Baba on Good and Evil

I have spoken to two people who converted to Christianity who made the objection that Baba does not teach that there is evil, and therefore there is no moral core in his teachings. I will show that neither are true, and that these charges betray a certain understandable ignorance of Baba's teaching.

Baba constantly emphasized good action, and did not tolerate immorality. But Baba's emphasis is on what is called in Christian mysticism mystical union, and not so much on the differentiation between good and evil, which is much more central in Christianity.

This does not mean that he did not discuss good and evil, or that he didn't emphasize the good as the way to that ultimate union with God. Baba says that the spiritual journey is one "from evil to good and then from good to God." (from 'Evil as a Relic,' Beams, p. 58)

Baba emphasized being good such as in sacrifice, honesty, cleanliness in action, and all the other traditional virtues. Clearly Baba always advises to do what is good.
So what do people mean when they say Baba had no doctrine of good and evil? There are a few ways that one could be confused by his words and come to this idea.

The first is that Baba said that evil does not exist as a force in itself, but rather is merely the absence of good.

[I]t is a mistake to think that evil is an irreducible active force by itself. (Beams p. 55) 

This could seem like Baba is saying there is no evil occurring anywhere in the world. Understood as such this would seem very contradictory to Christian teaching, which emphasizes the existence of evil and the battle we must wage against it internally and externally.

However, far from being in conflict with true Christian understanding, the statement that there is no evil as a force in itself is in fact the original Christian theological position on the subject. See Augustine's doctrine on absence of good.

Augustine. "What is Called Evil in the Universe is But the Absence of Good."  (source)

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine's view that evil is the absence of good is in fact one shared by nearly all philosophers since his time that have contemplated the subject. Just as cold is the absence of heat and darkness the absence of light, evil is but the absence of good -- though it can take on the mark of extreme cruelty, and Baba says as much.

Baba is saying that what is ontologically most real is the good, and this is consistent with Christian faith, even if many Christians are not aware of this.

Now the second reason that one could think Baba does not teach good and evil is that Baba said God transcends the opposites, hence good and evil as well.

“One has to rise above the duality of good and evil and accept life in its totality, in which they appear as abstractions. Life is to be seen and lived in its indivisible integrity. Nevertheless, there is an important factor in the opposites of good and evil. Evil is to all appearance the converse of good yet at the same time it is capable of being converted into good. Thus, generally speaking, the path lies from evil to good and then from good to God, Who is beyond both good and evil.” (Beams, p. 58) 

This could seem at first glance to be saying that God is not good, or to espouse no difference or to be a relativist doctrine. None of these are what Baba means. What Baba means is that God is beyond all dualities of light and shadow. Just as the sun is light without shadow (hence as the source of light is beyond the distinction), God is the very source of the good, and is not only good but goodness itself. This is fully consistent with their being, in the final analysis, only good. It is our ignorance that creates shadow.

So Baba is in full accord with the Christian phrase, "God is good." Baba in fact teaches that God is "all merciful and eternally benevolent" (See The Master's Prayer).

Evil, in a general context is the absence or opposite of that which is described as being good. Often, evil denotes profound immorality. In certain religious contexts, evil has been described as a supernatural force. (Wikipedia, retrieved 9/18/17)

In Baba evil is not a supernatural force, but nor is it one in true orthodox Christian doctrine. The lingering sense of evil as a supernatural force in itself is a lingering remnant of Manicheanism, and not a true historical doctrine of Christianity.

Now as for the world of human beings, Baba definitely never implied there is no evil. Far from it in fact. Baba refers to "good and evil" in his major book God Speaks and there are dozens of references to evil in his Discourses. The chapter titled "Selfishness" speaks of it extensively. In Baba's short book Beams, an entire section is devoted to the topic of evil. (See "Evil as a relic," Beams, p. 55). In fact, I can find no book by Meher Baba where the word "evil" does not appear at least once. God Speaks, Everything and the Nothing, Beams, Infinite Intelligence, all make mention of it.

