyway.

 

Richard

[Uncle Screwtape]

Sages that have done their work and then retire or disappear to mountain forests or other places have earned that rest set by the standard of the Tao which they serve,

 

Do sages serve Tao? I never got that impression. Perhaps they do, but it just seemed to me they utilised it. I no more serve Tao, anyway, than I serve the wind when I use it to steer a sail boat. I respect it and it instils a sense of awe and wonder in me, however. I don't see Tao as anything other than the way the universe and nature works. I can use that way to my advantage, but I am not that way. In demystifying Tao I may have overdone it, I admit.

 

Richard

[Athanor]

You cannot create without destruction, and every destruction is followed by involuntary creation.

 

Even if you create life itself, you actually destruct too - living creatures need oxygen which they take away from others; they use food which they take away from others; and of course, food itself is life, so a living being must destroy other life to sustain its own.

By cleaning yourself to create health, or healing yourself in other ways, which is the creation of health, you destroy your own cells and protozoans inside and on the surface of your body.

By building something you destroy what was there before.

Yet, even if you destroy a whole city, vegetation will take place on the ruins.

 

The important question is: do you want to minimize the destruction you do when you create or not?

[Martial Development]

It strikes me that one cannot be both a Taoist and an idealist. Tao is not an idea. This is the very first sentence on the first page of the book!

 

Creation and destruction are not two sides of the same coin; they are the same side.

 

Lao Tzu is the first word, not the last word on Taoism.

 

Finally, Lao Tzu is not indifferent to warfare and destruction. Variations on this theme can be found throughout: be a leader, not a butcher.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Martial Development

[Marblehead]

Just found this article that gives an added perspective to this discussion. Seems as though physics is getting away from a purely mechanistic view of the universe. I liked the part where one can change the past.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/do-you-only-live-once-exp_b_508440.html

 

ralis

 

I looked at the title of the article and that was all I needed.

 

No further comment.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

We don't know why Lao Tzu left, where he went and what he went on to do. not for sure anyway.

 

Richard

 

I will conceed that point. But we do know what Chuang Tzu said.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

The important question is: do you want to minimize the destruction you do when you create or not?

 

Yes, that is an important question. Can we live our life in such a way to have minimal destructive effects in the process? I think yes. But many just don't care. But then, that is their choice.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

It strikes me that one cannot be both a Taoist and an idealist. Tao is not an idea.

 

Interesting thought that I have not entertained before. I have oftentimes called myself a realistic optimist. I expect the best but in reality we don't always get (or give) the best. We want to think that everyone is going to do the right thing. That don't happen too often.

 

No, Tao is not an ideal. It is a statement as to how things are - a realistic understanding of live, or a realistic philosophy of live. Loa Tzu ever said that if you think you have no enemies you are making a fatal error.

 

But we can still have illusions of idealism and do whatever we can to promote that ideal at least amongst other humans.

 

Peace & Love!

[Athanor]

Yes, that is an important question. Can we live our life in such a way to have minimal destructive effects in the process? I think yes. But many just don't care. But then, that is their choice.

In my mind, the whole spirituality, or any kind of self-development, has the purpose of minimizing destruction of any kind (both to self and to others), without falling into the trap to try to prevent nature from its own destructions (like animal killing animal).

So I too believe that we can do that.

But the way how to reach this minimum of destruction, and of course, what we will create during, is unknown to me yet.

[Marblehead]

In my mind, the whole spirituality, or any kind of self-development, has the purpose of minimizing destruction of any kind (both to self and to others), without falling into the trap to try to prevent nature from its own destructions (like animal killing animal).

So I too believe that we can do that.

But the way how to reach this minimum of destruction, and of course, what we will create during, is unknown to me yet.

 

Yes, I think your mention of spirituality and self-development is very timely here. These two concepts lead us to understand how all else is a part of what we are. When we destroy the land we are destroying ourselves, etc. And yes, we have learned over and over again that we cannot stop nature from doing what it has to do. We try but in most cases we just create bigger problems in the long run and waste valuable ressources in the process.

 

Yes, we each must find what we can do in order to reduce the unnatural destruction of things. Of course, we each have our own lives so each person's way will differ according to what they do in life, especially in the area for supporting ourself and those we love.

 

Peace & Love!

[Uncle Screwtape]

 

Finally, Lao Tzu is not indifferent to warfare and destruction. Variations on this theme can be found throughout: be a leader, not a butcher.

 

I am so glad you said that. So many interpret Taoism as being indifferent, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is clear bias in Taoism toward a certain way of living.

 

Richard