Question: how is it that the recipient of evil is the other not the doer?
Answer: it is both actually you are not seeing both, recipient of evil are both you might say whatever evil has manifested is part of the totality and we all share in it even those who are not connected with that action even the share in it. If somebody burns and train a running train all those who are in the train are suffering any person who happens to be inside he also suffers. Now you might say that he sees outside the train he does not suffer you only makes others suffer but that is a partial perception in the sense it is true that from that suffering he is free, but there is a karma which he has done which remains in him and you can see more deeply whether it hurts his sense of perfection, as a very great saint said, to remain imperfect is itself a punishment’is itself an evil. The man who burns the train the very fact that he decided to burn it is itself a punishment he lives in a state of consciousness from which he cannot come out once he has done this action for him he will not be able to attempt for nirvana until that action is washed out to expect that that man will enjoy nirvana that is not possible because the karma which has built which is done will find him, will necessarily take him to another series of actions.
Question: does suffering brings you closer to God?
Answer: whether suffering washes off is also question, is it really true in every case it may not be. It may not be necessarily so. The sting of the problem is that there is something evil is that which ought not to be which could have been avoided he still not avoided that is the real definition of evil. Which could have been avoided and which is not yet avoided, and when you say you ought to do what exactly do you mean when a child has not done the lesson and you say you ought to have read what is exactly the meaning of it? The meaning is that the child was capable of it it only depended upon his or her will to read which she or he had but did not exercise it it was possible for the child to read it was not as if it was impossible11.11 for the child because the child was sick and he ought to have read. You use the word ought only when something was possible, something was desirable and yet it is not being done and that is the sting of evil. And such a thing happens and exists in the world. It is that problem that used to solve, does evil exist in the world the answer is yes it's a fact that there is something in the world which ought not to be or it could not have been and yet it exists. Is it possible to reconcile Satchitananda with the presence of evil of this kind. That which ought not to have been which still exists which could have been avoided and yet it is not avoided this is the real problem. In fact suffering is also basically of this kind you call something suffering, all suffering implies I don't want it any body who suffers really feels that it ought not to be there when you say it ought not to be there that means that you believe that it could have been avoided otherwise how can you say it ought not to be there. In any experience of suffering evil this is the fundamental point in fact if you remove the sense if supposing the senses removed from the world altogether then you might even say that all sense of progress or desire to progress to vanishes you cannot progress if you say that nothing is to be avoided and everything will happen, and everything that happens will be good because seeing from the point of view of the totality it is always good than nothing remains for you to do.13.33 everything will happen as it happens with that is not the truth of her existence. It's a very peaceful and in her existence and after all he cannot sustain it, even if you believe in it the moment somebody insults you view will not say it is very good on the point of view of totality it is good you will react to it and when you react what happens when you react what you imply it ought to not to have happened it could have been avoided then only you react if you knew that it could have been not avoided then you could not say that it is wrong. So there is something in humanity which gives rise to this sense of evil which can be defined as that which ought not to be which still exists even though it is avoidable. This is the basic sense of evil and that is the crux of the problem. How can you reconcile God with the world situation in which such an evil exists. Could God not have created a world, could use it to God that look this was avoidable, it is not desirable and yet you have done it therefore God is evil this is the charge against God. And it is this which is a problem which has to be the resolved. How shall we resolve it? Therefore we have to see not escape from the problem, there are escapes, one escapes which have already shown you is that God is not responsible for man's actions, second to say that everything happens according to Karma God does not exist at all everything is karma for this to say that everything that happens in the world is good is nothing evil in the world that also is an escape route now we have rejected all the escape routes we want to keep God in the front because our premise is God exists, Satchitananda exists he is Ananda, He is consciousness, he is bliss, without compromising on this premise and without over quoting any sweetness over the evil, seeing that evil does exist in the world we have got to face the problems squarely and answer this problem. So this is where we come to the chapter number 12 ‘the solution’the answer is actually in the context of evolution. This is the one word which is central in the solution of the problem this world is not a static world. It is not as if the whole world is already there as it is and the totality of it is already present. This world I am not speaking of Satchitananda, Satchitananda is the totality past present future everything. Therefore we must realise that we are dealing with a problem which is concerning a world where the totality is not yet, we're not dealing with that aspect where it's totality already exists we are dealing with the world where totality is not yet so this world is not a static world. That is the first answer to this question. Unless you grant this proposition you will not be able to solve the problem of evil.