Why did God create evil when he is all-good and why doesn’t he put an end to it when he is all-powerful? – This is a question which many great thinkers have pondered upon and struggled to answer since the ancient times. If God is taken to be a benevolent and omnipotent being, who is the cause of everything, then the existence of evil becomes philosophically problematic. It would mean giving up the very concept of God.

In Greek philosophy, the earliest mention of this ‘problem of evil’ is found in the words of Plato –

“Neither then could God, since he is good, be, as the multitude say, the cause of all things, but for mankind he is the cause of few things, but of many things not the cause. For good things are far fewer with us than evil, and for the good we must assume no other cause than God, but the cause of evil we must look for in other things and not in God.”

More famous is this statement generally attributed to the philosopher, Epicurus –

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Clearly, these are not easy questions to answer. And these are universal questions. This is how even a common man thinks, and, like Epicure, dismisses the existence of God on this basis. If God was really all-powerful, he would have put an end to evil. Since evil persists, there is no use of believing in such an entity.

Philosophers of the west have tried to tackle this age-old dilemma in many different ways but their answers have always been somewhat unsatisfactory. In his book, ‘The Problem of Evil and Indian Thought’, A. L. Hermananalyzed as many as twenty-one such solutions and showed how none of them was adequate to solve the problem of evil.

Actually, to solve the problem of evil, to solve any fundamental philosophical problem for that matter, what is first required is an accurate understanding of the nature of reality. What is God? And what do we exactly mean by evil (and good)? – This has to be clearly understood before trying to understand the relationship between the two. Perhaps, solutions from the west have been unsatisfactory because their understanding of ‘God’ and ‘evil’ itself is not accurate. Perhaps, the answer lies in Vedanta.

In the view of Vedanta, evil or adharma can simply be defined as egoistic action – an action which is undertaken for personal benefit and which disregards the interests of others. No action in itself is good or evil. It is the intent behind the action which matters. Even the so-called good actions like charity can be adharma if done only for personal interest, and even the so-called bad actions like lying can be dharma if done for the benefit of others. Based on the intent of the doer, actions can be categorized as satvic, rajasic,and tamasic.

Here, it becomes necessary to briefly look at the theory of the three gunas. The universe is understood as a coming together of three gunas or constituents – satva (denotes light, purity, tranquillity), rajas (denotes activity), and tamas (denotes darkness) ^[1]. Everything in the universe is understood to be composed of these three gunas ^[2]. All three are evidently necessary and the universe cannot be without any one of them.

Actions are therefore categorized as satvic, rajasic, and tamasic^[3]. Satvic actions are actions in which one’s intent is to not harm others but to fulfill one’s roles and responsibilities towards others. They are not done for any personal gain but only for the common welfare of all. Rajasic actions are based on self-centered desires, in which one’s primary aim is personal gain and the effect of actions on others is a secondary consideration. Tamasic actions are actions which issue out of a complete darkness of mind, in which not only the interests of others but one’s personal welfare may also be disregarded.

Every action can be carried out in these three ways and no action is seen as absolutely good or evil. If the intent behind the action is under the influence of rajas or tamas, then only is it adharma. Now, one may ask, why did God create rajas and tamas at all? As mentioned above, all three gunas are necessary for the universe to be. Darkness is as necessary as light. Activity is as necessary as tranquillity. It is the irresponsible choices made on the level of an individual’s mind which cause adharma.

Each individual is endowed with a free-will. We can choose what to do, what not to do, and how to do it. In every choice we make, we have the freedom to act for helping or hurting others. So, one need not choose to act in the influence of rajas and tamas. But if one chooses rajasic or tamasic action over satvic, one cannot say – why did God cause evil? God, as Ishvara, is only seen to have caused the three gunas, and no guna is in itself good or evil. ^[4]The interplay of the gunas results in various forms and activities and while it is all dependent upon Ishvara, in the sense that none of it can exist without Ishvara, Ishvara is not directly involved in these workings.

It is like someone creates a knife, which is neither good nor bad in itself. It may be used for cutting vegetables or for stabbing someone. In both cases, the existence of knife is because of its creator, but that doesn’t make him responsible for the way it is used.

