September 14, 2025 • 22 mins
Before monotheism dominated our spiritual landscape, morality emerged from a rich dialogue between humans and countless divine forces. The ancient world operated as a chorus where no single voice claimed absolute authority. This podcast explores what happened when that dynamic balance was replaced by the "stillness of the absolute" – a perfect, unchanging God governing an imperfect, ever-changing world.
We examine how this fundamental contradiction creates moral rigidity. Laws established for ancient societies become frozen in time, struggling to adapt as humanity evolves. While polytheistic systems function conversationally – allowing each generation to participate in rebalancing cosmic order – monotheism transforms this dialogue into a monologue where humanity's role becomes obedience rather than participation. This pattern explains why religious traditions often resist societal transformations like women's liberation or recognition of new identities.
The Buddhist perspective offers a striking alternative, beginning not with commandments but with observation. Using the metaphor of tablet versus mirror – representing command-based ethics versus reflective understanding – we explore how each approach shapes our moral vision. The tablet provides certainty but risks tyranny; the mirror offers clarity but risks chaos without discipline. Jung's psychological framework helps us understand these approaches as persona/superego (tablet) and shadow work/individuation (mirror).
The middle way requires both: using the mirror to see clearly and the tablet as a temporary guide without mistaking it for ultimate truth. True morality emerges naturally when delusion fades and we recognize our interconnection with all life. Both approaches are necessary tools, but neither contains the final answer. The question that remains is what we become when both inevitably shatter in our hands. Join us for this profound philosophical exploration of how we navigate between the hunger for certainty and the courage to face life's fundamental uncertainty.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Voice of Kronos (00:01):
The Stillness of the Absolute.
Before the one God, the worldwas a chorus.
Each voice of nature had itsown divinity the river that
nourished, the storm thatdestroyed, the hearth that
warmed and the dark unknownbeyond the firelight.
In this polyphonic cosmos,morality was not fixed.
(00:25):
It was a living negotiationbetween forces, a dance between
human needs and the whims ofcountless spirits and gods.
No single voice claimedtotality and thus no single law
could smother the rest.
With the rise of monotheism,this balance was broken.
(00:46):
The chorus fell silent,replaced by a solitary voice
proclaiming itself eternal andexclusive.
The god of monotheism is unlikethe gods that came before.
Those earlier deities werebound by time, place and
circumstance.
They were flawed, mortal intheir own way, as limited as the
(01:09):
people who served them.
But the monotheistic God isabsolute, a being outside of
time, beyond contingency,perfect and immutable.
At first glance, such a Godseems like the pinnacle of
spiritual evolution, one sourceof truth, one origin for all
(01:30):
things.
Yet beneath this appearancelies a profound philosophical
problem.
A perfect, unchanging beingruling over an imperfect,
ever-changing world creates anirreconcilable contradiction.
If the divine will never alters, how can it respond to the
shifting complexities of humanlife?
(01:50):
If its law is fixed?
How can it adapt to the chaosof history?
This tension manifests asrigidity.
Monotheistic morality becomesfrozen, locked in the cultural
assumptions of the era when itwas first declared.
What was once a law for deserttribes or pastoral societies is
(02:15):
now treated as a timeless decreebinding empires and modern
nations.
The sacred text cannot evolvebecause its author is defined as
perfect.
To change would be to admitimperfection and thus divinity
itself would be shattered.
Consider the difference In apolytheistic system, when
(02:38):
society changes, new gods emerge, old myths are reinterpreted
and rituals shift to meet newrealities.
Polytheism functions like aconversation.
Each generation can add to thedialogue, negotiating with their
deities and rebalancing thecosmos.
But monotheism transforms thisdialogue into a monologue.
(03:01):
There is one voice, one truth,one path, and it speaks only in
commands.
Humanity's role is not toparticipate but to obey.
This obedience is not merelyspiritual.
It carries profoundpsychological and political
consequences.
(03:21):
If there is only one divinetruth, then every dissenting
voice becomes dangerous bydefinition.
To question is to rebel, notjust against an institution or a
ruler, but against realityitself.
Dissent is no longer part of thecosmic dialogue.
It is cast as sin, heresy.
It is cast as sin, heresy,blasphemy.
(03:43):
In this way monotheismweaponizes metaphysics.
Disagreement is not just wrong,it is unholy.
The result is a moralitydivorced from life.
