Destroying daoism?
I came across a video by Cross Examined scrolling through YouTube shorts titled “Dude left Taoism in less than 3 minutes”. In the clip an individual professing his belief in taoism tells apologist Frank Turek the concept of good and evil in taoism. Turek then turns it on its head explaining concepts versus practice. Taoism apparently is solely a concept and Christianity a practice though the latter has strong mythological bonus for discussing the origin of good and evil. In his first critique, Turek falsely equates taoism with Christianity. One is abstract while the other is concrete. Firstly this entire discussion is quite ridiculous given the eastern repression by Turek. That being said he is responding to an inexperienced taoist. Taking what he says at face value cannot be construed as devilish nor can taoism be perceived in its inkling.
It is important to relay to Turek if a real taoist were to respond. Giving the kid some help from a debater. The enjoyment of defending an idea you don’t belong to is the heart of debate. A craving that cannot be undone. Whenever a position is taken, the other must be sought even if it goes against the majority. To just ponder the possibility. To be the sole defector. A loving mystic jolly in his solitude. A debater cannot stop himself from engaging with those who think highly of their stance. Who enjoy trampling others who are obviously ignorant of the position they hold. The gymnastics Turek used were quite ridiculous. The kid had no response as he had little clue of what he was fighting for. So now instead, as a debater this will be the defence for taoism. A rebuttal on cue with the responses of Turek. Oh how fun this will be. To rightly reject the points brought up to overwhelm the young ignorant.
Debaters hate bullies. Dogmatic losers who stand elevated over others. Using their mental dialectics to confuse their opponent. Not going to get away with. It doesn’t matter what the situation, Turek is asking for it. The superiority complex must be shocked and demoted. He must be taught a lesson. A moment of ecstasy comes over the debater. So excited to push back. So impassioned to fight. It doesn’t matter the context, what matters is the oppression. Well mild oppression. Rebuilding the collapsed bridge of the opponent. Allying with the heartfelt plea. All alone against the crowd. The debater grabs his hand and smiles. The opponent shocked but shrugs in agreement. Here goes nothing. A folly of firecracker responses to the apparent wind. Misinterpreting with the lack of material provided. Prepared to assault, the rebuttal is ready to be expressed.
Taoism is not abstract and is not a concept. It is a way of life. Like every other religion, it has a metaphysical make-up but uniquely it is about living in the flow. Living with nature and with values. Flowing with life’s ups and downs. Following the master and inspired by her teachings. The way of tao is completion of the self. Similar to mystical ways, it is meditation and reflection. A focus on the internal layer of the self. There is a master like a priest who provides guidance to his followers. A master who has reached the level of tao and directs his pupils likewise. To be passive and relaxed, aligned with the natural flow of the universe. Certain virtues to uphold. To be compassionate frugal and humble are the three central treasures. On its own right it is very concrete.
There is no moral order. Christianity does command certain ways of life. God demands virtues and vices be followed. The taoist does not have such a systemic listing. That being said, there are characteristics to stay away from. Just like the seven deadly sins, greed and gluttony would not be acceptable under taoism. Taoism is a lifestyle and the lifestyle precludes such action. The concentration of taoists texts against desire strongly condemns lusting after anything. Narrating the hypocrites who abandon their virtues for pleasure. Moderation is the key. The virtues it lists are aligned with more religious commands, these are taught from master to student instead of from a deity. The claim that this cheapens its power is discounted by the lifestyle itself.
Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi were critical of moral standards. Yet their literature is filled with selected behaviourism. There is no ethical framework but there are moral precepts. There is a model of living. Taoists pledged against killing, stealing, lying and cheating. All immoral conduct was deserted in the name of the tao. The tao is special and spiritual. The power of the modern tao is different as the goal for the modern man is to use the tao to calm his mind and enjoy the flow not to engage with it in its entirety. Not to become a taoist but a reader of taoist thought. Like Madonna reading Kabbalah or to a lesser extent hasidim appropriating mystical ideas for moral lessons. Watts certainly fits the latter scheme. Yet to say there is no morality or no standard of acting is to misconstrue the ideology.
