Is it the duty of a Taoist to protect Nature?

[Golden Dragon Shining]

"None of those things separates us from nature." + "Theres no inherent morality in nature."

If Man is an extension of Nature, Nature must be moral for Man has always pondered morality.

Man only suffers when working against Nature, does that not indicate right and wrong?

To be healthy and so strong and happy is surely a good thing?

 

Edited July 14, 2016 by Sionnach

[dawei]

In our housing development, there are units with a bevy of beautiful flowers...  We have boxes where we allow a kaleidoscope of growth.  I'm amazed at what the dirt is holding and willing to grow forth, and flower in its own way.

 

Dao unfolds as nature but doesn't attempt any protection because it infuses life with all outcomes.    Thus, the earth and its vegetation simply seeks to sprout.

 

Animals, as do most vegetation, seek to survive and reproduce. 

 

Man, also seeks to survive and reproduce... but evolved to be mini-creators and thus we have concentric circles of 'creation' going on. 

 

Mankind's ability to create stuff is powered by two parts:  Dao and [sense of] Self.   Sense of Dao has slowly decreased with an increase in the sense of self.   

[Geof Nanto]

From David Cooper's Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective.......

 

It is because Daoist self-cultivation is not focused on the 'inner' rather than the 'outer' that it requires an appropriate attunement and comportment towards the natural world. Engagements with nature help to secure the moral space – the arena in which to develop virtue – which Daoists hope to occupy. This is why the metaphor of Daoists as gardeners of the world – as cultivators of personal landscapes – is an apt one.

 

While Daoists engage with natural environments, their engagement is also a retreat – not from an 'outer' to an 'inner' world, but from a frenzied world of activity and ambition to a quieter haven. From this haven, they have no illusions about 'saving the planet'. Like one distinguished nature writer, they eschew "plans for reorganisation and reconstruction". But, also like him, they will want to reduce somewhat the level of suffering where they encounter it and, more generally, to serve in small, local and undramatic ways to protect and enhance the natural environments with which they engage. In doing so, they live naturally or spontaneously, for their actions are not dictated by principles and plans, but are mindful and pliant responses to the situations and contexts they encounter.

[Albion]

Dear Daoist Friends,

 

   I find Daoism to be a real alternative to the destruction that we and qw

[Albion]

​I find Daoism to be a real alternative to the destruction of our world.

 

Everywhere that we look we find the natural world being destroyed. I honestly believe that Daoism is maybe the only spirituality that offers a choice to the on going destruction of our natural, and man made world.

 

I know that the neo-pagans feel that they are an alternative too, but I found way too many power trips within that system of thinking.

 

No offense meant here to anyone, I want to be clear about that. Thanks.

 

Peace, Differently Abled Daoist

 

 

 

 

 

 

From David Cooper's Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective.......

 

It is because Daoist self-cultivation is not focused on the 'inner' rather than the 'outer' that it requires an appropriate attunement and comportment towards the natural world. Engagements with nature help to secure the moral space – the arena in which to develop virtue – which Daoists hope to occupy. This is why the metaphor of Daoists as gardeners of the world – as cultivators of personal landscapes – is an apt one.

 

While Daoists engage with natural environments, their engagement is also a retreat – not from an 'outer' to an 'inner' world, but from a frenzied world of activity and ambition to a quieter haven. From this haven, they have no illusions about 'saving the planet'. Like one distinguished nature writer, they eschew "plans for reorganisation and reconstruction". But, also like him, they will want to reduce somewhat the level of suffering where they encounter it and, more generally, to serve in small, local and undramatic ways to protect and enhance the natural environments with which they engage. In doing so, they live naturally or spontaneously, for their actions are not dictated by principles and plans, but are mindful and pliant responses to the situations and contexts they encounter.

[dust]

The 'protection of nature' is an odd idea. As has been said, the natural world -- i.e. everything that exists -- doesn't need protection. It cannot be protected. It would have to protect itself from itself -- like water preventing itself from splashing itself.

 

Then again, aspects of wild life on this planet could be better taken care of. We could, in theory, stop being destructive and start being protective. Or just inert.

 

At the moment, we are the one species of plant or animal life most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, pollution of land air and water, mass de-populaion of various other species, and brutal treatment of various other species. Among other things. Even deadly species of bacteria, and other organisms like cancer, can't beat us on variety and scale of death and destruction.

 

Some people see humans as the creators, caretakers, protectors, etc. But in reality we are just another destroyer.

[Stosh]

The oxygen we breathe is waste product from bacteria. This highly destructive gas, killed everything that couldnt adapt to it, modified the atmosphere to such a degree, it altered the chemical make up of even the stones themselves,,for so long, that new life had to develop which could use it.

