The Fundamental Unity of Being

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
JohnEDPMalin
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by JohnEDPMalin »

Carl & Shahrazad:

Carl I am glad my identity has been established here well, even if my identity confirmation has still proven more elusive.

Knowing the silent armies of machine program bits monitoring, shadowing, stalking & computing our movements on the internet, especially, our transactional commercial movements, I certainly concur with Shahrazad's paranoia.

I do not have to fear these matters, since I keep personal transactional matters totally separate from my internet interactions, especially, my social interactions, such as this web site of David Quinn's.

In regard to my company's name on the web, that company beat me to the domain race game. I started my corporation in 1984 before there was even an internet. That is ancient history now, or so it seems.


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Shahrazad »

John,
I do not have to fear these matters, since I keep personal transactional matters totally separate from my internet interactions, especially, my social interactions, such as this web site of David Quinn's.
Ha ha, I bet DQ will not like your referring to his forum as a place for social interaction.
JohnEDPMalin
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by JohnEDPMalin »

Shahrazad:

Left you a comment on another posting.

I suppose I am using "social networking" too loosely. Indeed, we are interacting or networking in cyberspace. Since our content of sociality is philosophical topics, some would not use the term "social"; it is reserved for such acts as keeping in touch with your kith and kin and friends, or hunting for like-minded creatures for sex or social interactions at a club or bar. So I certainly understand Mr. Quinn's contempt to use his site (which he is paying for) for piddle-paddle.

Thank you for teaching me Mr. Quinn's literary manners for his web site, Shahrazad.


Respectfully,



John E.D.P. Malin

--
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Hello John,
What you discover is the great similarity of concepts and insights from these various schools of learning.
Yes, and it is a clue, in my opinion, of truth underlying, which we are able to discover within ourselves. But it requires that one is permitted to freely think, a thing discouraged by some religions.
If you like energy notions, you will really enjoy a wonderful paperback put out in 2006 by the University of Chicago Press.

Sigh. Apparently you didn't know I am a member of Bookaholics Anonymous, and you have just caused me a relapse. I wasn't able to get away from Amazon with less than four. Your book had no customer reviews, but I chanced it anyway. I hope it isn't terribly contaminated by silly, false, popular notions such as Darwin's evolution and Big Bang. Or at least that those parts won't alter the conclusions pertinent to the book.

I think the law of thermodynamics is incomplete. It explains the tearing down but not the building up. But anyway, it too, is a clue about the underlying unity of all things. Things in their various states are being held into a configuration and will over time relax out of that configuration. The law of thermodynamics is usually described in negative terms but if it were not so we could have no creation.

How were the Egyptian priests to bring gods into statues? That sounds strange. Have you heard of the works of Sitchin? I think all the early civilizations were a legacy of a prior advanced civilization, almost certainly from outside planet earth, and this is what has led to so much religious confusion.

Yes, Egypt is the true mother of Judaism and especially Christianity.
I fear I have exhausted my lady's intellectual charm by too much too quickly
What, you've decided my gender?

Shah

You're not? I could've sworn Bird of Hermes stated she was a clinical psychologist,
No, but on the matter of honest representation, I'm afraid I exaggerated slightly about being an 8th grade dropout. That much is true, but I did get a diploma, however that diploma was an absolute farce and I didn't do more than perhaps one actual week's worth of work for the 4 high school grades. When they found out I had read Anna Karenina over the summer, they said to do a book report, which they praised highly. It's the first time I can remember ever getting approval in school for reading. Mostly I remember school as a torment where I would furtively read to relieve the solitary confinement-like boredom and get scolded for it.

Then, I really ruined it by going to get an associate degree in nursing in my 30's, but I needed a job.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

John wrote:Does this group really think that Scholastic ontology metaphysics and German-British idealism capture our perception of reality in 2009?
No, I'm not even that optimistic.
This talk of existence/essence, absolute/relative, necessary/contingent, uncaused or self-caused/caused appears to be word knowledge building up on word knowledge.