In a way this is superior to the christian ethic. Christianity is based on a system of beliefs. If anything to Turek’s claim it is way more conceptual than practice. Morality also comes second to belief in Jesus. The taoist doesn’t play with beliefs. He lives his life. His model of passivity and frugality is a motto of enjoying pleasures to their necessary quota. Being humble and respectful easily acknowledge the immorality of murder and stealing. If behaviour is on point prior to even a moral action, then those immoral possibilities are weakened. On the other hand, if the command is from up high, what is the possibility it will be followed? How many christians have killed in the name of their religion? How many christians have ignored the divine command? That doesn’t mean taoists are not violent, they have also committed their own levels of violence. The argument that having a god is better for moral consideration is totally off historically, while behaviourism has a stronger pull to peace.
Turek then brings up the nazis. Before getting to the nazis. Let us revert back in history to Christian attacks. There is no taoist crusade, taoist inquisition, no taoist witch-burning or taoist anti-semitism. Even in the age of the Chinese empire, taoism was the religion of the peasantry and rebels. Most of known taoist warfare was rebellious against imperial oppression. Taoism is against proselytising. Want in join it all unlike Christianity that has had forced conversion. So Christianity has a few bad apples namely the entire Middle Ages. Massacring hundreds by the thousands. They almost singlehandedly erased viking culture through devious educational methods. Exposing their “invention” of writing as an expression of Jesus’ gift to them. Church might flowed through the kingdom and harmed those who weren’t christian. No not the Muslim in Jerusalem but Jews. Innocent Jews who were living peacefully in the area. Their only crime being born Jewish and then barred from existence.
Now to Nazis. If the Nazis attacked the taoist would rebel. Just as they rebelled against imperial might. They would push back. They would stand up and fight back. Taoism is passive but not in the Gandhi way. Though Gandhi deplored violence it was only when it wasn’t targeting him. Apparently Dick (a favourite author) used Taoism in his depiction of Japan as an ally of Germany occupying America. The official state religion was Shinto through the imperial years. Taoism is mainly Chinese in their rebellious crusade against Japan aggression which sparked America’s interest to aid the Chinese against the overwhelming Japanese in WWII. Given its rebellious history, taoism is not passive all the time, strongly pushing back when the nazis approach. Just like Ecclesiastes’ there is a time for peace and a time for war. The tao would guide those preferring not to fight to vanquish evil at its doorstep.
While taoism would’ve stepped up, where were the Christians during the holocaust? Did christians stop the nazis? Did the pope say anything? Karl Barth said that Jews deserved their fate for not accepting Jesus. The church said nothing. Churches took Jewish children and raised them christian not caring for the fate of their parents. Hitler used all the Christian anti-semitic tropes of the last millennium including money and power. Even if the taoist is a pacifist, at least he stays true to his nature while the taunting church was scared into submissive passivity. Hitler’s use of Christianity for his merit was never openly opposed nor desired. The nazis were christian. Failing to take any responsibility for their neutrality and feeding the nazi power. Not a single pope has admitted wrongdoing only sympathies.
Continuing with nazis. William Hull was selected to meet with Eichmann about god Jesus and atrocities. In his conclusion he argued that Eichmann denied Jesus and this denial dissociates him and his evil from Christianity. So for Hull had Eichmann repented his wrongdoing then Christianity would be to blame for his crimes. Which does not help his victims. Eichmann’s refusal let them off the hook. Hull wished to save this man’s soul. Apparently despite the mass murder and undeniable even someone can repent with a few emotional words. Yet in response to the victims he slaughtered, since they refused to accept Jesus their fate was damned. Apparently one’s fate is based on the whim of belief in a deity not morals. Against Turek, morals are inferior. If a nazi walked they would do nothing as they did nothing when it was occurring.
So in summarisation. The apparent passive taoist has no moral code but moral conduct. Stands up to autocrats and authoritarianism. During the holocaust would’ve pushed back. Unlike Germany, China rescued thousands of Jews to Shanghai. Not the pope, not France, Spain or any other christian nation the, Chinese. Yet on the other hand is Christianity with a moral codex with no moral conduct. Props up autocrats, fascinates mass murders and pogroms and did not aid during the holocaust. Which is better? His video on the holocaust should’ve been not why didn’t god help out but why didn’t christians help out. Who cares what the theoretical says. In Turek’s words practice matters and in practice, his side is vile and evil. Murderess and destructive. The ideal consistently fails to meet the real. Taoism seems a lot better than faulty christian nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment