(Untitled)
There is an image of yourself which you have neglected. This image exists in you, and included in this image is what you see of other people. You can be many things, but that all starts with your image. You were convinced that this image was evil, simply because you were told it was. But nothing is evil in and of itself. So the "evil" which you
( Read more... )
Not to be pedantic, but the diametric opposite of good is bad; divine is the opposite of evil. I tend to think of evil as doing whatever satisfies the urges and/or needs of the natural self without any regard as to the effects on others or society as a whole, whose effects could be either good or bad to varying degrees, while I tend to think of divine acts as those that emanate from the higher self that takes the greater good into consideration over the self, and sometimes in great opposition to the desires and desired outcome of the lower will. I don't think that evil concerns itself with whether its actions are good or bad, but only if it satisfies itself. I know this is a matter of semantics, but all I am trying to say is that I will agree with a lot more if wherever you have "evil," you substitute "bad."
If I don't discriminate between opposites, if I am incapable of judgment, then how will I ever find the beauty, the perfection, of the reconciliation of opposites, that equilibrium at that center point of balance? How will I ever learn temperance? When you say that, "you are not capable of understanding 'good and evil," I will agree with you if you are referring to the lower self, and for that reason I should seek union with the divine through the agency of the higher self.
Reply
also, i was using good and evil as defined by thomas aquinas.
Reply
Leave a comment