Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is there such a thing as evil ?
zidangus
Veteran
I have noticed that the word evil pops up a lot when I am reading Buddhist literature and it got me thinking of if there is such a thing as evil. For me the word evil and its meaning brings back memories of my time as a catholic as a way of explaining actions that would not be approved by the church or indeed God. However my interpretation of these kinds of actions would now be considered unskillful and not evil. By this I mean they person doing such actions do not fully understand that the consequences of their actions, that they bring suffering onto them self in this life and future lifes. For example a person who kills another sentient being in my view is not evil, they are just misguided, ignorant and deluded about the purpose of their life and about karma and the consequences of their actions. For sure they will suffer for their actions, but it is the suffering that all of us have been through in our past liefs in samsara, and until a being finds the Buddhist path they will always act in unskillful ways.
So I am surprised that the word evil is used a lot in Buddhist literature and not the word unskillful.
So I am surprised that the word evil is used a lot in Buddhist literature and not the word unskillful.
0
Comments
It is never the person who is the evil one but rather the delusions.
What have you been reading? I don't feel like I've read much where the word evil was used excessively. I think it might depend on the translation, subject, the context of its use, etc.
What is the problem of evil? or religion? or afterlife? or God? Many people get into Buddhism like this: they disagree with the church and force themselves to believe that Buddhism agrees with them in every way. They expect monks not to be bigots, fellow buddhists not to be irrational (i.e. disagree with them), they expect every little thing in the texts to be directly perceivable by them, and so on. It is like a person who got tired of being labeled wrong and wants to be right all the time.
If you go into Buddhism with that attitude it won't help you much. Why? Because you will be distorting it to create your own path, where certain words and beliefs and behaviors are forbidden\allowed in disagreement with the sutras. In other words, you will be walking your own path, and not the one the Buddha set out, just like you have been doing up to this point. You need to have some faith (yes, I used the F word, now people are gonna gang on me) in the teachings.
As for disagreeing with the church, I actually admire the church in a lot of ways, of course I don't agree with a lot of things they teach ( I am a Buddhist) .
I do not force myself into beliving that Buddhism agrees with me in every way either in fact it is the opposite. I try to study Buddhist teachings logically and make my on conclusions via common sense. And there are many occassions where my opinion has changed through Buddhist techings. So in effect I can say I have actually changed my lifestyle and thinking because of Buddhism, not changed Buddhism to suit my own beliefs. I try to follow the Buddhist path as best I can. But I am not a Buddha, and the majority of Buddhists are not Buddha's and so we all are unskillful in our actions in some form so I dont as you say expect monks not to be bigots etc etc It is the actions that people take that forms my opinion of them not their label (i.e monk etc etc) What I do believe is that I and I am sure most Buddhist try to follow the teachings of Buddha, not through blind faith, but a combination of faith and logic.
metta to all
In the texts I've read where evil is used, it is pretty clear on closer examination that it is not depicting supreme mystical forces, such as Christian or Judaic notions of "EVIL", but the polarity between actions which have merit or demerit. Namely actions that lead into suffering or actions that lead toward liberation. The word itself is a little different than unskillful, but I think noticing that on many occasions they could be interchanged is great. I take it you don't like the word evil, does it bother you?
With warmth,
Matt
Again does anyone know if this word was used first in Buddhism or was it first used by other religions and then kind of picked up by Buddhist scholars.
metta to all
Philosophically speaking, Buddhism is basically empirical and pragmatic in nature. Things like 'good' and 'evil' aren't really given any sort of ontological status in the suttas.
For example, in regard to actions, bad actions are deemed 'bad' or 'unskillful' if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both. Good actions, on the other hand, are deemed 'good' or 'skillful' if they don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61). In other words, these are descriptive labels that are limited to observable qualities and experiences (adjectives), not self-existent entities (nouns).
