Why Can't Monotheism Escape Dualism?

[Halcyon]

It seems that most monotheisms have an all good God, and that evil has its source in something other than God - be it a fallen angel, a fallen state, an absence of God or an ungodly way of thinking.

Why can't monotheism escape this dualism? Why can't monotheism accept the possibility of both good and evil originating with the same source - God?

 

[Booko]

As far as I know, there's nothing in the Baha'i understanding of God that would be dualistic.

Evil is just seen as an absence of good, rather like dark is the absence of light. Evil has no existence of itself.

 

[ayani]

this is what i try to understand, as well. what about the conclusion that evil is a mis-remembering of God? then it would seem that the idea would shift from it being evil's problem to putting resonsibility with one's self, and one's relation to God. in that way, there isn''t a dulaism so much as a process of remembering and drawing closer.

 

[Halcyon]

As far as I know, there's nothing in the Baha'i understanding of God that would be dualistic.

Evil is just seen as an absence of good, rather like dark is the absence of light. Evil has no existence of itself.

I don't think i understand this belief. Surely the absence of good would be ambivalence?

Evil, like good, requires a particular thought pattern, and usually a decisive course of action.
If evil were the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light, then that suggests that evil is a base state of being that good overrides - which further suggests a dualism of form, the already existent evil opposed to newly created goodness?

this is what i try to understand, as well. what about the conclusion that evil is a mis-remembering of God? then it would seem that the idea would shift from it being evil's problem to putting resonsibility with one's self, and one's relation to God. in that way, there isn''t a dulaism so much as a process of remembering and drawing closer.

I dunno gracie, i still see that as the evil having a separate and distinct source - in this case a kind of spiritual amnesia. It suggests, as with most monotheistic beliefs, that the goodness of God is all encompassing and that evil is a separate uprising resulting from a lack or loss of God in some form.

 

[YmirGF]

To my skewed vision of reality, as explained elsewhere, I see no divisions whatsoever. God is as much the reeking harlot as he/she/it is the scented saint and only self-serving, moralistic value judgment makes things appear otherwise. Duality is the illusion and what many term sinful or evil is merely as real as they themselves allow it to be. In effect, they themselves create evil by their very thinking. Absence of god is also a misnomer as no-thing is apart from the totality of what god in fact IS.

But heck, what would I know about any of this with all the fine so-called "deep thinkers" from the past (and present) who would tell you, rather emphatically, otherwise. It’s not like so many could be so very wrong now, is it?

 

[ayani]

To my skewed vision of reality, as explained elsewhere, I see no divisions whatsoever. God is as much the reeking harlot as he/she/it is the scented saint and only self-serving, moralistic value judgment makes things appear otherwise. Duality is the illusion and what many term sinful or evil is merely as real as they themselves allow it to be. In effect, they themselves create evil by their very thinking. Absence of god is also a misnomer as no-thing is apart from the totality of what god in fact IS.

But heck, what would I know about any of this with all the fine so-called "deep thinkers" from the past (and present) who would tell you, rather emphatically, otherwise. It’s not like so many could be so very wrong now, is it?

ok... my faith would answer that the sin is not in the "stinking harlot", the sin is in not loving her, not regarding her as a daughter of God, as one's sister. and in not responding to her suffering in a compassionate manner. it would also be a sin to consciously elevate / adore the rose-scented saint in comparasion to her, or to elevate her above him.

 

[YmirGF]

ok... my faith would answer that the sin is not in the "stinking harlot", the sin is in not loving her, not regarding her as a daughter of God, as one's sister. and in not responding to her suffering in a compassionate manner. it would also be a sin to consciously elevate / adore the rose-scented saint in comparasion to her, or to elevate her above him.

I hear you Gracie, and your standpoint is laudible. It smacks of "hate the sin; not the sinner". The problem with that is that one is still left with hatred, which doesn't exactly get one too far. If I am not understanding you, feel free to correct me.

 

[Halcyon]

I hear you Gracie, and your standpoint is laudible. It smacks of "hate the sin; not the sinner". The problem with that is that one is still left with hatred, which doesn't exactly get one too far. If I am not understanding you, feel free to correct me.

