understanding evil

Understanding Evil – the Eastern Way Sachin Nandha Institute for Global Change

© 2006, 1

Understanding Evil – the Eastern Way

In this paper, I will be exploring the concept of evil1 and how the Eastern philosophies

have attempted to understand it. Due to the nature of the subject other questions will

naturally be raised – that of God. If one assumes that God exists and that it is

omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent as in the biblical traditions then this naturally

raises questions of ‘cosmic justice’2. Why is there evil in the world? If there is a

benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent Creator God, why does it allow evil? If God

is benevolent, it would want the good; if omniscient, it would know everything; and if

omnipotent, it is powerful enough to make things anyway it wants – so why is there

evil?

In primitive religions, the problems of evil tended to be avoided because the Gods of

those religions were usually neither benevolent, omnipotent, nor omniscient. In later

biblical traditions, cosmic justice was relatively easily explained. Judaism preached

that God can reward good people and punish bad people but this still doesn’t help us

understand evil, in fact it confuses the matter. If God is benevolent and therefore

good why does it allow evil since it is omnipotent it has the power to end all evil?

The biblical traditions allow for some room to manoeuvre and thereby preserve some

freedom of action for God. Only Islam seems to go all the way and out rightly says

that ‘God does what he wishes’3. Judaism and Christianity want to preserve some

element of good and rational purpose in Gods actions in creating evil, but neither goes

all the way as to say that God only does that for which there is sufficient good and

rational purpose. Both views seem to take us away from understanding our actions as

right and wrong in relation to the actions of God – so to what standard are our actions

deemed to be judged against if not Gods standard?

A classical Christian understanding of evil is based around the notion of free will.

God is benevolent and free will is good, hence God has given mankind free will, but

then we misuse it, hence resulting in the creation of evil in the universe. The problem

with this view is that it brings Gods omniscient qualities in question because if God

1 Definition of evil is taken to mean immoral, unpleasant, wrong and lack of justice 2 By the term ‘cosmic justice’ I mean the universal notion of good deeds are rewarded by good consequences and vice versa 3 Allahu yafalu ma yashau – Koran, Surah 3:40 (or 3:35)


© 2006, 2

creates people whom it knows will do evil and whom it will have to put in hell due to

their actions where is his benevolence? Why would a good God create people that are

evil and then punish them by eternal damnation? God could just avoid all this

‘nastiness’ in the world by creating only good people. The Koran on the other hand

forwards the notion that God creates all things including evil but we are too limited to

understand Gods reasoning.

In Eastern philosophy, cosmic justice and the problem of evil are handled with a

theory that stands entirely separate from divine beings, whatever they maybe like.

Before I continue any further, I must clarify that by Eastern, I actually mean Indian.

And by Indian I do not mean any particular association with the modern state of India,

instead I am actually referring to the ancient cultural India – that which did not really

possess any strictly defined political boundaries. Indian philosophy and thought has

influenced every major religion, culture, civilization and language over the last three

millennia. It is this vast cultural spread that I am referring to in this paper as the

Eastern Way.

Now that we are a little clearer on the term ‘Eastern’ I can return back to the issue at

hand. I had just said that Eastern philosophy attempts to understand evil by

effectively separating divine beings from it. It is difficult to be sure of the origins of

this theory, but it initially seems to appear in the Mimamsa School4, beginning with

aphorisms by Jaimini5 and progressing to a more discursive treatment by thinkers

such as Shabara and then Prabhakara6. The Mimamsa School was primarily

concerned with the interpretation of the first two parts of the Vedas, which meant that

their basic concern was with rituals and the notion of Dharma and thereby implying

Karma.

One must know that the terms ‘Karma’ and ‘Dharma’ are central to the question of

understanding evil within the Eastern way. Karma means action in its most popular

interpretation but it can also be taken to mean work, deed, or function. Karma is an

ethical concept, in that it explores and distinguishes right action from wrong action.

