Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Are the Four Noble Truths plural or single?
DhammaDhatu
Veteran
Dear forum
I was reflecting today about the 4NTs and the thought arose: "If the Buddha-To-Be understood what suffering actually was, he would not have had to search for its cessation".
Often it is said the Buddha-To-Be left home searching for the cessation of suffering but was also part of his search discovering what suffering actually is?
In other words, is the cessation of suffering self-evident in suffering itself?
Are the 4NTs four separate truths or one singular truth?
I was reflecting today about the 4NTs and the thought arose: "If the Buddha-To-Be understood what suffering actually was, he would not have had to search for its cessation".
Often it is said the Buddha-To-Be left home searching for the cessation of suffering but was also part of his search discovering what suffering actually is?
In other words, is the cessation of suffering self-evident in suffering itself?
Are the 4NTs four separate truths or one singular truth?
0
Comments
The cessation of suffering isn't self-evident in suffering, because people suffer their whole lives without knowing the possibility of cessation. Suffering as concieved in the 4NTs belongs to the 4NTs.
The four noble truths dissolve when the mind is observing formlessness, into just a view of the archetype itself. So the answer is both. The four noble truths are plural, because there are four of them. However, they are a simple convention to describe a single event from all angles... all 4 angles. Cause, present moment, future moment and the vibration that animates the three... though they are worded so that it leads to the cessation, rather than simple description.
With warmth,
Matt
I believe that if someone followed the eightfold path, they would eventually come to their own conclusions on how to end suffering.
This, in a way, could mean that the fourth noble truth contains all of the noble truths.
However, i think if it was still one truth, it would need to have a few commentaries on it. These commentaries would comprise of something similar of the four noble truths.
I also like the idea of one truth and enjoy seeing this thread unfold.
Cheers!
Is the cause of suffering self evident in suffering? Probably it depends on the individual. However, if I didn't know the cause of suffering I wouldn't have guessed it all by myself.
IMHO they must be seen as one truth broken down into four parts, just as the fourth truth is actually broken down into 8 parts (10 including the "Acquired Factors" of "Right Knowledge" and "Right Liberation" which are developed through the cultivation of the Eightfold path)
The first part being; "There is Suffering", the Second "There is a cause of Suffering", the third, "The cessation of suffering is attainable", and the fourth, "The path to the cessation of suffering"...
If the first and second truth were absolute truths unto themselves then the the last two would be contradictory to the first two and visa versa...
Truth does not contradict itself... so they must be seen together as one truth...
I don't really see it as any more complex than that.
We may say people suffer their whole lives without knowing the possibility of cessation but may we also say people suffer their whole lives without knowing what their actual suffering is?
In other words, may we ask: "Is there clear insight into what is the exact nature of suffering or is there the experience of being overwelmed by it & drowning in it?"
I think people know generally that they are suffering. It's just they don't know the cause of it (the root or the nucleus which is self clinging) thus the remedies they take do not lead to the cessation of suffering per se. For example, a man feeling lonely and sad might identify that it is suffering but will try to remedy it by sensual entertainments which again cause more turmoil. Don't you think?
Lol, are you OK DD?
I am saying when Buddha saw what suffering was, his mind saw it objectively. His mind was not overcome by it or affected by it. His mind clearly saw attachment was suffering. But it was like he was looking thru a microscope. To understand clearly what suffering was, he only needed a very small amount of it.
I sensed when Prince Siddartha left the palace, he had a strong sense of unsatisfactoriness. For him, life was not OK.
He felt suffering but he did not know the root or the nucleus, which is self clinging.
When self clinging was understood (and its origin), Nibbana & the path were simultaneously realised.
OK. I like your answer Deshy. You win the prize.
:cheer::birthday::woowoo::bigclap::thumbsup: :mullet: :smilec:
It sure does seem like that. He must have initially used sensual entertainments to overcome the deep rooted sense of unsatisfactoriness and the awareness that something isn't right. My guess is finally he realized that wheteverever it is, it is not there in the palace and his way of life.
Lol. :wow: Thanks DD
first and second truth were absolute truths unto themselves .
the third and the fourth were relative truths, as if we to look at the Buddha Dharma from the big picture and historical view, it offered many paths and level of cultivation and attainment for different capacity and different karmic relationship with the Buddha Dharma.
between the absolute truth and the relative truth , there is the ultimate truth of middle way to see the both side of the same coin ( same reality ).
at the different stages of attaining Buddhahood, they may seem to see as different stages of realization, but if to view from the eye of one who have already attained the perfect and complete Buddhahood, all the three truths are mutually included with each another.
and up to today, generally in the world of Buddha Dharma, they only agreed to recognise there is only one perfect and complete Buddha - that is still reserved for the historcial Buddha himself, but this does not mean no disciples of the Buddha has attained nirvana / liberation historically, and shared the same Dharma Body with the Buddha.
This is actually something I've been wondering about. It seems like for some people, having every possible desire satisfied and not lacking for anything is actually conducive to awakening. Is abundance better than scarcity for the purposes of understanding dukkha then? Would Siddhartha have become the Buddha if he was not born into a life of extravagance?
When someone constantly perceives that they are lacking something (money, nice house, relationships, etc.), it's very easy for them to have the illusion that whatever it is they're lacking will provide them real satisfaction. It takes a much larger step for them to realize that all compounded things are dukkha.
On the other hand, when someone is completely sated and still finds that there is an unsatisfactory quality to life, they will be motivated to inquire further. And yet, this doesn't seem to be sufficient for awakening, as there are many people that do have all their desires satisfied and just succumb to over-indulgence.
2 and 4 relative (path to suffering) (path to cessation)?
1st NT, "The truth that suffering exists (Dukkha). ", & 2nd NT, "The truth that suffering exists with a root cause (craving) ", - are absolute truth - as they are obvious and unquestionable in the realm of Buddha Dharma
3rd NT, "The truth that suffering can be eliminated (Nirvana)", & 4th NT,"The truth that there is a way to eliminate suffering known as the Noble Eightfold Path" are relative truth - this are much depend on which position you are standing in Buddha Dharma, and what evident you are to take to support your position upon them
( for the 3rd, because different schools offered different way to attain Nirvana, and not all of them used the 8 fold path directly, as some packaged them differently )
Speaking between both relative ( samvrtisatya ) and absolute ( paramarthasatya ) truth, there is the ultimate truth ( middle way ) to perceive the reality
Some Buddhist schools spoke about the 2 truths , some spoke about the 3 truths , but not very common for one in Buddhist school school spoke one 1 single truth, they are much careful in their words of expressing, at most they spoke that the 2 or 3 truths are mutually included with one another .
it is just the short phrase for the nature of existence is suffering
The Nature of Suffering (Dukkha):
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."
This just my view.
The Boddhisatta was initially vexed by the problem of aging, sickness and death seeking a way to solve his existential crisis. He discovered that aging, sickness and death in themselves are not suffering but wrongful identification of this happening to oneself is. [Someone else's sickness & death is not suffering!]. Suffering is also expecting permanence in an impermanent world. Once he understood true suffering the other Truths fell into place.
There is some special quality to the Bodhisatta that even at a young age he became aware of aging, sickness and death. The sensual indulgence did not blind him to the realities of life.
How many kids or even grown-ups do you know who even think about such things?