24 Apr 2012
I often come across spiritual types professing that good and evil are equal, that you need to go beyond them, to step away from the duality of positive and negative. This to me appears on the surface to be complete nonsense so I'd like someone to explain it to me. Surely it is just a matter of definition. If it is desirable to go beyond good and bad, then that transcendence is a good thing is it not? And being stuck in duality is a bad thing. It seems to me that you very soon get caught up in a semantic tautological meaninglessness.
You might give an example that smothering love can spoil a child, so the good is no better than the bad. But again you are just refining your definition of good and bad. Conditional love is bad, unconditional love is good. And whatever way you look at it withholding love is bad, and being strict when necessary is a good loving thing.
Or maybe the argument that we only learn and grow through overcoming our negatively may be posited for the good equals bad philosophy. But that is a logical fail too. We are 'overcoming' the negative by using positive qualities, strengths and values to end up in a good place. No one, surely, is advocating that wallowing in, or actively seeking to deepen negativity is an honourable attitude with which to live life?
It is about balance yes. Because balance is one of the good things. But it is not a balance of good and bad. Someone is not balanced if they spend half the day doing good things and half the day doing bad things. Someone is balanced if they navigate the complexities of life without resorting to extremes due to ego gratification or external pressures.
So come on tell me, what is the argument for good and bad being equal? I don't get it.
Even if we talk of great inner states of bliss and detachment of the spiritually accomplished that are beyond good and bad, what does that lead to? It leads to these people spreading good vibes and being very humble and compassionate and basically good people.
Yes we must accept negativity to experience this level of transcendent being, but accepting negatively doesn't mean equate it with good. Far from it. To accept it we need to see it exactly for what it is - negative! And we see that we want to transform negativity and we see that the method to enact this transformation is to accept it's presence, not deny it, not fight it, but show it the goodness of love and then we are victorious over it.
But we do want to be victorious over it because it is undesirable. It may serve a purpose for learning and growth but we must not seek to maintain it, we must seek to overcome it. It's purpose is to be overcome not to be sustained or increased.
We have an aim to be good and that is a good aim. Let us approach this positive task in a good and balanced and loving way.
http://ascensionaddiction.blogspot.co.uk/?view=flipcard
You might give an example that smothering love can spoil a child, so the good is no better than the bad. But again you are just refining your definition of good and bad. Conditional love is bad, unconditional love is good. And whatever way you look at it withholding love is bad, and being strict when necessary is a good loving thing.
Or maybe the argument that we only learn and grow through overcoming our negatively may be posited for the good equals bad philosophy. But that is a logical fail too. We are 'overcoming' the negative by using positive qualities, strengths and values to end up in a good place. No one, surely, is advocating that wallowing in, or actively seeking to deepen negativity is an honourable attitude with which to live life?
It is about balance yes. Because balance is one of the good things. But it is not a balance of good and bad. Someone is not balanced if they spend half the day doing good things and half the day doing bad things. Someone is balanced if they navigate the complexities of life without resorting to extremes due to ego gratification or external pressures.
So come on tell me, what is the argument for good and bad being equal? I don't get it.
Even if we talk of great inner states of bliss and detachment of the spiritually accomplished that are beyond good and bad, what does that lead to? It leads to these people spreading good vibes and being very humble and compassionate and basically good people.
Yes we must accept negativity to experience this level of transcendent being, but accepting negatively doesn't mean equate it with good. Far from it. To accept it we need to see it exactly for what it is - negative! And we see that we want to transform negativity and we see that the method to enact this transformation is to accept it's presence, not deny it, not fight it, but show it the goodness of love and then we are victorious over it.
But we do want to be victorious over it because it is undesirable. It may serve a purpose for learning and growth but we must not seek to maintain it, we must seek to overcome it. It's purpose is to be overcome not to be sustained or increased.
We have an aim to be good and that is a good aim. Let us approach this positive task in a good and balanced and loving way.
http://ascensionaddiction.blogspot.co.uk/?view=flipcard