Myth of Evil
Goddess, Thy Name is NOT sin!!!
|
|
|
 Search this Page: Press Ctrl+f to find any term or phrase on this page (Cmd+f for Mac).
|
|
| Author |
Message |
|
|
| 4b. Myth of Evil Posted: June 30, 2004 |
 |
|
[This lesson is a companion topic to Sacred Desire. It dispels myths commonly associated with desire and other aspects of human life.]
Nothing in the long history of man has been so utterly misunderstood, wrongly maligned, and shamefully demonized as desire.
Desire has been accused of causing of man's 'fall from grace' through original sin. It has been scorned as an evil temptation that leads man away from God. It has been reviled as base human nature that brings out the worst in man. And it has been labeled the bane of society, degrading social values and pitting nation against nation.
The reason for this wholly unwarranted censure is a complete misconception of what desire is, how it functions, and its role in every facet of our evolution. These are fully explained in the sister topic to this: Sacred Desire.
As if this dark ignorance were not enough, mankind has come to see things in the darkness that are not there. Like children afraid of the dark in our own homes, we create mythical monsters ready to consume us the moment we let down our guard. These monsters oppress our minds, and in so doing, suppress our lives. So we live, cringing in fear and shackled by shame, never knowing or exploring our full potential. Hiding under our covers, we never see all that life offers.
These mythical demons are all various forms of a single infamous monster. That monster is called 'evil'.
This lesson aims to chop off the head of the monster.
If you're like most people, the idea that evil is not real strikes as absurd. You are already likely thinking that such arguments are purely speculative or theoretical. Or worse, you may think that some trick of logic will attempt to deceive you into accepting a falsehood. That is how real and convincing the myth of evil is. You are certain evil is real.
Yet the astounding truth is that it is your own perception and understanding of life that have deceived you. They have created the false idea of evil in your own mind. They deceive you into believing that evil is real, and this belief reinforces your false idea. Every time you see something that you label evil, it reinforces the lie that evil exists.
What's more, nearly all society is victim of the same false perception and deceived by the same false belief, and it has been so for countless generations. Thus the existence of evil is not only flatly unquestioned, but also is spread throughout society by all ways of passing on learning -- parenting, education, religion, social conditioning, and more. That eradicating evil is among the paramount issues of civilized society makes it all the more destructive as a false belief. Indeed, the myth of evil is arguably the most destructive force in human life.
That's the bad news. The good news is that dispelling the myth of evil has an equally strong opposite effect. Unmasking the myth of evil unleashes the full creative power in man. It redirects all the destructive energy aimed at eradicating it toward positive, creative acts. In your own life, you'll discover new opportunities for progress and growth. And when society dispels it, control and conflict disappear, and freedom in all its forms - personal, social, political, religious, and spiritual - will reign supreme.
MYTH OF EVIL EXPOSED To determine whether evil can possibly be a real phenomenon in creation, we must first look at creation itself. Then we can see if there is any possibility of evil truly arising or existing in it. Whether we take a scientific or religious perspective, creation is the same in one respect: it derives from a unified source. In religion that source is God; science commonly calls it the unified field. For our purposes, the significant point in either case is that creation has a pure, uniform source. This point alone proves that evil cannot exist, because it is impossible for two fundamentally different elements to arise from a purely uniform source.
If you have a body of pure water, nothing can arise from it that is not water. It may change states - from ice to water to vapor - but it is still H2O. The only way to get two fundamentally distinct elements from water is to break it into its constituent parts, hydrogen and oxygen. But for God and the unified field, there are no constituent parts. Anything and everything that arise from them are forms of them.
A simpler analogy is a ball of clay. Clay can assume many forms - a table, chair, house, car, person, etc. - but fundamentally they are all clay. A clay table is still clay. All attributes of clay forms are wholly present in the clay, at least in potential state. We live in a uni-verse -- diversity with underlying unity. All opposites are fundamentally related.
To say that good and evil both exist as fundamental opposites is to say that God and the unified field are fundamentally dual in nature. This is neither scientifically nor theologically true.
If creation is truly unified, then dualism - and the existence of opposites like evil - must be a creation of our minds. They must be illusion.
But how do we reconcile this with our experience? The above logic may have loosened the grip of the mythical monster, but it hasn't fully let us go. How are we to understand good and evil?
The answer is revealed when we expose the illusion. Like any illusion, the myth of evil relies on deception. Just as in a magic trick, you are deceived into believing something because of how it appears. The same is true with the illusion of evil. It appears to be real unto itself, but it is not.
To show how you've been duped into thinking evil is real, you need only see the deceptive trick that is used. Then you'll know how the con is done.
Like any good magic trick, this one involves a curtain of deception. Consider it a veil in your mind that hides the truth. In so doing, it makes evil appear as real as, well, black & white.
Click your browser's 'Refresh' button (or press F5) to play the animation.
Now you have your answer: what we call duality is really the range of unity.
What we disjoin as black and white is really the full spectrum of light.
Indeed, light may be the easiest analogy by which to understand evil. Picture yourself in a closed room with a single light. You flip the switch and the light goes off. You are in darkness. It is as distinct from light as day from night.
Now imagine this: instead of an on/off switch, your room has one of those fancy rheostats that dim the light. Everyone has played with them -- you try to slowly dim the light as much as you can without it going off. There is less light, less light, less light, and finally no light. Presto! Darkness has not entered the room -- there is simply no light.
The relation between good and evil is exactly the same. More precisely, evil is not a thing; it's the absence of a thing. Evil is a lack of good.
As final points, consider these:- You can turn on the light, but you can't turn on the dark.
- You can have a light bulb, but you can't have a dark bulb.
- You can divide light into a spectrum, but you can't divide darkness.
- You can identify components of light (photons), but there is no component of darkness.
And the most important implication of exposing evil as myth, which you'll learn about shortly:- You can destroy light (by annihilating photons), but you can't destroy darkness -- there is nothing to destroy.
Light and dark are not distinct in the same way apples and oranges are. While apples and oranges have distinctly separate qualities, light & dark do not. They both have one and the same quality -- light. They simply have it to varying degrees. White is full of light, black is devoid of light, but they are both still defined by light.
Good is not one thing and evil another. They both belong to the range of goodness. There is all good, and less and less good all the way down to no good. It is like a cup of goodness, either full, partially full, or empty. Even in complete emptiness there is only good -- the potential for good.
UNITY OF ALL THINGS The basic unity of light and dark is by no means an isolated phenomenon of nature. In fact, virtually every polar opposite pair in creation is united the same way. Here is a list of 'opposites' we take for granted:
| Phenomenon | Apparent Opposed Pair | True Definition | | Light | light | dark | light ------------------ no light | | Color | white | black | full color ------------- no color | | Space | infinity | point | space --------------- no space | | Time | future | past | time ------------------ no time | | Sound | sound | silence | sound --------------- no sound | | Motion | motion | stillness | motion ------------- no motion | | Speed | fast | slow | velocity ----------- no velocity | | Mass | heavy | light | mass ----------------- no mass | | Size | big | small | dimension ----- no dimension | | Strength | strong | weak | strength --------- no strength | | Charge | negative | positive | electrons ------- no electrons | | Temperature | hot | cold | heat ------------------ no heat | | Moisture | wet | dry | water ---------------- no water | | Knowledge | knowledge | ignorance | knowledge ------- no knowledge | | Truth | true | false | true ------------------ not true | | Solutions | solution | problem | solution ---------- no solution | | Life | life | death | life --------------------- no life | | Age | old | young | years ---------------- no years | | Gender | male | female | Y-chromosome ---------- no Y | | Health | healthy | sick | health -------------- no health | | Virtue | good | evil | good ----------------- no good |
What do these pairs show? They show that virtually everywhere in nature polar opposites are defined by one value. They differ merely in the quantity of that value. Negatives are zero quantity -- they have no quantified existence of their own.
Virtue - the pair of good & evil - is no exception to the rule.
(Among the more intriguing - and sexually relevant - false divisions shown above is 'male vs. female'. Not only do our underlying genetics show this to be a false duality, but experience shows that there is a full spectrum of gender that ranges between male & female. For more on this, see the Gender Identity Forum. For more on the underlying unity of male & female anatomy, see Male/Female Androgyny.)
Hopefully by now, the monster of evil is gasping for air, grasping for life. We could easily slay him now, except the truth is out -- he doesn't exist. What we're doing here is slaying the myth of evil, not evil itself. Myth itself is a polar opposite that can't be slain. It is in the category of ignorance, and as shown in the chart, it is really a lack of knowledge.
Now you see how it works. You've done nothing to the myth; you've only gained knowledge. And the myth - like darkness fleeing before dawning light - fades away.
But the myth of evil still lurks in some dark corners of the mind. If not your mind, then certainly corners of the collective mind. For the myth of evil has been around for ages, and has crept into the dark fabric of society, casting its ugly shadow. To dispel the myth fully, we must shed light on these social issues. There are mainly two.
HIDING PLACES OF MYTH Shadow #1: Language Words are powerful tools. As the saying goes, 'The pen is mightier than the sword'. Our use of words, not swords, to slay the myth of evil hopefully affirms that. Words communicate knowledge.
But words can also rehash ignorance, like a broken record that never ends. In that, they are equally powerful in blocking the light from shining in our minds.
The boon - and bane - of language is that, once created, it is highly constant. This of course allows us to communicate consistently and effectively, aiding social progress. But in the case of words that convey false perceptions, language serves only to parrot ignorance, transmitting it from one man to another like a disease.
Worse, it lulls the mind into blind acceptance of ideas we are fed, for rarely do we question the meaning of words.
Language of Myth A perfect example of language perpetuating ignorance is that of another mythical monster, the dragon. There are various theories about the origin of this myth, ranging from pure fantasy to real beasts growing to mythical proportions through legend, to lore stemming from discovery of dinosaur bones. Whatever the origin, dragons were widely believed to be real until the end of the Middle Ages. They were commonly thought to dwell in the oceans, likely because that is where myths best survive -- in the unknown. In fact, when the world was flat (another universal myth), sea monsters were 'known' to live at the edges of the earth, waiting to devour seafarers. Medieval maps even show them in their borders. Thus they discouraged exploration of the unknown, another effect of myth.
The point about language is this: generations of people lived without ever having seen a dragon, yet believed they were real simply because they were written and spoken of. Had the word 'dragon' never existed, each generation would have had to recreate the myth in their own minds, and it surely never would have survived. Language perpetuates myth by removing the need to substantiate it by fact. Instead, we rely for fact on what others before and around us say. Few question the word.
Part of the reason evil evokes the passion and carries the connotation it does is the word itself. It haunts us like a ghost, in this case of something that never was.
To completely dispel the myth of evil then, we must cease to give it a name. By naming it, we acknowledge it as real.
True Language As radical as new vocabulary might sound, examples already exist of languages that don't subscribe to the myth of evil. Sanskrit, one of the world's oldest tongues, may be the best example. Below is a list of Sanskrit words and their opposites:
Main Term
(meaning) | Unified Opposites | English Translation | shubham
(good, auspicious) | ('a' = not, non) | evil | dharma
(natural law, virtue) | | unrighteousness | atman
(self, supreme soul) | | atman ---------- duratman |
('dur' = bad) | evil-natured | mana
(mind) | | mana ------------ durmana |
| evil-minded | mana
(mind) | ('neecha' = inferior, low) | evil-minded |
Note that there is no mention of evil in any of the main terms or prefixes. It is not in their worldview. It is only the English translation that uses the term. We cloak it in our familiar myth to understand it.
(It is interesting to note that in the Vedic/Hindu traditions of India, Sanskrit is considered a 'perfect' language, meaning its words are true expressions of what they represent. The above example lends credence to that.)
In fact, Sanskrit goes even a step further; beyond not distinctly naming dual opposites, it gives a name for the illusion of duality itself -- 'maya'.
The point in all this is that language should convey true meaning. Language is not about randomly choosing words; it is for expressing truth. Language should say it like it is; let's call a spade a spade. Think for a moment what it would be like if everything you now label 'evil' were simply 'not good'. That's what they are. (For a full discussion of the power of language and how to use it for good, see the Universal Language Forum.)
There are no doubt other languages that treat opposites as two ends of one spectrum. Next, you'll learn about one that may surprise you, a bit closer to home.
Shadow #2: Religion The second murky sphere in the collective mind that begs to have light shed on it is religion. Whatever can be said about the power of language to do good or 'no good', infinitely more can be said of religion. For in religion, the 'Word' is God, immutable, unquestionable, and eternal.
The Word of God may be so, but our interpretation, translation, and understanding of it make us co-creators of religion. Our capacity to receive revelation may play the greatest human role of all. God only reveals what we are ready to hear. (For a complete discussion of this, see the Changing Tradition Forum.)
In cases where religion promotes Truth, its power is no doubt for good. But in places where truth is lacking, it casts long shadows on the light of knowledge. The myth of evil is one such place, mainly in Western religion (Eastern religion doesn't subscribe to this myth nearly to the same degree, if at all).
What is significant though is that this false idea of evil is no defect in the Word of God or Western religion per se, but rather in our miscomprehension of it.
God's Good Creation God is abundantly clear about the nature of His Creation, right from the start:
| Quote: |
| "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." -- Genesis, 1.31 |
God does not say creation is both good and evil, nor does He qualify good in any way that leaves room for the possibility of evil. In fact, the qualifier used is 'very', which only emphasizes the point. The original Hebrew term, me'od, carries with it the following meanings: vehemently, wholly, exceedingly, and utterly.
Lest anyone argue that creation started out all good, but then man defiled it in his 'fall from grace', this is impossible because at worst, any defiling only lowers our place in creation; it doesn't change the status of creation itself. We have free will, but we have no power to alter the fundamental goodness of creation. To have that power would undermine not only creation, but also God Himself, for we would have power to rival His.
A true understanding of man's 'fall from grace' will be shown in a moment.
The Absolute Goodness of God explains why theologians over the centuries have struggled with the question of how/why He allows evil in the universe. They resign themselves to accepting it as the trade-off for free will. Ironically, without the myth of evil, there is no need to compromise God with trade-offs. Man has free will because he can do only good. What free will does allow is for man to think evil exists.
One Christian thinker who nearly saw through the myth was St. Augustine:
| Quote: |
| "For the almighty God...being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health.... Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good." -- Enchiridion, 10-12 |
Augustine's definition of evil exactly equates with ours. Unfortunately, he didn't apply it to see that God never created evil to begin with. He acknowledges it, saying only that good is stronger. Sadly in the end, Augustine only served to entrench the myth more deeply by adding religious power to an already false label. He was instrumental in formulating the modern day concept of 'Original Sin'. (The term 'original sin' is nowhere in the Bible itself.)
Philosophers have also wrestled with the idea of good vs. evil, but few of them saw through the myth either. Most tried to justify its existence, or weigh it against good.
One who did see the illusion was a Greek philosopher better known by his work than by name. Heraclitus identified the unity underlying all change in creation by the name 'Logos', a term familiar to many today. His thought influenced both Socrates and Plato. In Logos and the Unity of Opposites, he wrote:
| Quote: |
| "Men do not know how that which is drawn in different directions harmonises with itself. The harmonious structure of the world depends upon opposite tension like that of the bow and the lyre." |
More to the point, he added:
| Quote: |
| "To God all things are fair, good, and just. Men, on the other hand, deem some things right and others wrong." |
Rare poets have also seen through the myth. The great Sufi mystic Rumi eloquently wrote:
| Quote: |
"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
there is a field.
"I will meet you there." |
Note the words. Had he said, "out beyond wrongdoing and rightdoing...", he would have acknowledged evil as real, though surmountable. But he says he'll meet us beyond the idea of these in our minds.
Not surprisingly, spiritual traditions that embrace sacred sex also see through the myth. This frees them to engage in practices others consider taboo. These two Tantra texts from India state the point clearly:
| Quote: |
| "According to human knowledge the world appears to be both pure and impure, but when supreme enlightenment is gained there is no distinction between pure and impure. For to him who knows that the Godhead/Totality is in all things and eternal, what is there that can be impure?" -- Mahanirvana Tantra
"To the pure in heart, everything is pure."-- Kaulavali Nirnaya Tantra |
If, as a Westerner, you consider Eastern sacred sex texts non-authoritative, here is a quote closer to home:
| Quote: |
| "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." -- Romans, 14.14 |
The truth of life is this: evil is a myth, and no amount of thinking or believing it true will make it so. Nor does it reduce the goodness of God's Creation one iota. But God, in His Infinite Benevolence, gives us free will to embrace the myth anyway.
Freedom to Believe Myth Free will brings us to what may be the most misunderstood and ill-applied Bible passage of all time -- the story of Adam & Eve. Nowhere does the myth of evil cast its dark shadow on life more than in the misreading of this Biblical tale.
For the record, here is the Old Testament text, from the King James Version:
| Quote: |
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
....
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
....
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
....
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.-- Genesis, ch. 2
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?-- Genesis, ch. 3 |
The Bible goes on to assign the blames and consequences of the act.
The first hint of misguided interpretation of the passage comes by examining the root of the word evil. It begins to reveal exactly what the tree of knowledge of good and evil is.
The word comes from the Hebrew root, ra'a', meaning literally 'to spoil by breaking to pieces', and figuratively, 'to make (or be) good for nothing'. In both cases, evil is defined only with reference to good. It either means breaking good into pieces, or no good. Evil has no reality of its own. (Nearly every reference to evil in the Old Testament derives from this root.)
This is just like the Sanskrit we saw earlier. What you may not know is that Judaism views Hebrew also as a perfect language. Perhaps we should perfect our translation of it before we spread religious proclamations.
