Other religions Problem of evil

1 other religions

1.1 ancient mesopotamia , egypt
1.2 ancient greek religion
1.3 buddhism
1.4 hinduism

other religions
ancient mesopotamia , egypt

the ancient egyptian religion, according roland enmarch, potentially absolved gods blame evil, , used negative cosmology , negative concept of human nature explain evil. further, pharaoh seen agent of gods , actions king aimed prevent evil , curb evilness in human nature.

ancient greek religion

the gods in greek mythology seen superior, shared similar traits humans , interacted them. although greeks didn t believe in evil gods, greeks still acknowledged fact evil present in world. gods meddled in affairs of men, , actions consisted of bringing misery people, example gods direct cause of death people. however, greeks did not consider gods evil result of actions, instead answer situations in greek mythology power of fate. fate considered more powerful gods , reason no 1 can escape it. reason greeks recognized unfortunate events justifiable idea of fate.

buddhism

buddhism neither denies existence of evil, nor attempt reconcile evil in way attempted monotheistic religions assert existence of almighty, powerful, knowing, benevolent god. buddhism, non-theistic religion jainism, not assume or assert creator god, , problem of evil or of theodicy not apply it. considers benevolent, omnipotent creator god attachment false concept.

buddhism accepts there evil in world, dukkha (suffering) caused evil or because of natural causes (aging, disease, rebirth). precepts , practices of buddhism, such 4 noble truths , noble eightfold path aim empower follower in gaining insights , liberation (nirvana) cycle of such suffering rebirth.

some strands of mahayana buddhism developed theory of buddha-nature in texts such tathagata-garbha sutras composed in 3rd-century south india, similar soul, self theory found in classical hinduism. tathagata-garbha theory leads buddhist version of problem of evil, states peter harvey, because theory claims every human being has intrinsically pure inner buddha good. premise leads question why evil, , why doesn t intrinsically pure inner buddha attempt or prevail in preventing evil actor before or commits evil. 1 response has been buddha-nature omnibenevolent, not omnipotent. further, tathagata-garbha sutras atypical texts of buddhism, because contradict anatta doctrines in vast majority of buddhist texts, leading scholars posit tathagatagarbha sutras written promote buddhism non-buddhists, , not represent mainstream buddhism.

the mainstream buddhism, days, did not need address theological problem of evil saw no need creator of universe , asserted instead, many indian traditions, universe never had beginning , existence endless cycle of rebirths (samsara).

hinduism

hinduism complex religion many different currents or schools. non-theist traditions such samkhya, nyaya, mimamsa , many within vedanta not posit existence of almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god (monotheistic god), , classical formulations of problem of evil , theodicy not apply hindu traditions. further, deities in hinduism neither eternal nor omnipotent nor omniscient nor omnibenevolent. devas mortal , subject samsara. evil good, along suffering considered real , caused human free will, source , consequences explained through karma doctrine of hinduism, in other indian religions.

a version of problem of evil appears in ancient brahma sutras, composed between 200 bce , 200 ce, foundational text of vedanta tradition of hinduism. verses 2.1.34 through 2.1.36 aphoristically mention version of problem of suffering , evil in context of abstract metaphysical hindu concept of brahman. verse 2.1.34 of brahma sutras asserts inequality , cruelty in world cannot attributed concept of brahman, , in vedas , upanishads. in interpretation , commentary on brahma sutras, 8th-century scholar adi shankara states because people happier others , because there malice, cruelty , pain in world, state brahman cannot cause of world.

for lead possibility of partiality , cruelty. can reasonably concluded god has passion , hatred ignoble persons... hence there nullification of god s nature of extreme purity, (unchangeability), etc., [...] , owing infliction of misery , destruction on creatures, god open charge of pitilessness , extreme cruelty, abhorred villain. on account of possibility of partiality , cruelty, god not agent.

shankara attributes evil , cruelty in world karma of oneself, of others, , ignorance, delusion , wrong knowledge, not abstract brahman. brahman beyond , evil. there evil , suffering because of karma. struggle explanation, states shankara, because of presuned duality, between brahman , jiva, or because of linear view of existence, when in reality samsara , karma anadi (existence cyclic, rebirth , deeds eternal no beginning). in other words, in brahma sutras, formulation of problem of evil considered metaphysical construct, not moral issue. ramanuja of theistic sri vaishnavism school—a major tradition within vaishnavism—interprets same verse in context of vishnu, , asserts vishnu creates potentialities.

according swami gambhirananda of ramakrishna mission, sankara s commentary explains god cannot charged partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of taking factors of virtuous , vicious actions (karma) performed individual in previous lives. if individual experiences pleasure or pain in life, due virtuous or vicious action (karma) done individual in past life.

a sub-tradition within vaishnavism school of hinduism exception dualistic dvaita, founded madhvacharya in 13th-century. tradition posits concept of god similar christianity, christian missionaries in colonial india suggested madhvacharya influenced christians migrated india, theory has been discredited scholars. madhvacharya challenged hindu scholars on problem of evil, given dualistic tattvavada theory proposed god , living beings along universe separate realities. madhvacharya asserted, yathecchasi tatha kuru, sharma translates , explains 1 has right choose between right , wrong, choice each individual makes out of own responsibility , own risk . madhva s reply not address problem of evil, state dasti , bryant, how can evil exist of god omnipotent, omniscient, , omnibenevolent.

according sharma, madhva s tripartite classification of souls makes unnecessary answer problem of evil . according david buchta, not address problem of evil, because omnipotent god change system, chooses not , sustains evil in world. view of self s agency of madhvacharya was, states buchta, outlier in vedanta school , indian philosophies in general.