Scholar

Are there evil master?

Recommended Posts

in the grand scheme of things, nearly impossible becomes very impossible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

there is no chance, not if creation is ever-expanding.

 

An evil person ( someone whose desire to destroy and/or steal brings them pleasure ) will always be in a pit of their own making.  The best a person can do ( if they choose to destroy or steal ) is to operate in the Grey, and then it's theoretically possible to take benefit and pleasure away from another individual without creating a pit for themselves.  But it seems to me this is a very narrow bridge/tight-rope to walk on.

 

I have never seen a contrary example.   Perhaps there are examples out there, but I simply cannot see them nor am I influenced by them.  Because of this they are easy to ignore and hard to call "Masters".

 

Immortals are another topic all together.  imho.

 

 

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 3:37 PM, freeform said:

because they’ve never been in a position where their real internal moral compass is tested. We’re just afraid of doing ‘bad’ because we’ll be punished

 

Its very common with sexual addictions and money corruptions. People believe they are saint, well reserved, without flaws.

 

Just because they never truly had any real sexual energy boiling inside or because they simply don't interact with large rivers of money.

 

When someone works for 1000$ a month his whole life to barely be able to cover basic expenses, and suddenly gets an offer to become a famous, significant figure in the society and get 5-10-20$ millions dollars, just for supporting and voicing for a certain "political views" or closing eyes "on certain crimes", quite a majority would take that offer. Even if they spend criticizing such people day and night.

 

But its all there for a reason and is all a very good test and hot ironing of the spirit. If spirit gets trapped in insignificant sensations its hard to reach a higher mountain and have a bigger view on the world itself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 1:50 PM, old3bob said:

evil is willful diabolical ego and malice opposing Dharma...such ego can steal, hold and corrupt a great deal of energy to increase its dark self while harming or destroying innocents (who loose their protection) or fools (who think they know better)  in denial of such devouring hunger...that's a heads up folks!

 

Ego.. could be defined as evil at certain extent.

 

But if someone eats you alive and its a wild beast is it evil? Probably not, thats just laws of nature, thats how the world works.

 

Most "evil people" I have seen were sad beings with broken energy fields and possessed by larvaes from the lower world, they just had no control over their actions in life and were obsessed with harming and torturing other living things, because larvae's would feed on those toxic energies of pain, suffering, and fear.

 

Lack of control over oneself might be evil? But then pretty much everyone has evil inside them despite how much you believe you are nice guys all around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

Ego.. could be defined as evil at certain extent.

 

But if someone eats you alive and its a wild beast is it evil? Probably not, thats just laws of nature, thats how the world works.

 

Most "evil people" I have seen were sad beings with broken energy fields and possessed by larvaes from the lower world, they just had no control over their actions in life and were obsessed with harming and torturing other living things, because larvae's would feed on those toxic energies of pain, suffering, and fear.

 

Lack of control over oneself might be evil? But then pretty much everyone has evil inside them despite how much you believe you are nice guys all around.

 

May I most respectfully draw this distinction?

 

In the above examples:  you are equating human behavior with animal behavior and with larvae behavior.

 

A Human has choice, larvae and animal do not.  Choice is what drives karma and arguably the entire tension between light and dark depend on it.

 

That is why good and evil are useful concepts in this context.  The Eternal Dao includes Karma, and Karma requires choice.

 

Therefore animal and larvae behavior are irrelevant, with all due respect.  The subject is human behavior, not animal nor larvae.

 

Edited by Daniel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

May I most respectfully draw this distinction?

 

In the above examples:  you are equating human behavior with animal behavior and with larvae behavior.

 

A Human has choice, larvae and animal do not.  Choice is what drives karma and arguably the entire tension between light and dark depend on it.

 

That is why good and evil are useful concepts in this context.  The Eternal Dao includes Karma, and Karma requires choice.

 

Therefore animal and larvae behavior are irrelevant, with all due respect.  The subject is human behavior, not animal nor larvae.

 

 

Human is an animal.


Edit. I do believe we have a potential to evolve from being an animal, like a caterpillar into butterfly, into some different species, mb without any physical body, or with different fundamentals.

 

But that is something I have not seen or experienced personally.

Edited by SongShuhang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We certainly have an animal nature... but according to Daoism we as humans also have something an animal doesn’t - a Hun... This is the aspect of our self that transmigrates after death and affects our Ming (equivalent in some respects to karma)...

 

So even though we might have some animal drives, we also have a responsibility for our actions.

