The Semi-Virtuous Path

Now upon consideration I found an oddity in a common idea of eastern philosophy. Most eastern mystical texts and mantras (I have taken courses specifically on eastern history, martial arts, and religion... and find such things fascinating so some spare time went into it too) are a proponent of finding balance and harmony in nature. They often teach this through rules and ideals of social order and personal conduct that lead to a greater reality. Now the odd thing is that half of the teachings promote balance and harmony, where the other half promote doing what is outlined as good versus that which is negative for the soul. I am speaking of the idea of a life lived on the virtuous path. Now such an idea rejects balance as there are two cycles in life, the virtuous path and the vicious path. These are nearly as simple and complicated as they sound, but the idea of living a virtuous life would seem to reject balance. What I am saying is that although some argue that the unenlightened (being everyone reading this who is not Buddha, the Dalai lama, or Confucius) are only capable of living a semi-virtuous path, Why not promote this as the true path, the way that splits the hairs and rides on the knife's edge. Basic philosophy would argue that the most profitable thing for a lone individual to do is only that which provides him/her with advantages. Whereas the most profitable thing for an individual in society to do is follow the common rules of society in respect to giving up some advantages for a mutual good. Why not shoot for both? I am suggesting that for optimum success as a person if one took advantage of only what profited him/her and gave up to society what society can give back better, then we might end up both being fair and competitive... now that I think about it, it sounds a lot like capitalism...

Well, that was fun, but never mind that, it seems someone else beat me to the punch. At least its something to think about.