In the context of actions (kamma), the Pali term kusala, often translated as 'skillful' or 'wholesome,' basically means that which is not conducive to harm and pain, but to benefit and pleasure (AN 2.19). It denotes doing something well, such as in the case of playing a lute (see AN 6.55). The Pali term akusala (composed of the negative prefix a- + kusala), often translated as 'unskillful' or 'unwholesome,' basically means the opposite, or that which is not conducive to benefit and pleasure, but to harm and pain.
The Pali word that's usually translated as 'evil' is papa, which can also be translated as 'bad,' 'demerit' or 'wrong action' depending on the context. It seems to me that papa has a stronger, more negative connotation than akusala, but they are more or less synonymous.
Can any of us say with any certainty that the actions that these people have taken were not the same actions we may have taken ourself in previouse lifes ? If our life force has been here since beginingless time then is it not fair to suggest that most beings still in samsara must have commited acts which you call evil at some time or other.
In this sense I think it is better to use unskillfulness instead of evil. Because the person who does actions such as these is using his life in an unskillful way, they continue to fall into the same traps which keep beings in samsara and hence there is nothing evil about it, it is just plane and simple ignorance concerning the four noble truths.
The Buddhist path effectively didn't exist for Jack in London in the 19th century. It also could be that even in full knowledge of the consequences people yield to most appalling impulses.
Maybe I was an evil SOB in another life. Can't rule it out.
Jeffery Dahmer had sex with decapitated bodies then ate their hearts. Now it may be just a matter of opinion here, but "Unskillful" seems to fall short in describing such acts. It is pretty unskillful, that can't be denied. It is just that there are certain violations of other human beings, certain unspeakable willful cruelties that IMO warrant the word "Evil". This is not saying that there is a force called evil, there is no such thing, but just a certain category of behaviour that fits the bill.
So you are saying that you do not like to use words such as unskillful to describe such acts because they fall short in fully describing the horror of such acts. This is fine but why does a person do such acts ? is it because as you say they are evil or is it because they are ignorant and misguided in their actions ? I have to say the latter. Every murderer there has been in the history of human civilization is a Human being, they were not born murderers, their actions originate from nothing more than living a life of ignorance and delusions. I fully believe that if they were exposed to the Dharma and showed faith in it, they would not commit such actions you call evil. I have and you have the potential to create immense bad karma, so what stops us ? We know that it is wrong to do such things ,we know the consequences of our actions, we have knowledge and faith in the Dharma. So instead we use our potential to create good karma and for the exact same reasons we avoid bad karma. So we are skillful in our actions and life. All I am saying is that people who commit such crimes are misguided and ignorant but not evil, evil is a buzz word with a lot of baggage surrounding it from other religions and is used to make people feel better when they read and talk about people who commit such crimes and when the word evil is used it can create a feeling of hatred towards the person who committed such crimes, this is not the kind of feeling I wish to have towards anyone. For me the word evil completely misrepresents the fundamental reason why the person actually did the unskillful act in the first place and that is IGNORANCE to the FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS. And this is why I myself prefer to use the word unskillful.
metta to all
exactly. In most human societies Jack the Ripper would be considered "evil" because of the general moral consensus, Buddhist or otherwise, that being a murderer is bad. However if there were no other people or beings and Jack the ripper would live by himself on the moon, would he still be "evil" or do evil things if there would be no one around to assign him that label? (of course if no one was around he wouldn't be able to murder so maybe he'll work on sabbaths or drive through the red lights on the moon
I don't know what "they are evil" means. Being evil doesn't mean anything. There are certain acts that are so contrary to every common value, Buddhist or otherwise, that "evil" is used.The word can be abused for example when a leader dehumanizes an enemy by labeling them Evil and therefore worth killing. But scrubbing the word from our language smacks of a certain denial IMO. We can behave in "evil" ways, enter into "evil" states. It is part of what we are.
When my wife and I saw that man and said "he is evil" we were seeing a quality of scary aggression, and eyes that were cold. Now it may have been a total misperception on our part. But it was weird. We can be not only lost to wisdom, but enter into states so corrupted we are a kind of disaster. A state of conscious dehumanized cruelty is a special case.
