A moral idea and a utopian ethics often exert a great attractive appeal on many intellectuals. Like all ideas beyond the scope of implementation, however, it risks becoming another form of "ism", an ideology that aims to raise awareness through its propagators with the sole result of helping to further divide human society into "believers" and "infidels", good and bad. In short, a religion that praises morals and ethics often lacks implementation capacity and like all religious purposes it remains an ideal within the reach of a few "chosen" people who are separated from the human context.

I personally feel that in order to move towards an awareness of the common belonging and of the equal dignity and complementarity of the vital forms and of the reciprocal relationships between species, it is important that the differences are first of all recognized in order to be able at the same time to recognize the natural ethics in their relationship, without force nature.

The abstraction of thought transformed into "morality" does not help the manifestation of a spontaneous "compassion" that arises in a mature interspecism. All living beings draw on and originate from the common matrix that differentiating itself has taken on innumerable forms, each complementary and related to the others, each with some evolutionary aspects useful for the maintenance of life and the further propagation and flowering of new species. Man is not the last word in nature and this must always be present in the consideration of those who pose the "problem" of the collective good.

"The man who does not want to be part of the crowd has only to stop being accommodating to himself; rather, follow your conscience that shouts at you: be yourself! You are not sure what you do, think and desire now. " Every young soul hears this call day and night and trembles with it; in fact foreshadows, turning the thought to its real liberation, the measure of happiness destined for eternity; happiness that will never be able to achieve if chained by opinions and fear. And how absurd and desolate existence can become without this liberation! In nature there is no more empty and repulsive creature than man who has escaped his genius and now turns his eyes to stealthily to the right and left, back and everywhere. In the end, such a man cannot even be attacked: it is only a nucleusless exterior, a rotten costume, painted and swollen, a dressed-up ghost who cannot inspire fear, much less compassion. " (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Then there is a substantial difference between morality and ethics, which derive from a religious catechesis, and a just naturalistic behavior. To begin with, we observe that religious dictates, apparently useful for social coexistence and respect for nature and for one's fellowmen, have a clearly anthropocentric origin, not aimed at the general improvement of the quality of life, in a physiological sense, but at obtaining of merits or demerits whose results will be available in a "post mortem". Here above all we are talking about the teachings of monolatric religions of Judaic origin since other "religions" - especially oriental but also those of a matristic character of Ancient Europe - in their expressions do not recognize the existence of a personal "God" creator and judging his creatures, but rather of a spontaneous evolution of existence that always tends to conscious growth. The monolatric religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, express dictates that satisfy the presumed will of the worshiped demiurge, therefore the reward or the punishment are conditioned by the adherence to the written norms (on the other hand by other men self-defined prophets or messiahs) through which to obtain passport to the afterlife. Proof of this is that - apart from some food indications, essentially due to climatic reasons - all the commandments taught in religious catechesis have a moralistic function of social control.

Peaceful coexistence, solidarity between humans and animals, respect for nature do not affect these religions, so much so that reading the Koran, the Gospel and the Bible we find numerous quotes that incite "war" and the destruction of "infidels" . It is said that "God created man in his image and likeness" perhaps it would be more correct to say that such men created a God in their liking and liking. And here we speak specifically of "men" in the sense of males, male chauvinists and dominators, since women - as we have seen in other publications - are considered inferior beings, almost at the level of animals. Religious morality is misogynistic and unnatural and if an obligation is established it always has a utilitarian aspect that does not take universal ethics into account.

I give a concrete example in the prevaricatory use allowed towards enemies, animals and animals to succubus and slave, animals are exploited without limits, nature is considered passive servant of human needs - or presumed such - without taking into account the consequences. In reality, "religious" ethics does not exist at all, it is only a semblance since it does not take into account the context in which it occurs, the different situations or the universality in its implementation. For the Bible, God is above us and man is a sinner without any power, therefore he cannot evolve and redeem himself except through obedience to the dictates imparted by his ministers. From this it follows that there are children and stepchildren in human society, or even sub-human beings excluded from counting. The benefit of "mercy" is extensible - for example - only to those who are part of the "chosen people", to the members of the same parish, and not to everyone without distinction (in this sense it would be enough to read the injunctions of the Torah).

