The Paradox of Goodness: Unveiling the Cycle of Christian and Buddhist Frameworks

(the last topic without repeating the previous)

Having explored the intricate relationship between the Christian framework of goodness and the Buddhist approach of non-duality, it’s clear that both belief systems, despite their profound differences, offer insight into the nature of human striving, self-worth, and inner peace. While Christianity tends to structure morality through an absolute binary of good and evil, Buddhism invites us into a fluid, interconnected reality that transcends these rigid distinctions. However, for those who have journeyed through these previous articles, it’s essential to probe deeper into how these frameworks intersect and diverge in our lived experience—particularly when we consider the paradoxes and psychological cycles they create.

In the Christian paradigm, goodness is both an internal truth and an external pursuit. It is something believers are taught to see as inherently within themselves—God’s will manifested through their actions, words, and very being. But as we’ve examined, this internal belief in “goodness” often becomes the root of a deeper struggle. Christians, driven by the idea that goodness must be affirmed and acted upon, engage in a constant cycle of work and self-help, believing that good things (wealth, health, relationships, success) are not only divine rewards but also signs of their inner virtue.

However, this very framework becomes problematic. The paradox here is self-affirmation through effort: Christians work to be good, but their belief in being inherently good leaves them in an endless loop of trying to prove it, even when the fruits of their goodness—like prosperity or spiritual fulfillment—seem to come without effort. They find themselves in moral competition with others, projecting their perceived goodness onto those they try to help. The result? The goodness they once sought in themselves begins to define others as inherently lacking or evil—a cycle that never quite resolves. The better they are, the more evil others seem.

This cycle, as Nietzsche might argue, reflects a slave morality, where the definition of good is intrinsically tied to the ability to impose it on the world. The cycle of working for goodness eventually becomes a mental and spiritual trap—and the more they try to help the world, the more they find themselves entangled in a rigid binary view of morality that never allows them to experience true peace or freedom.

Buddhism and Taoism offer a radically different way of understanding goodness and self-worth. Instead of defining the self by rigid moral categories, these traditions encourage us to let go of judgment and embrace the impermanent flow of life. The Buddhist path is about non-attachment to ideas of right and wrong, good and bad. Samsara, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, is driven by the attachment to desires and judgments—all of which are products of the illusion that life is a series of dualities. In this way, the “end of days” or the awakening in Buddhism is the end of moral division: to see the world as it truly is—impermanent, interconnected, and fluid—without the need to label or judge it.

Taoism, similarly, abandons dualities in favor of the Tao, the natural flow that exists beyond the concepts of good and bad. In Taoism, there is no striving to be good or to help the world in some fixed, moralistic way. Instead, the sage learns to align with the Tao, understanding that everything is part of a larger system that cannot be divided into right or wrong. The ultimate liberation here is freedom from the need to judge, to label, or to force actions into moral categories.

For a Christian who is bound by the tension of striving for goodness, the Buddhist and Taoist perspectives offer a liberating shift. The problem with Christian goodness is that it’s tied to work and effort, which leads to a sense of moral superiority and projection onto others. By embracing the idea of letting go—allowing the world to simply be, without needing to “fix” it or impose rigid judgments—one can find peace. The real liberation comes when we stop working so hard to be good, and instead, allow life to flow, recognizing the interconnectedness of all things.

So, what happens when we attempt to integrate these two frameworks—Christian striving for goodness and Buddhist/Taoist acceptance of non-duality? The path forward may not be one of rejecting one for the other, but of reconciliation.

The Christian’s deep need to affirm their goodness is valid in the sense that it stems from a desire for purpose and meaning. However, the cycle of effort can often lead to self-righteousness and projection, ultimately preventing true inner peace. The solution lies in embracing the Christian call to goodness, but without the weight of self-affirmation that leads to moral judgment. This means recognizing the goodness in oneself, but without the need to constantly prove it, to constantly label oneself or others as good or bad.

On the other hand, the Buddhist path offers a remedy to the Christian tendency to overwork for moral success. It teaches that goodness is not something that needs to be earned or forced. Instead, it flows naturally when one is in harmony with the present moment, when we accept the impermanence of life, and when we stop clinging to ideas of right and wrong. In a world where we have been taught to work for goodness, the Buddhist and Taoist wisdom of non-attachment offers a path of peace that requires no striving, only a willingness to let go and accept things as they are.

The final paradox is that true freedom comes when we can reconcile these two frameworks. The Christian need for goodness can be preserved, but it must be freed from the trap of moral binaries and self-righteousness. At the same time, the Buddhist and Taoist emphasis on acceptance and non-attachment can allow us to see the world beyond duality, without negating the importance of living with purpose and integrity.

We can embrace the work of goodness, but not with the expectation that it will yield fixed rewards or moral superiority over others. Instead, we can see goodness as an ongoing process, a flow that happens when we are at peace with what is, and who we are, without the need to project it onto others. By finding the balance between effort and surrender, between striving for goodness and letting go of judgment, we open ourselves to a deeper, more integrated existence—one that transcends the cycles of moral division and allows life to unfold in its full complexity.

Ultimately, the path forward is neither just about work or just about letting go—it’s about living in the tension between the two, embracing the complexity and contradictions of the human experience, and finding peace in the flow of life, just as it is.