Hindu answers to the problem of evil are different from most answers offered in Western philosophy, partly because the problem of evil within Hindu thought is differently structured than Western traditions, mainly Abrahamic traditions.

In the Hindu tradition the problem of evil is phrased as the Problem of Injustice. This problem can be considered in the following manner:

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and just. Yet injustice is observed to persist in the world. How is this possible?

In the Advaita school of Vedanta, this problem is dealt with in detail by Sankara in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, 2.1.34–36:

Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: “No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration.”

Sankara’s commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (karma) done by that individual in a past life.

Brahma Sutra 2.1.35: “If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the transmigratory state has no beginning.”

The opponent now argues that there could have been no “previous birth” at the very beginning of creation, before which karma could not have existed. Sankara replies that it is not so, for the number of creation cycles is beginningless; see the next verse:

Brahma Sutra 2.1.36: “Moreover, this is logical, and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures).”

Sankara provides references from the Vedas concerning the beginninglessness of Creation: “The Ordainer created the sun and moon like those of previous cycles” (Rig Veda 10.190.3). This shows the existence of earlier cycles of creation, and hence the number of creation cycles is beginningless.

Thus Sankara’s resolution to the Problem of Injustice is that the existence of injustice in the world is only apparent, for one merely reaps the results of one’s moral actions sown in a past life, which is compatible with the Justness of an Omniscient and Omnipotent God.

On the higher level of existence, however, there is no evil or good, since these are dependent mainly on temporal circumstances. Hence a jnani, one who has realized his true nature, is beyond such dualistic notions.

Sankara used this as an argument for the existence of God. He argued that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).

Another view is that the problem of evil is present but does not exist per se as souls are eternal and not directly created by God. In Dvaita (dual) philosophy, jivas (souls) are eternally existent and hence not a creation of God ex nihilo (out of nothing). The souls are bound by beginningless avidya (ignorance) that causes a misidentification with products of nature (body, wealth, power) and hence suffering. In effect, Hinduism identifies avidya (ignorance) as the cause of evil, and this ignorance itself is uncaused. Suffering from natural causes is explained as a natural karmic result of previous births.

Moreover, even within the realm of avidya, good and evil are an individual’s deeds, and God dispenses the results of an individual’s actions but has the power to mitigate suffering. Advaita (non-dual) mysticism maintains that every seemingly separate person is in fact a thought, dream, or experience of God; God creates and becomes / experiences each creation, deliberately limiting it to a specific identity in space and time to undergo a particular life experience. In Advaita, it is God who experiences every pain, suffers every indignity, dies every death, and experiences the illusion of being each separate individual.

A human’s karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits. Thus, God affects the person’s environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences. Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma; It is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual’s actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God. This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.

Christian Science, which I have mentioned previously also has a stance on the problem of evil.

Christian Science views evil as having no ultimate reality and as being due to false beliefs, consciously or unconsciously held. Evils such as illness and death may be banished by correct understanding. This view has been questioned, aside from the general criticisms of the concept of evil as an illusion discussed earlier, since the presumably correct understanding by Christian Science members, including the founder, has not prevented illness and death. However, Christian Scientists believe that the many instances of spiritual healing (as recounted e.g. in the Christian Science periodicals and in the textbook Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy) are anecdotal evidence of the correctness of the teaching of the unreality of evil. According to one author, the denial by Christian Scientists that evil ultimately exists neatly solves the problem of evil; however, most people cannot accept that solution.

I’d like to comment more on some things you or Stephen talked about:

Suffering can come either from evil or from things outside of evil, like the asteroid. As you said, “evil” is often used wrongly. I think Baha’i scriptures make it obvious the only possible source of evil is the human ego. Strictly speaking, maybe even awful acts born of delusional thinking
should no longer be considered evil, because they’re not driven by a consciously willful ego. Civil law definitely sees a difference there. As far as the other animals go, they don’t have free will or ego, and so couldn’t be morally accountable. I know Abdu’l-Baha talks about the “blessed” animals and the harmful kind, like your rattlesnake, but I’m sure that’s only about physical risk.

I’m glad to have just set things up for a brief rant I’d like to make about the “non-existence of evil”. If Susan and Stephen are there, they could find it interesting. Gary Matthews wrote “The Metropolis of Satan” as a reality check for his fellow Baha’is. He pointed out that the chapter called “The Nonexistence of Evil” in “Some Answered Questions” by Abdu’l-Baha is wrongly read by some, in contradiction to the spirit of many other Baha’i passages. Abdu’l-Baha did not have his head in the clouds or the sand; he was very practical, and I can’t imagine him easily dismissing evil. That chapter was only explaining that all things come from God and thus aren’t inherently evil, but that some can interact with others in a harmful way. Those toxic snakes and the like are mentioned as an example. Abdu’l-Baha is also saying that technically evil is only the absence of good. Mr. Matthews reminds us that too much literalism here is not very satisfying to victims of mistreatment, nor of course to victims of natural mishap.

“In conclusion”, as they say somewhere near the end, I would like to mention a distinction between two kinds of suffering that M. Scott Peck made. He credited Carl Jung as his inspiration. Mr. Peck said there is “legitimate suffering” that we all should go through; it’s the inner struggle toward improvement and growth. If we try to avoid it, we will only bring the other kind, “neurotic suffering”, on ourselves later. Obviously, there would tend to be negative fallout on the people around us, too. I know the concept only encompasses the realm of human accountability and not Nature, but, mental illness aside, should we be thinking of past and present tyrants as people who avoided doing their “inner work”?

Steve, do you mean you don’t believe the scenario in the 1998 movie Armageddon where our hero Bruce Willis actually does divert an asteroid? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Steve, your feeling that God “allows” misfortune is well taken, part of my premise of Why would a benevolent loving God allow 1) evil, and 2) suffering? when in our belief systems, He has the power to prevent such things. And I am not answering the question Why do we suffer? that’s been written by countless others. But an asteroid has no will of its own, and hasn’t “chosen” to crash into us; it is a physical, natural phenomena. A probability real, not Hollywood, scientists have been studying. We can prepare somewhat for probabilities such as that since we have been struck and know it could happen, yet preparing for possibilities, on the other hand, is a zero sum game, without end or probable success. I love the armed forces, who justify arms races with “We have to prepare for the unforeseen.” If it’s unforeseen, how do you prepare? No, we prepare for probabilities, yes, we must. But I do feel as I think I perceive you do also, that it is God’s Love for creation that in fact keeps all existence in existence. Human beings free will, however, without question, allows or disallows suffering, and we have, thankfully, many more folks trying to alleviate it than to add to it.

Stephen, appreciate your comments, and yes, it is a question that my articles hint at, Does evil exist? Is a rattlesnake evil, or is that its nature? And is it evil in relation to man if a man never stumbles upon it? That’s what I mean by Nature. Pain certainly causes suffering, mental tests not the least of painful experience. Definitely, the label “evil” is too often misapplied.

Obviously this article was written by someone who has never suffered; the bias is apparent… Perfect job, marriage, family, etc. Sure it is easy to say that God has nothing to do with suffering when one has not suffered much if at all.
To say that God is not responsible for ANY human suffering is inane at best. First off, God created a universe in which people will suffer. Worse yet, some people suffer very little and some suffer a lot more through no fault of their own, and in spite of struggling for their entire lives to make their lives better. To say that makes us stronger, etc., does little good for those who are so depressed they cannot even do anything to contribute to society, even though they want to.
I have been a Baha’i for 45 years and I have been able to do nothing with the Faith because of my suffering which has been almost constant. To say that there is recompense in some afterlife that cannot even be proven to exist is really of no help at all, not for me anyway.