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.
What is the exact wording of the four noble truths?
Hey everyone, on my journey of leaning buddhism, i have noticed one thing about all of the four noble truths i have read.
They are all different.
What i mean, is that every time i read of the truths, there is slightly different wording.
Example, i have read the first noble truth as "Life is suffering", "Life contains suffering", "All life is suffering", etc.
The same goes for each truth, and the slightly different wordings can lead to some different impressions.
I understand that the truths came about about 2500 years ago in a language that wasn't English. So both timely and translation errors can/have occurred.
Do we have any idea of the exact wording of the four noble truths, as the Buddha taught them?
If not, what is considered the best way to word them? Do they vary by branch?
They are all different.
What i mean, is that every time i read of the truths, there is slightly different wording.
Example, i have read the first noble truth as "Life is suffering", "Life contains suffering", "All life is suffering", etc.
The same goes for each truth, and the slightly different wordings can lead to some different impressions.
I understand that the truths came about about 2500 years ago in a language that wasn't English. So both timely and translation errors can/have occurred.
Do we have any idea of the exact wording of the four noble truths, as the Buddha taught them?
If not, what is considered the best way to word them? Do they vary by branch?
0
Comments
Although some bicker over the specific tanslations, this is from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. SN 56.11
This is mostly likely referring to a misunderstanding of the Pali phrase "Sabbe pi dukkham" (All is dukkha).
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves.
In SN 35.23, the Buddha defines the all (sabba) as the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavours, body and tactile sensations and intellect and ideas. According to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as "that which is hard to bear."
Moreover, in SN 35.24, the Buddha defines the all as a phenomenon to be abandoned [via the abandonment of greed/passion (raga) in regard to the six sense media]. Without the presence of greed/passion in regard to the six sense-media, they are no longer "difficult to bear." This is a far cry from the blanket statement, "Life is suffering."
We don't have the Buddha's exact words, only what are recorded to be his words, and the discourses of the Buddha that are recorded in the Pali Canon are generally considered to be the closest thing we have to what the Buddha actually taught.
The four noble truths are found in many places throughout the Canon, the most famous being the Buddha's first discourse, which was said to be given to five fellow ascetics shortly after his awakening:
And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.
And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.
And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
But in essence (according to enlightened view), real suffering is attachment to the five aggregates.
For the practised mind, birth, aging, death, pain, etc, are not hard to endure. they are not dukkha.
:smilec:
I like the word dukkha because it is very specialized. The word suffering doesn't work very well when I try to communicate with people about this subject. I think some translator long ago kmeant the VERB suffering, as in, bob is suffering from bad body odor, which means that bob is affected (negatively) by the body odor, whereas if someone hears the word suffering and thinks of the noun, they might think jesus-on-the-cross type suffering. But really in buddhism the word suffering is used as a verb. What do people suffer from? Dukkha.
My point exactly.
Here's the Pali for anyone that's interested:
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṃ ariyasaccaṃ – yāyaṃ taṇhā ponobbhavikā [ponobhavikā (sī. pī.)] nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṃ [seyyathīdaṃ (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.)] – kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ – yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.
Idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā ariyasaccaṃ – ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo, seyyathidaṃ – sammādiṭṭhi sammāsaṅkappo sammāvācā sammākammanto sammāājīvo sammāvāyāmo sammāsati sammāsamādhi.
My view it is best to recite the 1st Noble Truth over and over again, using the word dukkha, until the meaning sinks in, until the mind realises attachment to the five aggregates encompasses all dukkha.
Kind regards
This thread has only intensified my confusion. I don't think "stress" is a strong enough word to convey what I see as the meaning of Dukkha, but I agree that the word "suffering" can be interpreted in a less than ideal way.
The 4Nts can be seen in many ways, perhaps just purely experienced as well (I don't know about this).
Here are some rather abstract musing on them:
In essence the 4NTs compose an argument for the second and third truths and then two premises for the first and fourth truths.
The argument of the 4NTs is:
If x is caused by y, then if no x then no y.
So you might say that the second and third truths could be expressed symbolically as:
2) x is is caused by y.
3) If y is stopped then x is stopped.
Then the first premise is that x exists and the fourth that z prevents y. So symbolically they can be seen as:
1) x exists.
2) x is is caused by y.
3) If y is stopped then x is stopped.
4) If z then no y.
Have I got that right?
Irrespective of if I have that right or wrong, you can see how you can then slot into the symbols the terms that make it express the 4NTS. EG
1) suffering exists.
2) suffering is is caused by delusion.
3) If delusion is stopped then suffering is stopped.
4) If the noble eightfold path is practice then delusion is stopped.
I guess there are countless permutations to fill in there(suffering, stress, strain...etc) which is why the terms we often use as Buiddhists, like Dukka, are so useful.
namaste
I think the Buddha made it nice and simple for us. Simple things are so pleasing.
Unless you read Aramaic, you're screwed!
Very true. Didn't think of it that way before. We are basically being "fed" what each of the translators sees as a more fit wording.
I guess the only thing we can do is take all the different versions into account and extract the "essence" and the general "gist" of the 4NTs, and move on.
This is the Buddha way.
For example, often we see death on television or see a tree or animal die.
Do we suffer?
Generally, our answer is "no".
But when our loved one dies, we suffer.
When our laptop is stolen we suffer.
When Dhamma Dhatu's laptop is stolen, we rejoice.
Why?
Because our mind is attached to that loved one.
Our mind is attached to that laptop.
The Buddha did not teach the Noble Truths as a parable.
Try to reflect upon it.
In summary, attachment to the five aggregates is dukka.
The rest, such as sickness, pain, death, etc, are simply experiences the mind attaches to.
But he did teach them...
I guess the question is asking, how were they expressed when he taught them?
For sure, we can never know exactly.
By and large, this has become a question of semantics.
We all individually (hopefully) know what he meant.
Now, individually (hopefully) we just try our best to put it into practice.
It's actually not rocket Science (though many here have tried in different ways and various means, on a plethora of pointless threads to say it is).
It's actually very simple.
Manure happens.
It happens because we want the flower beds to look neat and tidy and the weeds to not grow.
There is a way out of this manure.
Lay a concrete path.
I think this might well go down in the annals of History as probably the most insightful interpretation yet!