Omniscience In Varying Degrees

[devotee]

Namaste David,

What about omnibenevolent?

Yesterday, I was discussing something similar to it with one of my friends. He said, if God is Shivam, compassionate, why does he allow sufferings & pains in this world ? How could he create such a world ?

I said, " No it is not God who is responsible for your pains, pleasures, sufferings & enjoyment. He clearly says in Bhagwad Gita :

Na Kartritvam, na karmANi, lokasya srijati prabhu l
Na karmphal sanyongam svabhavastu pravartate ll

====> Prabhu (God) doesn't create the desires to act, He does not create the action & he also doesn't create any result of those actions. It is the Nature which works. "

He said, "Then is it wrong to say that not even a leaf can shake without his wishes ?"

I said, " No, it is absolutely right. Nothing happens in this world without his permission. However, we must understand this in this way : The laws of Nature (Karma) within the waking & dreaming states were sanctioned by him on one time basis (that includes powerful illusion of Maya, good or bad chances in this world, feeling of pleasure, sufferings & pains depending upon Karmas, those laws also include divine intervention if needed, effects of prayers, grace etc.). So, even though he doesn't interfere on a case to case basis, everything goes as per his (one-time) approval only !"

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Richard,

Welcome to HDF , and thank you for your post. If I may let me offer an idea or two on your questions. Please note I am not the final authority on this matter; I found your questions interesting to ponder.

Perhaps God is ambivalent and we are the manifestations of his divine ambivalence.
Do you feel that God could be trying to understand his situation as well. Much like we try to understand ours?

Regarding ambivalence
If we use the term in its purest application ambivalence is defined as uncertainty or fluctuation, especially when caused by the inability to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two opposite ( or conflicting ) things.
Yet I do not think this is your intent. I think you have offered ambivalence as 'neither caring or not caring' - a neutral position to the outcome of an action or actions. In both cases IMHO this does not apply to īśvara (supreme Being). How so?

If ambivalence ( either definition applies) is the notion, then there would be no direction - of the universe, people, nature. His intent and His direction is His will or icchā (wish , desire , inclination); If there is icchā there is intent. If there is intent there is the absence of ambivalence. Yet I am not one to suggest I know the mind or wishes of the Supreme; but if we observe the workings of ourselves and this known universe we get a glimpse.

Regarding trying to understand
I do not think īśvara has to try. Let me explain. That omniscience in īśvara is absolute and perfect; not even one iota of improvement or advancement can be made - it is anuttara - supreme and unsurpassable. Hence 'trying' suggests effort, or a lack, or a position of 'less then' looking to move to 'greater then' or at least to homeostasis ( ~ stability ~).

If we take this to be true ( as this is my position) then for Him there is no deficiency - no-thing to comprehend as if 'He does not get it'. What I do think He may be doing is seeing how many ways He can express Himself - how many permutations. For this He has created all human beings ( and perhaps others that I am not aware of) and offers them freedom to express themselves. This is another venue for Him expressing Himself.
Perhaps once and a while we bring Him delight and he says, 'now isn't that an interesting way of doing, thinking, acting, worshiping, growing, giving, living …. loving and being'

praṇām

[DavidC]

Devotee, you said in reply to my question if you think Divinity is omnibenevolent:

[...]So, even though he doesn't interfere on a case to case basis, everything goes as per his (one-time) approval only !"[...]

That seems to support my question. If everything goes as per his approval (or also if divine intervention is possible, as you said) then Divinity acts equally towards all beings. The question is as simple as one of eutheism or dystheism. You could say both are true, but then dystheism would be true and Divinity would favour some beings and be cruel to others. However, you said Divinity does not do that because it does not interfere in any particular case. Divine intervention may make it seem that way, but you said this is allowed in the laws of the universe that were set up.

So, the question 'what about omnibenevolent' is just 'is Divinity good?' I would like to know what others think but am not sure why anyone could call Divinity bad--even wrathful forms. At least I do not know why if they think every living being will be liberated one day. If every being will be liberated that is proof Divinity does not interfere in any particular case, though Divine intervention also happens, and Divinity and even Parabrahm (beyond Divinity) is not responsible for the evil in the world. If every being will be liberated then every being achieves its ultimate good. If every being achieves what is good for it, then how can Divinity or Parabrahm possibly be evil? You can say Parabrahm contains evil, but that does not mean it is. A car in motion probably contains gasoline but that does not mean it is the car.