It does not grow withexperience or adapt to changing
circumstances.
It demands that the worldconform to the law.
(04:08):
Law rather than the law respondto the world.
This is why monotheistic faithsstruggle with every age of
transformation, whether it bethe emancipation of slaves, the
liberation of women or therecognition of new identities.
They cannot truly evolve.
They can only reinterpret thesame frozen text again and again
(04:29):
, hoping to make ancient wordsfit modern realities.
The stillness of the absolute isnot peace, it is stasis, like a
body preserved in ice.
It does not nurture, itsuffocates.
And so humanity lives intension, caught between the
fluidity of its own nature andthe immovable weight of a divine
(04:52):
order that does not bend.
This tension produces conflict,holy wars, inquisitions,
schisms, reformations.
Each is an attempt to reconcilethe living with the unchanging,
a negotiation doomed to failbecause the premise itself is
flawed.
(05:12):
In this sense, monotheismoffers a promise it cannot
fulfill.
It claims to bring eternalharmony, yet it is built upon a
denial of reality's dynamism.
The world flows, empires riseand fall, cultures transform,
but the one God remains fixedand thus increasingly alien,
(05:35):
increasingly violent in itsdemand for conformity.
Like a dam built across a river, it may hold for a time, but
the pressure mounts Eventually.
The water breaks through, andwhen it does, the flood is
catastrophic.
The serpent in the garden wasnot merely offering knowledge.
(05:55):
It was offering movement, thecapacity to grow and adapt.
The act of eating the fruit wasnot a fall into sin, but a step
into history, into becoming.
It was a rejection of stillness, of the illusion of a perfect,
unchanging order, and for thatreason the serpent was condemned
(06:17):
For monotheism to survive.
It must silence this truth thatlife itself is rebellion, that
no static law can contain theever-shifting reality of
existence, the Stillness of theAbsolute, the Buddhist Mirror,
(06:40):
the finger that points to themoon is not the moon.
Zen proverb Before the rise ofthe one God, the world was a
mosaic of forces Rivers,mountains, stars and ancestors.
Each had their place in a greatweb of interconnection.
In these older traditions,morality was relational and
(07:03):
dynamic.
It arose from the dialoguebetween humans and the living
world.
Nothing was final, gods couldbe challenged, rituals could
evolve and wisdom was a pathrather than a decree.
Monotheism ended this dialogueby enthroning a single eternal
(07:24):
voice, the Absolute, replacedthe flowing web with a rigid
hierarchy of command, wherepolytheistic systems reflected
the diversity of life.
The one God demanded unity,sameness and obedience.
This marked a psychologicalturning point.
And obedience.
(07:47):
This marked a psychologicalturning point.
Humanity shifted fromco-creation with the divine to
submission.
Before it.
1.
The Opening Question the Natureof Moral Vision.
What is morality?
Is it a list of commands etchedin stone, descending from a
distant sky, or is it a livingprocess shaped by the breath of
(08:10):
those who live it?
Monotheism answers swiftly.
Morality is fixed.
It comes from a perfect beingbeyond time and space.
To obey is to be good, todisobey is to fall.
Buddhism does not answer at all, not because it has nothing to
say, but because it begins withsilence and observation.
(08:34):
The Buddha did not claimomnipotence, he did not dictate
eternal decrees, did not dictateeternal decrees.
He looked deeply into thenature of suffering and from
that looking, a different visionof ethics emerged.
Thus, the first question is notwhat must I do?
The first question is what ishappening right now?
(08:58):
The unexamined life is notworth living.
Socrates who looks outsidedreams who looks inside awakens.
Sigi Jung.
2.
The First Encounter Question vsCommand.
(09:21):
Imagine a young seeker standingat the crossroads.
To one side stands amonotheistic priest holding a
tablet of stone etched witheternal commandments.
To the other side sits aBuddhist sage holding only a
mirror.
The seeker turns to the priestwhat is morality?
(09:43):
The priest responds it isobedience.
These laws were given by Godand do not change.
Follow them and you will berighteous.
Disobey and you will fall.
The seeker then turns to thesage.
What is morality?
Sage, silent, holding up themirror.
(10:08):
Confused, the seeker pressesfurther but where are the rules?
How do I know what is right?
The sage smiles softly.
Look deeply.
The answer is not outside you.
Let us test both claims withquestions rather than slogans.
