![]() |
Change the Paradigm |
Custom Search
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good and Evil
What is "good" and what is "evil"? Are they abstract and arbitrary values? Mostly, we tend to think of "good" as something we like and "evil" as something that we don't like. There is a common and widely propagated belief that for good to exist, evil must also exist, that both are necessary. This is a false belief that empowers and maintains the status quo. Look around you. Do you like the "status quo"? Is it really acceptable to keep the circumstances of our lives and our world just the way they are? We are trained to think in terms of "good" and "bad" with us, our tribe, family or group, our self interests and our opinions being "good," and all others being "bad." The mere concept of good and evil is a paradigm of thinking which implies a separation between an individual and all other individuals and between the individual and God or the Source. To simply say that "There is no good and evil, it is all the same" is to engage in additional formulistic thinking. This implies that any distinction is arbitrary. Nothing is arbitrary. Truth is not merely an opinion or an individual point of view. While "Reality" may be described by quantum physics, string theory, and our evolving concepts of cosmology, there is nothing arbitrary about it. While "Reality" is, in fact, very different than our common concepts of it, again, there is nothing arbitrary about it. Anyone who understands that everyone else is a brother or sister and is connected through a common Divine heritage is unlikely to engage in deliberate harmful actions toward others. Anyone who understands that every living thing is connected is unlikely to engage in deliberate acts that are harmful to life or individual life forms. When you remove the separateness, everything that we conceive of as "evil" vanishes. Without separateness there is no "good versus evil." A loss of separateness does not imply any loss of individuality. The harm in "good versus evil" thinking is that it disempowers everyone who accepts the concept through the implied and inflexible separateness that this thinking creates.
|
|
|