This idea that humanity stands alone as being destructive and bad, is basically a form of self loathing. The climate change happening could be attributed to natural or human processes.. which doesnt matter one bit,, the self loathing thing ,becomes an escape from taking action preventing drastic change to the planet we enjoy as it currently is.

Which is the important thing. We like it as it IS Or HAS BEEN, and should take steps to keep it that way.

Nature doesnt give a shit about either us OR polar bears. Thats OUR potential contribution to the stewardship of the planet. The days are gone when we could just let nature entirely run its own show.Collectively we need to take an active interest or we and the life on this planet is in for a horrendous collapse. ... but no, you just go rightt ahead and whine about how BAD us humans are, and how kind nature is.

[Stosh]

Oh, and while youre at it, look around and check out how successful the self hatred thing has been so far. ....NOT!

Personally,however, I dont think humanity is emotionally ready for the collective power we could weild. Abilities are only well put to use when spiritually ones head is screwed on correctly. We are going over that cliff folks , because we choose not to row together, having evolved to think the way we do,and strive against each other more than aanything else! That challenge inflated our brains to the point where ability or vision isnt the weak link.

Its encouraging to see in some of these posts, some similar sentiments, and its nice not to be sure about the doom and gloom prophecies.Its one of those times when I hope to be proven wrong...

Edited July 15, 2016 by Stosh

[Rara]

Man only suffers when working against Nature, does that not indicate right and wrong?

 

 

 

I'm not convinced. Depending on your definition of nature, that is.

 

But while I see a trend of capitalism and engineering as "unnatural", I must say, my car provides me with as much joy as it does suffering. So it's not all that bad XD

[Rara]

The oxygen we breathe is waste product from bacteria. This highly destructive gas, killed everything that couldnt adapt to it, modified the atmosphere to such a degree, it altered the chemical make up of even the stones themselves,,for so long, that new life had to develop which could use it.

This idea that humanity stands alone as being destructive and bad, is basically a form of self loathing. The climate change happening could be attributed to natural or human processes.. which doesnt matter one bit,, the self loathing thing ,becomes an escape from taking action preventing drastic change to the planet we enjoy as it currently is.

Which is the important thing. We like it as it IS Or HAS BEEN, and should take steps to keep it that way.

Nature doesnt give a shit about either us OR polar bears. Thats OUR potential contribution to the stewardship of the planet. The days are gone when we could just let nature entirely run its own show.Collectively we need to take an active interest or we and the life on this planet is in for a horrendous collapse. ... but no, you just go rightt ahead and whine about how BAD us humans are, and how kind nature is.

Yes. And while we think we're killing the planet, we're actually saying this in fear that it will just wipe us out.

 

Well, if that happens, we did it to ourselves. But the planet will be just fine in the long run. It's a lil bit greater than we are. Unless some scientist-evil-genius develops a fantastic weapon, sends it to outer space and fires it at the earth but that seems like a waste of energy to anyone.

[Rara]

We are going over that cliff folks , because we choose not to row together, having evolved to think the way we do,and strive against each other more than aanything else!

I'm not sure if you followed it, but the UK's EU Referrendum farce is a perfect example of where humans stand when it comes to the whole "rowing together" idea.

[Golden Dragon Shining]

From David Cooper's Convergence with Nature: A Daoist Perspective.......

 

It is because Daoist self-cultivation is not focused on the 'inner' rather than the 'outer' that it requires an appropriate attunement and comportment towards the natural world. Engagements with nature help to secure the moral space – the arena in which to develop virtue – which Daoists hope to occupy. This is why the metaphor of Daoists as gardeners of the world – as cultivators of personal landscapes – is an apt one.

 

While Daoists engage with natural environments, their engagement is also a retreat – not from an 'outer' to an 'inner' world, but from a frenzied world of activity and ambition to a quieter haven. From this haven, they have no illusions about 'saving the planet'. Like one distinguished nature writer, they eschew "plans for reorganisation and reconstruction". But, also like him, they will want to reduce somewhat the level of suffering where they encounter it and, more generally, to serve in small, local and undramatic ways to protect and enhance the natural environments with which they engage. In doing so, they live naturally or spontaneously, for their actions are not dictated by principles and plans, but are mindful and pliant responses to the situations and contexts they encounter.

Seems more like an excuse to do little while the very air we breath becomes poison.

 

 

So Taoism is equal to Buddhism in it's apathy?

 

 

Edited July 16, 2016 by Sionnach

[Golden Dragon Shining]

I'm not convinced. Depending on your definition of nature, that is.

 

But while I see a trend of capitalism and engineering as "unnatural", I must say, my car provides me with as much joy as it does suffering. So it's not all that bad XD

Cars are just making people obese, cancerous and indebted. The other day I saw a morbidly obese man driving a luxury sports car, funny hm?