[devotee]

Namaste David,

God by definition must be impartial to all ( it includes all that is in the manifested world). If God is partial to anyone, then it is most probably human & not God. As God is omnipotent, he cannot have any incentive to be partial or unjust. In fact, he must be impartial, just & compassionate even to an atheist.

So, God's neutrality is central to the very idea of a God. Now, the pains are there & sufferings are there too. Who is responsible for these ? You have given the example of a Car. I will give you an example of a burning torch. The torch can be used to spread light & also to burn someone's house or even burn oneself. Now, if I burn myself by that torch, shall I say that the person who made this torch is responsible for my getting burnt ? That would be ridiculous. The Torch-maker just made this torch. It is the nature of fire to burn. Now, if I burn myself with that, it is neither the fault of fire nor the fault of the torch-maker but it is entirely my fault. Yes, if I had no brains to think logically, I would be correct in blaming the person who gave me this torch in my hands ... but I have a brain which can think logically & which can decide what is wrong & what is right .... so, in that case I cannot blame anyone but only myself.

This whole creation is working under strict laws. No one is permitted to break these laws & no one can complain. The laws are there for everyone to follow. The Sun is is burning & shining on this earth & other planets for millions of years without complaining. The electrons are moving faithfully in the atomic orbits without complaining of boredom & tiredness since the time of creation. All animate & inanimate things are ceaselessly working as per the given laws. Those who have no freedom in choosing their actions, don't suffer pains or pleasure. However, depending upon degree of consciousness in each being , the degree of freedom of action is given to humans & some other intelligent beings. This degree of freedom must come at a cost & with added responsibility ... so there must be laws to reward & punish too, otherwise a fair & just administration will be impossible. Sufferings & pains are not due to the laws or due to God who created the laws for governing the waking & dreaming states .... it is because of our own irresponsible actions in violation of those laws.


OM

[sunyata07]

Namaste everyone,

Interesting topic, although I sometimes wonder if maybe the idea of God as being at once omnipotent and omniscient isn't maybe something of a paradox. I remember this being pointed out in a small discussion before, this concept of theological fatalism in Christianity - i.e. that free will doesn't exist because ultimately God's prior knowledge of all events is completely incompatible with the choices that we make. In one sense could be we predestined to make the decisions we make?

Even the nearest star is a few light-years away, and therefore what we on Earth see of the star is what happened there those many years back. This means that at successive points in the path of the light in space from the star, time has a graded existence from the now to the past. What is now here at one point in space is the past at a point afar. Then what about the future? I think future exists as a potential inside the star at all levels of its existence. Thus time in its triunity is the ever-present now at successive points in space. Perhaps hence Krishna's words to Arjun you have quoted.

Excellent point you've made there, Saidevo. You reminded me of something I was going to bring up in this thread in relation to the Omniscient Being exempt from the time boundaries, because it can't be argued that to Omniscience is intrinsically tied in with Time, knowing past, present and future. Like Saidevo has pointed out, when we are looking at the stars at night, the light we see is already years old. In theory, you could even say you are looking at the past as a Seer yourself. To add another example to this, if we could send a man to Mercury and let him live there his whole life, by our planetary definition of year, he would age four times faster than a man would on Earth. If the Earth man could live till he was in his 80s, the Mercurian man would have lived well over 300 Earth years. This of course, is a simple example I'm giving. Our notion of time is then relative, and not a concept we can consider absolutely. Even from Einstein's principles of relativity, the observer of any event must be standing still, at a point which he can make an observation. Considering the objectivity of this prerequisite, how could a person with omniscience see through time if he has nothing absolute to anchor himself to make that observation? In one sense, is time nothing more than an illusion? Is it just a human construct by which we can give direction to the way we navigate our lives?

Frankly, I'm surprised that something as complex as omniscience hasn't been posted over in the Uttara section. It certainly has given me a lot to think about right now.

OM Shanti

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté sunyata07

Frankly, I'm surprised that something as complex as omniscience hasn't been posted over in the Uttara section. It certainly has given me a lot to think about right now. OM Shanti

A good point. It is because of subject matter of this nature that the uttara (upper, higher, northern) folder was created.

I am glad some of these posts have stimulated deeper thinking for you , then they are reaching their purpose.

Just imagine - one new idea, an insight and you say 'ahh ha!' and a new door of perception is open. This is the blessing that comes with knowledge.

praṇām

[Harjas Kaur]

So, the question 'what about omnibenevolent' is just 'is Divinity good?' I would like to know what others think but am not sure why anyone could call Divinity bad--even wrathful forms. At least I do not know why if they think every living being will be liberated one day.

Respectfully ji, I don't believe you understood my answer. "The problem with describing the Divine in terms of omnibenevolence comes down to what humanity defines as benevolent. Would a benevolent God allow evil to happen?"

Good and evil are projections of human consciousness related to limitations of perception in the sansaara (created realm) also called duality consciousness. God is beyond duality. A Tsunami has no quality of good or evil. Yet, the destructive wrath of a tsunami's perceived power is considered "evil" by human beings. And this itself is independent of the element of "intent" since a tsunami by act of nature has no intent. Evil and good by definition require "intent." But God who is ultimate consciousness and intention acts through agencies which are incapable of either, as well as through agencies which are capable of both. And this goes to richard silliker Ji's comments about "Divine Ambivalence."

If we project onto Divinity an absolute quality such as "omnibenevolence" it also projects an absolute limit which negates Divinity could possess qualities human beings perceive as "evil,"even if those apparent "evil" qualities are intended for our higher "good."And this explains the meaning of wrathful forms. So an absolute concept such as "omnibenevolence" is putting a limit on God. And God per our definition is both limited (sargun) and unlimited (nirgun) but the Totality of the Divine is both, nirgun and sargun, hence beyond limits of human conception. Rather than moral absolutes as "good" or "evil" which are human qualities to define God, Sanathana Dharma defines God as ultimately beyond qualities (nirguna), and hence, operating from a perspective of ambivalent indifference in regards to what we value. Good by definition is "positive or desirable by nature." In a wrathful form, God is perceived as neither positive or desirable but terrifying and destructive to our ambitions although the outcome is our spiritual evolution which is both positive and desirable.

Just as Saint Augustine said, "Man proposes, God disposes." We build sand castles and God takes neither delight or sorrow in watching our dreams get crushed. I believe such Abrahamic concepts as Omnibenevolence to describe Divinity are related to Christian Theology which posits that the Divine Man, in the figurehead of Jesus, is the moral absolute. Thus projecting human conceptions of moral goodness and badness onto the Divine.

"When the camp of the heroic Pandava brothers is attacked one night by the sword-wielding Asvattaman, his deadly assault is seen as the work of "Kali of bloodly mouth and eyes, smeared with blood and adorned with garlands, her garment reddened, --holding noose in hand-- binding men and horses and elephants, with her terrible snares of death (Mahabharata 10.8.64-65). Although the passage goes on the describe the slaughter as an act of human warfare, it makes clear that the fierce goddess is ultimately the agent of death who carries off those who are slain." http://www.saisathyasai.com/india_hi...ses/kali.shtml

When Devotee Ji described the counsel of Bhagavan Krishna Ji, you must bear in mind that Bhagavan Krishna is an avatar, and hence sargun manifestation. We approach the Divine through sargun agencies (Guru God), but at no time is the Absolute ever limited. And not saying Bhagavan Krishna (who is the MahaVishnu/Parabrahm/Absolute Divine) is ever limited, but that Krishna Bhagavan's counsel is in context given to limited human beings from His Divine perspective as Guru God and Avatar. Hence the God has aspects which are both personal and impersonal, perceived by us as both "good" and "evil." Devotee Ji is reminding us that God is personal and cares for us. This is the contextual meaning of God described as "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" The God is "truth, auspicious blessing and beautiful." Which is parallel to human conception of God as absolute, and not relative goodness. But that is not the same as the ontological Christian definition of the God as "Omnibenevolent" which precludes that the God could be "anything other" according to limited human perspectives.

If Kali's wrathful form is coming to destroy everything you love and move you away from human attachments with Her goad and snare you with Her noose to drag you away from your life, you may view it as "evil." Yet it is still the "Will of God." Nothing happens which is outside the Will of God/Divine Hukam. God is not the direct "doer" of the "evil" yet is allowing the evil so we can all learn/evolve/progress from it. Kali, as a wrathful non-benevolent form represents purgation. She purges us with violent force from all that is not pure. In the Divine symbolism, Kali is described as a "terror" to the demons. It is "we" the limited human beings She is after, "we" whose demonic qualities She destroys.