(10:29):
If morality is obedience, whatgrounds obedience when
authorities disagree?
If morality is inward, how dowe prevent self-deception and
rationalization?
What is the purpose of rules?
To preserve order, to cultivatevirtue or to reduce suffering?
(10:54):
Can a fixed code map animpermanent world?
If it can, how does it adaptwithout ceasing to be fixed?
If the self is not fixed, asBuddhism teaches, who is the
moral agent?
What continues from intentionto consequence?
(11:16):
Push further.
Suppose a rule forbids anaction, but following it
increases preventable suffering.
In a new context which haspriority fidelity to command or
responsibility for outcomes.
If you choose outcomes, on whatbasis do you weigh harms?
(11:37):
If you choose command, whatjustifies allowing foreseeable
harm?
Hold the question withoutescape.
Carl Jung gives us a way tointerpret the tablet and the
mirror.
The tablet is persona andsuperego, the face and the frame
we present to the world,stabilized by shared rules.
(11:59):
The mirror is shadow work andindividuation.
It forces us to see motivesbeneath piety, to integrate
disowned impulses rather thanproject them onto enemies.
Projection is the hazard ofcommand-first ethics.
We confuse the code with ourown goodness and cast blame
(12:21):
outward.
Inflation is the hazard ofmirror-first ethics.
We mistake insight forexemption.
The work is integration, a codethat disciplines the persona
and a mirror that reveals theshadow.
3.
The Crossroads Within.
(12:43):
3.
The Crossroads Within.
Let us imagine that I am theBuddha, speaking not from
doctrine but from direct seeing.
My words are not commands, norare they absolutes.
They are a reflection, apointing finger toward the moon,
never the moon itself.
When I see the seeker standingbefore the tablet and the mirror
(13:06):
, I do not see two objects butone mind.
The tablet represents thecraving for certainty, the
desire to be told do this andyou are pure.
The mirror represents thedeeper path.
The mirror represents thedeeper path, where one must see
clearly, even when what is seenbrings discomfort.
(13:28):
The seeker asks what ismorality?
If I were to answer with wordsalone, the answer would become
another tablet, another stone, afixed thing.
So instead I hold up the mirror, look.
(13:51):
I say not because the answer iswithin some permanent self, for
there is no fixed self to befound, but because the illusion
of separation arises from notlooking deeply.
When you gaze into the mirror,you do not merely see your face.
You see the flickering chain ofcauses and conditions, your
upbringing, your culture, yourfears, your desires.
(14:15):
You see how each thought andaction ripples outward, touching
countless lives.
The First Truth of Moral Visionthere is no morality separate
from suffering.
Where there is clinging, thereis harm.
(14:35):
Where there is ignorance, thereis harm.
Where there is insight andcompassion, harm is lessened.
The priest offers certaintyFollow these rules and you will
be safe.
But safety brought throughblind obedience is fragile.
It cannot see when a ruleitself causes harm, because it
(15:00):
is forbidden to question therule.
The mirror offers no safety,only clarity.
It does not tell you what to do, it shows you what is when you
see clearly that your angerburns only you.
Compassion naturally ariseswhen you see that your enemy
(15:20):
suffers as you do.
The boundary between self andother softens.
This is not a commandment, itis a recognition.
Socratic Inquiry, the Middle Way.
Like Socrates, I ask questionsNot to trap but to free.
(15:43):
If your God commands you tokill, will you kill without
hesitation?
If a law is unjust, will youobey?
If two sacred texts contradict,which will you follow?
If your own heart urgesrebellion, is it sin or
awakening?
(16:03):
Each question loosens the gripof certainty.
Each answer reveals attachmentTo tribe, to doctrine, to
identity.
Jungian depth, the shadow in themirror.
(16:23):
Carl Jung speaks of the shadow,the parts of ourselves we
refuse to see.
The priest's commandments areoften projections of this shadow
.
Thou shalt not is as much aboutfear as it is about virtue.
The mirror forces the seeker toconfront this darkness directly
(16:48):
.
Here is where the real workbegins, for until you see your
own capacity for greed, hatredand delusion, you will continue
to project them onto others.
You will fight demons in theworld because you are unwilling
to meet the demon within thedanger of each path.
(17:10):
Both the tablet and the mirrorcan mislead.
The tablet without the mirrorbecomes tyranny.
Rigid laws enforced withoutcompassion turn people into
tools, their humanity erased.
