The Question of Evil

[Thomas]

The question having arisen elsewhere, I thought I might post a view from the standpoint of the Sophia Perennis, that is, from the perspective of metaphysics.

'If God is, whence come evil things? If He is not, whence comes good?'
(Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy)

+++

Genesis, if considered metaphysically, provides an answer. How is there a serpent in Paradise?

From the metaphysical perspective, in willing the creation of anything other than Himself, 'imperfection' is inevitable. "Only God is Good," (Mark 18:10), that is, God is the ontological source of the Good as such, and if any created state or nature was as perfect as Himself, then that would be synonymous with Him, whereas His very nature is Unity or Oneness. Genesis says the work of each day was "good", and looking back on His works, God saw that it was "very good", thus we have the good in a relative and conditional sense.

But creation, even the paradise in its midst, is not perfect as God alone is perfect. Evil, like goodness, is a reality that exists at the level of the world.

In the center of the Garden is the Tree of Life, and this corresponds to the vertical axis of the Cosmos, which signifies Divine Principle. Adam, primordial man, dwells at peace with all his fellow beings, and they along with him participate in this center so long as his attention remains focused there. Along comes the serpent which offers a hitherto untasted experience, that of an autonomy equal to that of God, and accepting the offer, the experience of unity is shattered, and now the Tree becomes a tree of Good and Evil.

In a sense, our Primordial Parentsd A Tree, as Marco Pallis has said, "bowed under the weight of its fruits, light and dark, containing the seed of indefinite becoming... regarded from the viewpoint of ignorance, the Tree of Life becomes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Adam and Eve's disobedience is in their choosing to follow their own wills, against the will of God. This makes clear the relationship of evil to sin, for every sin is in principle a rejection of truth or a rejection of God's law. Yet God continues to love us and want what is best for us (being Infinite Good).

Marco Pallis said: "He is the creator of the relative, as is required by His infinity, and that relativity which we call evil, is a necessary function, being in fact the measure of the world's apparent separation from its principle, God – an illusory separation inasmuch as nothing can exist side by side with the infinite, however real it may claim to be at its own relative level."

Frithjof Schuon said: "One cannot ask of God to will the world and at the same time to will that it be not the world."

The world is a theophany, but that theophany is best expressed in the Hindu word samsara. It is not a unity in its own right.

What then of us? How do we answer, "Why me?" The simple truth is, we are part of that relativity; the cosmos, and we in it, is conditional and contingent.
The call then is to abandon the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and turn again to the Tree of Life, the path of detachment – "To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God." (Revelations 2:7)

"We have eaten of the fruits of the tree of knowledge and the taste of ashes is left in our mouths." - Anatole France.

+++

If corporeal beings, possessing a conditional, rational nature and endowed with free will, can be subject to sin, then we can suppose the same of incorporeal beings, those angels orders who possess rationality, that reasoning faculty, like ours conditional (that is, not perfect in view of God, but perfect in accord to their own domain) – hence corrupted or fallen angels who, having fallen, like any, become slave to their wounded state.

+++

If one draws the conclusion that 'demonic possession' as is commonly understood, is mere superstition, then in one sense one can provisionally agree. For surely, should the devil show his hand, then that asserts the existence of God – it would drive the tempted to the very thing the demon seeks to deny.

One might suggest that 'demonic possession' is too naive a strategy for the devil to bother with – that is the absence of authentic 'possession' is not in itself evidence of the absence of an infernal tendency.

+++

The Scriptural account of the 'seven other spirits' who coat-tail the 'unclean spirit' (Matthew 12:43-45, Luke 11:24-26) – the same idea is expressed in Buddhism, and I suggest is a more sophisticated insight into 'demonic possession' but significantly less sensational than The Exorcist.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

In my frame of reference, this appears to support that Heaven is nearness to God, and that hell is remoteness from God.

