[PetrZimin]

I was recently listening to a talk, and one of the things said (in a nutshell) was that in Buddhism, there is no such thing as "evil", but rather delusion/stupidity...and even then there are no inherently stupid people, but only that there are some people who do stupid things. How does this explain things which are labeled evil such as serial killing or acts of terrorism?

[Tusethede]

Hi JSmusiqalthinka,

In Buddhism, such things are usually considered in terms of the "three poisons" -- greed, hatred and delusion. It seems to me that some combination of the three should account for the horrors you mention.

At least from what I've encountered, I wouldn't say Buddhists always avoid the word "evil". I have seen it used. However, the word can have connotations which run counter to the dharma. For instance, it can imply a sort of permanent state -- someone is born evil, is evil now, and will be evil forever. According to the Buddha, however, even the worst mass murderer or terrorist has the capacity to become an enlightened person, and even good people have the capacity to be snared by the three poisons.

[vNQmO2BF]

I was recently listening to a talk, and one of the things said (in a nutshell) was that in Buddhism, there is no such thing as "evil", but rather delusion/stupidity...

and even then there are no inherently stupid people, but only that there are some people who do stupid things. Yes. People perform unwholesome actions because a deluded mind, a lack of Right View.

How does this explain things which are labeled evil such as serial killing or acts of terrorism? Most of them are under a deep delusion of mind, deep ignorance and have been under an indescribable suffering not being aware of it and there is always the possibility to reverse that state of mind.

[bDvYaQfM]

in the scriptures, the translation "evil" is found often

personally, i think it is wiser to review our perception of the word "evil" rather than say evil does not exist

generally, our perception of the word "evil" is nuances such as "bad", "hateful", "despicable", "satanic", etc

in short, such perceptions create hatred, anger, hostility & blind reactivity in the mind

where as if our perception of the word "evil" is changed to that of "harmful", this can nurture compassion rather than hatred & anger

but true...ultimately harmful actions originate from delusion and stupidity

to view in this way does not alter the harmfulness of acts such as serial killing, terrorist bombings, etc

however, to view in this way alters our state of mind, nurturing more compassion, responsiveness & understanding

imo

element

[Filmania]

Hi JSmusiqalthinka,
As far as I can tell, 'evil' suggests an inherent, permanent quality of an entity, and in Buddhism nothing is inherent or permanent or an entity. Instead, behavior arises naturally as conditioned by previous states. The word 'evil' arose in a very different religious context. That said, the word appears in translations to describe Mara, but Mara wasn't a real entity, just a metaphorical one. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg12.htm

[seodiary]

This confusion was occurred because we mixed up the levels of Dhamma and teachings. We did not understand the whole picture and do not know what level of Dhamma the speaker was talking. So, we confused why this jigsaw is different from another jigsaw (which in fact they need to be put in different places.)

In Buddhism, there are two types of truths, i.e. the conventional truth (‘Paramatthasacca’) and the ultimate truth (‘Paramatthasacca’).

Both are conflicted to each other. But each of them is true in its aspect and area. The problem will occur when we try to use the ultimate truth to overrule the conventional truth, or the other way round.

So, we need to consider firstly whether the speaker was talking about the ultimate truth or the conventional truth. Then, we discuss in such aspect/area, and do not mix up.

For example, if we say there is no ‘self’ (in the ultimate truth), someone does not understand and mix this with the conventional truth. He/she may view that as there is no ‘myself’, so there is no my dad and mom (in the conventional truth) and he/she does not need to do good things for his/her dad and mom (in the conventional truth)? If red and green are not ‘self’ (in the ultimate truth), we do not need to comply with green or red lights in the traffic signs (in the conventional truth).

The Buddha was enlightened and knew the ultimate truth. But, staying in the societies, the Buddha also accepted the conventional truth. He accepted the laws, the position of kings, the status of millionaires and poor people, the occupations of people etc.

[pGJLweEw]

Or as Seung Sahn (reportedly) put it: "There is no right or wrong. Yet right is right, and wrong is wrong."

[Natashasuw]

Not sure if this will be of interest on this topic of Evil, but here's a link to a recent BBC2 programme "Are you good or evil"