The Fall and Taoism

[anonymous1515]

Taoism predates Christianity by about 300 to 600 years.

Included in it's philosophy is the belief by when we, as humans, make distinctions between what is Good and what is Bad, we are dividing the unified whole. By making these distinctions, we are separating ourselves from creation, and from the Tao (the whole). When we cease to make distinctions between good and evil, and realize that they are both equal parts of the same whole, we become one with the Tao, and become immortal.

Interestingly, Christianity includes similar themes. When reading Genesis, people usually remember the "tree of knowledge", but forget the part about "of good and evil."

Genesis 2:
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Read allegorically, this is almost identicle to Taoist philosophy. By eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (and thereby allowing ourselves to make distinctions between them), we forfeit our immortality.

What do you guys think?

 

[holo]

Interesting!

I have a book somewhere about how God has left "testimonies of Himself" (that's from some bible verse, can't remember which one) around the world. For example, there are ancient Hindu texts that speak of the Creator God (which is above all the other gods) letting His own son die on a "tree that points in three directions" to die for the sins of man. I read one testimony about a hindu meeting Christ that way. So perhaps there are more similarities than differences, if you study it, and perhaps it is God who is behind it?

 

[tapero]

edit

 

[anonymous1515]

what whole are you speaking of?

Taoists believe that the universe, indeed, all of reality is part of a greater whole, called the Tao. It's kind of a difficult concept to explain.

The Tao is an underlying oneness, and unifies all things in the universe. When we act in accordance with the Toa, we realize that we are individual parts of a much greater whole. Everything is included in this whole (the planet, animals, plants, wind, etc...). As such, we are making unnecessary (and false) distinictions when we label certain things as good and certain things as bad. Everything is part of the Tao, and dividing it up based on our subjective preferences undermines its unity. I don't know if I'm being clear - it's kind of a hard concept to describe.

making distinctions between good and bad does not separate us from creation.

creation is the earth all that is in it and the universe, including angels, humans; the only thing not created is God.

So distinquishing between good and evil does not separate us from the earth, trees, people etc.

Well, in the Taoist sense, it does. When we label an earthquake bad, we are viewing it from our personal perspective. To us, as humans, it might be quite bad if it kills family who we love. As such, we label it as bad. In reality, it's just a natural process - it is part of creation, and part of living on this planet. We only label it "bad" or "evil" because we are viewing it from our limited perspective.

From my understanding every being will live forever..so what you say above is not what makes us live forever; God who created us, created us to live forever.

This concept is kind of hard to explain too. When we see ourselves as individuals, rather than as parts of a whole, we realize that our time here is limited. We will die eventually, and after a time, our memory will be lost too. However, by acting in accordance with the Tao we are working with something that is eternal. In doing so, our actions become eternal, and we become immortal. Immortality, in this sense, is a little different than the traditional Christian interpretation of immortality.

Adam and Eve knew good and indeed had knowledge. They were well and fine and not ignorant, now let me say that better ,, not lacking in any way prior to eating of the fruit of the tree. They knew no evil.. That is very good.

Well, interpreted in the manner I described, they would have known no evil because they would not have made distinctions between evil and good. To them, everything was good, because they realized that it was all part of God's beautiful creation. In eating the apple, they began to divide the world up based on their selfish tendencies. As such, they began to distinguish between things, and call some things "good" and some things "bad."

This kind of philosophy seems quite foreign at first, and it's pretty hard to understand (I don't get most of it), especially coming from a Western society. I hope I cleared up a few of the questions you had.

 

[tulc]

ever read "Christ, The Eternal Tao"?
http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Eternal-Tao-Hieromonk-Damascene/dp/0938635859
tulc(found it an interesting book)

 

[tapero]

edit

 

[anonymous1515]

Thanks for your thoughts tapero. You seem to have quite an interest in this topic, and you seem to be emotionally engaged. It's very pleasant to discuss these topics in a constructive manner!

Perhaps I should point out another Taoist principle that might clear things up. There are two kinds of good, and two kinds of evil.

First kind:
What is helpful to me is good, and what is harmful to me is bad.

Second kind:
What is helpful for the whole is good, and what is harmful to the whole is bad.

Taoists, when trying to rid themselves of selfish distinctions, work towards adopting a worldivew that contains notions of good and evil from the second view. In other words, "evil" actions would be actions that are not in accordance with the Tao.

On first glance, Taoism seems to be a philosophy that entails just sitting back and letting bad things happen. It seems like Taoists are saying "Ah, whatever...bad things happen. Just let them happen, because there's no such thing as good and evil." In fact, this is not the message Taoism promotes.

