Because suffering is a burning fact of life, every religion takes care of it and considers it as a problem. But the reactions are not always same. Religions of Indian origin generally take the problem of suffering in a practical perspective and take it as their chief burden to point out ways and means for getting rid of suffering. Of course, in this connection they also point out the cause of suffering. Religions of Semitic origin, on the other hand, react to it in, more ort less, a theoretical perspective. They want to advance to explanation, a reason, of suffering. Why is suffering there at all? Or what can be its justification, when the world is taken as created and maintained by an omnipotent and benevolent God? Is the kind of problem which these religions somehow seek to answer. Zoroastrianism also seems to adapt this very perspective. Now, although in the details of such explanation, these religions differ, in essence, they all except that evil and suffering have been allowed by God for some good inherent purpose. The ways of God are mysterious and we human beings are not able to know his entire plan. Apparently, sufferings seem to be an evil, but really or ultimately that is not evil. God must have some good purpose behind that.
As cause of evil, Zoroastrianism and all the Semitic religions tend to hold a devil with all his evil spirits responsible. In Zoroastrianism, this devil is Ahriman, in Judaism and Christianity Satan, and in Islam Iblis. But then no religion seems disposed to take the devil as an independent force falling out of God’s control. So, ultimately, it is the omnipotent and benevolent God himself who becomes responsible for all evil and suffering. So the occasion for justification remains and all the religions advance some such justification in their own ways. Zoroastrianism seems to hold that the Ahura Mazda has allowed the forces of evil to work only with a moral purpose. Judaism and Christianity also seem to share to share in this explanation, although they have other explanations also. Islam shares in its explanation mainly with Judaism. Amidst many other explanations, Judaism holds that evil is a mystery, the real secret of which is known to God alone. In the main, exactly this explanation is given by Islam also. Further, both Islam and Judaism hold that God has allowed evil and suffering to test the intensity and sincerity of faith that man possess towards him. God rewards those who amidst all suffering do not disbelieve in Him, and bear the pinch in utmost piety. Thus evil is a test of moral and religious strength of man. A more or similar view is expressed by Sikhism also and when it asks its followers to take suffering as God’s gift and bear it with a sense of piety. However Sikhism extends its explanation further to point out that God has bestowed this gift upon man with a view to correct him. So the value of suffering is corrective. When man will suffer, he will give up the wrong course and adopt the right path. This reformatory character of suffering is sometimes emphasized in Judaism and Christianity also. The father-God of Christianity uses the stick of suffering to discipline His sons. Judaism and Islam also agree in taking evil and suffering as a mark of punishment to the erring man. But here as we have noted earlier, a problem a problem arises before both of these religions as to why even those have to suffer who are innocents. Sometimes we also finds that the innocents suffer and sinful rejoice. Here the justice of God falls in difficulty.
As Judaism and Christianity virtually form two stages of the same tradition, there is naturally much o0f affinity between the two regarding the explanation of evil. Besides the accepting the reformatory character of evil, which we have indicated above, both take evil as good in disguise. According to both of them evil is a signal for a better thing to come and therefore it is to be tolerated with patience, and not to be scorned. The history of Judaism shows that whenever the Jews suffered, they suffered only to come out with a greater faith and prospect. Similarly, the suffering of Christ on the cross and then his coning out triumphant by resurrection symbolize Christian view of suffering as a boon in disguise. The very birth of Jesus Christ is an example of the fact how evil is to be followed by greater good. Had not people suffered due to the Original sin of Adam, Christ would not have come down to earth as a redeemer. Thus evil is surely a boon in disguise. Then again both Judaism and Christianity, along with Zoroastrianism, emphasize the moral value of evil. God has knowingly allowed evil so that an occasion for moral progress of the world may arise and people may have an opportunity to exercise their freedom of will. If there were good alone, no occasion for moral effort on the part of man would have arisen.
