Michael Wiin's post on evil...

[Lozen]

I read a post Michael Winn made a really long time ago that I can't find anymore and was wondering if anybody knows off the top of their head where it is. It was something about trying to stop the flow from yang to yin by STOPPING the process in extreme yin that was considered evil, or something like that.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

Lozen (not my real name)

[Cameron]

Your real name is too powerful to speak and when you made me swear to never repeat it in public I took it seriously:)

 

That post on Evil was in reponse to my question to Michael. I just finished watching an episode of my favorite TV show Deadwood where there was all this violence and it was the same night Michael did this live chat thing. Apparently it was the 1 and only time and I was one of the only people that bothered to show up and ask Winn questions:)

 

So what did he say? I have to admit when I read or ehre Michael's stuff it is really cool and interesting in a sort of intelelctually stimulating way, but I don't rememebr alot of what he says .Maybe I just havent familiarized myself with his lingo or jargon and if that is the case it is my fault, but alot of hiss stiff seems voerly intellectual to me and not DIRECT POINTING..

 

You know..the stuff we were talking about at the Thai restaurant

 

I am getting very Zen ..ok I have always been very Zen..and don't like fucking around with overly intelelctual answers to questions like " what is evil" or " Why do people do bad shit when they know they shouldn't"

 

DIRECT POINTING!! WAKE UP!!!!

[Lozen]

I don't remember telling you not to repeat my real name, lol.

 

Where is the post on evil? I want to see it!!

[Cameron]

Yes..you threatened to school my weenie BJJ and Aikido with your Kali. " Don't make me come back here and show you my knife...Cam" Where I think the words you chose to use.

 

Sorry..complete fabrication..your a sweet Lady Been watchin't too many Tarrantino movies. Oh..Winn comments on Evil..

 

This is a very difficult question to answer. One, we have animal genes, and violence is allowed (spiritually) as the necessary pattern of their life and survival. So it may be incomplete evolution of animal aspect of our animal-divine hybrid that appears to be the nature of humans.

 

The question as to whether there are larger evil beings (whether alien or divine) behind human violence, a kind of war in heaven that humans are the unconscious playground for, is an even tougher question. It is overlaid with so much religious myth and belief, although most of it is much more recent than we realize.

 

The early Daosits never mention reincarnationi or hell. I believe that theywere very focused on the truth of the present moment containing all that is needed to be known spiritually. But that doesn't resolve the question of violence, and its origins.

 

My own conclusion regarding karma is that violence contributes to shaping patterns of incarnation, as all violence leaves a soul incompletion. But I don't believe personally that some fall of man due to an evil act has perpetuated karma ever since. There is no motive in the first instance.

 

mcihael

[Lozen]

lol, you crack me up.

 

i guess michael winn wrote MORE than one post on evil! i was looking for another one about evil being the stopping of yin/yang flow in complete yin, or something like that.

[sean]

Good Works vs. Self Centeredness

http://www.healingdao.com/cgi-bin/tpost.pl?smessage=761

 

"That is why some Taoists are sometimes accused of being amoral, they refuse a fixed cultural idea of moral behavior because it does not match the fluid reality of the Life Force. Rigid moral ideas become evil when they block the flow of the Life Force and kill its spontaneous virtue of sustaining balance and integrity in the present moment. Cultivation of tao was traditionally done in pairs or small communities to ensure feedback in the beginning to developing cultivators so they are not deluded by stray impulses."

 

"I think historically mass religions have served a useful function as a repository for spiritual values for their community. But because they cast the world in a good-evil struggle and ignore the third factor of neutral truth, the dualism produces a shadow that reveals itself sooner or later in holy wars, judgements against the non-believers, guilt at not meeting someone else's standard, etc."

 

 

Regarding Violence

http://www.healingdao.com/cgi-bin/tpost.pl?smessage=1460

 

"This is a very difficult question to answer. One, we have animal genes, and violence is allowed (spiritually) as the necessary pattern of their life and survival. So it may be incomplete evolution of animal aspect of our animal-divine hybrid that appears to be the nature of humans.

