Taoism enlightenment: absolute happiness

I got a real bridge you might want to purchase . . .

First, let me introduce myself. My name is Hieu Nguyen Ngoc, male, was born 1973. I am Vietnamese. I have BA in Science & English. However, my English is not native, therefore you should forgive me about faults in English, but not my thought as languages maybe different but thinkings are the same. About my Taoism, I thought about it, learnt it, meditated it 12 years, since 1992 to 2004 until I reached enlightenment. Please don't say that I am arrogant since to be enlightened is to perceive us & the world around are nothingness, not goodness. I never say that I am good but I say I'm chaotic, like Tao which Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu have taught.
To begin with Taoism, we go from facts. I would like to tell you some stories which prove the good is the bad & conversely.

It seems a paradox. But let me tell you an interesting story quoting from the newspaper Ho Chi Minh City Police, which named The “mysterious” motorcycle:

Ngo Van Linh, 41, living in Danang, Vietnam, worked as a single taxi driver with an old motorcycle. At noon 17th December 2004, he was having lunch at home, leaving the motorcycle in the veranda, unlocked. A thief came, started the engine then ran away. The whole family saw that, shouted out loudly then ran after the thief. But Linh was still … phlegmatic, still said:”Run after him slowly, don’t run fast to be tired. He can not steal that vehicle!”. As he said, the vehicle ran just a section of way, then stopped;the engine didn’t work. The thief was frightened, left the motorcycle then ran for his life. Everybody was surprised , asked Linh whether he had a mysterious device for the vehicle. He smiled inanely:”Oh, this motorcle has many illness. He who isn’t familiar with it, can’t ride it.”

A bad motorcycle is hard to be or never can be stolen. Thus, badness is goodness.
Actually, the bad is just bad only to people not having good abilities. For example, Mike Tyson was sitting in a bar. Two drunk men came, said: “you have punches; we have guns”. Mike Tyson got angry, hit the two men. They let Mike Tyson hit them. After that, they sued Mike Tyson. At the court, Mike Tyson had to compensate them. Celebrities sometimes meet this kind of person, with provoking actions. Stars are considered milk cows for others to squeeze. Read this news, we see that Mike Tyson didn’t have a strong ability, and he was shallow. Badness is bad. But to people having great abilities, badness, evil just prove that they are good. For instance, Japan attacked Pearl Habor suddenly. This stimulated US. Lastly, US defeated Japan. Another example, the British invaded America in Washington time. This was badness for Americans. But this only made Washington become great because he led Americans well to defeat the English.
The goodness living in peace, in some aspects, is bad. If Washington lived nowadays, he would have no difficulties, great work to do. He would only be a less famous leader. Living in peace makes him less great leader, only as great as President George W Bush, but living in war, or in badness made him the father of the nation, greater. Difficulties which people haven’t been able to solve like AIDS, cancer will be Nobel prizers for the next generations. There are no difficulties, no badness absolutely bad. There is ease in difficulty. As a consequence, we conclude: badness is goodness to the good ability people, or shorter, the bad is the good.
Strength is also weakness. If you sing well, I invite you sing karaoke, you like me. If you like me, I may take advantage of you. Being a king of one hundred battles, win one hundred is a catastrophe. Chinese ancient literature tells us : Once Nguy Van Hau, a king, as Ly Khac, his official:”What is the cause for the Ngo state to be perished ?” Ly Khac answered immediately:”One hundred battles, win one hundred.” Nguy Van Hau was confused. Ly Khac explained:”One hundred battles, people become exhausted. Winning one hundred times, the king become arrogant. An arrogant king rules exhausted people, surely fail.” The strong changes into the weak. In Europe in Napoleon time, when Europe was not united, some countries were still in French side, Napoleon was the champion, was the European Emperor. But, after that Europeans recognized that they could not think of the Napoleon without making wars, therefore they united and they were against France, so Napoleon failed. He failed because he had won many times gloriously and he was so warlike. Even he was a genius, still he failed. According to Sun Tzu, The Art of War, what is strong is weak. In one battle, if the enemy is strong in the front, they are weak in the back. If they are strong in the back, they are weak in the front. If they are strong in the front and the back, they are weak in the two sides. If they are strong in the two sides, they are weak in the front and the back. If they are strong four sides, because they stretch in four sides, then they are weak in four sides. The strong is the weak and to win is to lose.
2. The king of So state wanted to nominate Confucius to be the ruler of an area of land which had 700 ly (a ly was a group of 25 families). The head of officials of So was Tu Tay asked:

- Among your messengers you send to other states, is there anyone as good as Tu Cong ?
- No
- Among people helping you, is there anyone as good as Nhan Hoi ?
- No.
- Among your generals, is there anyone as good as Tu Lo ?
- No.
- Among your officials, is there anyone as good as Te Du ?
- No
- Not only that, ancestors of So state was appointed only the title “viscount” and fifty miles of land (meaning So state had been small and had only been viscount, but at the moment, was a powerful state). Now Confucius follows The Three King’s laws. If we use him, how can So has thousands of miles of land forever? Van Vuong in Phong land, Vu Vuong in Cao Land were only kings having hundred miles of land, but lastly, they became emperors. Now, Confucius has a piece of land to make a base, and he has good disciples (Tu Cong, Nhan Hoi, Tu Lo, Te Du) to help. That is not blessing of So.

Chieu Vuong King stopped.
Confucius always fell into disfavour, because if he had had a small state, he would have ruled that state well. Other states would have followed him. Kings of big states, ambitious to be hegemony – who king doesn’t want himself to be “great” – so those kings would have been overturned. Confucius was so dangerous. Good conduct is dangerous and evil.

Good saga !

Now tell us how you would advise, say, the parents of an abducted child, to think taoistically.

The abducted child is goodness (He might bring money to criminals), the parents are badness, the criminal is badness, & money they earn from the child is goodness. If the parents are always bad, they would be a hell. If the child is always good, he would become an angel. If the criminals are always bad, they would be a hell, too. In any way, we have the good is the bad & the bad is the good.
Thanks for reading me.

Gobble the gook, drink the Koolaid . . .

That all applies to the very notion of FUNCTION, that is, that VALUE is relative to the operative goal established by each end in the relation according to its needs...and yes...good and bad are not linear....although there are orders of degree in the sets that are conversely relational establishing the scope of a relative value, either to a smaller or to a lager scale...for instance : it is not good to anyone that we all have to die someday, it almost seams an absolute truth...but again, if we scale it further up, say from the individual to a group or the species, then quickly becomes evident, that the death of some might prove valuable to another´s survival, it may even be a necessary factor...

Abduction=kidnapped/murdered for sexual or other criminal purposes.
It stretches the imagination to say that the anxious or grieving parents are "bad".

Taoist, this is interesting. I would be interested to know what your motive is for posting.
I understand your posts, but to me, all they seem to do is underline that the categories of 'bad' and 'good' are useless in certain contexts because of their breadth, and that actions have a multiplicity of effects which can't be generalized so as to fall into either 'bad' or 'good' as a distinct category.

I've been self-actualized since June 7, 1967.

I agree. You have the luxury of hind-sight in that you can now label things as "goodness" or "badness."

Re: the motorcycle story. The owner was wise in that he "knew" his own property, and that it would serve no one other than himself, since he understood its use and limits. He was at peace with that. So the "knowing" and accepting is the true value there.

enlightenment should come with re-chargeable batteries.

The day of your birth ?

Bookmark

The two following stories proves that goodness is badness and conversely.

Reading world history, in ancient Roman, there was Maximus (396-455), first won then lost. He climbed up to the highest position then was killed, though his will and plot was so terrible.

Maximus was born in aristocracy, was a famous senator and a very rich man. First, he harmed a Roman famous general was Aetius in 454. Aetius was a commander-in-chief and was a brilliant politician of the Empire Roman. He had followed Emperor Velentinial 30 years and in succession he had led Roman army to defeat Frank people, Burgundi people and Goth people. At the same time, in the war “one hundred races great battle” (451), he had led the army of many people to stop the attack of king Attila, making a highly glorious victory and a far-resounding fame. Therefore, he became an object to be killed by the person fully ambitious Maximus. Maximus bribed courtiers of the king, slandering Aetius intended to rob the throne. The king was dull and talentless; he could not recognize what was right and what was wrong, consequently he trusted what they slandered. Hence, a trap was made. One day, Aetius got an order from the king to meet him. He had not opened his mouth,all of a sudden, the king jumped up shouting out loud there was someone wanted to killed him and the king unsheathed the sword quickly. Waiting headsmen heard that, rushed out. In the moment, a Roman talented general was killed. After that, there was somebody complained with the king:”You used your left hand to cut your right hand. From now on, how do we have a talented general to oppose Vandal people to protect Italia ?”