Religion of the Indian tradition, as we have noted above, mainly possess a practical attitude towards suffering. Taking evil and suffering as fact, their main job seems to be pointing out ways and means so that people may be saved from suffering. However, all these religions point out the cause of suffering. Mainly, according to all of them, suffering is due to man’s own past karmas generated out of ignorance. In Sikhism, it is due to haumai, which is also virtually comes to the same. Human ignorance, lack of right knowledge is then the root cause of suffering. Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in any God therefore in them there is no question of God being responsible for evils. Hinduism, in so far as it is theistic, believes in God, but then it seems it is not disposed to impose the responsibility for evil upon God. Man suffers due to his own ignorance and past karmas. God does not want to transgress the law of karma and he has left it free to work. Sikhism sometimes tends to hold God directly responsible for evils, but then, as we have noted above, it takes them as the gift of God. God’s non-interference in the working of the law of karma may be compared here to the Christian view of God voluntarily imposing a limitation upon His omnipotence so as to grant freedom to human beings. There may also be marked a similarity between the Hindu view, also the Buddhist and Jaina, that man suffers due to ignorance and the Christian view that man suffers due to his original sin. The comparison consists in the fact that men suffer due to some element present in them from their very birth. It is due ignorance that man has to take birth and suffer. Similarly, it is due to the original sin that man had to take birth on earth to suffer. Moreover, although in both the cases it seems that man himself is directly responsible for his suffering, but really speaking it is God who is responsible. The ignorance in man is said to be beginning less in Hinduism and thus it must have been associated with Him by the Creator Himself. Man himself cannot be held responsible for his ignorance, because he comes to earth with ignorance attached with him from beforehand. Similarly, the original man Adam committed the sin due to the freedom of will given to him by God and so God Himself become responsible for the sin committed by him. God is omniscient and so knowing full well that Adam would misuse his freedom, why did He give freedom to him? Moreover the descendents of Adam are not or should not be responsible for the sin committed by him. Why should they suffer for the sin committed by their forefather? Taking birth with the burden of original sin, therefore, is not the direct responsibility of man, it is God who has attached the burden of sin with him. So in both the cases, virtually it is God who becomes directly or indirectly responsible for man’s suffering. But there is an important difference also. In Hinduism man suffers due to ignorance, i. e., due to lack of knowledge, In Christianity it is just the opposite- man suffers due to knowledge. Adam committed the original sin by eating the fruit of knowledge in the Eden garden and it is due to that he and his descendents suffer. But then this difference must not to be emphasized too much. Christianity does not take knowledge as the cause of suffering in the sense that ignorance will bring salvation. In Adam’s eating the fruit o0f knowledge against God’s will, what is importantly involved is not so much the acquiring the knowledge by Adam, but his disobedience of the will of God. It is this disobedience which is the real cause of suffering, and not the attainment of knowledge.
We have noted above that Hinduism makes man, rather than God, responsible for his suffering. But in ancient Hinduism, in the vedic Hinduism there are reference that show that evils and suffering of the people in the world are due to the working of the various evil sprits. There is also the reference of fight between the gods and the demons which is very much similar to the Zoroastrian conception of fight between the forces of good and evil. Moreover, in the Vedas there are also references showing that suffering is the result of the displeasure of some gods, who must be pleased through ritualistic acts. Even now, an average Hindu believes that happiness or sufferings of a man is directly the result of the pleasure of some gods or goddesses. However, the dominant note is that man suffer due to his own karmas.
As cause of evil, Zoroastrianism and all the Semitic religions tend to hold a devil with all his evil spirits responsible. In Zoroastrianism, this devil is Ahriman, in Judaism and Christianity Satan, and in Islam Iblis. But then no religion seems disposed to take the devil as an independent force falling out of God’s control. So, ultimately, it is the omnipotent and benevolent God himself who becomes responsible for all evil and suffering. So the occasion for justification remains and all the religions advance some such justification in their own ways. Zoroastrianism seems to hold that the Ahura Mazda has allowed the forces of evil to work only with a moral purpose. Judaism and Christianity also seem to share to share in this explanation, although they have other explanations also. Islam shares in its explanation mainly with Judaism. Amidst many other explanations, Judaism holds that evil is a mystery, the real secret of which is known to God alone. In the main, exactly this explanation is given by Islam also. Further, both Islam and Judaism hold that God has allowed evil and suffering to test the intensity and sincerity of faith that man possess towards him. God rewards those who amidst all suffering do not disbelieve in Him, and bear the pinch in utmost piety. Thus evil is a test of moral and religious strength of man. A more or similar view is expressed by Sikhism also and when it asks its followers to take suffering as God’s gift and bear it with a sense of piety. However Sikhism extends its explanation further to point out that God has bestowed this gift upon man with a view to correct him. So the value of suffering is corrective. When man will suffer, he will give up the wrong course and adopt the right path. This reformatory character of suffering is sometimes emphasized in Judaism and Christianity also. The father-God of Christianity uses the stick of suffering to discipline His sons. Judaism and Islam also agree in taking evil and suffering as a mark of punishment to the erring man. But here as we have noted earlier, a problem a problem arises before both of these religions as to why even those have to suffer who are innocents. Sometimes we also finds that the innocents suffer and sinful rejoice. Here the justice of God falls in difficulty.
