THEORIGINANDTHE OVERCOMING OF EVIL AND

SUFFERING IN THE WORLD RELIGIONS

Edited b,t

PETER KOSLOWSKI
H ann
ov
e

In st itut e

of P hil o s o phic al Hannover, Germany

Re

earch,

\I rys
KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS DORDNECHT / BOSTON / LONDON

THE ORIGIN AND OVERCOMING OF EVIL AND SUFFERING IN THE WORLD RELIGIONS
Introduction
Peter Koslowski

All religions attempt to explain lrow r.rvil into the world and continue to exist. The philosophr:r lrricrl rich Schelling wrote cogently inhis Philosophy of Revelation at the mitftlle el tltc nineteenth century that the concepts of the will and of evil and the bclic['tl1rt thc world is transformed distinguish religion and philosophical traditions tlrut lurve originated under the influence of religion from ancient philosophy, wlriclr rccognizes neither evil nor the will nor the transformations of the worlcl. Onc t:ould extend this idea and say that the emphasis on the significance ol'tlre will ;rnrl of human deeds for the condition of the world, the attempt to spcak aborrl cvil and suffering and to "cope" with them, and the view that the world, as ir is, ls rtot original, but is instead the consequence of transformations causcrl lly evil, rcltrcsents the characteristic trait of the religions that most distinguishcs llrcrrr I lorn philosophical traditions.
lirndamental questions of religions.
irrrcl suffering came

'l'he question of the origin and the overcoming of evil and suffering is gncr et'tltc

l. lllvil as the Transformation of the World for the Worse, antl llopc ilr 'l'r:ursformability of the World for the Better

lle

Itcligions do not accept the world simply as it is, but instcad recoglizc irr rlrt. rvot'ltl somcthing that is not as it should bc: evil and sufl'crirrg. For tlrc wor.ltl rt. lrliiolts, tllc cvil arrd suffering in the world arc contingcnt; thcy ckr not lrclelg l1r tls csscllcc. I{cligions -'in contrast to scicncc and to tlrc unrcflcctivc, cvrrytllry rclirtiottsltip tlf'htrtttan pcrsons to lhc world rccogniz.c tlrc worltl net orrly;rs tt t:;, llttt itlstt its it ltas bccol.ttc, its it lras bccorrrc in tlrc rcligiiorrs' ilrle:rlrr.crlirtiorrs ol lrlstory. lt is cltitritt:tcristic ol'rcligiorrs rrntl llrc re,li!,ious rrntlcrs(irrrtlirrg ol-rlrc rvolltl tltitl tltr-:y itcccltt it rcllily r:xistirrll [rclilrc irrrtl bclyorrrl cvil lrrrtl srrl'li.r irrpi, :trttl lt ttitttsltlrrrrirlrilrly rtl'lrrrnurn l)ersons irrrrl tlrr'rvollrl liorrr ir st;rlc ol'rvil trrrtl ';rtllLlrrr;'. t. orrc,l'llrt'g,orl ;rrrrl 'l lircrkrrrr li.rrr sul[.rirrpi. 'l'lrr:; t'orrvrr'lrorr ol lltr. lrlrrr:ilirrrrrlrlrtlrly ol llrr.tvorltl lrrr,l ltrrtrriut lrt,trrpis lirl

l'l ll

l( K( ):;l ( )wslil

lN'l l{( )l)l l( "l l( )N

Iows ltottt llrt'tlillercrrcc ltclrvcctt (iorl rrrrtl llrc rvorltl, tlrc lrllsoltrtc;rrrrl llrr. li rritc, wlrich all wolltl lcligiorrs ackrtowlcclgrr ln ollc wiry ()r'irnotlrer'" ( iotl grrirnrrrlecs by his absolutcncss that cvil atrtl sul'l'cring arc not likcwisc irbsolrrtc, tlurl thcy havc not always existed and will not cxist lirr all clcrnity.'l'hc wolltl rcligions'conviction, contrary to present appcaranccs, that cvil ancl sull'cring arc not original and their assertion of the transformability of reality lbr thc bcttcr. correspond to the deepest hopes of humankind. The conviction olthc transfbrnrability of the world is the precondition of the possibility of salvation. Thc hopc in salvation from evil and suffering is, therefore, a second conviction that bclongs, along with the conviction of the transformability of evil and the world, in one way or another to all of the world religions. The question of how this liberation from evil and the changing of the world will take place distinguishes the religions from each other, of course, just as much as they are distinguished from one another by their stories and theories about the origin of evil and thus the world's need of salvation. But it is common to at least the three Abrahamic religions that evil has come into the world as a change, that it is not original, and that it can likewise be overcome by a second change. One task of this second Discourse of the World Religions is to clarify how Hinduism and Buddhism address this question. If evil does not belong to the original and integral constitution of the world, but has entered into it as a disturbance and a change for the worse, it raises the question of how it is compatible with the existence of God. Although this question is frequently called the theodicy question, it is broader in meaning than thc theodicy question and concerns all religions, even ifnot all ofthem have developed the specific fonn of the philosophical theodicy question. The theodicy question, as it is found in seventeenth-century European philosophy, is a very specific form of the answer to the question of evil and its compatibility with the conviction of the omnipotence and the goodness of God. In this philosophical theodicy discussion, it became the question of the compatibility of the assumption of God's omnipotence and perfect goodness with the undeniable existencc of evil in the world. The critics of the thesis of God's omnipotence argued that God either is not omnipotent, if he could not create a world better than this onc, or is perhaps omnipotent, but not perfectly good, because he obviously did not wish to create a better world. our discourse will not become lost in the aporiai of the compatibility of God's omnipotence and the existence of evil in his crcation, but will instcacl pose the more modest and concrete question of how thc rlcflcicnt condition ol' the world, the evil and suffering in it, are conrpatiblc witlr llrc irlca ol'Ciocl aurl which answers the world religions providc to tlris tlrrt'sliorr, wlrir:lr conccrns 1ll of thcm in thcir corc convictions.

