Beyond Good and Evil

[vsaluki]

This seems to be one of the central themes of religion in general and Tao in particular. Both Lao Tzu and Chung Tzu seem to have expressed opinions on this subject. And for the most part, I would say that we ignore those opinions.

 

I have a lot of ideas on this subject, but rather than voicing everything at once, I'll just bring up a couple of things.

 

Metaphorically speaking, is it as important to have a Darth Vader as it is to have a Luke Skywalker? For the sake of having a good story, this certainly seems to be the case. But is it also true in real life? All of us have some idea about what it would take to make a better world. Assuming that one could, with the wave of one's hand, produce the better world that one envisions - would it really be a better world. Let's suppose that you could suddenly have everyone be caring, generous, spiritual, etc. Let's say that you could stop war, preserve the environment, stop hunger, achieve perfect equality, etc. Would that truely be a better world, and, having achieved it, what then?

 

From the Tao Teh Ching translation by Hua-Ching Ni:

 

[2]

...As soon as the world regards something as good,

 

evil simultaneously becomes apparent...

 

 

[19]

Abandon the separate concepts of holiness and unholiness

Then all people will be benefitted a hunderedfold.

Abandon the separate concepts of justice and humanism,

and all people will return to a natural state of harmony.

 

 

From The Book of Chuang Tzu

 

Hsu Yu said, "So why have you troubled yourself to visit me?

Master Yao has already branded on you the practice of benevolence

and justice and mutilated you with the distintion between right

and wrong. So how can you now expect me to help you meander

alone in freedom and aimlessnes, enjoying things as they happen

through the process of change."

 

 

Appologies to Nietzsche for borrowing his title.

[Taomeow]

Good and evil are not things, they are processes. No "thing" or "person" is good or evil, but there's lots of things that create good processes, lots of things that create evil processes, and lots of people who preferentially or habitually create good processes or evil processes respectively.

[vsaluki]

Good and evil are not things, they are processes. No "thing" or "person" is good or evil, but there's lots of things that create good processes, lots of things that create evil processes, and lots of people who preferentially or habitually create good processes or evil processes respectively.

 

I hope that I didn't imply anywhere that good and evil were things. And I don't think that Lao Tse or Chung Tzu consider them to be things.

 

I think the meaning of their writing is that there is no good or evil - if you call them processes or abstractions - doesn't matter. Good and evil are categorizations and identifications that are false and unnatural. Chung Tzu calls it a "distinction", and again, he indicates that the distinction is artificial.

[Marblehead]

Granted this is a difficult topic to discuss.

 

From the perspective of One (non-duality) the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' do not exist. To be beyond these concepts is to be "Beyond good and evil."

 

However, it is the rare individual who cannot place their personal judgements on events that happen around them. Therefore, we who care classify events as good or evil. I have just recently done that.

 

I do not foresee a time in the near future where this will change.

 

But I do try to equate that duality into a more purposeful perspective with my attempt to relate events and things as useful or useless (to me). This way I can say something is useless to me but it might be useful to someone else.

 

No, we do not need evil to balance good. But as long as we hold to dualistic thinking there will always be good and evil. And also, what might be evil in one set of conditions may be good in another set of conditions.

 

How can we not judge an act evil if it has caused intentional harm to others or things? Intentional would be a very important consideration here, I think.

 

So, short term, everything matters; long term, nothing matters.

 

Peace & Love!

[vsaluki]

Granted this is a difficult topic to discuss.

 

From the perspective of One (non-duality) the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' do not exist. To be beyond these concepts is to be "Beyond good and evil."

 

However, it is the rare individual who cannot place their personal judgements on events that happen around them. Therefore, we who care classify events as good or evil. I have just recently done that.

 

I do not foresee a time in the near future where this will change.

 

But I do try to equate that duality into a more purposeful perspective with my attempt to relate events and things as useful or useless (to me). This way I can say something is useless to me but it might be useful to someone else.

 

No, we do not need evil to balance good. But as long as we hold to dualistic thinking there will always be good and evil. And also, what might be evil in one set of conditions may be good in another set of conditions.

 

How can we not judge an act evil if it has caused intentional harm to others or things? Intentional would be a very important consideration here, I think.

 

So, short term, everything matters; long term, nothing matters.

 

Peace & Love!

