If I fail in the examination I call it evil because I failed. But when you will progress further and you will see retrospectively you will find that because I failed I became very very strong in a particular subject in which this weak and if I were not to fail, I would have never been strong in the subject and because of the strength of that subject has succeeded in my career. So was my failures are kind of an evil no I felt it to be evil but when I look at it from the point of view of the whole totality and totality does not mean only what is happening now totality also includes what will happen in the future if you count all this then you'll find that the totality is good therefore anything that happens in the totality is also a part and is also good although you may see or you may feel that something was wrong or evil this is the argument of the proponents of this theory now there is a great merit in this argument before we said that it is to be condemned there is a great deal of truth in this it is a fact that with regard to many things in the world when examine them when they really happened we felt they were bad. But ultimately retrospectively we do find that they were good. That is why it is set at your ideas of good and evil are only relative to what is good for you may be good for you but it may not be good for me secondly when you look at things from larger point of view what you thought was evil was not really evil in the larger point of view it turns out to be really good. Thirdly when you see a thing and not only enlarge your view but enlarge your view to include the future then you find retrospectively that from the point of view of the future it is very good that this happened. With regard to the logic of this proposition
if from the point of view of the whole whatever you call evil is a part of the whole and therefore good how is it that we do not perceive the whole if everything is the whole then how is it that we do not perceive the whole is itself is a problem if reality is a whole if I am manifestation of the whole how is it that I'm prevented from seeing the whole is Satchitananda is good and omnipotent why does he not make me all the time see the whole so that I do not commit the mistake of saying that this is good or this is bad this is the problem so you see that this argument something is good or evil only as long as you are partial in your perception is an argument which is quite strong and powerful it is not entirely satisfactory because a deeper problem arises how is it that the whole is good in every part in it is good what is it that prevents me from seeing the whole and what is it that prevents me from seeing this part of the whole that is the evil the fact that I'm not able to see the whole and I'm not able to put everything in its whole totality this is evil. So this is our real definition of evil you might say.
The inability on our part to see the whole and to see the contribution that each part makes to the whole this inability is what you may call evil. Not only that this inability basically that all human beings consciously or unconsciously are trying to eliminate if it was a good thing then I would not try to eliminate even this partiality of my perception. Actually the proponent of the other theory says that even this partiality is good your inability to see the whole is also part of the whole and since every part of the whole world which is good is also good therefore your inability to see is also good. In other words it may be argued that from this point of view that call evil is a necessary evil and that in order that the whole may be good this evil is necessary. Even when seen from the point of view of the whole turns out to be good this is an argument.
The whole point is that if it is really good that we try ultimately to eliminate it, that partiality that inability. Even partial vision it is not that every time you see the whole to say it was good, he says that when it happened it was good because it was part of the whole but it could have been better therefore you should get rid of it. The sting of evil is, it is a partiality, it is an inability which has to be eliminated that is the real definition of evil.
Evil is that which is partial, which is an expression of inability, which is felt something which is avoidable, and which must be avoided and which must be removed. This is the real definition of evil.
Question: doesn't the inability to perpetuate the evil?
Answer: yes, it does. But not from the point of view of the other proponent I agree with your statement because I do not increase with the proponents of the theory that that everything in the world is covered and nothing is to be eliminated and that evil is a necessary evil.
Comment: that is accepting evil.
Answer: that is right, you are excepting evil and you do not try to eliminate it. If everything that is good here on late is not seen to be good if that is the only nature of evil it is not acceptable because when you really see the whole then you find that it could have been eliminated and it was worthy of being eliminated and that is the sting of evil, I ought not to have done that is the evil men have done something for examples when Macbeth and Lady Macbeth murdered Duncan Watts is the tragedy of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, he says all the sands of Arabia cannot wash and perfume my hands that was the expression this was the repentance and he said I ought not to have done it that means that you could have avoided it so the sting of evil is a feeling and an experience and a reality not only an experience of reality that there is something in the world which ought not to be still exists which can be eliminated which could have been eliminated. This is the real sense of evil.