 

The question as to whether there are larger evil beings (whether alien or divine) behind human violence, a kind of war in heaven that humans are the unconscious playground for, is an even tougher question. It is overlaid with so much religious myth and belief, although most of it is much more recent than we realize.

 

The early Daosits never mention reincarnationi or hell. I believe that theywere very focused on the truth of the present moment containing all that is needed to be known spiritually. But that doesn't resolve the question of violence, and its origins.

 

My own conclusion regarding karma is that violence contributes to shaping patterns of incarnation, as all violence leaves a soul incompletion. But I don't believe personally that some fall of man due to an evil act has perpetuated karma ever since. There is no motive in the first instance."

 

 

Winn's definition of evil ... I think this is what you were looking for

http://www.healingdao.com/cgi-bin/tpost.pl?smessage=1140

 

"The life force is expanding and contracting all the time, this is True Yin and True Yang. When the contraction is forced or frozen by force of will, so it cannot return, that is evil.

 

Evil is real, and is the source of all fear. Being aware of evil and being afraid of it are two entirely different responses. Evil is self-limiting, its sphere of influence naturally contracts itself - if it expands too much it begins to behave in accordance with yin-yang cycles.

 

Fear feeds evil, neutrality offers it a space to expand into (become yang, get back into cycle).

 

Excess yang could be considered a precursor to evil, as it flips and becomes excess yin. If yin and yang keep cycling between extremes it is not evil, merely unstable and liable to produce suffering or disease. Evil requires intent/will to contract the life force in opposition to the natural phase of expansion.

In a criminal murder trial, its the difference between first degree murder at one extreme and manslaughter (accidental killing) at the other.

 

michael"

[Lozen]

In essence, all suffering is born out of a false sense of separation and ignorance. Adolf Hitler would never have created the 3rd Reich if he had been given unconditional love. Does that make him evil, or is that label a convention?

4779[/snapback]

 

There are so many Taoist apologists for Hitler. Let Hitler apologize for himself! I think people are accountable for their actions. I don't think there's really any excuse for genocide, philosophical wrangling aside. At the very least, even the most airy fairy person will admit that genocide is "out of balance."

[Lozen]

Thanks for the quotes Sean!!!

[Lozen]

I don't believe in Buddha nature and I do believe in an intelligent evil but I've come to realize that trying to discuss this with most Taoists is pretty much futile.

 

The bombing of Japan was actually a very humane thing to do. It saved millions of lives (American and Japanese). The US implemented a concept called "total war" which means that they have to use any means necessary to destroy the opponent's ability to wage war. An invasion would have brought far more Japanese civilian casualties. The Japanese were not going to surrender until the Emperor told them to.

 

I make a distinction between attacking legitimate military targets and targetting civilians. And it really makes little difference to me or the dead civilians if those people wouldn't target civilians if they "knew their Buddha nature." The only place I could see this excercise in futility having a place is maybe in some overpriced Buddhist college classroom requiring folks to bang out a really hideous double spaced essay due three weeks from now.

[peter falk]

I don't believe in Buddha nature and I do believe in an intelligent evil but I've come to realize that trying to discuss this with most Taoists is pretty much futile.

 

The bombing of Japan was actually a very humane thing to do. It saved millions of lives (American and Japanese). The US implemented a concept called "total war" which means that they have to use any means necessary to destroy the opponent's ability to wage war. An invasion would have brought far more Japanese civilian casualties. The Japanese were not going to surrender until the Emperor told them to.

 

I make a distinction between attacking legitimate military targets and targetting civilians. And it really makes little difference to me or the dead civilians if those people wouldn't target civilians if they "knew their Buddha nature." The only place I could see this excercise in futility having a place is maybe in some overpriced Buddhist college classroom requiring folks to bang out a really hideous double spaced essay due three weeks from now.

