August 8, 2007
My study of the good, the truthful and the beautiful would not be complete without a study of their opposites, the “evil”, the deceptive and the ugly. Some could say in this post I was railing against “evil”, a dangerous thing if done from the standpoint of ego or without objectivity, because we are all potentially “evil”, and slipping into ego – which includes the desire to seem authoritative or to make an impression – may lead to self-righteous condemnation, as if I was perfect which of course I am not. As it is said, “if we see evil we become evil”. But we can look at evil without reacting in hypocritical self-righteous horror, just accepting it nobly and compassionately as it presents itself to us from within ourselves or from others like we would bravely accept the awful smell of cancer in someone we loved, not reacting to it or mentioning it for the sake of love, because evil is only a temporary state believed to terminate at death. In other words, “take it like a man” – that is, objectively and dispassionately. If anything makes us feel threatened or fearful we have slipped into an ego state, for our true inner nature fears nothing. The real danger in reacting to evil is in thinking that it has any real power in itself. Evil can only harm the mind that thinks it has power and that it is something to be feared.
Should you fear your body, which corresponds to evil in the good/evil duality? No, that’s ridiculous. There is Chuang Tzu’s allegory of the man who is afraid of his shadow and tries to run away from it. He runs and runs until he drops, exhausted. When he gets up again he sees it is not trying to hurt him. It is just there. Evil has no conscious intent to harm – it is an unconscious state.
It is the fear of evil – which is essentially an illusion or unreality – that destroys us. The essential reality is the good. But good and evil always go together, hand in hand; they cannot be separated. They do not oppose each other as Christianity’s false concept of duality denotes. Theirs is not an eternal battle, as movies suggest – they work together. Taoism’s Taiji symbol illustrates this.
Many are taught to fear the body and its desires as evil – but they are not evil in themselves, they only become evil or deceptive powers where their balancing counterpart of our inner virtue or good is weak. When the lower self becomes our master, we are finished – conscious evolution stops, we begin to die mentally and spiritually. Love of the ego or “evil” self with all its desires assures that we go no further than living an evil life full of suffering. It is desire for anything that kills us. “There is no greater misfortune than wanting something for oneself”. (Lao Tzu)
Looking at evil and not seeing it as anything to bother with – “not giving it the time of day” – not giving it a thought, as one’s priority attention is given to the good and beautiful because “we go where we look” – allows us to see the beauty where others may see evil. Where some might have looked down their noses in disgust at the alcoholic I sat beside years ago who was green from drinking shoe polish and probably had only a short time to live, I enjoyed chatting with him because he was radiating a simple “happiness” or divine inner beauty that was wonderful to see. Be kind to everyone, their souls may be those of your dearest loved ones in another life.
The “good” person or teacher may learn much and develop love, patience and understanding from their relationship with a “bad” person; the latter may not learn anything at all. The “bad” person has a potential to learn, but it doesn’t matter if they do or not as they serve in the broadest sense – consciously or not – as students of the “good” person. The relationship of the “good” and the “bad” – or teacher and student – is sacred, mysterious, little understood. This relationship may spark to life, and can only do so, if the teacher truly exemplifies virtue: love and patience or self-restraint etc. This is sometimes seen in movies when, for example, the “bad” man sees the fearlessness but gentleness in the good man whose life lies in the “bad” man’s hands, and the “bad” man is in awe of and respects that fearlessness, unconsciously recognizing it as a true fearlessness perhaps greater than his own, which is often just macho bluffing. There is then a spark of affinity in the highest between the two men, because within every “bad” man there is an undeveloped “good, true or real man” (inner nature or conscience) waiting to get out. The good man-bad man or teacher-student relationship is related in Chapter 27 of Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching:
I’m not saying I’m a sage; anyone who says they are wise is a fool. We are not to say what stage we are at. I’m quite comfortable with “fool”, because as the wisdom of the Tarot Cards shows, we are all “fools”, proceeding along a foolishness-wisdom continuum, up to and including when we find the secrets of life.
It is seeing the good while looking at evil that protects us from our own evil. “Wherever you turn, there is the face of God”. (Koran, 2:109) Regarding the way of life and love, Juan Mascaro writes in his translation of The Dhammapada:
I found this great affirmation of St. Mary’s School in New Zealand:
I read somewhere that we tend to think we can either be truthful or loving, but not both. However, it is possible to be both, and it is essential for growth to be both loving and truthful in our communications. 1 Corinthians 13.6 says “Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices in the truth”.
I was not born to be diplomatic or particularly kindly, but to be truthful. Because truth has no real impact without loving kindness, I should beware of being too direct or perhaps unkindly in my words. The only way truth can have any value is if it is told lovingly and kindly.
Being a person with an ego – which we all have to some degree – and with a certain desire to impress that flares up at times – I find myself properly humbled by the absolute necessity and challenge for me to combine truth with love at all times. Speaking or writing too quickly under the influence of egoism’s anger or impudent delight, which is evil and also to be avoided, is something I have seen myself and others doing to our detriment. This from Plato’s Laws 4.717d relates: “Light and winged speech brings heavy doom”.
