Mutually Dependant vs. Mutually Exclusive

[bushido_man96]

I was reading some Bruce Lee here recently, and I came across this little bit, and found it interesting. I thought it would make for some good discussion.

I was reading The Tao of Gung Fu, and Lee mentioned a few times how the yin/yang of things are not really opposites, and mutually exclusive of each other, but rather compliments, always in co-existance, being mutually dependant. Things like firmness/gentleness. Also thoughts like "to defend is to attack, and attack is to defend" come to mind.

Thoughs? Ideas?

[joesteph]

. . . always in co-existance, being mutually dependant.

This reminds me of a painter who had his own TV show, Bill Alexander. He said that without light there is no dark, and without dark there is no light.

He used a white canvas to demonstrate, flicking a bit of yellow paint on it. You could hardly see the yellow. Then he demonstrated painting a darker background with yellow on it. The yellow shone, and even made the darker background fulfill being dark.

Firmness-gentleness, light-dark, teacher-student, doctor-patient, parent-child . . .

An interesting observation on Lee's part.

[isshinryu5toforever]

This seems to be the fundamental truth at the heart of all Chinese philosophy. It's a lot to reconcile, because it extends far past the normal realms of light and dark, attack and defense, etc. You really get into the philosophy of evil. It really is the philosophy of evil, because with all the good we think we do, what are we actually doing? If everything must remain in balance, then are our acts that are carried out with good intention sometimes acts of evil? You can pull in several other themes and philosophies, like the Buddhist philosophy of intentionality. If all your intentions are good, then where is the balance we discuss in Taoism? Reconciling all these things, when put down to comparison, especially within a rigidly structured Confucian environment gets tricky. Anyone else have ideas on that?

[joesteph]

You really get into the philosophy of evil . . . because with all the good we think we do, what are we actually doing? If everything must remain in balance, then are our acts that are carried out with good intention sometimes acts of evil?

There's a saying that goes along with the above: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There's the question, "Is lying always wrong?" Most would say no, should good intentions be the reason. In a philosophy text, it gave the example of an aging uncle; let's call him Uncle Bill. He'd led a hard life, one with tragedies, and was now diagnosed with a disease that would claim his life in two years. Wanting to spare Uncle Bill this new burden, the family chose to keep this from him, instead encouraging him to take his medication and look forward to better health. For the first year, he was in fairly good shape. After that, for the next six months, his health began to decline, but he was encouraged that these minor setbacks happen. Then when he was hospitalized, he was told the truth--and the reason for the lie.

Uncle Bill was furious. He'd had a secret dream, one based on what others--particularly other senior citizens--had told him. The dream was to see Las Vegas. He'd even stashed some money in a special bank account, expecting that, when he recovered, he'd celebrate with that trip. He could have traveled during the first year of his illness. Now the good intentions of his relatives had destroyed his dream.

[isshinryu5toforever]

There's a saying that goes along with the above: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

This is a good quote, but I guess my real question was, how would you reconcile the ideas of Taoism with the ideas of Buddhism. The idea of balance and co-relation is a long standing one, but Taoism seemed to take that to another level. Buddhism started as a philosophy on how you should live life as a good person, not really a religion. How do you reconcile these two sides? Buddhism tells you that as long as your intentions are good, the result doesn't matter. This is why there are legends of Bodisatvas killing people who were destined for greater evil, and not having their karma affected. Taoism demands co-existence between good and evil, right and wrong. So, how do the two sides stay even? I guess the question here is, when it comes to evil, what should carry more weight? The intention? or the result? And, if there has to be a co-existence between the two entities are people every really good or bad?

[joesteph]

Buddhism started as a philosophy on how you should live life as a good person, not really a religion.

I hadn't realized this, Isshinryu5. It reminds me of Confucianism, in that Confucius was very concerned about how people should conduct their lives in "this" world, not sounding like a religion during his lifetime.

Taoism demands co-existence between good and evil, right and wrong. So, how do the two sides stay even?

Doesn't the yin-yang symbol have a bit of the "other" half within each side? It's not as polar-opposite as one might first believe.

I guess the question here is, when it comes to [good and] evil, what should carry more weight? The intention? or the result?

I took the liberty of adding in [good and] to your quote because, personally, I give more weight to the intention, whether good or bad, although that doesn't mean none or a minimum to the result.

BTW, I'm admittedly weak on Taoism.