4786[/snapback]

 

 

hear! hear!

[thelerner]

Good answer Lozen, I like a broad w/ brains and balls.

 

Hmmnn, well, uh, that didn't come out right.

 

I like a woman w/ brains and breasts and balls. NO no balls, just brains, breasts, dark eyes, soft mouth.. ah the list goes on and on.

 

Peas

 

Michael

[Lozen]

*blush*

 

Good answer Lozen,  I like a broad w/ brains and balls. 

 

Hmmnn, well, uh, that didn't come out right.

 

I like a woman w/ brains and breasts and balls.  NO no balls, just brains, breasts, dark eyes, soft mouth.. ah the list goes on and on. 

 

Peas

 

Michael

4808[/snapback]

[sean]

Yay! A good vs. evil vs. it's-all-one debate! Ok, I'll bite. I think there are certain words that are at such a high level of abstraction that it's very close to impossible, if not actually impossible, to sensibly debate using them. What one person means when they use the word "evil" or "God" or "love" is probably significantly different than another person. Worse, I think most people using these terms haven't even clearly defined them for themselves, so their own understanding itself will shift during a single argument. For this reason I believe that unless an enormous amount of time is dedicated to a meticulous preliminary establishment of these terms, arguing about wether they "exist" or not is just not productive. I mean, it can be fun, but it kind of reminds me of getting really drunk at a party and then doing a bunch of coke at around 4am, and suddenly it's dawn and you are out of your mind grinding your teeth with some yahoo you just met trying to tweak out a solution to world hunger.

 

That being said, here's my take anyway. "Good" and "evil" are words humans use to describe phenomenon from within a specific perceptual position, or context. Like all polarities, I believe it's likely there is a place or state within which they are a part of. Something larger that is the space that keeps them separate and contains them both. But at our level of manifestation, good and evil may be as distinct and real as the difference between you and I.

 

 

Sean.

[Cameron]

My present take on this is you either help things grow or you help destroy things. I really don't see it as being very complicated. In my daily dealings with people I have a moment to moment choice to either help the person grow or help bring them down.

 

So it's really, really simple . Not! It is way more challenging than that because you need a ton of wisdom which most people don't have to know how to help someone.

 

Or to help youself for that matter. We can be our own worst enemies and worst life assassing sometimes.

 

So, say I meet a girl that I find very beautiful but also very annoying. She has some things I like and some things I don't .As a shallow person I don't want to spend time with this person because I find little things she does to be self centered and annoying but maybe in a larger context she helps me to grow. Her so called personality flaws are really her perfection and I need to be with her and learn to accept people as they are.

 

Or a so called negative type person. a druggie..or a chain smoker .Someone who appears negative on the outside .They contantly offer me drugs or smokes .it seems bad. From another point of view this person is helping me by making me stand up for myself and my decisions in life..they are teaching me how to say no.

 

Some dude punches you in the face and that motivates you to start martial arts and teaches you discipline and focus. Some one steals you money because you are gullibale and that makes you assess yourself and become more responsible with money.

 

I mean the list goes on and on and on. I am thinking the Universe is not stupid. the universe has been around basically forever, right? Maybe all these things do happen to teach us lessons.

 

atleast that's how I hope it works. I like karma better than chaos. I am pretty certain there is a greater order to it All.

[BobD]

Always a difficult argument!

 

My stance is that in general "Good" and "Evil" are labels which can often only be applied long after the event, when all the consequences are known, as a deed initially thought to be evil can result (shortly or eventually) in desirable outcomes.

 

But you also have to consider the motives for the actions. Is a deed that resulted in good outcomes "good", if it was executed by someone with "evil" intentions, who was hoping for "bad" outcomes?

 

And, of course, what is good for one group of people is often/always bad for someone else, so (as with all labels) good and evil cannot be applied universally.

 

Having said that, although it is easy to be way too simplistic when looking at this, most of us can agree on what would be good or evil behaviour in "normal" life.

