Today my point is that rules by themselves – rules by their essence – are the opponents of righteousness. I know this strikes most people as absolutely wrong, but I'm convinced otherwise, and I'm asking you to hear me out.

I expect this concept to take root slowly; human psychology is just that way: It takes time to absorb and sift ideas that are not only new, but which stand against our basic assumptions.

And so again, please try to let it remain in your mind as a possibility, even if a far-fetched one. Thanks.

It Nearly Always Comes Back To Structure
There are multiple ways to analyze almost anything, but the one that stands out to me is analyzing the structure of things. As it happens, this type of analysis is rarely done for human affairs, which I think accounts for a significant share of our problems.

What I want to do, briefly, is explain the structure of righteousness, and show you why rules oppose it. So, let's start with a definition:

Righteousness is not merely doing the right thing, or even knowing that you are doing the right thing. It is doing the right thing by your own will.

You don't improve your inner workings by following rules. Rather, you surrender them to an exterior command. That insults your inner parts rather than using and upgrading them.

Once, however, you generate your own desire to do beneficial and courageous things, you both strengthen your inner parts and know that you are a source of benefit in the universe. That is righteousness.

The great difference in the two models is that in one of them our inner parts are subsidiary and inferior to something external… our actions are derived from something outside… our goodness is not inherent, but subsidiary.

By the other model, our inner parts generate goodness, making us primary and potent beings; beings who continually improve.

Once we begin to see and accept this, we become objectively better beings… we grow and expand… and we very certainly become more confident and reliable beings.