Did God create evil?

[NikolaiI]

That's very pretty, Nikolai, and I'd love to read about it in a novel. However, it's all embellishment. Things simply are what they are. What you've written is purely speculative mental construction; it can never be proved.

Duality is an illusion. And since we are under the illusion of duality, everything from that point is untrue. Every joy you've ever had, though it perhaps has been pleasurable, never let you saw the truth of your existence - non-duality, or unity. At the first desire, there is incompleteness, imperfection; a perfect being has no incompleteness, or desire. But realization of non-duality is completely inconceivable without direct experience of non-duality. But experience of non-duality cannot be understood by language or concepts.

It is inexpressible but not speculation, it is an experience. That non-duality goes beyond anything previous to it. No matter a king or a beggar, all is illusion based on duality. So if you realize you are one with the universe, with the cosmos, you realize you are far greater than any role you could pretend to be.

Realization of non-duality and simultaneous freedom of desire - in other words, acceptance of the present, the circumstances, non-attachment to happiness or distress - this bears the fruit of complete peace.

[PierreGringoire]

Duality is an illusion. And since we are under the illusion of duality, everything from that point is untrue. Every joy you've ever had, though it perhaps has been pleasurable, never let you saw the truth of your existence - non-duality, or unity. At the first desire, there is incompleteness, imperfection; a perfect being has no incompleteness, or desire. But realization of non-duality is completely inconceivable without direct experience of non-duality. But experience of non-duality cannot be understood by language or concepts.

It is inexpressible but not speculation, it is an experience. That non-duality goes beyond anything previous to it. No matter a king or a beggar, all is illusion based on duality. So if you realize you are one with the universe, with the cosmos, you realize you are far greater than any role you could pretend to be.

Realization of non-duality and simultaneous freedom of desire - in other words, acceptance of the present, the circumstances, non-attachment to happiness or distress - this bears the fruit of complete peace.

I think I might see what you are saying. Doesn't peace have a lot to do with being happy though? Happy, contentness, peace--can't they be interchangable? You make peace sound like an inebriated state! Or some kind of mysterious sixth sense that you need to have completely before you have it at all. I think we all experience little tastes of peace here and there. You make it sound like boiling water. You know when its boiling when its boiling as my mom used to say. So you only know what it is when you have it?

Serious question: How do I know I'm not enlightened?

Edited: Thinking about it more you could have meant that true peace isn't volatile. In other words it isn't too happy or too distressed. It dictates its mood depending on the situation?

[billl]

Whatever enlightenment may seem to a person, I am not really interested in looking too much beyond how it might help someone calm down, reappraise things, keep things in perspective, etc. There might be other spiritual "benefits," but I think they might be easy to exaggerate.

Anyhow, if someone really has managed to get a complete perception of everything as being one, and getting past the duality entirely, then I hope they don't spend too much "time" peeking at other people's bank accounts, bathroom visits, romances, private chats, etc., certainly. (But perhaps they couldn't help it, once they dive in?)

On the other hand, if they simply are sensing that a minimization of thought expands one's focus, affects our sense of "self", and gives a peek at our perceptual machinery itself, and/or an insight into what becomes of our "self" once we perceive nothing else, or something like that--then I think such an experience can be quite significant indeed. Different from, and far greater in impact, but perhaps metaphorically akin to seeing a photo of the Earth from the moon or something. But also, something that one can't point at, and prove in all of its significance, to another person residing in another consciousness. I think it would be useful to have such an experience--but I don't think it, in itself, would be a good basis for turning one's back on a respect for the life-approaches of other individuals (enlightened or otherwise), nor even for disparaging the illusory world (maya) that I am, for example, typing on, and that separates each of us (in its illusory way...).

I think the idea of "peace" is of course good (great!) in the usual senses, as well as in the sense of a not-so-anxious sort of response to the world around one. However, I think this sort of thing can go too far maybe (at least in our imaginations), and it would be unfortunate for people to think that an enlightened person should be content with life in a slave-labor camp, a country that is corrupt, a relationship that is abusive, or as a second-class citizen, or with unjust restrictions on their curiosity, or with a friend's suffering, etc.

That they would desire to change things (and such desire might spring with clarity, and not be vulgar) would be something to applaud and encourage in a person, enlightened or not. Of course, that the enlightened person would act with a certain confidence and acceptance of the resulting "struggle" would be something that we should expect, and admire. But others would resist as well, naturally, and with passion.

For us to spend time trying to differentiate this dare-I-say-it enlightened sort of "desire" from other types might be a good thing. But I think there is a slippery slope that descends from an unbalanced, wholesale, and fundamentalist renunciation/condemnation of passion and desire in our lives.

I think it is good not to dwell on things, sometimes. And I do enjoy a nice walk in the woods, listening to and encountering Nature, and reconnecting with it. And I do (like most other people) make some decisions without thinking at all, when "being in the zone" seems like a good approach. But I feel some things are better when we think, have preferences, and have passion.

[NikolaiI]

I think I might see what you are saying. Doesn't peace have a lot to do with being happy though? Happy, contentness, peace--can't they be interchangable? You make peace sound like an inebriated state! Or some kind of mysterious sixth sense that you need to have completely before you have it at all. I think we all experience little tastes of peace here and there. You make it sound like boiling water. You know when its boiling when its boiling as my mom used to say. So you only know what it is when you have it?

Serious question: How do I know I'm not enlightened?

Edited: Thinking about it more you could have meant that true peace isn't volatile. In other words it isn't too happy or too distressed. It dictates its mood depending on the situation?