[bushido_man96]

This seems to be the fundamental truth at the heart of all Chinese philosophy. It's a lot to reconcile, because it extends far past the normal realms of light and dark, attack and defense, etc. You really get into the philosophy of evil. It really is the philosophy of evil, because with all the good we think we do, what are we actually doing? If everything must remain in balance, then are our acts that are carried out with good intention sometimes acts of evil? You can pull in several other themes and philosophies, like the Buddhist philosophy of intentionality. If all your intentions are good, then where is the balance we discuss in Taoism? Reconciling all these things, when put down to comparison, especially within a rigidly structured Confucian environment gets tricky. Anyone else have ideas on that?

This is a good point. Being a Westerner, I do tend to think in opposites more than I do in mutualities. It is a good point to bring up, because evil is not something that is, or should be considered, ok, at all.

[isshinryu5toforever]

The yin-yang theory is that they co-exist. They must both exist equally to keep balance in the universe. You completely saw the point of that question. We tend to see things in complete truths, while things like Taoism and Confucianism leave more gray areas.

I don't think that seeing things in opposite relationships is simply a western thing though. Many Eastern philosophers, Confucius, Mencius, Xuanxi, etc. had their own views on whether people were inherently good or evil. They also had their own philosophies on how men could either become good or stay good.

Evil, as we see it has more to do with evil acts, murder, acts of random violence, things with no base, no measure. From my study of Eastern Philosophy, it would seem that some evils are viewed as necessary. While it was evil for the Emperor Qin to destroy the armies of his rivals, it did allow him to unite China for the first time. This unity brought peace. I don't think Confucius would have labeled Emperor Qin a junzi or Confucian gentleman, but Qin's reforms did help China in the long run. This would be good coming from acts of evil.

That makes it difficult to determine who is a good person and who is a bad person, or if there are good and bad people. Trying to reconcile this with the, at times popular, Buddhism makes it even more of a mess.

[tonydee]

Buddhism and Confucianism are not inherently compatible. You've already touched on the former being consequentialist, the latter deontological (rules of duty). They might overlap when people following the exhortations of Confucian ethics happen to be acting optimally from the viewpoint of Buddhist ethics, which is vaguely possible if all parties play their assigned parts. As soon as corruption enters the picture, or in myriad edge-cases and complications, the Confucian duties and obligations between people can conflict with Buddhist ethics, and Confucianism itself - as a restriction on people's actions to right wrongs - becomes evil. Sadly, Confuscianism has often been abused by rulers as a way to suppress resistance to the status quo, or at least control the forms of such resistance such that they can be made ineffectual, at all levels of participation. Buddhist ethics exhort everyone to continually assess whether it is necessary to act to establish a better status quo, balancing the short term disruption with the likely period and amount of improvement.

The ethics of Qin's acts depend on the practicality of alternatives: was there another way to an equally or more satisfying outcome, or one nearly as good that caused a lot less suffering en route? Could he have simply formed truces with others and encouraged better conditions for people everywhere without so much bloodshed? A detailed study of the history of the period might allow a reasonable guess, but I haven't undertaken one. It seems to me that Chinese government - since Mao - is very keen to portray his decisions as ethical as by analogy that would give the central Chinese government some way to rationalise their seizing power and crushing resistance based on an premise that they bring more net good than harm. The latter is hard to defend, but is at least becoming more true today than it was under Mao. Other dictators like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore have had enough success to be quietly accepted by the international community, while creating a reasonable standard of living for most residents... is that evil? Probably, as there's no reason to think that some other government couldn't have done as well, although in my opinion a stable, self-aware and truly benign dictatorship in which people are able and encouraged to contribute from "inside" - admittedly a mythical beast - would be better than any actual democracy, but then so would a "perfect" communist state... the sad fact is that humans aren't psychologically suited to the selfless service required to make either work.

I would suggest that something truly evil is not done with the intent to benefit anyone else, nor a justifiable insistence on one's own rights or those of the group to whom you belong. For example, it is open to question whether killing others in an attempt to protect yourself or others is "evil", but acting only out of hatred and a wish to cause harm is evil (assuming good and evil exist at all, which probably requires that humans are more than the biological equivalent of a computer virus - itself an open question).

As for the question of necessary balance: I do not believe in it. I do not believe in the Tao. No evil is necessary for there to be good. They are opposite ends of a spectrum, so are often mixed and compromised to some extent, but that does not mean that one is required for the other to exist. Some actions can be 100% good, or 100% evil. This is a different thing from the oft-discussed question of awareness: one must be aware of the potential lure of evil in order for a choice to do something good to exhibit merit, and one must be aware that an act is causing unnecessary and unwarranted harm for it to become an act of deliberate evil.

I guess the question here is, when it comes to [good and] evil, what should carry more weight? The intention? or the result?

