This article is purely theoretical. I have tried in this blog to help people in practical ways but this article on returning good for evil is not like that.
I have the impression that one of the central tenets of the Christian faith is returning good for evil. I hope I am not mistaken when I say that.
I must hasten to add that my standards are not as high as all that. These standards are just something that I aspire to. It is not that I am consistently meeting such a high ethical standard. As a general rule of thumb I follow my nature. If doing good pleases me then I do it otherwise not. Not very principled but it works for me.
When I was young I was exhorted to return good for evil as a means to reform the person doing me the injury. This never made sense to me. I was a hot headed youth and could not understand why I should care whether or not the person harming me repents or not. I was prone to getting very angry if I was ill treated and could not understand why I should want my injurer to like me.
And in fact my natural reaction makes complete sense to me even now after decades. I fully agree that we should return good for evil to the extent we are able. There are of course practical difficulties. We need to earn and that requires behaving in ways at variance with seeking God. Also it may not be your nature to take this teaching seriously. In that case, wait until your nature changes. Don’t do violence to your nature by condemning yourself for feeling and doing what is natural to you.
This is unconventional advice. I think a Christian priest would tell you differently. I am basing my views on Emerson’s essay on Self Reliance. Link to the essay is at the end of this article.
Emerson’s essay also strongly advocated that your doctrine of doing good should not pule and whine. Look up the meaning of the word “pule” in the dictionary. It is instructive.
I think it was Dostoevsky who said returning good for evil does not make sense unless you believe in heaven and hell (Christianity does not believe in rebirth on Earth). Think what you like of this metaphysics but Dostoevsky’s doctrine does not pule and whine. It stands on its own feet.
Emerson would have approved.
Most people do not act out of love of God but out of fear of Him (and of the law). They are also for most part completely selfish. For them this doctrine makes complete sense.
I myself did not believe in heaven and hell for a long time but now I admit the possibility that they may exist. According to Advaita Vedanta life on Earth in the waking state is dreamlike. It is not dissimilar to a dream.
So if we can dream that we are living on Earth then why can’t we dream that we are in heaven (or hell).
Advaita Vedanta also gives us the theoretical justification for returning good for evil. According to Advaita all is nondual (or all is One roughly speaking). Our adversary is not different or apart from us. If we do an injury to him we are hurting ourselves.
This is a doctrine that makes sense to me. Not the one that requires my injurer to feel guilty and repent.
Look up Swami Sarvapriyananda’s lectures on Advaita Vedanta for more on nonduality (they are available on YouTube).
As to how to become the sort of person who is capable of following this teaching please see my blogs below:
Here is the link to Emerson’s essay on Self Reliance:
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16643
I am looking for paid consultancy work. If interested please email me at nikhil dot gangoli at gmail dot com. Do not use the Comments or Contact Me forms.
I hope you liked my blog. Please share it on WhatsApp, X and FB and let me have your comments. Feedback from my readers keeps me going.