Does not our post-modern philosophical grasp of things deals with event knowledge, direct experience (brain/body/behavior/environment)?
I thought I was the one arguing that nothing exists. But now you're claiming that the concept of existence doesn't involve direct experience! I have a convert.
The 'Absolute' is queerly being suspiciously controvertible to 'God.'
What's wrong with pantheism?
Does this language capture a better sense of the present world space we are living within?
Why should I care about the present more than the future?
We pick up a great deal of wrong information in our journey through life, especially, if we have a trusting, honest, outgoing nature
Unbeliever, have you no faith?
A mindful man needs few words.
User avatar
Shahrazad
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 7:03 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Shahrazad »

John,
Left you a comment on another posting.
Thank you, I'll find it. And my p.m. to you is still in my outbox. That means you haven't read it yet.

iolaus,
Then, I really ruined it by going to get an associate degree in nursing in my 30's, but I needed a job.
Yep, you ruined it. You lost your rights to brag about being a high school dropout.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Dan Rowden »

Carl G wrote:
Loki wrote:Carl,

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/11/625/b4a

^ That's what I found when I searched his name.
I "found" that, too. It's nothing.
This is probably nothing, too.
bert
Posts: 648
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Antwerp

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by bert »

again :
Jehu wrote:
bert wrote:I've had the vision of all things coalescing all the time, as i've stated earlier
Yes, thank you for bring that to our attention. I can find no fault in what you have said here, with the exception of the statement “if the mind has any seat it is rather in the whole body than in any particular part …”; for we have already shown that relative entities (i.e., bodies) are devoid of any intrinsic characteristic – including mind.
by bert on Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:06 pm

oh yes, I forgot.
by bert on Sun Aug 12, 2007 5:58 pm
Jehu wrote:
Iolaus wrote:

This is not saying everything that exists does exist. Rather it is a nondual, beyond being and nonbeing statement that reminds us that existence has no opposite.
It is true that existence (being) has no complement, for if it did, then being and non-being would need to complete one another in some higher universe of discourse; of which there is none. Existence, on the other hand, may be partitioned into two interdependent and complementary aspects; that which has a necessary existence (is absolute), and that which has only a contingent existence (is relative). Therefore, it may be rightfully asserted that all things necessarily exist, albeit they may not all partake of the same mode of existence.
if all phenomena are commingling unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then it is surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a weirder autism? yet none remember having desired existence... but incontestable we have Ego, the only certainty we know. mean by 'Ego', our individuality as distinct and seperate from all else.

Truth is aborning and levels our necessities of direction(general or specialized).the function of truth is coherence, it indirectly forms our beliefs and values. we are all specimens of self-evident truth,i.e. audient and endemic as the intermediacy of pure Ego(informing agent) and empirical Ego(conative), conscience being the nexus(emotional value): all knowledge is of one thing through another.bert
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

bert wrote:if all phenomena are commingling unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then it is surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a weirder autism? yet none remember having desired existence... but incontestable we have Ego, the only certainty we know. mean by 'Ego', our individuality as distinct and separate from all else.
Why is it so surprising, do we not do the same sort of thing when we are cut off from our senses by sleep? Do not all sentient beings (animals included), when detached from the objective world, create their own subjective worlds and personas? Do they not also lapse into forgetfulness of their waking identities, or of having desired to embody themselves in their dream personas?
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Carl G »

Jehu wrote:Do not all sentient beings (animals included), when detached from the objective world, create their own subjective worlds and personas?
Do they? How do we know this?
Do they not also lapse into forgetfulness of their waking identities, or of having desired to embody themselves in their dream personas?
Do they? Do animals have the ability to lapse into forgetfulness of their waking identities, meaning they have the ability to be mindful of the same? And to desire to embody themselves in dream personas? How do we know these things?
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Carl wrote:Do they? Do animals have the ability to lapse into forgetfulness of their waking identities, meaning they have the ability to be mindful of the same? And to desire to embody themselves in dream personas? How do we know these things?
It is widely held (among biologists) that all sentient beings have both the ability to draw on past experiences (memories) and to predict future events (imagintions) - however rudimentary these faculties might be; and so it is reasonable to hold that they are capable of something akin to dreaming. However, since my argument to bert does not turn on the fact that “all” sentient beings are capable of dreaming, and I do not wish to get sidetracked into an argument on the point, if you strongly object to that statement, then I will withdraw it now.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,

What with the recent influx, I think you missed my last post, in response to yours:
Very good, Jehu.

Now, these two elements are, of course, the very nature of the Absolute,

Form and essence are the nature of the absolute?

Now I shall go to dinner and meditate upon form lacking essence, and essence lacking form.
But I need to add that we never really settled the bit about the fragment of awareness. You said it is not separate from the Absolute, and is only separated by ignorance, but I cannot see in that case how it would ever be separate in the first place, or have a way to become ignorant.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Blair »

The ignorance stems from the disparity between human empirical knowledge and memes, and absolute clarity.

One is born into ignorance, by default.

Time is essentially going in reverse.
JohnEDPMalin
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:04 am
Location: Breaux Bridge, Louisiana
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by JohnEDPMalin »

Iolaus & Prince:

Iolaus, you will not be disappointed with Eric D. Schneider & Dorion Sagan's book, "Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics and Life". The fact that it is published by the University of Chicago Press is a good indicator that you will not be reading garbage.

Later, I will entertain with you the Egyptian dupery of bringing the gods down into statues.

The aforementioned book definitely elucidates as to how tapping into energy flow or gradient differentials (temperature, pressure, chemical concentrations, etc. ) builds the complex biological structures of life (as well as inanimate non-living structures, such as atmosphere, geologic or astronomical structures in our immediate universe.

The book is written for educated laymen. Your nursing background will definitely aid you in understanding it quite easily.


Prince:

You said something in jest (I suspect) that has an interesting twist: Is there such a thing as an informational gradient? Think of playing Blackjack at a Casino. What do you know that the House does not know, or vice versa?

A joke for you: I thought we came with a reboot button when we popped out of our mother's womb to instantiate a life time of experience for us ahead of time.

Your observation that "time is going in reverse" is false. Irreversibility of time is an invariant feature of our peculiar universe. Time's arrow goes only forward, not backwards!


Respectfully,


John E.D.P. Malin

--
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:But I need to add that we never really settled the bit about the fragment of awareness. You said it is not separate from the Absolute, and is only separated by ignorance, but I cannot see in that case how it would ever be separate in the first place, or have a way to become ignorant.
There is nothing that is truly separate from the Absolute, just as there is nothing in a dream that is truly separate from the awareness of the dreamer – including the dream persona. Awareness (form), when it in-forms itself, and thereby manifests as essence (knowledge (in-formation)), lapses into a state which the ancients called “forgetfulness” or “bewilderment”. This process has been going on eternally, and may be visualized as the black dot within the white hemisphere (absulute aspect) of the Tai Chi Tu. From here, the apparent fragment remains trapped within that eternally evolving phenomenal continuum that we sentient beings perceive as the objective world, until such a time as it has regained enough self-awareness to free itself, and return to the Absolute. For this reason, the awakened being made be viewed as the white dot within the black hemisphere (relative aspect) of the Tai Chi Tu; and then is free to return to the absolute, or remain within the dream, in order to help other free themselves.
User avatar
Carl G
Posts: 2659
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Carl G »

Jehu wrote:
Carl wrote:Do they? Do animals have the ability to lapse into forgetfulness of their waking identities, meaning they have the ability to be mindful of the same? And to desire to embody themselves in dream personas? How do we know these things?
It is widely held (among biologists) that all sentient beings have both the ability to draw on past experiences (memories) and to predict future events (imagintions) - however rudimentary these faculties might be; and so it is reasonable to hold that they are capable of something akin to dreaming. However, since my argument to bert does not turn on the fact that “all” sentient beings are capable of dreaming, and I do not wish to get sidetracked into an argument on the point, if you strongly object to that statement, then I will withdraw it now.
It is fine. No worries.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
There is nothing that is truly separate from the Absolute, just as there is nothing in a dream that is truly separate from the awareness of the dreamer – including the dream persona.
Finally, I see what it is about the dream analogy of reality, with which I am generally in agreement, that hasn't been working for me. It is that you speak of the dream persona as if it were someone else and not me. But the confusion of the dream life is not about forgetting who I am (mostly) but is about thinking that the dream scenario is real. But me, I don't change. Awake or asleep, it's pretty much the same.

In the case of the Absolute, it would be a matter of thinking that your identity is other than it is, and doing it simultaneously with many different personas. It is almost the opposite of our dreams, in that the self identity is the confusion in our waking incarnating life while the outside world in which it is taking place is arguably more real (in the sense of being stable and objective, as opposed to subjective and swirling madly).

So I still have the same question yet again. You speak of rejoining the absolute, and of the confusion when becoming manifest inside of a form. If I rejoin the Absolute then I am no longer a being, and if that is the true state of existence, it would not be possible for there to be beings getting lost in the first place.

