Non-Face To Face Training Evaluation Form: Fill & Download for Free

One of the issues engaging the mind of man since the distant past is the existence of suffering, which is apparently pointless and futile. The presence of evil and suffering in our world is undeniable. Everyone has encountered and experienced them in their various forms in his life. Life without anguish or pain, and happiness without grief exist only in the imagination. But the reality is a mixture of the two (happiness and loneliness).Concerning suffering there are mainly two fundamental questions. The first is, what is the origin of suffering and from where does it emerge? The other is whether agony and pain are concordant with the justice and mercy of God.All the religious people of the world should answer these two questions. If God is the Lone Creator of the world and the Manifestation of goodness, then where have all these miseries come from? Can the God of Goodness be the agent of misery and just as He creates, can also destroy? Acknowledgment of the fact that the One God is the sole origin of all creations—even those events that are seemingly evil—was enigmatic for many. Thus, most of them would follow the path of polytheism and, like the Manuians,[228] believed in at least two deities. As narrated by Paulo Cuello, the great soothsayer who believed in various gods, when he heard the claim of Prophet Ilyās (‘a) that God is One, he asked in mockery: “Do you want to say that according to your belief, the same God that sends the storm also makes the wheat grow even though these two things are poles apart?”[229]The other point is that in the teachings of all religions, God has been described as the Absolute Power, Absolute Authority, Most Gracious, and Most Merciful. These attributes are apparently discordant with the existence of miseries.Various philosophical and ethical answers to these queries have already been given. After much experience and meditation, [Siddhartha Gautama] Buddha arrived at the Four Noble Truths, the first of which is the existence of suffering in the world and its inevitability.[230] Then he, who did not believe in monotheism [tawhīd] in its Abrahamic sense, presented a most detailed analysis of the phenomenon of suffering and recommended certain ways on how to be completely released from it.[231]But, though the first question seems more philosophical, it is the second question that has occupied the minds to a greater extent; and that is the ethical aspect of suffering. Are all these miseries in the world acceptable? Could not the existing world have been better than this? Are all these sufferings compatible with the justice, omniscience, and omnipotence of God? If there is a being other than God who could create another world, could he (the being other than God) have been able to cause a world better than this one to appear? Is the poet’s following assertion valid?If like the Creator I had only dominion over the heaven,I would have taken away this heaven.And then a new heaven would I make;As you can easily have whatever your heart dictates.One of the most ancient and famous writings about suffering is the Book of Job in the Old Testament. We have all heard about the story of Prophet Job [Ayyūb] (‘a). The Glorious Qur’an briefly points to the story of his life and states that Job (‘a) fell ill but chose patience, and tasted the pain of suffering until he attained a pleasant end. According to the Qur’an, Job (‘a) experienced such suffering that he raised his hands in supplication and sought God’s assistance. His prayer was granted and regained whatever he had lost. God mentions Job (‘a) as a patient servant.[232]The story of Job (‘a) is narrated more elaborately in the Judeo-Christian sources. In the Book of Job in which the different dimensions have been discussed and explained, it is narrated that Job (‘a) was an affluent and influential man, and the fame of his wealth and power was known everywhere:Job (‘a) had seven sons, three daughters, and possessing seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred cows, five hundred she-donkeys, and innumerable servants. He was being acknowledged as the richest man of the entire district.[233]Job (‘a) was an upright person and a philanthropist. He used to help the needy and cater to their needs. One day God extolled Job (‘a) before an assembly of angels and said, “Nobody like him can be found on earth. He is an honest and God-fearing man and keeps away from sin.”[234]Satan who was present in that assembly said in protest, if fearing God was not of benefit to him, he would not have done so. Thou hast kept Job (‘a), his family and possession safe from every predator. Thou hast multiplied his earnings and bestowed abundant wealth on him. Take away his possession from him; then Thou wilt behold that he openly blasphemes Thee.[235]In this manner, the great trial for Job (‘a) commenced and Satan was granted the permission to do whatever he liked to him except exercising domination over his body and mind. As a consequence, tribulations occurred one after another. All the possessions of Job (‘a) were lost. His children died. He, himself, became afflicted with an ailment and suffered intense physical agony. He was expelled from his community. His friends forgot him and even his wife assailed him. Yet, he patiently endured all these adversities.In spite of this, three of his friends approached him and rubbed salt into his wounds. They believed that these tribulations served as punishment for the sins of Job (‘a) and he was now paying for his sinful past. They urged Job (‘a) to repent for his sins so that God would forgive him. However, Job (‘a) insisted that he had committed no sin and that these happenings and tribulations had no relation whatsoever to his alleged commission of sins.This dialogue is one of the most elegant and profound conversations pertaining to human suffering. It presents the diverse views on evil and its origin. In short, those three could not convince Job (‘a) that he was a sinner. God cured him; restored to him his lost properties, endowed him with other children in the place of his deceased ones, and inspired the three to apologize to Job (‘a). In this way, Job (‘a) recovered his lost social standing. Everybody realized that the ordeals are not the result of his sinfulness. Rather, these had been only a trial to prove the unflinching faith of Job (‘a).This notwithstanding, the question of the need for good men to suffer is still open to debate. This question and many other similar ones have been discussed for hundreds of years. Through an analysis of the nature and essence of mischief and evil [sharr] (as what Plato did) and its benefits (as what St. Augustine did), everyone has tried to address these questions that are just as debatable and can be pondered upon.[236]The question at this juncture with which we have to deal is this: Is the existence of all these sufferings and evils in the world ethical and compatible with the sublime attributes of God or not? This question can be answered from two perspectives. One is from the perspective of faith and through the acceptance of the principles of religion [usūl ad-dīn] and submission to them. It is from this perspective that the believer says that the entire universe and all its components are creations of God, one of Whose Attributes is Wisdom. All the actions of the Wise are full of wisdom.Thus, there is wisdom in suffering and evil in it as well. Although we are not able to comprehend the secret behind so many evils, this ignorance of ours does not mean that they lack wisdom. It only shows how ignorant we are, and that our knowledge is not so considerable in relation to the things unknown to us and that we have taken only a cup from the ocean of knowledge.[237]But this answer does not convince all minds and, accordingly, for some it is a challenging one. Through reflection on the essence of the world, and the phenomenon of suffering and its function, they try to give a more elaborate answer to the question. In reality, they admit the wisdom behind the act of God but seek the hidden wisdom in suffering and its function. As a consequence, it is owing to this kind of view and reflection that the subject of divine justice has been one of the most sensational subjects of scholasticism and philosophy. It is the field for testing the capability of the human mind.By relying on a tradition which tries to elucidate the issue of evil [sharr], Imām Khomeinī, in acknowledging the philosophical principles that consider the existence of evils as inevitable, attempts to show the ethical aspect of evil. His viewpoint will be made clear through a survey of the following points:• Evil as relative;• Evil as constructive;• The hereafter as the place for reward; and• Suffering as commensurate to one’s own understandingEvil as relativeWe human beings view the world from the standpoint of our own interests, evaluating and classifying everything on the basis of its benefit and detriment to us. We never view the world as bare, exactly as it is and separate from us. This point will be more vivid especially with regard to the phenomena that are interwoven with our fate. To cite an example, we identify some of the plants as ‘weed’.This classification does not convey anything about its nature; it only shows our judgment regarding it. Now, if one would ask us, what is weed, our answer would be that weed is a plant which has no benefit, or grows spontaneously in our garden and orchard. But these answers indicate only one thing and that is the fact that we have named this plant on the basis of its benefits and harm to us. Thus, if assuming that a virtue is discovered in some of these weeds, our classification is immediately changed.That is why Emerson,[238] an American thinker and poet, asks: “What is ‘weed’?” He himself answers: “It is a plant whose benefits have not yet been discovered.” In this example we clearly see that the remarks are not about identity, and that it is not obvious what weed is. ‘Weed’ is a value-laden concept and belongs to the domain of the human mind. Professor Izutsu cites the same example and analyzes it in this manner:To cite an example, consider the term, ‘weed’. Dictionaries have usually defined this term in this way: ‘It is a wild plant that grows everywhere.’ In other words, it is unwanted and undesirable. However, in the exact real world, that is, in the natural world, nothing exists that is unwanted or undesirable; it only exists in the viewpoint of man who views the endless things of the complex nature, classify them, categorize them, and give them different values on the basis of their purposes.[239]Thus, our view on the universe is not a neutral one; in most cases we identify and categorize things on the basis of our own interests. Of course, the point here is not individual interests but the interests of mankind as such. That is to say, man considers everything beneficial to him as good and detrimental as bad. Well, with this analysis in mind, let us proceed to the subject of evil [sharr] and examine, basically, what evil [sharr] is. Whatever description of evil and suffering is presented pertains to man.That is, it is only in relation to man that evil finds meaning. What we mean by evil—be it natural or ethical—is a phenomenon which, in both cases, bring suffering into our lives in one way or another, or endangers and frighten us. We regard destructive floods as evil since they can cut off our means of communications, ruin our harvests, destroy our houses, and finally, endanger our lives. But aside from the danger the flood brings to us and our interests, it can no longer be deemed ‘evil’. Rather it will only be viewed merely as a natural phenomenon. This is also true with respect to dangerous animals.We think about poisonous reptiles such as venomous snake as dangerous and evil since it is possible that they can kill us with their fangs; however, this same poisonous fang is the most important factor in the protection of the snake’s life and the continuity of its species. So, this ‘evil’ is ‘good’ for the snake. Of course, it can be asked, “Basically, what is the benefit of this ‘evil’ to us?” “Its non-existence is better than its existence!”Although an elaborate reply to this inquiry could be given and proved that they constitute a part of this very same order of nature, and that their presence is necessary, we can, here, give a brief and adequate answer which is that the question itself is rooted in man’s self-centeredness. Man views all the creatures within the framework of his interests and then asks what good or necessity does the existence of venomous snakes have. It is enough that the universe be viewed from the perspective of the venomous snakes. Then, this question for the snakes arises: “What is the necessity or benefit for nature of the existence of this two-footed creature (man) who is always in the pursuit of killing snakes and whose existence is entirely evil?” Then, we would observe that our viewpoint in relation to nature is a one-sided and value-laden one.Once we understand this point well, we will realize that in many cases the things we think ‘evil’ is only ‘evil’ as far as we are concerned, and once the outlook is changed we will discern it to be good. In addition to the fact that the outlook of mankind on nature is such, the outlook of each and every individual also has this peculiarity. We have heard the old story of two neighbours. One was a farmer while the other was a potter. The farmer exerted all his efforts for one whole year and cultivated much of the land. The potter also made a lot of earthenware.Thereafter, the farmer would always pray and ask God for rain to pour down from the sky so that his produce would be abundant. On the other hand, afraid of the rain, the potter, raising his hands up to the sky, asked God for clear skies and bright sunlight. The sun for the former neighbour is ‘evil’, whereas for the latter, rain is always so. As a result these two have associated good and evil with their own interests and evaluated them with respect to themselves; duly naming them as ‘good’ or ‘evil’.This is what is meant by subjectiveness or relativeness of evil. If there is no human judgment, no phenomenon can be termed ‘evil’. But as soon as human judgment intervenes—the judgment being based as it is on the benefits and interests of man—the issue of evil appears. Thus, nothing is absolutely evil, that is, per se and in relation to itself. Instead, it is only when it is evaluated that it is called ‘evil’ by us. So, evil is that which is discordant with our interests. In this sense, evil will be subjective and relative. On the other hand, since our interests change with a change in circumstances it is possible that what was evil yesterday is good today and vice-versa.As a result, in this sense evil would also be relative. Let us assume that you have an appointment with one of your bosom friends. However, before you leave your house to visit him, an unexpected guest arrives and hinders this supposed visit. This guest is reckoned as something bad [sharr]. But, after making the appointment if something happened that discouraged you from meeting him and you were looking for an excuse to cancel the appointment the guest’s arrival, in such a case, would be good for you.We have heard about the story of an ugly husband whose wife was not showing pleasant gesture to him. One midnight the wife heard the sound of a thief’s steps, and fear-stricken, clung to her husband. After realizing that the reason for this extraordinary and unusual love of his wife was nothing but the presence of the thief, he welcomed him saying, “You are welcome to take whatever you want.”Thus, evil is relative in both senses. That is, it is evaluated and labeled from the human point of view, and also because of our interests’ being variable, it may happen that yesterday’s evil is today’s good, and yesterday’s good, today’s evil:Hence there is no absolute evil in the world:Evil is relative. Know this (truth) also.In (the realm of) Time there is no poison or sugarThat is not a foot (support) to one and a fetter (injury) to another—To one a foot, to another a fetter;To one a poison and to another (sweet and wholesome) like sugar.Snake-poison is life to the snake,(But) it is death in relation to man.The sea is as a garden to the water-creatures;To the creatures of earth it is death and a (painful) brand.Reckon up likewise, O man of experience,(Instances of) this relativity from a single individual to a thousand.Zayd, in regard to that (particular) one, may be a devil,(But) in regard to another person he may be a (beneficent) sultan.That one will say that Zayd is an exalted siddīq (saint),And this one will say that Zayd is an infidel who ought to be killed.If you wish that to you he should be (as) sugar,Then look on him with the eye of lovers.[240]Nonetheless, relativeness of evil has a more profound philosophical meaning. We have read a lot that this planet earth is the locus of movement and change, which the Imām termed as “the abode of change, transition, and annihilation.”[241]In this world, nothing is fixed and static; all things are in the process of transformation. Every phenomenon in this world moves toward its own perfection. God created every phenomenon in such a way that it moves on the basis of its own creational [takwīnī] and essential [sirishtī] guidance.Yesterday’s seed is today’s tree; yesterday’s embryo is today’s fetus and today’s fetus is tomorrow’s newborn baby—this cycle continues unabatedly. Yet, this process naturally engenders contradiction and duality. A fetus which wants to become a newborn baby should abandon its fetal state whereupon its metamorphosis would become perfect. In order to become a tree the seed should break out of its peel. So as to have permanent and complete teeth, the child should lose his baby teeth. A youngster, who likes to be independent in his life, should reduce his dependence on his family and accept the responsibility that freedom entails. All these transformations are bound to suffering.No fetus is born without suffering, and no seed transformed into a fruitful tree. A youth who wants to have a muscular and well-proportioned body should get used to the pain of doing workouts with cold iron bars, and bear the pain of lactic acid accumulation in his muscles. He should also endure extreme muscle fatigue for some time. A butterfly should live inside its cocoon for a period of time to let its beautiful wings grow and prepare it for a new plane. In this sense, no movement and contact is possible without suffering and release from the existing condition. This famous saying of Mullā Sadrā testifies to this truth: “If there were no contradiction, the grace of the Merciful Fountainhead would not be obtained.”[242]No one can deny this reality. A pupil of yesterday who wants to be a university student of today should accept the pain of being far away and separated from high school friends so as to establish contact with new friends and a new environment. Therefore, not only is every phenomenon involved with its own past in its path to perfection, but also it sometimes encounters other phenomena that hinder its perfection. It is here that an all-out conflict ensues—an inevitable and blessed battle in which neither adversary is totally defeated. The Imām examines evil from this perspective and says:[All] the evils, catastrophes, death, disease and destructive events and troublesome creatures and other such things which are in this world of nature and this narrow pit of darkness arise from the interferences and conflicts between existents, not from the aspects pertaining to Being but on account of the deficiency of their ambiance and the narrowness of their abode.[243]As such, evil in this sense is also relative (subjective). That is, every happening that takes place is evil for some while good for others. A person falling down and breaking his leg is an ‘evil’ event for him. Yet, this same unpleasant happening is good for the bonesetters and orthopaedists since their occupations are connected to these kinds of ‘evil’. However, the Imām goes beyond this point and believes that evil is not only relative but also a non-existing issue. That is, in a more technical description, all the evils [basically] arise from the interferences and conflicts between existents, not from the aspects pertaining to Being but on account of the deficiency of their ambiance and the narrowness of their abode. And these derive from limitations and deficiencies which are totally outside the ambit of the light of creation and are in reality below making [ja‘l]. The true reality is the Light which is quit of all evil, defect and deficiency. However, these defects and evils and harmful and troublesome things, in respect of their defectiveness and harmfulness, are not essential objects of creation, but they are accidental objects of creation.[244]The idea that evil is a non-existing affair is among the ancient ideas of philosophy, the exact comprehension of which necessitates an extensive technical preliminary preparation propounding which is not possible in this concise volume. But the core of the issue is that evil is not an exact, existing and specified reality which can be identified. Evil is a relative issue; it means that in relation to us it is considered evil. Evil is dependent on our judgment and since our judgment is interwoven with our variable interests, evil is variable as well and not fixed. Take a look at this earthly world. Perfection requires abandonment of the present condition and acceptance of some failures and frustrations which themselves bring about suffering and evil. As a result, evil is inevitable in the corporeal world. Yet, this evil is relative, not absolute and a requisite for perfection:When you consider, this world is all at strife,Mote with mote, as religion (is in conflict) with infidelity.One mote is flying to the left,And another to the right in search.One mote (flies) up and another down:In their inclination (movement) behold actual strife.The actual strife is the result of the hidden strife:Know that that discord springs from this discord.This world is maintained by means of this war:Consider the elements, in order that it (the difficulty) may be solved.[245]Evil as constructiveThe foregoing discussion was more a philosophical outlook on the place of evil in the system of the universe where we tried to illuminate the point that basically evil is relative and subjective, not a reality independent from man’s perception. But here the discussion is on its function.The question is: What is the benefit of evil—be it relative or exact and absolute reality—for man? The thrust of the famous Book of Job is this one. Why a pious and upright man such as Job (‘a) should be afflicted with all these adversities and undergo diverse miseries and agonies?Many have attempted to answer this question. Yet, most of these answers embody one point and that is the constructive role of evil for man. Many of the mystics [‘ārifīn] and teachers of ethics emphasize this principle that the presence of some of the evils is needed for the nourishment of man’s soul and formation of his personality. Man grows and attains perfection only in a conducive environment and with the provision of necessary conditions.But this favourable environment does not only mean comfort, convenience and unconsciousness; it also means the existence of some unpleasantness and tribulations. A driver who drives along a highway having no acclivity or declivity will easily feel sleepy and it is even possible for him to be exposed to the danger at an accident. However, the one who is driving along an extremely winding highway, and every moment, considers the probability of an unexpected occurrence, is always careful and does not allow himself to fall sleep.Thus, the philosophy behind some evils is to keep man always alert and ready to overcome all odds. One of the contemporary Christian preachers names this theory as the divine justice theory of soul nourishment since this theory is indicative of the great scheme of God of assisting human beings in attaining moral and spiritual maturity. According to this theory, to live in a particular environment is necessary for nourishment of the soul. An environment can cause the moral and spiritual maturity of man in which real challenges are real opportunities for the emergence of moral virtues, and real facilities for the appearance of faith in God should be present.[246]For instance, in the training courses for soldiers, training programs are designed to be rigid and severe so as to put the maximum physical and emotional pressure on them. The aim of such programs is not to annoy or torment others. Rather, it is meant to prepare individuals to confront actual situations and serious challenges. Well, if we encounter such cases which are termed evils, our outlook on them in general will be changed. The goal of a coach who encourages the athletes under his supervision to undergo difficult and rigid practice is the enhancement of their physical ability. The purpose of a professor who gives complicated assignments to his students is to increase their knowledge. The problem that nature poses for us is with the same aim of augmenting our ability.The same is the view of the Imām on the issue of evil. He devotes one of the hadīths in his forty selected hadīths on this matter. After narrating a hadīth with this purport, he embarks on its exposition: Imām as-Sādiq (‘a) narrates from the Book of Imām ‘Alī (‘a) in which he says:Of all mankind the prophets undergo the severest of trials, and after them the awsiyā’ [executors of will], and after them the elect to the extent of their nobility. Indeed, the believer undergoes trial in proportion to his good deeds. So, one whose faith is sound and whose deeds are good, his trials are also more severe. That is indeed because God Almighty did not make this world a place for rewarding the believer and punishing the unbeliever. And one, whose faith is feeble and whose (good) deeds are few, faces fewer tribulations. Verily, tribulations hasten toward the believer with greater speed than rainwater toward the earth’s depths.[247]We should not forget that in Islamic belief, this world is the place for trial. Trial takes place not only through difficulties and tribulations but also through happiness and joys. In the Glorious Qur’an the word, bālā [calamity and affliction] and its derivatives are used in the sense of testing through happiness as well as testing through suffering and tribulation.Sometimes, in a bid to distinguish the two forms of bālā, terms such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are used. For example, in this noble āyah we read: “And We try you with evil and with good, for ordeal.”[248] Likewise, the terms hasanāt [good things] and sayyi’āt [bad things] are used. For instance, in this āyah it is stated: “And We have tried them with good things and evil things that haply they might return.”[249] Hence, the description of bālā in the language of the Qur’an is far more general and broader than its prevalent meaning in the Persian language.[250] As a result, some of the trials take place in the form of evil and prepare to face real situations. In this sense, evil is not only not bad, but also prepares the ground for the growth and cognition of man. Thus, they have said:From severe affliction will come outVirtue, greatness and meritSuch evils are broad in scope—extending from a simple fever to the death of spouse or child. A simple ailment such as fever not only activates the entire immune system of the body but also warns us to prepare ourselves to face it, and to make ourselves prepared for the eradication of the purulence from our body.Hence, this evil is needed for our existence and survival. If we carefully analyze all afflictions and tribulations, we will realize this feature of them. Even the severest bodily pains also have this function, and if one day the alarm system of the body is removed for whatever reason, then calamity, tragedy and mishap will commence. In this context Dr. Paul Brandt embarked on a detailed study and shed light on the vital role of pain.The outcome of the research has been published in the book entitled, Pain: The Gift that Nobody Accepts. After studying patients afflicted with leprosy, who gradually gave up their body members, he arrived at the conclusion that the disease itself does not cause the death of the body tissues. Rather, it is the effect of malfunctioning of the sense [of touch] that the leper ceases to protect his senses and [unconsciously] commits acts harmful to himself. According to Dr. Brandt such patients “are lacking a system that gives alert to the damages done to the tissue.”[251]The consequence of the lack of system (sense) of pain is that sometimes, such patients run and walk with their skins full of wounds—even open ones—to the extent that the bones are also visible, thus causing constantly increasing deterioration of the tissues … In some cases, those afflicted with leprosy put their hands on fire, for example to pick something there but do not feel any pain.[252]Thus, apart from being not bad, pain is rather considered an agent protecting our body and it is the same unpleasant sense that guarantees our life, and in general, compels the human organism to react. This view is also true for other ‘evils’. For example, suppose we fail in the university entrance examination; in this case this ‘evil’ is, in fact, a warning to us that shows us as not being intelligent enough and urges us to strive more. It is the same analysis that explains why all the prophets (‘a) have suffered.One who wants to lead a nation or community [ummah] should have such an extraordinary capacity, that no amount of difficulty could shake his will. God makes His chosen prophets (‘a) suffer, He tests and trains them, causes them to develop, and so prepares them to shoulder the responsibilities of prophethood. As such, suffering cannot be a useless and worthless affair. Instead, the blessings therein should be seen with clear vision and it should be comprehended that in this world “each of its pains and hardships carries within itself some goodness and bounty.”[253]Apart from this fundamental function of suffering and evil, there are many other functions and utilities some of which have been pointed out by Imām Khomeinī. One of the functions of suffering is that it makes man attentive to, and concerned with, the hereafter and makes him understand that this world is not his everlasting abode:Thus, if a man faces adversities, pain and torments in this world and is overtaken therein by waves of calamities and tribulations, he will inevitably come to resent it. His attachment to it will diminish and he will come to distrust it. If he believed in another world, a vast world free of every kind of pain and grief, he will inevitably want to migrate to it, and if he were unable to make the journey physically, he will send his heart out to it.[254]Hence, most of the tribulations and afflictions are a sign for the believers and a notice about their unpleasant condition and also a reminder of the goal that they should have. Apart from this, some of the tribulations and afflictions make man remember the Fountainhead of the universe and make him harmonious with the remembrance of the Sole Creator:And another point relating to the severity of the tribulations of the elect among God’s servants is that they are made to remember God on account of these adversities and tribulations and to pray and lament in front of His Sacred Essence. This makes them accustomed to remember Him and keep their thoughts busy with Him.[255]Moreover, some of spiritual excellences and stations for man will be attained only through patiently tasting and experiencing tribulations and afflictions. Hence, the Imām indicates this point in this manner:Another point related to the severity of the believer’s tribulations that has been mentioned in traditions is that there are certain stations for the believers which they cannot attain without undergoing suffering, pain and affliction.[256]Therefore, keeping in view the diverse functions and utilities of tribulation and suffering, it can be deduced that the more the blessings God bestows on His servant, the more is he afflicted with them and it is this conclusion that the Imām describes in this way:Whenever God Almighty has a greater consideration and love for someone, and when someone is the object of the mercy of His Sacred Essence to a greater extent, He restrains him from this world and its charms with the waves of calamity and tribulation… And if there weren’t any other reason except this one for endurance of severe calamities it would have been sufficient.[257]At this juncture, two points must be stated. One is the issue of natural sufferings and the other, self-made ones.Whatever has been stated about suffering and its station is related to natural sufferings and tribulations, which man experiences naturally. God Almighty views these tribulations as a kind of test, attributes them to Himself and points to Himself as the cause. That is why He says, “We test them.”Nevertheless, some of the tribulations and sufferings exist as a result of the unscrupulous actions of we human beings and arise from our moral vices. If our social system is designed in such a way as to cause rivalry, and if such rivalry entails suffering, one cannot consider the social system to be constructive. If in the society wealth accumulation and the desire for more is such that it deprives all of tranquillity, it can no longer be considered an opportunity for rectification of the soul and attachment of spiritual perfections. All of these are a result of love of this world, which in turn, is the source of all sins. Most of the sufferings and tribulations are a product of the wrong actions of man and arise from vices such as jealousy, selfishness, and pride.These tribulations can never be ascribed to God; basically attributing them to God arises from man’s irresponsibility. In relation to such tribulations, God Almighty disavows responsibility and holds them to be the result of man’s action: “Whatever of good befalleth thee (O man) it is from Allah, and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself.”