If it's not a tree of real good and evil, what is it? It is just as described -- the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
In Genesis 3.5, the serpent explains the effect of eating the apple -- their eyes will be opened and they will be as gods, knowing good and evil.
We lose our innocent vision of God's good creation. We assume ourselves to be god-like, judging some of it good, some evil. In this we 'fall from grace'.
Before the apple we see the world as it truly is -- all good. But when we take it upon ourselves to become like God, judging creation for ourselves, we lose our innocence. God has already judged it all good. Who are we to re-judge it as evil, as though we were God?
It is not by partaking of evil that we fall from grace -- evil does not exist. It is our judgment of creation as evil that brings our fall.
It is a tree of knowledge yet it results in myth. Why? Because its knowledge is false. When you accept - 'eat the fruit of' - false knowledge, you relinquish your innocent truth. Forsaking knowledge leaves you in ignorance, the playground of myth.
You fall from grace when you sacrifice truth to a myth.
That is why God instructed Adam & Eve not to eat it. He was not denying them knowledge, He was protecting them from ignorance.
Every time we judge something in God's good creation as evil, we re-commit the original sin (as it has come to be called). When we dispel the myth, we return to grace.
Interestingly, the truth of this passage is borne out in an interweaving reference to sexuality. This is doubly notable because so much wrongful shame is attributed to sex on account of this tale. Genesis 2.25 states, before the apple, "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed." This directly shows that in our innocent state there is no shame in sex. Sexuality, like everything else in God's creation, is good.
It is only after taking it upon themselves to judge good and evil, and labeling sex evil, were Adam & Eve ashamed.
If sex were sin in the eyes of God regardless of man's innocent or fallen state, it would have been indicated at Genesis 2.25.
Moreover, if these verses mean what theologians have supposed them to, that nakedness is sin and Adam & Eve saw it so when their eyes were opened, the consequence would be this:
Before our fall from grace (and presumably after we regain it), we blindly commit all manner of sin (including nakedness) without shame or knowledge. Thus did Adam & Eve in Gen. 2.25.
If sexuality were sin and we do not sin in our innocent state, Adam & Eve would not have been naked in this verse. (Any argument that we are sinners even before our fall from grace directly reflects on God in whose image we are made. It also begs the question, what 'grace' did we fall from?)
We can debate the true meaning of the Garden of Eden story, but one thing is for certain: the contemporary Christian view is wrong. What is the proof of this? Simple -- the Garden of Eden tale has its origins in the Sumerian culture that preceded the Judeo-Christian scripture. This fact is generally accepted by scholars. What is noteworthy is the very different worldview of the earlier culture. Those ways included sacred sex practice and a naturist worldview that in no way depicted man as sinful or fallen from grace. Judaism itself never attached such ideas to this Old Testament story. It is impossible then that the Eden tale has a meaning that contradicts the beliefs of the cultures from which it sprang. (For more on this history, see Early Sacred Sex Societies.)
Myth of Sin While we're busy dispelling the myth of evil in religion, let's take care of the monster's evil sister, 'sin'. These two mythical monsters are closely related in religion; to do evil basically equates with committing sin. If it is impossible to do evil because no such thing exists, then it should be equally impossible to commit sin.
As abominable as that will sound to religionists, it is easily shown to be exactly the case. In fact, even by religious definition sin is impossible.
Religion defines sin as 'violating the Will of God'. Yet religion must attest that God's laws are inviolable. A closer look reveals the details of this contradiction.
God gives us laws and decrees that if we don't obey them we will be punished. For example, there is the Commandment, 'Thou shalt not murder'. For sake of debate we'll use the Biblical injunction, 'eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth' as rule for punishment.
So if a man kills someone and is himself killed in return, how does that violate God's law? In fact, it validates God's law because the law was carried out as given.
That leaves us with a definition of sin that looks much like our enlightened view of evil: 'not good use of God's Will'. Is that punishable by eternal damnation?
The point here is not to belittle religion's view of evil and sin, but rather to show that God's universe works just fine - and exactly how religion would expect it to - without these mythical ideas that denigrate God's good creation by our petty judgments.
Religion should endorse these views to rightly dignify God's Creation, and to rekindle the spirit of its followers. When it does, it will witness a resurgence of faith the likes of which it has never seen.
Indeed, scripture itself gives true guidance on this:
| Quote: |
| "Judge not, that ye be not judged." -- Matthew 7.1 |
In one breath Christ not only advises against it, but also explains why: according God's law of cause and effect, you will be judged. If you judge, God judges you -- thereby you are 'fallen'. If you don't judge, God does not judge you. You remain innocent, untainted by 'original sin'.
Mankind is not fallen for his actions; he is fallen - if we can even use that term - for his judgment of action. Actions bring their own consequence, but they do not bring fallen judgment.
The advice to forswear judgment may seem strong to some, but in truth the language is not strong enough.
To call anything in God's creation - which He Himself judged all good - by the name evil or sin amounts to blasphemy. You are proclaiming before God, the Maker of All, that He has made something evil. That implies evil intent on the part of God.
This gives a new understanding of hell, the proclaimed destination of sinners. Hell is not so much the place you are consigned to for evil acts. True 'hell' is living in a divine, sacred, all-good universe, and seeing evil and sin all around. That is the Original Sin being lived out over and over again in your day-to-day mind. Whether or not your hell is eternal depends on if and when you change your mind.
Forgiving Belief in Myth The myth of evil helps explain the how and why of Christ's forgiveness of sins. While this is really a topic for a religious forum, which this does not proclaim to be, it's worth taking a quick detour to understand. The question is conceivably explained by current theology, but that leaves troubling concerns.
First, it opens the door to (encourages?) sinning at will, so long as one sincerely repents and accepts Christ in the end. For that matter, it casts doubt on the fate of believers who sin, sometimes in God's name. If they are 'saved', it accepts sin. If they are not, Grace is imperfect.
But the deeper issue is this:
If there are indeed immutable sins as defined by God, which cast us into a morally fallen state, then those sins cannot be forgiven or erased even by God. To do so contradicts His own Law, and as Christ himself said, a "house divided against itself shall not stand." Put in common perspective, a king who makes laws, then only enforces them for men who don't acknowledge him as king, leads society to chaos and ruin.
For that matter, the idea of a house divided refutes the existence of evil and sin even if God can legitimately forgive them. A universe of both good and evil opens the door for annihilation of God's creation, by dividing it against itself. Surely this is not possible. Religion must attest that God's Creation and His Law are inviolable.
Less troubling theologically, but vexing philosophically, is how Jesus forgave sins. If sin is real, with real consequence, how are these effects simply erased by belief? Or the Grace of God?
Miraculously - to use a religious term - all these conundrums disappear when we dispel the myth of evil. Why did Christ come and what was his mission? He came as advertised:
| Quote: |
| "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins." -- Matthew 1.21
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."-- John 3.17 |
But the 'sin' he saves from is not of action, it is of knowledge and awakening. He saves you from the fundamental mistake of life: seeing duality where there is only God's Unity.
It is not action that condemns you. Action brings its just rewards, but sacrificing the Unity of Life for a myth of duality condemns you to ignorance.
It is from that that you must be 'saved'.
Here again, ancient language supports this view. The Greek root for 'sin' in Matthew 1.21 above (and elsewhere), is hamartano, meaning 'to miss the mark'. (The same is true in the Hebrew Old Testament, where sin is chata', meaning 'to miss'.) Sin is not a thing in itself; it's the missing of a thing. Ultimately, it is the missing of unity.
This explains the 'how' of Christ's saving Grace, shedding light on the curious Christian doctrine, one that is unique among all the world religions: that simple belief will set you free. Christians are exhorted to love and believe in Christ with all their heart and all their soul. Why? Again the answer is simple -- because everything is united in pure, absolute love. There is no room for duality. And there is no room for false beliefs if all your belief is in Christ.
If you are Christian and you believe in the myth of evil - or the illusion of duality anywhere in life - then you do not believe in Christ fully. You may believe deeply, but you have reserved some belief for the myth of evil too. For surely, evil is not real in creation. It's a myth you cling to in your heart and mind.
MYTH-FREE LIFE Dispelling the myth of evil (and its sister, sin) has enormous implications for life. It changes our fundamental worldview. But along with that, it's equally important to point out what doesn't change, to clarify concerns. These issues might be put in perspective by summarizing what the myth of evil says, and doesn't say.
The myth of evil says that what we call evil is really an absence of good. To give it a more positive spin we can use a physics term and call it a vacuum of good. Like other vacuums in nature, it attracts the deficient quality from its environment. An absence of good draws good from its surroundings. This is how the vacuum of good potential gets filled. Even in conditions of non-good, good is ripe to grow.
The myth of evil does NOT say that actions we call evil don't exist; it doesn't deny them. Nor does it call them 'good'. For want of a proper word in English, it calls them 'non-good'.
The myth of evil also does not say that because everything is essentially good, there are no unwanted (or 'negative') consequences to action. The essential goodness of creation and the law of cause and effect are separate issues. In terms of religion, it does not say that God doesn't bring divine justice to our actions. Nor does it say that the Bible does not promote the best of actions even while acknowledging the essential goodness of all action.
