Problem of evil in Hinduism

Last updated

The standard problem of evil found in monotheistic religions does not apply to almost all traditions of Hinduism because it does not posit an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator. [1] [2]

Contents

Scholars have proposed alternate forms of the problem of evil based on Hinduism's karma and transmigration doctrines. According to Arthur Herman, karma-transmigration theory solves all three historical formulations to the problem of evil while acknowledging the theodicy insights of Adi Shankara and Ramanuja. [3]

Applicability

Hinduism is a complex religion with many different currents or schools. [4] Its non-theist traditions such as Samkhya, early Nyaya, Mimamsa and many within Vedanta do not posit the existence of an almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god (monotheistic god), and the classical formulations of the problem of evil and theodicy do not apply to most Hindu traditions. Further, deities in Hinduism are neither eternal nor omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent. Devas are mortal and subject to samsara. Evil as well as good, along with suffering is considered real and caused by human free will, its source and consequences explained through the karma doctrine of Hinduism, as in other Indian religions. [5] [6] [7]

Both evil (agha, अघ) and suffering (dukkha, दुःख) are extensively discussed in ancient and medieval Hindu texts. [8] [9] [10] However, neither good nor evil, neither bliss nor suffering are linked to gods or god, but considered a part of the innate nature of living in the Saṃsāra cycle of rebirths. [11] In Hindu thought, some suffering is self-caused (karma in this life or past life, either intentionally or from ignorance), some caused by evilness of others, some are natural (aging, disease, natural disasters). [8] [10] [12] Some texts include the actions or influence of supernatural forces on evil experienced by man. One text of the ancient Samkhya school of Hinduism, for example describes three kinds of suffering: first, of body and mind caused by diseases or personal behavior such as anger, greed, delusion, etc.; second, suffering caused by other beings such as men, beasts, reptiles etc.; third, suffering caused by the influence of yaksha, planets and such forces. [12] The Hindu texts describe and discuss suffering caused by both moral evils and natural evils. [12]

Hinduism and other Indian religions do not focus on the problem of evil as formulated in monotheistic religions, by attempting to reconcile the nature of one all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent god with existence of evil. [11] Rather, they focus on the path to spiritual liberation called moksha, one that grants bliss in the present life such that evil and suffering have no effect on the liberated person's state of inner peace and happiness, and attaining moksha also means an end to the cycle of rebirth. [9] [13] [14] In theistic devotional sub-traditions of Hinduism, the personal god such as Krishna or Shiva or Devi is believed by the Hindu to stand by, as a form of spiritual support and liberator, when one faces evil and suffers. [12]

Problem of Injustice in the Brahma sutras

A version of the problem of evil appears in the ancient Brahma Sutras , probably composed between 200 BCE and 200 CE, [15] a foundational text of the Vedanta tradition of Hinduism. [16] Its verses 2.1.34 through 2.1.36 aphoristically mention a version of the problem of suffering and evil in the context of the abstract metaphysical Hindu concept of Brahman. [17] [18] The verse 2.1.34 of Brahma Sutras asserts that inequality and cruelty in the world cannot be attributed to the concept of Brahman, and this is in the Vedas and the Upanishads. In his interpretation and commentary on the Brahma Sutras, the 8th-century scholar Adi Shankara states that just because some people are happier than others and just because there is so much malice, cruelty and pain in the world, some state that Brahman cannot be the cause of the world. [17] Shankara attributes evil and cruelty in the world to Karma of oneself, of others, and to ignorance, delusion and wrong knowledge, [18] but not to the abstract Brahman. [17] Shankara develops the argument that God is not the Brahman, and that "a loving and good God could not have created the universe", a position held by Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism. [19]

For that would lead to the possibility of partiality and cruelty. For it can be reasonably concluded that God has passion and hatred like some ignoble persons... Hence there will be a nullification of God's nature of extreme purity, (unchangeability), etc., [...] And owing to infliction of misery and destruction on all creatures, God will be open to the charge of pitilessness and extreme cruelty, abhorred even by a villain. Thus on account of the possibility of partiality and cruelty, God is not an agent.

