God, Good & Evil?

[Gauracandra]

If God is everything, then is God also the source of all evil? This is a bit of a puzzle because we accept God as good. Below is a section from a Jewish site that tries to explain God’s nature (using a Star Wars metaphor).

 

1. The Purpose of Good and Evil

G-d is The Force (see G-d), and thus, there is a Dark Side, too. G-d can be accessed in two ways: through the Light Side, and through the Dark Side. The reason the Dark Side exists is so Man can have free choice and use his mind to choose good over evil. If only the Light Side existed, there would only be good, and Man would have no choice but to do good only—because that’s all there would be. So G-d created the Dark Side, and allowed Man to access His power through it, just so Man could choose between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong.

[gHari]

Why is there a bit in the mouth of a horse?

[Gauracandra]

The bit is there to control the horse, right? I'm not much of an equestrian

 

We've talked about whether God knows the future. Now I'm wondering does God possess all contradictory qualities? I'm curious about what various Vaisnava traditions say about this. I think (I'll have to look it up) that Madhva accepted this. I have an old book called "The Strength of Madhvaism" and I seem to recall this is one of his views. I'll check in on that.

[Citta Hari]

"If God is everything, then is God also the source of all evil?"

 

This is the problem Sankara runs into in his philosophy by stressing the advayatva of Brahman. In doing so he cannot accomodate the reality of maya and tries to explain it away as illusory (brahma satyam jagan mithya). Mahaprabhu's acintya-bhedabheda is the answer to this problem. Brahman is the source of everything, but it is through the transformation of his saktis (sakti-parinama vada) that ignorance (evil) can exist harmoniously within him.

 

Dr. Kapoor (Adi Kesava dasa) wrote a book called "The Philosophy and Religion of Sri Caityanya" as his Ph.D. thesis. There is a chapter in it on Acintya-bhedabheda, where he compared Mahaprabhu's doctrine with Sankara's and all of the other major Vaisnava sects. A very dense philosophical treatment that shows clearly how acintya-bhedabheda works and how it differs from the other theologies and is ultimately the most developed theology. He even shows how Sankara himself implies acintya-bhedabheda in his Vedanta-sutra Bhasya. Anyhow, I am presently typing it in and can post it if it will be of interest.

[gHari]

Doesn't karma explain evil? I see karma like the bit in the horse's mouth - the way Krsna directs us back to Godhead. When the horse has to change direction quickly, the bit is yanked hard and the pain alters the course of the horse, of course.

 

However, of course if the horse is not broken, it will rebel against the gentle hints from the bit. When it is completely out of control, only a big big yank on the reins can adjust the direction.<font color="#dedfdf">

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 02-22-2002).]

[gHari]

Dark side = maaaaaaaaya; light side = bhakti.

 

Big demons = Jaya and Vijaya had some 'bad karma from offending the Goddess of Fortune' and got themselves booted out of the spiritual world for a while.

 

Saddam, Genghis, Osama, Adolf? No guesses here.

 

Are we talking original sin, Hyranikasipu, Osama, S-s-satan, Banasura, s-s-s-sex or maybe heroin?

 

Sorry, all questions; no answers.

[bhaktajoy]

Everything that exist is part of a higher plan(Divine reality).

[Gauracandra]

I can see how achintya-bhedabheda could accomodate this view of God in a sort of indistinct fuzzy way (on my part). By which I mean, I think someone who is schooled in theology like Dr. Kapoor (unlike myself) could draw the lines nice and clearly. Anything you have that would explain this aspect of God (containing all contradictory qualities) would be useful. I tried looking through "The Strength of Madhvaism" but couldn't find what I was looking for. Its a relatively small book in which the author shows how Madhva's philosophy is superior to various other traditions (in filling in logical holes etc....). I skimmed real quick but didn't see the part that would say that God possesses all contradictory aspects, thus I don't want to attribute that to Madhva (it might have been another Vaisnava school). It certainly is an interesting philosophical point, and I'm wondering how various Vaisnava schools handle it.