Regards Tony

 

[talib-al-kalim]

The question having arisen elsewhere, I thought I might post a view from the standpoint of the Sophia Perennis, that is, from the perspective of metaphysics.

'If God is, whence come evil things? If He is not, whence comes good?'
(Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy)

+++

Genesis, if considered metaphysically, provides an answer. How is there a serpent in Paradise?

From the metaphysical perspective, in willing the creation of anything other than Himself, 'imperfection' is inevitable. "Only God is Good," (Mark 18:10), that is, God is the ontological source of the Good as such, and if any created state or nature was as perfect as Himself, then that would be synonymous with Him, whereas His very nature is Unity or Oneness. Genesis says the work of each day was "good", and looking back on His works, God saw that it was "very good", thus we have the good in a relative and conditional sense.

But creation, even the paradise in its midst, is not perfect as God alone is perfect. Evil, like goodness, is a reality that exists at the level of the world.

In the center of the Garden is the Tree of Life, and this corresponds to the vertical axis of the Cosmos, which signifies Divine Principle. Adam, primordial man, dwells at peace with all his fellow beings, and they along with him participate in this center so long as his attention remains focused there. Along comes the serpent which offers a hitherto untasted experience, that of an autonomy equal to that of God, and accepting the offer, the experience of unity is shattered, and now the Tree becomes a tree of Good and Evil.

In a sense, our Primordial Parentsd A Tree, as Marco Pallis has said, "bowed under the weight of its fruits, light and dark, containing the seed of indefinite becoming... regarded from the viewpoint of ignorance, the Tree of Life becomes the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil."

Adam and Eve's disobedience is in their choosing to follow their own wills, against the will of God. This makes clear the relationship of evil to sin, for every sin is in principle a rejection of truth or a rejection of God's law. Yet God continues to love us and want what is best for us (being Infinite Good).

Marco Pallis said: "He is the creator of the relative, as is required by His infinity, and that relativity which we call evil, is a necessary function, being in fact the measure of the world's apparent separation from its principle, God – an illusory separation inasmuch as nothing can exist side by side with the infinite, however real it may claim to be at its own relative level."

Frithjof Schuon said: "One cannot ask of God to will the world and at the same time to will that it be not the world."

The world is a theophany, but that theophany is best expressed in the Hindu word samsara. It is not a unity in its own right.

What then of us? How do we answer, "Why me?" The simple truth is, we are part of that relativity; the cosmos, and we in it, is conditional and contingent.
The call then is to abandon the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and turn again to the Tree of Life, the path of detachment – "To him, that overcometh, I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God." (Revelations 2:7)

"We have eaten of the fruits of the tree of knowledge and the taste of ashes is left in our mouths." - Anatole France.

+++

If corporeal beings, possessing a conditional, rational nature and endowed with free will, can be subject to sin, then we can suppose the same of incorporeal beings, those angels orders who possess rationality, that reasoning faculty, like ours conditional (that is, not perfect in view of God, but perfect in accord to their own domain) – hence corrupted or fallen angels who, having fallen, like any, become slave to their wounded state.

+++

If one draws the conclusion that 'demonic possession' as is commonly understood, is mere superstition, then in one sense one can provisionally agree. For surely, should the devil show his hand, then that asserts the existence of God – it would drive the tempted to the very thing the demon seeks to deny.

One might suggest that 'demonic possession' is too naive a strategy for the devil to bother with – that is the absence of authentic 'possession' is not in itself evidence of the absence of an infernal tendency.

+++

The Scriptural account of the 'seven other spirits' who coat-tail the 'unclean spirit' (Matthew 12:43-45, Luke 11:24-26) – the same idea is expressed in Buddhism, and I suggest is a more sophisticated insight into 'demonic possession' but significantly less sensational than The Exorcist.

The exposition, as most of your contributions, exhibits deep thought worth to consider. Nevertheless, I dare set a counterpoint:

"Only God is Good," (Mark 18:10), that is, God is the ontological source of the Good as such

I suggest that Mark, who was not a native Greek speaker, made an error writing his Gospel account in Greek: In the text, Jesus rejects to be called "good teacher", Greek Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ , Hebrew מורה טוב. However, "good" would have been a thoroughly adequate polite form to address any rabbi. טוב as well as ἀγαθος are commonly used for people and even for things, down to the sense "knives are good for cutting". I suspect that Mark confused ἀγαθος with άγιος, "holy". I asked a Syriac Christian who had good knowledge of Aramaic and its usage but no knowledge of Greek about Mark 18:9, and he said, that he may have said "holy", as "Holy teacher" is still a commonly used polite form to adress a respected church dignitary. Jesus would then have said: "Only God is Holy".
God is the source of all. We know that not all is good according to the criteria and advices God gave us in the Word we received. God is over good and evil; rather, good and evil are categories for us humans to discern attitudes and actions that lead us towards harmony and unitiy with God from those who separate us - from ourselves, the society, the entire nature which is God's creation. This conforms with what you say:

From the metaphysical perspective, in willing the creation of anything other than Himself, 'imperfection' is inevitable (...), and if any created state or nature was as perfect as Himself, then that would be synonymous with Him, whereas His very nature is Unity or Oneness. (...) But creation, even the paradise in its midst, is not perfect as God alone is perfect. Evil, like goodness, is a reality that exists at the level of the world.

You continue saying,

If corporeal beings, possessing a conditional, rational nature and endowed with free will, can be subject to sin, then we can suppose the same of incorporeal beings, those angels orders who possess rationality, that reasoning faculty, like ours conditional (that is, not perfect in view of God, but perfect in accord to their own domain) – hence corrupted or fallen angels who, having fallen, like any, become slave to their wounded state.
If one draws the conclusion that 'demonic possession' as is commonly understood, is mere superstition, then in one sense one can provisionally agree. For surely, should the devil show his hand, then that asserts the existence of God – it would drive the tempted to the very thing the demon seeks to deny.

One might suggest that 'demonic possession' is too naive a strategy for the devil to bother with – that is the absence of authentic 'possession' is not in itself evidence of the absence of an infernal tendency.

The Scriptural account of the 'seven other spirits' who coat-tail the 'unclean spirit' (Matthew 12:43-45, Luke 11:24-26) – the same idea is expressed in Buddhism, and I suggest is a more sophisticated insight into 'demonic possession' but significantly less sensational than The Exorcist.

What you describe here is the dualistic concept, that besides God, the "Great Spirit", there is an opponent, the "Minor Spirit", who, although subordinate to the "Great Spirit", creates evil by himself. This concept, possibly derived from a reduction of ancient Persian polytheism, has been exposed by Zaratushtra, and influenced 2nd Temple Jewish, Christian, Manichaian and Islamic theology. However, we hardly find this concept in the canonical Tanach/OT, the Gospel accounts or in the Quran. We read formulations like "God sealed their hearts" or "God slew them with blindness" which irritated me long time. God is the Creator, and God is the source of both, good and evil. But only the good leads us to Oneness, to full harmony with the One God, to the Kingdom of God, Jannah.
The serpent as an image because of its of the split tongue, stands for the ambiguity of human power and liberty of decision. A shark is completely bound to its role, a lion has some social rules but it has its inevitable function. In contrast to this, we humans have many options that go beyond our instincts, which also exist and influence on our deeds. The distinction of good and evil is the prerequisite to make constructive use of these options, and a yoke to bear that becomes heavier the more we gain power to rule in the world. This is the dilemma of us, the increase of power and the increase of responsability. It is only on us to discern good from evil; God is above this level, and other creatures are below it.

 

[Thomas]

The exposition, as most of your contributions, exhibits deep thought worth to consider. Nevertheless, I dare set a counterpoint:

And you're welcome!

I suggest that Mark, who was not a native Greek speaker, made an error writing his Gospel account in Greek ...