I agree very much with what you are saying. Contentness and peace, those are definitely interchangeable. And that we experience little tastes of peace here and there, that is also true. But there is also a peace which goes beyond that. As life is unlimited, there are unlimited levels of peace, levels of happiness, levels of sanity, or spiritual growth, etc. But there is one specific boundary line which few ever cross. It isn't inebriation. Now there are more people in the Western countries who have come closer to this truth. There's people like Ken Wilber, who wrote books like "No Boundary," and they explored Eastern and Western psychology and philosophy.

Also several others have come to the idea that duality is an illusion. Lao Tzu, Alan Watts, Swami Vivekananda and Black Elk, all came to a paralell idea. As Black Elk said it, "Only when men shall know that they are one with the universe will they know peace in their souls." When I experienced this, I knew that I had never experienced it before, though I had been happy, peaceful, in love, many times if not most of my life, I had been joyous, as well as sorrowful, distressed, and all the other states of emotion. But I knew that none of these had reached the reality, the non-duality. Even the best of these was still in an illusion, even the best was, in relation, missing out.

And how to explain the peace? It's just that every single stress that we ever feel in this life, that is based on defense of the ego - or defense of the defense of - well, all of it is unnecessary, because the ego itself doesn't exist. As Buddhism says, "Emptiness is form, and form is emptiness." And then someone may say, "Doesn't that mean that life is empty?" But actually there is an underlying reality which we are missing. And realization of non-duality - is not an empty feeling. It's a feeling which can't be related to any other feeling. It's more than a feeling, it is knowing, a realization. And it's in full awareness an inexpressible joy and bliss. It is waking up from a dream, and at the same time being absolutely, completely filled with bliss, love, and knowledge. It is absolutely realizing the very highest ideal of love.

Other times, we feel love, perhaps if everything is perfect, we feel it all the time, and perhaps one day after many years of completely perfect life and practice, then we would attain the same realization. It is possible. But that is what I am speaking of, the complete realization of the ideal, which other times we merely feel at times, which when we remember sustains us. It is reazing simultaneously peace, bliss and knowledge basically.

I'm sorry in that I may have written too much, just in the attempt to describe it.

[NikolaiI]

I think the idea of "peace" is of course good (great!) in the usual senses, as well as in the sense of a not-so-anxious sort of response to the world around one. However, I think this sort of thing can go too far maybe (at least in our imaginations), and it would be unfortunate for people to think that an enlightened person should be content with life in a slave-labor camp, a country that is corrupt, a relationship that is abusive, or as a second-class citizen, or with unjust restrictions on their curiosity, or with a friend's suffering, etc.

Of course - but your concern isn't specific to this topic, but rather to philosophy in general. You are saying that people should not mainly focus on philosophy, or spiritual practice or whatever, when there are very immediate and demanding problems in their life - an abusive marriage, a labor camp, etc. And what you say is definitely right - practical matters always come first.

[billl]

I actually intended for my post to extend that point towards other less immediate and less demanding concerns. Passion and desire need defending from the other team, sometimes . I just think it is too simple to dismiss them entirely, although it is right to note that they can sometimes lead us astray, etc.

[aquarium444]

Those of us who are Christians believe that God created everything.
If that is so did He create evil?
If so, to what purpose?
Or was it something that just happened?

I have to admit I am not sure

The Bible walks through creation and says exactly what God created on each day. He does observe that various things are good.

I think that the best way to view evil should be as it relates to sin. God is holy, so he is above sin, and man is not; although Moses did rise above sin for 40 days, etc.

Anyway, what you have here is opposites. Evil is an opposite of good, and it seems that opposites can exist. The reason why opposites can exist is for sure related to some form of God like relationship...perhaps the commandments.

[chrissy613]

Those of us who are Christians believe that God created everything.
If that is so did He create evil?
If so, to what purpose?
Or was it something that just happened?

I have to admit I am not sure

Proverbs 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Hopefully that clarifies things.

[blazeofglory]

This is paradoxical and why did have to create devil?

[dizzydoll]

I believe we make our own heaven or hell right here on earth, now. We have a choice, but that doesnt make it any easier. Still it is our choice, heaven or hell. The same applies to good and evil, but it is paradox as Blaze says -- we will always be surrounded by both. So which side are you on?

Remember this:
Spanish Train by Chris de Burgh

...........

Coming back to God, I believe God is in you and me and everything we see!. He is not outside of us. lol. So your question asks 'Did God Create evil?", is like asking did you/me create evil? So my answer is NO

[Quarter Moon]

Yes God knew that evil existed in a nothingness space and time. Lurking in nothingness. But it is now out of it's trick bag.Not that God created it. It's that He knew of it's existance. Alowing it to express itself is only an effort to destroy it. Love Maureen

[jet.thursday]

Just like light and dark, we can never see light without the presence of darkness.
We can never distinguish that this one is heaven without hell.
But God as creator of hell, i'm not quite sure about that ^_^

[IceM]

Just like light and dark, we can never see light without the presence of darkness.
We can never distinguish that this one is heaven without hell.
But God as creator of hell, i'm not quite sure about that ^_^

Look a few posts above you to the poster whom posted Biblical verses.

God the Almighty created everything; light and darkness; happiness and sadness; good and evil. Stop being selective with how you see God with what the Bible, the book of God, says.

[Musicology]

An absurd question. Since evil creates nothing. But only destroys. Evil is the perversion of good. So that good existed before there was evil.

[Quarter Moon]

Good one. I like your reasoning. Love Maureen