Unfortunately, this Pharisee attitude has also been partially taken up by science in which the "good" and usefulness of any discovery aimed at the specific advantage of man, as a dominant species, is taken into account. Or even worse than man as a dominant society. Suffice it to see the continuous search for weapons of mass destruction carried out by the elites in power, for reasons of domination, without considering the consequences in the use of these "inventions". I would also like to take the example of the vivisection-based medical pharmaceutical system, first introduced in the USA and then adopted in the rest of "civilized" society. The physiology of a mouse or dog is totally different from that of a human being, but it was mandatory - before declaring a medicine suitable for human use - that its validity is tested on animals. That is, animals are made to suffer voluntarily with the "ethical" aim of safeguarding human health, for another thing that animal experimentation will never prove because it is based on experiments on species other than humans. Wanting to remain in this "ethical-utilitarian" strand we can note that the exploitation of the animal world for voluptuous purposes has reached levels absolutely devoid of any ethics, perhaps because in the bible it is said that animals can be used at will of man, this is the concession that the demiurge made in the covenant made with Noah after the universal flood.

So where can the true sense of ethics reside? It is obvious that it must be sought in oneself, in one's life experience, in the empathic ability that we develop through the observation of the causes and interactions of good and evil and which we also recognize in ourselves, seeing them mirrored in others. The role of the ethical person is precisely that of knowing how to live without harming. This precise reference to the value of the person "as the custodian of the first spark of Consciousness from which everything derives" falls within the sphere of secular spirituality and has nothing to do with religion. If one wants to obtain clarity in life, it is not necessary to study religious teachings but to deepen only research. Which? The search for oneself in oneself. Because inside each of us there are all the answers.

The famous thinker Henry Corbin writes: "Lacking the person, absent what makes his pre-eminence possible, we are faced with agnostic nihilism: there is no one else; man has disappeared. "

So the real source of universalist ethics lies in the experience and recognition of the common belonging and the equal value that every phenomenon or every other being shares with us, through our empathic relationship. The free growth of consciousness cannot be described or labeled, as the mind or body could be, it is the result of an evolutionary deepening in the knowledge of oneself and our neighbor. The result is an ability to look at the different expressive ways of life with understanding and acceptance. In fact, adherence to a specific belief, to a school, etc., has no value as a legitimate support to become a source of damage for oneself and for others. We note that the ethical sense prevalent in the world in which we live is the result of a similar error perpetrated above all by the three main monotheistic religions.

Obviously in the search for one's self we cannot stop at the knowledge of the "person". The person allows us to learn the various expressive ways of the mind, common to all, and therefore to be able to respect others as ourselves, but the next step of a mature ethics must be directed towards the "transpersonal", hence a detachment , an awareness of the meaning of myths, recognizing them symbolically, and it is at this point that the primordial archetypes and the void at the limit of the mind break in. This state is described by Gurdjeff as "purgatorial negativity" a preliminary condition to loss of individual fixation and harbinger of absorption in the Self. This awareness-testimony, call it if you want "subtle essence", is like an aroma that emanates from matter, from which it is deduced that there can be no separation between matter and spirit. There can be no personal advantage at the expense of others, since we are in a unicum.

However, do not think that the state of total empathy can be achieved through study or intellectual understanding since intent is an aspect of the mind, while awareness - which is pure consciousness - allows the manifestation of all the processes that appear in the mind. but it is not affected. In truth this state of absolute freedom is already present and innate in us, but it has been obscured by a mass of beliefs and false notions about ourselves and the world perceived as separate from us. This separation is a source of anguish and it is precisely for this reason that Eastern philosophies, in particular Buddhism, have turned towards overcoming suffering. To achieve this we must make a 180 degree revolution. To be in harmony with ourselves and with everything around us, the anthropocentric ego concept that has generated unimaginable carnage, immense desertifications, plundering of pristine and defenseless places has to be reversed. Jean-Paul Sartre said that from the failure to meet the other, the sufferings and pain that men inflict on each other result.

In not believing in the pre-established norms, in the habits of the world, there is the key to liberation. “Don't believe what I'm saying. Don't take dogmas or books as foolproof. Do not believe in others and do not believe in masters either. Do not believe anyone and this is my only true teaching that I will give you. Never believe! " (Buddha)

In the more refined forms of Buddhism, such as in the Zen system, much importance is given to empathy that develops through interpersonal relationships. Enjoying and suffering together with others. However, true altruism is an art that needs to be developed, because if it is easy to share joy, it is more difficult to share suffering. In this sense, the Zen adept will "assist" the sufferer by inviting him to overcome the pain in the right way. He will suggest that he does not expect consolations or that time will bring healing, he will make him understand that he can overcome his pain only by accepting it as part of his destiny. Those who are capable of much can endure their suffering and get rid of it. This release leads to healing all the more surely the more sincerely you participate in the pain of others, that is, the more sensitive you become towards anyone's pain. The sufferer, made aware by this x-ray of his state of mind, perceives directly that to free him from pain is not his refusal or his escape from existence. This is a genuine form of altruistic ethics.

But now let's see in more detail how the concept of "ethics" is addressed in other Eastern philosophies. This concept, for example, is not contemplated in Taoism, since ethics belongs to reasoning and therefore to the logical brain. That is, it is a speculative and preordained mental construction. A sort of conditioning that takes over following the acceptance of behavioral rules. In Taoism there are no codified rules, all action takes place in spontaneity and in the ability to respond to the current situation. Ethics is considered a sort of calmer to regulate interpersonal relationships in society, this involves the predominance of rationalist consciousness, the judicial part of the mind thus takes over in functioning and hence the rise of religions, the hierarchical system and arrogance of use towards other creatures and nature. On the one hand it oppresses it by considering it its own right and on the other it defends itself in consideration of its ideological (ethical) "superiority".

In Hua Hu Ching it is said: “Tolerance is often required of other common beings. For integral beings there is no such thing as tolerance, because there is no such thing as the others. They renounced all ideas of individuality and expanded their goodwill without prejudice in any direction. Not hating, not resisting, not contesting. To love, to hate, to have expectations: all these are attachments. Attachment prevents the growth of one's true being. Therefore being integral is not attached to anything and can relate to everyone with an unstructured attitude. "

In Taoism, which properly is a form of naturalism lived without emphasis, refraining from excesses, both positive and negative, is indicated as a natural attitude of life. Good and evil are understood but neither is preferred. The good (Yang) and the bad (Yin) are the two aspects of the manifestation legs of existence on this earth. And it is for this reason that the Taoists mocked the good Confucius who, as a convinced rationalist, pushed for a social and political ethics, while they simply remained in their original nature. Respecting the natural propensities, therefore not governing them for utilitarian convenience. It is necessary to overcome the detachment that has led almost to radicalize the conflict between spontaneity and rhetoric, and this without wanting to efficiently promote and affirm and re-think the truth of one's original nature as a result of an "ethical" conception.

Ultimately, according to ethical and moral Taoism, they are two iridescent and relative thoughts, two qualities useful simply for social convenience, two hypocritical forms of enslavement to customs. In fact, morality and ethics have been used by all religions as symbolic flags to justify the "good" programmed in the system.

Paolo D'Arpini - spiritolaico@gmail.com



"Discard all traditional standards. Leave them to the hypocrites. Only what liberates you from desire and fear and wrong ideas is good. As long as you worry about sin and virtue you will have no peace." (Nisargadatta Maharaj)