 

Good response. Genesis speaks about Adam and Eve eating of "the tree of knowledge of good and evil". This is obviously something that god didn't want them to do. So one can interpret the tale as being about obediance and disobediance to god - followed by punishment for disobediance, or one can look a little closer. I'm unwilling to look at god as a despot who hangs out temptations just to test his power of control. To me this story - wherever the Hebrews got it from - is a mystical story. Not eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is not an obediance test, it is a warning about acquiring a knowledge that is a false knowledge. In a sense, when Adam and Eve eat from the tree, their entire perspective on life changes. For example, they become ashamed of their nakedness. Once they ingest the fruit, they begin to parse life into that which is good and that which is evil. And once they make those mental distinctions, they have fallen from grace. Before those mental distinctions, Eden was Eden. After those mental distinctions, Eden is still Eden, but their perceptions have changed it into a place that is alien, hostile, and containing evil.

[thelerner]

I don't like the use of biblical 'proofs'. That said, I like to see the parable of Adam & Eve as the movement from happy go lucky animals to the drudgery and anxiety of civilized people.

 

I've always thought that on the continuum from ordinary people to the Enlightened, the Enlightened see no evil because they don't judge and live in the Now. Being miles away from that state, ordinary people see evil everywhere, from the asshole who cuts them off at rush hour, to the rapists murderers.

 

 

Michael

[vsaluki]

I don't like the use of biblical 'proofs'.

Michael

 

That's fine. The old testament is a load of garbage with a very few jewels mixed in. Anthropologists have traced many of it's stories to previous civilizations. For example, the Sumarians came up with the story of the flood. So we don't know the source for much of the stuff that is in the old testament. But I have no qualms about picking a jewel out of a garbage dump. In this case, I backed the interpretation up with similar ideas from Lao Tse and Chung Tzu. There are many more sources available for the same idea. As I get around to it I will try to supply some more of them.

Edited August 25, 2010 by vsaluki

[Taomeow]

The new age perspective has its markers, and these are 1) live in the Now and 2) there's no evil.

 

The taoist perspective has its markers too, and these are 1) in the human world, tao has been destroyed, and 2) everything that's done now should be done with (1) in mind, and aimed at remedying this.

 

To those who like me prefer to go to the original taoist sources rather than new age novelties to glean what taoists really thought, I suggest reading up beyond poor TTC translations. The Yuandao, as well as Laozi's own extended version of his views as presented in the oral transmission recorded by a student, The Wen-tzu, would be a helpful start.

 

Oh, and "enlightened" is a hypothetical state of being postulated by buddhism. Taoists talk about "real humans" instead when describing the highest form of human development, and being "real" includes being able to tell shit from candy.

[vsaluki]

The new age perspective has its markers, and these are 1) live in the Now and 2) there's no evil.

 

Would you consider the old testament as new age? How are Lao Tse's and Chung Tzu's explanations that there is no good or evil new age?

 

The taoist perspective has its markers too, and these are 1) in the human world, tao has been destroyed,

 

Where do you find this?

 

The Yuandao, as well as Laozi's own extended version of his views as presented in the oral transmission recorded by a student, The Wen-tzu, would be a helpful start.

 

Does the Yuandao disagree with the Toa Teh Ching on the subject of good and evil? If so, where and why?

 

Do the oral transmissions disagree with what is said in TTC. If so, where and why?

Edited August 25, 2010 by vsaluki

[vsaluki]

Here are a couple more indirect reflections on good and evil by Chung Tzu. Chapter 2.

 

"While oridnary people rush busily around, the sage seems stupid and ignorant, but to him all life is one and united. All life is simply what it is and all appear to him to be doing what they rightly should."

 

If "all appear to be doing what they rightly should", this would seem to indicate that no one is doing evil.

 

Also Chung Tzu, Chapter 2.

 

"Forget about life, forget about worrying about right and wrong. Plunge into the unknown and the endless and find your place there."

[blacktrack8]

I believe no thought of discontent ever enters the Taoist Sages mind. Therefore he never condones. Because of this, he holds no grudges. Because of this, he can help someone who may have screwed him over a time before.

 

I believe the sage would save a child being kidnapped. He would never think about the evil of the person committing the act but instead act upon sight of the act to help the child. If the child gave him a hug afterwards he would accept it. If the child throwed a punch and ran away he would dodge the punch. Never would he think "Oh what a great thankful child" or "Oh man that little shit!". Neither would he take the time to understand the situation from the child's perspective, "Well I did save him", or "He must have been scared" because that is of no importance and no value.

