Essay on Good and Evil

[Guest guest]

The following is an essay that I wrote today for another purpose and

which may be of interest to this group. Ram, I'm sorry I deviated

somewhat from the more modest content of the actual Gita verses! I

became a bit too enthusiastic, perhaps! :-)

 

 

 

Friday, March 21, 2003

 

ESSAY ON GOOD AND EVIL

 

 

Namaste!

 

Tonight, it is my turn to discuss some verses from the Bhagavad Gita

at the Falls Church Gita Group meeting. I decided to collect my

thoughts into an essay, which I offer for your consideration. Some

of these ideas are accepted in the Advaitin tradition, as I confirm

with references to the Upadesa Saram. Other ideas are more personal

and should be taken as such.

 

The verses in question are from Chapter 13 and discuss ethics:

 

"Humility, modesty, nonviolence, forgiveness, honesty, service to

guru, purity of thought, word, and deed, steadfastness, self-control;

and aversion towards sense objects, absence of ego, constant

reflection on pain and suffering inherent in birth, old age, disease,

and death." (13.07-08)

 

"Detachment, non-fondness with son, wife, and home; unfailing

equanimity upon attainment of the desirable and the undesirable; and

unswerving devotion to Me through single-minded contemplation, taste

for solitude, distaste for social gatherings and gossips;

steadfastness in acquiring the knowledge of Spirit, and seeing the

omnipresent Supreme Being everywhere _ this is said to be knowledge.

That which is contrary to this is ignorance." (13.09-11)

 

 

Ethics! What a momentous topic! Why are we slaughtering each other?

Mistreating each other? Rejecting each other? Failing to love each

other? Why does God allow this if he is omnipotent? Does the

occurrence of evil make a belief in God unreasonable?

 

Perhaps I am stretching a bit beyond the content of these particular

verses if I launch into a general discussion of good and evil. But

the topic is of great concern to us, especially in this time of war,

and I wish to present a vision of the truth which I believe is

supported by the scriptural evidence.

 

To begin, I would like to emphasize the great divergence between the

Judeo-Christian-Islamic view of evil and the Hindu-Buddhist view,

insofar as one can make sweeping generalizations. The former view

clearly tends towards seeing God as separate from the 'world' and

from 'evil', whereas the latter view tends to see Reality as One and

evil as ignorance rather than a real 'thing' in itself.

 

In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, there is a great battle between

good and evil, with evil often personified as Satan. Free-will is

emphasized, and it is our choice whether we choose good or evil. We

may pray for divine assistance, but ultimately we are responsible for

our actions, and it is taken for granted that events may have turned

out differently if we had made different decisions.

 

The logical problem with this view, of course, is that it clashes

with any notion of God as omnipotent and benevolent. If God is

omnipotent, why did he not simply make us good from the beginning?

This paradox is perhaps the chief reason that many atheists and

agnostics do not believe in God, even more than the fact that God

seems to be invisible and undetectable.

 

I agree that this paradox is in fact fatal to the

Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God. I do believe that such a

concept of God was a necessary and temporary stage in the evolution

of human consciousness, but it has being superceded by the more

'unitary' view of God provided by the Indian tradition, especially in

the 'nondual' Advaitin tradition, which I shall now discuss.

 

This states, without equivocation, that 'everything is God', even

what may seem to be evil. Scriptural support for this view can be

found in the Gita:

 

"The Spirit shall be realized by the one who considers everything as

a manifestation, or an act, of the Spirit." (4.24)

 

"I am the ritual, I am the sacrifice, I am the offering, I am the

herb, I am the mantra, I am the clarified butter, I am the fire, and

I am the oblation. I am the supporter of the universe, the father,

the mother, and the grandfather. I am the object of knowledge, the

sacred syllable OM, and the Vedas. I am the goal, the supporter, the

Lord, the witness, the abode, the refuge, the friend, the origin, the

dissolution, the foundation, the substratum, and the immutable seed."

(9.16-18)

 

And even

 

"I am gambling of the cheats; splendor of the splendid; victory of

the victorious; resolution of the resolute; and goodness of the

good." (10.36)

 

But, to be honest, the Gita still presents a bit of a 'dualistic'

view, in that good and evil are contrasted, even though evil is not

explicitly separated from God as in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic

tradition. I believe that this is a concession to ordinary human

understanding, which might be outraged or perturbed at any notion

that God somehow advocates or allows evil. Although the Gita tries

to synthesize various strands of Hindu philosophy, it is nevertheless

more in the devotional stream, which does see some common-sense

distinction between lover and beloved, even though this distinction

is tempered by quotes such as the ones just given. Religious views

that emphasize some distinction between ourselves and God are

generally those that also distinguish between good and evil. They

belong to the 'dualistic' religions that appeal to the vast majority

of humanity at its present level of consciousness.

 

A clearer expression of the 'nondual' Advaitin view can be found in

Ramana Maharshi's Upadesa Saram, as translated somewhat liberally by

Ramesh Balsekar:

 

"In the vast ocean of cause and effect, actions happen and

impermanent results follow. If one takes them as "my" actions, the

idea of having a free will gets stronger. The sense of personal

doership gives rise to a feeling of guilt or pride and effectively

blocks the spiritual understanding that everything happens according

to the will of God." (Upadesa Saram 1-2)

 

"When there is total acceptance that all actions happen purely by the

will of God, and if the fruits and the consequences are accepted as

His grace, the mind gets purified and attains freedom from

expectations." (Upadesa Saram 3-4)

 

"When there is an understanding that God Himself has become the

manifestation; when, by His grace, one feels His presence in the

phenomenal existence, one obtains the blessings of worshipping the

Lord of eight-fold forms without neglecting one's responsibilities."

(Upadesa Saram 7-8)

 

"When there is an understanding that God's will prevails all the time

and witnessing happens without any "one" to witness, it is like the

stream of ghee or the flow of the river. This is true meditation.

It is much better than meditating with the assumption that one has

free will." (Upadesa Saram 11-12)

 

"The nondualistic approach of understanding that "I AM" is God is far

more purifying and superior than the dualistic approach of assuming

the difference between God and the "me" and struggling to be one with

Him" (Upadesa Saram 13-14)

 

This Advaitic view is, I believe, the supreme view of the rishis of

the Upanishads and of all realized people, like Ramana himself. Of

course, various dualistic schools present their interpretation of the

Upanishads, but in my opinion this is the correct view. Notice that

Ramana still stresses some key themes of the Gita, such as selfless

action. And indeed, the idea that God is everything, including the

good and the evil, really is in the Gita, at least implicitly if not

always so explicitly. This is simply a prime characteristic of

Indian religions, which generally tend towards an 'idealistic' view

of reality, devoid of distinctions and harsh contrasts between the

Ultimate and the phenomenal.

 

Now, you might ask, why would any sane person suppose that God would

allow evil in the manifestation which is Himself? By the same token,

why would he allow the closely related phenomenon of ignorance? Even

Shankara, I believe, does not have a fully satisfying answer for the

origin of ignorance and Maya. It seems to be one of the mysteries of

the 'Lila' or play of the Divine.

 

My humble suggestion, for what it is worth, is as follows.

 

First, some philosophical background. I believe in the ancient

intuition that God is necessary as the Ultimate Source of Being.

Science has often been put forward as a more intelligent and 'modern'

substitute for an answer to the eternal question of why the universe

exists. However, a careful study of science reveals that it can do

no more than describe HOW the world behaves. It cannot explain WHY

it behaves as it does or indeed why it even exists in the first

place. In my opinion, only an appeal to the Divine can resolve this

unfathomable mystery. Furthermore, I believe that this Divine should

be viewed as an 'infinite consciousness' that sustains our seemingly

finite consciousness by its immediate presence. In fact, our

seemingly finite consciousness is like the drop that merges back into

the ocean of the Divine and becomes indistinguishable from it. This

is the classic view of the Upanishads and Advaita.

 

However, I would like to offer a twist. Perhaps the illusory yet

powerful view that we are distinct beings has a silver lining to it.

Perhaps this powerful illusion helps to effectively multiply God's

bliss in being. That is, from a phenomenological point of view, we

seem to be distinct beings, even though we may have scriptural or

philosophical reasons for believing that reality is ultimately One

Without A Second. The phenomenological appearance of being a

distinct entity is how God accomplishes the impossible: to multiply

the joy he feels in his Being, by creating seeming replicas of his

consciousness, even though such a thing is strictly speaking

impossible, as all being must be indivisibly contained in his Being,

almost by definition.

 

Unfortunately, the accomplishment of the impossible comes at a price,

even for God. Our seemingly distinct consciousnesses must evolve

from dark to light, as we acquire knowledge in this spiritual

laboratory called Samsara. In this sense, the common dualistic view

of free will and a struggle between good and evil has an illusory

phenomenological reality, though not an ultimate reality. Anyhow

that is my suggestion. Notice that it presents a positive message in

that even the Maya is seen as a necessary and indeed fortunate aspect

of his Being.

 

What are the implications of this view for ethics, which is the theme

of this discussion?

 

I believe, shocking as it may seem, that we must accept that good and

evil and free will do not really exist. Everything is precisely

determined to happen as it does since before the beginning of time,

since everything IS God. If we can accept that the development of

our seemingly distinct consciousnesses must follow certain

'mathematical' laws as they evolve from the darkness of non-being to

the light of full Being, then we can accept that everything must

happen as it does.

 

This is really the only possibility that can be reconciled with the

nature of God. One might postulate a less-than-omnipotent God, but I

find serious difficulties with this view. It seems to me that the

unfathomable Power that can produce the dazzling display of Samsara

could control it in any way, as easily as an artist splashes whatever

colors he wants on a canvas. However, the illusion of distinct

beings somehow requires, according to some mysterious mathematical

rules, that the apparent consciousnesses of those distinct beings

evolve according to the process of ego, at least until the Truth is

realized. Ego may in fact be the precondition for being able to

realize the Truth, so that even ego can be seen in a positive light.

Apparently, a simple divine 'injection' of the Truth at the beginning

of time is incompatible with the illusion of a distinct being

enjoying a distinct life. If we were puppets to this extent, we

might be only dimly conscious, like animals, who have very restricted

freedom in their thoughts and actions. Who knows the mysterious laws

of consciousness?

 

Feelings of duty and guilt can then be seen as useful forces leading

developing beings in the right direction of spiritual evolution, even

though there ultimately is no guilt or innocence, as everything must

happen as it does. (This is not to deny the karmic consequences of

our actions, which are beneficial to our spiritual development.) We

tell stories to children to make them behave. Likewise, God told

stories of good and evil and free will to the dualistic religions, as

this was compatible with their stage of spiritual progress.

Advaitins and other nondualists have risen to a higher and more

luminous level of consciousness. They are permitted to know the

blessed though seemingly shocking truth that God is everything, the

light and the dark, with all that that implies.

 

Finally, this understanding suggests the true nature of Moksha or

'salvation' as it is called in the West. In the

Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, great emphasis is placed on using

free will to triumph in the battle between good and evil. The

Advaitin view that free will does not ultimately exist suggests

otherwise. In the Advaitin view, which I believe is quite similar to

that in the Gita, Moksha comes, not through fighting with a hostile

reality opposed to God, but by surrendering to God. This surrender

is the only choice, if everything is God and must happen as it does.

 

This surrender is closely related to the detachment that permits us

to realize the Divine in all things. In the Judeo-Christian-Islamic

view, we must constantly be fighting with many forces distinct from

and opposed to God, namely, our stubborn free will and a hostile

world full of evil beings who are other than and opposed to God.

Surrender, on the other hand, leads to a completely different state

of consciousness. It produces a feeling of peace and calm which can

protect and nurture us, not by striking our enemies with divine

lightning as the Bible would have it, but by allowing what must

happen to happen without disturbing our inner peace and intimate

contact with the Divine within us. We do not try to bend the world

to our will but rather we accept what is experienced as the

manifestation of God and try to 'go with the flow'.

 

Of course, the will of God may include rising up and overthrowing

evil, but the attitude is quite different. Instead of hating our

enemies, we see everything as a dream and simply watch in detachment

as Samsara unfolds inexorably. This is to be contrasted with the

anger of God in the Bible or Koran and the divinely sanctioned hatred

of enemies. Even in battle, we should just watch in serene

detachment as we go through the motions of our duty. This, I

believe, is the message of the Gita. Similarities can also be found

in the Zen concept of the spiritual warrior.

 

It is known that those who survived crises, such as battle or

drowning in the ocean, report that at the point of greatest despair

everything suddenly became calm and seemed to proceed in 'slow

motion'. There seemed to be a comforting feeling of peace and

resignation, and everything seemed to proceed as a mere flow of

images, much like a dream. I believe that this state of

consciousness arises when we surrender to God. It is no longer a

question of triumphing over evil and feeling a rush of glory and

victory. Rather, there is the peace and calm and wisdom that arise

from realizing the unreal and dreamlike nature of phenomena and the

imperturbable peace of the Divine Reality within. What must happen

must happen, but we can hope to be enveloped by divine comfort and

peace if we surrender to this Reality and realize the Divine

everywhere.

 

In our moment of crisis, we may or may not be able to do this. It

depends on the karmas and vasanas accumulated over our lifetime.

That is why it is important to cultivate an attitude that the Divine

is everywhere and in us while we are living the peaceful episodes of

ordinary life, before the crisis happens.