 

I am reminded of a short conversation between two characters in Stargate SG-1 (OK, so I'm a sci fi geek), when one of them (Daniel) is on the verge of death/transformation:

 

OMA

The universe is vast and we are so small. There is only one thing we can ever truly control.

 

DANIEL

What's that?

 

OMA

Whether we are good or evil.

 

Great episode, but always reminds me of my father's death, so I can never watch the last few minutes without being in floods.

[Lozen]

Warrior School always taught that ego + power = evil, that if you are using your power to serve your ego, that is evil. It really makes a lot of sense to me when I look at it that way, because I do think that ultimately it is best to serve others and not yourself. Having said that, they also teach (and I agree with this) that you only help people who are helping themselves, that you have to take care of yourself first, etc. And ideally this would be done within a community where everybody is doing it, so it's not just one person trying to take care of everybody else.

 

It just always makes me rack my brain when I meet people who think that not believing in good and evil somehow makes them more spiritual or puts them on a higher plane of existence. I mean really it puts them on the same level as all kinds of tyrants, and really I have a hard time trusting people who think there's no such thing as good or bad. Why would I invite them in my home? They might decide they want to rearrange all the furniture and take off with all my stuff. I mean, there's no good or bad, right? Luckily most people I've met that believe this are either a) too stoned or spaced out to actually do anything about it, rather than sit around and do nothing when a serious situation comes up other than say, "it's cool, man, it's cool" kind of like a kid getting attacked by a dog fawning, "nice doggie! nice doggie!" or only believe it in the most hypothetical/philosophical sense.

 

But really, I wonder how many people who think they are "spiritual" are really just in it for themselves. Are you using the skills you learn to serve yourself or others? Are you letting it flow through you and come out through your hands, words, intent? Or are you trying to hoard it for yourself? Who are you serving? Are you trying to help others, or are you trying to "gain merits" or improve nothing other than your own energy field, ego and sex life?

 

I wonder if this selfishness is why I meet so many "spiritual" people that are complete assholes--like a guy I met who had been doing yoga for 15 years. Total jerk. You;d think that FIFTEEN YEARS of HEART YOGA might make you actually have a more open heart. Only time I saw him being nice to someone was after a Buddhist talk where the speaker said we had to be nice to people we didn't like to accumulate merits and dedicate those merits toward finding our perfect spiritual partner, or some bullshit.

 

Having said that, one of my teachers, who is a very good person, tells me that order is good and extreme good is fascism, that extreme bad is apathy, that really it is necessary to have a balance. So I'm trying to reconcile these beliefs and to find a way my knowledge of good and evil can be explained in TCM...hence the Michael Winn quotes... but also I guess I would argue that things that I consider "evil" (like genocide) are extremely out of balance.

[Lozen]

Basically it boils down to, either you take out the rabid dogs, or you can sit around and pretend you are really really spiritual while watching innocent civilians all around you get taken out. You have a choice. This isn't about Hitler, it's about all of his victims. You might want to try thinking about them instead of about Hitler or Bin Laden's supposed uncovered Buddha nature. And this isn't about you or your spirituality or about what you find "illuminating." Try thinking outside of yourself and your own "spiritual journey" and maybe you will start to see the big picture.

 

Like I tried to explain, the dropping of A bombs in Japan happened when the US was involved in a world war and implemented total war, which means using any means necessary to destroy Japan's ability to wage war. The Germans were bombing london with V2s. There would have been FAR more civilian casualties if Japan was invaded, as Japan was fighting a "jihad" of their own. They were ready to fight to the person. The Emperor had to be shocked into surrender to avoid the terrible cost of a full-scale invasion. We used total war in Germany too, we firebombed Dresden, burned the entire city to the ground. Total war isn't a pretty concept, but like I said it saved perhaps millions of lives.

 

The reason I don't want to get in a philosophical argument about whether Hitler or Bin Laden has Buddha nature is because IT MEANS NOTHING to millions of dead civilians.

