5

Somebody answered one my question's on Kali Demon and said the following:-

Another son of Lord Brahmā was Irreligion, whose wife’s name was Falsity.

But why would Lord Brahma create a son called as Irreligion?

Why would any God create something bad anyways?

  • add a link to that question , it will make this question more clear – Yogi Mar 26 '15 at 12:39
  • @Creator I added the link. – Keshav Srinivasan Mar 26 '15 at 15:26
6

If dharma is what God wants us to follow, if for the sake of establishing dharma that the Lord has to take birth here again and again (BG - 4.7), then what ignorance caused Brahma, the reservoir of all knowledge, to have a son like adharma? Wouldn't the world have been a better place if God Brahma didn't create this Son? Yes, it would have been. So what's the reason? Why would God create anything bad at all?

Well the thing is, stories of the scriptures are not to be always taken literally. Many of them are symbolic in nature and have esoteric meanings. For example, Kali has the wife named Durukti (harsh speech). It means harsh speech is the companion of the age of Kali just like a wife is a companion of a husband. So in Kali Yuga people won't won't be humble, instead they will say harsh words to others and will cause quarrels. Similarly, the mixing of kali (quarrel) and durukti (harsh speech) gives rise to death, fear, etc. which are described as their sons. In the very same way, adharma has been stated as the son of Brahma.

In reality, no God would create anything bad so that He will have to work for restoring the good again. No one is that fool. The manifestation of good and bad is natural and spontaneous because God is both sat and asat Himself:

sadasaccāhamarjuna [BG - 9.19]
- Arjuna, I am both sat (good) and asat (bad).

So in the beginning when creation occurs, God Himself enters the creation as good and bad and manifests as different material nature:

sa evedaḿ sasarjāgre bhagavān ātma-māyayā
sad-asad-rūpayā cāsau guṇamayāguṇo vibhuḥ
[SB - 1.2.30]

Meaning
He at the beginning of creation through His own illusive power transformed into both good and evil. Although He is attributes less, He became endowed with attributes and qualities.

Then people as per their actions good or bad give rise to corresponding situations. Sages and saints describe it in many ways through stories and different philosophies. When one advances in spiritual practice through devotion, inquiry, etc. he will be able to know and realize the truth. The truth that, all is this merely a lila (sport / pastime) of God:

lokavat tu lila kaivalyam [Brh. Su. - 2.1.33]
- The creation is merely a sport of Brahman.

I was also troubled by similar kinds of question, but it went away upon my realization of Shunya Vada by following the path of devotion.

  • You said --> " So in the beginning when creation occurs, God Himself enters the creation as good and bad and manifests as different material nature". But why would God Himself enter the creation as bad? Was it just because God wanted to have some fun? – user3750229 Apr 21 '15 at 5:18
  • @user3750229 well, you can say so as you know about lokavattu leela.. [Brh. Su. - 2.1.33 ]. But there are other reasons and meanings that you may come to know at sometime. – Be Happy Apr 24 '15 at 11:21
  • I still did not understand... GOD entered creation as bad just because he wanted to have some fun? And its HIS leela. And we are suffering because we consider ourselves as bodies and do not concentrate on our souls? If we meditate, even if somebody harms us, we will not feel anything? Then all of us need to leave our jobs and just meditate and concentrate on our souls? Who will take care of our families? Or we leave our families up to GOD? – user3750229 Sep 29 '15 at 2:39
  • 1
    @iammilind Again, it is profoundly problematic to equate Rajas with bad. A king who performs Yagnas and donates money to Brahmanas for the sake of going to Devaloka when he dies is a virtuous man. He is not bad in any way; the fact that what he is doing is insufficient to get him Moksha does not imply that what he is doing is bad. Sattva involves doing good for its own sake, Rajas involves doing good for the sake of the reward it yields, and Tamas involves doing bad. – Keshav Srinivasan Sep 29 '15 at 8:01
  • 1
    @iammilind I certainly agree that Rajas is short-sighted in the grand scheme of things, insofar as even pleasures in Devaloka are ultimately temporary. But Rajas need not involve immediate gratification of desire; it can certainly involve choosing a greater material pleasure in the afterlife over a lesser material pleasure right now. But it's ultimately short-sighted, because the person doesn't realize that material pleasures are not a permanent source of happiness. – Keshav Srinivasan Sep 29 '15 at 14:15
4

Your question is based on wrong assumption that Brahma created this world for our enjoyment, and there is nothing else than this world.

About creation

Bhagavata Purana, on the other hand, says that Brahma is being born in the specific universe and starts creating things after being instructed by Vishnu what exactly to create.

Bhagavata-purana 2.5.11 says:

yena sva-rociṣā viśvaṁ

rocitaṁ rocayāmy aham

yathārko ’gnir yathā somo  

yatharkṣa-graha-tārakāḥ

I create after the Lord’s creation by His personal effulgence [known as the brahmajyoti], just as when the sun manifests its fire, the moon, the firmament, the influential planets and the twinkling stars also manifest their brightness.

