Evil

[Fool]

Did Sai Baba, Gautama, Jesus, Mohammed, and et al have the potential for evil?

 

[ajay0]

Did Sai Baba, Gautama, Jesus, Mohammed, and et al have the potential for evil?

Evil is just unregulated cravings for pleasure and aversion for pain as per the dharmic philosophies.

 

[syo]

I don't know.

What I do know is that men are capable of evil. Evil happens now on Earth. Why God allows evil??? It's horrifying. It must be very hard to be a victim of evil. why God doesn't destroy evil???

 

[Earthling]

Did Sai Baba, Gautama, Jesus, Mohammed, and et al have the potential for evil?

I think so yes, but to be certain I would need you to define evil. Everyone has the potential for evil.

 

[Jainarayan]

Evil is relative.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Evil is just unregulated cravings for pleasure and aversion for pain as per the dharmic philosophies.

Unregulated according to what?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Evil is relative.

Relative according to what?

 

[Jainarayan]

Relative according to what?

Relative to the context, the time, the location, the events, pov... you name it, it's relative. For example, The peoples that Genghis Khan and the Mongols conquered probably thought he was evil. He and his armies probably didn't see themselves as evil. Evil is relative to your pov.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Then I suppose I may be fortunate that at least 51% of the population believes that torturing babies for fun is wrong behavior. Or that it is absolutely wrong to be intolerant. Etc.

Are these coming philosophers new friends of “truth”? That is probable enough, for all philosophers so far have loved their truths. But they will certainly not be dogmatists. It must offend their pride, also their taste, if their truth is supposed to be a truth for everyman—which has so far been the secret wish and hidden meaning of all dogmatic aspirations. “My judgment is my judgment”: no one else is easily entitled to it—that is what such a philosopher of the future may perhaps say of himself.

One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. “Good” is no longer good when one’s neighbor mouths it. And how should there be a “common good”! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for the rare.

Nietzsche

 

[Fool]

Relative to the context, the time, the location, the events, pov... you name it, it's relative. For example, The peoples that Genghis Khan and the Mongols conquered probably thought he was evil. He and his armies probably didn't see themselves as evil. Evil is relative to your pov.

so a negative person, or service to self, would believe they were not evil because it was relative but someone else who did the same thing was evil and relative?

 

[Jainarayan]

so a negative person, or service to self, would believe they were not evil because it was relative but someone else who did the same thing was evil and relative?

Possibly. I might commit some heinous act but not give it a thought as being heinous or evil. Someone else might think it's heinous and evil. I'm sure Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and their ilk didn't think they were evil, but we do.

 

[ajay0]

Unregulated according to what?

According to Dharma. Dharma is the moral laws governing individual conduct enabling a progressive and harmonious individual and human society.

The Golden rule can also be used to serve as a compass in determining Dharmic conduct in each and every situation or scenario.

The ancient epic Mahabharatha states thus....

"This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.”
— Mahabharata

 

[Anthem]

Yes

 

[PuerAzaelis]

According to Dharma.

Ty. _/\_