As a Buddhist, I believe intent is what matters, but it should be tempered with humility in assessing your own ability to discern one from the other - especially when your assessment differs from that of others with more experience. This responsibility mandates a lifetime of sincere and active effort to create the ability to make such determinations with increasing confidence.

Tying this in to the "Uncle Bill" scenario... Uncle Bill had the life experience that should have made him the most qualified to handle the news and manage his own life. If his own endeavours during his earlier life were in line with Buddhist preparations for accepting nature and making rational decisions, then he would have been ready for the knowledge of his own impending death.

Back to the original post... I think applying duality to martial arts is essential... the deeper one's relaxation, the greater one's explosiveness. The less one forces concentration on whatever seems important, the more one's awareness is open to everything and the more accurate one's assessments of import are, whether for perceiving incoming attacks, counter opportunities, opponent's mental state as projected through body language, aspects of the environment/surroundings, fatigue or injury to one's own body. The more subtle one's defense, the less deviation is required from attack until they eventually become integrated. We must always do "just enough", which is to flow from defense back to offense as naturally as air moving around a thrown stone. Sustaining an effort of strength fatigues the muscles and makes them weak, so the weakness should be invited earlier so we can be strong again sooner, and only the necessary muscles should be taxed. We should give way only so that the opponent brings themselves to us, and so we can utilise their own effort. Where they are weak, we must cut through with strength. It's easy to see all this... harder to do it. The ability to overcome all obstacles one encounters in this way is my idea of martial arts mastery.

Cheers,

Tony

[Kempohands]

Where to begin? I guess we'll start at the original question.

I think we can say that while these things which call opposites are indeed opposite one another, they are not diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive, but rather mutually dependent, as Lee put it.

I don't think Taoism, at least early Taoism originating in the Lao Tzu, would say that inherent in every individual act is both good and evil, so that nothing can be 100% good or 100% evil. Instead, an individual is either acting with or against the way (the Tao). Good and evil are categories which originate because of each other, in that in order to recognize one, people must know the other: "When the people of the world all know beauty as beauty/There arises the recognition of ugliness./When they all know the good as good/There arises the recognition of evil."

This is indeed similar to the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination. As mentioned, Buddhism is a philosophy concerned with how to best live one's life morally. However, the metaphysics of Buddhism are central to these practical implications, and it is here we must look to try to understand the balance concept. To Buddhists, what we perceive as reality is an illusion, and is not truly the greatest reality. The reality which we perceive, and to a certain degree which we actually construct, is made up of concepts which adhere to the doctrine of dependent origination, this being the idea that everything which is, is so because of something else: "On ignorance depends karma; On karma depends consciousness; On consciousness depend name and form; On name and form depend the six organs of sense..."

So from a Buddhist standpoint, again the balance is not necessarily in reference to each individual act being both good and evil and thus no act could be pure good or pure evil, but in reference to the origination of our illusory reality. For when it comes to practical concerns, Buddhism is very explicit in many cases about which behaviors are good or evil.

As for intent or result being the important thing when judging an action as good or evil, I may disagree with tonydee, though I am not a Buddhist and am operating from the standpoint of an interested individual rather than a practitioner, so I'd appreciate further explanation of this. But I've found two passages which point me to believe that evil or good is somehow connecected more strongly with the result of an action than the intent of the action:

1. "Even an evil-doer sees happiness so long as his evil deed does not ripen; but when the evil deed has ripened, then does the evil-doer see evil."

2. "Even a good man sees evil so long as his good deed does not ripen; but when the good deed ripens, then the good man sees the good."

Although reading over those again as I type them makes me thing the judgment of the act as good or evil happens before the act ripens, and the karmic effect of the act is what waits for the fruition of the action, since in both passages the man is either good or bad before the act ripens. Clarification from a more well-versed person would be appreciated.

All in all, I think the idea of mutual dependence is not necessarily a way to negate the possibility of pure good or pure evil actions, but a way to explain the existence of separate actions and our ability to recognize and understand both good and evil in relation to one another. I tend to believe this to an extent, but I am more inclined to think more in terms of positive definitions, similar to Plato's forms, where a concept has a "real" definition of its true essence, a definition above and beyond just saying "it is this because it is NOT that."

As far as martial arts implications, I'm much more all-in with these ideas of balance and mutual dependence. In fact, one of my favorite passages from the Lao-Tzu concerns this idea and governs much of my understanding of the martial arts:

"In order to contract/It is necessary first to expand./In order to weaken/It is necessary first to strengthen./In order to destroy/It is necessary first to promote./In order to grasp/It is necessary first to give."