In what sense do I exist?
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:Finally, I see what it is about the dream analogy of reality, with which I am generally in agreement, that hasn't been working for me. It is that you speak of the dream persona as if it were someone else and not me. But the confusion of the dream life is not about forgetting who I am (mostly) but is about thinking that the dream scenario is real. But me, I don't change. Awake or asleep, it's pretty much the same.
The true you (awareness) does not change between dreaming and awaking, however, the dream persona and the objective persona may be quite different. In a dream, we may not even be of the same gender as in our objective state, and may have abilities that we are completely ignorant of when awake. So, if when you say “you” do not change, you are referring to the five elements that constitute your manifestation body within the objective world, then this is not true; however, if by “you” you mean that cognizant awareness that is in attendance of both personas, then you are absolutely correct.
In the case of the Absolute, it would be a matter of thinking that your identity is other than it is, and doing it simultaneously with many different personas. It is almost the opposite of our dreams, in that the self identity is the confusion in our waking incarnating life while the outside world in which it is taking place is arguably more real (in the sense of being stable and objective, as opposed to subjective and swirling madly).
I would not say that it is “more real”, for the Law of Excluded Middle will not permit such a statement. Rather, I should say that the objective world evolves in a perfectly rational manner (being founded upon perfect knowledge), while the evolution of the subject world has an irrational component – depending upon the validity of one’s subjective knowledge.

So I still have the same question yet again. You speak of rejoining the absolute, and of the confusion when becoming manifest inside of a form. If I rejoin the Absolute then I am no longer a being, and if that is the true state of existence, it would not be possible for there to be beings getting lost in the first place.
There is really no entity that gets lost, and so there is no entity that finds its way back; just as nothing really breaks away from our minds when we dream and goes anywhere, for all that takes place within a dream, takes place within the sphere of cognizant awareness.
In what sense do I exist?
In the sense that the cognizant awareness that renders it possible for Iolaus (the sentient being) to see, hear, smell, etc., partakes of an absolute, independent and immutable existence, and is in no way differentiable from the cognizant awareness that underlies all other things.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
The true you (awareness) does not change between dreaming and awaking, however, the dream persona and the objective persona may be quite different. In a dream, we may not even be of the same gender as in our objective state, and may have abilities that we are completely ignorant of when awake.
The abilities are unimportant, except as we may wonder why we don't notice it as strange. I have once begun lucid dreaming when I realized my dream scenario was impossible, yet shortly after that I had a dream of talking with my horse and was not alarmed.

It seems that most of the time when I dream I am dreaming of me from this life. It is true that on occasion I may dream from a prior time, or dream that I am married to someone from whom I've been divorced 20 years. I don't honestly remember if I have ever dreamed being the other gender. Some dreams are strange, yes. I will have to re-look at this issue, and see whether my dream personal is as consistent as I had thought.

At any rate, my point was that when we dream it is the scenario which changes far more than the identity.

I suppose we could say that the nightly dreams are mini-dreams, like a TV episode within a larger dream in which an entirely new entity is dreamed and all previous ones forgotten, like a new TV sitcom.
There is really no entity that gets lost, and so there is no entity that finds its way back; just as nothing really breaks away from our minds when we dream and goes anywhere, for all that takes place within a dream, takes place within the sphere of cognizant awareness.
You realize of course that this makes no sense at all and negates our prior discussion. Perhaps from the Absolute point of view no one was lost. Well, I once thought I was horribly lost when I was two years old but I bet my mother could see me from the window, or she heard me crying. We can say no one was lost if we like, but from my point of view I was lost.
Truth is a pathless land.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Sapius »

