It is difficult to write about some subjects. Not because they are deep or complicated, but because of their very nature. Some subjects make a writer uneasy, even if the scribe is not normally squeamish. Some odors are repulsive, because the substance they emanate from, is poisonous—the revulsion is a natural protection. Evil seems to be one of these difficult subjects, perhaps for the same reason. Can it be that there is something inimical to the immortal spirit? Certainly not to the spirit, but almost certainly to the personality—a psychological cyanide. Some might question the concept of a personality toxin, but there are instances of influences purloining a personality from its divine career. Evil is a dark mystery and, as truth seekers, a mystery important to our calling. We want and need to know about this mystery (including whether it actually exists) without being subject to it. Our careers might depend on it.

When we turn to what Christian mystics have written and said about evil, we encounter two very different views on the subject. One could be called an educational outlook. The idea is, that if an aspirant can recognize evil, and know its ways, it can be avoided, or dealt with. The aspirant is given a description of the types of evil (usually two: Luciferic-like and Satanic-like), how they function in the world, their consequences, and so on.The aspirant is prepared to live the higher life, with a clear vision of its perils. Some mystics believe there is only one sin, ignorance. If this is true, illuminating education would seem to be the perfect antidote to evil. In the eyes of this writer, this is one of those cases where the theory is beautiful, but the application doesn’t seem to bear out the theory. Over decades of observing aspiring adherents to this philosophy, it seems more attention is given to evil, and its other world sources, than is given to the good and its Source. The manifestation of this philosophy, is not as extreme as seeing a devil under every bush, though there is some of that; it is more a matter of seeing inimical influence within all of the activities of the world. One cannot separate the tares from the wheat without diminishing the harvest. Similarly, evil, if it exists, cannot be ejected from the stream of human activity, it must be recognized, and avoided, or transformed. The educational outlook is a sophisticated view, as are its educated proponents. Adherents to this outlook cannot, in any way be considered evil. It is more a matter of this view being mildly inhibitive of spiritual progress by distraction from a dedicated focus on the good. When the “educational outlook” is found in religion, rather than mysticism, the nature of sin is, is clearly described, and there is plenty of devil sniping. This is an instance wherein this writer is willing to concede that, while his observations may be accurate, his interpretation of them may not be.

The other view seems to be more the view held by Max Heindel. This view could be called an aspiration outlook about evil or, better, an aspirational outlook about good. According to this view, one aspires intently to the good— aspiring to the Good is greatly different from avoiding evil. For one thing, it is positive, which by itself, is pro-evolutionary. In following this outlook, one can see evil, when it appears, for what it is in the light of truth. In some respects, it is almost an expression of the old adage: the brighter the light, the darker the shadow. Max Heindel did not eschew speaking of evil, but when he did address the subject, he did so sparingly. If one is driving down the highway and looks to the side, one soon finds the vehicle slanting in the direction of the sidelong observation. In this viewpoint, evil is a distraction, and it can be a fascinating distraction. The danger of this viewpoint, lies in assuming one knows what is good, or evil, when one might not. In religion there is often a smug assumption that one knows what is good, and what is evil, while the reality is sometimes not so certain. Intuition dispels the illusion of false knowledge, but sometimes we are prone to confuse opinion with intuition. Moreover, if one carries out one’s impulses far enough to experience their consequences, the qualities of impulses become clear—another reason why retrospection is important. One does not often find the “aspirational outlook” carried out in the way that it is carried out in mysticism. However, horrendous things have been carried out by religions under false assumptions about something being evil, when it was not. This statement about the “aspirational outlook” is another instance wherein this writer is willing to concede that his outlook may not be correct.

When one addresses the subject of evil, as we are, one soon finds one’s self in a dualism of good and evil. Individuals disposed toward approaching spiritual aspiration with the head more than the heart, seem especially prone to moral dualism. For instance, the great Madame Blavatsky averred that evil was the necessary opposite to the good. Some gnostics, including some Neo-Platonists, associated evil with matter, as the necessary resistance to the spirit in the creation. Matter is, in fact, resistant to spirit, but not because it is inherently evil. The resistance of matter is a reflection of creative projection into the potential of cosmic root substance. The potential is undefined, it could be anything. It is is so undefined, that there is nothing on which to gain advantage—it is like trying to grab a handful of water—paradoxically,it is also so dense, that it approaches impenetrability. In this regard, it is similar to our life wave in the Saturn Period, when we were plunged so deeply into unconsciousness, that the Lords of Flame had difficulty getting the germ of form, which was to become our physical vehicle, to take. Matter is not absolutely resistant. It does eventually become spiritualized, and ignorance does become enlightened. Spirit does grow, in all respects, in the process of compounding soul out of matter. Goodness is enhanced in a struggle with evil; but the notion that the good needs evil to blossom into its fulness, is preposterous. The Good is intrinsically good; good is good. Some Neo-Platonists correctly associate the True with what we call Human Spirit, the Beautiful with Life Spirit, and the Good with Divine Spirit. The will to be, that is Divine Spirit, is more than some aloof, insensate, state of being, it is good, and its goodness is only distantly felt in our moral numbness. The Good does not need evil to be good, though when it sacrifices itself to share in a creative manifestation, it evokes resistance to accomplish its goodness.

