Is spirituality evolving?

driftingraven122 said:True, I suppose. Though—and this is just my take—calling sitting in a cave a waste of time seems a bit much; it’s really just one way of doing things.

Exactly. Plus, what works for one person might be total garbage for someone else. That’s why there’s no magic formula for what people actually need.🙂

Spirituality is basically a work in progress—it grows every single day.
At its core, it’s all about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
Look, we all mess up—that's just life—but once you actually learn how to spot those mistakes, the real test is deciding not to trip over the same stone twice.
To me, spirituality is just high-level morality.

In spirituality, there is no such thing as good or evil. There are only actions that provide the necessary experience for spiritual growth. Concepts like good and evil are tied to the ego, which means they have no place in a true spiritual life... at least, that is my perspective.

Sophia Lee80 said:In spirituality, there is no such thing as good or evil. There are only actions that provide the necessary experience for spiritual growth. Concepts like good and evil are tied to the ego, which means they have no place in a true spiritual life... at least, that is my perspective.

Even if relativism is usually a slippery slope, we should probably consider the relative nature of evil here.
Think about a killer who takes lives just to satisfy some deep-seated urge or sense of peace.
We’d definitely label that as evil.
But when someone slaughters a chicken or a pig for food, nobody calls that evil. We don't even give it a second thought, even though the drive behind nutrition is fundamentally similar to the psychological drive behind a serial killer. In fact, for the killer, that impulse might actually be more vital than physical hunger.

So, what makes one act evil and the other not?
It comes down to our humanity.
But what about war?
If you kill an enemy soldier in combat, it isn't considered evil. Why? Because he’s a human being too.
But it's framed as a conflict driven by big politics. It's "us" versus "them." And those "others"—whether they are pigs or enemies—are seen as acceptable targets.

Where does evil actually end and good begin? What do you all think? Is it all relative, or is there a moral anchor out there that defines absolute good and evil?

Here is my take. ☕

There is no such thing as good or evil—period. A serial killer is merely a tool, and I suppose they aren't even aware of that. Naturally, society will label them an evil entity and pursue some form of punishment, which is fine, I guess, since society itself is just another tool—and most people aren't even conscious of that fact.

So, neither society nor the killer is doing evil, nor are they doing good.

I believe the only way a person can actually do "good"—though not the kind of "good" defined by these binary concepts—is to rid themselves of the notion of good and evil entirely, effectively "clearing" their mind.

Good is the same as evil, and frankly, neither one truly exists.

driftingraven122 said:Here is my take. ☕

There is no such thing as good or evil—period. A serial killer is merely a tool, and I suppose they aren't even aware of that. Naturally, society will label them an evil entity and pursue some form of punishment, which is fine, I guess, since society itself is just another tool—and most people aren't even conscious of that fact.

So, neither society nor the killer is doing evil, nor are they doing good.

I believe the only way a person can actually do "good"—though not the kind of "good" defined by these binary concepts—is to rid themselves of the notion of good and evil entirely, effectively "clearing" their mind.

Good is the same as evil, and frankly, neither one truly exists.

I guess good exists just like evil does. If there's good, there's gotta be evil too.

The symbol of Jina and Janga is the answer

Brian Baker32 said:I guess good exists just like evil does. If there's good, there's gotta be evil too.

Exactly. If there's good, then there's evil—and vice versa. But the thing is... they probably don't actually exist at all.

driftingraven122 said:Exactly. If there's good, then there's evil—and vice versa. But the thing is... they probably don't actually exist at all.

You’re playing some pretty dangerous games with definitions there, kid.

Brian Baker32 said:The symbol of Jina and Janga is the answer

I don't think it's an answer—it's more of a description of how humans process things. I guess the brain just perceives that every positive action triggers its own opposite, and vice versa.

Scott Brown6 said:You’re playing some pretty dangerous games with definitions there, kid.

dangerous?!
I'm just sharing my own perspective... I guess. 🤔

So, what exactly does "relativizing terms" even mean? 🤔

driftingraven122 said:Here is my take. ☕

There is no such thing as good or evil—period. A serial killer is merely a tool, and I suppose they aren't even aware of that. Naturally, society will label them an evil entity and pursue some form of punishment, which is fine, I guess, since society itself is just another tool—and most people aren't even conscious of that fact.

So, neither society nor the killer is doing evil, nor are they doing good.

I believe the only way a person can actually do "good"—though not the kind of "good" defined by these binary concepts—is to rid themselves of the notion of good and evil entirely, effectively "clearing" their mind.

Good is the same as evil, and frankly, neither one truly exists.

