I can't say for certain, but I would hardly think that evil is the same as atheism or materialism, which is what your definition seems to imply. Could you please clarify on what you mean, because just because a jiva is ignorant and thus succumbs to maya and the cycle of birth/death does not mean that they are harming others. At best, it could be regarded as sinful but not evil, right?
Its hard to discuss this because when we use words like evil and sin, it has Abrahamic overtones associated with it. The word closest to evil/sin is
paapa. The seed of
paapa is ignorance of both one's
nitya dharma (as an eternal servant of Narayana) and also to some degree, one's
Naimittika Dharma (bodily dharma, i.e if a Kshatriya kills someone in order to dispense justice, it is not seen as
paapa, by Shastra because such an action is according to Naimittika Dharma, while if some else does it in another circumstance, it is generally Paapa). This is because by following ones
Naimittika Dharma properly one slowly comes to the stage of following one's
Nitya Dharma.
Also I think harm doesn't equal to evil. Alot of people confuse the problem of suffering with the problem of evil. They are not the same. Suffering arises due to attachment to the fruits of our Karma and the false ego of being the enjoyer. However because Karma is a Just system, all suffering is justified. Krsna says in Gita, "
sama aham sarva bhutesu" I am impartial to all living beings. Everything we get in this world (suffering or pleasure) is due to our own actions. The root of that suffering however is ignorance (of one's true position) and that is the
paapa which is why we are suffering in the first place.
Atheist and materialism is interesting. In the ultimate sense, it is
paapa, not because of its relation with harm, but it is done under ignorance (from a Vaishnav POV of course). However in another sense, if an atheist/materialist is performing their Naimittika Dharma , then in the circumstantial sense it is not
paapa because while they are not following the
nitya dharma, by the process of following their bodily dharma (Naimittika) they are advancing spiritually. Krsna said in Gita that is it better to follow one's own Dharma correctly than another's incorrectly. Different Jivas have different eligibilities and so they will follow different paths.
I wanted your thoughts on something. I've heard several Sri Vaishnavas say that it is actually easy for us to forget about Brahman and enjoy our lives in the material world. Thus, in the material world, agnosticism is the default state of the jiva before they start to inquire (brahma jijnasa) about the universe in a mystical manner.
I also agree. Due to the marginal nature of the
jiva, forgetfulness becomes one of her faults. Agnosticism is a default stage once we fall into the
samsara. as that is when the
jiva has already been overcome by Maya, and thus in an ignorant stage (of forgeting Brahman). Not just forgetfulness, but there are other things that can easily lead to falldown. Excessive enjoyment is actually a result of attachment. The story of Bharata Muni was very interesting in this regard. In his life, Bharat Muni was on the verge of Mukti. He was fully renounced and also realized in Brahman Jnana. More then that, He was in the stage of Bhava Bhakti (which is even higher then the Brahma Bhuta stage of self realisation) However what happened was that as he was meditating one day, he saw that a mother deer and perished and left a baby deer alone to die. Bharat took pity on the deer and this pity developed in attactchment for the deer. When at last it came to die, his last thought was not of Brahman, but of the deer and due to this, instead of getting moksha he entered into the body of a deer in his next life. (ultimately he did get liberation, but the point of the story is that even someone on the verge of moksha can fall down due to the bewilderment of Maya).
So anyway, because of this
paapa (of ignorance) we develop false ego and suffer the fruits of our karma. We do this until through various lives, but it is only really in human life that we have a capability to follow Dharma. Agnosticism I would say only comes about consciously. but our spiritual efforts are never lost. If someone has performed Bhakti in one life, and is reborn, due to their
sukrti generated from Bhakti, they will be born in an environment where they will immediately continue their Bhakti again. It is a question of association. Prahlad Maharaj was born in awareness of God because He has heard Bhagavatam from Narada while still in the womb of the mother.
Until a jiva actually becomes truly Mukta, she does not actually know Brahman, because the Upanishads says that one who simply knows Brahman become liberated from Samsara. Our knowleadge of Brahman (i.e our spiritual consciousness) is incomplete and evolves through various births and lives as we move through different religions and paths. As we move through these paths, our knowledge of Brahman becomes purer and purer (barring some fall down) until we finally understand Him, and get Moksha. This also explains why there is so much variety of religion of different purities. Sorry for the long post. Just my thoughts on this.