—  Adi Shankara, Translated by Arvind Sharma [19]

In other words, in the Brahma Sutras, the formulation of problem of evil is considered a metaphysical construct, but not a moral issue. [18] Ramanuja of the theistic Sri Vaishnavism school – a major tradition within Vaishnavism – interprets the same verse in the context of Vishnu, and asserts that Vishnu only creates potentialities. [17]

According to Swami Gambhirananda, Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life [20] [ page needed ]

Ramanuja of the theistic Sri Vaishnavism school interprets the same verse in the context of Vishnu, and asserts that Vishnu only creates potentialities. [17] According to Arvind Sharma, Shankara's Advaita Vedanta school does not attribute the evil and suffering to the abstract concept of Brahman, but to ignorance, delusion and wrong knowledge. [18] The universe and all existence is without a beginning or end, and Brahman is everything before and after that beginning, before and after the end. [17] Further, in Hindu thought, neither evil nor error are final, all happiness and suffering is impermanent, and truth ultimately triumphs. [18]

Karma doctrine and the problem of evil

The theory of karma refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect). [21] The problem of evil, in the context of karma, has been long discussed in Indian religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, both in its theistic and non-theistic schools; for example, in Uttara Mīmāṃsā Sutras Book 2 Chapter 1; [22] [23] the 8th century arguments by Adi Sankara in Brahmasutrabhasya where he posits that God cannot reasonably be the cause of the world because there exists moral evil, inequality, cruelty and suffering in the world; [24] [25] and the 11th century theodicy discussion by Ramanuja in Sribhasya. [26]

Many Indian religions place greater emphasis on developing the karma principle for first cause and innate justice with Man as focus, rather than developing religious principles with the nature and powers of God and divine judgment as focus. [27] Karma theory of Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism is not static, but dynamic wherein livings beings with intent or without intent, but with words and actions continuously create new karma, and it is this that they believe to be in part the source of good or evil in the world. [28] These religions also believe that past lives or past actions in current life create current circumstances, which also contributes to either. Other scholars [29] suggest that nontheistic Indian religious traditions do not assume an omnibenevolent creator, and some [30] theistic schools do not define or characterize their God(s) as monotheistic Western religions do and the deities have colorful, complex personalities; the Indian deities are personal and cosmic facilitators, and in some schools conceptualized like Plato’s Demiurge. [26] Therefore, the problem of theodicy in many schools of major Indian religions is not significant, or at least is of a different nature than in Western religions. [31]

Dvaita tradition of Vaishnavism

One sub-tradition within the Vaishnavism school of Hinduism that is an exception is dualistic Dvaita, founded by Madhvacharya in the 13th-century. [32] Madhvacharya was challenged by Hindu scholars on the problem of evil, given his dualistic Dvaita Vedanta (Tattvavada) theory that proposed God (Vishnu, supreme soul) and the individual souls (jīvātman) exist as independent realities, and these are distinct. Madhvacharya asserted, Yathecchasi tatha kuru, which Sharma translates and explains as "one has the right to choose between right and wrong, a choice each individual makes out of his own responsibility and his own risk". [33] [34] According to Sharma, "Madhva's tripartite classification of souls makes it unnecessary to answer the problem of evil". [35]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karma</span> Intent and actions of an individual influence the future of that individual

Karma is a concept of action, work or deed, and its effect or consequences. In Indian religions, the term more specifically refers to a principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma, wherein intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect): Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths. As per some scripture, there is no link of rebirths with karma. Karma is often misunderstood as fate, destiny, or predetermination.

Ātman is a Sanskrit word that refers to the (universal) Self or self-existent essence of individuals, as distinct from ego (Ahamkara), mind (Citta) and embodied existence (Prakṛti). The term is often translated as soul, but is better translated as "Self," as it solely refers to pure consciousness or witness-consciousness, beyond identification with phenomena. In order to attain moksha (liberation), a human being must acquire self-knowledge.

<i>Moksha</i> Spiritual liberation, soteriological goal in Hinduism

Moksha, also called vimoksha, vimukti and mukti, is a term in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism for various forms of emancipation, enlightenment, liberation, and release. In its soteriological and eschatological senses, it refers to freedom from saṃsāra, the cycle of death and rebirth. In its epistemological and psychological senses, moksha is freedom from ignorance: self-realization, self-actualization and self-knowledge.