l. ( jorl's l'e r'lt't'liort

luttl Strl'let'iltg

Ilrr'rprt'r;liorr irr llrc worlrl tt:liliiotts ol'tltr.: cxislr.:ttct'rrrttl otipiitt ol't:vil is closcly r,'l,rlt'rl lo llrc Problcrrr ol'lrow (iotl's pcrlcctiorr arrtl atrsolutcrtcss t'clirtc to ltri t,r1 ;rrrtl llrc occrrrlc:rrec ol'lltc cort(irtgcrtl ol itccitlctttitl, irtttl ol'cvil itt lttstuty llut':, llrt' pclli'r'lion ol'(iotl sturrrl oulsitlc cvil irntl histrlry, or is (iotl ltnttriell ',q1lr;t'et to lristory arrcl, thcrclorc, Lo tltc cvil artcl suf'l'cling tltaI oct:ttr irr it'/ ls llrc :\lr.,olrrlt' or' (iotl a bccoruirtg-absolutc or an uncltttttging-ulrsoltttcr'/ l)ocs, lot ''\irlrl)lc, IJrirhrrrirn irr llindr"risrn lrccome Shiva ancl Visltrtu irt lrislory, ()r'rs rl '.rr1rt'r lrr:;tor.ir:lrl, irllovc antl bcyoncl thc worlcl ancl history'/ Is thc crcltiorr st't'rr ,r',;r :t'll relrlizirtion or as a sclf-cxprcssit-ln ol'(iotl, ns (iocl bccortring lrirnsr:ll'or ir'; ir li('e pnrtluctiorr outsidc (icld in thc cxprcssion ol'his worcl'/ llrt' tlrcslion ol'God's irnnrutability or bcconring is ticd to lhc tlrtcstiott ol tlr,'rclrrlionslrip ol'(jod to sul'flcring. Does God also sulTcr cvil antl bccorrrrrrp',, or r', lrt'lrt'yontl rrll sul'fcring and bccorling'/ Thc world rcligions havc givcrr tltrrtt' ,lrllt'rt'rr{ answcrs to this ccntral question. lslam clisnrisscs tlrc tlrcologicirl trlcn ,,1 tlrc srrl'l'crirrg (iod and rcproaches Christianity l'or having (iotl sul'li'r itrtrl pcr r':lr rn llrc strf'lcring Christ. Christianity itsclf, ol coursc, has lor llrc: rrrosl ltrrtl 1,.1r'r tt'rl lrrrrl rlisrnisscd thc idca ol-a God subject to suflcring 1s1111, q:orlsetlrrcrrlly, l. t'r'rl ll rrurirrtairrs, against such conccptions cll'a (jod subjcct to sttl'li'tirrpi, tltrtl { ,,,r1 nr ('lrrist only fi'ccly co-sullcrs with hurnans, but is not sulr.jct:t to srrlli'rirr;i ,,\llllrrcc: Abrahanric rcligions criticizc thc gods ol'polythcisrn or', rs tlrcy t'rtll rt. lrt';rllrcnisnr, which sul-fbr contingcncy and cvil, just as lrurlurrrs tlo.'l'lrry :icc llrr lrrrrlc g,otls ol'hcathcnism, which are sutrjcct to thc worltl or llrr: ltowcts ol tlr rvolltl, lrs firlsc gocls, or cvcn idols. lt will bc sccn in this volrnrrc lrow llrt' ir,'rl,l rclip,iorts vicw this and how a discussion bctwccn tlrc tttottotltrristit'tllt ltonri iur(l llirrtluism and Buddhism, which at least do not exclrrrlcr ir nrultilrrrlc ol 1,,,,1';, rvill tlt:vclo1l. llrt' t;rrcstion ol'tlrc pcrl'cction or inrpcrl'cction cll (iod is closcly rclrrlctl lrr tlrt'tprt'sliorr ol'lris rclationship to sul'fcring. 'l'hc Clltlistiittt itttswcl lo tltc rptr':; tr,,rr rvlrctlrcr (iorl hirnscll- sul'f'crs or whcthcr hc, as a pcrlccl bcirrli, tkrt'r rrol ',lr.rrt' rrr lrrrrlnrrr srrl'l'cring at lll, was to cho<lsc thc intcrntcrliatc, tlrirtl lrllt'tttirlrvt' tlr,rl ( iorl rlocs rtot srrll'or, but syrnpatlrizcs or co-sul'f crs witlt rrs. llow llris ('lrrr:; Ir.rrr rrolrrliorr to tlrc problcnr ol'tlrc tcnsion bctwccn thc ubscncc ol'strl'li'r'irr1i rrrrtl tlrr' pcr li'ctiort tll'(iotl, on olrc ltanrl, atttl ltis lovc atttl c:utttpirssiott, ott tltt' olltcr, r,'l;rtt':; lo llrt: soltrlions to tlrc problcnt of'suf.l'cring irntl thc pcllcc:tiotr ol ( iorl ttr tlr,'.llrcl rcligiorrs is arrotlrcr irn;lortirnt uspcct ol'llrc tlrerrrc ol'this [look.

PETER KOSLOWSKI

INTRODUCTION

3. Evil

as a Consequence of

Liberty and the Transmission of Evil

ated dispositions toward evil that encourage the singular evil act, the rcalizltiorr of evil in the individualact, and make its occurrence more probable, but witlrorrt

The religions that regard the world as creation begin by assuming that evil and suffering are not constitutive for the creation, but are instead the consequence of a contingent event in the creation, a fall. This event is seen both as singular, as an act and occurrence in history, and as continuing to have consequences. In Christianity, this interpretation of the origin of evil as a singular event and as a continuing disposition toward evil is linked to the doctrine of original sin, which is common to all human persons. From the doctrine of original sin, in turn, the doctrine of the need for redemption of all human persons follows. The doctrine of original sin finds itself again and again the object of criticism, both from philosophy and from other religions. It is criticized for being tragic or pessimistic in nature. It does in fact contain a tragic element, because it assumes the guilt of the entire human race, which is not caused by every person individually as a result of morally free transgressions, but is inherited by all persons, as members of the human race, from their parents. Two questions related to the doctrine of original sin appear to be of central importance to the reflections and the theme of this book. The first is its thesis that the origin of evil and every evil act are singular, because there is no substance and no universal ofevil. Evil is instead a particular, singular reversal and "perversion" of the principle of the good. Its origin does not exist in a substance of evil, but in the will of the human person, who responds deliberately, singularly, and evilly to a singular situation of temptation and intentionally acts wrongly. Every other theory of evil that recognizes the origin of evil outside the human will or in a substance of evil leads into Manichaeanism and dualism, which define evil as a substance of the world, as a universal power of evil in the world.

Consequently, if one finds in the world something like a universal disposition toward evil or structures of evil, they cannot stem from a substance of evil, but only from free acts of evil. If, however, evil is not only individual, but also social, and can stem only from free deeds, it is completely sensible to assume that evil is transmitted individually in the entire human race, that it thus is inherited by children from their parents. If evil, understood as a reversal of the principles of being, reverses and corrupts the good singularly each time it occurs, this means that each evil act possesses within itself features of the singular reversal of the good. It does not react to a sitliation incorrectly and act wrongly in a universal way, but always in a spccific way. Ilowcver, if evil is at the same time so universal, it can only be a <lispositiorr that is inlrcritcd by porsons individually in a univcrsal way. At tlrc srttttc titttc, thc tlocllirrc ol'originul sin assurncs a prcdisposition to wr()nl'.lress irt itll lttrrtrirn pcrsons, not urrly rrr tlrc ('hlistiurr or urrly in thc non( 'ltt tslrlrtt l lris tr'rrrlirrct'tttcttl ol' llrt: rlisposiliorr ol' lrrrrrltrril-y lowlrlrl rrvil in llrtr rvotlrl tttotllltt':i lltt'sttt1,,ttl:tt t'lt;tltt lt't ol lltt'cv;l lrt'1, ur llr;rl oriliirr:rl srrr lr:rs r'rr.

negating the individual guilt of each evil act. The conviction of thc changc irr character of the entire human race brought about by evil and original sirr rurt only creates pessimism concerning the ability of human persons to act ritrilrtly. but also contains an encouraging and liberating statement about thc ccpr:rlity arrrl solidarity of human persons as sinners. The doctrine of original sin crcirlt:s ir solidarity of humanity in its equality as humanity endangered by thc cvil witlrrrr its own heart. All human persons are equal in the respect that they carry within tlrcnrst:lvt.:; both a predisposition to good and a predisposition to evil. They not orrly rrrutrr ally support themselves in the good, but also are in solidarity with onc trrotlrcr' in the struggle against the evil within themselves. They can also strcngthcn olrc another in their ability to perform and in their performance of evil actiorrs. 'l'lrt. doctrine of original sin rules out declaring themselves to be "pure" aurl ullrcrs whether other nations or other religions - to be "impure." All human bcirrgs rrrrrl all religions are affected by the inclination and the ability to bcconrc cvil, rrrrrl must be in the position to counteract this predisposition. The ability of the entire human race to perform evil actions and tlrc sirrpirrlrrr character of the evil act also forbid characterizing, for philosophical or tlrcokrg ical reasons, a people or a nation as especially or singularly evil ancl a pirrticrrlrrr action as uniquely evil and beyond comparison to all other evil in thc worltl. All nations are affected by the ability to be evil, and every evil act bcars lcatulcs ol the singular in itself. Anothertheory of evil would attribute to a natierr tlrc srrlr stance of evil and, therefore, lead to a dualism that understands cvil as ln irrrlc Pcndent substance in the world, as a national or racist characteristic, anrl llrcrc lirrc as a power and substance independent of God. A dualism of a good substance and an evil substance can bc acccptc:tl ncitlrcr in Cod nor in the world, however, without destroying the unity ol-(iotl lurtl ol
tlrc worlcl.l

All religions deny that evil is the last word and the ultimatc rcality.'l'lrc
olhumanity in an end to evil are too closely relatcd to thc idca tlurt cvrl r:; ttot An cternal substance equal to the eternity of God, but instcacl a singrrltrr rrrrrl l()l))llorary disturbance of reality, which does not affect God in his csscrrt.r..'l'lrt. wolltl that is influenced and affected by evil is not imperishablc antl srrlrstlrrtrrrl lrvcrythirtg cvil in the world is singular, perishablc, ancl insubstarrtial. lior tlre rvorltl religiotrs, tltc lrnitc worlcl, aft'cctccl by cvil, is only thc vcil lrritl ovr.r rrn pcrishrrblc rctrlity, which is tlctcrrrrirrctl [ry (iod llolrc. ll'cvrl is rtcilltct lt sttbs(itttcc cclrrirl lo (iotl rror orrc r.:r'crrlcrl by hirrr, llrt.otrp,,rrr
ItoPcs

l()tt llrc t'cnltirlrll ,,1 11,,.1,',,l,l,.rrr ol r.rll:rrrrl ovct(.()illiltll il lo llrc lrlrrl0s0illry ol rclrpr.rorr,,;t.r. l' lirr',lrrtv:;kt l'lttlosrtltltt,'rt,lr.t t)lfr,rtltrttttttt,, .,lttltl,r't (;tttt\lt..t\n1t\, littlt,. t,tyr llrtrtrltt,,\lr.ltr,lltttt, (lrir(l('rlro1t, Mrrrrr, lr, Vtt'rlrir, /llrrr lr lir lriirrrrrp,lr. .'(X)lI

PETER KOSLOWSKI

INTRODUCTION

f cvil

cannot be found in God, but only in man. Evil and sin came into the thc biblical religions say, by the sin of one human person. Therefore, the 'orld, entrality of the human person for the destiny of the world is expressed at the rme time. Not the apostasy of the absolute or God from himself, but the aposrsy of man from God has caused the evil and disturbance of the creation. The xtent to which Hinduism and Buddhism agree with this biblical conception of re centrality of the human person for the world and where they place other ccents in the interpretation of the origin of evil and the position of the human erson relative to it is one question addressed in this book.

Evil and suffering are themes of the world religions in a special way, bccause the religions have from time immemorial been the refuge of thosc whtr suffer and those who seek atonement and forgiveness for the evil they lravc clone. In their goal of engaging evil and overcoming it, of atoning for it arrtl alleviating the suffering that follows from the evil and the contingency ol'tlre world, the world religions are in solidarity with one another. Thereforc, it is possible, paradoxically, that precisely the interpretation of the origin atrd ovcr coming of evil and suffering can prove to be a common bridge across which lll world religions can walk, and that a realistic theory of evil will be more uttitivt'
than divisive.

Evil and the Separation of the Nations

'inally, it still remains to address the relationship between the interpretation of re origin of evil and suffering, on one hand, and the origin of nations and lan;uages, on the other. The biblicalreligions understand the origin of peoples and rnguages also to be a reaction to the fall: the Tower of Babel. The nations and mguages of humanity did not originate from geographical barriers or racial lifferences, but from an act of division performed by God, who separated the Lations in order to hinder the human race from attaining in common too much Lubris and power to commit evil. The separation of peoples and languages leads o nations hindering one another from doing evil. By being separated into differ,nt nations, the human race is hindered from doing evil as one single nation vithout internal restriction by the external restrictions the nations form to each
rther.

The separation of the nations is also a punishment and a painful condition, it makes it more difficult for the nations to understand one another. The \brahamic religions are astonishingly realistic with respect to this question: lhe multitude of nations has one advantage, in that it mutually hinders them in loing evil. It is at the same time a punishment and a preventive protection mea,ure against the hubris of humanity and, therefore, an evil, because it separates ruman beings from one another. For a world exposition and a discourse of the world religions at a meeting of he peoples and nations of the world in one place during the year 2000, the rnrbivalcncc of thc scparation of the nations and the relationship bctwccn thc livc:rsity antl thc solidarity o1'peoplcs is highly significant. It is also ol'particrlrrl irrtclcst Irr-:rc to lcirln ll'oru tlrc tlist:orrrsc ol'tlris lrook ltow Ilirttluisrtt itlttl lrrrltllrisrrr, lrrrt:rlso lsl:rrrr rrnil.lurl;risrrt, ittlctprt:t ltttil ltsscss tlrc sig.rrilrcltttcc ol' Irt' rlrlli'rcrrct' :rnrl llrt' t'orttrct'lt'rlttt':;s ol lltt' pt'o1tlt's ol'lltc wotltl. ltttli;t. rrs tlrt: rrollrrr lrrrrrl ol lrrrllr llrrrrlrrl;rrr rrrrtl llrrtlrllrllnr, l, il r'ounlry wrtlr ntttt'lt t'xPt'ti 'n((', nol rrrrly nr lt;rvrrrlirltllt'rt'trl tt'lt1it,,tt:; ltvt'lo1't'lltt't, lrttl rlso ltt llrt'ttrlt'1'.ur
lecause roil :rilrl, oll:tltrrt,tltrttt trI rltIlr'tfttl ttt'ttttlt':;

5
rf cvil

PETER KOSLOWSKI

INTRODUCTION
Ilvil
, rrrrsc

.I

cannot be found in God, but only in man. Evil and sin came into the world, the biblical religions say, by the sin of one human person. Therefore, the ;entrality of the human person for the destiny of the world is expressed at the ;ame time. Not the apostasy of the absolute or God from himself, but the apos:asy of man from God has caused the evil and disfurbance of the creation. The extent to which Hinduism and Buddhism agree with this biblical conception of the centrality of the human person for the world and where they place other lccents in the interpretation of the origin of evil and the position of the human rerson relative to it is one question addressed in this book.

and suffering are themes of the world religions in a special way, bc: the religions have from time immemorial been the refuge of thosc wlro ''rrllcr and those who seek atonement and forgiveness for the evil thcy lrirvc ,l.ro. ln their goal of engaging evil and overcoming it, of atoning lor it arrtl ;rllcviating the suffering that follows from the evil and the contingency ol'llrt. nor.ld, the world religions are in solidarity with one another. Thereforc, it is 1',tssible, paradoxically, that precisely the interpretation of the origin ancl ovcr'. , onting of evil and suffering can prove to be a common bridge across whiclr irll rr',rrld religions can walk, and that a realistic theory of evil will be morc urritivr. tlrrrrr divisive.

1. Evil and the Separation of the Nations

Finally, it still remains to address the relationship between the interpretation of the origin of evil and suffering, on one hand, and the origin of nations and languages, on the other. The biblical religions understand the origin of peoples and languages also to be a reaction to the fall: the Tower of Babel. The nations and Languages of humanity did not originate from geographical barriers or racial Jifferences, but from an act of division performed by God, who separated the nations in order to hinder the human race from attaining in common too much hubris and power to commit evil. The separation of peoples and languages leads lo nations hindering one another from doing evil. By being separated into differ:nt nations, the human race is hindered from doing evil as one single nation without intemal restriction by the external restrictions the nations form to each rther. The separation of the nations is also a punishment and a painful condition, because it makes it more difficult for the nations to understand one another. The Abrahamic religions are astonishingly realistic with respect to this question: Ihe multitude of nations has one advantage, in that it mutually hinders them in loing evil. It is at the same time a punishment and a preventive protection measure against the hubris of humanity and, therefore, an evil, because it separates human beings from one another. For a world exposition and a discourse of the world religions at a meeting o1' lhe peoples and nations of the world in one place during the year 2000, thc rmbivalence of the separation of the nations and the relationship betwecn thc Jiversity and the solidarity of peoples is highly significant. lt is also of particrrlar irttcrcsl. hcrc to lcarn from thc discoursc ol'this book how ['linduisrn arrtl lltrrltllrisrrr, [rrrl ulso lslanr ancl .lrrrlaisnr, inlcrprct irnd usscss thc sigrrilic:llrcc ol' Llrc tlil'li'rt'rrct' ltttrl llrcr c:ortncctctlrrcss ol'tlrc pcoplcs ol'thc wurltl. Intlitr, us tlrc tttolltt't lrrtrrl ol lrotlr llirrtltristtt rttttl Iltrrltllrisrrr, is lr corrnlry witlr rrrrrt'lr t'xllcli .'ttr't', ttttl otrly rtt lr:rvirrli rlillt'rcrrl rcliliiorrs livc lolir'1lrcr, lrrrl trlso itr llrt'ilrlt.lir;r Lrorr :rrrtl t oilrrlror:rlrorr ol rlrlli'rt'rrl 1rt.o1rlr.lr