# Balance, Positive/Negative, Yin/Yang, Justice



## thardey (Apr 4, 2007)

Allright, my first venture into the spirituality area on this site.

I was doing a word study on "righteousness" a couple of weeks ago, and I found out that the Greek word "dikaios" was used to describe righteousness, justice, equity and other things along those lines. Now, this is the first time I've ever really associated "righteous living" with any kind of equity or fairness. 

I mean, I've long understood the idea that our punishment should be equal to our crimes, and you should get back what you give, whether good or bad, and a basic kind of fairness in life, but I'm thinking about whether living a "righteous" life should be considered living a "balanced" life, which is different.

In the culture that I grew up in: U.S. conservative Christian - "Righteousness" was simply "doing the right thing". 

The idea of "balance" was not discussed since we live by "grace and mercy".  To be "good" or "righteous" was to follow whatever rules were put in place by tradition, religion and government.

So now grace, mercy, and unconditional love are the "foundation" for how I treat others, but I want to understand what it means to live a "balanced" life.

So, if I could ask you guys to "weigh" in with what you think about whatever image you use to describe harmony, balance, equity or whatever, I would appreciate it.

Things like 

yin/yang, and how it applies to your life and relationships

positive/negative energy, and whether "negative" energy is "bad" or "neutral"?

A friend of mine described yesterday that when "The inner is the same as the outer, you are balanced" any thoughts on that?

Can you reconcile unconditional love with righteousness?

Bonus points if you can provide "balanced" answers


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Apr 4, 2007)

In all the time I have attended church, balance is infrequently (if ever) mentioned.  Indeed, my current church is nearly militant in it's desire to spread the gospel and retake the nearby cities in the name of God.  I cannot say that is a balanced approach.  Living in grace, with mercy, does not mean submitting to doctrine; but, rather (I have come to understand) submitting to the natural order of the universe.  This understanding was the starting point for my concept of balance.

Balance is internal.  It is perception and perception is always a choice.  I tend to follow taoist philosophy when dealing with balance and imbalance.  Somewhere in the Bible, it is said, I don't know chapter and verse, 'If you are not with Me, you are against Me' and this is a true statement; inasmuch as God represents the flow of the universe.  As with a twig afloat on a stream: as long as it moves unencumbered, it moves with the natural flow of the stream; when it clings or gets caught, the water abrades it slowly and other objects cling to the twig as it is held against the flow until, at last, it sinks.

Being able to sense the flow and move with it is balance, to me.  As I struggle against it, seeking my own desires as _I_ see fit, that is where I lose what balance I have.


----------



## thardey (Apr 4, 2007)

Thank you, that's very good


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 4, 2007)

thardey said:


> Things like
> 
> yin/yang, and how it applies to your life and relationships
> 
> ...


 
I follow Daoist philosophical principles to which Yin and Yang are very important.  Yin and Yang are never balanced as such.  They work in harmony to create things, events, places etc.  By her very nature a woman will have more Yin than a man, and, conversely, a man will have more Yang.  

How does Yin/Yang theory impact upon my life and world?  Yin represents negative, not necessarily bad, but it eventually becomes Yang.  So when negative things happen I think something positive will come along.  Stops me from getting depressed and bogged down with unpleasant thoughts.

Positive and negative energy?  Basically the same as Yin/Yang. Negative is not bad its just not positive.  Sounds a little nonsensical, sorry.

Your friend's point is a good one.  Balanced or harmonious, its the best way to be.

Can I reconcile unconditional love and righteousness.  Easily.  A righteous man is morally upright and just, that does not preclude love, unconditional or otherwise.


----------



## thardey (Apr 4, 2007)

Steel Tiger said:


> Positive and negative energy?  Basically the same as Yin/Yang. Negative is not bad its just not positive.  Sounds a little nonsensical, sorry.



No apologies, this is philosophy  

I've heard that before about yin/yang, but it wasn't firsthand. Thank you for explaining that.

I believe that if you're truly righteous, you will act in love. I have been given unconditional love, therefore to be righteous, I cannot withold that love from others.

However, those who believe they are righteous often deny love to the unrighteous, in the name of justice.

I want to avoid that tempation for myself.


----------



## Steel Tiger (Apr 4, 2007)

thardey said:


> However, those who believe they are righteous often deny love to the unrighteous, in the name of justice.
> 
> I want to avoid that tempation for myself.


 
Some say that it is the unrighteous who need love the most.

In Daoist philosophy there are four mode of doing or being which are supposed to help one come to know the Dao.

The Mode of Necessity
The Mode of Justice
The Mode of Compassion
The Mode of The Dao

Each is considered better behaviour than that before it.  So Necessity requires that you do what is necessary and nothing more.  Justice requires that you do what is right, even if it does not benefit you.  Compassion requires that you what you must to relieve the suffering of others.  The Dao requires that you act in the way of the Dao and only those who know the Dao know what that is.

