The presence of evil

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Cavalier,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by cavalier

Vajradhara, good to hear back from you. I think the term I was searching for (in vain) before was Buddhanature.

no worries

So if you believe (I don't know if you do) that all religions are different ways in which mankind searches for the same truth, this would have to mean that God is not all-poweful, am I understanding this right?

well.. let me say it like this. the Buddhist view is that if a religious paradigm teaches a valid moral and ethical path (beneficial to beings or harmful), it is considered to be a valid spiritual refuge. a spiritual refuge, in our parlance, means that the tradition has the capability to transform the being in a spiritual manner, taking the dross and leaving the gold, so to speak.

however, that does not mean that all spiritual refuges are the Final Refuge. that is, naturally, Buddha Dharma. as such, it isn't the overall view that the Adharmic traditions are pursuing the same goal as the Dharma traditions. even within the Dharma traditions there are distinctions made.

as far as deities being omnipotent, Buddhism doesn't say much about that particular aspect. it does, however, disagree with the idea of a Creator Deity regardless of how much power said deity may weild.

I'm curious, does Buddha Dharma allow that these phenomena, though mutually dependent, are not equal?

are you asking if we see "good" and "evil" as equal? for a simple answer, i would say "no". we would value the good more highly than evil. however, as i mentioned, we really don't use these terms. earl explains it well in the post previous to this. our terms are related to the skillful or unskillful actions that a being engages in with regards to putting an end to Dukkha. some actions help that and some actions inhibit that realization.

metta,

~v

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Flowperson, I understand what you're saying and can see how it works, but doesn't it go a little deeper than that? This explanation tells us why we should tolerate evil, but the point is that a God who is perfect could not tolerate evil and neither could any of his creations. The only explanations I can think of are that God isnt perfect, or that evil isnt really evil.

Hi Cavalier:

I agee with you. I was only citing a realistic philosophical viewpoint that pretty much describes evil's actions from a systemic approach. Things are built up, destroyed, and rebuilt. It's how natural systems work in our realities, even including the works of humans. It is our propensity to label that which destroys as evil, live spelled backwards. But life, that emanation which comes from G-d always prevails, at least so far.

History and personal observation teach that, yes there are deeper and darker things to discern, but the real dangers to our souls that are possible through discernment are what we need to be concerned about. I do not believe that the rituals of exorcism would exist if there weren't a need for them to be applied to humans in these situations from time to time.

flow....

[Vajradhara]

Namaste earl,

thank you for the post.

i quite agree it is a whole day, thus far

metta,

~v

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by cavalier

I'll have to think about what you wrote, I'm not sure I buy into your idea that a perfect being can only produce things which are imperfect.

Yes, I posted earlier in haste, and as I reread the post, although I can understand what I was getting at - I can see how it could be confusing. But I think the problem lies in our attempt to bridge between the Unmanifest (or UNCONDITIONED state of Being, as a Buddhist might put it), and the manifest, conditioned states ... the latter being all that we can experience while still bound to the wheel of rebirth.

I could go on to say that the real problem, imo, lies in the very assumptions we make about a/the Divine Being called `God,' and I always chuckle when I watch Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and they mention a fictitious book called `Who is This God Person, Anyway?' It comes after two books about the various mistakes of God, entitled `Where God Went Wrong' and `Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes.'

Now Douglas Adams was an unabashed atheist, so these titles are purely comical, but from my own POV, Adams actually gave expression to some of the most sublime aspects of an esoteric cosmology in his Hitchhiker series. In such notions as Deep Thought's design of The Earth in order to find the answer to life, the universe and everything, Adams is invoking hylozoism, and any sincere Neoplatonist could benefit considerably by reading and rereading his books!

In very plain, practical and simple terms, as an esotericist I regard "this God person" as in no wise different from ourselves when it comes to the essentials of His Being. The real distinction, I believe, is that the Spiritual Regent of the Earth is simply evolving on a higher turn of the spiral. He is what has been called sometimes `an imperfect God,' because as yet this Being has not attained to the stated goal of spiritual evolution that lies before Him. Some of His co-disciples upon the Path have reached that goal, and these are the Seven Spirits Before the Throne of Christianity. The Seven Spirits, the Hebrew Elohim, do qualify as "Perfect Gods" in that they have attained ahead of their younger Brother, the Earth Eloi, yet all aspire mutually to the grander status of their Eldest Brother, the Solar Logos.

Now this is not simply a Theosophical presentation or belief (as some may object), because it will be found that every Mystery Tradition throughout history teaches, or taught, these truths. Name me a culture or a religion, and we can find parallels. It was known and taught in every tradition that Humanity are the much, much younger Brethren of these lofty spiritual entities, and it was also taught that just as imperfect gods strive to attain to their respective equivalent of Perfection, so likewise do all humans strive for the goal of Perfection placed before us!