4 Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, 1928, Oxford University Press, Ch. 6 5 Dated around 800BC – 400BC according to Gupta, B., CIT Consciousness, 2000, Oxford University Press 6 Dated around 400 AD according to Gupta, B., CIT Consciousness, 2000, Oxford University Press


© 2006, 3

So how would one distinguish between right and wrong? In the East the answer can

be consolidated to one word – Dharma. Any action that is in accordance with Dharma

is right action and any action contrary to Dharma is wrong action. So what is

Dharma? If we can begin to understand Dharma, we may be able to test the notion of

Karma in the context of understanding evil. The word Dharma has been translated

throughout history in alternate ways – some were just philosophically wrong; like

McCauley’s definition of Dharma as simply religion. Other interpretations have

referred to Dharma as ‘justice’ or ‘duty’ – I would not like to say these are wrong but

they are indeed narrow – the word Dharma has a vastness of its own. Dharma comes

from the Sanskrit verbal root ‘dhri’ meaning ‘manner of being’7 and in its

metaphysical meaning, it can be taken to mean ‘the essential nature of a being,

comprising the sum of its particular qualities or characteristics, and determining, by

virtue of the tendencies or dispositions it implies, the manner in which this being will

conduct itself, either in a general way or in relation to each particular circumstance.

The same idea may be applied, not only to a single being, but also to an organized

collective, to a species, to all the beings included in a cosmic cycle or state of

existence, or even to the whole order of the Universe’8.

Now that we have equipped ourselves adequately with an understanding of the terms

Karma and Dharma we can begin to explore the Eastern Way to understanding evil.

The theory that developed was that right and wrong actions result in a kind of

‘deposit’, ‘charge’, or potential in the agent. Good deeds create a good potential and

bad deeds create a bad potential. The state of this potential was called the apurva,

meaning ‘without prior’ but now the term karma is used to mean not only action but

also apurva. Academics have often been confused due to this duality in the meaning

of karma. Karma in its original meaning that of right or wrong action thus causes

good or bad karma as in the sense apurva – the potential created as a result of any

action. At this point I must mention that by the term action or karma, Indian

philosophy not only refers to physical acts but also movements of the mind in terms

of thoughts and intelligence. Therefore, even thoughts create good or bad potentials.

I will come to explore this aspect of thoughts later on in the essay, for now it will

suffice to know that actions imply mental as well as the physical. Another aspect that

7 Radhakrishnan, S., Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, 1928, Oxford University Press 8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma


© 2006, 4

we need to be aware of is that where as karma or action (mental and physical) is

temporary the potential they will create can remain with the agent for a long-time –

even beyond lifetimes. I will come to explore this idea later.

The apurva or stored potential from actions becomes the mechanism of cosmic justice

and the solution for the problem of evil. In time the potential of the apurva is

‘discharged’, and this causes good and bad things to happen to the agent, good for

good, evil for evil. No good deed goes unrewarded, no wrong unpunished. The

knowledge and actions of God are not necessary. Good and evil take care of

themselves; consequently, one sometimes sees karma defined as ‘cause and effect’ or

‘equal and opposite reaction’ as equally good actions will cause equally good

consequences and vice versa. Within the Indian philosophical tradition the karmic or

causal body can be thought simply to consist of apurva – potential. If cosmic justice

is therefore assured, the existence of evil is also explained. If bad things happen to

good people, it is nevertheless the fruit of some prior wrongful deed, perhaps even in

a previous life. Without going into laboriously simple examples of the implications of

this theory, I would just encourage people to think of events such as a criminal

winning the lottery, or a man of the church brutally murdered, two month old baby

dying and so on and so forth.

Despite the basic simplicity of the theory, there is a great variety of beliefs about

karma. Most of these beliefs are built upon the basis of philosophical falsehoods or

they undermine the basic theory itself. Just to take a few examples, people often

believe that one can eradicate negative apurva (or karma) through rituals and prayers

– this is flawed on two counts; firstly, this would mean that there is no strict cosmic

justice and secondly it undermines the basic core of the theory. Another flawed

interpretation people often have is portrayed by the following example. People often

say “it may be karma of a serial killer to be that way” – this is just plainly absurd. It

undermines the theory of karma itself since karma is supposed to accrue voluntary

action, to be just. But if bad actions are themselves caused by previously earned bad

karma, this seems rather pointless or unjust, either simply magnifying the penalty for

some originally voluntary action or for punishing someone over actions over which

they have no control. This notion leads to an infinite regress as, if I am a bad person

now, it is because of a deed in another life, but I did a wrong deed in my previous life


© 2006, 5

because I was being punished for a deed I must have done in a life previous to that,

and so on and so forth.