.
Two and a half pages since my last post… nice… much to respond to… back soon, Jehu :)
---------
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:At any rate, my point was that when we dream it is the scenario which changes far more than the identity.
Yes, it is generally true that are great part of our dream persona is carried over from our waking persona, for the bulk of the material we have to build upon comes from the memories associated with the sentient being in which we are embodied. However, what you must keep in mind is that although you are seemingly embodied within a dream persona, that same cognizant awareness is embodied within all the things that populate your dream, though you do not see the dream from their vantage point. It is also interesting to note that I have never encountered anyone who has imagined themselves to be anything other than a human being in their dream; though we have a pretty good understanding of what it would be like to be a dog, for example. The reason for this is that we are “human beings”, and so whatever essence (actual or imagined) we cloth ourselves in will have the appearance of a human being – for the human form is the operative cause (organizing principle) behind our manifestation as beings.
You realize of course that this makes no sense at all and negates our prior discussion. Perhaps from the Absolute point of view no one was lost. Well, I once thought I was horribly lost when I was two years old but I bet my mother could see me from the window, or she heard me crying. We can say no one was lost if we like, but from my point of view I was lost.
Yes, this is the absolute view, and it is only when we are able to view the world from the Absolute, that all suffering will cease. Just as when in a dream, some one is killed, and though we feel great pain at the lose, there is no one that is truly killed, and when we awaken, we may still bear the pain of such a lose, but then we realize that it was only a dream, the pain is eliminated. It is just so for the awakened ones. This does not mean that they do not feel the lose of a loved one, but because they realize the dreamlike nature of all things, their suffering is short lived, and their tranquility of mind quickly returns.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
However, what you must keep in mind is that although you are seemingly embodied within a dream persona, that same cognizant awareness is embodied within all the things that populate your dream, though you do not see the dream from their vantage point.
Well I am not quite sure what that means, to be embodied within, because to me it means to see from a vantage point. The other objects in one's dream, I would suppose - are just props that don't require any embodiment.
It is also interesting to note that I have never encountered anyone who has imagined themselves to be anything other than a human being in their dream; though we have a pretty good understanding of what it would be like to be a dog, for example. The reason for this is that we are “human beings”, and so whatever essence (actual or imagined) we cloth ourselves in will have the appearance of a human being – for the human form is the operative cause (organizing principle) behind our manifestation as beings.
Are you saying that a human being could not be embodied in another incarnation in an animal's body?
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:Well I am not quite sure what that means, to be embodied within, because to me it means to see from a vantage point. The other objects in one's dream, I would suppose - are just props that don't require any embodiment.
As I said before, everything that appears within a dream arises as a result of the cognizant nature of the dreamer, and operates under the control of that same cognizant nature. However, this is only possible because some aspect of that cognizant nature is able to operate in a state of diminished awareness, and it is for this reason, that the dream persona is unaware that it is itself the origin and cause of all it experiences. In other words, the fragment of cognizant awareness which is embodied within the sentient being, having been cut off from its sense organs by sleep, embodies itself within its own memory (subjective knowledge base), and creates its own apparent experiential continuum.
Are you saying that a human being could not be embodied in another incarnation in an animal's body?
No, I am saying that “ordinarily” a sentient being can only imagine itself to be the sort of being that it actually is. That is to say, when a dog dreams, its awareness is embodied in an imaginary dog, for we are embodied within our own memories, and as we possess no knowledge of what it is like to perceive the world as any thing other than what we are, we can only construct our dream world from the vantage point of that sort of being.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Iolaus »

Jehu,
we possess no knowledge of what it is like to perceive the world as any thing other than what we are, we can only construct our dream world from the vantage point of that sort of being.
Well, that is one of my goals, to break out of that.
Truth is a pathless land.
User avatar
Jehu
Posts: 554
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:08 am

Re: The Fundamental Unity of Being

Post by Jehu »

Iolaus wrote:Well, that is one of my goals, to break out of that.
Yes, but this is the paradoxical aspect of reality, for we cannot achieve liberation without that we have the desire to do so, however, the desire for liberation can be the most formidable obstacle to its attainment.

Before we return to the subject of the path, there is one more door of enquiry that we should explore. We have said that the absolute cannot be perceived through the physical sense faculties, however, we are possessed another faculty whereby the absolute can be perceived – this being the faculty or reason. Therefore, let us see what the Principle of Interdependent Complementarity (the First Principle of reason) can tell us with respect to the Absolute. I believe that you will find this interesting, for it answers such questions as, “Why, if God is the creator of all things, is there evil in the world?”

Consider the case of Good and Evil, for example, if God is good, then how is it that there can also be evil? How is it that two seemingly apposing principles can arise from the same entity. Traditionally, this question has been addressed by the introduction of a sort of “anti-God”, the devil or Satan, but this is not the truth of the matter. First, good and evil are not opposing principles locked in a perpetual struggle to dominate one another, but two complementary principles locked in a state of harmonic balance. Further, only one of these principles (good) partakes of an absolute existence, while the other (evil) is only apparent. Good, being an inherent quality of God (the Absolute), is ever present, while evil, comes and goes in accordance with its causes and conditions. When we say that someone is evil, this does not mean that they are devoid of any good, but only that there inherent goodness is obscured by ignorance and delusion; as a consequence of which they do evil things. Enlightenment, dispels ignorance, just as the light dispels the darkness, and as a result, one’s innate goodness shines through. So you see, while God is the ultimate origin and cause of all thing, the ignorance and delusion of sentient beings are what causes evil to manifest.
Locked