Rather, we have to realize that we are both individual (and as such have individual needs, such as a need for food, air, etc.) as well as that we are part of a whole. As such, Taoism consists of two complementary worldviews which seem opposite of one another. (If you've ever seen the Yin/Yang symbol, you will recognize the symbolism of these contrasting positions). We are both individuals as well as part of a whole. Now, what does this have to do with evil?

Well, as individuals, we have a role to play. We have to work towards promoting that which is in accordance with the Tao, and stopping that which is not. Harming others unnecessarily, for example, is not in accordance with the Tao. As such, we should work towards stopping unnecessary harm to others. However, when harm befalls us (as individuals), we realize that we are part of something greater - as such, we are able to better cope with it.

Taoism is a balancing act, and it is very hard to understand. I'm just beginning to scratch the surface myself. The Taoist writings (attributed to a man named Lao Tzu) are full of seeming contradictions. It is very hard to learn how these contradictions feed into one another. As such, I understand your confusion: if there is no such thing as good and bad, then it seems rational to allow things like murder, rape, etc to take place. After all, if they are not bad, then why stop them? In fact, this is the opposite of what Taoism teaches. I'll try to come up with a better answer for you.

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

Interesting!

I have a book somewhere about how God has left "testimonies of Himself" (that's from some bible verse, can't remember which one) around the world. For example, there are ancient Hindu texts that speak of the Creator God (which is above all the other gods) letting His own son die on a "tree that points in three directions" to die for the sins of man. I read one testimony about a hindu meeting Christ that way. So perhaps there are more similarities than differences, if you study it, and perhaps it is God who is behind it?

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. The testimonies are what Lewis call Happy Dreams, and Psalms speaks of God putting testimony of himself in the stars.

By the way this is my favorite subject of all time. I could go on forever finding Archtypes in Mythologies from around the world. Even simple fairy tales hold Christ types. Snow White is duped 3 times by the same adversary (kind of makes you wonder about her intelligence. But then Humans aren't really that bright either) is finally poisoned by an apple and lies as if dead in a comatose state (Adam and Eve are poisoned by some kind of fruit, and their spirit is dead before God). A handsome prince comes and kisses her, then takes her to his castle to be his bride (the Son of Our King comes from his splendour, sees our pathetic lifeless forms lying there, he loves us, breathes on us, then takes us to be with him).

Hindu stories have so many themes of redemption, of princes going into exile, of wives being kidnapped, of gods becoming incarnate in man to save the world. I mean there are so many Christ types they make your head spin. In their belief system Vishnu (the preserver God in the trinity of 3 gods: Brahm the creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the destroyer, though he is not like Satan, rather he destroys to save the world. Like the flood. We believe that was Jehovah, Hindus point fingers at Shiva) has been incarnate no more than 9 times, and that at the end of days he'll come back as a 10th incarnation and set everything right.

Even that has echoes of Gods story to it. Christians believe The Son has come to earth more times than just once, though he stayed longer as Jesus (the angel of the Lord spoken of in the Old Testament was probably who we would call Jesus, the Son, and I believe Melchizedek was Jesus), and we believe he'll come back at the end of time to set everything right.

Call me crazy, but if God is a God of Justice and Mercy (apart from being the God of everything else) he wouldn't send some Hindu person in India, living around the time of Jacob, to hell because he never heard the name of Jesus. One Judaism (commonly viewed as the religion of Salvation before Jesus came) hadn't been invented then. 2 Not even Jews knew who the Messiah would be. No. I think God put pictures of himself into every religion, and then allowed the faith of a believer, relying on the grace of his god, to save him. I think that still happens today. God is too loving to let more than a 3rd of the worlds population burn in hell because they don't know the name of Jesus. I think that when the Bible speaks of Grace saving us, it is one hundred percent Grace that saves us. Our reliance on that Grace is what dictates our entrance into salvation.

Just my 2 cents worth. (waits for the torching to begin) Be Gentle.

 

[Poverello78]

Taoism predates Christianity by about 300 to 600 years.

Included in it's philosophy is the belief by when we, as humans, make distinctions between what is Good and what is Bad, we are dividing the unified whole. By making these distinctions, we are separating ourselves from creation, and from the Tao (the whole). When we cease to make distinctions between good and evil, and realize that they are both equal parts of the same whole, we become one with the Tao, and become immortal.

Interestingly, Christianity includes similar themes. When reading Genesis, people usually remember the "tree of knowledge", but forget the part about "of good and evil."

Genesis 2:
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.

Read allegorically, this is almost identicle to Taoist philosophy. By eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (and thereby allowing ourselves to make distinctions between them), we forfeit our immortality.

What do you guys think?

It is somewhat self-defeating.

For one, if everything is One, as it were, it would necessarily follow that any and all distinctions made are inclusive.

