This fifth posting that deals with the question of evil will be split into several parts. The issue is fundamental and the replies of Jung are also lengthy. I have also brought in some Dravidian Philosophical texts to elucidate the problem further. Readers are warned that a single reading will not be sufficient. You may have to read over and over again to understand the issues being discussed. I have omitted the original text in Tamil for saving space.
Question 5: If my reading of your views
correct, I should judge that you think evil to be a far more active force
than traditional theological views have allowed for. You appear unable
to interpret the condition of the world today unless this is so.
Am I correct in this ? If so, is it really necessary to expect to find
the dark in the Deity? And if you believe that Satan completes the quarternity
does this not mean that the Diey would be amoral?
Victor White in his "God and the Unconscious" writes at the end of his footnote on page 76:" On the other hand , we are unable to find any intelligible, let alone desirable, meaning in such fundamental Jungian conception as the 'assimilation of the shadow' if they are not to be understood as the supplying of some absent good(e.g., consciousness) to what is essentially valuable and of itself good.' "
Jung: I am indeed convinced that evil is as positive
a factor as good. Quite apart from everyday experience it would be extremely
illogical to assume that one can state a quality without its opposite.
If something is god, then there must needs be something that is evil or
bad. The statement that something is good would not be f one could
not discriminate it from something else. Even if one says that something
exists, such a statement is only possible alongside the other statement
that something does not exists. Thus when the Church doctrine declares
the evil is not or is a mere shadow, then the good is equally illusory,
as its statement make no sense……….. The identification of good with OUSIA
is a fallacy, because a man who is thoroughly evil does not disappear at
all when he has lost his last good. But even if he has 1 per cent of his
good, his body and soul and his whole existence are still thoroughly
good ; for, according to the doctrine, evil is simply identical with non-existence.
This is such a horrible syllogism that there must be a very strong motive
for its construction. The reason is obvious: it is a desperate attempt
to save the Christian Faith from dualism. According to this theory [of
the PRIVATIO BONI ] even the devil, the incarnate evil, must be good, because
he exists, but inasmuch as he is thoroughly bad, he does not exist.
This is a clear attempt to annihilate dualism in flagrant contradiction
to the dogma that the devil is eternal and damnation a very real thing…………
…. Certainly the God of Old Testament is good and evil. He is Father or Creator of Satan as well as of Christ. Certainly if God the Father were nothing else than a loving Father, Christ's cruel sacrificial death would be thoroughly superfluous.
Loga: Here it is clear that while
Jung is right in saying that EVIL is real and not simply the deprivation
or absence of good, his view that God is the source of both good and evil
is totally wrong. God cannot be both the creator of Christ and Satan. The
Satan which is only a metaphorical statement of the workings of something
that we are led to recognize as evil HAS TO BE AN AUTONOMOUS REALITY
always in battle with God. This is what in Saivism is called aNu
or aNavam just as uncreated and eternal as God and the countless
number of souls. Saivism agrees with Jung that evil is real
but disagrees with him when he says that God is both good and evil.
I shall reproduce here a part of IrupaIrupathu wherein these same questions are raised but answered somewhat differently. ( The whole text is available at the Dravidian Philosophy Campus)
Chapter 1: Nihilism and the Way Out
Now begins an interrogation
of Meykandar of a profound kind in which Arunandi takes to task
Meykandar's central notion 'an-n-iyaminmai' or absence of Otherness as the limiting condition of
Being-in the-World of the anmas that he outlined in his magnificent Civajnana
BOtham(henceforth C.B) and which is said to have been bestowed by BEING itself and no other.
This is also the notion of ParaMukti, the absolute liberation that provides the meaning for
Existence, that for which existence is. The interrogation and the dialectics brings out the
impossibility of making sense of this notion of Paramukti within absolute hetereology that always
maintains an alienness, an Other. Having brought out the numerous impasses and hence nihilism
of a kind as the only possibility, he makes it come out from the mouth of Meykandar the solutions
to these dillemmas that hark back to the words of Appar and Thirunjaanasambanthar.
kaNNakan nyaalaththuk kathiravan thaanena
veNNaith thOnRiya meykaNta thEva!
kaaraa kirukak kali aazvEnai n-in
pEra inpaththu iruththiya peruma!