The simplicity of the ‘law of karma’ makes it a powerful explanatory theory, but its

strength may also be its biggest weakness. It may explain too much. The strengths of

this theory are that there is no requirement for any God or divine being, and our free

will is directly responsible for the consequences we may suffer, in that if I do good,

good things will happen and if I do wrong then bad things will happen. Furthermore,

the theory also explains cosmic justice – justice will always be done, none can escape

it. Along with these strengths the theory has been subject to much criticism in that it

leads to fatalistic tendencies and a halt on human progress, at least materially. I wish

to explore this theory and highlight its potential flaws with the clear intention of

providing some form of solution to the problems highlighted while staying strictly

bound within the basic tenants of the theory.

If every natural evil9 is the result of bad karma, which there must be to answer the

problem of evil, then there is really no such thing as an innocent victim in life. This

introduces a certain fatalism and callousness. It creates fatalism because everything is

as it should be, good and bad, and cannot be otherwise, and callousness because even

the most apparently innocent victim must really be guilty. Jasper Griffin10 in his book

sarcastically titled the ‘Virtuous East’ highlights the rigidity and dogma of the caste

system as the consequence of fatalism and callousness in the theory of karma. India

has a Muslim population of around 14% (2002 census) and most of them are first,

second and third generation converts. Before their conversion to Islam most of them

were lower class Hindus’ popularly known in the West as ‘Untouchables’. Christian

and Muslim missionaries have found it striking that so many of these existing ‘lower’

caste Hindus’ are still Hindus’ and they often refuse to be converted into Christendom

or Islam where they are ‘apparently’ promised equality. They have concluded that

their willingness to put up with the caste system must be to do with their acceptance

of their own karma. The oppressed can hope for salvation or for a better rebirth, but

the whole idea of social improvement or material progress is meaningless. The

9 By natural evil, I am referring to what its popularly known as ‘acts of God’ within the biblical traditions, I am referring to the earthquakes, tsunamis, droughts, landslides, floods, etc. which all result in the deaths of often innocent people 10 Jasper Griffin is a orator at Oxford and a fellow at Balliol College


© 2006, 6

oppressed, are only oppressed by their karmic potential – apurva. Children that are

born extremely handicapped must be paying the price for their ‘negative’ karmic

potentials; even parents who share in the suffering of their children are merely

experiencing the fruit of their own karmic potential.

What is one to make of this problem with the theory of karma? Western Theologians

and Scholars are quick to assert at this point in their exploration of the Eastern way

that the problems faced by all biblical traditions on the issue of cosmic justice and the

problem of evil is not thus resolved by the Eastern way as it too has shortfalls – in the

form of fatalism and callousness.

Is there a solution to the problem? Is the theory of karma limited? There is little

denying the fact that the law of karma as thus far understood is indeed limited. The

answer, I believe, lies in the understanding of the theory of karma properly. So far I

have been exploring the theory of karma as a theory in itself as do most western

scholars – this is where the fault lies as one cannot take the theory of karma and

disassociate it from Dharma. Fatalism and callousness is not the ‘off-spring’ of the

theory of karma but due to the disassociation with Dharma. I have already explained

what Dharma is in the opening few pages – but let us refresh our minds.

Dharma is a complex term – there is no direct English translation from Sanskrit, it

comes from the verbal root ‘dhri’ meaning ‘manner of being’, it is also sometimes

taken to mean ‘that which binds all’, furthermore, it is popularly described as meaning

‘duty’11. We must understand that in order to fully grasp the vastness of the term

Dharma, a short thesis such as this will simply not suffice; rather we would need

entire volumes in order to accurately depict the exact meanings and uses of Dharma.

For the purpose of this short essay, I will forego the full justification of Dharma and

simply be content with a definition that will help us in our quest to explore the

problems of evil. We have travelled a significant distance down the wrong track and

by wrong I mean having dealt with karma as an individual theory that is disassociated

from the concept of Dharma. It may be worth stepping back a little in our exploration

11 The interpretation of Dharma as duty has arisen from the philosophical texts of the Bhagavad-Gita


© 2006, 7

so that we arrive at the point where we seem to have missed out Dharma from our

enquiries.