[hagar]

h

Edited May 25, 2009 by hagar

[rex]

Compassion isn't necessarily safe or meek and mild. As the line in the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe goes 'Alsan is not a safe lion'. Buddhism isn't necessarily fluffy and cosy either. Bodhisattava adepts may use any means whatsoever to alleviate suffering and liberate beings. The only thing is they are said to know the full consequences of their actions and the effects they'll have on those on who they operate. Most 'ordinary' buddhists of course don't fall into this category and if they did try to punch above their spiritual weight would end up just being like the bastards they're supposedly helping.

 

Here's a buddhist version of a second comming:

 

Bodhisattva Warriors

By Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche

 

Many great Buddhist masters have prophesied that centuries from now, when the forces of aggression amass on earth and no reason can turn them back, the kingdom of Shambhala will open its gates and its enlightened warriors will come forth into battle. Whoever they encounter will be given a choice--turn away from non virtue to virtue or, by direct, wrathful intervention, be liberated into a pure land beyond suffering.

 

A Buddhist story tells of a ferry captain whose boat was carrying five hundred bodhisattvas who were traveling in the guise of merchants. A robber on board planned to kill everyone and pirate the ship's cargo.

 

The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the man's murderous intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his motivation was utterly selfless.

 

Now, as I write this, the Middle East is inflamed with war. Watching the television news, I pray that this war will prevent greater wars, greater suffering, and that those opposed to war develop the skills to bring about authentic peace. We cannot fully discern the motivation of any participants involved in the conflict, but it is unlikely that many have the ability to bring about ultimate liberation for friends and enemies alike, or that they will be able to sustain the bodhisattva's impartial compassion as they engage in conflict.

 

What we can know is our own minds. We can adhere to Buddhist ideals in our activities, whether we are combatants, protestors, decision-makers or concerned witnesses. We can pray that whatever virtue there is in the situation prevails, that genuine peace be established. The Buddha has taught that throughout countless lifetimes all beings have been our parents and have shown us great kindness. Now they have fallen under the sway of the mind's poisons of desire, anger, ignorance, and they suffer terribly. Could we exclude any from our compassion any more than the sun could exclude any from the warmth and radiance of its rays.

 

As we aspire to peace, now and in the future cycles of our existence, we cannot deny the possibility that each of us may be confronted with the need for wrathful intervention in order to prevent greater harm. May the spiritual mining we undertake now allow us to enter such situations free from the delusions of the mind's poisons.

 

May we act with spontaneous compassion to bring ultimate liberation to all alike, both victims and aggressors.

 

 

Rex

[peter falk]

The reason I don't want to get in a philosophical argument about whether Hitler or Bin Laden has Buddha nature is because IT MEANS NOTHING to millions of dead civilians.

 

dang, bee-yotch. i don't know why, but this post really impressed upon me how far you've come on your journey in the last couple of years, and by gum, i just wanna tell ya! just keep doin whatever it is yer doin.

[Lozen]

[Lozen]

I think one can forgive without being an apologist.

[hagar]

h

Edited May 25, 2009 by hagar

[sean]

So I'm trying to reconcile these beliefs ...

 

It does sound like you are simply struggling with the normal and ongoing process of formulating and committing yourself to a coherent set of beliefs belief regarding good and evil. A worthy cause. And probably one that continues your whole life. I do think people are probably on the wrong track when they think their beliefs on good and evil can neatly fit in a little religious comic book. Just keep asking the big questions and don't settle for anything less than what you know in your heart is true.

 

 

Peace,

Sean.

[sean]

Apologist?

 

I think I am going to leave this discussion with the question:

 

Why do I have the feeling that I am talking complete non-sense to everyone here?

 

This is actually the first time that I have tried to hold a view that reality is much more complex than our preception of it, and met with disbelief.

 

Interesting.

 

So long.

4833[/snapback]

Hey Hagar, for what it's worth I thought your posts were excellent and that you brought up a lot of very insightful points.