Compassion and unconditional love are very similar in this context I think.


----------



## Kacey (Apr 4, 2007)

Well, when it comes to discussions of definitions, I tend to start with a definiton - so here's Merriam-Webster's definition:



> Main Entry:	*righ·teous*
> 
> 
> Pronunciation:	'rI-ch&s
> ...



The concept of "fairness" or "balance" appears to have fallen away from the dictionary definition here - while many consider religion to be fair in theory, it is often more fair to its own proponents than to others - and the farther away from a religion's own philosophy one gets, the less "fair" seems to apply to treatment of members of other religions.  Likewise, "moral" is a word that can have a large amount of wiggle room - it has, at various times, been "moral" to own slaves, to beat your children, to follow the precept that might makes right, and many other examples of behavior that is no longer openly condoned today.

Nonetheless, in a perfect world (which I am first to admit this isn't) - or at least when discussing people who belong to the same community, religion, general economic level and cultural background - righteousness becomes a concept treated with greater equality, where "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".  This is the problem with religiously-based interpretations of such abstract concepts - too many religions, historically, have limited righteousness to members of their own sect, and (sometimes) people who could reasonably be expected to _become_ members of their sect.

The balance necessary for righteousness to be fairly applied, as required by the definition, is, therefore, often missing from most peoples' definitions.  It is inherent in most (not all) religions that the members of the religion are, in some fashion, _better_ than the rest of the population - therefore, they are more righteous, and more deserving of righteousness, than non-members - so that while all people should be treated equally, some should be treated _more_ equally than others.  This is balanced (so to speak) by treating some people _less_ equally than others - so in that sense, there is balance to the concept.  If people truly did treat each other righteously - with the equality that the proper application of righteousness requires, but seldom occurs - then there would be a much more equitable balance than the one that currently occurs.

The first thing I thought of when I read your post was a poster that hangs in the hallway of the middle school where I teach:  "What is right is not always popular; what is popular is not always right".  It is popular - but not right - to treat members of your own group (no matter the nature of the group - religious, cultural, social, economic, etc.) better/more equally than members of other groups.  This leads to an imbalance in which some people receive preferential treatment, some people receive poor treatment (at least in contrast), and so on.

Do I think there should be a balance?  Certainly - but I also think that too many people are not evolved enough morally to make it stick; they are evolved enough to understand why it should happen, but not enough to actually cause it.

I hope this made sense; I'm really tired... I'll try to come back tomorrow and see if I can do anything better.


----------



## thardey (Apr 5, 2007)

> Compassion and unconditional love are very similar in this context I think.


I agree -- in this context they are synonymous.



> Each is considered better behaviour than that before it. So Necessity requires that you do what is necessary and nothing more. Justice requires that you do what is right, even if it does not benefit you. Compassion requires that you what you must to relieve the suffering of others. The Dao requires that you act in the way of the Dao and only those who know the Dao know what that is.


That's a very good point -- if you are definging "righteousness" by Necessity, then you will have problems as you move to "Justice" and "Compassion".  Your definition has to mature and change with you.



Kacey said:


> The balance necessary for righteousness to be fairly applied, as required by the definition, is, therefore, often missing from most peoples' definitions. It is inherent in most (not all) religions that the members of the religion are, in some fashion, _better_ than the rest of the population - therefore, they are more righteous, and more deserving of righteousness, than non-members - so that while all people should be treated equally, some should be treated _more_ equally than others.  This is balanced (so to speak) by treating some people _less_ equally than others - so in that sense, there is balance to the concept. If people truly did treat each other righteously - with the equality that the proper application of righteousness requires, but seldom occurs - then there would be a much more equitable balance than the one that currently occurs.



Yes! Exactly! There lies the problem.

So by most people's definition of the English word "righteous", some people are treated "more equally" than others. However, after Greek culture lost influence in the west, to be replace by the Organized Church, the concept of "right" lost the sense of "just", and became  synonymous with "correct" -- the use it still implies today.

That is, "Those of us who are 'righteous' (correct) have the answers, and therefore we are superior than those who are not 'right'." 

See, all my life I was encouraged to live a "righteous" life, which I understood as "doing the 'right' (correct) thing." 

The "right' (correct) thing is:
"acting in accord with divine or moral law  *:* free from guilt or sin"

Christianity teaches we are free from sin (that is, the punishment is "paid for"), and that we are unable to be righteous according to the law (either divine or moral). The only law left is the law to love.

How do I love others, and God? I treat them in the "right" (correct) way.

What is the "right" way? --  "acting in accord with divine or moral law  *:* free from guilt or sin"!!!!!!
 
And I'm back to where I started.

 So I said to myself "Forget it!" Religion can't teach you how to live a "righteous" life -- I'll focus on living a "loving" life instead!

Now (several years later) I'm re-defining what the "Christian" idea of "right" is. 