With that summary, let's explore the implications of life without the myth of evil more closely.
Making Non-Good Good Dispelling the myth of evil doesn't much change the common sense way we evaluate our world. We still desire good over non-good, and we still distinguish between levels of good and prefer greater levels to lesser ones.
What the myth of evil does change is our perception of evil, and therefore the way we respond to it. It is a change that even moralists and religionists, who typically strongly believe that evil is real, will agree is much for the better. It replaces our judgmental mindset with a life-changing solution-oriented one.
Instead of viewing some of God's creation as evil, a mindset that breeds 'us vs. them' responses, we see them as lacking truth, goodness, and all other life-affirming qualities. This mindset inspires 'let's help' responses. It calls us to bring love and truth to the situation to transform it to what we want.
This change results from our recognizing that evil not a thing, but rather a lack of something. Also, when we dispel the myth of evil, we take moralistic judgment out of the picture, letting us view the situation with more pragmatic, problem-solving eyes. A return to our light/dark analogy easily shows how this works.
Say you're in a dark room and you want to eliminate the darkness. Your weapons are a gun and a baseball bat. Convinced that darkness is evil, you fire and swing wildly at the dark, seeking to destroy it. Obviously, no matter how long you wage war, you will never succeed. Your only hope is if the light turns on in your mind that darkness isn't real, but rather an absence of light. Then you immediately shift from vengeance to problem-solving. You begin searching for the lightswitch and, without any weapon at all, you easily scatter the darkness.
This simple example shows both the futility of the good vs. evil approach, and the enlightened solution that solves the 'problem' of darkness.
Any problem is nothing more than the absence of a solution. When the solution is found, the problem disappears. Nothing is done to the problem; only a solution is applied to a situation.
The solution to darkness is to turn on the light. The only real and effective response to lack of goodness - the only one that works - is to add goodness. Bring light to the situation and enlighten it. Evil cannot be destroyed by attack because it is not real -- there is nothing to strike at.
Fighting evil is not just futile, it spreads what you're trying to destroy. It pours more non-good onto a non-good situation, further lowering the overall good. We see this in the modern 'war on terror'.
Terrorism is born of an absence of good will between peoples. Waging war on terror only adds to the ill-will. For every terrorist killed, ten more spring up to fight the spreading enmity. The only solution is to take constructive steps toward increasing good will. (See the World Peace Forum for a full discussion of this.)
The universe, which we commonly perceive to be a battleground between good & evil, right & wrong, is not. It is all good and all right, to different degrees.
Religion, which at its best preaches love, wisdom, and goodness in every situation, would do well to dispel the myth of evil to encourage such response. In fact, religion owes this attitude to the underlying sense that evil is a lack of good. Religion should also see the connection because it is so often drawn to situations where there is a vacuum of good. It takes only a little more to consciously acknowledge the underlying unity of these two spectral ends.
A small tribal culture in the Amazon exemplifies this constructive approach to 'non-good' behavior. When one of its members strays, the village gathers around and all are invited to 'say what has not been said'. This method of acknowledging, addressing, and resolving grievances begins with the basic premise that the individual is good. In this way they rejoin society.
This solution-oriented approach doesn't just apply to 'evils'. It applies equally to any situation that is less than ideal, because that is still lacking in good. The need is the same: bring in more good.
Dispelling the myth of evil transforms how we view situations, and our response to 'problems' and 'evils'. Where before we were harsh and judgmental, now we are accepting and forgiving. Where once we were punitive, now we are reformative and transformative. Where we were destruction-oriented, now we are creation-, life-, and solution-oriented.
Accountability What the myth of evil does NOT change is self-responsibility for action.
The myth of evil and the truth that everything is sacred is not a license for anarchical behavior. The fact that we have free will and are not judged evil or sinful for our actions does not refute the fact that our universe operates on laws of cause and effect. We are free to perform any action, but every action brings its correlate response. This is simply a law of nature. Western religion expresses it in the Old Testament as an eye for an eye; in the New Testament we reap as we sow. Modern science states it in the third law of physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Though modern science only understands it in terms of physical forces, it applies to behavioral ones as well.) This 'law of karma', as it is called in the East, maintains balance in creation.
Perfect Justice But here is a critical point for Western religion: this 'divine justice', if you want to give it that name, is dispensed dispassionately, without moral judgment or condemnation. You are not branded as 'evil'; you simply suffer on account of your actions. Every action simply is what it is and brings a like response. This judgment-free justice is perfect justice.
The effect of action is automatic and even mechanical in the same way the physical law works -- when you shoot a cannon ball forward, the barrel recoils back. God isn't looking down shouting, 'Thou hast fired a cannon ball, therefore let the barrel recoil back!' It's an automatic effect based on the laws of nature ordained to run the universe. Only in the sense of God's authorship of those laws can He be said to mete out justice. Karma is not God's wrath, retribution, nor punishment; it simply is. If you stick your hand in fire, you get burned because it's the effect of the action, not because you have sinned. If you steal from or kill another, you will be robbed or killed; but it is due to the effects of your actions, not that you are a sinner. All of God's children are once and forever God's children, not sinners.
What's more, even this justice is for the most part dispensed here on earth in everyday life, not in eternal heaven or hell in the afterlife. One has only to look around the world at the vast disparity in quality of life between people to see that heaven and hell are right here where we are, as we create them for ourselves. And it is not all about external circumstance. There are those in the most heavenly surroundings living internal hells, and vice versa.
If religious minded people choose to acknowledge God's authorship of these natural laws by proclaiming that He metes out justice, that is fine and as true a view as any other, so long as they understand it the above way. The bible is filled with such references. Unfortunately though, the Bible came at a time when few saw through the myth of evil, and therefore uses the common language of that day (assuming it has been translated correctly), which was to label non-good as evil and sin.
Harmony of Goodness & Justice The law of cause and effect and the essential goodness of creation are two separate but closely related principles. They co-exist in both religious and secular life. Both relate to justice and judgment, but in very different ways. Both also exist in the Bible; indeed, use of the one word 'judgment' in explaining both is the cause of much confusion in contemporary religion.
Cause and effect maintains justice and equilibrium in creation by returning appropriate consequences for good and less good actions. Those 'just rewards' are good and less good respectively. The Bible uses phrases like 'God judges the actions of men' and 'God metes out justice to the unrighteous' in describing such justice.
The underlying unity and goodness of creation relates to a more fundamental issue: that of whether you falsely judge God's Creation as good and evil. The Bible expresses this in subtler teachings like 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Along with the common language used to describe both, there are other reasons contemporary religion blurs these issues or entirely misses the unity one. Cause and effect is easier to fathom and readily applies to daily life. Biblical references to it are also far more common, to the point of being ubiquitous. The unity of life is much more subtle, even paradoxical. On the one hand, good and non-good are opposites; on the other they're essentially the same. Its Bible teachings therefore come often by analogy, as in the Garden of Eden story, or by subtle inference. Their significance is often missed.
Yet Christian doctrine itself gives evidence of two distinct teachings. It also affirms the supremacy of unity over cause and effect. Christianity does this through its fundamental distinction between faith and works. Works are one thing; thing bring their just reward. But whole-hearted faith restores unity to life, saving the soul. Love of Christ unifies all. You see creation as eternally good; you return to your Edenic innocence. That teaching is supreme.
The reason contemporary Christians typically miss the unity teaching is that Christ ingeniusly gave it to them in an indirect way. He knew the difficulty of grasping the unity of all things. So rather than confronting the intellect, he said simply, 'Love me wholly, have faith in me completely'. In so doing, the heart is unified. Everything is love & goodness; all notion of evil vanishes.
Both laws - that of cause and effect, and its underlying unity - together show the perfection of creation. Cause and effect ensures that even while all action is good, the best actions are encouraged and lesser ones discouraged by nature. Underlying unity and essential goodness mean that even though we may suffer unwanted consequences for our actions, we are always good in the eyes of God.
Either of the two alone has drawbacks. If creation were simply all good there would be no impetus for better action, nor any consequence for lesser action. If only cause and effect were present, we would live in a harsh judgmental universe. We have created this latter situation for ourselves today because we accept cause and effect, but we miss life's underlying unity. Instead, we believe in the myth of evil. It is therefore as though real. Religion in particular views cause and effect through the veil of good vs. evil. It thus encourages moral goodness, but in a harsh, judgmental way.
The more obvious cause and effect also helps reveal the subtler unity of life. It dispels the illusion of duality by showing the connection between the actor and his or her surroundings. Whether you call this the hand of nature or the Grace of God, the effect is the same. It shows the unity and harmony of creation and affirms the truth that all is one. The underlying unity comes forward to affirm that you are part of a holistic creation.