The Tao Teh Ching is a profound book of ancient Chinese wisdom by the sage philosopher Laotse. In a chapter titled “The Rise of Relative Opposites” one finds the following line: “When the people of the earth all know the good as good, there arises evil.” Taken by itself, this line could be interpreted as a vague statement of the “aspirational outlook” mentioned above, but that is not what the author meant. In the succeeding lines it is shown to mean “interdependency” of good and evil, polarity of action, or definition. The line might just as well have been written: “If you define a good man, you define a not good man, i.e., an evil man.” The problem with polar opposites, like these, is that one has only two choices and there is no progress. The “Relative Opposites” in the chapter heading could also be understood as comparative differences, not absolute differences. In such a case, if you define a good man, you open the way to a better man. You also open the way to a worse man, because it is possible to devolve as well as evolve, but not in absolute, because experience cannot be nullified. Comparative, or relative, evolution of moral actions, or inactions, allows for a spectrum of moral behavior. It also allows progress, whereas absolute moral dualism, or denial of it, does not. Some might argue that “progress” is just another social definition, an indoctrination into conformity. If one is a mystical aspirant, progress is a reality, a matter of self-observation and intuition, that is often experienced in the form of conscience. An earnest and honest aspirant intuitively knows that she/he is getting better. As Rosicrucian aspirants it is our duty to strive for moral improvement, and to objectively judge our progress. Problems only arise when we judge others, or judge ourselves relative to others. “To thine own self be true.” This view is not subjectivistic because, inwardly in spirit, we are part of the one Universal Spirit, and the Universal Spirit is ultimately objective.

The view of Max Heindel about good and evil is called agathism, which is a fancy way of saying that all things work for the good—with or without the Neo-Platonistic definition of the Good. He was fond of saying things like “evil is good in the making.” This is not merely a “feel good” statement, it is real. It is orderly; it is objective; it is evolutionary. The very workings of the “Man and the Method of Evolution” section of The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception are moral. What could be more perfect than, that we get perfect moral feedback through the principle of consequence? What could be more edifying than experiencing the higher spiritual worlds, and the influence of the divinity in grace. The life of mystical aspiration, is a life of moral experience, more than it is intellectual philosophy.

Theology is usually more about intellectual philosophy than spiritual experience. “The problem of evil” is a term from theology. The inability to solve “the problem of evil” has caused many theologians to become atheists, especially academic theologians. “The problem of evil” is a classic dilemma, a two headed monster. In it, either God is not omnipotent and cannot purge and disallow the evil we see in the world, or God is the source of evil as much as the source of good. The latter alternative is again the dualistic evil which, at its best, is the necessary proving of the good, as though divine good needed proving. St. Paul admonished Christians to “prove all things” (because we are subject to illusion and misunderstanding) in spiritual matters, but it is absurd to see the atrocious monstrosities of evil in the world as proving of divine goodness. Besides, if one continues to question or prove things, one eventually reaches the indubitable, self-evident, intuition of the goodness of divinity. Doing this does not disprove the possibility of God also being evil as well as good. As mystics, we seek direct spiritual experience, at least as much as we seek proof that satisfies the intellect. This writer knows of no mystic that has reported a mystical experience of the Universal Spirit intending evil as much as good. Many mystics have reported malignant beings of great magnitude, but none equal to the Universal Spirit, and all ultimately serving the Universal Spirit—“The spirit of Negation; the power that still /Works for the good through scheming ill.”—Goethe. This writer realizes that this argument does not disprove the thesis of God being equally good and evil, but the observation of the evolution of moral improvement seems to substantiate it for us, until we see it for ourselves, and experience the intuition of the goodness of the Universal Spirit in the Universal Spirit.

The other head of this monster has its own share of absurdities and paradoxes. Whether mystical or materialistic, the undeniable presence of existence is more significant than the forms of existence. Either good or evil, by whatever definition, is a form of existence, not existence itself. Thinking this way, the burden of the argument is shifted from good and evil to the source of existence. Once again, we find the existential dilemma cannot be resolved intellectually. Every argument has a counter argument. The atheistic argument is a purely intellectual argument. Its appeal, even to theologians, is that divinity is unnecessary to the dilemma. What is, is. Existence is the all. In this view, we are free agents to change things as we see fit which, of course, leads to endless intellectual arguments about what is good or what is evil. The atheistic argument of the existential dilemma, side steps the question of the origin of existence by saying it isn’t necessary to postulate an origin. It points to materialistic science, with all of its discoveries and applications, as not needing an ultimate origin to discover truth. Materialistic science is about how things in existence work, not about the origin of existence, which is a subject it has steadfastly refused to address, though opinions about it are abundant. In this also, we are blest to have a path of experience to cut through, or avoid, the irresolute tangle of endless arguments.