Within the many philosophies of Sanatana Dharma, God is ultimate indifference or "shades of gray" which is not the same as "uncaring," or "cruelty." And here is the reason per Devotee Ji: "In fact, he must be impartial, just & compassionate even to an atheist." Our human problem is that we don't perceive the "justice." We don't see the "compassion." We don't see the "impartiality." So what's going on? And the problem is simple. We perceive as human beings attached to our limited/finite identities and what we value as limited beings: our lives, health, homes, loved ones, etc. We are human. God is beyond the limitations of a human. God is not attached to what we value. God works through the agency of Mahakal, using Time to destroy everything we cling to. God views our atma (indestructible nature) as our ultimate reality. In the words of Sri Daya Mata Ji of SRF, "It's not what happens to us that matters. It's what we become as a result of what happens to us that matters."

So to God, even tortures we undergo are not even blink of an eye to the timeless transcended state. Only we are living in a nightmare world of suffering and death. God is beyond suffering. God is beyond "good" and "evil." God works through the agencies of "good" and "evil" to achieve the desired result of our spiritual evolution which is the meaning of karma and dharma. Our karma and our suffering is part of our evolution.

Today you are this person, but after this life who will you be? Will anything you have in this life which will fade away retain importance? Today you may live in a castle and in the next life you may be on the street begging. Today you may have beautiful wife and loving kids and in next life will you even know their names? God's reality is not our reality. And while God is Shivam, His Shivam may not be considered Shivam to us at the present state of our development

God's justice isn't equivalent of "human justice." We cannot fathom the depth of what God is working from the perspective of a human being. We only perceive as a human can, in terms of sorrow, hurt, loss, aggrievement. God is working through the natural agencies of the created order which are wholly indifferent to our sufferings, the actions and reactions of the gunas, and even the chaotic factors of intervening human intentions (evil capacity), such as the mind of a man who pulls the trigger of a gun. God is working. Because behind every act is the All-pervading Presence of God. Although God is not the actor, ultimately everything is only He. Devotee Ji was right, "This whole creation is working under strict laws. No one is permitted to break these laws & no one can complain." And also: "Nothing happens in this world without his permission. However, we must understand this in this way : The laws of Nature (Karma) within the waking & dreaming states were sanctioned by him..."

So in this paradigm, evil is just a human definition of something innately opposed to what we believe is good. God transcends and is unaffected by the concept of evil. God is beyond concepts or limits like "omnibenevolence."

ਦੁਖੁ ਦਾਰੂ ਸੁਖੁ ਰੋਗੁ ਭਇਆ ਜਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਤਾਮਿ ਨ ਹੋਈ ॥
dhukh dhaaroo sukh rog bhaeiaa jaa sukh thaam n hoee ||
Suffering is the medicine, and pleasure the disease, because where there is pleasure, there is no desire for God.
~SGGS Ji ang 469

[DavidC]

[...]I would like to know what others think but am not sure why anyone could call Divinity bad--even wrathful forms. At least I do not know why [since it is true that] every living being will be liberated one day.

Respectfully ji, I don't believe you understood my answer. "The problem with describing the Divine in terms of omnibenevolence comes down to what humanity defines as benevolent. Would a benevolent God allow evil to happen?"

Om Shanti, Harjas Kaur Ji. I am unsure you read my posts closely enough (I tried to clarify my quote above) and I am not sure what Devotee Ji's opinion really is. Different definitions of 'benevolent' exist.

Good and evil are projections of human consciousness related to limitations of perception in the sansaara (created realm) also called duality consciousness. God is beyond duality.

Different definitions of good & evil exist. I do not think they (at least 'good') must involve samsara or that good must have a dual nature.

Evil and good by definition require "intent." But God who is ultimate consciousness and intention acts through agencies which are incapable of either, as well as through agencies which are capable of both. And this goes to richard silliker Ji's comments about "Divine Ambivalence."

I do not think they require intent: they can be more objective. Omnibenevolence is like ambivalence if they both apply to all beings--when this is separate of any idea of good being an intent or having (much of) a dual nature.