A perfected human being may well, and rightly so, look upon the rest of struggling Humanity and regard us, from His or Her POV, as "evil." Inasmuch as we have not yet overcome the darker, inertial aspects of our terrestrial nature (all of that within us which is not Buddha-nature, or which naturally gravitates away from spirit), we might be said to be "evil." But the definition is not absolute, nor is our status of incompletion or imperfection in any real way against the Divine Imperative.

Where error and misunderstanding seem to creep in, is in the notion that somehow an erring, sinful Humanity has "run amuck" with respect to the grander, Divine Scheme. And this, I learned long ago, is dead wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth ...

We may find it helpful to invoke such concepts as Karma, Dharma, and Buddha-nature in order to answer the question (or address the "problem") of the nature of evil. But this really only works if we stick to the Buddhist framework/mindset, and too much overlap with the Christian will require the invocation of different terminologies. Christ taught Karma, in the Law of Sowing and Reaping, Cause and Effect. He most certainly preached the importance of our individual, as well as collective Dharma, since to "go about doing the Lord's business" is actually the greatest Service a human being (or collective Humanity) could render! And Christ also emphasized our spiritual potential (not unlike Buddha-nature), and Communed with the Divine in ways which the Apostles were as yet only just beginning to learn ...

But it seems that even the Buddha did not offer to expound fully upon the nature of evil in his public teachings, just as the Christ, also, reserved certain of his doctrines for the ears of the elect. Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, and so we know that ultimately, dukkha comes about through trishna, tanha. Yet desire is not in & of itself a "bad" thing, and in fact, without this thirst or inclination Humanity would never have become Humanity, and we would never have "fallen into generation" to begin with!

Without desire, we would have remained within the realms of pure Spirit, which is fine and lovely and dandy, but this is the condition of un-self-consciousness, and it corresponds to the unhatched egg, or to an embryo, as contradistinct from The Perfected (read matured) Man.

Esoteric Buddhism, as well as Esoteric Christianity, will both refer in varying terminologies to the Divine Spark of our innermost Being (the electric `Jewel' concealed by the Solar Lotus, aka `The Divine Pilgrim, or Prodigal'), which has clothed itself in matter and descended into the worlds of generation and imperfection in order to pursue, through a long series of material embodiments, the experience necessary for self-knowledge.

Couldn't the Divine have simply imparted this to us without making us go through all the rigamarole? Well gee, I dunno, but I should think not! I mean, after all, here we are! Or you could just ask Him, but thus far my own inquiry tells me NO. God doesn't make mistakes as such, yet this is a nice, simple and childish conception of the Divine ... and it denies the very necessary admission that God, too, evolves - develops, strives and attains, and verily moves from relative imperfection to increasing degrees of Divine, Spiritual Perfection ... just as we know we do, on our respective turn of the spiral.

Only THE ABSOLUTE, the UNCONDITIONED Ground of Being, is exempt from this cyclical process, Kalpa after Kapla, Cosmos after Cosmos - World after World - each the incarnation (or `Dream') of the Divine Being. Even the most immediate manifestations to arise from this Great Ground of Being ... are imperfect and incomplete, relative to their Parent SOURCE. And thus, ONLY after the close of a given cycle, when ALL ELSE has been (temporarily) resolved or absorbed back into these first, emanating aspects - can and will the Supreme Logos Himself attain to the goal of FINAL PERFECTION placed before Him, as He too, "like a dewdrop, slips into the shining sea" (a SEA which for us, as for Him, will forever remain DARKNESS and VOID - until that Day of Days, which we call `NIGHT' - or cosmic pralaya).

Then we will know the answer, although there will be neither Knower nor Known, neither Questioner nor Question, neither Answer nor One-Who-Answers ... because NO DUALITY, no Good, no Evil, no dire Heresy of separateness, and no messy situational ethics where baby-killing and father-rape confront the folks on `Group W' bench, resident Earth.


taijasi

[cavalier]

As I wrote before, this is the first time I've used this forum, and I have to say that I'm really bowled over by the experience. Thanks for all the replies, I've got a lot to think on. For now, I think I need to step back a little from this thread and, as I say, think about what's been written. If I don't I can see myself getting a bit tangled up and lost.

