Isn't the first of the four noble truths just obvious?

cranreuch

I'm wondering if I'm missing something about the significance of the first of the four noble truths. Truths 2 through 4 made me sit up and think, and made me want to explore this whole Buddhist thing. But truth 1 *seems* like motherhood and apple pie. "Suffering exists"? Well, duh. In fact, as far as I can see, nothing would be lost if there had just been The Three Noble Truths (i.e. FNT 2-4).

So, I'm wondering if I'm missing some deeper significance in truth 1. Am I wrong to see the existence of suffering as something obvious and so in your face as to be hardly worth pointing out?

Maybe another way to ask it is, is there anyone out there who read the first truth and thought (as I did with 2 through 4) "Wow, now that's new!"

thx.

Talisman

not that obvious to MANY MANY MANY people

cranreuch

Really? You think there are many people who simply don't know there is suffering? I'd have thought that a core motivation for Buddhism and probably almost every other spiritual path ever conceived since the dawn of time was to deal with the simple fact that life is, at last in part, a "vale of tears".

Personally, I can't think of anyone I have ever known, even the most positive and optimistic, who would say they needed Buddhism's first noble truth to tell them suffering exists.

Shrug. Maybe I've just missed meeting all the others who'd say suffering is non-existent.

Cloud

The First Noble Truth is more or less saying that suffering is the problem the Buddha was addressing. All suffering that arises from the mind (and as it takes a mind to perceive suffering, this means all suffering period).

The Truths are structured as a medical diagnosis, the cause of the illness, the cure, and the way to administer the cure.

Dukkha is the illness. Suffering.
Tanha is the cause. Craving.
Nirvana is the cure. Cessation of that very Craving.
...and the Noble Eightfold Path is the way to realize Nirvana.

MindGate

Before you can get the answer to 2 + 2, you must first establish what 2 is.

Before you can get rid of dukkha, you must establish its existence.

compassionate_warrior

It wasn't obvious to Siddartha, who had grown to adulthood in a palace full of comforts and with every indulgence available. To him, human suffering was a major discovery. The doctrine of the Middle Way might also seem obvious to many of us today. To Siddartha, however, who lived in a society where extreme asceticism was a norm for holy men, it was a revelation. Some of his insights grew out of the unique context of his time, culture and life circumstances.

SherabDorje

Lots of people try to deny the experience of suffering- to push it out of consciousness as if it were really not part of life. This is illustrated in the story of Siddhartha Gautama's early life, in which his father tried to keep him in the castle (or whatever) and protect him from the knowledge of suffering.

Epicurus

I think a lot of people just think suffering is something you can't change. So they don't even think in terms of existence or absence of suffering. I think a lot of people think in terms of needs and there is no way to transcendence most needs...because they "feel it in their gut".

federica

@cranreuch; How do you see the definition of suffering?
What's your take on it?
Tell me how you define suffering as the 1st of 4 Noble Truths....

(I personally feel there are just three.... we don't need a number 3: I think 3 & 4 could be combined without any discernible loss to the Nobility....)
but I'd like to know your take on numero uno.....

cranreuch

It wasn't obvious to Siddartha, who had grown to adulthood in a palace full of comforts ...

Ah, good point.

Now-Is-reality

I like the wording of the four noble truths. And actually if you look deeply into, it's not as obvious. For instance: There is dukka. It's not saying, I suffer or you suffer, simply that there is suffering. Of course when you look at it, it appears fairly straight forward. But even in the wording of the buddha he took personal persona out of the 4NT which serves as a first understanding of anatta and oneness. It has multiple folds.

cranreuch

@cranreuch; How do you see the definition of suffering?
What's your take on it?
Tell me how you define suffering as the 1st of 4 Noble Truths....

Fear, physical pain, grief, disappointment, anger, loss, loneliness, and so on. So for me, the 1st of the FNT is kinda saying:

1. See suffering -- things like fear, physical pain, ... -- you're not imagining them people. They're real.

It's almost like the Buddha was reassuring us. Like he's saying, "Don't let anyone fool you by pretending the suffering thing is just an illusion. You're not deluded -- suffering really does exist".