[gHari]

Perhaps evil is the external manifestation of enmity towards God; whether that be a demon for His pastimes or our falling to a posture adverse to His desires.<font color="#dedfdf">

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 02-23-2002).]

[Gauracandra]

Perhaps a more fundamental question is "What is Good and Evil?". There are those who will say there are absolute notions of good and evil, while others will say they are relativistic.

 

On a purely practical level I think good can be defined as that which benefits society as a whole, while evil is that which harms society as a whole. But this is more of a utilitarian concept and has problems in its own right. If "benefits" or enjoyment/utility is all that matters in defining Good & Evil, then slavery can be said to be good. If you enslave 5% of the population, but the other 95% benefits from this, then by this definition this would be "good". But the problem is we have no objective way of measuring this "good" or "evil". Perhaps the pain of the 5% outways the benefits of the 95%. There is no way of knowing.

 

I'm not a person who is big on relativism. Still I can see how we tend to view good & evil by the consequences (karma?) that result. For instance, most people will say smoking is bad (not evil, but that is a question of degree). Why is smoking bad? Because it causes cancer, and cancer leads to death. And death is something which harms society (we lose that knowledge, skills etc...). Now, if someone were to find a 100% cure for lung cancer, immediately our notions of smoking would change. Immediately people would no longer view it as bad. Why? Because the consequence of this action has been muted.

 

On an absolute level, perhaps good can be described as that which leads us towards God, while evil is that which leads us away from God. Good would be that which has the ultimate benefit for the soul, a loving relationship with God. Thus it would be that evil can only occur in the material world. By studying the nature of the material world and spiritual world, perhaps we can conclude what is good and evil. Good (being spiritual) would be eternal, while evil would have to be material and temporary. In which case good will always win over evil... I think.

[Gauracandra]

Of course then we have the question of "What does it mean to please God?". A Muslim hears the call to wage jihad against the pagans as God's call. I was just watching Pat Robertson on CNN explain his view that Islam is not at its core a peaceful religion. We've discussed this before with various quotes from the Koran.

 

I'm not a person who believes in cultural equality. I don't think all cultures, values, or religions are of equal value (spiritually or aesthetically). I can see good in most religions, not all. Nor do I automatically put Vaisnavism right at the top, just because I'm a Vaisnava. I don't know what I'd put at the top, I guess it depends if it is practiced perfectly. If Vaisnavism is practiced perfectly then it is very beautiful and is at the top. But then so too would Christianity be if practiced perfectly (beautiful and at the top). Given that very rarely is anything practiced perfectly, then I guess the question comes to which is practiced the closest to a high standard on a mass scale. I don't know. I've probably just raised more questions than answers.

[gHari]

Who knows what will please God? Srimati Radharani. Who knows Her? The gopis. What is the best religion? The only one that knows these esoteric truths? Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu's dharma.

 

Is it the best executed? When I see that huge world wars erupt when great devotees leave the world, then I have to know that there is no higher dharma. Other religions may produce many moral people, but I have no doubt that very few can actually achieve the real goal of life - such a great soul is very rare.

[gHari]

I think we'd call good: pleasing God.

 

And if we use algebra to resolve the additional equations supplied in the two previous posts,

"Perhaps evil is the external manifestation of enmity towards God"

 

"perhaps good can be described as that which leads us towards God, while evil is that which leads us away from God"

we can reduce them to:

Good = Pleasing God

Good = That which leads to God

Evil = Enmity to God

Evil = That which leads away from God

therefore we can conclude that:

 

1. That which pleases God, leads us to God;

 

2. Enmity towards God leads us away from Him.

 

 

These both seem quite reasonable; and down right astute. if you ask me.