Well, something we can speculate on – who wrote Mark? What language?

A number of interesting points – but I think the principle remains the same?

What you describe here is the dualistic concept, that besides God, the "Great Spirit", there is an opponent, the "Minor Spirit", who, although subordinate to the "Great Spirit", creates evil by himself. This concept, possibly derived from a reduction of ancient Persian polytheism, has been exposed by Zaratushtra, and influenced 2nd Temple Jewish, Christian, Manichaian and Islamic theology. However, we hardly find this concept in the canonical Tanach/OT, the Gospel accounts or in the Quran.

Let me say at the outset I'm not a dualist – that is, I accept duality at the level of the world because of its finite and contingent nature, but once one raises one's view above that, then my view is holistic.

God is the Creator, and God is the source of both, good and evil.

Here again I suppose it's a fine balance. I see 'evil' as an unavoidable aspect of a finite creation, but not a necessary one – we are not obliged, other than by our own weakness, to choose the lesser good.

That 'evil' is a metaphysical necessity is because of free will – if we could not choose ill, we would not be free. Our Primordial Parents, according to Scripture, chose in the full knowledge it was against the Will of God.

The serpent as an image because of its of the split tongue, stands for the ambiguity of human power and liberty of decision.

I hadn't thought of that particular image before!

A shark is completely bound to its role, a lion has some social rules but it has its inevitable function.

Agreed. Sharks, etc., are not evil. Nor are earthquakes and natural disasters, nor indeed toxic bacteria ...

In contrast to this, we humans have many options that go beyond our instincts, which also exist and influence on our deeds.

And the sacra doctrina of the world would suggest a negative/downward tendency, if only a kind of entropy or inertia.

The distinction of good and evil is the prerequisite to make constructive use of these options, and a yoke to bear that becomes heavier the more we gain power to rule in the world. This is the dilemma of us, the increase of power and the increase of responsability. It is only on us to discern good from evil; God is above this level, and other creatures are below it.

Yes, but then we have had Divine guidance on the matter?

Humans can arrive at ethical and moral values without the guidance of God – the Golden Rule is such an example. Really, 'evil' comes into its own when humanity pits itself against the Divine.

I don't see us as that far apart?

 

[talib-al-kalim]

And you're welcome!


Well, something we can speculate on – who wrote Mark? What language?

Of course, I can't know it, but I suppose that the author is the John Mark mentioned in the acts by Luke, in whose parent's house the disciples met quite early. That was in Judaea, so that I suppose that he was a native Judaean who spoke Greek as a foreign language

And the sacra doctrina of the world would suggest a negative/downward tendency, if only a kind of entropy or inertia.

I'm not familiar with the term sacra doctrina, so I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, but then we have had Divine guidance on the matter?

I believe.

Humans can arrive at ethical and moral values without the guidance of God – the Golden Rule is such an example. Really, 'evil' comes into its own when humanity pits itself against the Divine.

Agreed. But a lot of less golden rules have been invented as well.

I don't see us as that far apart?

Not so much.

 

[Faithfulservant]

So do we consider the corruption that was the result sin that was a result of evil.. evil? Or just a consequence of Evil?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Humans can arrive at ethical and moral values without the guidance of God – the Golden Rule is such an example.

I see that as an example as to how God has sent many Messengers and never leaves us alone. I see the Golden Rule was founded and established by a prophet or messenger to all those that implemented it in their lives.

Regards Tony

 

[Faithfulservant]

I see that as an example as to how God has sent many Messengers and never leaves us alone. I see the Golden Rule was founded and established by a prophet or messenger to all those that implemented it in their lives.

Regards Tony

You mean Jesus commanded it.

Edit to add the verses for reference.

Jesus in Matthew 7:12 commanded us to, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,

 

[wil]

In the center of the Garden is the Tree of Life, and this corresponds to the vertical axis of the Cosmos, which signifies Divine Principle. Adam, primordial man, dwells at peace with all his fellow beings, and they along with him participate in this center so long as his attention remains focused there.