As Judaism and Christianity virtually form two stages of the same tradition, there is naturally much o0f affinity between the two regarding the explanation of evil. Besides the accepting the reformatory character of evil, which we have indicated above, both take evil as good in disguise. According to both of them evil is a signal for a better thing to come and therefore it is to be tolerated with patience, and not to be scorned. The history of Judaism shows that whenever the Jews suffered, they suffered only to come out with a greater faith and prospect. Similarly, the suffering of Christ on the cross and then his coning out triumphant by resurrection symbolize Christian view of suffering as a boon in disguise. The very birth of Jesus Christ is an example of the fact how evil is to be followed by greater good. Had not people suffered due to the Original sin of Adam, Christ would not have come down to earth as a redeemer. Thus evil is surely a boon in disguise. Then again both Judaism and Christianity, along with Zoroastrianism, emphasize the moral value of evil. God has knowingly allowed evil so that an occasion for moral progress of the world may arise and people may have an opportunity to exercise their freedom of will. If there were good alone, no occasion for moral effort on the part of man would have arisen.
Religion of the Indian tradition, as we have noted above, mainly possess a practical attitude towards suffering. Taking evil and suffering as fact, their main job seems to be pointing out ways and means so that people may be saved from suffering. However, all these religions point out the cause of suffering. Mainly, according to all of them, suffering is due to man’s own past karmas generated out of ignorance. In Sikhism, it is due to haumai, which is also virtually comes to the same. Human ignorance, lack of right knowledge is then the root cause of suffering. Buddhism and Jainism do not believe in any God therefore in them there is no question of God being responsible for evils. Hinduism, in so far as it is theistic, believes in God, but then it seems it is not disposed to impose the responsibility for evil upon God. Man suffers due to his own ignorance and past karmas. God does not want to transgress the law of karma and he has left it free to work. Sikhism sometimes tends to hold God directly responsible for evils, but then, as we have noted above, it takes them as the gift of God. God’s non-interference in the working of the law of karma may be compared here to the Christian view of God voluntarily imposing a limitation upon His omnipotence so as to grant freedom to human beings. There may also be marked a similarity between the Hindu view, also the Buddhist and Jaina, that man suffers due to ignorance and the Christian view that man suffers due to his original sin. The comparison consists in the fact that men suffer due to some element present in them from their very birth. It is due ignorance that man has to take birth and suffer. Similarly, it is due to the original sin that man had to take birth on earth to suffer. Moreover, although in both the cases it seems that man himself is directly responsible for his suffering, but really speaking it is God who is responsible. The ignorance in man is said to be beginning less in Hinduism and thus it must have been associated with Him by the Creator Himself. Man himself cannot be held responsible for his ignorance, because he comes to earth with ignorance attached with him from beforehand. Similarly, the original man Adam committed the sin due to the freedom of will given to him by God and so God Himself become responsible for the sin committed by him. God is omniscient and so knowing full well that Adam would misuse his freedom, why did He give freedom to him? Moreover the descendents of Adam are not or should not be responsible for the sin committed by him. Why should they suffer for the sin committed by their forefather? Taking birth with the burden of original sin, therefore, is not the direct responsibility of man, it is God who has attached the burden of sin with him. So in both the cases, virtually it is God who becomes directly or indirectly responsible for man’s suffering. But there is an important difference also. In Hinduism man suffers due to ignorance, i. e., due to lack of knowledge, In Christianity it is just the opposite- man suffers due to knowledge. Adam committed the original sin by eating the fruit of knowledge in the Eden garden and it is due to that he and his descendents suffer. But then this difference must not to be emphasized too much. Christianity does not take knowledge as the cause of suffering in the sense that ignorance will bring salvation. In Adam’s eating the fruit o0f knowledge against God’s will, what is importantly involved is not so much the acquiring the knowledge by Adam, but his disobedience of the will of God. It is this disobedience which is the real cause of suffering, and not the attainment of knowledge.
We have noted above that Hinduism makes man, rather than God, responsible for his suffering. But in ancient Hinduism, in the vedic Hinduism there are reference that show that evils and suffering of the people in the world are due to the working of the various evil sprits. There is also the reference of fight between the gods and the demons which is very much similar to the Zoroastrian conception of fight between the forces of good and evil. Moreover, in the Vedas there are also references showing that suffering is the result of the displeasure of some gods, who must be pleased through ritualistic acts. Even now, an average Hindu believes that happiness or sufferings of a man is directly the result of the pleasure of some gods or goddesses. However, the dominant note is that man suffer due to his own karmas.
No comments:
Post a Comment