Mysticism offers the best answer to “the problem of evil” by avoiding the futile intellectual content in the statement of of the problem. It goes directly to the heart of the matter, and can be stated in one word, freedom. We are all foci of one universal spirit, spirits within spirit. We may differ in consciousness, creativity and evolutionary achievement, but in spirit, we are all equal. Pure unconditioned spirit cannot be more spirit. In our manifest state of spirit, our consciousness and creative ability is far less, than that of the spiritual being we call God, or the Creator. We are becoming creators within the manifestation of the Creator. There are many goals in this manifestation; one of them is for us to share in the joy of creation as creators. We are being carefully nursed from unconsciousness to creative, spiritual consciousness, with our degree of application, being the only limit. In this process, we willingly and gratefully, take roles as co-creators, according to our abilities, as do the angels, archangels and other creative beings. Though our role at this time is subsidiary, we are not meant to be eternal underlings or automatons. It is intended that we attain to the creative capacity now maintained by the Creator. The Creator does not stint in sharing, It gives everything it has. Of course, in the creation, the Creator will attain to greater creative capacity, but that is beside the point. In order for us to attain to this intent, it is necessary for us to have the same freedom as that enjoyed by the Creator. This freedom includes the liberty to go against the Divine Plan, or do evil. Unfortunately, we have chosen to do both. This does not mean that all is lost. It does mean that the creation must adapt to a different course. It also does not mean that we are to be eternally flawed beings. By the law of action, we will learn from our reactions, and become a different kind of divine beings, than originally intended; perhaps better for having chosen the extreme and defiant expression of freedom that we did, we will have had an unprecedented path. Evil will eventually eradicated by God, the God in us.

All of this is lofty, inspiring, and comforting, as we sit in our reading chair, or at our writing desk, but what are we doing to eradicate evil, or redeem its perpetrators? Without action, this knowledge will soon lose its savor and become what Hamlet says: “words, words, words”. Redemptive action in the real problem of evil, has its own difficult problems. Ironically, they turn on the same fulcrum, freedom.

The principle of cause and consequence does well for most of us. We sin or err, and we suffer the consequences, and we improve through the four Rs: recognition, remorse, repentance and restitution. Not sinning is only a small part of redemption, the greater part lies in giving love, in large and small. Are we doing our part in changing the psychic environment to make it more conducive to love and goodness? As mystical aspirants, we are endeavoring to go beyond our daily duties in the ongoing evolutionary work of the world. We need to ask ourselves if we are deliberately, self-consciously, and freely contributing positive, loving, thoughts and emotions to the world. As Christian aspirants, we strive to live our lives in the imitation of Christ, who freely gave an enormous gift of love to the psychic atmosphere in which we live. “Freely ye have received, freely give.” There is freedom in not having to do something; there is greater freedom in doing something from the goodness of one’s heart, without coercion of any kind.

More difficult problems arise, concerning incorrigible evil doers. Some of whom have become inverted.They believe themselves equal in manifestation, not merely in spirit, to the manifest Creator; they gain their strength in opposing divinity, and they grow stronger feeding off of the hate from others. Adolph Hitler invited people to send him their hate. The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception tells us, and we see it play out increasingly in the world, that some are becoming openly and unavowedly evil. This is occurring at the same time when others are striving for the good by renouncing force, or any form of coercion, out of respect for all spiritual beings, and their freedom. This is a nasty combination. With things as they are now, if someone is attacked, the police are called, the perpetrator(s) are over powered, tried, and sentenced to whatever is, hopefully, correctional. What if there were no police, or anyone who would willingly overpower another? This is part of the future described for us in The Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception when speaking of the contemporary Manichean, greater mystery school, which is seeking to solve this problem. The Gospels advise against self-defense; St. Paul was stoned, and St. Stephen was stoned to death, without resistance. We can defend others by shielding them with love, but not by counterattack or retribution. What can we do? We can love! We can live in imitation of Christ by bringing love into the world as much as possible through our prayers, including protective prayers. “Pray ceaselessly.” In this way we are contributing to the solution of the problem of evil in a general way, by changing the psychic environment. Specific services depend on specific situations.

Most Rosicrucian aspirants are children of fire, more head than heart oriented. Being such, we can use our specialized development to help solve this problem of evil. It is not likely that we will exceed the Manichean initiates in our thinking, but there are things we can do as we are. Over a lifetime, filled with errors and observations, this writer has learned that evil in not logical; in fact, it is stupid. There is no tenable justification, even with astounding mental capacity, for evil, in any analysis. Max Heindel observed, that one of the primary reasons for taking the path to perdition, is pride of intellect, vanity in thought. Combining these two observations with love, one can see, that plausible and pervasive thoughts can be aired, which might speak to minds, not yet irredeemably hardened, to reconsider their thoughts and actions— their pride in not wanting to be stupid could actually save them. Our Lord told us to love those who despitefully use us, and this is a way it can be done without direct confrontation, or coercion. It is worth a try.