I'm sorry...

vertical axis of the Cosmos?

What?

I need to back up...what is this cosmos? Where and what is the vertical axis and what does it define (go to from? Good to evil)? And a vertical axis implies a horizontal, and since we have an x and y what is the z axis?

My metaphysics grounds me. Takes me beyond the physical, beyond what I see, but takes me to the root of the tree the essence of the thought. This just takes me to incomprehensible places..

 

[Thomas]

I'm sorry...
vertical axis of the Cosmos?
What?

It's the language of symbol, Wil, it's vast. It's the Tree in the Midst of the Garden of Eden, it's Yggdrasil in Norse mythology, it's the axis mundi It's the Sefirot of the Kaballah, the chakras ...

I need to back up...what is this cosmos?

The creation.

Where and what is the vertical axis ...

In astronomical terms, the planet earth is out on a limb at the edge of a galaxy, one among a myriad, etc., etc.

In metaphysical terms, God, the Supreme Principle, the Absolute, the Infinite, stands above/outside the world but the words and all that exists does so according to the Supreme Principle – so that becomes the vertical axis about with everything rotates.

At the top is God, the One, the Boundless, the Uncreate, etc., etc.

And from there, depending on your systems, are worlds, emanations, levels, etc.

Here on earth, in all traditions there is the idea of 'the center' – Omphalos (Greek: navel) and a vertical and a horizontal axis (ie the three dimensions).

and what does it define (go to from? Good to evil)?

God at the top to nothing at the base. I'd not say 'evil'.

And a vertical axis implies a horizontal, and since we have an x and y what is the z axis?

The vertical represents the singularity and oneness of the Divine Principle, the horizontal represents multiplicity, Divine Plenitude.

And a vertical axis implies a horizontal, and since we have an x and y what is the z axis?

Think of the x and the y as the diameter of a sphere, then everything in creation relates to everything else ...

My metaphysics grounds me. Takes me beyond the physical, beyond what I see, but takes me to the root of the tree the essence of the thought.

Which metaphysics is that?

 

[Thomas]

I should dig out my old notes on the symbolism of the hexaemeron in light of universal metaphysics ... I used to eat, sleep, breathe this stuff ...

 

[Thomas]

I'm not familiar with the term sacra doctrina, so I don't understand what you mean.

The sacred doctrines/texts of the world's religions.

 

[Thomas]

I dug out a page from my now retired website 'the veil' – the discussion was about the veil of the temple (its rending), but this bit is salient to the metaphysical understanding of temple, and is to do with the idea of the divine axis:

The temple traces its origin back to Exodus, "And they shall make me a sanctuary, and I will dwell in the midst of them" (25:8)...

... as a seat of the Almighty, both tabernacle and temple represent the universal 'centre', sitting directly in line with the hierarchical axis of Being, with God, the 'Being beyond Being' at its apex.

... According to the Talmud (Yoma 54b) In it is found the 'foundation stone' (eben shetiyah) around which the earth was created and upon which the whole world rests. This has its correspondence in many traditions.

According to Greek myth, Zeus let fly two eagles from opposite ends of the earth, and they flew towards each other and met over the town of Delphi, and this point at which they met was thus determined as the centre of the earth. The point was marked by the Omphalos stone in the temple of Apollo. When Harmonia wove the veil representing the whole universe, she started with the Omphalos stone at the centre and from there worked outward. The Omphalos was not only sacred to Apollo at Delphi but also marked the tomb of the slain and resurrected Dionysus. The Omphalos is also held to be the tomb of Python, the dragon that Apollo slew, and in the stone is often portrayed with a serpent coiled around it. For the Pythagoreans, the Omphalso symbolised the Monad, the seed of the universe.