[Rara]

Cars are just making people obese, cancerous and indebted. The other day I saw a morbidly obese man driving a luxury sports car, funny hm?

That's a generalisation. There's plenty of skinny people about who drive day in, day out and don't have cancer. I'm not saying they won't cause/contribute towards cancer, and if all you do is sit in your car eating McDonalds then sure, I see your point. But we can enjoy these things if we are sensible with them.

 

Unfortunaely, the big thing in the world is to own a car so it can get you to your 9-5. That's not the best use of time and resources!

[dust]

The oxygen we breathe is waste product from bacteria. This highly destructive gas, killed everything that couldnt adapt to it, modified the atmosphere to such a degree, it altered the chemical make up of even the stones themselves,,for so long, that new life had to develop which could use it.

This idea that humanity stands alone as being destructive and bad, is basically a form of self loathing. The climate change happening could be attributed to natural or human processes.. which doesnt matter one bit,, the self loathing thing ,becomes an escape from taking action preventing drastic change to the planet we enjoy as it currently is.

Which is the important thing. We like it as it IS Or HAS BEEN, and should take steps to keep it that way.

Nature doesnt give a shit about either us OR polar bears. Thats OUR potential contribution to the stewardship of the planet. The days are gone when we could just let nature entirely run its own show.Collectively we need to take an active interest or we and the life on this planet is in for a horrendous collapse. ... but no, you just go rightt ahead and whine about how BAD us humans are, and how kind nature is.

 

I assume you're directing this at me.

 

I did not say that bacteria are not destructive, I did not say that humans alone are destructive, I did not promote absence of action, and I did not say that nature is kind. If you were directing this at me, you've missed the mark on every point.

 

Yes, bacteria are destructive. But right now, the variety and scale of destruction humans are wreaking is far, far greater. Most bacteria promote health and are necessary for us and other multicellular organisms to function. Humans are not necessary for any other life to function, in the same way that bears are not necessary. Most species are not necessary, but bacteria are fundamental to life on this planet.

 

No, humans are certainly not the only destructive force. The Earth itself destroys and creates -- earthquakes, floods, etc. Other species destroy -- plague, disease, etc. But none, in modern times -- the last few thousand years -- have come as close as we are getting to producing mass-extinction and a shift in the environment, and no species in history has ever actually had the ability to perceive the destruction and do something about it. We have that ability, in theory, but still we continue to destroy (and whine about how we're not the only destroyers so it's OK).

 

I did not say we should do nothing. This so-called "self-loathing" is simply a recognition of reality. Of course I believe we should make changes. I've made many in my own life in recent years. I wish others would, too. Most people I know are intent on making no changes and, in many cases, still consistently whining about the state of things.

 

Nature is neither kind nor cruel. It's just what it is. But humans can be kind. If we chose, we could genuinely be the protectors/stewards that so many people falsely believe we already are.

 

What's going to change if people refuse to accept the reality? If people like you whine about people like me complaining about the destruction that humans wreak, refusing to acknowledge it, pretending like it's MY fault that things are fucked up, when you're sticking your head in the sand and pretending that all we need to do is stop "self-loathing" and everything will be OK...?

[dust]

Yes. And while we think we're killing the planet, we're actually saying this in fear that it will just wipe us out.

 

Well, if that happens, we did it to ourselves. But the planet will be just fine in the long run. It's a lil bit greater than we are. Unless some scientist-evil-genius develops a fantastic weapon, sends it to outer space and fires it at the earth but that seems like a waste of energy to anyone.

 

This Carlin-esque talk that "the planet will be fine" I find quite unhelpful.

 

When people talk of "destroying the planet", if taken literally it's obviously not true. The planet itself is beyond even our destructive force. But it's just an imprecise figure of speech, and not one that should distract us from the reality: They mean that the beautiful world that we inhabit, the environment that gave us life, is gradually being destroyed. And this is absolutely true.

 

I really love this planet. I love the whole thing, including the destruction. I don't hate humans any more than I hate bacteria or polar bears. And I love what humans can do; I love a large part of humanity. But I am thoroughly fed up with humans. We're really fucking things up, for ourselves and others.

[Rara]

This Carlin-esque talk that "the planet will be fine" I find quite unhelpful.

 

When people talk of "destroying the planet", if taken literally it's obviously not true. The planet itself is beyond even our destructive force. But it's just an imprecise figure of speech, and not one that should distract us from the reality: They mean that the beautiful world that we inhabit, the environment that gave us life, is gradually being destroyed. And this is absolutely true.

 

I really love this planet. I love the whole thing, including the destruction. I don't hate humans any more than I hate bacteria or polar bears. And I love what humans can do; I love a large part of humanity. But I am thoroughly fed up with humans. We're really fucking things up, for ourselves and others.