If you’re arguing that a serial killer is just some "tool" of fate or circumstance, then fine—by that logic, the guy who dives into a river to pull a drowning kid to safety is also just a tool. So, what’s the actual difference? How does one act count as a mere instrument while the other is something more?
If someone pulls some absolute garbage move and knows exactly what they're doing—then that’s not just a mistake, it's a choice. You can't call that a "tool" or an accident when there's full intent behind the mess.
Look, I’m not looking for a debate on this one. Period.
I get where you're coming from. Personally, I’d argue that our whole idea of good and evil is basically just a moving target—it all shifts depending on how much someone has actually leveled up their own consciousness. It's like that old saying: if you're standing halfway up a mountain, you're never going to see the full picture compared to the person at the summit. Perspective is everything.😉 )
And let’s be real—it just ramps up the level of accountability across the board. Everything becomes way more high-stakes—including... Regarding what we’re actually putting out there—Look, if you're just sitting around feeling hot and bored, go hit up the off-topic lounge instead of messing around in the evil threads. Seriously—don't do it unless you want everyone here to stop taking you seriously.

You misunderstood me 😢 ... though I suppose I'm partly to blame—my phrasing was a bit muddled, I guess.

Scott Brown6 said:If you’re arguing that a serial killer is just some "tool" of fate or circumstance, then fine—by that logic, the guy who dives into a river to pull a drowning kid to safety is also just a tool. So, what’s the actual difference? How does one act count as a mere instrument while the other is something more?
If someone pulls some absolute garbage move and knows exactly what they're doing—then that’s not just a mistake, it's a choice. You can't call that a "tool" or an accident when there's full intent behind the mess.
Look, I’m not looking for a debate on this one. Period.
I get where you're coming from. Personally, I’d argue that our whole idea of good and evil is basically just a moving target—it all shifts depending on how much someone has actually leveled up their own consciousness. It's like that old saying: if you're standing halfway up a mountain, you're never going to see the full picture compared to the person at the summit. Perspective is everything.😉 )
And let’s be real—it just ramps up the level of accountability across the board. Everything becomes way more high-stakes—including... Regarding what we’re actually putting out there—Look, if you're just sitting around feeling hot and bored, go hit up the off-topic lounge instead of messing around in the evil threads. Seriously—don't do it unless you want everyone here to stop taking you seriously.

I’m being serious. It seems to me that my point stands. But if it’s bothering anyone that much, then I guess I won't bother writing anymore. 😁

I won't be addressing those points 1 through 4—they don't really have anything to do with what I was saying in the first place.

I’m telling you again, the answer to good versus evil is all about Yin and Yang.
If there’s black, there’s white. Once the darkness hits its absolute peak, it flips straight into light. Night always turns into day eventually.

Personally, I’d argue the yin-yang symbol isn't actually an answer—it's more of a description... 🧐
If good exists, then evil must exist too—and vice versa...
There's probably a bit of good in every evil, and a little evil in every good, I guess...

Good and evil are mere constructs of society; they don't actually exist in nature. What does exist are correct and incorrect decisions. It’s all about experience. There is no objective good or evil, only the lessons we harvest from the choices we make—whether they were right or wrong.

I suppose I agree—good and evil are just social constructs imposed upon us. In fact, whenever you actually intend to do something "good," it'll probably end up having some unintended negative consequence.

Of course, that logic falls apart if, say, a child is drowning. I imagine anyone would instinctively dive in to save them without giving a single thought to moral philosophy.

So, my take is that an action can only be truly good when the concepts of good and evil don't even exist yet. 😳

driftingraven122 said:I suppose I agree—good and evil are just social constructs imposed upon us. In fact, whenever you actually intend to do something "good," it'll probably end up having some unintended negative consequence.

Of course, that logic falls apart if, say, a child is drowning. I imagine anyone would instinctively dive in to save them without giving a single thought to moral philosophy.

So, my take is that an action can only be truly good when the concepts of good and evil don't even exist yet. 😳

Are we talking about socially acceptable norms here? In Iran, if I recall correctly, chess is banned because it's viewed as "evil"—and since women can't see male doctors, they're stuck just describing symptoms to a man. Basically, social norms are built on whatever specific society decides is right or wrong at the time. What's considered wicked in one culture is totally fine in another. Though, yeah, those are pretty extreme examples. It sounds like you're leaning toward some kind of anarchy—just acting on pure instinct and calling it all "good." Or maybe I'm just misreading you again...
Good intentions aren't a guarantee of a good outcome, sure, but that doesn't mean they're useless. They're still necessary if you want to get anything right. 🙂