Thanks again

[Azure24]

I know this thread is dead but consider this cavalier. Since you are a christian like myself have you ever read Genisis? If you have then you would already know that in the beginning man (as in mankind) was perfect, but then came Samael (the devil) and because we have eaten from the tree of knowledge we have now been brought down to the Devil's level i.e. imperfection. vbmenu_register("postmenu_61503", true);

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Azure24

I know this thread is dead but consider this cavalier. Since you are a christian like myself have you ever read Genisis? If you have then you would already know that in the beginning man (as in mankind) was perfect, but then came Samael (the devil) and because we have eaten from the tree of knowledge we have now been brought down to the Devil's level i.e. imperfection. vbmenu_register("postmenu_61503", true);

Yes, I've read Genesis. The stumbling block is that a perfect God's creation must also be perfect, and therefore impervious to evil.

The only explanations that so far make sense to me, are that evil is not really imperfection, one could even go so far as to say that evil is not really evil. Or that for perfection to actually be perfect it must contain at least the possibility of evil.

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Brian
While I accept that perfection does not have to be free from that which we do not like or socially condemn, surely acts of not liking or condemnation are, in themsleves, imperfections.

My act of not liking Brussels sprouts is an imperfection?

[cavalier]

It is a sign of imperfection. Though whether said imperfection lies with you, or with sprout, I cannot say.

[AletheiaRivers]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Yes, I've read Genesis. The stumbling block is that a perfect God's creation must also be perfect, and therefore impervious to evil.

The only explanations that so far make sense to me, are that evil is not really imperfection, one could even go so far as to say that evil is not really evil. Or that for perfection to actually be perfect it must contain at least the possibility of evil.

You might be interested in reading about "the coincidence of opposites" from Nicholas of Cusa, a medieval scholar and Christian mystic. Google's got tons of info.

[saxa]

What does one mean by the word per-fect?

Originally Posted by cavalier

Vajradhara
excuse me, it was a few years ago that all this took place and my terminology appears to be a little rusty. I didn't mean my original nature, but original nature itself, God, pure being, the nameless void.

So if all is pure and perfect, any acquired conditioning that a consciousness can undergo must also be pure and perfect.

[Dondi]

I think it's quite simple, actually. We just don't know what is for our own good, in our limited capacity. We don't need to learn to be evil, for that comes naturally. But the operation of evil stems from the fact that what we think that what we do is beneficial for us may or may not be beneficial to others. Evil comes from our relationships with other people. We haven't learned to love others as we should, probably for the basic reason that we are selfish to varying degrees, dependent on our upbringing, our make-up, and our environment.

When you think about evil, you are really thinking about good, for you already have that in mind. To say that God isn't good, for He allows evil is missing the point about why He created us in the first place. He created us to choose. And that choice is between good and evil, constantly. But God supplies the Good for He is Perfect Love. How we respond to that Love will depend on the degree of evil present in our lives. Unfortunately for many people, God's Love seems out of reach, for they measure their concept of good and evil, not on God's perfection, but on their own concept of good, which is relative from the absolute, muddied by their experience, make-up, and environment.

What overcomes that evil tendancy is a return to the Source. For if we can only tap into Perfect Love, our lives will be adjusted and tweeked toward the Perfect. Once we know that secret, then we can progress. But because God has given us a choice, we must decide how good or evil we want to be.

[Azure24]

Originally Posted by cavalier

The only explanations that so far make sense to me, are that evil is not really imperfection...

My point exactly cavalier Evil is not imperfection. But to practise it is, in my opinion in the beginning manking was in line with perfect but (a BIG but) perfection is not something you are just born being, to me you have to aquire(become) perfection. But the devil cut that short. Besides perfection is not something that could be made, perfection is something that just is i.e. God and God only otherwise we will all be God.

[cavalier]

Dondi,
As you might remember, I'm not exactly convinced by the idea that God created us to choose, but let's just say you're right. If we have been given a choice, we must be given two or more things to choose between. Here, as you say, it's good and evil. So then, God has given us evil as a viable choice? Our perfect God has given us evil? Even if you take it another way and say that God did not give us evil, God just knew that we would be able to choose evil, then God still had to create us with the capacity for choosing evil.

I'm returned to my notion that either evil is not really evil, or that perfection (you could read God here) must contain at least the capacity for evil.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Azure24

My point exactly cavalier Evil is not imperfection. But to practise it is, in my opinion in the beginning manking was in line with perfect but (a BIG but) perfection is not something you are just born being, to me you have to aquire(become) perfection. But the devil cut that short. Besides perfection is not something that could be made, perfection is something that just is i.e. God and God only otherwise we will all be God.

Your "But to practice it is.." line returns us to the question. Since we agree that people practice evil, we must also agree that there is imperfection. So then, If we are created by a perfect God, where does the imperfection come from?