 

If our virtue is based on law or custom then it’s not really virtue because when you’re placed in a situation where law or custom don’t apply (or are inherently anti-virtuous) you might find yourself able to do the most horrendous acts that you had never imagined you were capable of. 
 

If your virtue is based on choice and integrity then you’re likely to do the virtuous thing even when that is the hardest choice and goes against the grain. Such as whistle-blowing at a company... refusing to take part in atrocities during war or conflict... 

 

This echoes the famous Milgram Experiment - where participants were willing to effectively electrocute someone to death because someone in a lab coat told them to... roughly 70% of people did... 

 

This is an example of one’s morals being tested... and 70% failed... Of course everyone’s tendency is to think that of course I wouldn’t have failed - but that’s clearly not the case... Only 30% had the inner strength and integrity to do the right thing in the situation - this is what’s called ‘inferior virtue’ in Daoism...

 

Why inferior? We’ve had a discussion about this already. But effectively it’s inferior because it’s contrived.

 

Superior virtue is exceptionally rare - it’s just a spontaneous virtue - not requiring any strength and integrity - simply because it’s automatic - there’s no internal fight between the ‘animal’ self and the virtuous self. Virtuous behaviour just comes out with no drama.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

Human is an animal.

respectfully, Human is not *only* animal.

 

However, I cannot fault your logic or any other's who disagree.

 

When I see a human, I see more than animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SongShuhang said:

But that is something I have not seen or experienced personally.

For me, it's visible as a flash, not as a constant.

 

Look for it like looking for the moment when a pendulum is in equilibrium.  The non-animal Humanity flashes past... then is gone, then is back, then is gone....

 

At least that's how it is for me.  I often behave like an animal, but it's not something I'm proud of.   

 

I'm not trying to preach at you, my friend.  Just sharing.  Just sharing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@freeform , 

 

A comment:  May I politely add:  In addition to the Milgram Experiment, further support for the point you are making can be found in the BrownEyes, BlueEyes social experiment done in America immediately following the assassination of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  It is another well documented case study in how easy it is to manipulate human moral values and ethics based on subjective superficial criteria.

 

Here is a youtube link to the PBS Documentary on the subject.  It's long but well done:  ( link ).

 

edit to add:  if there are problems viewing this documentary due to international licensing problems on youtube, please let me know via private message and I will locate a link that works for your locality.

 

Edited by Daniel
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, freeform said:

We certainly have an animal nature... but according to Daoism we as humans also have something an animal doesn’t - a Hun... This is the aspect of our self that transmigrates after death and affects our Ming (equivalent in some respects to karma)...

 

So even though we might have some animal drives, we also have a responsibility for our actions.

 

If our virtue is based on law or custom then it’s not really virtue because when you’re placed in a situation where law or custom don’t apply (or are inherently anti-virtuous) you might find yourself able to do the most horrendous acts that you had never imagined you were capable of. 
 

If your virtue is based on choice and integrity then you’re likely to do the virtuous thing even when that is the hardest choice and goes against the grain. Such as whistle-blowing at a company... refusing to take part in atrocities during war or conflict... 

 

This echoes the famous Milgram Experiment - where participants were willing to effectively electrocute someone to death because someone in a lab coat told them to... roughly 70% of people did... 

 

This is an example of one’s morals being tested... and 70% failed... Of course everyone’s tendency is to think that of course I wouldn’t have failed - but that’s clearly not the case... Only 30% had the inner strength and integrity to do the right thing in the situation - this is what’s called ‘inferior virtue’ in Daoism...

 

Why inferior? We’ve had a discussion about this already. But effectively it’s inferior because it’s contrived.

 

Superior virtue is exceptionally rare - it’s just a spontaneous virtue - not requiring any strength and integrity - simply because it’s automatic - there’s no internal fight between the ‘animal’ self and the virtuous self. Virtuous behaviour just comes out with no drama.

 

Reminds me of a Vedic story I was literally just sharing with someone earlier, about the Narayan mantra. 

 

The story goes is that it was a very precious gift, and the master demanded his student never use it or teach it to anyone. 

 

The student, however, wandered out into the battlefield because of the ongoing wars and conflicts of the time, and in spite of his master's instructions, sat and began using it because of its power to end all conflict and war, which moved the combatants to tears. 

 

The master appeared, angry, swearing he would punish the student for his impunity as he had warned him. The student, sorrowfully but defiantly, said that he would be willing to suffer anything if it meant bringing peace and ending the cycle of violence of brother killing brother and depriving mothers of their children. Whatever punishment, he would gladly endure it if it meant peace.