In Egypt their omphalos was the Ben-ben at Heliopolis, the theological centre of their culture, and prototype for the pyramids and the obelisk. Dedicated to the sun, the soul of the sun-god Ra, in the form of the Phoenix, would often alight upon it.

There is an Omphalos in Ireland, at Tara, the seat of the High Kings of the Gaels, and the Stone of Scone sat beneath the seat of the kings of Scotland.

And, of course, the Dome of the Rock in Islam.

In the Kaballah (Zohar: Terumah 157a) the Holy of Holies is the centre of the temple, the temple is the centre of Jerusalem, Jerusalem is the centre of The Holy Land and the Holy Land is the centre of of the world. As foundation of the world the temple stands in direct line of the vertical axis of creation and thus represents the locus of the influence of the Divine, which determines its exterior and functional aspect as spiritual centre for the people of Isreal.

The temple then signified the notion of centre, and in its internal structure realised the vertical or hierarchical axis by a series of three courts, which have their ontological foundation in Genesis. This is reflected in the Divine, the cosmic and the corporeal; or in spirit, soul and body. In the centre and thus representing the highest point was the Holy of Holies, God in His Isness; "the deep" of Genesis; the "I Am That I Am" of Exodus, the 'Ground' or 'Gottheit' of Meister Eckart, the 'Dazzling Darkness' and 'Secret Silence' of the pseudoAreopagite.

Outside or 'below' that was the Holy, wherein stood the symbols of the Jewish Tradition and here was enacted the ceremonies and rituals of the liturgical life. Finally 'below' the Holy was the Outer Court, and it was from here that man commences his journey back to God. Here was the altar and the basin and oral tradition informs us that sacrifice and purification were (and still are) necessary dimensions of spiritual realisation.

In the language of symbology the element of sacrifice is fire because it consumes the gross and material and thus releases that which is subtle and of the essence. In the case of washing the symbology once again is obvious, so much so that ritual washing is a powerful element in almost every religious tradition on the planet. The metaphysical symbolism here is that washing signifies a return to a primordial and natural state of purity or innocence.

(To the Christian esoterist, the ternary structure of the temple prefigures the Trinity. This is not to imply that the doctrine is an extension of the temple tradition, the form of the temple is itself is Revealed: "According to all the likeness of the tabernacle which I will shew thee," (Exodus 25:9) and follows a Divine pattern, not a human one.)

This transposition of the horizontal to the vertical, is in itself entirely 'reasonable' and as such needs no explanation. The association of 'centre' both with 'inner' and with 'higher' is obvious, although this expresses only three dimensions. With regard to the fourth, time, the centre is also often synonymous with the notion of 'back' or a 'return' to the source, which entirely undermines the whole modernist concept of 'progress' which itself regards time in an artificial and linear fashion, rather than as something natural and thereby as the evidence of nature informs us, cyclic. Thus the journey to the centre is also a journey to the interior, and at the same time an ascent.

... in any and every tradition the temple 'fixes' the relationship between creature and creator in dimensional space. It also 'fixes' this relationship in time, by the procession of its liturgical calendar, and also in eternity, or more accurately in the eternal, in the transcendant, by the remembrance and thus continuance of the given covenant upon which tradition is founded, a contract which springs from the eternal and is the sapiential life and being of the temple itself. This last marks the vertical aspect in its most explicit form and seen in this light the two veils stand one above the other, in a hierarchical relationship, in that the lower, to repeat, is a projection and continuation of the higher in its own domain. The two veils thus separate three worlds; the mundane, the sacred and the Divine, which is reflected in man in corpus, animus, spiritus– body, soul and spirit.

The exoteric understanding is of a sanctuary as a sacred place, both taking their root from the Greek sacare 'to set aside' and thus denotes a place set aside, by man, for the worship of God and for no other purpose (Thou shalt not have strange gods before me" 20:30.) The esoteric dimension of 'sanctuary' is that within it one is outside of ordinary time and space...

Phew!