Vedanta, also known as Uttara Mīmāṃsā, is a Hindu philosophical tradition that is one of the six orthodox (āstika) schools of Hindu philosophy. The word "Vedanta" means "end of the Vedas", and encompasses the ideas that emerged from, or were aligned with, the speculations and enumerations contained in the Upanishads, with a focus on knowledge and liberation. Vedanta developed into many sub-traditions, all of which base their ideas on the authority of a common group of texts called the Prasthānatrayī, translated as "the three sources": the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavad Gita.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Advaita Vedanta</span> School of Hindu philosophy; a classic path to spiritual realization

Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu sādhanā, a path of spiritual discipline and experience. In a narrow sense it refers to the oldest extant scholarly tradition of the orthodox Hindu school Vedānta, writing in Sanskrit; in a broader sense it refers to a popular, syncretic tradition, blending Vedānta with other traditions and producing works in vernacular.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hindu philosophy</span> Various systems of thought in Hinduism

Hindu philosophy encompasses the philosophies, world views and teachings of Hinduism that emerged in Ancient India which include six systems (shad-darśana) – Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Mimamsa and Vedanta. In Indian tradition, the word used for philosophy is Darshana, from the Sanskrit root drish.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jaimini</span> Ancient Indian sage, scholar, and Hindu philosopher

Sage Jaimini was an ancient Indian scholar who founded the Mīmāṃsā school of Hindu philosophy. He is considered to be a disciple of Rishi/Sage Veda Vyasa, the son of Parāśara Rishi. Traditionally attributed to be the author of the Mimamsa Sutras and Jaimini Sutras, he is estimated to have lived around 4th to 2nd century BCE. Some scholars place him between 250 BCE and 50 CE. His school is considered non-theistic, but one that emphasized rituals parts of the Vedas as essential to Dharma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jnana yoga</span> One of three classical paths for moksha in Hinduism

Jnana yoga, also known as the jnanamarga, is one of the three classical paths (margas) for moksha (liberation) in Hinduism, which emphasizes the "path of knowledge", also known as the "path of self-realization". The other two are karma yoga and bhakti yoga. Modern interpretations of Hindu texts have yielded systems, techniques and formulations such as raja yoga and kriya yoga.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dvaita Vedanta</span> School of thought in Hinduism

Dvaita Vedanta ;, is a sub-school in the Vedanta tradition of Hindu philosophy. The term Tattvavada literally means "arguments from a realist viewpoint". The Tattvavada (Dvaita) Vedanta sub-school was founded by the 13th-century Indian philosopher-saint Madhvacharya. Madhvacharya believed in three entities: God, jiva (soul), and jada. The Dvaita Vedanta school believes that God and the individual souls (jīvātman) exist as independent realities, and these are distinct, being said that Vishnu (Narayana) is independent (svatantra), and souls are dependent (paratantra) on him.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Madhvacharya</span> Hindu philosopher who founded Dvaita Vedanta school

Madhvacharya, sometimes anglicised as Madhva Acharya, and also known as Purna Prajna and Ānanda Tīrtha, was an Indian philosopher, theologian and the chief proponent of the Dvaita (dualism) school of Vedanta. Madhva called his philosophy Tattvavāda meaning "arguments from a realist viewpoint".

The Brahma Sūtras are a Sanskrit text, attributed to the sages Bādarāyaṇa and Vyāsa, estimated to have been completed in its surviving form in approx. 400–450 CE, while the original version might be ancient and composed between 500 BCE and 200 BCE, with 200 BCE being the most likely date. The text systematizes and summarizes the philosophical and spiritual ideas in the Upanishads. The scholar Adi Shankara's interpretation of the Brahmasutra attempted to synthesize diverse and sometimes apparently conflicting teachings of the Upanishads by arguing, as John Koller states: "that Brahman and Atman are, in some respects, different, but, at the deepest level, non-different (advaita), being identical." This view of Vedanta, however, was not universal in Indic thought, and other commentators later held differing views. It is one of the foundational texts of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy.

<i>Ishvara</i> Hindu epithet

Ishvara is a concept in Hinduism, with a wide range of meanings that depend on the era and the school of Hinduism. In ancient texts of Hindu philosophy, depending on the context, Ishvara can mean supreme Self, ruler, lord, king, queen or husband. In medieval era Hindu texts, depending on the school of Hinduism, Ishvara means God, Supreme Being, personal God, or special Self.

Karma is a concept of Hinduism which describes a system in which beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial actions and harmful effects from past harmful actions, creating a system of actions and reactions throughout a soul's (jivatman's) reincarnated lives, forming a cycle of rebirth. The causality is said to apply not only to the material world but also to our thoughts, words, actions, and actions that others do under our instructions.