[Love]

God is one where contradictions get resolved. He is beyond even good and evil. So it is frutiless to say that God is good or evil. He is simply beyond it. If we try and explain Him in language we will fail as He cannot be explained in our words but can only be felt or realised. IN order to bring Him closer to layman the need to give physical shape to God arose. We have both good and evil in us. There is nothing like being able to reach God throough the dark side as well as the light side. It is us humans that casue these classifications. I think the basis for old Hindu proverb (satya kee hamesha jeet hoti hai - "Truth prevails") is the Hindu philosophy:

 

We get everything initially in tamasik form call it evil if you like (but I think it is a harsh word). When we take rebirht from our elements in tamasik form they turn into sattvik/ rajasik guna of the same element. For instance, I could have love in me (love ofr myself) and when I learn to take re-birth from this self-love my love flowers into love for all. Thereby, negative forms combine together to create positive forms in us - constituent elements of self-love combine to transform into selfless-love and thus, negativ cannot defeat positive in us ever. The only precondition is that we know the way to take rebirth. That is how we are dwija and a brahmin.

[gHari]

Joseph Smith and other religions of pillars, snakes, and big boats:

Excerpt from The Laws of Nature: An Infallible Justice by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

In this way, the devotees are above the karmIs, jJAnIs, and yogIs. The devotees' place is the highest because only by devotion can one understand God. KRSNa does not say you can understand Him by fruitive work. He does not say you can understand Him by speculation. He does not say you can understand Him by mystic yoga. He clearly says (Bg. 18.55), bhaktyA mAm abhi-jAnAti yAvAn yaz cAsmi tattvataH: "Only by devotional service can one truly understand Me as I am."

 

Except for devotional service, there is no possibility of understanding the Absolute Truth. Any other process is imperfect because it is based on speculation. For example, the scientists may speculate on what the sun planet is, but because they have no access there, they cannot actually know what the sun planet is. They can only speculate. That's all. Once three blind men came upon an elephant. They began feeling the elephant and speculating on what it was. One felt its big legs and concluded, "Oh, the elephant is just like a pillar." The second man felt the trunk and concluded, "Oh, this elephant is just like a snake." And the third man felt the belly of the elephant and concluded, "This elephant is like a big boat." But actually, the blind men did not know what the elephant really was.

 

If you have no ability to see something, you can only speculate about it. Therefore the IzopaniSad says, "Please remove this brilliant effulgence covering Your face so I can see You." That seeing power is bestowed upon the devotee by KRSNa when He sees the devotee's love for Him. As the Brahma-saMhitA says, premAJjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena: [bs. 5.38] The devotees anoint their eyes with the salve of love of God, and therefore they can see the Lord's beautiful form within their hearts. In India there is a special eye ointment. If you apply it you can immediately see clearly. Similarly, if you smear your eyes with the ointment of love of Godhead, you will see God always. This is the way of understanding God--by service and by enhancing your love for Him. This love can be developed only by devotional service; otherwise there is no possibility of achieving it. So the more you increase your spirit of service to God, the more you increase your dormant love for God. And as soon as you are in the perfectional stage of love of God, you will see God always, at every moment.

 

[gHari]

<h3>PLEASING GOD</H3>

Excerpt from The Laws of Nature: An Infallible Justice:

With your present blunt material senses, however, you cannot immediately perceive God's spiritual form, name, qualities, pastimes, and paraphernalia. And because people in the present civilization have no power to understand God, nor are they guided by some person who can help them understand God, they have become godless. But if you read Vedic scriptures like the IzopaniSad and Bhagavad-gItA under superior guidance and follow the rules and regulations, eventually God will be revealed to you. You cannot see God or understand God by your own endeavor. You have to surrender to the process by which God can be known. Then He will reveal Himself. He is the supreme controller; you are being controlled. So how can you control God? "O God, come here. I want to see You." God is not so cheap that by your order He will come and be seen by you. No, that is not possible. You must always remember, "God is the supreme controller and I am controlled. So if I can please God by my service, then He will reveal Himself to me." That is the process of knowing God.

 

Ultimately, this process leads to love of God. That is real religion. It doesn't matter whether you follow the Hindu, Muslim, or Christian religion: if you are developing love of God, then you are perfect in your religion. And what kind of love should we develop for God? It must be without any selfish motivation--"O Lord, I love you because You supply me so many nice things. You are my order supplier." No, we should not have this sort of love for God. It should not depend on any exchange.

