Comment: All this problem would be resolved if there was speed.
Answer: Quite true, therefore all revolution ultimately implies that you get more and more speed all Yoga nothing but speed you accelerate the process. Ultimately as Shri Aurobindo says that in your sadhana but time must come when what you will is realised on the spot instantaneous. That is called the real siddhi. All siddhis are like this the moment you will it happens it is all ‘open sesame’ just say sesame should open and it opens on the spot so all evil and all suffering is because of a slow development and that too only because there is intention in it to unveil fully. If there was no intention then even that suffering could not exist that is very important to note. It is only when there is a will to open up fully and when it is opening slowly that suffering is experienced that suffering is a suffering only because it is to be transcended it is to be cured. There is no such thing as incurable suffering, incurable evil doesn't exist, evil exists we are not having that philosophy that evil does not exist, evil exists suffering exists, but what does not exist is incurable suffering or incurable evil. In fact it is in the process of curing, it is in the process of curing full veiling that this suffering or evil arise as intermediate steps.
Question: this analysis makes us realise the divine will, and not evil as evil?
Answer: no, even divine’s will doesn't see evil as evil, but he says that this evil cannot be avoided if you are following a process of a slow development and I have willed it, it should be slow, in my decision to move slowly there is no evil it is because I want to reveal myself fully therefore you are having the intermediate steps which is full of evil and suffering, if I had no intention of fully unveiling myself even this intermediate suffering would not exist and my intention to unveil myself fully is good there is no intention of unveiling myself fully that also is not evil it is you might say God decided to unveil himself slowly and you might say that God could have decided not to unveil slowly you could argue that if God was really good and really kind why should we put us into this problem this is the problem. You might say instead of anything evil in God's intention to unveil himself slowly and to veil himself slowly or both the processes it's the slowness which is the problem the answer is that every process is to be measured and judged by what is intended ultimately to be obtained. If you want to make chappati of a certain kind then making dough which may look ugly at a certain stage is inevitable you cannot avoid it. If ultimately you want to have that kind of chappati similarly if you want that kind of the delight which comes by slow veiling and unveiling if you want that kind of delight it's a specific kind of delight that candy delights which comes without slow veiling and unveiling that also is a delight delights are of different kinds. If you want that kind of delights which comes as a result of a slow veiling and a slow unveiling if this is intended and that delight is as good as other delight also both are equally good delight obtained by full unveiling at one stroke
revelation of the delight by an instantaneous unveiling is one kind that delight that comes as a result of their slow veiling and unveiling is of a different kind it's also a delight that of a different kind not the question is which and a delight did you want, if you want that kind of delight it is possible you want this kind of delight that also is possible and for God both kinds of delight are equally good then you might say why does you choose this. If both are equally good and you're capable of both and you choose one that is nothing wrong about it you're capable of both both are good it's not as if this is better and that is less. There is a theory which says that this world is the best of all possible worlds in spite of evil being there and suffering being there is an argument that this world is the best possible world why because that kind of good can come about only if there is suffering and the real good can never come about if there is no such suffering that is another theory. Now that theory I am not advocating and saying that delight is as good as this delight although there are different kinds of delights God is capable of either of the two or both of them together he can do both at the same time and if he chooses one it is out of delight in fact that is a very starting point for a whole argument, why do we say that God is delight, God is delight because when he was capable of not manifesting it all he still manifests and the question was why is it that he's manifesting is there any compelling reason upon him is he compelled to manifest, no by not manifesting also he was in delight and manifesting also He is in delight and he's free to remain here or remain there. If so then one time he will choose this and that is because he is really free.2.50 with no compulsion on him now if that is the case and you want that kind of delight by slow veiling or slow unveiling it is also delight. Now let us look at the problem from another point of view, after all this travail of suffering in the world if you ask a saint who really reaches God or unveils he never complains as to what has happened to him was wrong in fact you will find that that delight, other kind of delight he could have got by any other means but that delight which now he's experiencing he could experienced only if the movement was slow if the movement was not slow than that kind of delight would not have come to him.