Now another charge could be that Baba taught situational ethics. But any Christian would agree that what stands as right and wrong depends on circumstances. Christians do not believe, for instance, that the Lord's commandment not to kill applies to self-defense, defense of another, the death penalty, or to just instances of war. Baba would agree.

Good as well as evil have an undeniable relationship with the circumstances. No judgment can be passed on the goodness of any action without considering the concrete context in which the judgment is called for. An act which is normally undeniably evil may under special circumstances be not only defensible but praiseworthy. Take for example an exceptional case. Suppose a mother has given birth to a baby and has not her own milk to feed it. The baby has to be fed on cow's milk, which is very difficult to obtain. A neighbor may have some cow's milk but the mother knows that he will not part with it for money or for any philanthropic consideration even though he does not need it for himself. Under such circumstances, if a person steals the cow's milk and feeds it to the new-born baby in order to keep it alive, the act of stealing is in this case not only justifiable but definitely good. (Beams, p. 56)

I don't think any Christian would disagree with that passage by Baba, even in light of God's eighth commandment not to steal. It is just common sense.

Now there is a quote by Baba that is not in any book by him, but is from an interview with a reporter of the Sunday Express in England in 1932, quoted in The God Man.

'There is no evil', he said. 'There are only degrees of good.' (The God Man, p. 99)

This quote has been distorted on the internet here (and here). The original words require explanation in light of the context in which it was said and what has been already said about Baba's teaching. The response by Baba was a terse answer to the question by the reporter, "Have you solved the problem of evil?" a question the reporter admitted had been crafted with the help of an oriental scholar, Sir Denison Ross, to trip Baba up. The words cannot be taken out of the context of Baba's wider teaching, and the reporter was satisfied. As explained, what is 'real' in Baba's teaching is God, who is absolute goodness, and all else is shadow born from our ignorance. Baba is referring to evil as not being a substance or force in itself, just as a shadow has no substance. As already pointed out, this is entirely concomitant with Augustinian Christian theology, and there is nothing startling in it when understood what he meant. That there are then only degrees of good immediately follows from that premise. Augustine also agreed that from the greatest perspective, i.e. God's point of view, all is perfectly good and right. Taken out of context, however, the terse reply by Baba could seem to dispute the existence of false and wrong action in the world of duality in which we live and breath, or to dispute that we must overcome such false action to achieve union with God - the source and existence of all good. As said, the only source of the actual quote is an interview in England with James Douglas of the Sunday Express, April 10, 1932. The words do not appear in any book by Baba, but correctly quoted is consistent with his teaching fully understood, as well as nearly all serious philosophy.

A final complaint by some Christians is that Baba lovers are often bad. They divorce, they do bad things, etc. Well this is a very ironic charge, since the same one is made constantly against Christians as a denouncement of their faith. That Baba followers and Christians alike often fall short of their better nature and higher aspirations is no reflection on the basic beliefs they try (imperfectly) to uphold and live. And certainly not a reflection on Baba himself.

Hence the charge that Baba does not make a distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, is the result of an understandable lack of a solid familiarity with his writings. I hope I have dispelled the notion.

I should add one more comment. The distinction of good and evil is problematic because what counts as good and bad in human activity is often merely societal convention, which changes over time. Baba thus changes the emphasis to the more spiritually germane distinction (in the bigger scheme of the goal of life to unite with God) of binding and unbinding action, i.e., those actions that enslave the soul in illusion and those that emancipate it. What retards the soul from union with God is bad because it does so, and what speeds union is most good because it does so. Good actions are less binding than bad actions, hence are the right actions. The emphasis is different, but the result is effectively identical. We must do good action to unbind ourselves from our mental impressions to unite with God. What is good is what unbinds and what unbinds is good, according to Baba. Hence Baba asks us to be good.