The theory of karma explains cosmic justice perfectly – good deeds are rewarded by

the cosmic forces in the form of apurva or positive karmic potential and for bad deeds

in the form of negative karmic potential. But we failed to discuss what constitutes a

good deed or a bad deed? This is a vital question to explore in the contexts of finding

a solution to the charge of fatalism and callousness against the theory of karma. A

good deed is that which is in accordance with Dharma, and so approached in this way,

Dharma in nothing tangible – it is a value that we associate to other things that are

objective12. It is vital in our exploration that we understand the relationship between

Karma and Dharma. Dharma seems to be the ethical value system placed on actions

in the same way as we place colours on objects.

Suppose, one says “I have seen a red car” – the statement makes a clear differentiation

between the car and the colour red – the car has a ‘value’ of a ‘red colour’ attached to

it. It becomes incredibly difficult for us to observe a car that is colourless; indeed it

seems quite a challenge to see any object without colour. And colours themselves

loose some of their intrinsic qualities if we do not associate them with objects. For

example, let us attempt to understand the colour red without it being associated with

anything else – so “what is red?” In simplistic terms, red is the wavelength of light

that survived from a reflection of an object, where as all the other frequencies (or

colours) were absorbed by that object. There is a difficulty in picturing a colour

independently of anything else and to see anything else without colour is impossible!

Furthermore, it seems that any object can be seen in any colour – for example, I can

see a chair in front of me, it is made out of wood and hence has a ‘brownish’ wooden

colour attached to it, however, as I dim the lights, the chair seems to change its colour,

it is no longer a wooden ‘brownish’ colour but more of a ‘blackish’ colour. This is

rather confusing because it seems that the chair has altered its colour but of course my

logic tells me that is impossible. So if the chair is not capable of altering its own

colour, why did it do so? Well, as any half witted person can explain, it was because

there was less light in the room and hence fewer photons were being reflected of the

12 By objective, I mean physical things such as acts, thoughts, intentions, etc. or in other words things that are tangible


© 2006, 8

chair. So if the chair was seen to be wooden under a certain type of light and then

black under less light and no doubt it would look different under every shade of light

– what is its ‘real’ colour? It seems that the chair could be any colour at any time

within the boundaries of brown and black in the context of natural light and absolutely

any colour in the context of coloured light. If this is the case, then what is the chairs

real colour? Does it have a real colour? Is there a way I can objectively find out? If

the chair is simply made of atoms – do atoms have a real colour? I do not propose

any solutions to this type of metaphysical problem – but I want the reader to fully

grasp the subtle complexity of the relationship between objects and colours. How

does any of this relate to our exploration of the problem of evil?

In order to understand this complex relationship between Karma and Dharma, I want

to relate it to the relationship between colour and objects. I want to say that objects

are comparable to Karma (actions) and Dharma as colour. Just as it is impossible to

see an object without some colour associated with it, similarly, we cannot do any act

without its subsequent ethical implication or in other words Dharma. We must

understand that every act has an ethical implication, just as every object is seen to

have colour. Let us take an example in the same form as we understood the

relationship between colour and objects. Suppose, man A struck another man B

which resulted in the death of man B. The act of man A striking man B is simply an

action – furthermore a neutral act as we have not brought the concept of Dharma into

it as yet. The above scene is synonymous with the following statement; ‘I see a

chair’. The chair can be any colour depending on what type of light reflects off its

atomic structure. In the same way the act of Man A striking Man B, resulting in his

death can only be judged in the wider context of the act. If Man A struck Man B for

his own pleasure then this is clearly adharma13 as it is contrary to the principle of

binding life, i.e. contrary to Dharma. But if Man B attacked Man A with the intent of

killing him for his own pleasure and in the subsequent fight Man A struck Man B with

a fatal blow resulting in death – then the act has radically different ethical

implications. Just as any chair can be seen in radically different colours depending on

the type and level of reflected light, similarly in this scenario Man A seems to have

acted Dharmically i.e. in self defence. Naturally, I am assuming a million other things

13 Adharma is the simply the prefix of Dharma, meaning not Dharma


© 2006, 9

in order to give a simplistic example. A stark reality that comes out of this example is

that if we accept the theory of karma in association with Dharma as I have understood

it to mean, then there is no such thing as absolutism – there is no such thing as

absolute right or wrong – everything becomes relative ‘normatively’ speaking. The

only absolutism in this theory is meta-ethical14. In our quest to understand evil, we

must acknowledge that evil acts are not absolute; instead they are relative to the

context in which the acts occur. This is the natural result of any theory of cosmic

justice that does not require any absolute divine being. I do not wish to pursue the

argument for or against relativism in this paper as it is beyond its scope.