I guess what I'm wondering is, was it maybe the prevailing religious view at the time (maybe in Hinduism back then) that suffering *was* illusory. Maybe that was the way people tried to deal with it back then. That could make sense because in order for the Buddha to move us onto truths 2 through 4, first he has to deactivate what is essentially a falsehood, namely: "Suffering does *not* exist".

That's the only way I can see #1 being significant.

On combining the others, I think I agree. But not 3 and 4, rather 2 and 3. If this were maths, we could have:

2. Attachment => Suffering (i.e. Suffering if Attachment)
3. Non-attachment => Non-suffering (i.e. Non-suffering if Non-Attachment)

Those could be combined into a single:

2/3. Attachment <=> Suffering (i.e. Suffering if-and-only-if Attachment)

But 4 is distinct and new. My dialog with the Buddha would have gone like this:

Buddha: Suffering exists
Me: Cool! I *knew* it! Folk kept telling me I was imagining things but I *knew* I wasn't!
Buddha: Suffering is caused by attachment
Me: Eh?
Buddha: Attachment. To desire. That's the cause.
Me: Wow, that's radical. But fair enough. And so let me ask you ... if I wanted to stop the suffering could I just...
Buddha: Yep. Stop the attachment.
Me: Seriously? That's all there is to it.
Buddha: Welllll ... yah... but ...
Me: Really!? I just stop being attached to desire and suffering stops!!?
Buddha: Yep, exactly.
Me: Cool.
Buddha: [waits]
Me: Wow. That's so cool. Excellent dude. You've made my day.
Buddha: [smiles and waits]
[waits]
[waits]
Me: Hang on!
Buddha: [smiles] Uhu?
Me: How the hell do I stop being attached to desire??
Buddha: OK, so here's what I just figured out. There's this eight-fold path thing. It's really cool, and it goes like this ....
[Buddha and me exit, Buddha's arm over my shoulder as he continues his exposition]

Talisman

Buddy-Buddha :thumbup:

yiming

I'm wondering if I'm missing something about the significance of the first of the four noble truths. Truths 2 through 4 made me sit up and think, and made me want to explore this whole Buddhist thing. But truth 1 *seems* like motherhood and apple pie. "Suffering exists"? Well, duh. In fact, as far as I can see, nothing would be lost if there had just been The Three Noble Truths (i.e. FNT 2-4).

Sorry cran, don't mean to be rude but are you not rather daft. Let me explain it this way. Say, you have a medical check-up and the the doctor tells you this:

I won't tell you Truth 1, which is what the hell is wrong with you. So, I proceed to Truth 2, which is that there is a cause for what is affecting you; Truth 3, you can be cured; and Truth 4, the method to cure you is kick your silly butt.

So, I'm wondering if I'm missing some deeper significance in truth 1. Am I wrong to see the existence of suffering as something obvious and so in your face as to be hardly worth pointing out?

What is so obvious may not be as simple as you think. If the fact of pervasive suffering is not worth mentioning, then there is an implied resignation to a horrid human condition that has no cure. Everyone accepts suffering but not the Buddha. Everyone accepts death but not the Buddha. To whom suffering is not a given, its existence is an abomination and he won't say "duh, tell me something I don't know".

Maybe another way to ask it is, is there anyone out there who read the first truth and thought (as I did with 2 through 4) "Wow, now that's new!"

When I read the first truth, I thought, "Wow, that's new. For the first time someone saw that shit, point it out and realized the need to cleaned it up."

cranreuch

Sorry cran, don't mean to be rude but are you not rather daft.

Highly likely

Let me explain it this way. Say, you have a medical check-up and the the doctor tells you this:

I won't tell you Truth 1, which is what the hell is wrong with you.