To deal with or speak of evil properly without being harmed by it requires a state of consciousness free of ego, anger or self-righteousness. The only person who can do it without hurting themself is the figurative “official executioner” in the following from Chapter 74 of the Tao Te Ching:
No one is free of evil, at least potentially, and implicit in the following is the converse “if you have evil you can be hurt by evil”:
The fact that I’m even posting here may mean I have some notion that could be regarded as evil or foolish. My friend thinks that most internet posting and communication is futile compared to face-to-face in-person dialogue, but he needs people more than I do. Being the experimenter I am, it seems I have no choice but to prove whether or not my posting is evil or futile by just continuing and finding out if it is or is not conducive to happiness. I think I know the answer already, but it seems I must have final proof. There’s a maxim about dogs that undoubtedly describes the wisdom I require.
At this point, then, I presume to be ready to be the teacher. I have one special student in mind I must admit. Whether they can learn anything or not is up to them. To be frank, I am using them and all of you in the highest sense, postulating that my presumed objectivity will help with my growth and perhaps others. But essentially, at the risk of being misunderstood, “it’s all about me”.
Some intellectuals’ cherished desire to be right or authoritative – accompanied by a desire for approval of the many – invariably leads them to the fear of being wrong or being found wanting, the opposite of what they cherish. This fear of being discovered to be a poseur is a tension between their false self-image (ego) and their inner conscience, which could be said is who they truly are. Being a slave of their desire and fear, especially the desire for general approval, they are stirred to emotionally agitated defensiveness, bluffing and sometimes vicious response to any word considered a threat to their illusive position, which could be called “the great deception”. Their very existence seems to hinge upon maintaining that deception. Their failure to grow out of their own “egocentric omniscience”, or what Soccio calls “invincible ignorance”, ensures the death of any philosophical aspirations they may have on the path to wisdom, the attainment of which demands an egoless state.
The sophist’s performance of “the great deception” (self or god posing as Wisdom or God) is given to “the great beast” (the public in Plato’s Republic) and its ego-satisfying roars of approval. The sophist is a slave to the multitude, among which Plato concluded there are no philosophers. Of course the sophist’s philosophical death is assured because the approval of the benighted he plays to only reinforces his ego and confirms his and their useless lives. The “great beast” cannot challenge his false position, and he invariably goes to his grave well satisfied that the roars of the multitude have confirmed him to be a great philosopher. The horrific results of an egoistic life are very real.
The emptiness and wasted life of slavery to the morally and spiritually bankrupt powers that be (“the great beast”) on the false path of ego, deception and bluff is well captured in this humorous quote of General George Patton:
A sophist’s value is in their worthlessness, for how will value be known without worthlessness? The sophist must be respected, Socrates providing a good example in this, for potential wisdom lies within all and it can be sensed within the greatest “fool”; this is why Confucius (Analects 15.22) says “Do not disregard the words because of the man.” Further, Idries Shah, in The Sufis, quotes Rumi: “The imitator is like a canal. It does not itself drink, but may transmit water to the thirsty”.
Here I examine myself. Am I here for your approval? No, a philosopher requires no one’s approval. I am a true friend to all – most significantly to those who regard me as their enemy – because my intent is to teach and not expand my ego. If a student doesn’t recognize me that is the “confusion” quoted above. It is not important whether I post here or not. I am not a slave of anyone’s approval, but a free man. If I was not a slave to truth I would be nothing. If my ego expanded sufficiently I would be nothing and my love and compassion would be false and useless. I’m here to exercise myself and challenge the egocentric wasteland of philosophical stagnation. Before we can grow in oneness, truth and fiction must be separated.
What do I desire that could kill me? Very little here that I can see. The desire for or love of anything can potentially destroy your soul if you have one, or prevent it from being born. I claim to be a teacher, but don’t want followers. Students I may meet or not, no matter, but my words do represent me. I’m a solitary leader type. My mandate is my inner nature. We are all false to some degree – that is the nature of a human being that is temporary, evolving, and disposed of at physical death. But I can smell a real hypocrite a mile away, and sometimes smell something coming from me – but it’s not serious and it gives me a good incentive for growth. If a person can’t spot their own faults and admit to them they cannot grow, and cannot have a good relationship or dialogue with anyone who is growing either. Honesty is essential in the philosophical life. We are nothing without it.
Lao Tzu says (Tao Te Ching, 59): “In caring for others and serving heaven, there is nothing like using restraint”, paralleled by Plato’s “Never too much”, and presumably India’s “Kill the snake but don’t break the stick”. I could be accused of prolixity, but there are a lot of misconceptions, illusions and deceptions to challenge. One day my voice will not be heard. Won’t that be a relief? In the meantime I will undoubtedly annoy many of you greatly – that can’t be helped. I predict that my desire for truth and my desire to speak or write it will take me away from you. Good for us all if that is the case.
If you made it this far, congratulations. Thank you for listening. Don’t be afraid to comment. Fools or wise people both glorify or serve truth in some way. “It’s all good”. Fools’ utterances show the perceptive how not to think, speak, or live, because depraved action inevitably follows depraved thinking. Our words, whether kindly or vicious, reveal exactly where we stand on the path to wisdom. All the best to you.