The Enemy Within

The Face of Evil and the Devil Problem

“Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste.” Sympathy for the Devil--Rolling Stones

“Mas vale diablo conocido que diablo por conocer” Mexican Proverb

“A friend of the devil is a friend of mine” Jerry Garcia

The other day I had a question from a friend:

The ‘Devil’ question.

Dear Mahayogi Prabhu can you help me with the ‘Devil’ question. Is there a Vedic Personality similar to the personification of ‘evil’ or lets say all things bad. King of the Demons maybe?? Thank you

This is a delicate question. I have no intimate knowledge of the devil. I would only be an expert on the devil if I had met him and made a pact with him. I assure you that I have done no such thing. And so, lacking intimate knowledge of the devil, I might demure from answering your query.

And yet, I seem to have a flair for considering such questions, so I shall essay an answer. I write to discover what I don’t know; sometimes I discover what I know.

The short answer to this question, as I understand it, is “No.” There is no such thing as a Vedic “Devil.” That is devil with a capital “D.” While there are a great number of small “d” devils and demons, ghouls and fiends, and even demonic “gods,” there is no personality in the Vedas or subsequent Puranic traditions quite like Satan.

So, before we go looking at the Vedic traditions of India for a parallel, perhaps it might be best to explore the Western Biblical and cultural traditions that have given us Satan.

First stop on our tour would be Manichaeism. This was a dualistic heresy started in the third century in ancient Persia. Its founder, Manichaeus (215-75) was considered divinely inspired by his numerous followers. He posits a universe balanced between two forces: Good and Evil. While good is personified by Almighty God, evil is incarnate in the devil. The universe is a conflict between good and evil; a timeless struggle between dark and light.

According to the online Catholic Dictionary, Manichaeism teaches that God is the creator of all that is good, and Satan of all that is evil. Man's spirit is from God, his body is from the devil. There is a constant struggle between the forces of good and those of evil. Good triumphs over evil only insofar as spirit rises superior to the body. In practice Manichaeism denies human responsibility for the evil that one does, on the premise that this is not due to one's own free will but to the dominance of Satan's power in one's life. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=34725

While Manichaeism was a dualistic religious system that began with the idea of harmonizing Christian, Gnostic, and pagan elements, the system was rejected as a heresy.

The idea of an Evil Power contra-poised against God is heresy since the All-powerful Almighty can have no rival. And yet this doctrine has a strange way of hanging on. St. Augustine of Hippo, arguably the most important of the founding Church fathers followed this system. He faithfully records in his “Confessions,” that as a young man, he was a Manichean for nine years.  He later took pains to write a refutation of their ideas. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1402.htm

And yet Manichaeism lives on, in modern fundamentalist Christianity and even in Islam where adherents speak of the “Great Satan.” In modern fanaticism wherever the universe is considered a battlefield for control between an evil material god, and a good spiritual god there are elements of this ancient point of view.

Manicheaism was exorcised as heresy since while Christians might see Satan as an evil influence, even an evil “god” they couldn’t countenance the view that Satan was as powerful as Jehovah. The One God could have no rival in an Evil Being. Doctrine holds that Satan is a created being, unlike God, who is primordial. And yet, while a heretical point of view, many religion maintain the concept of a primordial struggle between good and evil.

The different strands of doctrine and faith were gathered together by the Italian poet Dante, who wove them together in his great poem La Divina Commedia with such dexterity that his view of heaven and hell tempers our own. Dante in turn influenced Milton who gave us the English view of Satan.

In his heroic attempt to “justify the ways of God to Man,” Milton may avoid the sin of Manicheaism--His Satan is never a true rival to God--and yet as a poet he well understood the need to create a compelling antagonist.

Writing sometime after Milton, the wild visionary artistic poet William BBlake went so far as to claim that Milton had unconsciously, but justly, sided with the Devil. Milton’s Satan defies the decrepit Nobodaddy of creation, saying that he prefers independence to service: “Rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.”

For Blake, the dark angel’s rebellious energy against the oppressive rule of Jehovah is purport of human existence. This view was echoed by the literary critic William Hazlitt, who decided that Milton’s Satan was “the most heroic subject that ever was chosen for a poem.”

English literary tradition from Milton to Mick Jagger has often found that the rebel angel’s Heaven-defying resistance was the mirror image of man’s own rebellion against tyranny, political or religious. The poet Shelley agreed with Blake. While allowing that Satan’s character is flawed, he maintained that Milton’s Satan is the moral superior to his tyrannical God.

This “Romantic” criticism of Milton’s Satan led to what is called the “Byronic” hero or “anti-hero” found everywhere in literature and popular culture as the “bad boy” or ambivalent hero. Examples of Byronic or Satanic heros abound from Napoleon to Batman, the “Dark Knight.”

