Monday Morning Greetings 2018 #13 – Believers and the Elephant in the Room: Tackling the Challenge of Evil

March 26th, 2018

At the age of twenty-one Jeff, my youngest cousin, was mercilessly beaten to death by the local police in a Midwest jail for no reason. His crime: He had asthma and was Jewish. From what the family could gather, it was Jeff’s first day of law school and due to his asthma, he sat near the window in the library to help with his breathing. When the school librarian told him to move because the window seats were reserved for upperclassmen, he refused due to his health and out of principle; the place was nearly empty. When he repeatedly denied the librarian’s demands she summoned the local police. They eagerly hauled off this city boy from Los Angeles to jail, and unfortunately he never again saw the light of day again. He died in jail. His parents and his three older sisters, who loved Jeff practically more than their own lives, were devastated. This sort of suffering and loss is all too common in this world. And it leads us to consider the elephant in the room for theistic belief, sometimes called the problem of evil. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why then when He knows about it, has the power to do something about it, and is supremely good does he allow such cruelty to continue? The existence of evil thus logically contradicts the existence of God. Or does it? Below is my attempt at theodicy: answering the challenge that if God exists, why does He permit evil?

 

Explanation I: One good argument doesn’t necessarily prove one’s point. One must weigh the cumulative evidence or arguments.

 

There may be very strong evidence or argument that one has committed murder, but that is not enough to convict a person. There also may be very strong arguments that one is innocent. The jury must come to a fair conclusion based on the cumulative evidence. Similarly, the argument against God from the reality of evil is a strong argument, but to come to a fair conclusion one must weigh the cumulative evidence. I would posit that the arguments for God’s existence are very strong, stronger than the problem of evil. Just one of the arguments below called “Monkey on a Typewriter”:

 

It is more probable that a monkey on a typewriter by chance produced the complete works of William Shakespeare or the Encyclopedia Britannica than this world happens by chance. And if you think about it, as I write this very article, every word scribed that fits into a sentence, or anything in the world that moves with reason or order, at every second increases exponentially the improbability that this world has happened by chance. And if the probability of the world having arisen by chance is as close to nil as mathematically possible and ever increasingly so, then the account of the world wherein God creates it has far more power to explain the nature of the world than the denial of God and its consequent randomness. Therefore, the argument by evil, although strong, cannot in itself establish the verdict that God does not exist.

 

Explanation II: The argument for evil itself proves the existence of God.

 

By recognizing the existence of evil we are acknowledging that objective moral values exist, which seems to far more point to the existence of God than to deny His existence. If everything ultimately is just particles of matter moving randomly then on what basis can any action be judged moral, and if everything is deterministic how can anyone be held morally accountable? In other words, our capacity to deem something genuinely good or morally evil requires an acknowledgement of something transcendent that is morally meaningful (God), otherwise moral judgments, even concerning the most horrendous actions, become reduced to subjective expressions of cultural conditioning or personal preference simply based on chance and consequent evolution. Even the most hardened atheists shudder to fully embrace the consequence of atheism where even the most horrendous actions are deterministic and not objectively wrong. Therefore the existence of evil, rather than denying God, points to His existence.

 

Explanation III: The acceptance of free will includes the choice for evil.

 

Love, which is the supreme ethic, requires freedom and thus the possibility of wrong choice—even evil. Thus rather than evil negating the possibility of God, evil affirms God’s existence because it is a world of humanity and not compliant or forced “good”. Simply put, God allows sin (moral evil) at the cost of freedom and that is His perfection. There are many reasonable arguments, both simple and complex, by substantial religionists and philosophers that deal with this train of response to the problem of evil. They are a little beyond the scope of this paper, but I recommend researching them. [1]

 

Although there is some weight to the argument of free will, I can also conceive some challenges to the argument by a conception of an all-powerful God who somehow is able to create a free choice and consequent love without the possibility for evil,[2] which is why I like the argument given by Leibniz as a complimentary one. It follows.

 

Explanation IV: The world God created is the best possible of all worlds.[3]

 

Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura gave a similar reason to one posited above by Leibniz. He argued that God would not be complete as the enjoyer of all energies if He didn’t also have the experience of exchanging with the material energy. On the surface, this argument may make God look self-serving or callous, but I think there is a sense to it that I would purport as follows: The material world allows for the beauty of compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and the special flavor of a soul’s personal triumph over suffering that enhances God’s manifestation rather than contradicts His existence.

 

Explanation V: Soul-making theodicy and the law of karma. [4]

 

Evil only negates the existence of God if you look at the world from the very selfish perspective of affirming God’s goodness only when it serves our enjoyment and control. Judging God in that way is like a spoiled child evaluating his parent’s character based on the rewards and punishments he receives. In a similar way, evil and suffering is best understood by looking at the world from God’s perspective, which judges what is ultimately good, not what superficially rewards or punishes. In traditional Indian thought this perspective falls under the conception of the law of karma, which sees and even tries to prove that whatever happens to one, even if painful, are perfect conditions created by God to rectify one’s behavior for the purpose of everlasting joy. At least one serious about spiritual life should be able to connect the trials and tribulations in one’s life to his or her personal growth and then to project that onto the world. Evil does not therefore a priori negate the existence of God’s benevolence. It is a tough pill to swallow, but all traditional Indian philosophies, even if they disagree fundamentally on many core points, agree on this one: There is a moral force called the law of karma that is Absolute and ultimately good, even when one is on the receiving end of cruelty.

 

Explanation VI: Humility

 

It is one thing to equate suffering with growth and renewal, but what about pointless suffering? Does not pointless suffering challenge the existence of God? Bhīṣmadeva answered a similar question when enlightening Yudhiṣṭhira. I like his answer from a traditional Indian philosophical perspective: “No one can understand the inexplicable will of the Lord.”[5] As we have been entangled in this world since time immemorial, it is not possible to estimate our level of misconception and what it takes for the Lord to enlighten us. I think anyone on a genuine spiritual path cannot help but be amazed at the sheer number of constant and unending painful life lessons that one has endured that have helped expand one’s present awareness, lessons that one had absolutely no ability to comprehend at the time they occurred. So basically the answer to seemingly pointless suffering is to humbly accept that we lack the capacity to understand what we need, or to fully ever understand God’s will.

 

The elephant in the room—the problem of evil: Acknowledge it. Confront it. The theistic conclusion still stands.

 

 


[1] Alvin Plantinga’s summary of his argument for free will: A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren’t significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

[2] In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism we have the concept of Śrī Rādhā and her eternal associates, who are the embodiment of the highest love, but have no choice of choosing evil.

[3] Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz, 17th century German Philosopher

[4] John Hick developed what is called “soul-making” theodicy in which he argued that God allows evil and suffering in the world in order to develop humans into virtuous creatures capable of following His will.

[5] Bhāg. 1.9.16

Monday Morning Greetings 2018 #12 – Is Preaching a Bad Word?

March 19th, 2018

The word “preaching” today comes off so condescending, haughty, and intrusive. Frankly, I am preacher. I cringe a bit when I say that.

 

Unfortunately, words carry the baggage of the history of their application. To make a fair judgment on a word and its meaning, thoughtful people rise above their prejudices. In other words, just as we should judge a person as he or she is and not by some generalization based on some predisposition, the thoughtful also approach emotionally laden words and concepts like “preaching” without bias. So what is the “non-prejudicial” meaning of “preaching” and how should we fairly judge its use?

 

Preaching means to advocate a cause or course of action, often in terms of religious ideas. Certainly there is nothing wrong per se with that. It depends on the validity of the cause and how it is presented. Charlatans and egoists may preach and give the name a bad taste, but the compassionate also advocate or preach a cause vigorously.

 

Actually, I was inspired to clarify these points when someone inquired about something he read that spoke disparagingly about preaching in Śrīla Prabhupāda’s mission. Let me continue this discussion about the word “preaching” with my answers to his questions:

 

Is Krishna consciousness in its traditional sense a preaching mission?

 

The external cause for Śrī Caitanya’s descent, external here meaning the reason why He came for others, was to promote Krishna consciousness. He therefore requested some of His leading followers to preach widely. For example, he instructed Śrī Nityānanda that his main mission was to give Krishna consciousness to others without restriction and implored Śrī Advaita to “give Krishna consciousness, devotion to Krishna, even to the lowest of men [caṇḍālas]” (Cc. Madhya-līlā 2.15.41).[1] In other words, He engaged them in His preaching mission and they proceeded to go door-to-door imploring others to take up their cause. So yes, a major part of Śrī Caitanya’s mission was to preach according to its classical meaning, advocating a religious or spiritual cause.

 

Is opening temples and book distribution preaching in the traditional sense?

 

Śrī Caitanya sent those who are now known as the Six Gosvāmīs from Bengal to establish Śrī Vṛndāvana as a base to promote His mission by among other things constructing significant temples there. They weren’t sitting in Vṛndāvana just chanting and giving classes. They were working vigorously to push on Śrī Caitanya’s mission. [2]

 

Mass book distribution as we know it did not exist at the time of Lord Caitanya because the printing press had only been relatively recently invented. Books in India were still being handwritten by the author and, if desired, then copied. We do know, however, that after Lord Caitanya, Narottama and Śrīnivāsa made great effort to bring the books of the Gosvāmīs from Vṛndāvana to Bengal to see to their distribution. So, certainly book distribution is part of our tradition. I can’t imagine how the great stalwarts in our tradition wouldn’t laud the mass distribution of that knowledge, as long as it was done thoughtfully, especially when the books that are being distributed today have commentaries geared to a greater audience.

 

Is it wrong for a preacher to impose themselves on others?

 

When Śrīnivāsa and Narottama distributed books it was for the edification of the people already in the tradition, not for others. Should books also be used as a tool for conversion? It’s a principle of Lord’s Caitanya’s mission that Krishna consciousness should be spread and that the teachings of the Bhāgavatam should be shared widely.[3] Exactly how to do that may somewhat vary according to the teacher. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta and Śrīla Prabhupāda especially stressed the distribution of books and as a result the mission of Śrī Caitanya has spread exponentially. How can anyone question the fundamental basis of what they accentuated?

 

As far as aggressively imposing Krishna consciousness on others, a devotee should be a perfect gentlemen and always sensitive to others. A principle of devotional service, however, is to show compassion to the innocent. When one sees people suffering due to ignorance, there is nothing wrong with tactfully pushing them a bit for education. In fact, sitting back and not actively doing something in the face of suffering and chaos can also be condemned. The famous quote by Edmund Burke comes to mind: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

One more thing: While I think is fine to be somewhat fervent in sharing one’s knowledge for people to consider, I do not appreciate when it is done carelessly and aggressively, and it then comes to the point of confronting people with conversion.

 

Is preaching for everyone or just for those mature and spiritually advanced?

 

Although everyone should try to share what they understand according to their realization and also for the purpose of deepening their own realization, obviously those who are educated and mature best represent the tradition. At the beginning of the Krishna consciousness movement practically all its members were young, ex-hippies and full of passion. There was also no educational system in place to train them thoroughly, so there was little or no choice about who represented ISKCON. There is no excuse now to not properly educate people acting on behalf of the movement. I see such education is now being offered. Irrespective, it doesn’t negate the over-all value of participating according to one’s capacity, and in a dignified way, in Śrī Caitanya’s “preaching” mission.

 

Is preaching one of the sixty-four items of devotional service?

 

Yes, the first principle of devotional service is “guru-pādāśraya” and the fifth item is “following in the footsteps of the previous ācāryas”, so if one’s guru requests one to preach Krishna consciousness following in the footsteps of Lord Nityānanda, then certainly preaching is an item of devotional service. Preaching is a very broad category and most of the items fall directly or indirectly within the sixty-four items of devotional service, especially kīrtana.

 

It should also be noted that saṅkīrtana, chanting loudly with others, is especially lauded by Śrī Jīva because “those chanting loudly are not only benefitting themselves, but also other living entities”,[4] so not only is preaching within the umbrella of devotional service, when done properly it is specifically praised for its compassion and selflessness.

 

The main principle of devotional service is to remember Krishna and never forget Him. The spiritual master is expert at finding the ways and means to do so. ISKCON has shown that a preaching mission is an excellent way to engage masses of people in devotional service. Anyone who has made that sacrifice knows the level of absorption needed to put oneself on the line to properly share spiritual knowledge and to give the holy name, and also the exhilaration of doing so. Yes, it can be intrusive and abused for prestige or done with the wrong attitude, but sincerely advocating a worthy cause that enlightens others is praiseworthy even if done faultily. Those who actively criticize such endeavors fall prey to being hypocrites, not because they critically look at something, but because of the fervor in which they use media to actively advocate or “preach” their cause. As Pogo [5] aptly commented, “We have met thy enemy and he is us.”

 


[1] Śrī Caitanya’s instructions to preach are repeated throughout the Caitanya-caritāmṛta. There are numerous examples and they are not just to his intimate associates. In South India he not only told Kūrma the brāhmaṇa to become qualified and preach message of Krishna, but it is described that he spoke this same way to every person he met on his tour of South India.

[2] “Yes you remember rightly. Gosvamis did lot of work. To build a temple even now is not a simple thing. Imagine doing it when there were no roads here, no people, no labor, no material for construction. And that was not the end of it. To maintain a temple is even a bigger responsibility. With all this they wrote books. Even to get paper they needed some real help.” (letter, Bajaji Satyanaryan Dasa to Dhanurdhara Swami, March 14, 2018)

[3] yāre dekha, tāre kaha ‘kṛṣṇa’-upadeśa āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra’ ei deśa

Translation: “Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa as they are given in the Bhagavad-gītā and Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land.” (Cc. Madhyalīlā 7.128)

[4] Bhakti Sandarbha 269 by Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī

[5] Famous cartoon strip by Walter Kelly lasting from mid-Forties to mid-Seventies

 

Monday Morning Greetings 2018 #11 – A Fifth Commandment Solution to a Second Amendment Problem

March 12th, 2018

I was disturbed to hear about the recent school shootings in Florida and the epidemic of school shootings in general. I can’t imagine the pain of a mother burying her own child. I don’t have much to add to the debate on the immediate solution, but the liberality that assault weapons are accessible seems absurd. Obviously, something must be done. Although some form of legislation is needed to help alleviate this endemic problem, I can’t help but think that there is something more deeply amiss at the root that will not be solved by Second Amendment legislation—the increasing widespread frustration in American youth inevitably expressed in some form of destruction no matter their weapon of choice. In saying this, I do not intend to minimize the fact that the damage of that destructive urge can be exponentially increased by one’s weapon of choice, just voicing my concern that the root of the problem should not be neglected and that a comprehensive solution must include and prioritize what I call a “Fifth Commandment Solution”.
 
The Fifth Commandment, of course, states simply “Honor thy father and mother.” I call the pervasiveness of mass shootings a “Fifth Commandment Problem” to highlight that a culture that does not sufficiently focus on and safeguard the influence and importance of the family in the lives of its children will produce a society bursting with resentment and prone to violence regardless of whether guns are restricted or schools become armed fortresses. Krishna voiced similar concerns about the destabilization of family and its effect on society thousands of years ago in the Bhagavad-gītā, specifically referring to what happens to society when the men in the family are lost due to war. [1]
 
Unfortunately today we are seeing in full force what Krishna foresaw in terms of the effect of fatherless families, not due to war, as was Krishna’s concern, but instead due to the general degradation of dharma itself, where the grave duty to properly shelter one’s offspring is selfishly minimized or neglected. This level of irresponsibility in relation to family is a relatively new phenomenon as is the astronomical spike in mass shootings, practically one a day since the New Year. [2]  Can anyone doubt there is a correlation?
 
I was inspired to do a bit of quick research to support this connection. Here are just a few of the things highlighting this unfortunate parallel between the degradation of cultural norms and school violence that I found, beginning with a description of a reputable university sponsored project that researches the matter:
 
“The Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, Brad Wilcox, pointed out in 2013 that nearly every U.S. school shooting that year involved a young male whose parents either divorced or never married in the first place. ‘[A]s the nation seeks to make sense of these senseless shootings, we must also face the uncomfortable truth that turmoil at home all too often accounts for the turmoil we end up seeing spill onto our streets and schools,’ he wrote in his article “Sons of Divorce, School Shooters.” ‘The social scientific evidence about the connection between violence and broken homes could not be clearer.’” [3]
 
Dr. Warren Farrell, The author of “Boys in Crisis” discusses this same correlation:
 
“[…] boys with significant father involvement are not doing these shootings. Without dads as role models, boys’ testosterone is not well channeled. The boy experiences a sense of purposelessness, a lack of boundary enforcement, rudderlessness, and often withdraws into video games and video porn. At worst, when boys’ testosterone is not well channeled by an involved dad, boys become among the world’s most destructive forces. When boys’ testosterone is well channeled by an involved dad, boys become among the world’s most constructive forces.”
 
The absence of parental influence in children’s lives is not the only contributing factor to societal ills. The devaluation of motherhood can also have a profound effect. In this regard, I was recently sent an interview with Erica Kosimar, a psychoanalyst, concerning her book Being There: Why Prioritizing Motherhood in the First Three Years Matters. Here is an excerpt about her book:
 
“It’s a problem in our society that all mothers and babies can’t be together for the first year. Our society tells women, ‘Go back to work,’ ‘Do what you want. They’ll be ok.’ And the truth is, children are not ok.
 
The book is basically about a devaluing of mothering in society. I was seeing a devaluing of mothering that was impacting children in my parent guidance practice. I was actually seeing an epidemic level of mental disorders [emphasis mine] in very young children who were being diagnosed and medicated at an earlier and earlier age, and I became concerned. And so I started looking at the research, which backed up what I was seeing in my practice—that the absence of mothers on a daily basis in children’s lives was impacting their mental health.” [4]
 
Broken families across America are producing mentally disturbed and violent children at a rapidly increasing rate. Certainly the liberality to which such people have access to weapons and the level of those weapons’ destructiveness is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed immediately, but ultimately more than anything else America has a “Fifth Commandment Problem.”
 


[1] Bg. 1.39

[2] https://www.massshootingtracker.org/

[3] https://www.thetrumpet.com/16925-another-school-shooter-another-fatherless-child

[4] https://nypost.com/video/working-moms-are-producing-mentally-ill-children-says-author/

 
 

Monday Morning Greetings 2018 #10 – Spiritual Fear

March 5th, 2018

My chanting yesterday was exceptionally clear and focused, at least for me. I couldn’t understand why. I woke up in the morning much later than my scheduled time, which upset my regulation. There was nothing of particular note the previous day that should have inspired such devotion. That my meditation was concentrated seemed like mercy. As I continued chanting, the holy name became increasingly prominent in my consciousness. I became the observer and saw myself clearly. I could perceive my insignificance in relation to God in the form of His name. I was humbled and the taste of devotion deepened further, but I became halted by a subtle fear: “I am praying for the consciousness to chant with more taste and that means deepening my humility, but what if God answered my prayers and gave me the humility to accept His will? Could I truly allow the authority of guru and Krishna to fully be the rule of my life? What would I have to give up? What would I have to accept? Am I ready to cross the wall of false ego and totally surrender my selfish desire for independence and control at the lotus feet of Śrī Krishna?” I shuddered at the thought.
 
We are all stalled in our spiritual life by a type of fear, at least subtly or unconsciously, otherwise why would we not immediately take the plunge of full surrender to Krishna? But why hesitate? Surrender, in terms of spiritual life, simply means yielding or submitting to the reign of truth. Isn’t truth that which men and women of character die for and what sets one free? Is not the goal of life to see the truth and live by it? The Absolute Truth is reasonable, compassionate, and only for our benefit, so why fear humbly serving that truth simply because it doesn’t conform to all our attachments or endorse our ego?
 
These feelings of apprehension are so innate that we may even envy the authority of those capable of guiding us towards our ultimate welfare, fearing that our independence will be cramped. Krishna therefore cautions us about resenting the ācārya, one who knows and represents the truth.
 
“One should know the ācārya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him [emphasis mine], thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.” (Bhāg. 11.17.27)
 
This morning I was somewhat satisfied with my chanting. At least I reached the next step—confronting the wall of false ego that fears losing power and control, the very barrier we all must cross to go deeper at every proceeding level of our spiritual life. I am praying for the courage to sincerely stretch my hands above my head and unconditionally shout to Krishna from the bottom of my heart, “What you want I will do!” Unless our chanting sincerely brings us to that point of surrender, how will the pure holy name ever manifest on our tongue?