Jnyusa wrote:
One of the Eastern religions holds to this premise ... maybe Ath can tell us which one because I've forgotten ... within Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism three different approaches to good and evil:
• deliver good for good and evil for evil, so that the evil will feel the consequences of their behavior
• deliver good for good and good for evil, so that the evil will see the alternative
• deliver good for good and justice for evil so that the evil will learn restraint
I have to confess that I favor the last formula
... but then, it also depends on the circumstances. If 'evil' has never seen 'good' and does not know what it looks like, then it might be wise to begin by showing that.
Jn
Well, Jny, I guess you better start considering yourself something of a Confucianist!
The third approach you list is nearly verbatim a passage from his teachings, I believe. Confucius was concerned more with the moral structures of society, I think, and how the individual could find a way to harmonize with these, not with the more internal journey of personal enlightenment that marks both Buddhism and Taoism.
The first approach, I think is more a Buddhist perspective, but of course, it’s really speaking of the “natural consequences” of
karma. Karma is the epitome of impartiality, really: a perfectly natural, unbiased, necessary ‘action’ that is triggered by our own actions, which in turn are triggered by thoughts. I think that Buddhist teachings often liken it to the “fire that either burns or warms”, as when a child is warned (or not) about touching a flame, and yet still does so and is pained by it. The flame doesn’t punish the child, the burn is not punishment. It is merely the natural consequence of the action, and hopefully, it will serve to teach.
Buddhists, from what I understand, accept karma as a natural law. There is no higher judgment, no divine intervention, and no gods that steer man's destiny, but only the law of karma itself, which works within a vast global time frame. Deeds yield consequences either in the next second, in the next hour, day, month, year, decade, or even in the next lifetime, or in another distant lifetime.
Here’s an interesting example I found in one of my readings:
An unpleasant sensation occurs. A thought arises that the source of the unpleasantness was a person. This thought is a delusion; any decisions based upon it will therefore be unskillful. A thought arises that some past sensations of unpleasantness issued from this same person. This thought is a further delusion. This is followed by a willful decision to speak words that will produce an unpleasant sensation in that which is perceived as a person. This decision is an act of hostility.
Of all the events described so far, only this is called karma. Words are carefully chosen in the hopes that when heard they will cause pain. The words are pronounced aloud. This is the execution of the decision to be hostile. It may also be classed as a kind of karma, although technically it is after-karma.
There is a visual sensation of a furrowed brow and turned down mouth. The thought arises that the other person's face is frowning. The thought arises that the other person's feelings were hurt. There is a fleeting joyful feeling of success in knowing that one has scored a damaging verbal blow.
Eventually, perhaps much later, there is an unpleasant sensation of regret, perhaps taking the form of a sensation of fear that the perceived enemy may retaliate, or perhaps taking the form of remorse on having acted impetuously, like an immature child, and hoping that no one will remember this childish action. This regret or fear is the unpleasant ripening of the karma, the unskillful decision to inflict pain through words.
Of course, the greater the evil that exudes the “three poisons” of hatred, greed and delusion, the greater the karmic consequence (in the immediate world, this could be self-loathing or constant fear of reprisal, or, after the death of the physical body, having to enter the lowest dharmic realms of “hell” or “hungry ghosts”). There’s something rather satisfying to me about visualizing some of the most monstrous of people becoming “hungry ghosts” that can never satisfy their cravings and lust, that have to turn to the Buddha holding a bowl filled with Truth, accepting it as a “gift” so that they can at last begin to see that their deepest hungers and longings can only be satisfied through such acceptance. I think Gollum and Ungoliant are actually quite close to representing what living as a hungry ghost would be like (of course without the ability to inflict further pain upon the world)………poor old Gollum almost accepted a gift from that bowl of Truth, didn’t he? It would be nice to think that he might have a chance for another go at it, and this time, get it right.
Taoism’s most significant difference from Buddhism is that it does not embrace the idea of karma. The second approach, I believe, is the Taoist perspective, in that one cannot change the world outwardly by force or judgment, but can only change oneself, and in doing so, become an example for the world. A think a Taoist “master” accepts all the conditions of humanity and the world in which it exists, with compassion. S/he teaches and embraces “the other” through “inaction”, allowing The Way to seek its natural course, which is always harmonious, always “good”.
So the sage nurtures all men
And abandons no one.
He accepts everything
And rejects nothing.
He attends to the smallest details.
Thus the Master is willing to help everyone,
and doesn't know the meaning of rejection.
She is there to help all of creation,
and doesn't abandon even the smallest creature.
This is called embracing the light.
It is better merely to live one's life,
realizing one's potential,
rather than wishing
for sanctification.
He who lives in filial piety and love
has no need of ethical teaching.
When cunning and profit are renounced,
stealing and fraud will disappear.
But ethics and kindness, and even wisdom,
are insufficient in themselves.
Better by far to see the simplicity
of raw silk's beauty
and the uncarved block;
to be one with onself,
and with one's brother.
It is better by far
to be one with the Tao,
developing selflessness,
tempering desire,
removing the wish,
but being compassionate.
It is this verse, however, that I always consider when thinking about the "fate" of those who fall out of balance, who do not embrace the three "cherished treasures" of
compassion, restraint and unimportance (and I do believe that evil can ultimately arise from their abandonment):
Nature says but few words:
High wind does not last long,
Nor does heavy rain.
If nature's words do not last
Why should those of man?
Who accepts harmony, becomes harmonious.
Who accepts loss, becomes lost.
For who accepts harmony, the Way harmonizes with him,
And who accepts loss, the Way cannot find.
Being "lost" and never "found" is such a sad and lonely burden to bear forever, don't you think?
I am really sorry that you had to suffer that, WC. Rape has to be the most violent crime after murder, and ... it is barely punished by our society. Very difficult to live through something like that and find forgiveness afterwards.
and 
and 
I just had to walk away from the computer for a good long while. 
Rowan, I'm SO sorry that it's taken so long to reply to your question, but first it was Christmas and then it was packing for our holiday in Mexico and then it was Mexico 
)