Sachchidananda 'The Life Divine' Book I,Ch.9, 10, 11, 12 - Track 1207

Question:

It is to say that if I were able to lift the table at one stroke that means that if I were divine myself then there's no problem slowly means that I am restricted, my effort to slow that means it is egoistic it is limited so it is my ignorance or egoism which tries to discover the truth slowly then error is committed. So there could not have been committed unless there was a golden piece which I am looking for now error by itself is not evil that also has to be underlined that error by itself is not evil evil arises out of error but it is not that error must result in evil. A scientist for example in search of the truth by method of trial and error is if he does it and goes on about his business is not doing any evil action. It is a process by which gradually the truth is discovered. The evil arises only when error is turned into falsehood is the difference between error and falsehood, errors is a truth Finder by itself so error is not an evil what you call evil is nothing but error stressing itself to be the truth and nothing but the truth and which prevents you from looking further31.53 for the truth this is the  falsehood when the errors stresses that whatever it has found a erroneously is the truth and there is nothing further to be sought after that element is the element of falsehood or what we call really evil all that is evil in the world which we feel that ought not to be which can be avoided is this experience falsehood trying to establish itself as the truth nothing but the truth and therefore nothing more to be sought after if there is a constant seeking then falsehood can't remain the moment there is a further seeking falsehood is removed but this falsehood itself is a result of some kind of seeking in the beginning afterwards he stops seeking so let us now see in conscience itself is not evil ignorance is not evil committing error is not evil what is evil is the stress on the unfound truth as truth and insisting on it as the truth and rejecting any further movement to discover the truth.33.30 this is the only problem to be resolved all others are perfectly consistent with the supreme omnipotence can certainly allow this kind of movement and there is no evil in it. But we can see at once that if there is ignorance then such a thing can happen if the movement is by ignorant consciousness it can certainly arrive at a point where truth can be claimed to be the truth without arriving at the truth because of ignorance so even falsehood as it appears can be seen to be not inconsistent with the presence of the divine. but the nature of falsehood itself is such that the moment you dwell upon it more and more points will be reached where you will say this is avoidable this ought not to be and this has to be destroyed. It is also a part of the same movement therefore if there is a slow development and this is the intention of the divine to manifest slowly by a process of evolution then falsehood can arise evil can arise suffering can arise but not inconsistent with the divine presence because in that very process that which is called falsehood is itself insisted upon as something to be removed or removable. Falsehood does not stand here therefore as an exact opposition something inconsistent with the divine. Because it itself is removable and it insists upon its removal now this is you might say a metaphysical way of meeting the problem but now let us see the psychological way of meeting the same problem.

Question: does that mean that if the movement towards the truth is slow that itself is evil?

Answer: it's not evil, slow is perfectly intended. There's nothing wrong in moving slowly all or fast both are good both are possible. But because the slowness there is a partial discovery and as a result of that you happen to assert it and you arrest your movement. The result of ignorance is evil and not ignorance itself. Slowness itself is not evil the result of slow movement is evil that is quite true and we should not retract from it we can't say it is good evil is evil and we have to explain how it arises, and how it is consistent with God's presence. The problem arises only when you say God being God how can this arise if you can show that it can arise out of the omnipotence of God in spite of the omnipotence of God the problem doesn't remain a problem. So we have shown how if you start by saying that God has capacity of veiling or unveiling and both the capacities are good equally good it is not as a veiling of God is an evil. When Srikrishna plays with the Gopis and hides himself it is not an evilits is one of the ways of revealing himself with a greater joy there is nothing evil and it. It is only if Srikrishna hides himself with an intention that he will never reveal himself and then allows the Gopis to remain in perpetual agony then the accusation will be valid but if it is the intention of gradual unveiling then there is no evil in it, in the process unveiling the resultant will be suffering, the gopis does feel suffering so they there is certainly suffering we are not denying the presence of suffering we are only explaining how that suffering arises and that suffering would not arise if there is no intention of complete unveiling that is the importance it is because there is a intention of complete unveiling that in the intermediate stage of partial unveiling that suffering arises but even that would not arise if there is no ultimate intention of complete unveiling.