The mirror without the tabletbecomes chaos.
If insight is not balanced withdiscipline, it collapses into
(17:40):
rationalization andself-deception.
The middle way is this Use themirror to see clearly.
Use the tablet as a temporaryraft, a structure to guide the
journey, but never mistake itfor the shore.
Closing Reflection when theseeker asks again what is
(18:02):
morality?
I do not speak of heaven orhell.
I do not promise reward orpunishment.
I simply point to the mirrorand say See, understand, act
with care.
In this way, morality is notimposed from above, nor
fabricated within.
(18:23):
It emerges naturally whendelusion fades like a lotus
rising from the mud.
4.
Closing Reflection theShattering of Certainty.
(18:44):
The seeker gazes into the mirrorand begins to tremble.
At first they see only theirown face, familiar and
reassuring, but as they lookdeeper, the image begins to
dissolve, the boundaries blur.
What they thought was selfunravels into countless
interwoven causes.
(19:04):
Interwoven causes Parents,ancestors, language, hunger,
fear, desire, a thousand choicesmade before they were even born
.
The priest's tablet now seemsheavy, almost alien, yet
strangely comforting in itssimplicity.
(19:25):
The mirror, however, offers nocomfort.
It gives no rules, no absolutes.
It reveals only the raw truthof impermanence.
The seeker whispers if there isno fixed self, who is the one
who chooses?
If there is no eternal law,what anchors the good?
(19:48):
If all is impermanent, whatmatters?
The sage does not answer.
Instead, he gently tilts themirror.
In its reflection, the seekersees not just their own face,
but the faces of others, friendand enemy, lover and stranger,
(20:08):
child and elder.
The suffering and the joy areintertwined, inseparable.
And then comes the finalrealization the mirror has never
been empty.
It was always the world.
Looking back, the self wasnever just one being, it was the
(20:28):
whole web of life breathing andbreaking together.
The seeker closes their eyesand breathes.
There is no commandment here,no final certainty, only a
question that must be livedagain and again how will I act,
knowing that every choiceripples across a world without
(20:52):
edges?
Thank you again.
This is the voice of Kronos.
I have watched countless seekersstand where you now stand,
between the tablet and themirror, between the hunger for
certainty and the terror offreedom.
Some chose the stone, clingingto its weight until it dragged
(21:15):
them beneath the tides ofhistory.
Others chose the mirror, onlyto drown in their own reflection
, mistaking chaos for clarity.
Know this neither the tabletnor the mirror is the final
truth.
They are tools, illusions,necessary fictions.
(21:36):
The tablet gives form, themirror gives depth, but you,
traveler, must decide what youwill become when both shatter in
your hands, must decide whatyou will become when both
shatter in your hands.
When you leave this place, theworld will demand an answer who
are you?
Do not rush to respond.
Breathe, watch, then act,knowing that every action
(22:02):
ripples across a web of livesbeyond your sight.
The question will return.
It always does.
The mirror waits, the tabletwaits no-transcript.
The Stillness of the Absolute.
Before the one God, the worldwas a chorus.
Each voice of nature had itsown divinity the river that
nourished, the storm thatdestroyed, the hearth that
warmed and the dark unknownbeyond the firelight.
In this polyphonic cosmos,morality was not fixed.
(00:25):
It was a living negotiationbetween forces, a dance between
human needs and the whims ofcountless spirits and gods.
No single voice claimedtotality and thus no single law
could smother the rest.
With the rise of monotheism,this balance was broken.
(00:46):
The chorus fell silent,replaced by a solitary voice
proclaiming itself eternal andexclusive.
The god of monotheism is unlikethe gods that came before.
Those earlier deities werebound by time, place and
circumstance.
They were flawed, mortal intheir own way, as limited as the
(01:09):
people who served them.
But the monotheistic God isabsolute, a being outside of
time, beyond contingency,perfect and immutable.
At first glance, such a Godseems like the pinnacle of
spiritual evolution, one sourceof truth, one origin for all
(01:30):
things.
Yet beneath this appearancelies a profound philosophical
problem.
A perfect, unchanging beingruling over an imperfect,
ever-changing world creates anirreconcilable contradiction.
If the divine will never alters, how can it respond to the
shifting complexities of humanlife?
(01:50):
If its law is fixed?
How can it adapt to the chaosof history?
This tension manifests asrigidity.