 

The master then smiled and held his student up proudly, saying that this was a test to see the student's true character and was glad that his student passed exactly as he had hoped. 

 

Om Namo Narayanaya.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ultimate evil is the ultimate test for goodness beyond the point of slipping back...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We are totally fucked

Edited by welkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, welkin said:

We are totally fucked

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Why?

 

Because AI is here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Daniel said:

respectfully, Human is not *only* animal.

 

However, I cannot fault your logic or any other's who disagree.

 

When I see a human, I see more than animal.

 

 

When humans loose the bonds that make them more than animals  ..... they behave much  more worse than animals .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 2:05 PM, Nungali said:

 

 

When humans loose the bonds that make them more than animals  ..... they behave much  more worse than animals .

 

The only other option would be like Aliens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, welkin said:

 

The only other option would be like Aliens?

 

No . 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2020 at 6:05 PM, helpfuldemon said:

There is no duality, you can have good without evil.  We only compare the two because they are opposites.  They arent reliant upon one another to reach understanding.

 

On 7/7/2020 at 7:09 PM, Earl Grey said:

 

A view that is cute--but doesn't hold light when challenging Taoist philosophy on a Taoist site. 

 

You might be referring to polarity more than duality. 


If I am understanding what helpfuldemon was pointing towards, a case could be made using chapter 38 of the tic,
 

Quote

A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.

A truly good man does nothing,
Yet nothing is left undone.
A foolish man is always doing,
Yet much remains to be done

When a truly kind man does something, he leaves nothing undone.
When a just man does something, he leaves a great deal to be done.
When a disciplinarian does something and no one responds,
He rolls up his sleeves in an attempt to enforce order

Therefore when Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is kindness.
When kindness is lost, there is justice.
When justice is lost, there is ritual.
Now ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion.
Knowledge of the future is only a flowery trapping of the Tao.
It is the beginning of folly.

Therefore the truly great man dwells on what is real
     and not what is on the surface,
On the fruit and not the flower,
Therefore accept the one and reject the other.


and with pointing towards the “truly good” you seem to also point towards in a following post:

 

On 7/8/2020 at 12:26 PM, Earl Grey said:

 

Also: look into anthropology and child psychology—babies are already inherently compassionate and altruistic, as it is the default state and also parallel to Confucius believing man is inherently good. There are more benefits from helping others and forming a hive mind and collective good rather than tribal mentality of separatism.


And it could (from one perspective) be argued using chapter 2:

 

Quote

Under Heaven all can see beauty as beauty only because there is ugliness.
All can know good as good only because there is evil.

Therefore having and not having arise together.
Difficult and easy complement each other.
Long and short contrast with each other;
High and low rest upon each other;
Voice and sound harmonize each other;
Front and back follow one another.

Therefore the sage goes about doing nothing, teaching no talking.
The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
Creating, yet not possessing,
Working, yet not taking credit,
Work is done, then forgotten.
Therefore it lasts for ever.


Although I think both chapters refer to ideas of goodness in juxtaposition to natural action which may appear “good” from an outside perspective - a natural goodness the sage holds no concept of, and which could then be said to be beyond duality. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do actions, some of them are good, and some of them are evil, but they do not have to have one or the other to compare for them to exist.  Actions can be good without having an opposite; we declare what is good because it is good, not because its opposite exists to define it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

No . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

like hue-mans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

If I am understanding what helpfuldemon was pointing towards, a case could be made using chapter 38 of the tic,

May I respectfully disagree?

 

The polarity/duality is in Chapter 38?  Isn't it?  It's between good vs folly.

 

If I understood @helpfuldemon's words ( see below ) the argument being made is "there is no duality" but chapter 38 does not say that at all.  It begins and ends describing the opposing inner motivational conflict between goodness and ignorance ( aka folly ).  chapter 38 encourages goodness.  That is not what is reflected in the words below.  Do you disagree?

 

 

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Although I think both chapters refer to ideas of goodness in juxtaposition to natural action which may appear “good” from an outside perspective - a natural goodness the sage holds no concept of, and which could then be said to be beyond duality.

Right.  Please pardon the interruption,

 

But the very fact that non-duality can be compared to duality is, in-and-of-itself by definition 'duality'.  There is no way around it, from my perspective.  There is a duality in The Eternal Dao.  It's all over the DDJ, isn't it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the beginning, things just are.  It takes experience to find that things arent that way- and that is when we start to compare them, and decide on the idea that there is duality.  There is no duality, things just are- and as it goes, things arent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites