While Aurobindo justifies this suffering as necessary for the Evolution of Consciousness and the ultimate manifestation of Sat-Chit-Ananda, from a human ethical perspective, such widespread and extreme suffering is difficult to reconcile with the notion of the Divine as infinitely compassionate (Karunasagar).
A further question arises: what was the necessity for the Divine to manifest Consciousness into Ignorance in the first place for its own Ananda, leading to such suffering? Does this imply that the Divine has no control over its own Ananda and, like a compelled or misled being, allowed this “hell” of suffering to occur? How to justify this and how are the limitations of this justification — particularly regarding unbearable real-world suffering for the Divine’s own Ananda —understood within your philosophy?
The first thing to understand is that the Divine who chose to plunge into the ignorance with the full knowledge of the aftermath of suffering and the eventual multiplication of delight, the manifold delight of multiplicity, did it with the full consent of our central being, that aspect of the soul that remains unfallen and hence always in the bliss of the eternal company of the Divine. The soul in us took it as a great adventure in which it plunged along with the Divine. So the two are together in it. It is somewhat like a game where you start with the joy of the game, but as the game proceeds and difficulties and challenges increase, the question may arise as to why we chose it at all. It is somewhat like a child goes to school, faces tests and challenges, weeps at failure, laughs at successes, but in the end understands its necessity for the full blossoming of itself. This identification of the soul with the ignorance is a necessary part for its full development, as a seed must bury itself in the dark underground to grow into a tree.
In the process of its growth, each stage is like going from one class to another. There are challenges meant to help us grow. But the mind in ignorance and the comfort-seeking vital get overwhelmed and nervous and even question the wisdom of the principal and the parents who sent him through the school.
However, there is an inbuilt mechanism that makes the evolutionary pressure bearable and easy. It is this that, for a long time, even this question doesn’t arise. We live mechanically, enjoying the little drama of pleasure and pain. In the balance, the pleasure is always much more and hence no one wants to quit or leave the game. Yes, some people experience unbearable suffering, but it is not due to the evolutionary spin-off but because of a relative free will, without which there can be no authentic evolution but only machines and automatons. The possibility of suffering comes with the challenge of evolution towards a greater Delight. Man is meant to take the challenge. Suffering is like a barometer that shows us that we have taken a wrong attitude. It is a reminder towards course correction, which is necessary for the adventure of evolution from ignorance to knowledge. Suffering is simply a reminder that perhaps I have taken the wrong road and need to correct it. To say that all is suffering is to be unrealistic and untrue. Yes, suffering is there, but the major experience of the world play is joy. That is why no one wants to leave it. One cannot hold that as a total argument against the idea of creation as if there is nothing else but suffering. There are many other things besides that that made the experience worthwhile.
As to the compassion, is it a greater compassion to cut the stifling cloak of a caterpillar or to assist the process of delivering the butterfly? Isn’t labour pain part of the process of delivering the new baby or the new possibility? Ethics is always about the motive and not about the action. The suffering of creation is not allowed by some Saddist God but by a Compassionate healer who allows surgery and bitter pills sometimes to heal the illness created by our wrong attitudes.
Affectionately,
Alok Da