But that - telling me what is wrong -- is truth 2. Truth 1, by contrast, is like the doctor saying:

"You're in pain"

To which my reply could be:

"No shit Sherlock. I knew that. I told *you* that"

The full analogy is:

1. You are in pain
2. The cause is X
3. If we remove X the pain will go away
4. Here's what we are going to do do remove X

The only way I can see that 1 is useful is if the statement:

"You are *not* in pain"

is something I may have been confused into believing.

Otherwise it seems to verge on a tautology -- like, "All squares have four sides". (OK, yes, FNT #1 is *not* tautological. But my point remains.)

compassionate_warrior

Cran, I see your point, but remember: a lot of people, like the Siddartha in his early youth, think they're happy because their lives are full of material things, and they think that's what life is about. The live superficial lives. Some people don't realize life is suffering until a loved one dies, or until their mortgage is foreclosed upon and they become homeless, or some other crisis happens, they fall ill, whatever. Other people have suffered terribly at a tender age, and have blocked off that suffering from their conscious mind, they live in denial of their experience. They continue to suffer, but they ignore it, or rationalize it away. Plenty of people just don't want to face reality, face the obvious. So the obvious has to be spelled out for them.

Does this help?

Cloud

Like I said, and I'll repeat it since you seem to have missed it, it's set up in the popular format that was used in India, namely as a medical diagnosis, the cause, the cure and how to administer the cure.

Suffering is the problem that we're trying to get over
Craving is the root cause of our suffering
The ending of craving is the cure (Nirvana)
The Noble Eightfold Path is how we obtain the cure

There's no greater reason required. That's how this formula goes!

Here's one source, from http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud4.htm:

One of the structures that had been developed by medical science in ancient India was the four fold structure of disease, diagnosis, cure and treatment. Now if you think carefully about these four steps in the practice of medicine, the practice of the art of healing, you will see that they correspond quite closely to the Four Noble Truths. In other words, suffering corresponds to the illness; the cause of suffering corresponds to the diagnosis, in other words identifying the cause of the illness; the end of suffering corresponds to the cure; and the path to the end of suffering corresponds to the treatment whereby one is cured of the illness.

Glow

Yes, as Cloud notes, the Four Noble Truths are presented in a stock formula from the Buddha's contemporary India. It's not meant to be anything earth-shattering or surprising. It's meant to cut right to the heart of why Siddhartha (and people throughout history) have entered into the spiritual life into the first place: dukkha -- or, the unsatisfactoriness of this existence. The Buddha is cutting right to the chase: suffering and the end of suffering.

dorje

@Cran it's exactly how a doctor works:

1. You have a strep throat, caused by
2. The streptococcus virus, so we have to
3. Remove the virus, through
4. A cycle of antibiotics.

Yes you have a sore throat, but you never did realize that it was strep throat. Buddha saw we are all afflicted, but due to the conditioning of our lives, we do not realize that we are suffering all the time.

revkusala

The third truth, is cessation. Nirodha. Not nibbana or "nirvana" The process of insight into dependent origination bringing one to the observable direct experience of the (first-truth); the formation of "what is" (dukkha). Look at your experience. Do you really notice dukkha, as suffering or stress, in present time? Consciousness arises with formation as condition, formation arises with ignorance as condition. When there is presence of the 5 aggregates; this process is already producing kamma. Nirodha as the third truth, is the recognition of the original process having faded. Repeated insight into this cessation LEADS to nibbana, which is the EXTINCTION of causation. Tricky. The Buddha told the disciple Ananda not to quickly assume that because he could understand the idea conceptually, that it was the same as mastering the skill to arrive at the experience. Most of the time people notice 'suffering' after it has occurred. Cessation in this sense has seen HOW the process of phenomenal experience stops when the first truth is known. To cite a roughly vague illustration; the Gulf oil spill has reached cessation (nirodha) However the cause and condition that supported it's arising (oil consumption, therefore, drilling continues and is not extinct, (nibbana)

cranreuch

Like I said, and I'll repeat it since you seem to have missed it, it's set up in the popular format that was used in India, namely as a medical diagnosis, the cause, the cure and how to administer the cure.