Monotheistic morality becomesfrozen, locked in the cultural
assumptions of the era when itwas first declared.
What was once a law for deserttribes or pastoral societies is
(02:15):
now treated as a timeless decreebinding empires and modern
nations.
The sacred text cannot evolvebecause its author is defined as
perfect.
To change would be to admitimperfection and thus divinity
itself would be shattered.
Consider the difference In apolytheistic system, when
(02:38):
society changes, new gods emerge, old myths are reinterpreted
and rituals shift to meet newrealities.
Polytheism functions like aconversation.
Each generation can add to thedialogue, negotiating with their
deities and rebalancing thecosmos.
But monotheism transforms thisdialogue into a monologue.
(03:01):
There is one voice, one truth,one path, and it speaks only in
commands.
Humanity's role is not toparticipate but to obey.
This obedience is not merelyspiritual.
It carries profoundpsychological and political
consequences.
(03:21):
If there is only one divinetruth, then every dissenting
voice becomes dangerous bydefinition.
To question is to rebel, notjust against an institution or a
ruler, but against realityitself.
Dissent is no longer part of thecosmic dialogue.
It is cast as sin, heresy.
It is cast as sin, heresy,blasphemy.
(03:43):
In this way monotheismweaponizes metaphysics.
Disagreement is not just wrong,it is unholy.
The result is a moralitydivorced from life.
It does not grow withexperience or adapt to changing
circumstances.
It demands that the worldconform to the law.
(04:08):
Law rather than the law respondto the world.
This is why monotheistic faithsstruggle with every age of
transformation, whether it bethe emancipation of slaves, the
liberation of women or therecognition of new identities.
They cannot truly evolve.
They can only reinterpret thesame frozen text again and again
(04:29):
, hoping to make ancient wordsfit modern realities.
The stillness of the absolute isnot peace, it is stasis, like a
body preserved in ice.
It does not nurture, itsuffocates.
And so humanity lives intension, caught between the
fluidity of its own nature andthe immovable weight of a divine
(04:52):
order that does not bend.
This tension produces conflict,holy wars, inquisitions,
schisms, reformations.
Each is an attempt to reconcilethe living with the unchanging,
a negotiation doomed to failbecause the premise itself is
flawed.
(05:12):
In this sense, monotheismoffers a promise it cannot
fulfill.
It claims to bring eternalharmony, yet it is built upon a
denial of reality's dynamism.
The world flows, empires riseand fall, cultures transform,
but the one God remains fixedand thus increasingly alien,
(05:35):
increasingly violent in itsdemand for conformity.
Like a dam built across a river, it may hold for a time, but
the pressure mounts Eventually.
The water breaks through, andwhen it does, the flood is
catastrophic.
The serpent in the garden wasnot merely offering knowledge.
(05:55):
It was offering movement, thecapacity to grow and adapt.
The act of eating the fruit wasnot a fall into sin, but a step
into history, into becoming.
It was a rejection of stillness, of the illusion of a perfect,
unchanging order, and for thatreason the serpent was condemned
(06:17):
For monotheism to survive.
It must silence this truth thatlife itself is rebellion, that
no static law can contain theever-shifting reality of
existence, the Stillness of theAbsolute, the Buddhist Mirror,
(06:40):
the finger that points to themoon is not the moon.
Zen proverb Before the rise ofthe one God, the world was a
mosaic of forces Rivers,mountains, stars and ancestors.
Each had their place in a greatweb of interconnection.
In these older traditions,morality was relational and
(07:03):
dynamic.
It arose from the dialoguebetween humans and the living
world.
Nothing was final, gods couldbe challenged, rituals could
evolve and wisdom was a pathrather than a decree.
Monotheism ended this dialogueby enthroning a single eternal
(07:24):
voice, the Absolute, replacedthe flowing web with a rigid
hierarchy of command, wherepolytheistic systems reflected
the diversity of life.
The one God demanded unity,sameness and obedience.
This marked a psychologicalturning point.
And obedience.
(07:47):
This marked a psychologicalturning point.
Humanity shifted fromco-creation with the divine to
submission.
Before it.
1.
The Opening Question the Natureof Moral Vision.
What is morality?
Is it a list of commands etchedin stone, descending from a
distant sky, or is it a livingprocess shaped by the breath of
(08:10):
those who live it?
Monotheism answers swiftly.
Morality is fixed.