There are several common forms of mental illness such as anxiety disorders including panic disorders, phobias, obsessive compulsive disorders and post traumatic stress disorder.
Additionally, mood disorders comprise major depression (extreme or prolonged episodes of sadness where a person loses interest in previously enjoyed activities), bipolar disorder (manic depressive condition that consist of alternating manic “highs” and depression “lows”), Dysthymia (continuous low grade symptoms of major depression and anxiety).
Schizophrenia disorders also fall into the category of mental illness.
I have worked in a large facility that cared for those with mental illness, brain damage, the intellectually challenged, etc... and have seen first hand the varying effects these impediments can have on peoples actions and behaviors.
Throw addictions and upbringings with child abuse and any other number of variables that can effect the human psyche and just about any act of "evil" is possible...
But evil is only a label used by those who think that all who commit such acts are of sound mind and in total control of their actions... In most cases they are not.
Who knows what mental illnesses "Jack the Ripper" or Charles Manson or any individual who commits an "evil" act might be suffering from and causing them to act in ways that, if they were not so afflicted, would not...
For a year I cared for an 18 year old girl with such severe behaviors of violence and aggression towards herself and others that she needed to have 3 care givers present durring the days and 2 durring the nights... Just one small girl... Some days we would spend hours pinning her to the floor to prevent her from hurting herself... We had to duct tape ski gloves to her hands almost every day for a month to prevent her from continuous self induced vomiting as she was becoming dehydrated... to travel in a vehicle she needed to be wrapped up in a blanket, strapped into a 5 point harness, on occasion her feet needed to be restrained and other times a scarf put around her mouth to prevent spitting... She frequently injured and sometimes hospitalized staff... most returned and continued to care for her because they knew her actions were not under her control.
I could go on, but my point is, she had no diagnosis... they didn't know what was wrong with her... As far as anyone can tell all of her behaviors were simply that, behavioral... From what the staff can figure by the things she focused on and spoke of the most was that her father sexually abused her when she was little...
We were able to get her to a place where we felt we could take her for a visit to her mothers who she hadn't been to visit in several years... luckily all went well... her mother showed us home videos of when her daughter was 4... I perfectly normal 4 year old little girl... She told us by 6 years old her behaviors started to form.
So was this little violent girl who at times you would swear was the girl from the exorcist, evil? No... I don't think so...
Was Jack the Ripper evil... I don't think so... I'd put money on him having multiple mental illnesses and/or a traumatic upbringing, and/or perhaps other explanatory factors but I wouldn't jump to a conclusion that he was evil.
Anywho, that's just my opinion...
well, what about things like earthquakes and wild animals hunting for food, technically these can be classified as "evil things". also is accidentally hitting someone with your car "evil"? Evil is in the eye of the observer.
Insofar as every attribution, of any kind, is projected... sure. In terms of 'Buddhist' evil, where it is not really an attribution, but a pointer toward adharma or demeritous action, it is influenced by perception, but not created by it. If you look at the 4nt, you can see how directly it points toward this notion.
Not expecting that you accept Buddhist ideologies, but just to look at it in context...
With warmth,
Matt
Some occasions have the quality of evil, whether mental illness is involved or not is beside the point. The Columbine killings could be described as the consequence of a chemical imbalance and poor conditioning and left at that, leaving out the actual horror. But the horror was real and that is the evil thing about it.
I guess this is just a matter of sensibility, whatever the differing views we probably agree that evil is not a force or entity, and that Buddhism does not concretize "evil".
OK... So perhaps saying "most if not all" may be an inaccurate statement but I would still hazard to say "alot"...
Agreed
I am in no way suggesting this... I only mean to say that those such as Jeffery Dalmer, Charles Manson, and Jack the ripper were most likely suffering from multiple severe mental illnesses or had suffered from childhood trauma's or combination's of these and many other factors...
With severe illness there is often no ability for a person to find the clarity of mind to grasp the concepts of the 4NT's let alone attempt to practice them.
I would think by your response zidangus that your actual experience with those with mental illness is quite limited if not non-existent... I have been caring for those with mental illness for over 12 years now and can tell you that most of those I have cared for would have no means to come to know the four noble truths and of those who would, most wouldn't care to...
I do agree that for those with less severe illness Buddhism would probably much more effective than most of the medications and psychology applied to them and their treatment.
It seems to me that this must be included as is, no buffer, in the world as it presents if my practice is going to be whole. A world in which such things are seen as merely "unskillful" sounds.....nice, and much easier to get handle on, but it denies much IMO.
Just one honest view, maybe all wrong. It doesn't surprise me that the word "Evil" (or whatever the Pali or Sanskrit equivalent is) shows up in Buddhist literature. Why not.
You are correct in saying my actual experience with most of the mental illnesses you say is limited. But for anxiety and depression I think my views are valid,and it is for these I say you give a diservice to. If you are asking about mental illnesses such as dementia then this brings up the question about intention and karma. If a person with an illness such as dementia kills someone do they gain the bad karma from their unskillful action ? If as you say their minds cannot gain the clarity to understand it is wrong to do such an action then would it be their fault ?
Is their intention, even if the mind with dementia is completely deluded.
It does not seem fair on the person if as you say it is impossible to have any clarity in mind, and yet they must suffer in future lives for actions they did without clarity of mind.
This does not sound right to me and it is why I say a person is in control of their intended actions 100 % , the law of karma would be pointless if this were untrue. There is always the ability for a human to make a choice about their actions even for people with dementia, they are not zombies they still have free will and if they have found and have faith in the Dharma before their illness came about, I think this knowledge will never leave them even with dementia, it will always be there inside their minds guiding them to at the very least not be unskillful in ways that some classify as evil.
Thats my opinion anyway Maybe at the stage you meet them they cannot comprehend the 4NT, but at some point in their life they presumably could and if then that faith in the Dharma could have been found I think it would have changed their life for the better and certainly would not have allowed them to be unskillful to the extend of killing. And as for the people who would not care to know the 4NT, well this comes back to ignorance to the 4NT which in turn can result in unskillful actions. But you do not need to have a mental illness to be ignorant of the 4NT.
Metta to all
But if people wish to use it, then it is of course there choice to do so.
As I originally pondered in this post, how did it first arise in Buddhist texts, I would be surprised if Buddha himself used this word. But as always I am open to surprises.
Metta to all
I will only respond to this by saying it is most likely unskillful to state that someone whose life's work is to care for those with mental illness does them a disservice when you have little knowledge/experience with what you are talking about.
I believe my responses above refereed to possible multiple mental illnesses and/or other factors (child abuse, brain injury, etc) as most who suffer from a mental illness have more than one... You add anxiety or depression to dementia and you can make a bad but manageable situation worse and even unmanageable...
These statements show more of your lack of understanding and experience with the subject matter which you have chosen to discuss... My suggestion to you is to volunteer in a nursing home or homes for the intellectually challenged... or find some way to gain some experience... in addition, read some literature on mental illness in relation to an individuals ability to control their actions (again I'm speaking about severe cases, like people who end up dicing people up and eating there hearts for instance... we are talking about "evil" or the perception of it at least) There are reasons why those with mental illness are prescribed so many medications... most deal with mood and behavior control, and they are not always effective...
Once you can say with some assurance of what you are speaking about then you might be able to carry on a discussion with a little more than just some base assumptions and unfounded opinions... Until then perhaps your best bet is to not engage in such discussions.
Surely the Buddha saw the fullness of the human condition, including hellish states, but I can only speculate.
Anyway. Much respect for your view.
I do have at least some experience with dementia, my wife is a care assistant at an old peoples home for dementia, so I know about the behaviours of people suffering from this condition. My point here is exactly what I said. Even if they do have dementia or a similar illness, I believe that if they have been exposed to and had faith in the Dharma before they developed dementia or any other illness, then this Dharma knowledge will not leave their minds. Somewhere deep down, (and the condition they have may make them not even remember the Dharma) the Dharma will be ingrained in their conscience and they will know the difference between right and wrong and they will not act in extreme unskillful ways.
