Trey Smith
What is more, I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being.I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement. I think there are good people who call themselves agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, New Agers, pagans, Taoists, Wiccans and any other belief system known to humankind. At the core of every major belief system -- as far as I am aware -- is the notion of compassion and care for others. This ideation of the good is dressed up in different outfits according to each belief system's dictates, but the core element is the same.
~ from Ethics for the New Millennium by the Dalai Lama ~
While we can and do debate the varying components of what "the good" should or might entail, I think that all people (with a few exceptions, possibly, for sociopaths and the like) understand "the good" deep in the recesses of our hearts. It is when we take this elemental component of our being and expose it to language (words) that it becomes less clear.
In trying to define "the good" in words, it typically gets messed up because, intertwined with a definition, are religious dogma, political ideology and nationalistic jingoism. It is my feeling, though, that if we were able to scrape away all this hubris, we would be surprised to find a sentiment that almost every person could agree with.
Not only do I believe there is a common non-cognitive understanding of "the good," but I fervently believe that this good resides in each person. Put into Taoist terminology, I would call this our True Nature. We each struggle to allow our True Nature to shine forth, but it is there, nonetheless.
I know that for some the next thing I will write will be blasphemous, but I believe that individuals like Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden possessed the "good" core just like everyone else. I believe that, in some aspects of each of their lives, they showed compassion and caring for others.
But like all the rest of us, they compartmentalized their being so that "the good" was not expressed universally. It was shared only with particular individuals and groups; callousness was shared with the rest.
While the degree with which they expressed a callous disregard for their fellow humans might be far greater than yours or mine, we too share this same trait. In their lives, we see our lives, if we allowed our craven desires to know no ends. In many ways, this I why I think we loathe such people so much -- they magnify our own blemishes to the point in which we can't avert our eyes.
This is where our various belief systems come in. Understanding the human propensity to block "the good" from full flower, each seeks (in its own particular way) to breach the dam to allow "the good" to flow freely.
"...a common non-cognitive understanding of "the good," but I fervently believe that this good resides in each person. Put into Taoist terminology, I would call this our True Nature."
ReplyDeleteThis is a sort of feel-good interpretation of "True nature" , but I would not ant anyone to understand this is as universal "Taoist terminology." True nature might more accurately be expressed as "the innermost place of a person's psyche...composed of a pure and clean mental state, free of any ideas, yet full of the minuteness of all universal things....never subject to any transformation and change" You could say it is one's nature BEFORE good and evil. It might be understood as potential. I take the liberty to quote Hu Xuezhi.
Personally, I don't see much difference between the nice quote you shared and what I wrote. Good only has context in the world we live in. Devoid of that world it would be free ideas. In the world itself, we would call it good.
ReplyDeleteGood and evil are terms given to subjective observations of people's behaviors, made by the power holders of a group: government officials, priests, tribal elders, parents, activists, etc. The definitions change as societies change, which is why my grandmother at 15 years old could be engaged to my grandfather who was her senior by 9 years. If a 24 year old showed up on a 15 year old's doorstep today in the USA, he'd end up on a sexual predator list.
ReplyDelete"What is more, I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person is a religious believer does not matter much. Far more important is that they be a good human being."
The Jews have the term "mensch", which means a person of integrity and honor (does define those words the same?). What is the Dalai Lama's definition of a good human being? Jesus said that only God is good, so are we all evil? We could go on and on about how teachers and leaders define these terms and the situations we use them in, but then we would swiftly be moving away from that pure, clean mental state which is free of any ideas (to quote the baroness).
Joy,
DeleteI agree that "good" is a subjective term. So is "bad." And I also agree that mores change from generation to generation and from society to society.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I believe that there is a germ of an idea in each of us to be caring and compassionate towards others. In it's primal state, that is neither good nor bad, it just is. When it is expressed in the world, we label it good.
Just to clarify, "true nature" is distinguished in Taoism from "acquired nature." The Dalai Lama is not really talking about "true nature" and he's not a Taoist anyway. But some western systems interpret man as starting with a "good" center (like a chocolate bon bon) and then becoming corrupted (which sounds like what you were saying); or some systems, like Calvinism, posit man as starting from total depravity which then requires his salvation and redemption through grace. Taoist thought is that man starts with a kind of empty center, to which one wants to return, but the "good" and "bad" are acquired --and expressed-- after birth through conditioning. (You have hinted at that --the potential for good in the true nature-- in your last comment.)
ReplyDeleteIt is very hard for me to see any "good" in Pol Pot or Hitler; it is hard to see what "good" they brought to the world. (Even Hitler's paintings were mediocre.) On the other hand, this goes a way to explain why the Chinese can still "revere" Mao, who many people would label "bad." But the Chinese typically will say he was 70 percent bad and 30 percent good, all based on what he accomplished in the world. His "true nature" is neither good nor bad, and is in his hands and consciousness in any case.
That 70/30 split is a fascinating one.
ReplyDeleteOften at Tai Chi Class Sifu will say "you are grounded/rooted 70/30" meaning that literally one's weight is balanced 70/30 over both legs. This facilitates either a "block/sinking in/winding up/yin" transfer of weight or "punch/expand out/unwind/yang" transfer of weight.
As a physical (balancing the philosophical) expression of Tao, Tai Chi & QiGong emphasize that one does not ever extend fully ie.a fully extended or locked joint (eg. knee or elbow) is easier for an opponent to break by using the rigid (fully extended) stance to simply break the leg/arm. 100% fully extended leaves no space for "the next move", so 70/30 reflects the yin dot in yang or the yang dot in yin.
When 70/30 is applied to ideas/philosophy it shows that being "grounded/rooted" philosophically is achieved by not fully extending. By always respecting the "dot" in the philosophical stance taken.