[258] In essence, God is the Absolute Source of goodness and His Essence is all-blessing and all-good and from this Essence there is nothing but goodness. Hence, every evil is the consequence of man’s erroneous actions and selfishness. Therefore, God considers the occurrence of corruption, tribulations and mischief as the product of human beings’ conduct, and says: “Corruption doth appear on land and sea because of (the evil) which men’s hands have done.”[259] So, the most important point is that we should distinguish natural sufferings from self-made ones.The second point is that although suffering has a constructive role in the life of human beings, one cannot ‘create’ suffering by using this as an excuse, and use it for one’s growth. It is true that tribulation is an element in man’s growth. Yet, the ground for the occurrence of tribulation should not be prepared in advance. For instance, taking an examination and failing in it can be the ground for our growth. But it does not mean that we refrain from any form of preparation and only take the examination.The outcome of taking various examinations without preparing for them is failure after failure. These failures cannot be considered as a prelude to success; they also pave the ground for further failures. That is why psychologists point to the destructive effects of such failures in this manner: “If a person repetitively experiences failure, he will reach a stage where he can no longer endure experiencing more failures and thus, behavioural derangements appear in him.”[260]The point is that in case some adversity occurs, we welcome it warmly and consider it as an opportunity for our growth; not that we chase after misery before it strikes us. As such, our various hadīths have discouraged us from hoping for tribulations and from laying the grounds for it. We have been taught to always pray to God for health and well-being, and to refrain from looking for trouble and tribulation. For example, it has been narrated from Imām ar-Ridā[261] (‘a) that Prophet Joseph [Yūsuf] (‘a) complained to God:‘Why did I deserve to be imprisoned?’ God revealed to him: ‘It is you who chose it when you said: ‘O my Lord, the prison is dearer to me than that unto which they invite me.’[262] Why did you not say, ‘Prosperity is dearer to me than that unto which they invite me’?[263]Therefore, the fundamental teaching of the Infallibles (‘a) in this context is that we should be always seeking welfare and prosperity. However, when we face tribulations, we should not be afraid, take it as a good omen and utilize it as an opportunity for our perfection.For more reading please go to this address:The Philosophy behind Suffering

Thank you, Martin, for the A2A. I have studied this question from a historical perspective, and some people may not like my answer.The Buddha Taught Neither Reincarnation Nor Rebirth at the end of a human lifespanIn the background: Just about everyone assumed reincarnation before the BuddhaPrior to the Buddha, reincarnation was the generally assumed cultural view. It was also the primary view held by the vast majority of religious and philosophical believers. (There were six philosophical schools. All three of the ones that fell into the Unitary view believed in reincarnation. I’m pretty sure both Dualist schools believed in reincarnation. Only the Nihilist school did not. They believed in no continuation after bodily death at all. But they were a very small minority.)Prior to the Buddha, as far as I can tell, the term rebirth was not used in reference to what happens after death.The Buddha’s use of the term “rebirth”The Buddha did use the term “rebirth.” However, a close look at the text shows that he was speaking of how thoughts, feelings, and sensations arise, grow, fall away, and then return. That is, he was speaking of perception and experience, not of events surrounding life and death of a person’s body. His reference for “now” was “this moment, observed in meditation,” not “this lifetime.” When he speaks of past, present and future, there is no evidence he is speaking of lifetimes. Rather, the present is this moment, the past is memory, and the future is the thoughts, feelings, and experiences that will arise later. The likelihood of future events of this lifetime, such as the arising of anger, greed, and delusion are altered by our practice in the present moment.There are three sutras that support the view I am sharing here. One of them is usually called “The Three Marks of Existence,” but is taught by Thich Nhat Hanh as the three signs of a true teaching. As Thich Nhat Hanh and I see it, the Buddha left this reference to help others look at teachings attributed to the Buddha and evaluate if they were genuine. A true teaching does not disagree with:An-atta, the idea that there is no permanent or separate self. This eliminates all forms of reincarnation after bodily death.An-icca, impermanence, the idea that all experiences arise and fade away without birth or death. Thus we can only speak of experiences or phenomena, and not “things” in any sense. Each individual ever born can be seen as a wave on the ocean. It is part of Life, part of the ocean. It arises and falls away. It’s energy dissipates. It’s arises from everything that came before and affects everything that will come after. But the fact that one wave has arisen and gone, that one person’s body was born and then dies, does not imply any other particular birth of another personal body, nor any connection to it. The energy and information of one lifetime simply remains part of all of life, and has no permanent or ongoing appearance as a separate formation.Dukkha, the presence of suffering in all life, not relevant to this particular discussion.In addition, there are two suttas where the Buddha specifically made it clear that the entire discussion of what happens after the body dies, whether speaking of a person in general, or a monk, or the Buddha himself, is an irrelevant and pointless discussion. I will dig out the specific references later, as that will take some hours of research. Or, if a friendly reader knows the original sutra, please let us know in the comments.One is a story where one of the Buddha’s senior students encountered questioners from another tradition who wanted to know where the Buddha would go after his bodily death, and the senior student was not sure how to answer. He brought the question to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “You know that this one (the Tathagata, the Buddha) cannot be found now in these propositions. How could I be found in them after bodily death?The other is a fun story. A monk very devoted to the Way was troubled by the issue of reincarnation. He apparently had studied with two teachers prior to the Buddha, and one held that reincarnation was so, and the other, that it was not. He told the Buddha that this question was distracting him so much that he could not focus on meditation, and begged the Buddha for a simple, clear, answer.The Buddha did not give one. Instead, he turned the question back to the student: “Suppose you knew reincarnation was so? What would you do?”“I would practice hard and be the best monk I could, so as to have the best possible lifetime next time around.”“Suppose,” asked the Buddha, “that you knew that reincarnation was not so. What would you do?”“Knowing this is my only opportunity to Awaken, I would practice as hard as I could, so as to have the best chance to Awaken in this lifetime.”“See,” said the Buddha, “It doesn’t matter!”My translation here is intentionally friendly, colloquial, and down-to-earth. This reflects the Buddha’s teaching that the practice we do now, today, this moment, is the only point to focus on. Questions of what happens after (or before) this bodily life do not need to be answered. In fact, it is better if they are never even asked.The importance of not asking such questions is covered in a fourth teaching, a rather famous one, the parable of the poisoned arrow. Here, the Buddha compares every living human being to a man hit by a poisoned arrow. He declares all philosophical and metaphysical questions to be equivalent to the man asserting that, before he is treated, he must know the nature and origin of the arrow and all of its parts. The Buddha asserts that anyone foolish enough to demand these answers will die from lack of immediate treatment. The immediate treatment is our own dedicated practice of the Way. Let us set aside all thoughts of other lives, or even other days, and all questions about existence, and do the work of bringing an end to our own suffering, and being supportive companions of others who are working to end their suffering.Acceptance of the Buddha’s teachingsThe Buddha’s approach is very sensible, and very hard to accept. We all deeply believe in our own existence, and want some kind of assurance of the permanence of our own lives, ideally permanent freedom from suffering. The ordinary term for this is salvation, and it is a central issue in Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, later Judaism, and in a different way, the earlier Israelite religion.Most people consider our relation to eternal life and salvation to be the central issue of all religion. And along comes the Buddha saying, “That whole issue is a non-issue. The question itself is delusional thinking. Focus on what matters - ending suffering today, here and now.The Buddha’s answer is not very popular. It is very, very hard pill to swallow.Nonetheless, according to legend, some 100 deep practitioners did accept this teaching and realize it during the Buddha’s lifetime. But that is only about 100 out of 10,000 or more. While we can’t say if these number are accurate, it does seem to me that they are quite believable in general. Only 1 deep practitioner in 100, 1% of all deep practitioners, go deep enough to challenge the fundamental notion, “I exist,” “I am” and quit worrying about it either way.What about Arhats, Once-returners, and the Jataka TalesIf my view is correct, let me challenge it. How do I explain the language of levels of Buddhist attainment from the earliest sutras, which assumes rebirth? How do I explain the notion that the highest level of attainment is arhat, (or arahant), one who will not be reborn? The next is once-returner, a monk or nun who needs just one more lifetime to finish? And others are stream-enterers: many lifetimes may be required, but they will not fall off the Way?I do believe that the Buddha used these terms. He knew that not everyone was ready to face the bare fact that the whole notion of existence, life span, lifetime, and self were deluded nonsense. So he first identified the real issues: Living in a way that cut off all sources of suffering, all delusion, aversion (fear and anger), and attraction (greed). Then, to make ordinary followers comfortable, he provided a second definition, one they needed to hear, one based on the idea of rebirth after this life. But he also provided the three signs of a true teaching so that later generations could sort this out.I hold the same view of the Jataka tales, the notion that, between the Buddha’s first encounter with an Awakened One and the present, he lived 100,000 lifetimes, some human and some animal. These stories teach wonderful dharma of love, generosity, compassion, and non-harm.I hold the Buddha’s teachings of these two sorts to be equivalent to a Christian priest or minister telling tales of Santa Claus to children and sharing the idea of the generosity of Santa Claus to adults. Meanwhile, he himself does not believe in Santa Claus at all. He just sees these stories as skillful means for those who are not ready for the deeper, simpler spiritual truths.Therevadan Rebirth: Difficulty accepting the Buddha’s teachingsInevitably, people could not cope with the Buddha’s rejection of the entire structure of reincarnation on which the ancient civilization of India, including the caste system, was based.The Therevadan tradition found a solution. They took the Buddha’s notion of how phenomena arise and fall, and applied it to lifetimes. The Buddha provided detailed descriptions of how mental formations such as anger arise and fall. In these descriptions, he did use the term rebirth.Therevadan scholars, unconsciously desperate to reconcile the Buddha’s teachings with a view that they could accept, developed a notion of rebirth, an idea of continuity of consciousness lifetime after lifetime without a soul being reincarnated.I have read dozens of versions of the question, “If there is no soul, what is reborn?” I’ve read many Therevadan and other Buddhist answers. If find none of them satisfactory. And, beneath is all, I hear the Buddha. Sometimes, he speaks with tears of compassion. Sometimes he is laughing.But always, he is saying, “Let it go! Let it go! let us return to our practice of the Four Effective Efforts. Let us eliminate suffering and cultivate joy and peace today!”Tibetan Buddhism: Hindu and Bon ideasThe Tibetan, or Vajrayana Buddhist tradition does fully accept reincarnation. The sources of this appear to be the Hinduism of North India and the native indigenous Bon religion of Tibet. Their teachings have no origin in materials we can trace back to the Buddha himself.Most fascinating is that they have made reincarnation practical. Teachers, including Lamas, and including the Dalai Lama up until now, have left instructions to their senior students. These instructions, opened up after the bodily death of the teacher, direct the student to a particular village and household some years after the bodily death of the teacher. A young child is there. The teacher says that child will be himself, reincarnated. The children are tested in a variety of ways. And thus the next lineage-holder is chosen and brought to the monastery for training. Some may say that this is all a ruse. I actually believe it is a working system who’s workings we do not fully understand. But just because the Tibetan Buddhists believe it works through reincarnation does not mean that they are correct as to the mechanism. Other kinds of foresight and extensions of consciousness across time and space could explain the same phenomenon.When Genghis Khan backed the first Dalai Lama to become ruler of a peaceful Tibet, he also called for Vajrayana teachings to be extended through all of China and nations under Chinese influence, including Cambodia, Vietnam, Korea, and Japan. So, from this point (around 1200 CE) forward, the idea of reincarnation influences Mahayana Buddhism.Pure Land BuddhismI will not dive into centuries of Mahayana thinking around rebirth and reincarnation. It is just too much to deal with. 26 of the 28 schools of the Mahayana no longer exist. So let us look at notions of reincarnation and rebirth in the two schools that do remain.The first is the popular folk faith of Pure Land Buddhism. In this tradition, the central figure is Amida Buddha, a figure of compassion and salvation. The common belief is that an ordinary person living a lay life simply cannot make the time to meditate enough to become a Buddha. But by living a moral life (keeping the 5 precepts of not killing, not stealing, not screwing around, not lying, and not misusing alcohol or drugs) and through meditation and prayer to Amita Buddha, one can increase the chances of being reborn in the Pure Land. People reborn in the pure land have time to be monks and nuns. They do not have to work for a living. They are fed and housed and can focus on meditation on the Way to Awakening.There is much more to this than I can write here. There are endless hells for those who commit one sin or another. Please note that these are not eternal hells - one may only be stuck there for a few billion years, but Awakening is always possible, even for demons. The art derived from local folk traditions, Chinese mythology, and Tibetan Buddhism is diverse and wonderful. If you want to see more, visit Tiger Balm Gardens, an amusement park dedicated to this tradition.One strange image of thousands from Tiger Balm GardensZen: Poetic WisdomZen practitioners have grown amid this mayhem of outrageous beliefs for well over a thousand years. The keen insight that comes with Zen Awakening penetrates all this illusion. What do Zen Masters do with this insight?That’s up to the Zen Master. Each is unique. Some are compassionate, others driven, others hilarious. There is no formal Zen rule on what to say about reincarnation or rebirth. Rather, allow me to tell stories of individual Masters.DogenDogen lived in Japan and studied in China around 1200 CE. He brought authentic Zen from China to Japan. His lifelong concern was the question of whether the Southern School, influenced by the Therevadan tradition coming in from Vietnam or the Northern School, influenced by the Mahayana, had a better understanding of the Buddha’s teachings. His work is very hard to interpret, being written largely in his own mix of Chinese and Japanese. One view - the view I hold - is that the issue of rebirth was central to his concerns. The Southern View holds that one must go through a hundred thousand rebirths to Awaken, as the Buddha did in the Jataka Tales. The Northern view holds that one can Awaken in a single lifetime. What did Dogen conclude? His answer transcends both views and does away with space, time, and lifetimes as real phenomena altogether. The Absolute of pure awareness is available everywhere and every moment, so one does not need to be concerned about how events play out in time. Rather, we keep the precepts and sit as the Buddha sat until the notion of self and other and all concerns about space and time drop away.HakuinHakuin brought Rinzai (Lin-chi) Zen to Japan. He was raised by a mother who deeply believed in Pure Land legends and was terrified of Hell. He himself, and his students and fellow monks, believed all kinds of things we would call superstition - ghosts and demons and sages living hundreds of years. His use of teachings on reincarnation is hilarious. He gave a sermon where various people died and came before Amida Buddha. Amida Buddha asked each one his profession: All of them got a pass: You were a farmer? That’s a hard life. Go on to the pure land. You were a seamstress? That’s a hard life. Go on to the pure land. On and on. Then a Zen monk comes: You were a Zen monk!?! No free pass! If you are not completely free of defilements, go straight to hell for a long time! If you wasted ten minutes of a single day in your whole life, go straight to hell for a long time!In Hakuin’s view, Zen practitioners have given up the grace offered by Amida Buddha to put all effort into Awakening here and now. Let’s do it!Facing fear of deathThere are many stories of Buddhist monks, both before the Zen era and during Zen times, who faced illness, persecution, invasion, and death. The key is the simple acceptance that each of us is born, and each of us dies. If a Zen practitioner or Master discovers that fear of death or attachment to life lingers in any form, he or she will deepen his or her practice, perhaps even going into a deep wilderness retreat.Seung Sahn, Zen Master and Korean ComicI remember two dharma talks given by Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn. This was in the 1980s and he lived in Providence and gave talks in Boston. These two talks were two weeks apart. In the first, he made it very clear that there was no such thing as reincarnation. He told us that this life was all we would get, and passionately pleaded with us to make a strong, dedicated effort to Awaken through years of meditation, if necessary, meditating so deeply that we might awaken any moment.Two weeks later he gave another talk. He simply assumed that reincarnation was so. And he talked about how getting a new body was like getting a new car - whether your car is new or old, better to take care of it and use it to go wherever you want to go - and go for Awakening.Seung Sahn had his own brand of humor. But I sincerely believe that he is teaching just as Shakyamuni Buddha taught 2,550 years ago.