 

Lord Caitanya MahAprabhu taught, "O Lord! Whether You trample me under Your feet or embrace me or leave me brokenhearted by not being present before me, that does not matter. You are completely free to do anything, for You are my worshipable Lord unconditionally." That is love. We should think, "God may do whatever He likes, yet I will still love Him. I don't want anything in exchange." That is the sort of love KRSNa wants. That is why He is so fond of the gopIs. In the gopIs' love there is no question of business ex-changes--"Give me this, then I will love You." Their love was pure, unalloyed, without any impediment. If you try to love God in this way, nothing in the whole world can check you. You only have to develop your eagerness--"KRSNa! I want You." That's all. Then there is no question of being stopped. In any condition your love will increase. If you attain that state, you will feel fully satisfied. It is not that God wants you to love Him for His benefit. It is for your benefit. If you do otherwise, you will never be happy.

[abhi_the_great]

I asked this question to HH Radhanath Swami once. The answer HH gave was:

 

Krishna is like the sun - bright and shining. When we turn our face towards Krishna, there is all illumination and knowledge. But as soon as we turn our back to Krishna, there is this dark shadow, which is also caused by the Sun. But the sun in itself is completely pure, which can even purify stool. the shadow represents ignorance or BAD tendencies.

 

Krishna is sweet and so are his devotees!

 

Abhi

 

 

[gHari]

O Great One,

 

I noticed that the shadow is caused by the body.

 

gHari

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by gHari:

O Great One,

 

I noticed that the shadow is caused by the body.

 

gHari

Yes, body, ie matter. The identification with matter. Although sun is also indirectly responsible for the shadow, the shadow is never on the sun. That is there cannot be ignorance in Krishna.

 

There is a saying in Bangla "Krishna booliya jeeva bogha vancha.... maya japathiya" something like that. Means as soon as the jiva forgets krishna and thinks of enjoyment. Maya standing just besides him(like the shadow) immediately pounces on him.

 

Is there shadow in the spiritual world??

 

Abhi

[kailasa]

Lord Siva plays a role of the some time Satan or Durga, Êali. Evil it blessings of the God, differently we would remain here eternally.

 

"The perfection of such a service attitude is only attained simply by transferring the desire of service from matter to spirit, or from Satan to God."

 

Because we do not love God, therefore we have been obliged to love mäyä, Satan.

 

Here there is another opposing element, which is called mäyä, or Satan, who is acting against this principle.

[Tarun]

ZrIla ZrIdhardev explained:

"There is a plan of action on which one can destroy the entire universe without incurring any sin."

At Kuruxetra-yuddha's end, first KRSNa showed fatally wounded Duryodhan how it was all his fault.

Next Duryodhan showed KRSNa how it was all His fault.

Both were correct.

ZrIla VizvanAth Cakravarti ThAkur showed it was no one's fault.

He's most correct.

[Ramin Mathias]

Dear Citta Hari

Did you finish typing it in (Kapoor's book on Mahaprabhu)?

How can i email you?

It would be of great use for my research on acintya bhedabheda darshan.

Please if anybody has material, send it or the informations about it to

raminmathias@gmail.com

Thank you very much!

Ramin das

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Good and Bad - relative and egocentric.

 

Good and Bad are relative concepts. It arises out of our own limited perspective to reality. It depends from our ego's perspective. Let me explain.

 

For we, human beings, cancer cells are bad - evil creatures. But remember cancer cells themselves are life form in their oun right trying to multiply their kind like we do for our species. For us they are evil From their own perspective they are good trying to feed on uur body.

 

For us muskitos are bad as they spread malaria , From Muskito's perspective human beings are evil as human beings evacuate them from their natural domiciles poison their envirnment and murder them in masses.

 

All creatures of earth have their right to live and multiply like we human is int it? From this brouder perspective if we look at the issue - not from our narrow perspective of antropocentric - ego centric perspective there is no absolute good and bad. From larger perspective - I guess that would be the gods perspective - there is no good or bad. As a totality the universe is perfect. From partial interests, there are imperfections evils.

