Natural Evils
Wed, 01/30/2008 - 12:50 — admin
MICHAEL: But free will certainly cannot explain the suffering caused by non-moral evils, such as earthquakes, tidal waves, droughts, and other natural catastrophes, can it? It also can’t explain the suffering of the guiltless and the innocent. How, for example, is the suffering of a babe, or the lifelong misery one must endure due to a birth defect, to be explained? Where is the question of responsibility due to free will, when one suffers even before he has had an opportunity to exercise that will or to act?
TEACHER: If we are to mistakenly consider a person to be identical with his or her body, and to further consider that that person came into being only at the moment of birth or conception, then this argument would appear to be a valid one. On the other hand, if one understands that the living being is actually different from the temporary material body, and exists prior to the formation in the womb and subsequent birth of the present body,6 then it is not at all difficult to understand that it is possible for a person to be personally responsible for the results of activities performed in a previous state of existence, and to bear that responsibility in the form of suffering experienced during the lifetime of the present body.7
This is called the law of karma. The law of karma means that a person reaps what he sows. The Vedic teachings of India declare to us that an individual is responsible for the experiences which he causes others to experience in the course of his own pursuit of pleasure, and that he must experience as retribution an equally proportionate amount of the good and bad experiences that he has put others through. Birth in a rich or poor, or pious or impious family is described in the Bhagavad-gita as being a direct result of our previous activities.8 Thus, if a person suffers from a birth defect or childhood disease, it means that he is reaping from the beginning of the present life that which he has previously sown.
MICHAEL: I had not thought of it in terms of the law of karma, but this seems to provide a satisfactory explanation. But if God is merciful and absolutely powerful, why does He have to use suffering as a form of punishment for the misuse of free will? Certainly He could have made us a jolly bunch, and if we were to act wrongly, the mere diminishment of pleasure would be a reminder in itself that something was amiss.9 This same question may also be asked in connection with physical pain, the warning system which protects us from destroying or damaging our bodies through negligence or accident. It is by pain that I draw my hand away from the fire. Were there no such thing as pain, I might leave my hand there and, after some time, discover when reaching for a cup that nothing remained but a charred stub! Thus, pain can help me. But couldn’t God have made it so that the same protection could be accomplished through a decrease in pleasure? Say, for example, that every part of my body were tingling with constant orgasmic pleasure, but that suddenly in my hand I noticed the pleasure beginning to subside-couldn’t I then pull my hand away from the fire and save it from being burned? Would this not be better for the living beings than the punishment of pain and suffering?
There is nothing more dangerous to real religion than fanatics who seek to lord over others by force in the name of God.Natural Evils
Science of Identity Foundation – Siddhaswarupananda
MICHAEL: But free will certainly cannot explain the suffering caused by non-moral evils, such as earthquakes, tidal waves, droughts, and other natural catastrophes, can it? It also can’t explain the suffering of the guiltless and the innocent. How, for example, is the suffering of a babe, or the lifelong misery one must endure due to a birth defect, to be explained? Where is the question of responsibility due to free will, when one suffers even before he has had an opportunity to exercise that will or to act?
TEACHER: If we are to mistakenly consider a person to be identical with his or her body, and to further consider that that person came into being only at the moment of birth or conception, then this argument would appear to be a valid one. On the other hand, if one understands that the living being is actually different from the temporary material body, and exists prior to the formation in the womb and subsequent birth of the present body,6 then it is not at all difficult to understand that it is possible for a person to be personally responsible for the results of activities performed in a previous state of existence, and to bear that responsibility in the form of suffering experienced during the lifetime of the present body.7
This is called the law of karma. The law of karma means that a person reaps what he sows. The Vedic teachings of India declare to us that an individual is responsible for the experiences which he causes others to experience in the course of his own pursuit of pleasure, and that he must experience as retribution an equally proportionate amount of the good and bad experiences that he has put others through. Birth in a rich or poor, or pious or impious family is described in the Bhagavad-gita as being a direct result of our previous activities.8 Thus, if a person suffers from a birth defect or childhood disease, it means that he is reaping from the beginning of the present life that which he has previously sown.
MICHAEL: I had not thought of it in terms of the law of karma, but this seems to provide a satisfactory explanation. But if God is merciful and absolutely powerful, why does He have to use suffering as a form of punishment for the misuse of free will? Certainly He could have made us a jolly bunch, and if we were to act wrongly, the mere diminishment of pleasure would be a reminder in itself that something was amiss.9 This same question may also be asked in connection with physical pain, the warning system which protects us from destroying or damaging our bodies through negligence or accident. It is by pain that I draw my hand away from the fire. Were there no such thing as pain, I might leave my hand there and, after some time, discover when reaching for a cup that nothing remained but a charred stub! Thus, pain can help me. But couldn’t God have made it so that the same protection could be accomplished through a decrease in pleasure? Say, for example, that every part of my body were tingling with constant orgasmic pleasure, but that suddenly in my hand I noticed the pleasure beginning to subside-couldn’t I then pull my hand away from the fire and save it from being burned? Would this not be better for the living beings than the punishment of pain and suffering?