What’s innocence got to do with morality or spiritualism?

Welcome to the first series of my five- post- serial blog about morality and spiritualism.
        In the course of my life, I’ve heard many interpretations of one simple word- Morality. Another popular concept used to define purity, sinlessness, and moralistic being is the term ‘innocence’.
But what I’ve discovered during my spiritual experience has simplified the avoidable complexity created by the socio-religious institutes.
As always, I would like to share my experience with the fellow seekers.
        Innocence could mean many things, depending on the gender, age, religion, legality, as well as a philosophy of academic and non-academic sense.
        For example, if it describes a female, most commonly the word refers to her virgin beauty/purity.
        In case of a man, most often the word is used to describe his lack of knowledge of something.
        A child is deemed innocent because infancy is seen as a stage in life that has not yet been scathed by worldly corruption.
        Religionists use the term to characterise someone who has not committed a sin; law is close to this definition- someone is innocent if not found guilty of a crime.
        A philosopher might deduce that a person is innocent if he/she is either ignorant or blameless.
        Now let’s see each of these definitions from a spiritual point of view, called morality:
* A child’s raw mindset is positive but lacks the maturity to understand the purpose of own life or its connection with the Universe. ‘Lack’ of mental growth stunts the evolution of life, therefore, it’s negative and not innocent.
* Virginity of a man or a woman is seen only as far as in the physical state, hence is limited, and frankly irrelevant to spiritism or spiritualism. So, virginity should, ideally, only refer to the un-corrupted state of mind; in other words, an innocent mind.
* If someone is oblivious of negativity (if it’s even possible), then it could be considered as ‘good’, hence innocent. But let’s see the practicality of this notion – if one wouldn’t know the disadvantages of negativity, then what would be the motivator for being positive? Well, I can say with conviction that I’ve not met anyone who didn’t know about what bad is, in order to learn why we must adapt to ‘good’. To be able to make such a choice would be innocent.
* Going by the dogmatic version of the term ‘sin’, we ‘all’ are sinners in one form or the other. So, the absolute state of innocence is not a reality even by this definition. But to endeavor to avoid all conscious sin is innocent.
* Qualified philosophers and social quacks might label someone as corrupt, sinful, or immoral. But this raises the issue of being judgemental and opinionated. However, to judge own errors and rectifying own mistakes is innocent.
* Similarly, manmade law could declare someone ‘innocent’ of a particular crime, but what about the life of that person outside the crime? Also, what about those who might not have been tried in the court of law, but lie and deceive as a way of life? So the scope of worldly law is limited. But to live by the laws of the Universe is ‘innocent’.      
        Now, which of the above definitions fits the framework of Morality and Spiritualism the best?
I would say if we abstract the idea of gender, age, and institutionalised dogma, the wholesome extract of purity left is what innocence means.  
        Understand yourself foremost in the raw aura of reality – who you are, what’s the purpose of your life, and how would you evolve into a positive mindset.
        Once, you’ve conquered yourself and established a relationship with the Universe, you could chisel your own morality, and if your conscience is clear – you are innocent and worthy of being spiritual.