vinaval aanaathutaiyEn enathuLam
n-Ingkaa n-ilaimai Ungkum uLaiyaal
aRivinmai malam piRivinmai enin
oraalinai uNarththum viraay n-inRanaiyEl
thippiyam an-thO poyppakai aakaay
Oh Meydanda Theva,
who hast come down like the brilliant sun that dispels the
DARKNESS of the wide world, and residing in VeNNai Nallur, has established me
in everlasting bliss by destroying my inclinations towards the Dark, I am desirous of
posing some (fundamental metaphysical) questions (in the light of what you have
If Thou as the BEING, has been all along with me never departing at all,
standing as the SAME, then how is that I am infected with DARKNESS OF
If it is said, it is so because the MALAM remains non-alienated and separated , it
would mean that Thou standeth aloof and apart. But if this is denied and is said that
BEING as such remains WITH all nonalienly, then not only it is incredible but also
that Thou art NOT the foe of the false and illusory.
amalan chOthi n-aayakan
muththan paramparan enumpeyar mutiyaa
And if so, then such descriptions of Thee as the Absolutely Pure, the Supremely
Faultless, the Totally Illuminant, the Eternally Liberated, the Absolutely
Transhistorical will be inapplicable.
vERu n-inRuNarththin viyaapaka minRaayp
pERum inRaakum emakku em peruma!
Now in order to
avoid such difficulties, if it is said that Thou standeth as an Other
and instructs the creatures, then that would mean that Thou art not universally
pervasive and immanent. And furthermore it would also mean Being-absolutely-one-
with- Thee and hence the SAME as Thee will be impossible for me.
irun-ilan- thIn-Ir iyamaanan kaalenum
perun-ilaith thaaNtavam perumaaRku ilathaakalin
vERO utanO viLampal vENtum
chIRi yaruLal chiRumai yutaiththaal
as a Reality totally transcendent and above,
Being-one-with-the-Physical- World of Fire, Air, Water, Earth and Space and
agitating them as a whole (to instruct me) does not anymore belong to Thee. So
explain to me whether Thou art one-with-me or not without loosing patience that is
aRiyaathu kURinai apakkuva pakkuvak
kuRi paarththu aruLinam kurumuthalaay enin
apakkuvam aruLinum aRiyEn; mikaththakum
pakkuvam vENtiR payanilai n-innaal
Now if Thou repliest
that I have posed these questions out of ignorance and that
the world process is pedagogical in nature in which through the intermediaries of a
GURU, I in fact instruct each according to his own cognitive maturity or
developmental attainment, we are not free of problems. For I am absolutely certain
that even instructed, if I am not sufficiently matured for it, I will not be able to
understand it at all. The instructions will be completely beyond my grasp. Now if a
readiness for comprehension is required as a precondition, then Thy instructions
athanaaR payan n-I varinE
n-innaip paruvam n-ikazththaathu annO
than oppaar ili enpathuvum thakumE
Now if Being-one-with-Thee results as if spontaneously because of a state of
readiness (and through direct revelation), then it is not something that happens in
the course of the developmental progress of an individual. And because of this
uninvolvement, Thou becometh the Supremely Incomparable, the Wholly Other.
mummalanj chatam aNu mUppu iLamaiyil n-I
n-inmalan paruvam n-ikazththiyathu aarkkO?
Now if Thou art
not only the Wholly Other (but also involved in the pedagogical
processes), and standeth as the Absolutely Pure, who or what is instructed by Thee?
For the three fold malas ( the ANavam, kanmam and maayeeyam) are insentient
(and hence incapable of learning); the finite self being a metaphysical reality does
not age or remain youthful (i.e. does experience the historical processes of growth
and decay). And since Thou art already the Absolutely Pure, it cannot also be as a
way of realizing Thyself.
uNarvezu n-Ikkaththai Othiyethu eninE
iNaiyili aayinai enpathai aRiyEn
yaanE n-Ikkinum thaanE n-Ingkinum
kOnE vENtaa kURal vENtum.
Now in order to overcome these difficulties if Thou asserts that these changes are
brought about in the UNDERSTANDING and not in the nature of the Metaphysical
Being of the selves, then it becomes incomprehensible how thou art the Wholly
Other, and the Incomparable. Whether it is I who removes the finitizing factors of
the understanding or it leaves on its own accord, Thy presence seems to be
unwanted. Please illuminate me and enlighten me with respect to these questions.
kaaNpaar yaarkol kaattaakkaal enum
maaNpurai uNarn-thilai manRa paaNtiyan
kEtpak kiLakkum meynyaanaththin aRiyE
You raise all these questions only because you are ignorant of
what has already been articulated (by Appar wherein he says:) You cannot SEE
anything unless SHOWN as such by BEING. Furthermore you are also ignorant of
the reply given by Thirujnaanasambanthar when the Pandian king queried him viz.
BEING discloses to each according to his own merits in a manner befitting his
hermeneutic capabilities and because of which the modes of disclosures are really