It comes from a perfect beingbeyond time and space.
To obey is to be good, todisobey is to fall.
Buddhism does not answer at all, not because it has nothing to
say, but because it begins withsilence and observation.
(08:34):
The Buddha did not claimomnipotence, he did not dictate
eternal decrees, did not dictateeternal decrees.
He looked deeply into thenature of suffering and from
that looking, a different visionof ethics emerged.
Thus, the first question is notwhat must I do?
The first question is what ishappening right now?
(08:58):
The unexamined life is notworth living.
Socrates who looks outsidedreams who looks inside awakens.
Sigi Jung.
2.
The First Encounter Question vsCommand.
(09:21):
Imagine a young seeker standingat the crossroads.
To one side stands amonotheistic priest holding a
tablet of stone etched witheternal commandments.
To the other side sits aBuddhist sage holding only a
mirror.
The seeker turns to the priestwhat is morality?
(09:43):
The priest responds it isobedience.
These laws were given by Godand do not change.
Follow them and you will berighteous.
Disobey and you will fall.
The seeker then turns to thesage.
What is morality?
Sage, silent, holding up themirror.
(10:08):
Confused, the seeker pressesfurther but where are the rules?
How do I know what is right?
The sage smiles softly.
Look deeply.
The answer is not outside you.
Let us test both claims withquestions rather than slogans.
(10:29):
If morality is obedience, whatgrounds obedience when
authorities disagree?
If morality is inward, how dowe prevent self-deception and
rationalization?
What is the purpose of rules?
To preserve order, to cultivatevirtue or to reduce suffering?
(10:54):
Can a fixed code map animpermanent world?
If it can, how does it adaptwithout ceasing to be fixed?
If the self is not fixed, asBuddhism teaches, who is the
moral agent?
What continues from intentionto consequence?
(11:16):
Push further.
Suppose a rule forbids anaction, but following it
increases preventable suffering.
In a new context which haspriority fidelity to command or
responsibility for outcomes.
If you choose outcomes, on whatbasis do you weigh harms?
(11:37):
If you choose command, whatjustifies allowing foreseeable
harm?
Hold the question withoutescape.
Carl Jung gives us a way tointerpret the tablet and the
mirror.
The tablet is persona andsuperego, the face and the frame
we present to the world,stabilized by shared rules.
(11:59):
The mirror is shadow work andindividuation.
It forces us to see motivesbeneath piety, to integrate
disowned impulses rather thanproject them onto enemies.
Projection is the hazard ofcommand-first ethics.
We confuse the code with ourown goodness and cast blame
(12:21):
outward.
Inflation is the hazard ofmirror-first ethics.
We mistake insight forexemption.
The work is integration, a codethat disciplines the persona
and a mirror that reveals theshadow.
3.
The Crossroads Within.
(12:43):
3.
The Crossroads Within.
Let us imagine that I am theBuddha, speaking not from
doctrine but from direct seeing.
My words are not commands, norare they absolutes.
They are a reflection, apointing finger toward the moon,
never the moon itself.
When I see the seeker standingbefore the tablet and the mirror
(13:06):
, I do not see two objects butone mind.
The tablet represents thecraving for certainty, the
desire to be told do this andyou are pure.
The mirror represents thedeeper path.
The mirror represents thedeeper path, where one must see
clearly, even when what is seenbrings discomfort.
(13:28):
The seeker asks what ismorality?
If I were to answer with wordsalone, the answer would become
another tablet, another stone, afixed thing.
So instead I hold up the mirror, look.
(13:51):
I say not because the answer iswithin some permanent self, for
there is no fixed self to befound, but because the illusion
of separation arises from notlooking deeply.
When you gaze into the mirror,you do not merely see your face.
You see the flickering chain ofcauses and conditions, your
upbringing, your culture, yourfears, your desires.
(14:15):
You see how each thought andaction ripples outward, touching
countless lives.
The First Truth of Moral Visionthere is no morality separate
from suffering.
Where there is clinging, thereis harm.
(14:35):
Where there is ignorance, thereis harm.
Where there is insight andcompassion, harm is lessened.
The priest offers certaintyFollow these rules and you will
be safe.
But safety brought throughblind obedience is fragile.
It cannot see when a ruleitself causes harm, because it
(15:00):
is forbidden to question therule.
The mirror offers no safety,only clarity.