I ask you, are you a Buddhist ?
If you are a Buddhist you must believe in the law of karma right ?
If you do believe in the law of karma, then please explain to me how in the example I stated earlier karma is utilized ?
If as you say a person has no free will or clarity of mind for some of the mental illnesses you have mentioned, then for the example I used what happens to the karma when a person in such a situation does an extreme unskillful action ?
My point if you have read my posts was why was the word evil used in Buddhist texts, then the topic turned to specific cases such as Jack the ripper, which was then blamed on mental illnesses, which in turn was cited by you as a possible reason for most cases of extreme unskillfulnes.
Well my point in this context is that if a person has been exposed to the Dharma and has faith in the Dharma before their mental illness develops ( if indeed it would develop after been exposed to the Dharma which I doubt in the case of emotional illnesses such as anxiety) then there would be no Jack the ripper there would only be Jack, that is to say the person would not go onto do such unskillfull actions, as the Dharma would still be ingrained in their mind even if it is only subconsciously. So no matter how an unskillful action such as intentionally killing a sentient being is done, it has the same root cause, and that is ignorance of the Dharma.
Again I respect the job you do jonathan, but how many of the people you care for were or are still a practicing Buddhist ? This would be interesting to know.
Metta to all and respect to everyone's opinion
Is there such a thing as good?
as we have witness historically such standard changes from time of era and cultures, some thing that was though as good in the olden time or a particular culture , was reversed in another time and/or another culture.
Buddha Dharma used the notion of wholesome /unwholesome or skilful / unskilful actions towards one's life , does it enhance or erode the vitality and dignify one's life existence?
and more technically in Buddha Dharma, does the action enhance or erode the path to attain Buddhahood? - to manifest the ultimate noble stage in existence
There's a difference between value, in terms of what is fashionable or not, and quality. While it can be argued that more or less things can effectively define quality of life, form itself is subject to change along with taste.
Take war for example; it is invariably hell, whether you're using a stick or a nuclear weapon. It will always involve suffering; it will always involve death; families and communities will always be destroyed.
is that so ? in our human recorded history across our human cultures, it seems always have painted the false pictures on how honour and great their battles and wars were, which means the acts of killing with their own human beings , and those revolutions that blooded many of their fellow countrymen, hence war moguls were protrays as national 'heros' and 'saints'
how many instance in our human history we protray correctly that the person that done no blood to their fellow human beings and other families as our real hero and saint ?
But nonetheless, there are times that violent required to change the wrong, such as protect the innocents and peace... such unskillful acts have became the lesser 'evil'
so in reality there is mechanical no clear cut for the absolute standard, and if to be use the most strict standard - then no blood and violent should be involved, as real civilized beings in existence, we could settled things by sincere dialogues and patience
I think "evil" is just thoughts or action that will create the seed of bad karma.
there's no permanent evil.
Cheers, WK.
I'm a moral relativist like some of the other people above, in that I don't think there is a universal moral code, people create it for themselves, and it usually differs from culture to culture. Thus what is considered good and evil differ too.
I'm not sure this is a good example of moral relativism... An example of moral relativism needs to be referring to the same act, not two similar but different acts... I think your position might be better made with the following example:
a) A person may cut off another's finger. As a means of torture, that action would be called evil or malicious...
b) A person may cut off another's finger. As a means of stopping the progressive spreading of gangrene, that action would be called good.
But even this example does not truly represent moral relativism as the events are still different...
Perhaps the following is a better example yet...
A ruling dictator is assassinated.
a) Those who follow and accept his/her rule may see this as an act of evil.
b) Those who do not follow or accept his/her rule may see this as an act of goodness... of salvation from Tyranny.
The same act being viewed relatively from differing opinions.
No ... Surely not, always Venerable ? ... even when they are cooked well ?? lol