 

To truly be a Taoist Sage one must be enlightened. The state of enlightenment consists of no emotion. The state of no emotion does not pretend to not be emotional. Therefore the enlightened acts only and thinks not of evil.

 

So in the end I believe that Lao Tzu and other Taoist sages are just giving you another example of how you are thinking, categorizing, and not being perfect Taoist Sages.

 

By saying something is good, you create the opposite, because if things are good, then clearly a situation undesirable or less desirable must exist. The Taoist sage lives in the undesirable moment with the same ease as the desirable.

[Marblehead]

Nice post Blacktrack8.

 

I have said this before and I will say it again. The world, the entire universe, is exactly the way it is supposed to be at this very point in time. So, if it exactly the way it should be then it is perfect, is it not?

 

Of course, I will not mention my personal perspective in this assessment.

 

Heave follows Tao. Heaven (the universe) does what needs be done. Nothing more, nothing less. Earth follow Heaven. Earth does what needs be done. Nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, if man is supposed to follow Earth isn't it a given that man should do what needs be done? Nothing more, nothing less.

 

And this, in my opinion, is living in "wu wei". In this state one is "beyond good and evil".

 

Good and evil arose, in my understanding of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu, from the contrived values and virtues of the learned. And this is exactly why we are told that we should unlearn all the contrived teachings of learned and live according to our natural inclinations.

 

Peace & Love!

[vsaluki]

Good input from Marblehead and blacktrack8. The next question that occurs to me about good and evil is - are good and evil purely human constructs.

 

Massive destruction and creation are a part of our universe. Planets and Galaxies are ripped apart and sucked into black holes every day. The earth has cycled through drastic changes (ice ages) and had most of it's life extinguised by asteroids and volcanic erruptions. Species have appeared and disappeared forever. Some animals will kill far more than they can eat when certain circumstances arrive. Intelligent animals like killer whales will catch an play with seals, tossing them around like rag dolls, before finally killing them. And yet, no one attaches the name "evil" to these kinds of events. Destruction seems to be an integral part of the workings of the natural world. Sometimes that natural destruction includes great pain for living creatures. But we don't think of this kind of destruction in moral terms. Only the actions of humans are labled "evil". Having identified the good and the evil, we then play a game that consumes much of our life energy called, "Good must win". These games are often so complex that the participants can play on opposites sides of the game and both sides can claim that they are fighting for the good while others are siding with evil. Huge reserves of emotion go into these games. Hatred for, and anger at, the other side is commonly an integral part of the game. People are sometimes ready to kill each other over the outcome of the game. Moral judgements are a necessary part of the game. We must be able to judge our opponents as morally lacking, or, as evil. Without that kind of division, we can never see ourselves as agents of good while seeing our opponents as agents of evil. Ego is the animal that is demanding to be fed. The more we are involved in the game and the more we forget that it is a game, the better the ego is fed. Most people never, for an instant, see these games as anything other than deadly serious. They believe that the outcome of humanity hinges on having their side win.

[Marblehead]

Well, Sheeesh! Vsaluki.

 

You went and answered your own question. Hehehe.

 

Yes, the are just human constructs.

 

Although I will suggest that they may exist is some other higher intelligent mammals as well.

 

Peace & Love!

[johndoe2012]

Hsin-hsin-ming is a good text on this issue.

 

I myself have tried dropping opinions and realizing how hard it is since my mind is constantly trying to label everything.

[Marblehead]

I myself have tried dropping opinions and realizing how hard it is since my mind is constantly trying to label everything.

 

 

You are absolutely correct with this, IMO.

 

Peace & Love!

[vsaluki]

[vsaluki]

Hsin-hsin-ming is a good text on this issue.

 

Good reference in general. And here are two lines from it that link directly into this thread.

 

If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion.

 

"Gain and loss, right and wrong: such thoughts must finally be abolished at once."

Edited August 28, 2010 by vsaluki

[Birch]

I reckon "evil" requires some knowledge of what one proposes to do. There is IMO and small experience some intentionality inherent in really evil actions.