Myth-Free Self There is one last judgment-related area that is greatly impacted by dispelling the myth of evil. That is self-judgment, both personal and of our general human spirit. For you individually, the truth that all is good asserts and affirms your essential self-worth. It bestows value to your life that cannot be diminished or negated by any means. It validates your wants and needs, and attests to the sanctity of your actions. It roots out once and for all negative self-esteem issues that stunt personal growth. You can't be bad or evil because they don't exist. Dispelling the myth of evil at once frees you from a life-time of guilt and shame. There can be nothing to be guilty or ashamed of.
Like the myth of evil itself, self-judgment has a collective component too. It is not enough to dispel the myth in your own mind, for society has a mind of its own. Its most devastating effect is wrought by religion, through the misunderstandings presented above. Contemporary Christianity in particular blindly proclaims the myth that man is fallen, inherently sinful due to some progenitor's action, and unworthy of grace by our own virtue. It would have us believe that we, created in God's image, somehow innately contradict that image. It asks us to accept that we attain to grace not because it is our birthright and our destiny, but only through God's mercy on His pitiful children. Such ideas are as mythical as the evil used to justify them, and inflate the cloud of guilt and shame humanity holds over itself. They are as blind as the faith religion begs us to put in them.
We can only imagine the society that will blossom when these life-sapping ideas dry up. Civilization always reflects the self-image of its people. Society today spends much of its knowledge, energy, and material resources either fighting perceived evils or sustaining a mundane existence. What heights could we achieve devoting ourselves to greatness?
Myth-Free Sex While the myth of evil and its sinister side-effects of guilt and shame plague all of life, they particularly inhibit desire and sexuality. That, and the fact that these two are main topics of this website, demand that we give them special attention.
It would be true enough to say that dispelling the myth of evil closes the issue before it opens. There simply is no such thing as evil desire and no truth to the idea that sex is evil. But specific beliefs have specific justification, and it's useful to address the particular arguments made against sex and desire. We'll also distinguish between good and less good values of the two, since these represent the full spectrum of their expression. We'll start with desire since that is the more basic of the two. Whatever applies to it applies equally to sexual desire.
Sacred Desire Desire itself is simply a vehicle; in that sense it is neither good nor evil. It is also the impetus for change though, and therefore the catalyst for all human progress. In that, it is inherently sacred. Attempts by religion to demonize desire for example, fail to acknowledge that passion & desire for God is still that -- passionate desire. Desire is as good as the use it is put to. Where it is not put to good use, cause and effect bring results that inspire better future use.
There is much more to desire than this, however. To fully comprehend desire, we must see it in the context of its source and ultimate goal. In this light, desire is actually a circle that begins and ends in Self-Awareness. It is both the creative expression of your higher Self and the means to rediscover your Self. Desire flows in a continuous loop of Self-expression and fulfillment. In that, it is once and forever sacred. (For a full explanation of this, see the Sacred Desire Forum.)
Sacred Sex Sex is like desire in that it is a vehicle; it can lead you to different experiences. Conventional sex leads to physical gratification and sensory satisfaction. Whatever good feeling, etc. you get from that is its 'good'. Research studies citing various mental, physical, and emotional health benefits verify this good. Sacred sex does all this and more. It leads to real spiritual experience and fulfillment. Its long list of benefits, not the least of which is spiritual awakening, attest to its 'goodness'. In fact, if we take spiritual enlightenment as the supreme good, then sacred sex - far from being evil - satisfies that good.
It may seem strange how something with such spiritual potential as sex has come to be so vilified by religion. Many religious believers see sex as the 'anti-religion' -- diametrically opposed to spirituality. In the context of the myth of evil, that should alert you to the existence of a deeper fundamental unity between sex and spirit. There are no polar opposites; only opposite ends of a spectrum. And in each end lies a direct connection to the other. A closer look at sex and spirit reveal exactly this. In it you will see the inherent 'goodness' of sacred sex.
Specifically, we'll look at sexual and spiritual energy, because these carry us to 'higher' or 'lower' states. From that we can see the level of good in the energy. Religion doesn't commonly use the term 'spiritual energy', but it contains ideas that readily equate to it. On a universal scale, God's creative energy - that which creates and maintains all life in the universe - can be called spiritual energy. This immediately enlightens us as to the supposed dichotomy between spiritual and sexual energy, for what other energy can there possibly be than that which creates and maintains all life? ALL energy is spiritual energy in the same way as was shown earlier that all forms of clay are ultimately clay. Indeed, many spiritual traditions simply use the term 'life energy' since it encompasses all spheres of life, including those not commonly labeled spiritual. But now religion has a hint that everything in life is spiritual, for everything proceeds by that energy.
This fundamental unity shows itself when we examine the so-called spiritual/sexual divide in man. Here again, common religious ideas translate to what we here call 'energy'. Religion exhorts us to devote all our love, thought, and attention - in short, all our energy - to God. That energy is typically viewed as being directed 'up' to God, despite His declared omnipresence. Prayerful pictures often show the eyes gazing upward. Thus religion would likely agree that the spiritual energy in man runs upward. Eastern traditions detail the role of this upward moving energy in spiritual awakening. They explain that it travels up the spine and floods the mind to trigger awakening. Christian portrayals of Christ and saints with golden halos surrounding the head suggest similar views.
When we put attention on anything in life, our energy flows there. We commonly say for example, that athletes pour all their energy into sports and fitness, students direct all theirs toward study, and entrepreneurs devote their energy to their business. And we may label them sports energy, student energy, and business energy. But clearly, all are using the same life energy for different purposes. It is therefore false to label one energy 'good' and another 'evil' -- they are the same energy, just flowing in different directions.
Sex energy is simply life energy flowing downward to the genitals. From this it is easy to understand the religious disdain toward sex. Spiritual energy moves up, while sex energy moves the opposite way -- down. This also explains the tradition of celibacy common in monastic traditions, including Christianity. The idea is that you can't direct all your energies up to God if they flow down for sex. There is some truth to this and celibacy has its value in certain situations and for certain people on their spiritual path. But ultimately, spirituality is not about rejecting one part of life for another, because that is duality. Life then is a continuous battle between sex and spirit. Spirit can never win such a battle because at any moment sex can rise up and overcome it. The battle is thus eternal. This can hardly be described as 'spiritual peace'.
(This sheds light on the many sex scandals that embroil religious leaders. The dualistic worldview divides the mind, pitting conscience against nature in perpetual conflict. This internal division weakens the mind and spirit; conscience ultimately loses the battle. Interestingly, the dualism often leads to a double life -- public appearance of chastity over a secret sex life.)
Some sacred sex scriptures are very clear (and blunt) on this point. Earlier we quoted a Tantric text stating that everything is pure to a pure mind. The following shows that the opposite is also true: 'pure' actions do not absolve an impure mind.
| Quote: |
[Spiritual practice] will not be accomplished by asceticism.
As long as the mind is not purified,
One is fruitless & bound by chains of ignorance.
One who, possessing desire, represses desire,
is living a lie....-- Chandamaharosana Tantra |
True spirituality integrates ALL of life into its fold. Only then is it eternally at peace, for nothing can disturb its wholeness -- all is part of that. Sex and spirit must meet. Spirituality must integrate sexuality into its experience. Spirit must embrace sexuality.
A perfect example of integrated sexual & spiritual energy in religious life is seen in the Christian St. Teresa of Avila. Teresa clearly described the spiritual energy in her body, and in very sexual terms:
| Quote: |
[Paragraph blocks are independent, not necessarily in sequence.]
"As my capacity for prayer developed, I found that in prayer my ordinary mental faculties fell asleep, and my senses grew dim. Then a new feeling, a new sensation, began to rise up through my body to my neck. I was powerless to control this experience: I could not hasten it nor prevent it."
"There was no way I could resist what was happening. I had no choice but to submit myself to God. My soul was truly Christ's bride, and this was the ecstasy of the nuptial bed."
"I wanted to clasp him to my bosom, to embrace him and kiss him with my lips."
"Good Jesus...Fondle me with your divine hands, cover me with divine kisses, that I may give to you the fullness of my love.... Clasp me to your bosom, hold me tightly to your body, that I may always be faithful and loyal in my love for you."-- from the Diary of St. Teresa |
Teresa's amorous devotion is immortalized in Bernini's Ecstasy of Saint Theresa sculpture.
Another way to see the connection is that spiritual life is lived in the world, in the physical body. Both are there. One is not good and the other evil. Spirit must be infused into bodily acts to bring out the sacred in them. In this way, the spiritual 'void' is filled. Spirit and matter are one spectral range, not an opposed pair.
The fact that sex energy is but downward moving life energy is all the more reason religion should embrace it rather than fight it. Religion should not aim to destroy sex energy, but rather to redirect it. To destroy sex energy is to destroy life energy -- energy religion would have us direct toward God. (This explains why many religious followers who have suppressed their sexual energy are passionless in life, including their quest for God -- they have stifled their life energy.)
There is an even better reason religion should ally itself with sex energy rather than wage war on it. The passionate zeal and powerful force of this brand of life energy make it the best energy to raise!