If we project onto Divinity an absolute quality such as "omnibenevolence" it also projects an absolute limit which negates Divinity could possess qualities human beings perceive as "evil,"even if those apparent "evil" qualities are intended for our higher "good."And this explains the meaning of wrathful forms. So an absolute concept such as "omnibenevolence" is putting a limit on God. And God per our definition is both limited (sargun) and unlimited (nirgun) but the Totality of the Divine is both, nirgun and sargun, hence beyond limits of human conception. Rather than moral absolutes as "good" or "evil" which are human qualities to define God, Sanathana Dharma defines God as ultimately beyond qualities (nirguna), and hence, operating from a perspective of ambivalent indifference in regards to what we value. Good by definition is "positive or desirable by nature." In a wrathful form, God is perceived as neither positive or desirable but terrifying and destructive to our ambitions although the outcome is our spiritual evolution which is both positive and desirable.

Does that not also refute omniscience-omnipotence-omnipresence? I do not yet fully understand the definition and usage of 'sargun' and 'nirgun,' but what you are saying is what I was saying. Your last sentence sums it up because spiritual evolution (to liberation, as I said) is 'positive and desirable.' It does not matter if people have to suffer 'evil' in their evolution--there is a reason for it and overall it is good.

[...]Hence the God has aspects which are both personal and impersonal, perceived by us as both "good" and "evil." Devotee Ji is reminding us that God is personal and cares for us. This is the contextual meaning of God described as "Satyam Shivam Sundaram" The God is "truth, auspicious blessing and beautiful." Which is parallel to human conception of God as absolute, and not relative goodness. But that is not the same as the ontological Christian definition of the God as "Omnibenevolent" which precludes that the God could be "anything other" according to limited human perspectives.

I do not fully recall the 'ontological Abrahamic definition of omnibenevolent' and I do not really care. In Abrahamic religions, Satan is also merely a servant of the Divine (see the book of Job) and is even known as Sataniel, 'Satani-god,' in angel dictionaries, though most sects say he is not Satani 'El' any more.. Genesis has two parallel creation myths: from the viewpoint of Elohim(s) and YHVH, and I think both have Sammael and Sataniel, though Sammael is esoteric and only in Zohar. Sataniel is the being that makes humanity become intelligent/spiritual, and I do not think he is described as doing evil anywhere. You could say he is wrathul to Job, but he helps Job's spiritual development. I have gotten pretty off-topic: it was to give another viewpoint about if Mazdayasna (Zoroastrianism) has 'Satanic' dualism. In fact because Satan is God's servant--controlled by God and incapable as anyone else of going against Divine will which is for what is best--the Ophite (serpent) Gnostics likely have the best (non-dualist) Jewish viewpoint on good. They said, as did the Theosophists: Sataniel is God (evidence is in Kabbala and Semitic mythology.) It does not really conflict with the idea of good & evil because Sammael represents the evil in humanity. Of course that is probably another biased viewpoint against Sammael, whose name ends with 'El.' This all leads to different ideas and I am uninterested in the more accepted unfounded ones but how omnibenevolence may apply in various religions.

Within the many philosophies of Sanatana Dharma, God is ultimate indifference or "shades of gray" which is not the same as "uncaring," or "cruelty." And here is the reason per Devotee Ji: "

In fact, he must be impartial, just & compassionate even to an atheist." Our human problem is that we don't perceive the "justice." We don't see the "compassion." We don't see the "impartiality." So what's going on? And the problem is simple. We perceive as human beings attached to our limited/finite identities and what we value as limited beings: our lives, health, homes, loved ones, etc. We are human. God is beyond the limitations of a human. God is not attached to what we value. God works through the agency of Mahakal, using Time to destroy everything we cling to. God views our atma (indestructible nature) as our ultimate reality. In the words of Sri Daya Mata Ji of SRF, "It's not what happens to us that matters. It's what we become as a result of what happens to us that matters."

Indeed.

So to God, even tortures we undergo are not even blink of an eye to the timeless transcended state. Only we are living in a nightmare world of suffering and death. God is beyond suffering. God is beyond "good" and "evil." God works through the agencies of "good" and "evil" to achieve the desired result of our spiritual evolution which is the meaning of karma and dharma. Our karma and our suffering is part of our evolution.

