But, if you come to details, the matter will not be seen to be quite so simple. For instance, environment often makes the details different as I have already mentioned. The same action under one set of circumstances may be unselfish, and under another set quite selfish. So we can give only a general definition, and leave the details to be worked out by taking into consideration the differences in time, place, and circumstances. In one country one kind of conduct is considered moral, and in another the very same is immoral, because the circumstances differ. The goal of all nature is freedom, and freedom is to be attained only by perfect unselfishness; every thought, word, or deed that is unselfish takes us towards the goal, and, as such, is called moral.



That definition, you will find, holds good in every religion and every system of ethics. In some systems of thought morality is derived from a Superior Being -- God. If you ask why a man ought to do this and not that, their answer is : "Because such is the command of God." But whatever be the source from which it is derived, their code of ethics also has the same central idea -- not to think of self but to give up self. And yet some persons, in spite of this high ethical idea, are frightened at the thought of having to give up their little personalities.

We may ask the man who clings to the idea of little personalities to consider the case of a person who has become perfectly unselfish,who has no thought for himself, who does no deed for himself, who speaks no word for himself, and then say where his "himself" is. That "himself" is known to him only so long as he thinks, acts, or speaks for himself. If he is only conscious of others, of the universe,and of the all, where is his "himself"? It is gone forever.

To get more information visit : http://www.spiritual-simplicity.com