This fits exactly with the solution strategy given earlier. Rather than fighting darkness that doesn't exist, bring in what is lacking -- light. If sex is devoid of spirit, the solution isn't to fight sex, it is to spiritualize it. Indeed, that is exactly what sacred sex does. Sacred sex might just as well be called spiritualized sex, or religious sex. Sacred sex is not the enemy of religion; it is its friend. And given the passion and zeal with which its followers practice, it may be religion's best friend. For it brings to religion that which religion would have its followers possess.
This complementary view of sacred sex is not entirely foreign to western religion. Jewish Kabbalah accepts the idea, and its main text, the Zohar directly refers to it. Several Christian saints and mystics besides St. Teresa - like St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Siena, and Meister Eckhart - spoke of unio mystica, or mystical union, which they described in love-filled, even sexual, terms. Sufi mystics like Rumi, Al-Hallaj, and the female Rabia Basri also wrote of mystical love and union. (See Sacred Sex from Mid-East to West for a discussion of all these.) It is only for mainstream religion to rediscover this original understanding of sex, and integrate it into its practice.
The potential for sex to be sacred is seen in the defining sex experience -- orgasm. From the perspective of energy flow in the body, a very curious thing happens during orgasm. Your life energy, which was moving down, explosively shoots up. That's right -- what religion scornfully labels as sex energy is now by definition spiritual energy. Your life energy flows up. It is this upward flow of energy flooding your mind that is responsible for the expansion of awareness and orgasmic rush that you experience during orgasm. Your eyes may even roll up in your head, another indication of the upward flow. This not only shows the sacred potential of sex, but it's also the proof of its link to spirit. If sex and spirit were truly separate and opposed no trace of one could be found in the other. The fact that there is even a momentary spiritual energy flow during sex shows that spirit is in it. The only task is to increase that flow. That is what sacred sex does.
Sacred sex uses muscle, breathing, massage, and other techniques to move your sexual energy up the body. Thereby it transforms it into spiritual energy. In particular, the sacred sexercise taught in Lesson 4 literally pumps your sex energy up the spine.
Sacred sex even has practices that set up a continuous loop of sex energy in the body. These techniques, like the one taught in Lesson 6, cycle your life energy up and down the body so as to fully integrate sex and spirit. You can learn more about the spiritual significance of this in the Sacred Desire Forum.
Far from being evil then, sex has the potential for enormous good. Sacred sex utilizes that potential.
We can even begin to 'grade' sex on the level of good in it. Using a scale like in our rheostat lit room earlier, we could evaluate whether sex is full of spirit, somewhat full, less full, or devoid of it. You might be interested to know that the Eastern traditions referred to above give us just such a scale. The Vedic tradition of India in particular gives clear indicators of the 'level' of your life energy. It describes seven energy centers - called 'chakras' - along the spine that represent different levels of energy in the body. If you view the spinal column as a thermometer, energy moving up through the chakras is like the mercury rising. Each chakra represents a significant 'degree' of energy rise. You can then grade your energy level based on its degree of rise. There are detailed psycho-physiological indicators for each degree. These are beyond the scope of the current topic, but they are evidence of a unified spectral range. It would be hard, if not impossible, to explain chakras in terms of dual opposites.
Evaluating sex in this way, by varying degrees of good rather than good vs. evil, is not completely foreign to religion. Religion already distinguishes between marital & non-marital sex, sex for procreation & pleasure, identifying some as more 'good' than others. This simply gives a clearer, non-judgmental way of evaluating.
Another fascinating connection between sex and spirit that comes to us from olden traditions lies in the origin of the word 'sacrum'. This name for the bone located at the base of the spine derives from the Latin 'os sacrum', meaning sacred bone. It was so called because the bone was once used in sacrificial rites. That a body part located near the sex region was seen as sacred may be surprising enough to many. But a clear understanding of its early sacrificial use reveals a more intriguing connection.
In Eastern spiritual practice, where the referenced sacrificial rites no doubt originate, spiritual energy that flows up the spine - called 'kundalini' - resides dormant in the sacrum of every human being. Of the seven chakras that the energy passes through, the 2 lower ones - particularly the sacral chakra - specifically relate to sex energy.
Through any of a variety of spiritual practices, including sacred sex, kundalini is awakened and travels up the spine resulting in spiritual experience, as mentioned before. Kundalini's slumber in the sacrum marks individual life. In that state, we live out our individual existence. When kundalini awakens and rises fully, we become universal beings. Individual self merges with the higher Universal Self. Mystics referred to this as a sacrifice -- individuality loses or sacrifices itself in the greater universality. While these cultures also symbolically enacted this awakening in common rites, this inner sacrifice is the higher meaning. Thus early cultures clearly saw the link between sex and spirit, and viewed bodily practices - not to mention body parts - relating to the sexual regions as sacred, not sinful.
Perhaps most telling is that the name 'sacrum' is reserved for the base of the spine near the sex region, not the top where spiritual experience is actually realized. This shows that the ancients accepted the body as a sacred vehicle for spiritual realization. It is a view we would do well to re-adopt today.
While we show the value of sacred sex, we shouldn't overlook the good even in common sex. It's not that sacred sex is good and common sex is 'no good'. It may not be good to the same degree, but even conventional sex is not devoid of good. Some Christians condemn all sex except that between husband and wife for the purpose of procreation as sinful. Yet some Bible teachings and basic facts of life belie that.
Christ advised to know a thing by its fruit. Many research studies show that sex has wide ranging benefits in many areas of life. This is irrespective of the kind of sex and any moral judgment of it. If sex were sinful, why would it give these benefits? (The argument for negative sex-related effects like STD's and unwanted pregnancy, etc. is not valid because these apply to how sex is used, not the sex act itself. By comparison, activities like overeating and eating bad food lead to sickness, but they don't lessen the positive value of eating.)
A more interesting proof lies in the human body itself. Theologians claiming for example, that sex for pleasure is sinful, must explain a tiny female organ called the clitoris. With its 8,000 nerve endings (yes, 8000 -- twice as many as the much larger male organ), the clitoris is the only organ, male or female, whose sole function is to give pleasure.
Given God's role in creation, He would have to be anything but All-Merciful to create a body that is basically designed to sin. To punish such acts with eternal damnation crosses over to sadism. An analogy would be that of parents creating something for their children whose sole function, if used, resulted in the child being sent to live the rest of its life in the basement, by a blazing furnace no less. Would such parents not be convicted in a court of law of inhumane treatment of their own children? Is this how we are to see God? (The ridiculous notion that it is somehow female 'punishment' for Eve's role in the Garden of Eden falls flat because Eve was created that way before the seduction.)
The only other rationale can be that sex, desire, and pleasure are not evil; they are a natural part of life like any other. How sacred they are depends on how spiritually we use them.
Elsewhere in this Forum we answer the question How Sex Became Sacred. We see that sex didn't become sacred; it always has been and always will be sacred by its very nature. Now though, given the truth that evil is a myth, we face a more poignant question -- how sex became sinful. Somewhere along the line, less exalted human nature got mistaken for irredeemable human nature. Less good got labeled evil. Exactly how and when this happened we may never know, but one thing we do know is where it happened. The mistaken notion that sex is sinful occurred in the mind of man. And there only does it continue to dwell, for surely it has not come from God, the nature of life, nor any other definitive source.
What is sadly ironic about religion's stance on sex is that in condemning it as evil they prevent it from becoming anything more. They perpetuate the myth of evil. To those who believe the myth, sex will always remain as they label it. They will never explore or experience the sacred potential of sex. Everyone suffers for this. The world doesn't need sex demonized, it needs sex sanctified. We need sacred sex education, not sexual suppression.
Strangely, remnants of the myth of evil even permeate some sacred sex circles. Some sacred sex practitioners strictly define sexual acts and behavior that are or are not 'sacred'. Many claim you must have a pure, open, and loving attitude for sacred sex. They apply the same judgmental code to sacred sex as religion does to sex in general.
There is simply no basis in truth to this. Sacred sex practice is like exercise -- you do something that brings a result. In the case of fitness, you may go to the gym, eat right, and play sports. For sacred sex, you practice the methods you've learned. In both cases, results come in time.
It matters little if you idly chat or watch TV while you exercise, even though these may affront purists. Even cheating on your diet only slightly reduces your results; it doesn't completely negate your efforts. Likewise, your attitude may affect how much you enjoy your workout, but if you follow the regimen it has little effect on the result.
In the same way, sacred sex is based on physically moving the energy in your body. This produces a concrete inner experience. What sex acts you engage in while moving your energy and what attitude you have toward it matter little. Everything has its effect, but the basic result comes regardless of these factors.
This is why true sacred sex places no moral restrictions on sex whatsoever. Whatever takes place between consenting adults that does not impinge on the rights and freedom of others is permitted. The Sacred Sex Lessons taught in this Forum can be used with virtually any sex act. This means that any sexual desire and act can be used to redirect your downward moving sex energy to upward flowing spiritual energy. That definition - and that alone, not any puritanical view of acceptable behavior - determines how sacred the sex act is.
