History of Vaisnava Thought – Session 2

1. History of Vaisnava Thought – Session 2 Gopalharidasa

2. The Problem of Evil (Poe) • A recent conference • Darwin • Hume • What is the problem of evil?

3. By definition, God is…. • Omniscient • Perfect • Loving • Self-satisfied • The source of all • Omnipotent

4. Base version argument • If God exists, He is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly benevolent. • If He is omnipotent, He has enough power to prevent all evils. • If He is omniscient, He has enough knowledge to prevent all evils. • If He is perfectly benevolent, He wants to prevent all evils. • So if God exists, He has enough power and knowledge to prevent all evils and wants to do so, and so • If God exists, He prevents all evils. • If all evil is prevented, no evil ever exists. • Some evil exists. • God does not exist

5. Vedanta Sutra’s response to the POE • Opponent: Creation is not possible for Brahman, because there must be motive. (Since Brahman has no need to fulfill, why would he create?) • Vedanta Responds: Simply for Play • Three examples: • Person breathing (Sankara) • Great king who plays dice (Ramanuja) • A man who dances after sleeping (Baladeva)

6. Vedanta Sutra’s response to the POE • Opponent Asks: But what type of play is this? In this world we find: • Inequality • Cruelty • Vedanta Responds: Inequality and cruelty cannot be attributed to Brahman because His activity has regard to the works (karma) of souls • Sankara give the example of rain and seeds

7. Vedanta Sutra’s response to the POE • Opponent: But God made people unequal because in the beginning their karmas (actions) were unequal. • Vedanta: That is not so, because karma is beginningless • Sankara’s example: Which came first, the seed or the tree? • Baladeva: Four things are co-eternal with God • Souls • Flow of karmas • Prakrti/nature • Kala/time • Vedanta: Thus, the wicked nature of the souls cannot be blamed on Brahman

8. Vedanta Sutra’s response to the POE • In Origins of Evil in Hindu Mythology (1980), Wendy O’Flaherty raises an objection against the karma theory: • “If God is under the sway of karma, he is not omnipotent; if, as some theologians insist, God controls karma, then once again the blame is cast at his feet.” • Various Vedantins have anticipated and responded to objections like these in their commentaries on the sutras. • VacaspatiMisra (a commentator in Ramanuja’sSampradaya) writes that Brahman’s deference to karma is a “freely chosen self-limitation.” • Francis Clooney, Professor of Divinity at Harvard, writes, “When a great king chooses to reward or punish his subjects based on their behavior, this restraint on his exercise of power does not diminish him. Arbitrariness, we should say, is not a necessary characteristic of omnipotence, nor is fairness a diminishment.”

9. Vedanta Sutra’s response to the POE • Vedanta’s Response raises various questions • Opponent: But if God is independent, surely He could change our nature? • Baladeva: • He could, but he does not, for it would end our free will • God is not capricious or whimsical • He chooses to act in accordance with laws • The law of karma, and the miseries of the world, improve the soul • Hence, the world is perfect for its purpose • Changing our free-will would essentially mean destroying us and creating another person

10. Vedanta Sutra’s response to the POE • Vedanta’s Response raises questions about origins • The nature of Karma and Free Will • Baladeva • Ramanuja • Madhva • Sankara

11. Explaining evil • VaisnavaVedantinsexplain evil by stating that the souls are independent and minute. Out of their own foolishness, the make the wrong choices. • For Sankara, explaining the existence of evil is problematic. Why would Brahman Himself want to torture himself?

12. Reading Vedanta sutra commentaries