No I saw it Cloud. I just think you're wrong. For a start your use of the medical analogy doesn't match that of the link you provided. Diagnosis and Cause are the same thing, and correspond to Noble Truth 2. Cure is 3, and Treatment is 4. Question is, what is 1 and, more to the point, who is stating it.

Well, 1 is a statement of the illness itself. And clearly -- since Diagnosis and Cause are already allocated to Truth 2 -- illness is the symptom, the pain, suffering etc.

And there's my difficulty (and the dead horse I appear to be flogging). Suppose I go to a doctor and say, "I have pain" and he asks me for $100 for each of the following four pieces of wisdom:

1. You have pain
2. The cause of pain is inflammation caused by an infection in your throat
3. The cure is to kill the infection thereby removing the inflamation
4. The treatment is to take one of these antibiotic tablets four times a day for a week

I am fine to pay him for points 2 through 4, but he's getting nothing for point 1. He provided no value in stating it. I already knew.

But with the actual Four Noble Truths, I'm more hesitant. I'm thinking, this Buddha dude came up with some pretty heavy stuff. Sometimes it appears simple, or obvious, but when you dig down, you realize it's profound. Therefore, since the first noble truth appears simple and obvious, I conclude that I need to keep digging.

What I'm hearing (from you and others) is, nah, it's just how they spoke back then. It really is just simple and obvious. No need to dig.

I don't buy it. This is, after all, the *FIRST* *NOBLE* *TRUTH*! I'm missing something. I'm definitely missing something. And perhaps I'm not alone.

cranreuch

The third truth, is cessation. Nirodha. Not nibbana or "nirvana" The process of insight into dependent origination bringing one to the observable direct experience of the (first-truth); the formation of "what is" (dukkha). Look at your experience. Do you really notice dukkha, as suffering or stress, in present time? Consciousness arises with formation as condition, formation arises with ignorance as condition. When there is presence of the 5 aggregates; this process is already producing kamma. Nirodha as the third truth, is the recognition of the original process having faded. Repeated insight into this cessation LEADS to nibbana, which is the EXTINCTION of causation. Tricky. The Buddha told the disciple Ananda not to quickly assume that because he could understand the idea conceptually, that it was the same as mastering the skill to arrive at the experience. Most of the time people notice 'suffering' after it has occurred. Cessation in this sense has seen HOW the process of phenomenal experience stops when the first truth is known. To cite a roughly vague illustration; the Gulf oil spill has reached cessation (nirodha) However the cause and condition that supported it's arising (oil consumption, therefore, drilling continues and is not extinct, (nibbana)

See what I mean Cloud. I have *no* idea what revkusala just said
I told you -- I'm missing something!

cranreuch

Cran, I see your point, but remember: a lot of people, like the Siddartha in his early youth, think they're happy ...

Does this help?

Yes, I think so, thanks. compassionate_warrior said something similar. The first truth may partly be a result of Guatama's protected upbringing. A formalized way of exclaiming, "Holy crap! Did y'all realize there are dead bodies and sick people and bad stuff out there!!?"

But I suspect there's more to it than that. He'd have been laughed off the street by most "ordinary" people if he was merely telling them what they all already knew.

dorje

You're missing it. Pain is the symptom of a disease. Not the disease itself.

You have to remember that you have to go to the root of the problem. The inflammation is not the problem. Infection is the problem. Get rid of the infection and the rest will naturally fall into place.

Similarly the Buddha taught that suffering is not the problem. Clinging and aversion are the problems. Get rid of them and the rest will naturally fall into place.

Like we all have said, we all suffer. Just that we don't realize we're suffering. Ever thought about "the good 'ol times"? Ever caught yourself thinking "How I wish we'd go back to when it was so much simpler to live"? That's suffering.

Cloud

Yeah someone's definitely missing something, but it's not a problem in the truths themselves since everyone else gets it.

revkusala

Yes, words fall way too short, it's best to contemplate the matter, meditate on it. My example was indeed poor. Just one restatement. Cessation is seeing the process of origination (in the experience of the meditation) fade, still, cease; resulting in letting go. Modeling of the experience in our practice, inclines one toward nibbana. Much Kindness to all.

compassionate_warrior

Just to show you how widespread the denial of suffering is, Cran: I've seen material making fun of Buddhism, saying that "Buddhism teaches you that life is sad, Buddhists don't enjoy life, they say life is suffering." Then smiling people are shown going about their day and enjoying life, to show how wrong the Buddhists are. I don't remember the source of this cartoon, or whatever it was, but this is how people think. They want to believe they're happy, they want to enjoy their attachments, and don't want anyone telling them they can't. Or shouldn't. Or that their attachments are in fact causing them suffering. Do an experiment; ask some Christians if they're happy or if they believe that life is suffering. For that matter, ask some non-Christians (non-religious people) as well.

DhammaDhatu

hi

i view the 1st Noble Truth as a gradual teaching & as a diagnosis

for me, it begins with listing those experiences that are ordinarily taken to be suffering by the ordinary person, such as giving birth to children [painful, dangerous], sickness, aging, death, sorrow, pain, etc, separation from the loved, not getting what one wants, etc

this is the same as when an ordinary person goes to a doctor to report their illness. they say to the doctor: "i have pain here, burning here, etc". the doctor, who is enlightened about medicine, says to the ordinary person: "you suffer from xmiximitosis"

the Buddha was the same. As the enlightened spiritual doctor, he said: "in summary, you suffer from clinging to the five aggregates as 'I' and 'mine'..."

just my opinion

regards

pegembara

There are 3 Types of Dukkha
1 Dukkha-dukkhata :
Suffering of the mind and body in ordinary sense includes pain, etc

2 Viparinama-dukkhata :
Dukkha cause by change or transience or separation.

3 Sankhara-dukkhata:
Suffering of the Aggregates, state of dis-ease and instability,

Cran,
To realise no. 3, try sitting still in one spot without moving. Very soon you would change to a more comfortable posture. What you don't realize is that there is never a comfortable posture. Even in your sleep you need to change position. From birth to death there is this sense of dis-sease impinging without an end.

FreeofwantWdumean

I don't think it's obvious what so ever, what becomes our world is accepted if you don't read about what it is.

DhammaDhatu

@ pegembara

In my mind, this is just the Commentary interpretation.

Dukkha-dukkhata = pain or dukkha vedana

Viparinama-dukkhata: dukkha lakana (characteristic), associated with impermanence or transience

Sankhara-dukkhata: suffering of attachment, that is, mental "concocting"

Only sankhara-dukkhata is real dukkha

Regards

Mountains

not that obvious to MANY MANY MANY people

I'd venture to say the majority of people. Or perhaps it's better said that they perceive something, but they don't know what to call it.

DairyLama

Only sankhara-dukkhata is real dukkha

Are you sure? That isn't the impresssion given here:

SN 38.14 Dukkha Sutta: Stress
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness."

P

Cinorjer

I'm wondering if I'm missing something about the significance of the first of the four noble truths. Truths 2 through 4 made me sit up and think, and made me want to explore this whole Buddhist thing. But truth 1 *seems* like motherhood and apple pie. "Suffering exists"? Well, duh. In fact, as far as I can see, nothing would be lost if there had just been The Three Noble Truths (i.e. FNT 2-4).

So, I'm wondering if I'm missing some deeper significance in truth 1. Am I wrong to see the existence of suffering as something obvious and so in your face as to be hardly worth pointing out?

Maybe another way to ask it is, is there anyone out there who read the first truth and thought (as I did with 2 through 4) "Wow, now that's new!"

thx.