Next, Maximus made a scheme to kill the king (455). After killing Aetius, Maximus separated and borrowed courtiers to kill the king. There were two Germans people serving the king. They had been reliable soldiers to Aetius and both were homely and very faithful to Aetius. Maximus pretended to be hurt and said to them:” The general followed the king for some decades, went through fire and water, always be loyal to the king, but he was killed wrongfully. Thus, you must revenge for him.” The two soldiers heard that, got angry, followed Maximus’ scheme. Waiting until king Valentinianl went out, they killed him at Campus Martius.

After killing the king, the two soldiers took off his clothes and gave them to Maximus. He became the emperor, then he forced the queen to marry him. Perhaps the queen spited and wanted to revenge him quickly, as a consequence, she called Burgundy leaders for help. Hearing that, the Burgundy people were very glad, and their army went to the north immediately to attack Roman capital (455). In the chaotic war, Maximus intended to escape but he was catched and killed by indignant people of the capital.

Goodness of the Roman is general Aetius is the bad to others. He was talented eminently. Maximus feared that all power of the empire would be in his hands.And many others, not only Maximus, also wanted to climb up, and they were ambitious. So they harmed Aetius and did badness. Goodness of Aetius was badness to Maximus and Maximus’ goodness was badness to Roman people, then in turn, Maximus was killed. You may say the main cause of all was the king was talentless; he could not recognize the right and the wrong and only in feudal time this story happens. Are you sure ? But I see nowaday, there are many ambitious people like Maximus, using cunning tricks on others, very barbarous and cruel. President Kennedy was supported by his citizens. First citizen, and being supported, he was the strongest, but he was still assassinated.

In the East, we often hear the story “Old man in Tai land losing a horse”:

In ancient China, in Tai land, there was an old man called Tai old man. His son often rode the horse. One day, suddenly, his horse disappeared.
The neighbours were touched with pity. They came to console him. He said:”Perhaps losing a horse is blessing.”
Several months later, his horse came back, bringing with it some good horses. The neighbours congratulated him. He said:”Having horses may be bad lucks. Perhaps this causes a calamity.”
Soon later, his son rode a horse, fell off and he broke his legs. They cured his legs well but he became disable. The neighbours came to console the old man. He said:”Perhaps this causes blessing.”
A year later, there was a war in Tai land. The army of the minority rushed in, therefore many strong men had to join the army. The war was fierce; many soldiers were killed and wounded. His son, because he was disable, hence, he stayed home. The father and the son took care of each other and lived pretty well.

Calamity is blessing and blessing is calamity. We don’t know what is the beginning. It is beyond our wills. What we think they are right, actually, they are wrong and what we think they are wrong, actually, they are right. Similarly, the good is the bad and the bad is the good; we cannot recognize them exactly. Consequently, we conclude: we cannot do bad, as the society will throw us in prison, or will punish us. But we cannot do good, too. What way do we follow , or say it another words, what is the truth ? Taoism has the answer: that is Tao.

Thank you for those insights.


寧可缺。勿氾濫。

HOW NOW TAO COW?

After We Wui and Pu, De mushrooms grew leading to much infusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism

I think you are confused, good is not bad and bad is not good.
Good and bad are effects. Things, events, beings, have both good and bad effects. A short term good effect, is not a long term bad effect.
Things, events, beings, are not good or bad, they simply are.
There are effects, both good and bad, long term and short term.

In the Korean proverb, there are more than one event.
Many effects, good and bad.
The point being, don't be quick to judge, things, events, beings, as good OR bad, there are always both effects.
In your rush to enlightenment, you miss a lot.

over the years we've switched our enlightenment to this sort



it's saved us a lot on our energy bills

You are so full of **** i don't know where to start. Magnus Maximus was a legate in Britannia who attempted to make himself emperor in the late fourth century. He crossed to Gaul with the legions from Britannia in the 380s, was defeated and killed in 388 CE. Do you just make this **** up as you go along?

Aetius not only did not defeat the Franks, he allied himself with the Franks to defeat the Huns. That was in 451 CE. The emperor then was Valentinian III. There was never an emperor named "Velentinial." If you want to peddle bullshit like this, you need to get your facts straight. No one in the Roman empire ever "killed the king," because Rome had no kings after the foundation of the Republic in about 500 BCE. In fact, the whole point of the Republic was to get rid of kings. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Good and bad are subjective judgements. You're making no sense at all.