I don't think she means that YmirGF, i don't think gracie has even a spark of hatred in her. I think she means that evil is a lack of love.

Personally i don't agree with that, like i said earlier i see evil requiring active participation. I don't see hate as a lack of love, but rather as an equal and opposing force that exists in the same way that love does.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi, Halcyon!

I don't think i understand [the Baha'i teaching about good and evil].

I hope this quote from the Baha'i scriptures will help clarify this.

Regards,

Bruce
_ _ _ _ _

Chapter 74: ​

THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL​

"The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
"Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man’s characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
"Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
"In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
"The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
"Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent."


-- Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

 

[Halcyon]

Hi, Halcyon!



I hope this quote from the Baha'i scriptures will help clarify this.

Regards,

Bruce
_ _ _ _ _

Chapter 74:

THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL​

"The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
"Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man’s characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
"Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
"In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
"Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
"The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
"Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent."


-- Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

Thanks Bruce! Yes, that does help and there is much wisdom in there. But, we're encountering the same problem that i experienced in another thread on good and evil.
I agree that good and evil are merely a matter of perspective, but i disagree that evil is simply the lack of good.

The best example i can give, again, is hate. If you do not love something you are ambivalent towards it, you have no strong positive nor negative feeling towards it. And the opposite is true for hate, if you do not hate something that doesn't necessarily mean you love it.
Hate is the equal and opposite of love, not the lack of it.

 

[ayani]

I hear you Gracie, and your standpoint is laudible. It smacks of "hate the sin; not the sinner". The problem with that is that one is still left with hatred, which doesn't exactly get one too far. If I am not understanding you, feel free to correct me.

hey GF. no, certainly hatred doesn't get one far at all- it causes one to sink and be miserable, and to bring others into misery. not good.

my standpoint would be to hate the sin insomuch as one seeks to break down those circumstances which cause her suffering, and which cause her to sin and to feel misery. if one can not, then one must listen to her, and give her counsel as God wills. this is *hard* sometimes- it is very easy to say these things, less easy to do them and to truly love others *as* one's self and as God. this is one of the things i pray for myself- to be able to reach out to others and combat the causes of suffering and to foster connection and peace.

 

[Booko]

I don't think i understand this belief. Surely the absence of good would be ambivalence?

How so? If one assumes that what is good is in line with our "human" nature, or the will of God, of however you wish to put it, then having "not enough" or "none" of that might be called "evil." But it has no life of its own.

Evil, like good, requires a particular thought pattern, and usually a decisive course of action.

No, I think sometimes inaction could be considered "evil." Failing to help someone in need, especially when it's no skin off your nose, might well be considered "evil."

If evil were the absence of good, like darkness is the absence of light, then that suggests that evil is a base state of being that good overrides - which further suggests a dualism of form, the already existent evil opposed to newly created goodness?

Is there dualism in Physics then, where the presence of photons means "light" and the absence means "dark"? The absence of photons has no meaning on its own, and no existence and no properties of its own.

Perhaps that's the better analogy.

I dunno gracie, i still see that as the evil having a separate and distinct source - in this case a kind of spiritual amnesia.

In a religious sense, I would comment that we all have our spiritual vision clouded to some extent by veils (the result of living according to ego or attachment) and not in concert with everything around us (or God, if you will).

Which might be tantamount to spiritual amnesia. Certainly it indicates a need for spiritual eyeglasses.

It suggests, as with most monotheistic beliefs, that the goodness of God is all encompassing and that evil is a separate uprising resulting from a lack or loss of God in some form.

Go back to the analogy of Physics. Well, perhaps astronomy more especially. If the sun is like God -- it puts out photons that give us life, the absence of the sun (God) again has no separate existence.

Absence of mass/energy is not a separate uprising of anything. It's just...nothing.

But you wouldn't want to live there. Absolute zero is very cold indeed.

 

[Booko]

Duality is the illusion and what many term sinful or evil is merely as real as they themselves allow it to be.

Exactly. Duality is an illusion.

The world of creation in which we live is dualistic...to us. This is one of the many meaning behind the symbol of the Tao. Creation is conceived by us to be the interplay of opposites. But that isn't the Eternal Tao.

 

[Booko]

The best example i can give, again, is hate. If you do not love something you are ambivalent towards it, you have no strong positive nor negative feeling towards it. And the opposite is true for hate, if you do not hate something that doesn't necessarily mean you love it.
Hate is the equal and opposite of love, not the lack of it.

Rather than look at feelings, consider looking at behaviour. (Not that the feelings don't put out an energy of their own -- they do, but that's another thread.)

I don't think behaviour is ever indifferent. It either works to create or destroy. Yes, inaction is a form of behaviour also.

Besides, behaviour has the advantage of being observable.

People delude themselves all the time about whether they really love something or someone (or not), and we only have what someone says to go on. That's most unreliable.

Better to look at behaviour then, which is something far less subjective.

 

[Katzpur]

Evil is just seen as an absence of good, rather like dark is the absence of light.

I agree.

Evil has no existence of itself.

But I come to the opposite conclusion. If evil has no existence in and of itself, then it is the absense of good, and our argument becomes cyclical. We must have both good and evil in order to have either good or evil.

 

[NoahideHiker]

It seems that most monotheisms have an all good God, and that evil has its source in something other than God - be it a fallen angel, a fallen state, an absence of God or an ungodly way of thinking.

Why can't monotheism escape this dualism? Why can't monotheism accept the possibility of both good and evil originating with the same source - God?

It can escape it. It's called Judaism. No horned devil and no original sin. G-d created evil so that we may choose. If you feed your child nothing but veggies how will they resist the bad foods when tempted by it? We are all born with an equal inlination to do good and bad. It's built in. All we have to do is learn and choose correctly.

 

[Paraprakrti]

It seems that most monotheisms have an all good God, and that evil has its source in something other than God - be it a fallen angel, a fallen state, an absence of God or an ungodly way of thinking.

Why can't monotheism escape this dualism? Why can't monotheism accept the possibility of both good and evil originating with the same source - God?

One who sees God in everything, sees good in everything, and thus transcends duality.

 

[PureX]

The "duality" only exists in our own minds. There is no "hot and cold" in temperature. There is "hot" relative to our own body temperature and "cold" relative to our own body temperature. The terms hot and cold refer to how we experience temperature; not how temperature actually is.

Same goes for "good and evil". These terms refer to values and conditions as they relate to ourselves. They don't define conditions that actually exist independent of us. So when we say that "God is good". What we mean is that God is good as we conceptualize and experience God. It doesn't mean that God is actually an independent state of goodness, because there is no such thing as an independent state of goodness. Goodness doesn't exist in and of itself. It's a value assessment made by us relative to us. And the same goes for "evil".

But we humans are highly superstitious. So we often imagine that objects and ideas and conditions that we experience have some sort of magical life, mind, or spirit of their own. And we project these imagined experiences of "God" onto our concept of God, and then claim that "God is goodness" as if goodness were a state unto itself.

Once we come to recognize that good and evil are value assessments, and not states of being, the "duality" of a monotheism is resolved.

 

[gnostic]

Evil is just seen as an absence of good, rather like dark is the absence of light. Evil has no existence of itself.

Then would it stand to reason that good cannot exist by itself? ie. Good is only seen as the absence of evil.

 

[wayfaring]

Why can't monotheism accept the possibility of both good and evil originating with the same source - God?

Here is an extract from the Mystical Journal called 'The Song of Simon:

God stands above morals because all morals are a dichotomy – Good vs. Evil, Right vs. Wrong, Honourable vs. Dishonourable, Fair vs. Unfair. God is above all such polarity. God is Unity, and in the state of the Absolute, God Is. There is no movement, no action, no condemnation, no stagnation, just the blissful state of being. 54. If God chooses to move, God can only move downwards, contracting into lower forms, from Unity into separate expressions. In this descent, for some forms, morals become an issue..........’61. God is indeed the Author of suffering’ said the head Master. 62. Without God nothing can exist. In contracting to distinct and separate expressions, with the ignorance that arises from such contraction, God is indeed the Author of suffering and division.

It can be found on the link below.....