As you usually read the thumbnail version of the Noble Truths, yes it does seem obvious. The first Truth is not so much "Hey, suffering exists!" as it is "The problem we have to address is why people suffer, no matter who they are or how they live." It is the complaint you bring to the doctor. The symptom of the illness. It is the ground floor cornerstone of Buddhism.

So let's take a look at how other religions define the problem. According to Judaism, the problem is that we disobey God's many commandments. According to Christianity, the problem is that we don't accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. According to the Muslims, the problem is that we don't surrender to God and follow the divine teachings of Muhammad. Why suffering exists is not even addressed. It is assumed to be either God's will or the fault of Satan.

So while the existance of suffering is obvious, placing it front and center and declaring the elimination of suffering here and now is what our religion is all about is unique. None of the other religions can afford to make that claim, because they start with an assumption that religion is all about appeasing a God in some form or another. None of them have a cure for suffering, only a promise of a Heaven or end to suffering after this life.

cranreuch

So let's take a look at how other religions define the problem. According to Judaism, the problem is that we disobey God's many commandments. According to Christianity, the problem is that we don't accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. According to the Muslims, the problem is that we don't surrender to God and follow the divine teachings of Muhammad. Why suffering exists is not even addressed. It is assumed to be either God's will or the fault of Satan.

So while the existance of suffering is obvious, placing it front and center and declaring the elimination of suffering here and now is what our religion is all about is unique.

Very good. Excellent. Thank you.

You're right. If we compare the Four Noble Truths with the Ten Commandments, for example, we do indeed get a flavour of what their respective religions consider to be "front and center" as you put it.

c

yiming

I don't buy it. This is, after all, the *FIRST* *NOBLE* *TRUTH*! I'm missing something. I'm definitely missing something. And perhaps I'm not alone.

Ok, you say that Truth 1 is obvious. Just to be sure that we are not barking up wrong trees, please tell me what -to you - is obvious about Truth 1.

seeker242

I would say that most people do not understand the 1st truth because suffering (dukka) also involves reliance on temporary things for happiness. In other words, if your happiness is dependent on having good health, having money, having a family or wife or husband, having people like you, having nice friends etc, etc, etc., then the 1st truth is not really understood. What most people think is happiness, is actually Dukka.

For example: "I have a lot of money, therefore I'm not suffering because I'm happy to have a lot of money". When in fact the truth is that reliance on, or attachment to, money, is itself, suffering or Dukka. But money is just one example, it could be anything really. This is how I see it.

yiming

For example: "I have a lot of money, therefore I'm not suffering because I'm happy to have a lot of money". When in fact the truth is that reliance on, or attachment to, money, is itself, suffering or Dukka.

Is reliance on money a form of suffering, really? Or is the fear of reliance on money the cause of suffering?

seeker242

For example: "I have a lot of money, therefore I'm not suffering because I'm happy to have a lot of money". When in fact the truth is that reliance on, or attachment to, money, is itself, suffering or Dukka.

Is reliance on money a form of suffering, really? Or is the fear of reliance on money the cause of suffering?

I would say yes, really. If you have reliance on money, to get happiness, and someone steals all your money, would there be unhappiness? I think that is a guarantee. The problem is, one day all your money is going to be stolen and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. It's not possible to have money and all the things that it brings when you're dead. The result of that is a guaranteed unhappiness IMO. By being reliant on money, you are setting up the conditions that guarantee that suffering will occur because it is a guarantee that this money will be stolen one day.

yiming

I would say yes, really. If you have reliance on money, to get happiness, and someone steals all your money, would there be unhappiness? I think that is a guarantee. The problem is, one day all your money is going to be stolen and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. It's not possible to have money and all the things that it brings when you're dead. The result of that is a guaranteed unhappiness IMO. By being reliant on money, you are setting up the conditions that guarantee that suffering will occur because it is a guarantee that this money will be stolen one day.

What you are saying confirms that it is the fear (of reliance on money) that is the problem and not the reliance on money. We rely on many things in life. We rely on the sun rising in the morning. We rely on the rain to water crops and fill our bath-tubs. We rely on each other to keep our societies running. Don't be fearful. Your money will not be stolen. Keep it in the bank. The safety of your deposits are guaranteed by the government.

Jason

So, I'm wondering if I'm missing some deeper significance in truth 1. Am I wrong to see the existence of suffering as something obvious and so in your face as to be hardly worth pointing out?

Maybe another way to ask it is, is there anyone out there who read the first truth and thought (as I did with 2 through 4) "Wow, now that's new!"

The problem of suffering as seen in Buddhism is that when we suffer, we become bewildered as to why we are suffering, and then we look for a way out—except we look in all the wrong places because we're confused about what suffering is, as well as what true happiness is. That's why the Buddha developed the four noble truths and formulated them in the same way that ancient Indian physicians formulated medical diagnoses (i.e., disease, cause, prognosis and treatment), so that we're able to comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation and develop the path to that cessation.

So the point of the first noble truth isn't just that there's suffering in life, it's that there's suffering in life and it needs to be fully comprehended before it can be cured. I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu gives another good reason as to why they're presented as a group in his study guide on the four noble truths:

The four noble truths are the most basic expression of the Buddha's teaching. As Ven. Sariputta once said, they encompass the entire teaching, just as the footprint of an elephant can encompass the footprints of all other footed beings on earth.

These four truths are best understood, not as beliefs, but as categories of experience. They offer an alternative to the ordinary way we categorize what we can know and describe, in terms of me/not me, and being/not being. These ordinary categories create trouble, for the attempt to maintain full being for one's sense of "me" is a stressful effort doomed to failure, in that all of the components of that "me" are inconstant, stressful, and thus not worthy of identifying as "me" or "mine."

To counter this problem, the four noble truths drop ideas of me/not me, and being/not being, and replace them with two sets of variables: cause and effect, skillful and unskillful. In other words, there is the truth of stress and suffering (unskillful effect), the truth of the origination of stress (unskillful cause), the truth of the cessation of stress (skillful effect), and the truth of the path to the cessation of stress (skillful cause). Each of these truths entails a duty: stress is to be comprehended, the origination of stress abandoned, the cessation of stress realized, and the path to the cessation of stress developed. When all of these duties have been fully performed, the mind gains total release.

seeker242

I would say yes, really. If you have reliance on money, to get happiness, and someone steals all your money, would there be unhappiness? I think that is a guarantee. The problem is, one day all your money is going to be stolen and there is absolutely nothing you can do to stop it. It's not possible to have money and all the things that it brings when you're dead. The result of that is a guaranteed unhappiness IMO. By being reliant on money, you are setting up the conditions that guarantee that suffering will occur because it is a guarantee that this money will be stolen one day.

What you are saying confirms that it is the fear (of reliance on money) that is the problem and not the reliance on money. We rely on many things in life. We rely on the sun rising in the morning. We rely on the rain to water crops and fill our bath-tubs. We rely on each other to keep our societies running. Don't be fearful. Your money will not be stolen. Keep it in the bank. The safety of your deposits are guaranteed by the government.

I don't think that is the case. There is a HUGE difference between being reliant on the sun and being reliant on material possessions. One is simply condition of being a human being, a necessity. While the other is not a simple necessity but rather an unnecessary thing which leads to suffering. They are not the same thing.

"Your money will not be stolen"

How can you possess money if you are dead? What good is a bank if you can't use it anymore? How do you make deposits and withdraws from a bank, when you're dead? It's is a guarantee that your money will be stolen because is is a guarantee that you will lose your life. You can't have money without a life. It's not possible.

Are you trying to say that clinging and attachment does not cause suffering? That is not going to go over very well on a Buddhist forum, since it is one of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism.

being

I think the reason why it's so important, is that suffering is not the same as pain. Pain can cause suffering, if pain is not seen for what it is, but suffering is caused by the human mind. And I think this is why it's so important to firstly point out, that suffering does exist.

Here's a good site with detailed explanations of all the 4NT's: http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
May be helpful.

cranreuch

Just to be sure that we are not barking up wrong trees, please tell me what -to you - is obvious about Truth 1.

That suffering exists. Or, as the Dalai Lama puts it in the book "The Four Noble Truths" "...we have suffering". That, to me, is obvious.

But the reason I began this thread is precisely because I suspect that Truth 1 is *not* obvious, it must therefore mean more than I think. The fact that the Dalai Lama wrote a whole book about it backs that up and suggests that he too, in his "...we have suffering" was beginning to peel back layers on something important.

But maybe revkusala gets it right when he says "words fall way too short". There are shades here of the early Wittgenstein with the dichotomy between showing and saying. Here, perhaps some things cannot be said and instead only experienced. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must meditate" :-)

upekka

See I have *no* idea what revkusala just said
I told you -- I'm missing something!

read and think

about 'five aggregates', 'five clinging aggregates', 'six sense bases', 'six elements', and ' dependent origination'

and

then

contemplate on them

DhammaDhatu

Only sankhara-dukkhata is real dukkha

Are you sure? That isn't the impresssion given here:

SN 38.14 Dukkha Sutta: Stress
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness."

P

Hi Porpoise

I am 100% sure. I have already interpreted this sutta in my post.

We seem to be stuck on this ambiguous translation rather than reality. Best we look into our mind & heart rather than getting stuck on Thanissaro's bizzare translation.

If we do not understand this matter, we understand absolutely nothing about Buddhism. Nil.

The Buddha advised in countless discourses, the end of suffering is the cessation of craving & attachment and not the cessation of feelings.

If we have not realised this, in relation to the Buddha's core emphasis, we have realised nothing. The Buddha's teaching are in vain.

All the best

The first is dukkha-dukkha ordinary suffering. These include what the Buddha calls the three great teachers: sickness, old age and death, and the loss of a loved one.

The second is viparinama-dukkha. We all confront impermanence, literally, from moment to moment. One instant, we are happy, having a good time, and the next we are aware that our happiness will pass. For me, this awareness is often tinged with sadness, and explains why the Buddha says that even happiness is dukkha.

The third is samkhara-dukkha—the suffering of conditioned states. With samkhara-dukkha, we clearly see that the mind has a mind of its own. Corrado Pensa, a beloved teacher warns, “Be careful when you enter your mind, it may lead you behind enemy lines.” This is the dukkha that we can do something about. This is the illness that the Buddha is talking about in his medical model.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?215-On-the-Four-Noble-Truths-Tamara-Engle

DhammaDhatu

'five clinging aggregates'

the five aggregates do not cling

they are the five aggregrates subject to clinging or the five aggregates the mind clings to or the five groups/focuses of clinging/identification

they are not the 'five clinging aggregates'

kind regards

pegembara

What is true happiness? To be utterly contented with what you have.
How do I get this? Be free of all wants and desires.

Jeffrey

Theres an intellectual realization of suffering, but then there is really penetrating the experience. My teacher said if we could feel an itch fully that we might become enlightened! Kind of tantalization haha.

To know suffering means you have experienced and understood the root cause of samsara.

The 3rd noble truth means you have experienced and understood the root cause of nirvana.

DairyLama

Only sankhara-dukkhata is real dukkha

Are you sure? That isn't the impresssion given here:

SN 38.14 Dukkha Sutta: Stress
translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness."

P

Hi Porpoise

I am 100% sure. I have already interpreted this sutta in my post.

We seem to be stuck on this ambiguous translation rather than reality. Best we look into our mind & heart rather than getting stuck on Thanissaro's bizzare translation.

You've asserted that only sankkhara-dukkhata is real dukkha, but I don't know what this claim is based on, and you haven't provided any evidence from the sutttas to support this idea. And what exactly is "bizarre" about Thanissaro's translation here?

P

DairyLama

What is true happiness? To be utterly contented with what you have.
How do I get this? Be free of all wants and desires.

And how do you get that?

P