Neither religion, sacred sex, nor any other 'authority' has the power to judge something as sinful. In truth, there is no such thing as 'dirty' sex or sacred sex, or your 'dirty' human body. There are only dirty minds that think it so. It is not sinful sex acts that are obstacles to sacred sex, but rather our judgment of them.
Those who wish to learn more about this alternative view of sacred sex may visit the Sacred Profane Forum.
As with the basic myth of evil, the myth of evil sacred sex is not a license for sexual free-for-all. Practices shown to redirect your sex energy upward define sacred sex. Every action has its effect; conventional sex draws your energy down, aside from the orgasmic burst up. Sex acts are not judged in a moral sense, but may have a practical effect on the flow of your energy. As you gain experience, you'll be able to gauge this for yourself. These points are all discussed in the Sacred Sex Lessons.
The point here though is that sex acts are not judged morally. They are seen only for their effect on your energy. Some acts help more than others. Some may not help at all, and some may even set you back a bit. But they are not evil in a moral or religious sense, or even bad in the eyes of sacred sex. It is more practical: if you want something, do what it takes to get you there. Unuseful events are simply learning experiences, or pleasant diversions along the way.
We might call this the last implication of dispelling the myth of evil: life gets more easy-going. Rather than living in fear of eternal judgment, life remains as it truly is: an opportunity to learn and grow, and unfold your full potential. It is your playground to explore, free from guilt and shame even while taking responsibility for your actions.
MYTH OF EVIL GODDESS Dispelling the myth of evil sex and desire leads us to another false sensual evil -- the Goddess. Patriarchal religion, in its false splitting of our unified creation, has pitted its 'good' God against the 'evil' Goddess. But the truth of unity proves that to be false. Everything, even God's polar opposite, is essentially of God. The Goddess is simply, to use a common phrase, God's 'other half'.
Does this mean that our patriarchal God is incomplete, only half the picture? Actually, it does not. Patriarchal religion has merely assimilated the Goddess and made Her God's own. It has renamed the Goddess as 'God's Nature'. What we call the 'Will of God' (God's active involvement in the world) and the 'Body of God' (our material creation) are, in non-patriarchal terms, the Goddess. See the Divine Feminine for a full explanation of this.
The sacred unity of God & Goddess despite their polar opposition is one of the most revealing truths of creation. It would be easy to say, even in our new paradigm, that the Goddess, being 'not God' and at the opposite end of the spectrum from Him, is still inferior to Him or otherwise devoid of godliness. But this is not so. As the symbolism of their generative organs represents, Goddess is the void, or field, in which the seed of God grows to evolutionary fulfillment. Goddess is the entire material creation in which God makes Himself manifest. Without Her, God remains an unmanifest potentiality. Both together comprise the totality of life; this is their Sacred Union.
Eastern religion is explicitly clear about the equal sovereignty of God & Goddess. The Upanishads, distillations of India's highest spiritual teachings, describe the identical character of the two opposites. This one distinguishes them simply as 'this' and 'that':
| Quote: |
Purnamadah purnamidam
purnat purnamudacyate
Purnasya purnamadaya
purnameva vashisyate
That is full, this is full,
from fullness, fullness comes forth.
Fullness taken from fullness,
fullness remains.-- Isha Upanishad |
Note the term 'fullness' to describe both. It is not even that God is full and Goddess is empty. Both are full, but they each have their own unique fullness. God is full in that He is Infinite Unity. Goddess is full in the way the universe is, as the Infinite Sum of Parts.
A simple analogy may help explain. Imagine a picture puzzle, all assembled, with a cardboard backing attached to hold it together. On the front, you see all the pieces and also the picture of the whole. That is what we call 'Goddess'. If you flip the puzzle over, you see the Unity that pervades the whole. That is what we call 'God'. Now imagine a puzzle of infinite pieces and you'll have a picture of God & Goddess in creation. Both are full. Both are equally sacred.
Goddess is associated with desire, because that is how creation evolves. Western religion tends to demonize desire; that is one of the reasons it labels Goddess veneration as 'sin'. But desire is the means by which God evolves Himself in the world, and rises to Self-Remembrance in physical form. Thus Goddess is not sin, but rather the sacred Will of God Himself. See Sacred Desire for a full explanation of this.
BEYOND MYTH TO REALITY With the myth of evil gone, what replaces it in the mind? The answer is a new paradigm for life.
Gone is good vs. evil. What remains is all good. We are left with multiple layers and degrees of good.
We desire good. This means that all creation is now in terms of what we want. If it is more good, we want it more; if less good, we desire it less. If something is 'no good', we simply don't desire it. Neither do we condemn it, hate it, label it evil, or fight it. We simply desire what is good, and non-good gets filled with it.
Our new paradigm values everything in life by how much we desire it. This empowers us to create the life we want, rather than bog ourselves down moralizing about what we don't want. It is the paradigm of an enlightened society, one that sees through myths to the truth of life. It is the paradigm of a sacred sex society.
To see how this paradigm, and others like it, apply to different areas of society, see the Sacred Sex Society Forum (in particular, Value of Desire). To see how the myth of evil works magic on another false evil, see Abundant Economics.
The idea of good vs. evil has served its purpose. It is more simplistic and easily understood than a range of goodness. This is why good vs. evil has been the common teaching over the millennia, and in that it has had its practical value. It has served to encourage good while discouraging 'evil', despite its guilt, shame, and life-suppressing side-effects. But in the end it must give way to the real truth if we are to evolve to an enlightened society.
The end of the myth of evil begins with you. In your own mind now, the monster is dead. In Sexual Enlightenment, you'll directly experience the unity of life, preventing the myth of evil from ever returning. But even now, evil will never again have the hold on you it once had.
Now that the monster of evil is dead, you can come out of the closet. You are free to follow your desires, knowing they're sacred, not evil. If part of your personal monster was your sinful sex desire, you can come out now and enjoy it. You can explore the full potential of sex and discover for yourself how sacred it is.
Share this lesson with your family and friends. When your circle of friends read it, you stop imposing this myth on each other. You give life freedom to flourish. Tell everyone you know that evil has never existed and never will...except in their own mind if they let it. Despite its ugly head, the monster of evil is easy to slay. Because it's a myth, the only weapon you need is knowledge. Point them here and let them see for themselves how darkness flees from light.
And you're excused if you feel giddy with freedom, unshackled from bonds of ignorance that enslaved you. Celebrate by satisfying a long-held desire. Declare it from the rooftop if you dare.
Cut loose. Let go.
No matter that you are free from something that never was.
Copyright 2007, Society for Sacred Sexuality - all rights reserved.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
 |
|
|
| Good and Evil Posted: April 26, 2007 |
|
|
| The discussion of Good and Evil, the continuum on which they exist and the definition of each intrigues me. The graphic makes a great impact. All of this made me first think of the Yin-Yang symbol, where diametric opposites, noted by black and white, are not only in constant and moving harmonious existence, but a discrete part of each exists within the other. Not only can there not be one without the other, but each is part of the other-- perhaps even a better graphic, or at least a different one. And that lead me to think deeper about the Good vs Evil and their definitions. Good is a thing. Evil is the absence of that thing, thereby not making it a thing. But that is a paradox that I just can't get my mind around. If Good is a thing, and Evil is the absence of Good, then isn't Evil a thing? Explained with light, i.e. darkness is the absence of light and not a thing, then I get it. But I still go back to the Good and Evil and just can't grasp it. Why isn't Good the absence of Evil? Why can't they both co-exist, as they seem to do on the graphic and in the Yin-Yang? And the Yin-Yang takes it a step further, it seems, suggesting that Good (or white) has Evil (or black) within it, and vice-versa. Just like we say that there's got to be some good in the bad people (and I'd propose the opposite is certainly true even though most good people wouldn't admit it). You know, the old silver lining. Funny, though, that when something good happens we don't look for the [insert whatever the opposite color of silver is here] lining? Just my thoughts on trying to get clarity on an issue that I find very interesting! |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: April 27, 2007 |
|
|
These are some good points, and they actually further prove the myth of evil. Before I comment on that though, a few words about yin-yang.
I am not an expert on Taoism, but my understanding is that yin-yang covers a broader range of opposites than what I've presented here. Good & evil (and also the other pairs I list in the lesson chart) are polar opposites, whereas yin & yang covers not only polar opposites, but also distinct opposites too.
Polar opposites are actually one thing, either present or not, like light & dark (no light), hot & cold (no heat). Distinct opposites (if that is the correct term) are two things we accept as being very distinct, to the point that their qualities balance each other out.
Some examples of distinct yin-yang opposites:
| yang | yin | | sun | moon | | fire | water | | heaven | earth | | salt | sugar | | science | art | | electricity | magnetism | | logic | intuition | | odd | even |
So, while yin-yang includes polar opposites and therefore helps understand good & evil, it includes a broader range of opposites, some qualities of which may not apply.