This idea is brought out in the following verse of the Gita:

ये चैव सात्त्विका भावा राजसास्तामसाश्च ये ।

मत्त एवेति तान्विद्धि न त्वहं तेषु ते मयि ॥७-१२॥

The formations of satva, rajas, and tamas, are from me (i.e. dependent upon me – Ishvara). I am not in them, they are in me (I am not bound by them or subject to them, they are dependent upon me) ^[5] – Gita 7.12

As we can see, the Vedantic vision of Ishvara is very different from the commonly held notions about God. The Abrahamic God is akin to a divine and benevolent male in heaven, an all-powerful entity who is personally managing each and every going-on of the world. But the Vedantic understanding of Ishvara is quite different.

Firstly, Ishvara is not understood as an entity in heaven or in any other place. Ishvara cannot be limited by space and time. Ishvara is the very truth of space and time. Space and time and everything within it is dependent upon Ishvara. So how can Ishvara be an entity within space and time?

The entire universe is seen as an interplay of the laws of nature (the three gunas) and Ishvara is the all-intelligence necessary for such an organized and orderly system. Therefore, the premise that Ishvara is a benevolent entity who is all-goodness is mistaken. Ishvara is neither all-good, nor all-bad, nor part-good part-bad. Ishvara is simply all-intelligence (sarvajña) which is beyond good and evil.

Secondly, while Ishvara is seen as all-power (sarvashaktiman) in Vedanta, it doesn’t mean that Ishvara personally monitors the workings of the universe. Ishvara’s power is to manifest as the natural laws, the three gunas, which then interact and result in various becomings of the universe. Everything in the universe is bound to these natural laws. Ishvara cannot interfere in their natural working. And while there is a provision of avatara in situations of extreme universal imbalance, it doesn’t mean that every time something ‘wrong’ happens, Ishvara will intervene in the natural order.

So, the whole ‘problem of evil’ is not so much of a problem in Vedanta because the assumptions about God on which this problem is based don’t really hold true in the Vedantic view. The question important for Vedanta is why do we choose adharma over dharma? Even though we sense dharma, we end up choosing adharma. Why? This is the question that is more important in Vedanta and this is what Arjuna asks Shri Krishna in the Gita:

अथ केन प्रयुक्तोऽयं पापं चरति पूरुषः ।

अनिच्छन्नपि वार्ष्णेय बलादिव नियोजितः ॥ ३-३६॥

Compelled by what do men commit pāpaṃ (adharma), even if they don’t want to, as if forcefully assigned to it? – Gita 3.36

To which, Krishna gives a simple reply:

काम एष क्रोध एष रजोगुणसमुद्भवः ।

महाशनो महापाप्मा विद्ध्येनमिह वैरिणम् ॥३-३७॥

It is because of (self-centred) desire, and thereafter anger, originating from Rajas. It is all-consuming, the great cause of evil, know it to be the enemy. – Gita 3.37

Krishna points out rajas as the cause of desire. Desire, in the view of Vedanta, is not in itself bad. It is the necessary first step of any and every action – good, as well as, evil. So desire, and its progenitor rajas, is necessary for activity. It is the desires which are self-centred or egoistic, which are about satisfying oneself even at the cost of others – they are the problem.

Such desires are rooted in ignorance about self. In ignorance, one considers oneself as an individual separate from others and tries to find personal happiness and fulfillment in actions. This is because the individual identifies with the body-mind complex and therefore, the primary pursuits in life are about feeding and fulfilling this one entity. This is also why egoistic desires are so compelling. And if one doesn’t get what one wants, there is anger, there is frustration, and one ends up hurting others. All evil, big or small, ensues in this manner.

This has been explained numerous times in the Gita and it is a battle with such egoistic desire which is represented by Mahabharata. Towards the end of the above-mentioned section from chapter 3, Krishna says:

एवं बुद्धेः परं बुद्ध्वा संस्तभ्यात्मानमात्मना ।

जहि शत्रुं महाबाहो कामरूपं दुरासदम् ॥३-४३॥

Thus, with the intellect knowing the highest (truth) and becoming free from the hold of mind and senses, defeat desire, the indomitable enemy. – Gita, 3.43

The aim of life is to know the truth about oneself, to know that I am not limited to this body-mind complex, I am not a mortal being hanging onto actions for my fulfillment, I am much more than this. The aim of life is to overcome self-ignorance and know the truth about oneself. We need to let go of our sense of separation from others and embrace unconditional, all-encompassing oneness. Only this knowledge can free us from evil, and our suffering.

——————————————————————–

References

[1] Bhagavada Gita 14.6-8

[2] Bhagavada Gita 18.40

[3] Bhagavada Gita 18.23-25

[4] Vyavaharika i.e. empirical view of reality in Vedanta

[5] Based on Śāṃkarabhāṣya of the verse