 

I'm not sure that "good" is an actual phenomena. IMO it comes to life and enters consciousness in the presence of evil. Otherwise it has no name and just occurs "naturally".

 

I always find it interesting how people seem to define the "negative" in light of the "positive" when the reverse is at least often as much also the case. I guess we'd rather not look at the fact that so much good has been born of evil. That would be admitting that evil exists and then what happens? Ah, the good returns

 

As long as we refuse to admit to evility (this may not be a word) then "good" won't get a lookin. IMO and 2 cts.

[goldisheavy]

This seems to be one of the central themes of religion in general and Tao in particular. Both Lao Tzu and Chung Tzu seem to have expressed opinions on this subject. And for the most part, I would say that we ignore those opinions.

 

I have a lot of ideas on this subject, but rather than voicing everything at once, I'll just bring up a couple of things.

 

Metaphorically speaking, is it as important to have a Darth Vader as it is to have a Luke Skywalker? For the sake of having a good story, this certainly seems to be the case. But is it also true in real life? All of us have some idea about what it would take to make a better world. Assuming that one could, with the wave of one's hand, produce the better world that one envisions - would it really be a better world. Let's suppose that you could suddenly have everyone be caring, generous, spiritual, etc. Let's say that you could stop war, preserve the environment, stop hunger, achieve perfect equality, etc. Would that truely be a better world, and, having achieved it, what then?

 

From the Tao Teh Ching translation by Hua-Ching Ni:

 

[2]

...As soon as the world regards something as good,

 

evil simultaneously becomes apparent...

 

 

[19]

Abandon the separate concepts of holiness and unholiness

Then all people will be benefitted a hunderedfold.

Abandon the separate concepts of justice and humanism,

and all people will return to a natural state of harmony.

 

 

From The Book of Chuang Tzu

 

Hsu Yu said, "So why have you troubled yourself to visit me?

Master Yao has already branded on you the practice of benevolence

and justice and mutilated you with the distintion between right

and wrong. So how can you now expect me to help you meander

alone in freedom and aimlessnes, enjoying things as they happen

through the process of change."

 

 

Appologies to Nietzsche for borrowing his title.

 

Alright. I'll answer this. Good and evil are simply amplifications of comfortable and uncomfortable, or desirable and undesirable. So for example, eating ice cream is good, but cleaning the toilet is evil. Of course we don't say this in real life, because eating ice cream is not a strong preference and cleaning the toilet is not as uncomfortable as being oppressed is. But good and evil are born of preferences which may start small, but become strong.

 

So let's look at what Hsu Yu said. Hsu Yu is posturing here to appear as if he is beyond good and evil. In reality, he is not comfortable to teach Master Yao's student, thus he has a preference. He doesn't want to be bothered by having to question and analytically contradict everything Master Yao taught, because it's a big chore and takes a lot of time and is not necessarily a process that Hsu Yu enjoys. So in this case, teaching Master Yao student is a type of small evil for Hsu Yu. Thus Hsu Yu is at least slightly dirty, if not completely dirty with the dirt of hypocrisy.

 

Nonetheless, there is some value in demonstrating that good and evil are not absolute, are not permanent, and are not worth losing one's head over. At the same time, if we completely ignore what is comfortable and what isn't, for oneself and for others, we will be making life harder than necessary, whatever you want to call it.

[LBDaoist]

Having grown up in the Western world my original exposure to Good and Evil were God and Satan. I never really bought into the idea of certain actions leading one to a place called Heaven after death, or its opposite Hell. It was not until I started actively studying Taoism and focusing on my own spiritual development did I come to truly believe in good and evil.

 

In my mind they are two energies that emerge through thoughts and actions. They are ever present and constantly in ebb. As a person leans further toward one they will have the opposite drawn to them. As a simple and perhaps even misguided interpretation, at the "higher levels" of cultivation, one perhaps cannot progress further without "defeating or overcoming" ever stronger manifestations of the opposite force.

 

I believe that good and evil arise because of the human conscious. There are those actions which preserve and enhance life, and there are those that lessen and destroy life. In the animal kingdom, the mechanisms of life and death are in natural balance. Animals act from instinct and balance each other out. Humans have the fairly unique capacity to contemplate before acting. Because of that, they have the potential to take good or evil actions. I find it to be no surprise that one of the most touted achievements of Taoist (and Buddhist) practice involves no mind, and action without thought; being like animals, responsive to the ebb and flow of the natural cycle free from the ruminations, compulsions and schemes of the mind. Eating when hungry, sleeping when tired, singing when the spirit moves you, caring for your offspring, protecting your loved ones.

