Hi HupGerk,
Thank you for your latest post. It was very informative and I appreciate the tone with which it was intended. I intend to respond to the questions of your previous posts, but before I do let me say that I feel you have misinterpreted my intentions. It was my original intention to provide a bit of guidance to FT. He insists that others are intentionally offending him and uses this to justify his inappropriate behavior. He has repeatedly mischaracterized what I have written and some others as well. One may fairly ask what gives me the right to insinuate my idea of guidance onto another. Well, if I am walking along and I see a blind man nearly walking off a cliff I feel it is my duty to intervene. He may not understand my intentions and be offended at the manner in which I treat him, but the intent of my actions are as a benefit and not to do harm. If the man insists on walking in the same direction then it is irresponsible of me to just let him go. He is not aware of his impending doom. You may feel I have been unduly harsh. That is a fair comment and as you might imagine I disagree and believe you have not read ALL my posts carefully enough. Having said all this it must be remembered that even good intentions may, at times go, awry.
In response to your previously posted questions:
For someone who claims to be true daoist, you are sure quick to claim your view as superior. A more civilized language doesn’t change that fact.
I have not stated this and I have not implied it either. If you drew this conclusion it was because you assumed it. I am always happy to reply to questions so to be fair I would rather you had asked me if I consider myself a Taoist and what principles I adhere too. You have sort of done so in a rather indirect manner and that is why I am responding. The answer would be no! I consider myself a student of Tao, but NOT a Taoist. There is a difference and I am not merely mincing words. But that is a topic or another post.
Ok Scott R. Brown, so please explain the proper conduct of a daoist, from your own point of view?
If Dao exists then we are all part of it, like it or not.
If Dao exists then rape, murder, war, death, cancer, AIDS, bad cooking and TV-commericals are also part of it, like it or not.
And swearing too.
To repeat I was never critical of FT’s anger or his swearing, I even validated his right to his own feelings. I only criticized his name calling.
In your own words, based on your own understanding or as passed on to you from your teachers (since I assume that you are in some lineage with daoist roots), what is the proper conduct of a daoist? If you can claim that some of us aren’t living up to the standard, then what is the standard against which you are judging us?
I did not say anyone was not living up to the proper conduct of a Taoist. I said FT’s behavior is not following the principles of Tao. He claimed to “be” the Tao. I did not. To be fair you should be asking him the same questions you are asking me. I feel it is fair to assume that is someone claims to be the Tao they should have a reasonable idea of what that means and appropriate conduct. He has not demonstrated this so I called him on it, that is all.
In general terms here is my view:
Many students of Tao approach questions of right and wrong from the common relativistic view. It is not unusual to find this view in novice students of Tao. There is no basis for it found in the principles Tao. It is the foundation of secular humanism however, and it is from this source that relativism has wormed its way into modern thinking. Relativism’s basic premise is the principle is that “all Truth is relative”. This premise is then used to justify all sorts of inappropriate behavior as you and FT seem to be doing. This premise is very easy to disprove and I will disprove it three ways.
The first is the easiest. If we make the statement that, “right and wrong are relative therefore no absolutes exist” we are making an absolute statement. Since this is an absolute statement, then absolutes actually do exist. Therefore, right and wrong are “not” always relative. We can then say that at least sometimes right and wrong are absolutes.
The second argument against relativism is based upon a “correct” understanding of Lao Tzu and the Tao Te Ching. One of the most common statements in support of relativism amongst students of Tao is that the statement in the Tao Te Ching that “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.” This implies to some that, since Tao cannot be identified (named) it cannot be said what it is or isn’t. If we can’t say what it is who is to judge what is “correct” Taoist behavior? Well the problem here is the statement is misunderstood. If the Tao cannot be named than why would Lao Tzu write an entire treatise on something that cannot be explained or identified. If Tao cannot be identified then Lao Tzu is violating his first principle by writing the Tao Te Ching. Lao Tzu as well as Chuang Tzu write extensively then about something that cannot be written about and therefore we have no cause to read anything written by them as they are writing about what they cannot know about. Since they do write about Tao we may presume Tao is knowable and understandable.
The correct interpretation is: It isn’t that Tao cannot be known, it is that it cannot be comprehensively communicated to another. Therefore, it is indicate by pointing to it and using negative statements such as “no that is not it”! It is a false presumption that Tao cannot be known. When Lao Tzu says, “He who says he knows, knows not; he who says he knows not, knows”, he means that there is no plumbing the depths of Tao. Tao cannot be “completely” known, but if it were unknowable we couldn’t even discuss it in the least bit.
Further the Tao Te Ching is filled with statements defining proper conduct. If there were no such thing as proper conduct within the principles of Tao, then Lao Tzu could not fairly state any proper conduct. Since he does, there are parameters of proper conduct found within the principles of Tao.
The third argument against relativism is the Yin-Yang argument. All things occur in contrast to something else. If we presume relativism to exist, then absolutism must also exist. If absolutism did not exist then we could not have relativism. They are mutually arising contrasting principles just as Yin exists in concert with Yang.