Indeed, but the Divine working through the agency of 'evil' to support spiritual evolution is good, though it may be a different good. People may think 'the agency of good' is reasonable, but order & reason contain 'good & evil' and order is ultimate good because there is a reason for it and the spiritual evolution within it... of course someone could regress in spiritual evolution, nevertheless the idea still is that every being will attain liberation, correct?

So in this paradigm, evil is just a human definition of something innately opposed to what we believe is good. God transcends and is unaffected by the concept of evil. God is beyond concepts or limits like "omnibenevolence."

Ok... I think sometimes people just have a hard time seeing the nature of Parabrahm & Brahm and 'good & evil.' Your quotes right above may have to be reconciled with the one I said 'indeed' to.

Here is another idea I have to explain it.
--------
Omnibenevolence exists corollary to the lemma 'reality is good,' below.

This is direct proof reality is good.
Reality is.
Hence, reality is (non)existent (by definition of 'is.')
Hence, reality is that (no)things (non)exist: form = emptiness/void (as arbitrary (no)things.)
Hence, reality is (dis)orderly (because 'ordo ab Chaos (void);' 'Parashakti Parashiva.')
Hence, reality is (un)reasonable (because reason = order. 'Unreasonable is 'beyond reason,' not necessarily 'against reason.')
Hence, reality is understandable (because nous (mind) = Logos = divine reason, consciousness/Spirit understands or is the reason the rest does.)
Hence, reality is reliable, thus (relatively/conditionally) helpful, thus (absolutely or from the viewpoint of the unconditioned) good (because spirit(uality) controls any nous so (detached) optimism eventually enters it. Beyond attachment, reality and divinity are good from the viewpoint of spirit.)◻

Corollary (from the previous statement) to reality is good, omnibenevolence exists.◻
--------

I am unsure about 'reality is good' proof statement 4, referring to Buddhism, is exactly as Buddhism says, but you can say the above in three simpler sentences. I have used some Greek and Latin so should give definitions.

Did anyone consider my explanation of 'aleph aleph' ('infinite infinity?') I think that supports saying how anything has to do with Parabrahm and since from a viewpoint the Trimurtis/Tridevis are unbounded when there is not pralaya (and they are still in Parabrahm during that) that omnibenevolence makes as much sense as any other unboundedness (omni-/all-pervasive existence in some dimension of an idea.) I think I have the same idea as Harjas Kaur Ji and others but we all are limited by language and should not spend too much time on this. I am still interested in learning more in-depth about sargun Brahman and nirgun Brahman so I can discuss them if anyone ever asks me about spiritual topics in person, which is likely.

Shanti be to all beings.

Brahm � either Parabrahm or a god
Chaos � (Greek) Parabrahm and the root word for 'chaos.'
Devi Prakriti � 'Goddess Earth,' integration of Shaktis, thus sometimes symbolizes Mulaprakriti
nous � (Greek) mind or (capitalized) God.
'Ordo ab Chaos' � (Latin) 'Order out of Chaos.' (Order comes from Chaos because it exists so is definable and thus orderly.)
logos � (Greek) reason or (capitalized) God/Word/Pranava or some/all of divine Spirit (Greek.)
Mulaprakriti � the root of matter--not matter, but a symbol of it sometimes
Parabrahm � the Absolute
Parashakti � the Absolute, but a feminine term related to the Shakti Devi Prakriti
Parashiva � the Absolute
pranava � 'the divine sound,' Om
Shakti � 'energy,' first cause in the universe

Shanti be to all beings.

[devotee]

Our human problem is that we don't perceive the "justice." We don't see the "compassion." We don't see the "impartiality." So what's going on? And the problem is simple. We perceive as human beings attached to our limited/finite identities and what we value as limited beings: our lives, health, homes, loved ones, etc. We are human. God is beyond the limitations of a human. God is not attached to what we value. God works through the agency of Mahakal, using Time to destroy everything we cling to. God views our atma (indestructible nature) as our ultimate reality.

That is an excellent post ! Thanks.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste David,

I do not think they (at least 'good') must involve samsara or that good must have a dual nature.

As I see it, all notion of "good" & "bad" is Only within Samsara. Good (Bad) does have a dual nature ... there is nothing "good" or "bad" in absolute sense until we see through the tainted glass of our mind within waking & dreaming states.

Before any concept of Good & Bad, there must exist illusive duality ... what is good & what is bad from the view point of Non-dual SELF ?

OM