[de_paradise]

I love the study of ethics and all its interpretations through history and through the various schools.

 

I discovered energetically on my own exactly why ethics and goodness seem linked with spirituality.

 

The way I explain is that the Tao or God or the Unified whole has the characteristic of cooperation, and that translates to our bodies as a feeling of goodness.

 

When you do something good with good intentions, generally you get some kind of feeling, and its a warm fuzzy feeling. Something like David Hume described. But you must question WHY that feeling arises. Some psychologists like to make up stories such as its merely a function of ego projection or some nonsense like that. In fact, it is the universe kind of noticing or reacting to you acting like the universe acts. In the Kaballistic parlance, the vessel (you) become like our creator in its "will to bestow", rather than human "will to receive" So that is why Rabbi Hillel when asked how to attain enlightenment with both hands tied behind ones back and hopping on one foot, he answered something like "love thy neighbour as you love thyself"

 

The reason I can be so certain, is that after my few years of cultivation, these kinds of feelings: compassion, love, charity, become really kind of amplified and appear more as energy fields arising in the body. No more just warm fuzzies, but misty energy fields expanding out from ones body. A person who has not cultivated to a level where they can feel the immediate reactions coming from certain thoughts and behaviors will not have access to this sample set of data. Therefore its certain that non-cultivator philosophers or psychologists are merely groping around blind, because they are limited.

[de_paradise]

If you really want you qi to circulate nicely, just think in your mind how everything you see around you is in fact the same as you, it is no different. If you think of your arm for example, as being part of yourself. Theres a certain feeling/state you have when you think about some part of your own body. If you can enlarge that particular feeling/state while you think of the rest of your surroundings just as if you were noticing your own arm, then the subtle energies in your body will become excited.

[三江源]

.

Edited October 26, 2015 by 三江源

[vsaluki]

It was not until I started actively studying Taoism and focusing on my own spiritual development did I come to truly believe in good and evil.

 

LB, what did you come to believe is good and evil? And what do you think of the Toaist verses that have been offered in this thread that imply that we should not have such divisions?

 

I believe that good and evil arise because of the human conscious. There are those actions which preserve and enhance life, and there are those that lessen and destroy life.

 

That sounds to me like the "white must win" game.

 

In the animal kingdom, the mechanisms of life and death are in natural balance. Animals act from instinct and balance each other out.

 

In my first post I pointed out that such balance has never actually existed. Most of the species that have been on the face of the earth have come and gone. Some were wiped out by asteroids. Some were destroyed by volcanic erruptions. Some died when another species came along and displaced them. Even if there were no mankind on the planet, there would be no balance. The earth eco system is very dynamic and it includes both great growth and great destruction. Even without man, species would come and go. My thought is that a realized mind that is in sync with the Tao accepts both things as a part of the whole.

 

Humans have the fairly unique capacity to contemplate before acting. Because of that, they have the potential to take good or evil actions.

 

I think that their capacity allows them to label actions as good or evil, but such lables only have meaning from a trapped egocentric perspective.

 

Think about this for a moment. Let's say that you are watching a nature program. The program is following a mother cheetah and her two cubs. You've been following them on the screen and you have gotten a little attached to them. Now the mother has been unsuccessful in making a kill for three days. The mother is hungry. The cubs are very hungry and getting weak. Life is on the edge for the cheetah family. They may starve. Then the mother gets lucky and manages to get a gazelle that falls during the persuit. You find that you are happy because those cute cubs won't starve. The cheetah family can be nurished and hopefully the cubs can become adults.

 

Okay, now forget that whole story. Instead, you were following the life of the gazelle on your screen. You became attached to that gazelle. Then, when it is killed by a cheetah, you feel a loss - maybe even a dislike of the cheetah.

 

The Toa perspective would likely be that there is no good or evil in those events. They are simply life moving with the Tao. It's easy to see how to translate some events to a Tao perspective in the case of the cheetahs and the gazelle. It's much harder to do it with human affairs. And it's harder still to do it when it involves ones own sense of "I" and ones own ego.

Edited September 2, 2010 by vsaluki