That said, some of the yin-yang ideas you brought up very much apply:
1. Evil's existence as a 'thing' -- this may clear up much of your confusion:
The Myth of Evil does not claim that what we call 'evil' does not exist. For example, if you call murder an evil act, we're not saying that murder does not exist. Only that the label 'evil' is a misnomer. A murderer is not 'evil'; he is simply lacking in good.
You may say that the act of murder is a positive 'evil' act, not merely the absence of a good act, but if you look to the source of it, you'll see it arises from an absence of good.
'Evil' acts arise from minds with 'evil' thoughts. If the mind is filled with good thoughts, there is no room for anything else. Evil thoughts arise in the absence of good ones.
You may argue that the reverse is also true; that evil-filled minds leave no room for good thoughts, and therefore good is the absence of evil. But there's some interesting science that shows it doesn't work that way.
Positive thinking has been linked to brain-wave coherence in EEG studies. Negative ('evil') thought only comes up in the ABSENCE of brain-wave coherence. Clearly, good is the existent phenomena (mental order); evil is the absence of that.
That is why the label 'evil' is false; it is simply the absence of good.
2. Co-existence: polar opposites like good & evil are actually MORE co-existent than distinct opposites. We can conceive of the sun existing without the moon, salt without sugar, fire without water, etc. But light & absence of light are two states of one phenomenon -- light. They MUST co-exist.
Does this mean evil must co-exist with good; that good can't exist without evil? The problem with this is that's it's a falsely worded question. The question should be: must absence of good co-exist with good? The answer to that is yes. In any situation, we can either do good or not.
Co-existence doesn't mean both are fully manifest at the same time, even in yin-yang theory. One is present only to the degree the other is not. Think of the pairs as two values adding up to 100%. You may have 100% light and 0% dark, 70% light and 30%, 30% light and 70% dark, or 0% light and 100% dark. The graduated bar in my lesson graphic shows this well (better than the yin-yang symbol).
So while there is co-existence, it is mutually exclusive co-existence. One exists to the degree that the other does not.
This mutual co-existence categorically proves the myth of evil. If evil were a 'thing' opposite to good in the way that sugar and salt are opposite things, they would be cumulative when added. If we have either 100% salt or sugar, then add 100% of the other, we have a sum of material equaling 200% the original amount.
But if you have 100% darkness and add 100% light, you get simply 100% light. The 100% darkness goes away because it was never real to begin with. It was only the absence of light.
Using the example of brain wave coherence, as that is perhaps the best physical measure we have for good, we find the same. If you start with 100% incoherence and add 100% coherence, you have 100% coherence. The mythical 100% 'evil' incoherence disappears.
One last point about co-existence: their mutual exclusivity means we're not stuck with both qualities fully manifest. We can have 100% good and 0% 'evil' without refuting their co-existence.
3. Each exists in the other: our model views this the same way I assume yin-yang does. In the mixed percent examples above (e.g. 70% light, 30% dark), it's easy to see one in the other. In the pure 100% states, it's more that the other exists in principle, or by definition, rather than manifestly.
Absence of light is an inherent potential state, even in full light. Light is also inherent in the absence of light -- physics states that the vacuum state (absence of something) contains within it the potential for all things. The dots in the yin-yang symbol represent this well (better than my graduated bar).
'Each-in-the-other' also further proves the myth of evil. This can only occur if one is the absence of the other. Yin-yang theory must use very abstract reasoning to prove that sun exists in moon, salt in sugar, fire in water, etc.
This is not so for good & evil. Absence of brain coherence is inherent in brain coherence, and vice-versa. Each is in the other, at least potentially. This shows that they are a 'thing' & 'non-thing' pair. Evil, the non-thing, is a myth.
 One final point about yin & yang that is very relevant here. Taoist philosophy never places a value judgment on the pairs of opposites. It never implies that one is better than the other, or to use our exact terms, that one is good and the other evil. This in itself shows that good and evil is a false construct. Good and the 'void' of good however, easily fit into a dualist worldview without creating value judgments.
The Upanishad quoted at the end of the lesson makes clear that both are 'full':
| Quote: |
Purnamadah purnamidam
purnat purnamudacyate
Purnasya purnamadaya
purnameva vashisyate
That is full, this is full,
from fullness, fullness comes forth.
Fullness taken from fullness,
fullness remains.-- Isha Upanishad |
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
|
|
| 'Evil' is a useful concept Posted: January 4, 2009 |
|
|
I feel quite comfortable with the idea that evil is the absence of good, and that it is merely, in itself, a notion, and, as such, not possessing reality in the way that the material world does. I find reinforcement for that not just here, but in Western and Buddhist philosophy, and common sense too.
But I don't feel comfortable with any attempt to completely deride or undermine the use of the word. I once watched a programme about psychiatric nurses who, on occasion, used the 'e-' word to describe patients in specific states. At first it seems unprofessional for staff under scientific supervision to moralise about patients in this way, but that is not necessarily how it was. They were using simple language in a precise way to warn fellow professionals of perceived danger to themselves or others. To call the patient 'dangerous' would mean something quite different - more short-term and specific, I guess. I guess the same applies to e.g., police in similar situations, among other professions. Thus it occurred to me that to take away the word 'evil' from these professionals in the interests of 'political correctness,' or whatever, would potentially strip them of their defences, and of a therapeutic tool, as well as reducing their response time/potential.
Apologies for appearing to clinicise human tragedy and custom in this way, but I guess someone has to. |
|
|
|
|
| Evil as concept vs. word Posted: January 5, 2009 |
|
|
We're not really in disagreement here. As I say in the lesson, it is not the idea of something opposite good that we must abandon, it is the judgmental baggage we associate with it. I am all for language that clearly communicates the truth of the situation. If there is danger there, then we should communicate danger. But danger and evil are two different things, and since we agree that 'evil' per se is a false construct - i.e. not really there - we must abandon the language that insinuates that it is there.
I say this for practical reasons, not philosophical ones. Philosophy doesn't really matter (except in that it substantiates practical views and actions). What happens when we give life to evil is that it changes the way we deal with it:
Evil is a lack of good. Therefore, the only true way to eliminate it is to fill the void -- bring good to the situation. When we use the word 'evil', that is not the response it inspires. When we call it 'evil', we want to destroy it. That doesn't bring any good to the situation, and therefore does nothing to eliminate the evil.
Why do you think the war in the Middle East goes on & on like a broken record? Because both sides see the other as evil and seek to destroy it. Neither is trying to bring real good to the situation. It is an ENDLESS conflict.
As for the implications of eliminating the word 'evil' from our current language, I understand your point about its value in communicating the gravity of a situation. Clearly, since we've relied on the false term 'evil' for so long, our language lacks other words or expressions that communicate the utter undesirability of something without the value judgment of 'evil'.
If we want language to truly express life as it is, we need to evolve those expressions, so we can do away with the false ones.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
|
|
| Re: Evil as concept vs. word Posted: January 5, 2009 |
|
|
| Gary Joseph said: |
Evil is a lack of good. Therefore, the only true way to eliminate it is to fill the void -- bring good to the situation. When we use the word 'evil', that is not the response it inspires. When we call it 'evil', we want to destroy it. That doesn't bring any good to the situation, and therefore does nothing to eliminate the evil.
Why do you think the war in the Middle East goes on & on like a broken record? Because both sides see the other as evil and seek to destroy it. Neither is trying to bring real good to the situation. It is an ENDLESS conflict. |
When you look at those two paragraphs, what's happening is that the word 'it' is changing its meaning - from 'the absence of good' to representing something or someone in the physical world. It's quite possible that that is a general problem, caused by people's failure to distinguish the abstract from the physical - but that's what it appears to be.
| Gary Joseph said: |
| As for the implications of eliminating the word 'evil' from our current language, I understand your point about its value in communicating the gravity of a situation. Clearly, since we've relied on the false term 'evil' for so long, our language lacks other words or expressions that communicate the utter undesirability of something without the value judgment of 'evil'. |
I've done some more thinking about that. It isn't just about communicating gravity, but a type of danger - the hidden variety. A 'dangerous' patient or suspect is in some ways less dangerous than an 'evil' one, because danger can be immediately addressed, but evil is more unpredictable. |
|
|
|
|
| Re: Evil as concept vs. word Posted: January 5, 2009 |
|
|
| londheart said: |
| When you look at those two paragraphs, what's happening is that the word 'it' is changing its meaning - from 'the absence of good' to representing something or someone in the physical world. It's quite possible that that is a general problem, caused by people's failure to distinguish the abstract from the physical... |
That IS the problem -- the subtle truth of the situation is lost when we attach a blunt, judgmental word to it, like 'evil'. We then apply that blunt judgment to people and their actions. That invites us to respond in an equally blunt way.
As for your point about language, whatever needs to be communicated, we can and should evolve language to communicate THAT, and leave the false value judgments out.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are US/Can Pacific Standard Time |
|
Register
Log in
FAQ
Search
MemberList
UserGroups
My Profile
My Messages