Catholic Theologian Elaine Pagels points out in her excellent “The Origin of Satan” that Satan is not a personality. The word satan references obstacles on the path to enlightenment. According to Pagels, the traditions that have arisen around Satan is more folklore than Biblical. I quote her work extensively as follows:

“In the Hebrew Bible, as in mainstream Judaism to this day, Satan never appears as Western Christendom has come to know him, as the leader of an “evil empire,” an army of hostile spirits who make war on God and humankind alike. As he first appears in the Hebrew Bible, Satan is not necessarily evil, much less opposed to God. On the contrary, he appears in the book of Numbers and in Job as one of God’s obedient servants—a messenger, or angel, a word that translates the Hebrew term for messenger (mal’āk) into Greek (angelos). In Hebrew, the “angels were often called “sons of God” (benē ’elōhīm), and were envisioned as the hierarchical ranks of a great army, or the staff of a royal court.

In biblical sources the Hebrew term the satan describes an adversarial role. It is not the name of a particular character. Although Hebrew storytellers as early as the sixth century B.C.E. occasionally introduced a supernatural character whom they called the satan, what they meant was any one of the angels sent by God for the specific purpose of blocking or obstructing human activity. The root śṭn means “one who opposes, obstructs, or acts as adversary.” (The Greek term diabolos, later translated “devil,” literally means “one who throws something across one’s path.”)

“The satan’s presence in a story could help account for unexpected obstacles or reversals of fortune. Hebrew storytellers often attribute misfortunes to human sin. Some, however, also invoke this supernatural character, the satan, who, by God’s own order or permission, blocks or opposes human plans and desires. But this messenger is not necessarily malevolent. God sends him, like the angel of death, to perform a specific task, although one that human beings may not appreciate; as the literary scholar Neil Forsyth says of the satan, “If the path is bad, an obstruction is good.” Thus the satan may simply have been sent by the Lord to protect a person from worse harm.”

Excerpt From: Elaine Pagels. “The Origin of Satan.”

I hope I have not strayed too far from the original question by considering the development of the Devil’s “character” in Western myth and cultural tradition. But what we see in Western Christianity is a movement away metaphor. The idea of dark angels as metaphor for dark impulses hardens into a kind of comic book character: “the devil.”

This becomes all too often an escape mechanism for personal responsibility: “The Devil made me do it.”

But the Devil does not lead us into temptation. The modernist Pope Francis is leading a movement to change the Lord’s Prayer: instead of saying, “Lead us not into temptation,” he wants the prayer to read, “Let us not fall into temptation.” The idea is that “temptation” is internal. It is not caused by an external force like the Devil. In our desperation to escape responsibility for our own sins, we look for bogeymen who can take the blame. The Devil with his horns is a convenient scapegoat.

Still I am escaping my friend’s question, which was about the Vedic Personality of Evil. My intention was to first get a grip on what we mean by “Personality of Evil.”

Is there a Vedic Devil? As I have said, the short answer is “No.” There may be some good candidates. Various figures and personalities in the Puranic stories might be said to embody evil. There are many powerful demons mentioned in the histories, from the Mahabharata and Ramayana to the Bhagavat Purana. There are demons like Kumbakarana and Ravana who challenges Ram himself. Hiranyagarbha and Hiranyakashipu are good candidates. But Ram pauses in the middle of the battle to hear instructions about good government from the demon Ravana. And the Bhagavat teaches us that even such terrible demons have come to earth to teach us a lesson about the Lord’s pastimes and avatars.

After all, there is no Ram without Ravana. Without the terrible demon Hiranyakashipu there can be no deliverance of Prahlada at the hands of Nṛsimhadeva.

It has been argued that without the betrayal of Judas there would have been no sacrifice by Christ and no salvation for mankind, thereby making Judas the greatest of the apostles.

The Satanic era of dark mills and factories decried by the poet William Blake is supposed to be presided over by Kali, the dark spirit of the iron age. But only in the Age of Kali does Caitanya Mahaprabhu appear to save the fallen souls with the power of the holy name.

And if Kali is not the embodiment of sin, then who is responsible for the darkness of this age of evil? If there is no personality who causes us to do evil, then who is the culprit?

It’s an old atheist trick to accuse God of evil. If God exists, why doesn’t he do something? How can he condone the terrors of this world? Who is the source of all this horror?

To find the face of evil there is no need to seek out a devil’s mask; we have only to look in the mirror. God has not created evil as a scourge to man; we need only look within to find the fault.

God is not at fault for creating a universe filled with evil. Evil is our own creation.

To understand this, we may now turn for a moment from the problem of the personification of evil and the Devil Himself. Let’s look at the problem of evil as it is seen in the most ancient of scriptures, the Vedas.

If Western Christianity considers Evil as nascent with the Fall, a product of Adam’s temptation, a stain that blackens the soul from birth, the Vedas have distinct point of view.

“Evil” as such is seen from different perspectives. If dharma is religion and duty, then the opposite is “evil” in a sense. Adharma is bad conduct, avoidance of duty, irreligious behavior. On a social level this means rule-breaking and criminality. On a higher, more spiritual, level adharma means forgetfulness of one’s true spiritual nature or self-interest. Ignorance of self-realization is a kind of adharma. Forgetfulness of one’s eternal nature as spiritual energy is the root of all evil. Such forgetfulness is the beginning of ahaṁkara or false ego. Ego begets a dark kind of intelligence based on a perverted sense of self. This in turn engenders mental “selfishness” and choices based on lust, anger, greed, pride, illusion and envy. The point of dharma as a life-principle is to correct this forgetfulness and ignorance. But Evil as such is not an innate principle of Vedic teaching. It is not that darkness is a force opposed to light. Darkness is the absence of light--not a rival entity. Englightenment is turning toward illumination-the divine light, especially the light of God Himself, the Divine Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, Reality the Beautiful.

It is our ignorance that turns us away from light--not some supernatural angel or demon. As we reject our identity as divine light, servants of the divine God, our misidentification draws us into the shadows of false ego. And it is through false ego, misdirected intelligence, and are mind driven by false choices that we embrace the dark side. We become involved with the shadows of a kind of holographic puppet show that we accept as reality.

While the supreme may have enabled this illusion through the agency of his divine energy, called Maya, he is not responsible personally for the evils that befall us. Neither is Maya the devil. Once again, it is not that an evil force contra poised to God has created evil as an objective reality. God himself has no hand in forcing us to participate in the illusion. He has not “led us into temptation”.

According to Vedic knowledge, Maya or illusion acts as a kind of stage director providing us with the props to put on our show. Under the illusion of false ego we act as the protagonists in a shadow reality. the holographic universe projected through kind of mass hypnosis, aided and abetted by the illusory energy, and confirmed by the immanent God as Paramatma is certainly real. And yet because of its temporal nature it is unreal. The duality of the material world is real, but if the only reality is eternal, then only God and souls exist.

Maya, then, helps in the creation of our dream like existence. But Maya is not the devil.

Vedic knowledge offers us no convenient devil. If there is any devil, then, he is within us. The problem of good and evil is one of remembering our true self-interest. Spiritual life begins with understanding this principle the soul is eternal. And if the soul is eternal what relation has a living soul with the living God.

The most ancient of discussions on the nature of evil is found in the Book of Manu. in this ancient law book, Manu speaks as the primordial Man, the conscience of humanity giving the law. But while he prescribes a list of punishments for a host of evil deeds he reserves judgment on the problem of evil itself, since evil has already been defined as simply a turning away from good.

In the Christian universe there is only one life. At birth we understand with original sin. We have one short life to reform ourselves by turning away from the devil and accepting a life of redemption with Jesus Christ. If we are successful, and eternal life in heaven awaits. But if we fail, we are condemned to an eternal life in hell.

The Vedic conception has no such simple analysis. Heaven and hell and life on earth are part of an eternal cycle: the circle of birth and death. One may rise and fall on the wheel of karma, but as long as one is concerned with mortal happiness and unhappiness one is condemned to constant birth and rebirth on the wheel. Only by discovering one’s true spiritual self-interest does one become liberated from the wheel of karma. And while liberation in a general sense means becoming transcendental to the wheel of karma, there is a higher sense. True liberation means discovering one’s complete identity as an eternal servant of God, Krishna, and participation in the divine pastimes of the sweet absolute.

There is a dichotomy in the problem of Dharma. For Dharma simply means good conduct within one’s own society. Dharma can mean good participation in the world of birth and death. Insofar as good karma and good participation in the system of heaven and hell is temporary good behavior in the material world is something like good behavior in a prison. The prisoner achieves benefits through good behavior, but these benefits accrue only within the prison system. According to the Bhagavat even the merits of heaven and hell belong to the world of karma. So in a higher sense, Dharma must go beyond the good conduct required to achieve the merits of heaven.Law aims only at the good conduct aspect of Dharma. His law looks at evil and violence in terms of bad conduct which must be punished. But essential to his teaching is really the idea of “hate the sin, not the sinner.” The idea that evil is in the world is found nowhere in his philosophy. How then could there be a personification of evil? In the round cycle of eternity every soul may find redemption and no one is consigned to the flames of hell forever. The Vedic law as it pertains to the world of karma is concerned with what is to be done and what is not to be done. It contains no concept of ultimate evil and so no one personifies evil.

