Is Evil Necessary In Order To Know Good?

...Or, said another way, within the Judeo/Christian tradition (although I don

Well the title of this thread is "Is evil necessary in order to know good?"

And to that I would offer the comment that if we didn't have "evil", "good" would be just be 'normal'... 'mundane'... 'run-of-the-mill'.... 'we'd just exist'..........

[quote=Space_Man]What is

Originally Posted by Poppies

If I had to give a definition, I guess I'd suggest that it could be the opposite of perfection.... If perfection is 'absolute good' with no evil to mar it.... then evil would be the absolute opposite - with no 'good' in it at all - the complete and utter absence of 'good'..........

I see what you

[quote=Space_Man]

Originally Posted by Poppies

If I had to give a definition, I guess I'd suggest that it could be the opposite of perfection.... If perfection is 'absolute good' with no evil to mar it.... then evil would be the absolute opposite - with no 'good' in it at all - the complete and utter absence of 'good'..........

I see what you

This material world is a world of duality--at one moment we are subjected to the heat of the summer season and at the next moment the cold of winter. Or at one moment we're happy and at the next moment distressed. At one moment honored, at the next dishonored. In the material world of duality, it is impossible to understand one thing without understanding its opposite. It is not possible to understand what honor is unless I understand dishonor. Similarly, I cannot understand what misery is if I have never tasted happiness. Nor can I understand what happiness is unless I have tasted misery.

One has to transcend such dualities, but as long as this body is here these dualities will be here also. Insofar as one strives to get out of bodily conceptions--not out of the body but out of bodily conceptions--one has to learn to tolerate such dualities.

How is it one can tolerate such dualities?

"A person is said to be established in self-realization and is called a yogi (or mystic) when he is fully satisfied by virtue of acquired knowledge and realization. Such a person is situated in transcendence and is self-controlled. He sees everything--whether it be pebbles, stones or gold--as the same." B-Gita. 6.8

Jnana means theoretical knowledge, and vijnana refers to practical knowledge. for instance, a science student has to study theoretical scientific conceptions as well as applied science. Theoretical knowledge alone will not help. One has to be able to also apply this knowledge. Similarly, in yoga one should have not only theoretical knowledge but practical knowledge. Simply understanding "I am not this body" and at the same time acting in a nonsensical way will not help. There are so many societies where the members seriously discuss Vedanta philosophy while smoking and drinking and enjoying a sensual life. It will not help if one only has knowledge theoretically. This knowledge must be demonstrated. One who truly understands "I am not this body" will actually reduce his bodily necessities to a minimum. When one increases the demands of the body while thinking "I am not this body," then of what use is that knowledge? A person can only be satisfied when there is jnana and vijnana side by aide.

From Perfection of Yoga, Chapter 5, A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada


*****************************

I thought it would be useful to include this quote to start. The material world is full of dualities, but Krishna (God) is described as being above all such material designations. God is neither good or evil from a Vedic perspective - He is beyond all such designations. He is transcendental and full of all Eternity, Knowledge and Bliss.

So I'd say NO we don't need to know 'evil' to know God.

But then YES 'good' and 'bad' are two sides of the one duality in this material world, so we'd need to understand one in order to understand the other. Depending on how the question is being asked.

Peace, Love & Hare Krishna,

your servant,

Das
:-)

Originally Posted by Poppies

But that was the whole point of what I said there - I didn't mean it in a subjective way. Maybe I should have been clearer, but what I meant was to attempt to describe what the word "evil" means. And accordingly, what the word "perfect" means (as it's the opposite of evil). I deliberately didn't mention Hitler or Gandhi or anyone in that part of my response, because I was talking about non-subjective definitions!

Sorry

[quote=Space_Man]Sorry

Originally Posted by Poppies

...my gut-instinct would be to hunt him down, and take my own measures to make sure that he could never commit such an act again (the name "Bobbit" comes to mind....).... I would want to hurt him for what he'd done to my child....

Does society have any sort of moral obligation to respond-to (dare I say: confront)

[quote=Space_Man]

Originally Posted by Poppies

...my gut-instinct would be to hunt him down, and take my own measures to make sure that he could never commit such an act again (the name "Bobbit" comes to mind....).... I would want to hurt him for what he'd done to my child....

Does society have any sort of moral obligation to respond-to (dare I say: confront)

Originally Posted by Poppies

Society should respond-to/contront "evil". And it should take steps to prevent that evil being perpetrated again.

so you don't go with Jesus on loving your enemy and turning the other cheek? i think that would be Gandhi's line too, and one i aspire too (i may not be Christian, but i do admire the teachings of Christ). To be fair, its a very tough call indeed to love a paedophile who has abused your child.. but i still think it is the best way to go..

I believe that every soul is inherently pure and good, and that we are all good at our core - but experiences on Earth make us dirty - the pure soul gets covered with layers of mud and slime that cloak the light of pure spirituality, leaving only darkness. Evil is this darkness, it is an absense of spirituality.