In the first section of Chapter 3, “Normality of Suffering,” Eliade describes the practical value of archaic ontology. He notes the ever-present fact of suffering, of which archaic peoples were no less familiar with than their modern counterparts. Archaic ontology functioned as a way of handling the normality of suffering and making it tolerable; one sub-theme of Eliade’s work is the despair caused by the intolerability of suffering in the modern age. Since archaic peoples lived in a universe they believed was governed by divine laws, suffering was tolerable. Though the hardship would still be real, it was “neither gratuitous nor arbitrary” (96). It was part of the way of things, and there were divine archetypes to look to for inspired action in the face of torment and loss. The Indian law of karma is one intriguing instance of this. According to Eliade, karmic debts incurred in previous lives can be repaid through present sufferings. As a result, hardships are not only tolerable but sometimes even welcomed. This ontology provides a method of transforming the nature of pain and loss through meaning.

The general myth of the eternal return, found in so many archaic societies, offers another relief from suffering: “[T]his mythical drama reminded men that suffering is never final; that death is always followed by resurrection; that every defeat is annulled and transcended” (101).