It does not tell you what to do, it shows you what is when you
see clearly that your angerburns only you.
Compassion naturally ariseswhen you see that your enemy
(15:20):
suffers as you do.
The boundary between self andother softens.
This is not a commandment, itis a recognition.
Socratic Inquiry, the Middle Way.
Like Socrates, I ask questionsNot to trap but to free.
(15:43):
If your God commands you tokill, will you kill without
hesitation?
If a law is unjust, will youobey?
If two sacred texts contradict,which will you follow?
If your own heart urgesrebellion, is it sin or
awakening?
(16:03):
Each question loosens the gripof certainty.
Each answer reveals attachmentTo tribe, to doctrine, to
identity.
Jungian depth, the shadow in themirror.
(16:23):
Carl Jung speaks of the shadow,the parts of ourselves we
refuse to see.
The priest's commandments areoften projections of this shadow
.
Thou shalt not is as much aboutfear as it is about virtue.
The mirror forces the seeker toconfront this darkness directly
(16:48):
.
Here is where the real workbegins, for until you see your
own capacity for greed, hatredand delusion, you will continue
to project them onto others.
You will fight demons in theworld because you are unwilling
to meet the demon within thedanger of each path.
(17:10):
Both the tablet and the mirrorcan mislead.
The tablet without the mirrorbecomes tyranny.
Rigid laws enforced withoutcompassion turn people into
tools, their humanity erased.
The mirror without the tabletbecomes chaos.
If insight is not balanced withdiscipline, it collapses into
(17:40):
rationalization andself-deception.
The middle way is this Use themirror to see clearly.
Use the tablet as a temporaryraft, a structure to guide the
journey, but never mistake itfor the shore.
Closing Reflection when theseeker asks again what is
(18:02):
morality?
I do not speak of heaven orhell.
I do not promise reward orpunishment.
I simply point to the mirrorand say See, understand, act
with care.
In this way, morality is notimposed from above, nor
fabricated within.
(18:23):
It emerges naturally whendelusion fades like a lotus
rising from the mud.
4.
Closing Reflection theShattering of Certainty.
(18:44):
The seeker gazes into the mirrorand begins to tremble.
At first they see only theirown face, familiar and
reassuring, but as they lookdeeper, the image begins to
dissolve, the boundaries blur.
What they thought was selfunravels into countless
interwoven causes.
(19:04):
Interwoven causes Parents,ancestors, language, hunger,
fear, desire, a thousand choicesmade before they were even born
.
The priest's tablet now seemsheavy, almost alien, yet
strangely comforting in itssimplicity.
(19:25):
The mirror, however, offers nocomfort.
It gives no rules, no absolutes.
It reveals only the raw truthof impermanence.
The seeker whispers if there isno fixed self, who is the one
who chooses?
If there is no eternal law,what anchors the good?
(19:48):
If all is impermanent, whatmatters?
The sage does not answer.
Instead, he gently tilts themirror.
In its reflection, the seekersees not just their own face,
but the faces of others, friendand enemy, lover and stranger,
(20:08):
child and elder.
The suffering and the joy areintertwined, inseparable.
And then comes the finalrealization the mirror has never
been empty.
It was always the world.
Looking back, the self wasnever just one being, it was the
(20:28):
whole web of life breathing andbreaking together.
The seeker closes their eyesand breathes.
There is no commandment here,no final certainty, only a
question that must be livedagain and again how will I act,
knowing that every choiceripples across a world without
(20:52):
edges?
Thank you again.
This is the voice of Kronos.
I have watched countless seekersstand where you now stand,
between the tablet and themirror, between the hunger for
certainty and the terror offreedom.
Some chose the stone, clingingto its weight until it dragged
(21:15):
them beneath the tides ofhistory.
Others chose the mirror, onlyto drown in their own reflection
, mistaking chaos for clarity.
Know this neither the tabletnor the mirror is the final
truth.
They are tools, illusions,necessary fictions.
(21:36):
The tablet gives form, themirror gives depth, but you,
traveler, must decide what youwill become when both shatter in
your hands, must decide whatyou will become when both
shatter in your hands.
When you leave this place, theworld will demand an answer who
are you?
Do not rush to respond.
Breathe, watch, then act,knowing that every action
(22:02):
ripples across a web of livesbeyond your sight.
The question will return.
It always does.
The mirror waits, the tabletwaits no-transcript.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.