It may be worth just recapping on our exploration so far. Firstly we acknowledged

that the theory of karma does not seem to suffer from the problems that the biblical

traditions seem to face and that cosmic justice is explained fully. The problem

seemed to be that the theory had ‘side-effects’ – it resulted in fatalism and

callousness. We briefly touched on the issue of caste within Hinduism and the

fatalism it had associated with it. I then went onto highlight the flaw in my own

explanation of the theory of karma in that I had neglected Dharma. It was the neglect

of Dharma that caused the ‘side-effects’ of fatalism and callousness. We then

explored Dharma and compared the relationship it had with Karma as being

synonymous with the relationship of colour and objects.

I believe that we have arrived at a stage where we can begin to understand evil from

an Eastern perspective. In the light of Dharma how is fatalism and callousness

avoided? Fatalism is the idea that ‘everything is as it should be’ – one expresses the

belief that something is out of ones own influence, furthermore it expresses the idea

that there is nothing one can do, even if one wanted to. The Oxford Dictionary

explains fatalism as ‘the belief that all events are decided in advance and humans have

no control over them’15. Fatalism, I believe is overcome quite easily when

considering the theory of karma in association with the principle of Dharma. Every

act has an ethical implication as we discussed earlier, including the act of doing

nothing! Maybe, one of my overly simplified examples may communicate the idea

better.

14 I discuss relativism in greater depth in another paper – Is relativism a plausible moral theory? 15 Soanes, Catherine, 2001, Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 3rd edition


© 2006, 10

Let us suppose that I went on holiday to Africa and I saw many destitute children. In

accordance to the theory of karma this human condition is due to the negative

potential stored in the lives of these children – paying the price for committing bad

deeds in the past or even in another life. Consequently, I might be fatalistic and

dissolve the problem of starving children in my mind by rationalising it as things are

as they should be – its cosmic justice! The lack of empathy with fellow human beings

and the act of doing nothing is clearly against the principles of Dharma and so

consequently is deemed to be a bad deed, resulting in a build up of negative potential.

My actions will continue to create their own positive or negative ‘potential’

independently of any other person’s situation. So whether the starving children

deserve their plight or not is not for me to judge, instead, I should continue to do that

which is right and right is anything that is in accordance with Dharma and Dharma is

acting in ways that helps to promote, bind or bring life together. Clearly this would

imply that I should do whatever is in my power to help these children, as making their

lives a little better is promoting/binding life and is therefore a good act.

A striking reality comes out of the above example – actions are judged

individualistically. The fact that destitute children may ‘deserve’ their plight is off set

by the fact that the build up of my own apurva is completely disconnected from

anyone else’s, therefore defeating the seed of callousness and fatalism in those who

believe in the Eastern way. The idea seems to portray that even if people who are

destitute may deserve their plight, it still remains my ‘dharmic’ duty to help them,

hence building up positive apurva of my own.

Some readers may have picked up on the apparent utilitarianism present in this idea. I

should help destitute children because there is a ‘good’ in it for me – my good is that I

will accumulate positive apurva for myself. There is no intrinsic quality in helping

destitute children, it is merely about accumulating positive potential for me, and so it

can be argued that another sort of callousness has been created. Whatever intrinsic

quality helping destitute children may have had, has been reduced to a mere utilitarian

decision, one that asks ‘is it worthwhile for me to help these destitute children’? The

problem that seems to have arisen is that essentially everyone is selfish under the

theory of karma. Selfish, because every action becomes a judgement whether or not


© 2006, 11

one will accumulate positive apurva. One has simply exchanged apurva for another

physical item. For example, if any person calculated what they could gain by helping

destitute children most people would class the judging agent as callous and extremely

selfish – one can then argue that the theory of karma is just a subtly more

sophisticated version of this state of affair. Essentially one has traded a physical gain

in terms of accumulating goods, money, or anything else by helping destitute children

to an abstract notion geared towards accumulating as much apurva as possible for

oneself and hence finding some psychological peace of mind in the process.