<i>Smarta</i> tradition Tradition in Hinduism linked to Advaita Vedanta

The Smartatradition, also called Smartism, is a movement in Hinduism that developed and expanded with the Puranas genre of literature. It reflects a synthesis of four philosophical strands, namely Mimamsa, Advaita, Yoga, and theism. The Smarta tradition rejects theistic sectarianism, and is notable for the domestic worship of five shrines with five deities, all treated as equal – Ganesha, Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu and Surya. The Smarta tradition contrasted with the older Shrauta tradition, which was based on elaborate rituals and rites. There has been a considerable overlap in the ideas and practices of the Smarta tradition with other significant historic movements within Hinduism, namely Shaivism, Brahmanism, Vaishnavism, and Shaktism.

Mandana Mishra was a Hindu philosopher who wrote on the Mīmāṃsā and Advaita systems of thought. He was a follower of the Karma Mimamsa school of philosophy and a staunch defender of the holistic sphota doctrine of language. He was a contemporary of Adi Shankara, and while it is said that he became a disciple of Adi Sankara, he may actually have been the most prominent Advaitin of the two until the 10th century CE. He is often identified with Sureśvara, though the authenticity of this is doubtful. Still, the official Sringeri documents recognises Mandana Mishra as Sureśvara.

The concept of God in Hinduism varies in its diverse traditions. Hinduism spans a wide range of beliefs such as henotheism, monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, pandeism, monism, agnosticism, atheism, and nontheism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sadh Vaishnavism</span> Tradition in Hinduism linked to Dvaita Vedanta

Sadh Vaishnavism, , is a denomination within the Vaishnavism—Bhagavata tradition of Hinduism. Sadh Vaishnavism was founded by thirteenth century philosopher-saint Madhvacharya, who developed the Tattvavada (dvaita) Vedanta sub-school of Hindu philosophy.

<i>Brahman</i> Metaphysical concept, unchanging Ultimate Reality in Hinduism

In Hinduism, Brahman connotes the highest universal principle, the ultimate reality in the universe. In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the immaterial, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, infinite, eternal truth, consciousness and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neo-Vedanta</span> Interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century

Neo-Vedanta, also called Hindu modernism, neo-Hinduism, Global Hinduism and Hindu Universalism, are terms to characterize interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century. The term "Neo-Vedanta" was coined by German Indologist Paul Hacker, in a pejorative way, to distinguish modern developments from "traditional" Advaita Vedanta.

Religious responses to the problem of evil are concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism whose religion is based on such a God. But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.