 The original teachings for Christianity are in Greek, and the greek word is "dikaios".

 From *Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries*
 dikaios
From G1349 (dike); equitable (in character or act); by implication innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively):just, meet, right (-eous).

From the* American Heritage Dictionary
**   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]     eq·ui·ty   [/SIZE][/FONT] * 

  (
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




w
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-t
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) [SIZE=-2]   KEY [/SIZE] 

[SIZE=-1]   *NOUN:* [/SIZE] 
_pl._ *   [FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]eq·ui·ties[/SIZE][/FONT] *
 The state, quality, or ideal of being just, impartial, and fair.
 Something that is just, impartial, and fair.
  _Law_ 
 Justice applied in circumstances covered by law yet influenced by principles of ethics and fairness.
 A system of jurisprudence supplementing and serving to modify the rigor of common law.
 An equitable right or claim.
 Equity of redemption.
(snipped off the Real estate bits  )

The "right" (equitable) thing is to "be just, impartial, and fair"

Hmm, so I treat people according to their worth, not their "correctedness" (I finally get to make up a new word :cheers: ) 

I have some inherent worth, so I should be treated with respect. But, I am not "more worthy" of anyone else, so they should be treated with respect, too!

Hey! that paves the way to Love! Yayyyy! 

:roflmao:

Now I'm getting somewhere.

So, my rubber-meets-the-road question: Is there a way to keep my personal life equitable?
Balance work and play?
Working and sleeping?
Eating and Exercising?
Faith and reason?
Wisdom and revelation?
Compassion and justice?

This is where everybody's explanation of "Dao" and "Yin/Yang" are proving very helpful. This is why I brought this question to this board, instead of a traditional "Christian" board. 

It's proving to be the "correct" decision! (I almost said "right, I almost did . . .)

So keep those perspectives coming, I like where this is going  . . .


----------



## Ninjamom (Aug 24, 2008)

Wow, Thardey, I really like the way you think (and the questions you dare to ask!)



thardey said:


> So, my rubber-meets-the-road question: Is there a way to keep my personal life equitable?


How 'bout "Do to others as you would like them to do to you." ?

I only found your post this evening (over a year after you made it), but it sparked some thoughts and ideas that have been simmering in my brain for quite a while.  When you mention 'balance' in the context of righteousness, I think of harmony between truth and grace, and between mercy and justice.  All four are generally considered attributes of God, characteristics to be admired, and character traits that we as Christians should seek to emulate.  Too often, however, I have seen (or been guilty of) the elevation of one above the others.  How often has God been misrepresented by the exaltation of truth without any grace, or a demand for justice without any love or mercy?  

So, here is 'Ninjamom's yin and yang of righteousness', courtesy of Psalm 85:10:


> Faithful love and truth will join together;
> righteousness and peace will embrace.


 
Easy to say the words.  Lord, please help me to live them day-by-day!


----------



## thardey (Aug 27, 2008)

Ninjamom said:


> Wow, Thardey, I really like the way you think (and the questions you dare to ask!)
> 
> 
> How 'bout "Do to others as you would like them to do to you." ?
> ...



Wow, I think this was one of my first posts. I am still thinking about this a lot, and have answered a few of my own questions. One of the biggest changes that I've found, is that the idea of balancing the internal with the external has much more power to motivate my day-to-day action that I previously thought. That is, how I see myself often determines how I act.

If I only see myself as a diseased sheep of sorts only capable of functioning because of the mercy of God, then my day-to-day actions tend towards laziness, excuses, and lack of growth and challenge. Also, when I see myself in a negative light, I see others in the same light. On top of that, I become obsessed with obtaining power, influence, etc., and those are the qualities of God that I begin to pursue. Not for the sake of holiness, or righteousness, but because I want a quick fix, a bargain to strike with God to have some of his "magic."

However, if I see myself as having been created "in the Image of God" and having that image as my own, despite mistakes I may make, then I am a worthy creature that is forgiven, but who has hope. What I do or do not do has less effect on my attitude, and I don't need to be constantly proving myself, because I do believe that I am "righteous." When I am able to think of myself that way, then I am challenged to live an "outer life" that is consistent with the truth I hold about my "inner life." Doing the "right" thing becomes more natural, and much healthier. 

My stress level goes down, my confidence goes up, relationships I have with others become easier, and healthier, and I can focus on finding out the personality of this person who occupies the office of "God."

As *OnlyAnEgg* said, "If you are not with me, you are against me." I found recently that there is another idea of righteousness in Greek - there is the idea of the _concept_ of righteousness which is what this thread is about, and there is related word for a person who _is_ righteous. That definition basically boils down to "A person who is where they ought to be." Conversely, the literal definition of "Sin" means "To be apart from your allotment." Or, in other words: "Not being where you ought to be."

It all depends on where I choose to be!


----------