For two, they are making a distinction between those who make distinctions and those who allegedly don't and then saying that making distinctions is invalid, which is obviously nonsensical; one cannot arrive at the conclusion that distinctions are invalid by making distinctions--that is like reasoning that reasoning is invalid.

 

[light_eclipseca]

Does Taoism predate Judaism? Because that's where you got the Genesis story from. The Genesis story existed 1600 years before Christianity.

Plus, if there are no distinctions between anything, then the laws of logic do not need to apply to the universe for they are only a part of the one. What keeps the universe in such a way that allows for the laws of reasoning to be reliable according to taoism? There is no basis for being rational in taoism. It undermines reason itself. Reason becomes a mere illusion.

 

[martymonster]

Hi there!

The reason the knowledge of good and evil are bound up in the same tree, is because you cannot understand one without the other.

You cannot understand what good is if you have never experienced evil, which is why when God made man He put the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden with Him, because man had to die otherwise he would never know life.

 

[anonymous1515]

Does Taoism predate Judaism? Because that's where you got the Genesis story from. The Genesis story existed 1600 years before Christianity.

Plus, if there are no distinctions between anything, then the laws of logic do not need to apply to the universe for they are only a part of the one. What keeps the universe in such a way that allows for the laws of reasoning to be reliable according to taoism? There is no basis for being rational in taoism. It undermines reason itself. Reason becomes a mere illusion.

Hmm, let me think about your response, and see if I can find an answer to your question. In any case, you are right - Taoism does not predate Judaism; it arose about 1000 years after Judaism. Still, it is an interesting similarity.

As to the laws of logic: like I said, I'll look into how to respond to your post. I have a feeling that Taoists do not say "do not make distinctions of any kind between anything" but rather, do not make distinctions between personal good and evil. In other words, do not say "this is bad" just because it is bad for you. Like I said, get back to you.

 

[Poverello78]

Anonymous, did you read my reply?

 

[anonymous1515]

It is somewhat self-defeating.

For one, if everything is One, as it were, it would necessarily follow that any and all distinctions made are inclusive.

For two, they are making a distinction between those who make distinctions and those who allegedly don't and then saying that making distinctions is invalid, which is obviously nonsensical; one cannot arrive at the conclusion that distinctions are invalid by making distinctions--that is like reasoning that reasoning is invalid.

I did read your reply, and I've been thinking about it. Lets go through the points one at a time.

1)

For one, if everything is One, as it were, it would necessarily follow that any and all distinctions made are inclusive.

I'm not sure. If by inclusive you mean that "any distinctions we make are between objects that are both part of the whole" then yes, I agree.

2)

For two, they are making a distinction between those who make distinctions and those who allegedly don't and then saying that making distinctions is invalid, which is obviously nonsensical; one cannot arrive at the conclusion that distinctions are invalid by making distinctions--that is like reasoning that reasoning is invalid.

Today, I was reading a passage from the Tao Te Ching, and in it Lao Tzu (the founder of Taoism) says this:
I alone do not make distinctions.
I alone differ from others.

Taoism is filled with seeming contradictions. In a sense, it necessarily must be. We are trying to view the world from two separate vantage points: both as the whole, and as an individual. However, I realize this answer probably isn't satisfying. Let me read up further on the topic.

 

[Poverello78]

Anonymous, what I meant was that distinctions themselves are part of the whole. If taken to it's conclusion, the implications are self-defeating.

 

[bling]

Does Taoism predate Judaism? Because that's where you got the Genesis story from. The Genesis story existed 1600 years before Christianity.

Plus, if there are no distinctions between anything, then the laws of logic do not need to apply to the universe for they are only a part of the one. What keeps the universe in such a way that allows for the laws of reasoning to be reliable according to taoism? There is no basis for being rational in taoism. It undermines reason itself. Reason becomes a mere illusion.

This is said better then I could have. How do you see the two trees in the Garden to be opposits?

 

[MarkFiles]

Hello all,

Anonymous,

Without throwing the "whole"/'unified consciousness' part in for just a second, are you inferring a point about Adam and Eve prior to the fall, choosing to even ascribe to the notion that they even needed to be concerned, at all, with good and evil?
In other words, before they fell they probably didn't consciously know they were being good, they just knew the personality and face of goodness, so to speak, not just that they weren't doing evil or were choosing the right path. It probably would have been laughable to do something wrong because their mindset was so healthy and cogent.
I just want to understand the premise for this "whole" theory which is something which I've thought about in slightly different terms myself, because they were in a state before the fall which was substantial.

cheers

 

[MarkFiles]

Also I wanted to ask this: wouldn't Adam and Eve had known about good and evil just out sense or intuition or awareness (whatever the right word is)?
They probably weren't puzzled when God said the words "good" and "evil", were they? They must have had some understanding of it or else it would have been super unfair for them. God wasn't being cruel here.