References

  1. ↑ David Buchta (1879). Matthew R. Dasti and Edwin F. Bryant (ed.). Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in Indian Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 270–276. ISBN   978-0199922758.
  2. ↑ Sabapathy Kulandran and Hendrik Kraemer (2004), Grace in Christianity and Hinduism, James Clarke, ISBN   978-0227172360, pages 177-179
  3. ↑ Arthur Herman, The problem of evil and Indian thought, 2nd Edition, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN   81-20807537, pp. 5 with Part II and III of the book
  4. ↑ John Bowker (1975). Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 194, 206–220. ISBN   978-0-521-09903-5.
  5. ↑ Kaufman, Whitley R. P. (2005). "Karma, Rebirth, and the Problem of Evil". Philosophy East and West. 55 (1): 15–32. doi:10.1353/pew.2004.0044. S2CID   159781530.
  6. ↑ Francis Clooney (2005), in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Ed: Gavin Flood), Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN   0631215352, pages 454-455;
    John Bowker (1975). Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 194, 206–220. ISBN   978-0-521-09903-5.;
    Chad V. Meister (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity. Oxford University Press. pp. 163–164. ISBN   978-0-19-534013-6.
  7. ↑ Francis X. Clooney (1989), Evil, Divine Omnipotence, and Human Freedom: Vedānta's Theology of Karma, The Journal of Religion, Vol. 69, No. 4, pages 530-548
  8. 1 2 Chad V. Meister (2010). The Oxford Handbook of Religious Diversity. Oxford University Press. pp. 163–166. ISBN   978-0-19-534013-6.
  9. 1 2 John Bowker (1975). Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 207–225. ISBN   978-0-521-09903-5.
  10. 1 2 Emily T. Hudson (2013). Disorienting Dharma: Ethics and the Aesthetics of Suffering in the Mahabharata. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–9, 27–46. ISBN   978-0-19-986078-4.
  11. 1 2 Arthur L. Herman (1993). The Problem of Evil and Indian Thought. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 235–241. ISBN   978-81-208-0753-2.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Othmar Gächter (1998). "Evil and Suffering in Hinduism". Anthropos. Bd. 93, H. 4./6. (4/6): 393–403. JSTOR   40464839.
  13. ↑ Arthur L. Herman (1993). The Problem of Evil and Indian Thought. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 235–241, 252–257. ISBN   978-81-208-0753-2.
  14. ↑ Harold Coward (2008). The Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western Thought: The Central Story. State University of New York Press. pp. 102–103. ISBN   978-0-7914-7336-8.
  15. ↑ NV Isaeva (1992), Shankara and Indian Philosophy, State University of New York Press, ISBN   978-0-7914-1281-7, page 36
  16. ↑ James Lochtefeld, Brahman, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing, ISBN   978-0823931798, page 124
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 S Radhakrishnan (1960), Brahmasutras: the philosophy of spiritual life, George Allen, pages 363-365
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 Arvind Sharma (2008). The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason. Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 30–32. ISBN   978-0-271-03946-6.
  19. 1 2 Arvind Sharma (2008). The Philosophy of Religion and Advaita Vedanta: A Comparative Study in Religion and Reason. Pennsylvania State University Press. pp. 23–24. ISBN   978-0-271-03946-6.
  20. ↑ Swami Gambhirananda (1965). Brahma Sutra Bhasya Of Shankaracharya. Vedanta Press & Bookshop. ISBN   978-8175051058.
  21. ↑ Karma Encyclopædia Britannica (2012)
  22. ↑ Francis Clooney (2005), in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism (Editor: Gavin Flood), Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN   0631215352, pp. 454-455
  23. ↑ Francis Clooney (1989), ‘‘Evil, Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom: Vedanta’s theology of Karma, Journal of Religion, Vol. 69, pp 530-548
  24. ↑ P. Bilimoria (2007), Karma’s suffering: A Mimamsa solution to the problem of evil, in Indian Ethics (Editors: Bilimoria et al.), Volume 1, Ashgate Publishing, ISBN   978-0754633013, pp. 171-189
  25. ↑ See Kumarila’s ‘‘Slokavarttika’’; for English translation of parts and discussions: P. Bilimoria (1990), ‘ Hindu doubts about God - Towards a Mimamsa Deconstruction’, International Philosophical Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 481-499
  26. 1 2 P. Bilimoria (2013), Toward an Indian Theodicy, in The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil (Editors: McBrayer and Howard-Snyder), 1st Edition, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN   978-0470671849, Chapter 19
  27. ↑ B. Reichenbach (1998), Karma and the Problem of Evil, in Philosophy of Religion Toward a Global Perspective (Editor: G.E. Kessler), Wadsworth, ISBN   978-0534505493, pp. 248–255
  28. ↑ Yuvraj Krishan (1997). The Doctrine of Karma: Its Origin and Development in Brāhmaṇical, Buddhist, and Jaina Traditions. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. pp. 17–20. ISBN   978-81-208-1233-8.
  29. ↑ Ursula Sharma (1973), Theodicy and the doctrine of karma, ‘‘Man’’, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 347-364
  30. ↑ The Nyaya-Vaisesika school of Hinduism is one of the exceptions where the premise is similar to the Christian concept of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator
  31. ↑ G. Obeyesekere (I968), Theodicy, sin and salvation in a sociology of Buddhism, in Practical religion (Ed. Edmund Leach), Cambridge University Press, ISBN   978-0521055253
  32. ↑ Sarma 2000, pp. 19–21.
  33. ↑ Sharma 1962, p. 361.
  34. ↑ Sharma 1962, p. 270, 370-371.
  35. ↑ Sharma 1962, p. 270,370-371, Quote: The problem of evil and suffering in the world is the most difficult one in Theism. We have explained Madhva's attitude to the allied problem of freedom and freewill, on the basis of the doctrine of natural selection of good or bad and of the tripartite classification of souls. It is not therefore necessary for Madhva to answer the question of the consistency of evil with Divine goodness..

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.