“Eat your broccoli and because you are such a good boy, then you can eat ice cream!”
“He is a good person: hard-working, a family man, churchgoer, good citizen involved in civic duties…”
“He is a hero. He fought for us to preserve our freedom against the enemy…”
The phrases above are very common. See how every one of them defines what is “good.”
No wonder, most of us believe that to be “good” means to “do” something “good.”
“Good” is an open word which we could define as we wish as long as we wear the “moral” robes.
“If you want to go to heaven, you need to “do” this.”
“Being good” is a human invention. Something “moral” to move someone to act in a determined fashion.
Moreover, there is no way that a human being could be “good,” because that word is another fantasy created by our clever moral mind.
Neither could a human being be “bad”…Who’s bad? 🙂
“A truly good man is not aware of his goodness,
And is therefore good.
A foolish man tries to be good,
And is therefore not good.”
Wait a minute… Why is that something “moral” is bad?
-It is not “bad”… It is man created according to his needs and wants…when he is no longer in touch with the Totality.
“The kind person acts from the heart
and accomplishes a multitude of things.
The righteous person acts out of piety,
yet leaves many things undone.
The moral person will act out of duty,
and when no one responds
will roll up his sleeves and use force.”
Tao te Ching – CH 38
When we perform any activity, there is a consequence. Do we see that? Until we do not see that there is a consequence, we will still believe in fantasy tales about this image of “goodness.”
Eating your entire broccoli does not make you “good.”
Being a workingman and a family man and churchgoer does not make you “good” either.
Killing other human beings in the name of freedom does not make you a “hero.”
There is no recipe to go to “heaven.”
There is a movie going on in life. All actors are dependent on each other. There is interbeingness. All of them are related whether someone sees that or not, for the movie includes all actors. It is in that awareness when we could act without thinking in a “moral” way to “try to be good.” There is no need for that.
When the awareness is in Totality, then there is common good.
The issue is when a particular actor does not look at the total package but only to an image that he ought to pursue. In other words, everything that exists is important as long as it serves him.
It is that “ego” which becomes an obstacle in feeling and being in touch with Totality.
Thus, any activity coming from that “ego” consciousness will be “egotistical.”
Being “egotistical” is not “bad.” It is just living on one side of the coin that is individuality. That is “modern living” with consequences for humanity.
When we are conscious of Totality, the individual is part of it.
Could we see that?
The above is the first step into deeper things.
Note that Avyakt7 didn’t use a religious story of salvation or punishment for all to make everyone “good.” This is not about fear anymore.
The time to stop playing with “dolls, lollipops and broccoli for ice cream” has elapsed.
No, we will not get ice cream if we eat our broccoli.
We could see, however; that there is a time for broccoli and there is one for ice cream. None is better than the other, but both are important to experience enjoyment and harmony, just like the consciousness of individuality cannot be wholesome without being in Totality.
Labeling things as “good” or “bad” does not give us the chance to see the “bigger picture,” the movie… that is Life.