In general Vedic Dharma promotes compassion and mercy as virtues. Good Dharma involves moral propriety, social responsibility, compassion and generosity. Higher Dharma appeals to self-sacrifice, self abnegation, and finally dedication to God himself

if we find the ancient law of Dharma in the book of Manu, a higher analysis of spiritual principles may be found in the Bhagavad-Gita. There, Krishna defines evil as a function of different influences. This analysis is subtle.

While much Christian theology seems to view the problem of evil in terms of black-and-white hell hot and sin black, God vs. the devil Krishna not only sees scales of gray but different hues of color.

Just as all color is seen by human eyes is an effective light and shadow that can be broken into three primary colors, Krishna explains that all phenomenon falls under the influence of three primordial qualities. These qualities will develop into all the varieties of mental and physical phenomena. If evil is a function of darkness and darkness of facet of light the different colors and shadows present in our material phenomena as the stuff of matter are a consequence of the presence or absence of these different influences called gunas. The “influences” are the threads from which the holograph of material phenomenon are woven.

When the predominating influence is that of tama-guna, or that of ignorance, evil is more present than good. So the problem of human life becomes elimination of darker influences.

Insofar as we fall under the power of bad influences, we may be subject to temptation or evil. But Vedic knowledge informs us that our descent into darkness is ultimately our own personal choice. We may not blame our lack of enlightenment on any devil, natural or supernatural. Temptation, like false ego and ignorance is internal. In this sense, the enemy is within.

In a talk given on 28 November 2013

Śrīla Bhakti Rakṣak Śrīdhar Dev-Goswāmī Mahārāj advises how we can avoid our six enemies.

Śrīla Mādhavendra Purī perhaps said,

kāmādināṁ kati na katidhā pālitā durnideśās
teṣāṁ jātā mayi na karuṇā na trapā nopaśāntiḥ
utsṛjyaitān atha yadu-pate sāmprataṁ labdha-buddhis
tvām āyātaḥ śaraṇam abhayaṁ māṁ niyuṅkṣvātma-dāsye
(Śrī Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu: Paśchima-vibhāga, 2.35)

“O Lord of the Yadu dynasty, Kṛṣṇa, I have come to Your feet to explain my position. Please consider it.”

What is that position? “Kāmādināṁ kati na katidhā pālitā durnideśās: for so long I have left no stone unturned to satisfy my masters: kāma, krodha, lobha, moha, mada, and mātsarya. These inner six enemies have very cruelly and harshly exacted such a great amount of service from me. But I have not received any remuneration from them, not a drop of peace. I have not been paid anything. From time immemorial, I have been rendering service to these enemies, but up till now, I have not seen any satisfaction in their faces. They are as hard as before.

“Pālitā durnideśās: and what have I not done? Whatever they have ordered, instantaneously I have obeyed that. In the middle of night, my lord said, ‘Oh, you must go there and steal something, some fruit from there.’ ‘You must charge your enemy with a bomb.’ Krodha, anger, roused me at midnight to kill someone, and I obeyed. So what have I not done to carry out the order of these enemies living within me?

“Now I am disgusted, my Lord. I am now fully disgusted.

kāmādināṁ kati na katidhā pālitā durnideśās
teṣāṁ jātā mayi na karuṇā

“I could not satisfy or propitiate them. Na trapā nopaśāntiḥ: and in my own self, I also find that no reaction has yet come in me for that. Na trapā: I am not ashamed. Nopaśāntiḥ: I have not made any reactionary or temporary truce: ‘I will stop. I can’t do this for the time being. Give me some rest.’

“But somehow,  I don’t know why, or how, I have run to You. I have run to You! Utsṛjyaitān, somehow I have avoided their vigilant eyes and run to You.

utsṛjyaitān atha yadu-pate sāmprataṁ labdha-buddhis
tvām āyātaḥ

“I have approached You. Śaraṇam abhayaṁ māṁ niyuṅkṣvātma-dāsye: You are the real shelter who can save me from these enemies. I have felt this dictation from inside. Māṁ niyuṅkṣvātma-dāsye: please give me some engagement. If You engage me, then they will all fly away in fear. If only they hear that You have given me shelter and engagement, then, whatever their account book may say, they will fly away.”

If we can make any contact with that plane, with the nirguṇa bhūmi [land of dedication], then other plenary influences will withdraw at once.

nehābhikrama-nāśo ’sti pratyavāyo na vidyate
svalpam apy asya dharmasya trāyate mahato bhayāt
(Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: 2.40)

And we will be saved from great disaster.

“Please, grant me some shelter.”

That is the advice, instruction, of our Guru Mādhavendra Purī: “Anyhow, run. When they are a little unmindful of you, at that moment run, take shelter.”