You can read in the whole chapter 3.6 of Bhagavata Purana about what "Lord's creation" Brahma speaks here. After that, there's whole chapter 3.8 about birth of Brahma and after that you may as well continue reading onwards. ;)

Bhagavata-purana 3.9.43 says

sarva-veda-mayenedam

ātmanātmātma-yoninā

prajāḥ sṛja yathā-pūrvaṁ

yāś ca mayy anuśerate

By following My instructions you can now generate the living entities as before, by dint of your complete Vedic wisdom and the body you have directly received from Me, the supreme cause of everything.

So, Brahma doesn't do anything out of his own wishes - he's just a tool in hands of Ishvara.

Chapter 15 of Bhagavad-gita clearly states that there's something else than this (material) world. Krishna speaks rather succintly, because, after all, he and Arjuna are in the middle of the battlefield between two armies ready to fight, but he mentions immaterial world anyway, because it's extremely important.

Said that, let's talk about justice.

About justice

Your question is "why would any God create anything bad anyways". But shastra says that God is above everything related to this material creation.

More than that, Krishna himself says that no one that ourselves are the reason of sufferings:

Bhagavad-gita 13.21

kārya-kāraṇa-kartṛtve

hetuḥ prakṛtir ucyate

puruṣaḥ sukha-duḥkhānāṁ

bhoktṛtve hetur ucyate

Nature is said to be the cause of all material causes and effects, whereas the living entity is the cause of the various sufferings and enjoyments in this world.

Especially important is the verse 15.8:

śarīraṁ yad avāpnoti

yac cāpy utkrāmatīśvaraḥ

gṛhītvaitāni saṁyāti

vāyur gandhān ivāśayāt

The living entity in the material world carries his different conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take another.

All this is to satisfy various desires. We have various desires, and some of us find satisfaction in illicit deeds, one of which is Irreligion. But for it to happen, Irreligion should exist, right? Somebody has to create the concept of it first.

But God wants from us different things:

Bhagavad-gita 18.66

sarva-dharmān parityajya

mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja

ahaṁ tvāṁ sarva-pāpebhyo

mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

This world is not for our satisfaction. It's to teach us that without God we will not be able to get any satisfaction at all. Some can be taught by simple thinking about God. Some - by hearing about God. But some can be taught only by experiencing continuous suffering, which will lead this living entity to the most important milestone in life - disappointment and finally, regret.

So, according to shastra, that's the most reasonable reason Brahma created such "bad" thing as Irreligion. He had to create everything, so living being could experience everything and draw a right conclusion.

ADDITION: About suffering

It probably is worth noting also about the true nature of "bad". Even if the question started with Irreligion, it ended with more general notion of "bad". I'll show some more shlokas with the assumption that "bad" is something which will ultimately bring us suffering in one form or another.

First of all, Bhagavad-gita 2.12 clearly states that we are not created, we simply exist since time immemorial, and Brahma is involved in our appearance here only by giving us the material bodies we are using and changing here.

na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ

na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ

na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ

sarve vayam ataḥ param

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

This part of chapter 2 explains clearly that we as living beings cannot really be born, get old, get sick or die. All this is material illusion.

Nobody "created us in this world". We are here on our own accord. We do not do here anything ourselves: everything here is prepared for us by almighty Ishvara so we would be able to satisfy ourselves, and while doing so we hurt each other due to our lust being transformed to greed and then to rage.

  • I am upvoting your answer for the efforts you have shown to collect the related verses. But you must understand that the asker wants to understand based on logic derived from these verses, which I see is lacking here. I find more alignment with the answer from @BeHappy. – iammilind Sep 29 '15 at 7:06
  • @iammilind I humbly ask you to elaborate what more logic you want me to show in the answer. Because I personally believe if one just read the verses themselves, even without reading the Srila Prabhupada's comments, he'll inevitably come to the same conclusion as I came. So many shlokas is there only because I must cite sources and not the "logic". For "logic" one just has to accept a spiritual master and that's all - he'll answer all such questions easily. – hijarian Sep 29 '15 at 7:18
  • I neither argue against those slokas, nor do I say that one should read Srila Prabhupada's purports/comments. I myself find them not proper. However what you gave is after effects. e.g. "Why he created bad?", You said: because some people realize god by continuous suffering that's why. That challenges rational logic. Because if I am the god and I create you as a soul and then let you suffer so that you realize me, then in first place I won't create you itself. Let you remain merged within me. Problem solved before it arises! :-) The answer of "Why he created bad?" is in "Why he created us?" – iammilind Sep 29 '15 at 10:07
  • 1
    @iammilind OK, thank you, now I understand what is lacking from my explanation. As you yourself said (and I said it, too), to properly answer "why he created bad" we need to first establish some more context. – hijarian Sep 29 '15 at 10:15
  • @iammilind "Because if I am the god and I create you as a soul and then let you suffer so that you realize me, then in first place I won't create you itself." That's not even a conceivable option, because souls are never created in the first place or sent into Samsara; see my answer here: hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/3734/36 It's not like Brahman sits around thinking "Hmm, what souls should I create?" The souls are already there in Samsara, going infinitely far back in time. – Keshav Srinivasan Sep 29 '15 at 14:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .