From the Very Source

By editor in Ethics, principles and philosophy April 11, 2025

When it comes to the moral and ethical aspect of the Teaching, I traditionally state the following fact: it is unoriginal. Despite the Teaching’s uniqueness and the originality of its worldview, this aspect almost completely coincides with universal human morality.

But can we even speak of such a phenomenon as universal human morality? Does it exist? Yes, it does. And it is not difficult to verify this by taking a look at the history and culture of humanity.

It turns out that in all scientifically known eras, starting from the most ancient ones that have left literary or mythological monuments, good and evil, in the moral sense of these concepts, have always been considered more or less the same. For example, honesty has always been regarded as a positive quality, while deceit and baseness as negative ones. Many such pairs of antagonists can be counted: loyalty and betrayal; generosity and greed; moral purity and debauchery; mercy and cruelty; justice and injustice; diligence and laziness; bravery and cowardice; perseverance and weak will; magnanimity and spiteful envy; respectfulness and rudeness; prudence and recklessness; sincerity and guile; mettle and faintheartedness; duty and neglect of it; the aspiration for freedom and slavish submission; and so on, and so forth. From Sumer, Ancient Egypt, and Ancient China to the present day, we see these criteria in action. Of course, different cultures and different forms of social organisation sometimes have their own moral nuances. For example, under a slave-owning or serfdom system, it was the norm to deprive a person of freedom and treat them as property. But even those who did so valued freedom — only their own. And over time, slavery was condemned and abolished everywhere: the understanding that owning a person as a thing is immoral prevailed. Or, for example, in some cultures, polygamy is practiced. But there, it is not considered debauchery, while what they do regard as debauchery is strictly condemned. That is, the same moral criteria apply even in these cases — only their boundaries are somewhat shifted. Such deviations from the general norm occur here and there, but these are exceptions that stand out precisely against the general picture, which reveals the unity, one might even say universality, of human morality.

We find the same uniformity in a specific area of morality — the spiritual, or, more narrowly, the religious. Here, the norm has always been loyalty to one’s spiritual path, adherence to its norms and principles, deep reverence for spiritual mentors, and so on.

Thus, the Teaching proclaims moral principles that can be considered universal — both in general and specifically in the spiritual sphere. So what distinguishes it from other teachings and cultures? The fact that the Teaching provides its own justifications for all of this, derived from its worldview. In other words, its novelty lies not in proclaiming new moral values but in providing a new justification for the old ones. This in itself is not something groundbreaking either. Every culture or religion offers its own unique justifications for universal moral norms. Everywhere, you will be explained, from their perspective, why honesty, loyalty, and justice are good, while baseness, theft, and debauchery are bad. But no matter how this is justified, the former will always be good, and the latter evil. And so it has always been.

Why is this the case? The best explanation that comes to mind is this: humanity, and thereby each individual, has something inherently embedded within that defines these moral criteria as true and the only correct ones. Something instinctive, or even deeper than that. This something is so powerful that it allows people to feel what is right and what is not. Feel — but not understand. Because such things cannot be understood suddenly — just like that, simply taken and understood. Understanding requires knowledge. One must have an idea of where everything comes from. Unfortunately, humanity has not yet had, and has never had, a single, objective understanding of this. But some explanation was necessary; without explanation and justification, even the best principles prove ineffective. Therefore, every culture or religion has provided its own explanations, finding within its worldview — or even adding to it — what could justify them. This has led to a strange situation: their moral norms are similar, yet they cannot agree or even coexist peacefully. The emphasis shifts not towards similarities but towards differences, generating hostility. In our time, however, attempts are being made to change this by focusing on similarities and thereby bringing different traditions closer together and even uniting them. In doing so, differences are deliberately ignored. But they do not disappear and remain obstacles to realising these intentions. One cannot overcome an obstacle by ignoring it. And the attempts in question have been chronically unsuccessful. However, that is a separate, vast topic. The current discussion is about something else — about the origin of universal human morality.

Within each person lies a particle of the Spirit. The whole Spirit, in general, is what can be called the soul of the Creator. And his soul contains, so to speak, the imprint of his personality, his qualities, and even his memory. But all of this does not lie on the surface. It is hidden deep within a person — at a level deeper than the subconscious. In the Teaching, this level is called spirit-consciousness — that which influences us from our Spirit in a hidden way. This is also a separate and important topic that will certainly be covered — but not in this article. Here, we are speaking only about one specific manifestation of spirit-consciousness: its moral message.

In fact, moral norms are embedded in a person by the Creator, stemming from his best qualities. The question is whether a person wants to follow these norms. They feel them, these norms influence their evaluations of themselves, others, and the surrounding reality. But they have free will and the ability to choose, and therefore often do not follow them — sometimes deliberately, fully aware of it and emphasising it to others. However, these norms still exist and remain relevant. And they shape universal human morality. What are considered the best qualities according to it are the good qualities of the Creator, embedded in people. The worst qualities are what stand in opposition to them: some imperfections of the Creator, manifesting in this way as the antitheses of positive qualities. Imperfections that must be overcome and eradicated so that the Creator can become more perfect. This is the fundamental, primary meaning of morality, ethics, and virtue in general. Through people and other sentient beings, the Creator fights his imperfections. Our Universe was created as a battleground for this struggle.

Universal human morality flows, like from a common source, from a hidden understanding of what is good and what is bad, embedded in the soul of each of us. One might ask, “Isn’t that too simple? Was it really just placed within us as a kind of gift — take it and use it?” No, it is not simple at all. Although this gift is within us, we still need to learn how to use it. And humanity is, to put it bluntly, not very good at it. Although the correct moral criteria speak loudly enough within people, are felt clearly enough, create the moral climate of humanity over thousands of years, and, like a beacon, guide it through all the storms and upheavals of its history, these criteria, first of all, need to be understood, and second, need to be willingly followed. So this is by no means a bonus that conveniently fell into everyone’s hands, making the work of self-improvement easier. A serious aid, an invaluable guide — yes, absolutely. But not a solution to all moral problems. These problems still need to be overcome. For this, one must understand oneself and the world. One must learn to see how morality fits into its system, rather than just feeling something.

Nevertheless, universal human morality exists. If we reach its very source, we will find that it flows from the Spirit — from the soul of the Creator, a part of which has been given to each person. Humanity intuitively — let’s put it this way — knows what is moral and what is not. The knowledge that lives in each person merges into universal human knowledge, linking the most distant eras and the most diverse cultures. It creates a common, unified foundation upon which each culture and worldview weaves its own pattern. But everyone wants to reach the foundation. Everyone wants to know the truth about the world and humanity. And the closer people get to it, the clearer they will see and understand it, and the fewer divergences, contradictions, and enmities there will be. One day, people will understand themselves, realise that they indeed have one morality for all, and see its origin.

In conclusion, I will add that the scale here is much larger. Earlier, I mentioned that the Creator struggles with his imperfections through humans and other sentient beings. This is indeed the case. For the Spirit, as the common source of morality, is common not only to humans but also to all sentient beings, to all intelligent races in the Universe. Because the soul of the Creator is one for all. So it is appropriate to speak not only of universal human morality but also of the morality of… How should we say it? The necessary term has not yet been coined. No one has yet raised the question of describing the unified moral space of all intelligent species on a universal scale. But it exists. If we reach the very source of morality, we will find that it is common to all. Not just for all humans, but for everyone — those who have lived, those who live, and those who will live in the unimaginably vast expanses of our Universe. Humanity, like other intelligent races, has reached this source and drinks from it, drawing the moisture that gives life. Giving life in the literal sense of the word. Giving life to all of us and to the Creator.