 

In Krishna's Viswa rupa, - Universal form - Not only the creater's face (Bhramas face ) exists but also the destroyers face -the one who swallows everything - kaalas mouth - exists. In viswa rupa everything is present.

 

K.Ravindran

[suchandra]

 

Good and Bad - relative and egocentric.

 

Good and Bad are relative concepts. It arises out of our own limited perspective to reality. It depends from our ego's perspective. Let me explain.

 

For we, human beings, cancer cells are bad - evil creatures. But remember cancer cells themselves are life form in their oun right trying to multiply their kind like we do for our species. For us they are evil From their own perspective they are good trying to feed on uur body.

 

For us muskitos are bad as they spread malaria , From Muskito's perspective human beings are evil as human beings evacuate them from their natural domiciles poison their envirnment and murder them in masses.

 

All creatures of earth have their right to live and multiply like we human is int it? From this brouder perspective if we look at the issue - not from our narrow perspective of antropocentric - ego centric perspective there is no absolute good and bad. From larger perspective - I guess that would be the gods perspective - there is no good or bad. As a totality the universe is perfect. From partial interests, there are imperfections evils.

 

In Krishna's Viswa rupa, - Universal form - Not only the creater's face (Bhramas face ) exists but also the destroyers face -the one who swallows everything - kaalas mouth - exists. In viswa rupa everything is present.

 

K.Ravindran

Good points, yes, we have to learn to understand what Krsns says about tolerating the dualities of this world.

 

 

O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed. BG 2.14

 

Instead we find people right on their way of getting fooled by all this good and bad.

 

 

 

 

Pensioner poverty in Britain is huge. Last year 24,650 people in Britain died as a result of cold related matters according to Age Concern. They also say six out of 10 older people are at risk of becoming malnourished. Furthermore up to 14% of older people aged over 65 years in the UK are malnourished. According to the Department of Work and Pensions, in the three year period 2001/2 to 2003/4, 22 per cent of pensioners in England were living in households with relative low-incomes.

These are shameful statistics, masking the tragic lives of thousands.

There was lots of condemnation about the communist regime, but at least the old communist regimes maintained full employment and a degree of social cohesion, neither of which are on offer from the billionaires' democracies of Britain and the United States.

[Bishadi]

 

If God is everything, then is God also the source of all evil? This is a bit of a puzzle because we accept God as good. Below is a section from a Jewish site that tries to explain God’s nature (using a Star Wars metaphor).

 

a belated hello.... but nice to see observance to other ideas for 'nectar'

 

 

1. The Purpose of Good and Evil

G-d is The Force (see G-d), and thus, there is a Dark Side, too. G-d can be accessed in two ways: through the Light Side, and through the Dark Side. The reason the Dark Side exists is so Man can have free choice and use his mind to choose good over evil. If only the Light Side existed, there would only be good, and Man would have no choice but to do good only—because that’s all there would be. So G-d created the Dark Side, and allowed Man to access His power through it, just so Man could choose between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong.

 

not bad....

 

through the light; makes sense in that 'through the light' all things combine, not only metaphorically but also scientifically

 

as balance comes from measuring 2 sides (i.e.... ms justice herself/Yin and yang.... krisna/Radha) in which by experiencing choice we can measure what is good, and what is bad.

 

Then to understand the progress of life is by the laws of light; then that progression or evolving progress proceed in a direction that 'good' associations supports life to continue. IN contrast; bad is as a 'loss to the common' in which the consciousness of choice can observe the interaction in which the self can be first of that 'need/desire' as if to isolate the event in a pursuit of the self over existence/life.

 

Or simply a possession or 'observed' gain can be believed when the only real gain is in assisting by choice; life to continue. In which to give by choice of the self, to assist (compassionate observance) then good is realized by existence. (Items in the pocket do nothing for existence but a real 'loss to the common.')

 

So if God is all of existence; then in nature we can see the beauty of balance and co-existence.

 

Since that balance is a perception of conscious recognition then Good and Bad can be understood.