The theory of karma in association with Dharma has a simplistic answer to dissolve

this potentiality of every human action being reduced to a judgement of collecting

apurva for oneself. I must point out one difference between what I have just

described as selfishness in the previous paragraph and the term ‘proper selfishness’.

Selfishness is simply described as ‘being concerned with fulfilling ones own wishes

and desires’16. Most people are selfish to the point that they are willing to do

anything detrimental to the ‘non-self’ as long as their wishes and desires are fulfilled

either for themselves or for people who they may be connected to. The theory of

karma does not seem to suffer from this type of selfishness; instead it seems to portray

from what Charles Handy has dubbed ‘proper selfishness’. I have already indirectly

described proper selfishness, except, I have called it plain selfishness in the previous

paragraph. Charles Handy has described ‘proper selfishness’ as thus:

‘what I term a ‘proper selfishness’ builds on this fact that we are inevitably

intertwined with others, even if sometimes we wish that we weren’t, but

accepts that its proper to be concerned with ourselves and a search for who

we really are, because that search should lead us to realise that self-respect,

in the end, only comes from responsibility, responsibility for other people and

other things. Proper Selfishness is not escapism’.17

In short we must be clear that even if someone does a good deed in the hope of

accumulating positive apurva or karmic potential, it cannot be classed as selfishness

in its traditional sense, it is far closer to Mr Handy’s ‘proper selfishness’.

16 Soanes, Catherine, 2001, Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 3rd edition 17 Handy, Charles, 1998, The Hungry Spirit, Arrow Publications, pg 87


© 2006, 12

I want to go one step further and say that if one is to follow the theory of karma and

Dharma in their fullest sense then even ‘proper selfishness’ can be dissolved. I have

already explained that apurva is created through karma (action), and the term action is

not merely confined to physical movement but also to the movement of the mind.

Every thought that is generated will also create apurva. The implications of this can

be stretched exponentially. I do not profess that I have it all sown up, far from it.

Instead, I want to expose the depth of the theory of karma in association with Dharma.

If every thought can create apurva, it means that for me to create only positive apurva,

I must have a Dharmic mind as well as actions. Therefore, helping destitute children

is no longer absolutely Dharmic if I am doing so to improve my own welfare. That is

not to say one should not help destitute children if the thought behind their aid is to

improve their own welfare, but merely that some negative apurva will have been

created under these circumstances. A simple matrix can help us conceptualise this

better.

Thoughts

Not Dharmic Not Dharmic Dharmic

Physical Actions

Not Dharmic Dharmic Dharmic

Outcome Selfishness Negative apurva

Proper Selfishness Negative/positive apurva

Total positive apurva

I want to conclude this essay by consolidating the journey we have taken in this paper.

We set out to understand evil – the eastern way. I initially set out the reason behind

our exploring the eastern approach to evil; it appeared that the western biblical

notions of evil were limited, self restricting and rather too dependent on a divine

being. We quickly realised that the eastern way to understanding evil is not

dependent on a divine being; instead it relies on the cosmic justice provided by the

theory of karma. We have highlighted several shortfalls of the karmic theory and

have managed to explore a deeper understanding behind the ideas of apurva or cosmic

potential stored up directly as a result of our mental and physical actions. We

overcame several shortfalls by associating the karmic theory with Dharma.

Due to the limited scope of this paper and its introductory nature, several key

questions remain unanswered which would be absolutely necessary for a

comprehensive study of any ethical theory – namely, I have consciously left


© 2006, 13

unanswered issues of Dharma – exactly what is it and how can we define it? How can

we understand it in a tangible manner and what is its philosophical basis? These

questions are foundational to the karmic theory and must be satisfactorily explored in

order to fully appreciate the eastern way of understanding cosmic justice. What we

have discovered is that our traditional way of associating God to the problem of evil is

not necessary and in fact is limiting as it casts doubts on the omnipotence and

omniscience of God.

Bibliography

1. Griffin, Jasper, 2000, Virtuous East, University of Chicago Press

2. Gupta, B., 2000, CIT Consciousness, Oxford University Press

3. Handy, Charles, 1998, The Hungry Spirit, pg. 87, Arrow Publications

4. Radhakrishnan, S., 1928, Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, Ch. 6, Oxford University

Press

5. Soanes, Catherine, 2001, Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 3rd edition

understanding evil

Documents