View source for Good, or piety, that is God's frontage, and evil means God's back side. So taking this example, the chest or the back of my body, they are equal

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"good, or piety, that is God's frontage, and evil means God's back side. So taking this example, the chest or the back of my body, they are equal"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Visnu Murti}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|11Nov12}}
{{last|11Nov12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:good]]
[[Category:Pious]]
[[Category:that Is]]
[[Category:God]]
[[Category:Front]]
[[Category:Evil]]
[[Category:means]]
[[Category:back]]
[[Category:Side]]
[[Category:This Example]]
[[Category:Chest]]
[[Category:My Body]]
[[Category:they Are]]
[[Category:Equal]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Arrival_Addresses_and_Talks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Lectures" text="Arrival Addresses and Talks"><h3>Arrival Addresses and Talks</h3>
</div>
<div id="ArrivalLectureSanFranciscoJuly151975_0" class="quote" parent="Arrival_Addresses_and_Talks" book="Lec" index="30" link="Arrival Lecture -- San Francisco, July 15, 1975" link_text="Arrival Lecture -- San Francisco, July 15, 1975">
<div class="heading">The evil is also God's creation. So I explained like this, that for God there is no good or evil; everything is good. So I gave him this example that good, or piety, that is God's frontage, and evil means God's back side. So taking this example, the chest or the back of my body, they are equal. It is not that when there is some pain on the back side I don't care for it; I simply take care of when there is pain in the chest. No. Although it is back side, it is as important as the front side. Then evil and good is also of the same importance?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Arrival Lecture -- San Francisco, July 15, 1975|Arrival Lecture -- San Francisco, July 15, 1975]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: So Kṛṣṇa is the original guru. Therefore Kṛṣṇa comes to teach these fallen souls. Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glanir bhavati bhārata, tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham ([[Vanisource:BG 4.7|BG 4.7]]). As guru's business is to protect the subordinate disciples from falldown... Just like I am traveling all over the world twice, thrice, in a year. My duty is to see that my disciples who have accepted me guru, they may not fall down. That is my anxiety. So similarly, Kṛṣṇa, being the original guru, He is also very anxious that "My sons..." We are all sons of Kṛṣṇa, part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. Mamaivāṁśo jīva-bhūtaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 15.7|BG 15.7]]).</p>
:sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
:sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ
:tāsāṁ mahad-yonir brahma
:ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
:([[Vanisource:BG 14.4|BG 14.4]])
<p>Kṛṣṇa is not Indian or Hindu. Kṛṣṇa is everything. Everyone is Kṛṣṇa's sons, in any form. Sarva-yoniṣu. Yoni means species. There are 8,400,000 species. So all of them are living entities, and they are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore Kṛṣṇa is very much anxious to see His sons become very happy, just like father wants to see his son very happy. So Kṛṣṇa has admitted that He is bīja-pradaḥ pitā, He is the supreme father. I think in Christianity also God is accepted as supreme father. So actually that is the fact. God is the supreme father. So as the father wants to see his sons very happy, similarly, Kṛṣṇa wants to see all of us very happy. That is Kṛṣṇa. But we are persistently avoiding Kṛṣṇa and suffering. This is our business. Therefore Kṛṣṇa said,</p>
:yadā yadā hi dharmasya
:glanir bhavati bhārata
:abhyutthānam adharmasya
:tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham
:([[Vanisource:BG 4.7|BG 4.7]])
<p>This... Just coming here from Philadelphia we were talking with the aeroplane crews, the captain, the pilot. They (were) very patiently hearing us. The question was very intelligent, question pilot made, that "If everything is created by God..." Yes. That is a fact. Janmādy asya yataḥ ([[Vanisource:SB 1.1.1|SB 1.1.1]]). The Vedānta-sūtra says everything is emanated from God. Without a thing being present in God, there cannot be any existence of anything. That's a fact. Īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvam ([[Vanisource:ISO 1|ISO 1]]). So his question was, "Then what is this evil?" The evil is also God's creation. So I explained like this, that for God there is no good or evil; everything is good. So I gave him this example that good, or piety, that is God's frontage, and evil means God's back side. So taking this example, the chest or the back of my body, they are equal. It is not that when there is some pain on the back side I don't care for it; I simply take care of when there is pain in the chest. No. Although it is back side, it is as important as the front side. Then evil and good is also of the same importance? No. Evil... That I gave the example, that for God there is nothing evil. I gave another example. Just like the sun, there is no darkness. Anywhere of sun's body, there is no darkness. But for us there is light and darkness. Just like if you keep the sun back side, you will find darkness, a very long darkness, your shadow. And if you keep yourself in front, sun, there is no darkness. So it is my business; I create darkness. As soon as I change my position—instead of remaining in front of God, I keep God back side—then there is darkness. Otherwise there is no question of darkness. But in the sun as it is, there is no such darkness. Therefore God is all good. And for us, when we forget God, that is evil. And when we are in God consciousness always, everything good. Is that example all right?</p>
<p>Devotees: Jaya!</p>
<p>Bahulāśva: Perfect.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So God is all good. There is no good or evil. Apāpa-viddham. In the Īśopaniṣad you will find description, apāpa-viddham. Whatever God does, that is all good. But if we imitate God, then it is evil. That is the disease of material disease. Their other question was—the pilot was very intelligent man—that "How one can become peaceful?"</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>