Body senses the so called ‘good’ and it’s antonym – the so called ‘bad’ because the mind which is at the helm of affairs interprets in these dualistic terms and a tiny part of the mind, born out of an impression, called ‘I’, claims- ‘I like it; it’s good’ (or any positive adjective, representing ‘good’). Or ‘I do not like it; it’s bad (or any negative adjective, representing ‘bad’). As a matter of fact, the mind is so used to dualistic concepts that it always tends to interprets in terms of ‘good’ and ‘bad’, so much that it keeps on evaluating its surrounding in these dualistic terms and accordingly feel either reconciled or irreconciled. The mind is never in any neutral ‘mood’. It doesn’t know what neutrality is other than the word meaning.

Good is never an objective good. Even the subjective commonality, despite cent percent ratification, doesn’t make a good, ‘good’. And, needless to say, same is the case with bad. Actually, all the dualistic terms are the two sides of the same coin. A father is never a good father unless there is a bad father. Can any father be called ‘good’ if the  entire tribe of fathers were, what you pronounce as good, means, they were father’s we suppose them to be, in the absence of any ‘bad’ father? Good can only survive in comparison to bad or the other way round.

Good and bad are not only interdependent but also replaceable and not just because they are subjective- as the other day the fellow from the north said, ‘the southern food is bad’; this very fact also applies to the northern food from southerner’s point of view- but also because they are harbinger of each other. Actually they form a chain, the order being indefinite. One can get three good, the second depending on the first and third on second, in a row after seven bad but on the whole, they eventually tend to equal, one leading to the other like toss of a coin. Remove a bad event from your past and all subsequent good will vanish.


“Duality”: Credit: By O C Always


What is ‘good’, then? And what is ‘bad’? Is ‘good’ beginning of ‘bad’ and ‘bad, beginning of ‘good’?  This means the so called ‘good’ may lead to bad and bad to good. This is so visible and yet there is good known as ‘good’ and bad, known as ‘bad’.

The other day, the following dialogues took place between me and my friend that sowed the seeds of this thought process I am presenting herewith.

‘How are you?’I asked.

‘I am good rather better’- he responded.

‘Better is good.’

‘Yes,’- he said-‘because good stinks of god……’

‘That’s a good one.’

‘Who vanishes in the absence of devil.’

‘God’ has to be ‘what is’ and not antonym of devil’- I said in agreement.

‘I wish God, while evaluating the quality of his own work in the process of creation, should have said- it is as I willed it to be rather than seeing it as ‘good’, interpreting in dualistic terms. He made us in his image.’


“Duality”: Credit: By Zhao


We have heard of the wise man who always said ‘maybe’. He won a brand new car in a lottery. Needless to say, his nears and dears exclaimed-‘How lucky you are to have won this beautiful car.’

‘May be’- was his patent response.

The very next week, while driving down to a cinema hall with advance booked ticket in his pocket he got into an accident which damaged the car and caused him injury landing him in a hospital with broken limbs. His family and friends came to see him and expressed their sorrow, ‘oh what terrible luck!’

He replied, ‘Maybe’

The very third day, while he was still in the hospital, it rained cats and dogs causing a mudslide which buried his house.

He refused to judge.

The moral of the story is- Never judge good as good because it can be beginning of the bad and the other way round.

What is bad? What is bad in bad?

What is good? What is good in good?

Is it just a question of liking or disliking, the conditioning of the mind? Is it nothing but a suggestion that has found deep roots?

Is the whole idea of good and bad a barrier in letting us evaluate what IS?
Can we ever succeed in neutralizing this dualistic way of seeing and evaluating things and see what IS?



Male and female represent the two sides of the great radical dualism. But in fact they are perpetually passing into one another. Fluid hardens to solid, solid rushes to fluid. There is no wholly masculine man, no purely feminine woman. By  Margaret Fuller


“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.” – Kalama Sutta, Buddha.