Taoist texts have passages about good and evil, yet Taoism is not dualistic.

And you laugh at the notion of religion and mythology without dualism, but when you have had your moment, some study would do you good. Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we find words against dualism. God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. When they did, they were cast out of paradise. The adoption of dualism is what pushed Adam and Eve out of paradise.

Taoist texts have passages about good and evil, yet Taoism is not dualistic.

Two opposite and complimentary aspects of one phenomenon.

Darkness and light, creation and destruction the way I've read it.

Taoist texts have passages about good and evil, yet Taoism is not dualistic.

And you laugh at the notion of religion and mythology without dualism, but when you have had your moment, some study would do you good. Even in the Judeo-Christian tradition, we find words against dualism. God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. When they did, they were cast out of paradise. The adoption of dualism is what pushed Adam and Eve out of paradise.

Yes, it is the apple of duality, and duality is a focus for Christianity, without duality you cannot have sin, what would god do with his wrath? In the east the focus is on the oneness of all reality, this is the revealation to be had, duality is considered the illusion, the vail of maya.

I think we can have sin without duality, but sins seem to be human errors rooted in dualistic misconceptions. As for God and wrath, we see this in OT stories and the point is that sin is destructive.
While not all Christians accept my view on the matter, most probably disagree entirely, but I would argue that, as with much of the east's instruction, Christian literature also suggests that duality is illusory and something to overcome. That's why Adam and Eve were directed not to eat the apple, because the dualism gives rise to sin.

I have never heard that interpretation from a Christian, why then does god deny access to the oneness of reality? In the Buddhist garden, there are guards at the gate, but there is a beckoning, saying do not be afraid, come into this realization come into the garden.

i think this idea of good/evil comes out of the organization of society in history.
1st Time this idea was introduced in metapyshics( which in turn lead to politics) which did control an area was PERSIA(an empire) then as time went on other sofisticated empires used

but when the question comes from the social connotations we have about each, it is based on some of the historical things that we have defined internationally, national, and individually on actions that each have.

in the western world evil internationally IS defined as nazism, religious fundamentalism, ect... ( with that you can figure out the other many perspectives {individual/ societal})

but this evil and good can be seen on each prespecitve on how we view these things in those three perspectives as self interest

what does not benefit me can ultimately become evil vice versa

Unkowable. Is that what you are trying to say?

( Like moral skepticism? If so I agree.)

Good gives virtue. You don't need to see evil as a relative point to contrive good. You just need wisdom, creative soul and every once in a while one needs to rely upon the heart. Those things allow you to see the true virtue in actions, the virtue that is not selfish, but everlasting.

Society gives virtue as a standard of behavior, but that will always contribute to the survival of society, which is considered and obejective good.

Quote:

Fine. Society's good and innovation for the betterment expressed as a coalescent is what gives virtue. Because an effect of one's cause is only going to happen when that one's cause is part of a relationship with the effect. (relative points are needed). Something is not really relative when both points are within one's self.:rolleyes:.

Fido wrote:

Society gives virtue as a standard of behavior, but that will always contribute to the survival of society, which is considered and obejective good.

Quote:

Fine. Society's good and innovation for the betterment expressed as a coalescent is what gives virtue. Because an effect of one's cause is only going to happen when that one's cause is part of a relationship with the effect. (relative points are needed). Something is not really relative when both points are within one's self.:rolleyes:.

Could you try that again in English?

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Fido wrote:

Society gives virtue as a standard of behavior, but that will always contribute to the survival of society, which is considered and obejective good.
Could you try that again in English?

lol ok. Yes society gives virtue, but true virtue only through it's good. True virtue is coalescent (everyone is thinking of the betterment of everyone else while still maintaining a balance of selfishness). There is no virtue in being isolated and selfish. People must rely on other people to be virtuous, thus why to have a 'coalescent' take on actions and their causality. Since other people are part of a relationship of any sort regardless of how minimal, they still exist in your social system; their actions are the effect of your actions.

What is good, what is evil?

As far as I'm concerned they are both manifestations of the same thing which is the selfish ego.