Oh absolutely - I think I posted an elaboration a bit lower down. It wasn't to be taken as a "well fuck it, if we all die the planet survives so there" *blows raspberry* That's pretty negati e too. However, it is the other extreme countering, and balancing out, some of the talk of industrial machinery being all out evil.

 

But I don't think getting rid of cars, nuclear power or whatever is the be all end all. Humanity is taking measures to protect nature too. Maybe not enough, but from governments to nature trusts to solar panel companies...it's not all bad.

[dust]

Oh absolutely - I think I posted an elaboration a bit lower down. It wasn't to be taken as a "well fuck it, if we all die the planet survives so there" *blows raspberry*

 

Yeah, sorry. I don't know you well, but I know you better than that. I was just in a bad mood.

 

Visiting this site tends to put me in one these days. I should really stop.

 

 

But I don't think getting rid of cars, nuclear power or whatever is the be all end all. Humanity is taking measures to protect nature too. Maybe not enough, but from governments to nature trusts to solar panel companies...it's not all bad.

 

Sure, we have lots of well-intentioned people along with all the apathetic / selfish ones.

 

I think it's a certain slice of humanity which is taking those steps to protect our environment, try and stop/reverse the damage, and often people with power/influence are at the forefront, which is good. But all in all they / we are still a minority. The majority continues to be ignorant, whether willfully or not.

[steve]

The planet itself is beyond even our destructive force. 

 

I have wondered about that...

If we're not capable of planeticide yet, I imagine it will be in our future.

[liminal_luke]

I´m not sure if I´m onboard with the phrasing "duty to protect."  With responsibility comes rules which are either upheld or broken, and all the judgements that go with that.  That way of thinking seems contrary to nature to me: and how can we protect nature if we´re working from an unnatural mindset?

 

We can start with ourselves.  When our spirit is calm and centered, why would we harm the natural world?  Why would we harm each other?  It´s natural to be loving.  It´s natural to want the best for others.  When we are in harmony ourselves, everything else falls into place -- not because we are fulfilling some externally imposed duty, but because we are true to our own natures.

Edited July 18, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Jim D.]

As a person charged with patients in my care, I am bound by the Hippocratic Oath 'to do no harm." It becomes a legal issue in the act of malpractice when there is evidence of  negligent professional activity.

 

I am also have a "duty to warn" my client if I have first hand knowledge that this person may be in imminent danger. I can be held liabel for not following through with the warning.

 

Therefore if I am saying I am a professiona, than I must behave as a professional.

 

In the matter of a Doaist having a dutiful obligation to protect the enviornment, I would say that there is no obligation, or compeling argument that they do so.

 

Now if we look at protecting our enviornment as a moral obligation, then I would say yes, because Daoist purport to say that they are in harmony with nature, or the nature of things. It would seem contradictory to their mission to say it is O.K. not to pick up a piece of paper, or not skim a polluted river, or throw a McDonalds hamburger carton in the bushes. To me, they would be nothing than "the Fool on the Hill."

[Ell]

This guy in this discussion group I used to attend would always use the simile "like an ant trying to understand a computer." And that kind of sums up how I feel about me trying to protect nature.

[Walker]

http://www.arcworld.org/faiths.asp?pageID=70

[Rara]

 

Yeah, sorry. I don't know you well, but I know you better than that. I was just in a bad mood.

 

Visiting this site tends to put me in one these days. I should really stop.

 

 

 

Sure, we have lots of well-intentioned people along with all the apathetic / selfish ones.

 

I think it's a certain slice of humanity which is taking those steps to protect our environment, try and stop/reverse the damage, and often people with power/influence are at the forefront, which is good. But all in all they / we are still a minority. The majority continues to be ignorant, whether willfully or not.

It happens. I usually restrict myself to the text studies now but couldn't help but chime in on this thread. It's like a bad sugar addiction - I've said all I've needed to say in past threads then I find myself coming back and repeating myself for the sake of new threads and readers haha. With that comes less passion, and I suppose my clarity therefore slips.

 

Glad we cleared that one up.

 

But good point in the majority/minority thing. But I guess there's another angle: how much do I really know about the environment being sat behind a computer screen?

[vonkrankenhaus]

Re:

-----

"This idea that humanity stands alone as being destructive and bad, is basically a form of self loathing."

-----

 

True. One that has been positioned in media and education to distract from the true cause of so much destruction.

 

Let's face it - "humanity" didn't naturally just decide to wreck everything in its path.

 

A very few humans have artificially produced a mass of "humans" and specifically threatened and bribed them into doing their bidding.

 

Using techniques developed from a few thousand years of animal husbandry and domestication.

 

To have these "humans" build for them all it will take to control all life on the planet.

 

And they have just about done it. Very close so far.

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus