The Four Noble Truths, My View
The Four Noble Truths, My View
As I start writing this page, I feel it important to qualify something: I do not find myself an expert on the 4 Noble Truths. The notion that my perspective has any validity in actually teaching you this is laughable.
So why create this page at all?
Reminder: this is my journal. You simply have access to it. So please approach this with this in mind: I am a student in learning, placing my thoughts on the page to work them out, explicitly, and mold them and track my illusions. This is not some manifesto or claim of certainty and authority. Rather, an introspective exploration for the author, and nothing more.
If you want something authoritative, go to His Holiness the Dalai Lama himself here.
The following is an explanation as to how I, personally, view the 4 noble truths and what inferences I reach when I practice. Buddhism takes into account the flexibility and instability of language. Thus, my inferences, conclusions, or perspective is not intended to divert away from the ideas of the 4 Noble Truths. Rather, they are intended to frame them in a personal way that allows for the cognitive inferences in my own neural pathways to fire; this is how my brain processes and connects these ideas. The ideas, at the core, are the same (I believe). However, the signifiers I am using (the words to express these ideas) are closer to my own expression of language.
Life contains the inseparability of life and suffering. When suffering occurs, this is not a flaw or a mistake on the part of the experiencer of that suffering. Instead, it is a natural and inseparable part of life.
So what is the significance of this? What inferences are to be made? What conclusions are to be drawn? Associations to be bound synaptically?
If life and suffering are inseparable, then the suffering one experiences in life are not flaws to be avoided but rather experiences that demand reflection and awareness. To live one's life in a desperate attempt to avoid all suffering is foolish, for suffering will find a way to rise within one's experience regardless. Equally, to live one's life in search of suffering would be equally misguided, for suffering will come to pass regardless of effort or direction.
On the surface, this Noble Truth acts as an antidote to hedonism. The persistent drinking of alcohol or drugs will not eleviate the suffering, and the narrative of escape that video games and other forms of escape that thrive off of dopamine dependency is a false narrative cherry picking the experiences of memory. Then comes status and the commodification of the self through social validation. Wealth, power, or admiration are illusions of happiness that will only spark additional suffering. Just like the narrative of escape is a narrative of cherry-picked dopamine dependence (analogue with addiction), so too is the narrative of social status and completeness or actualization through the admiration or approval of others. As will be elaborated further in the latter Truths, wisdom (prajna) must always begin from the understand of the self first, before it can be applied externally; not the other way around.
Life contains suffering, so the First Noble Truth asserts. But we are not our suffering. Nor are we our joy. These are experiences, not states of identity.
At this point, I am tempted, as a teacher, to provide categorizations and examples of sufferings. To keep it brief, I will mention: cancer, anger, death, isolation, ego, sexual desire, and more. But I will leave the categorization for someone else, for all lists are reductive.
Rather, I would like to provide a connection. The first noble truth acts as an anchor on these experiences of life to remind practitioners of one of the most essential principles of Buddhist practice: impermanence. All things are impermanent, and all of life's moments of contentment, joy, elation, and positive experiences in life are impermanent and suffering is natural to rise. Yet, suffering itself is also impermanent, and cancer, isolation, ego, and even death all pass in their time, too. All elements of life are impermanent, and our own efforts are not needed to make them pass. In fact, they can pass of their own accord.
It should be noted that one might be tempted to make an inference that if all things are impermanent, and all of life's sufferings and joys are inseparable for life, then steps or effort should not be taken to avoid those sufferings. Or even, steps should be taken to pursue suffering in order to attain enlightenment with more rapidity.
This would be folly. The Four Noble Truths weave together like a braid, and do not exist as steps. Thus, conditions of the other Noble Truths would rapidly correct or deny this approach. Moreover, I would like to return to the key word that appears in my own practice when I meditate on this Noble Truth: forgiveness.
The greatest epiphany I have received thus far in my meditation in regards to the First Noble Truth is forgiveness. When suffering occurs, when I feel wronged, or when I make mistakes in my own reflection, behavior, and practice, this Noble Truth reminds me that suffering and mistakes are not hinderances to my path as a Buddhist practitioner, but rather they are the path if I maintain awareness and act accordingly to those sufferings. It is through forgiveness and awareness that we allow ourselves to drop the defenses that prevent us from acknowledging failures in our practice. It is through this forgiveness and awareness that we can get past the shame and degradation we feel when we recognize our own suffering. For if we recognize our own suffering as a failure, as a 'flaw' of our existence, then shame, defensiveness, and (most importantly) ego build barriers of illusion and misunderstanding of our suffering.
Finally, this aspect of self-awareness is tied equally to the awareness of others. We cannot be aware of others if we are unaware of ourselves; defensiveness associated with self reflection is the foundation stone of psychological projection. Rather, when we are able to forgive ourselves for our own transgressions and perceived failures, we are then able to forgive others for theirs, too. After all, life and suffering are inseparable so the anger that another person feels is natural; it is not a flaw. Rather, it is an opporunity for awareness, and a compassionate bridge should the experiencers foster its construction.
Thus, we return from those digression back to Duḥkha: life and suffering are inseparable. And two inferences: everything is impermanent. Forgiveness of the self leads to a greater capacity of compassion.
When first meditating on the Four Noble Truths, I often conflated this truth with the third. Upon deeper reflection, I learned that I was asking the wrong questions. Initially, I considered, "What is the cause of suffering?" The Third Noble Truth answers this in depth. Thus, what is the function of the Second Noble Truth? Does it truely assert the same claim?
My reflections have reached this conclusion: cause, causality, and dependent origination are the focus of this Noble Truth. Rather than emphasizing the cause of suffering, my meditations have lead me to focus on cause itself.
Let me explain.
In his Introduction of Buddhism (Link), the Dalai Lama explains the significance of dependent origination. This concept it not entirely dissimilar to the laws of thermodynamics: all actions have an equal and opposite reaction; something cannot be created from nothing; and so on. The key principal of dependent origination within the context of Buddhism is interdependence, as everything exists in a web of coexistence.
Thus, the conclusions and inferences are as follows: (1) everything is interconnected, (2) everything is dependent or contingent to the parts around it, and (3) to affect others is to affect ourselves. The inverse conclusions are also true: (1i) nothing exists in isolation, (2i) nothing is independent from the environment that surrounds it, and (3i) it is impossible to affect others without affecting ourselves.
With these premises in mind, the Second Noble Truth provides a guideline regarding how to continue navigating our lives and behaviors. If the First Noble Truth asserts that life and suffering are inseparable. Then the Second Noble Truth reminds us that it did not manifest itself from an ethereal void; it has a cause. Continuing to play with inverses, moments of peace, contentment, and genuine happiness then are manifested through the conditions that make them arise.
It may be tempting to conclude, then, a deterministic point of view. After all, if suffering has a cause and everything is interdependent, doesn't it necessarily follow that the conditions are predetermined by the past? Doesn't it necessarily follow that our joys and sufferings are contingent on the conditions that brought them to the surface?
Buddhism would counter with: awareness. While determinism is an attractive conclusion, it requires a certain abandonment of a person's capacity to make choices. Do people have free will or not? This question implies a permanence and a certain scope that is fallacious. To answer plainly, then explain: when people have the capacity for awareness, then they have free will. No awareness, no free will.
The Dali Llama, in The Art of Happiness, challenged deterministic neurologists on these claims. All emotions and reactions are a result of chemical and electrical reactions of the brain, they argued. That is consciousness to them. The Dali Lama responded: what if the chemical reactions and electrical impulses arises from the mind? Effectively framing the mind as a chicken or egg scenario (add source).
Funny enough, this exposes the dualistic emphasis that much of modern, western philosophies and science place on their interpretations of the world. If statements are made regarding an observation, it is natural to impose binaries on them. I do not write this without awareness of my own binaries, much of which I have imposed on these principles as I have gone on.
Yet I have digressed enough on this truth: suffering has a cause. Nothing more. Are we aware of this reality, or do we create narratives that ignore dependent generation (or the laws of thermodynamics, in that case) to suit our own ego? Something cannot come from nothing, and the compassion or contentment created in our realities is not manifested from a void.
This much is true. All else are interpretations aligned with our biases, egos, and systems of beliefs.
If suffering has a cause, what is that cause? The third noble Truth necessarily completes the second.
To begin, what is an attachment? In English, the word has its source in objects, associated with attachment to law or buildings (etymology online). The English origins directly counter the more philosophical and abstract modern usage which emphasizes relationships (attachment theory, Bowlby) or grasping to desires.
In Sanskrit, the word origin is upadana, better associated with grasping, clinging, desire, and the self. Many of the sources I have found use it as a synonym for clinging. Yet, it should be noted, that as a deconstructionist and a Zen Buddhist, I maintain a strong distrust in language. This, I do not believe it to be fruitful not practical to pretend that “upadana” or “attachment” or “clinging” or “grasping” are all different variations of the concept behind this truth. Rather, these are all varied signifiers or written words attempting to explain a much larger signified or concept. All language is insufficient and merely an elaborate game of thought and illusory stability, so there is no need to get caught up in it further.
The cause of suffering is attachment. Grasping. Upadana. Craving. That much is true.
Yet what is the nature and source of this grasping? For discontent and depression, it is the past. For anxiety, it is the future. And why do these create such suffering? The projections and illusions we cast in all directions that dilute reality and meaning.
To start, let's analyze the past. Psychology and neurology supports, time and time again, that the past is not an accurate construct. Memory itself is formed in tandem with Brian development, and the development of implicit, emotional memories is far stronger and more innately wired than explicit memory. Humanity is an emotional species (my interpretive claim) for it develops the emotional networks of the brain and body far more quickly than the capacities for regulation, critical thought, and metacognition (biological fact). I love using this analogy with my high school students: in high school, you are 1000 horsepower cars with poor tires and bricks for suspension. You have all the power for emotional experience, yet none of the capacities to process or put down that power.
Thus, the memory of our past is filled with illusions that are dictated by our perceptions. Even as an infant, we begin to interpret our mother's gaze. Did she turn away first? We are unloveable, anxious, and undesired. Does she wait for us to turn away? We are desired and loved unconditionally, and are free to explore and not seek validation from others; our parental figures will always be there (Bowlby and Mate). Then complicate social interaction for decades and it becomes clear that our objective history is shaded and colored with our biases and narratives.
But what happens when those narratives are challenged? What happens when we cling to those narratives because the construct of those narratives is essential for our own selves?
From the perspective of the self, to challenge those narratives is to challenge the self.
Thus Buddhism exposes another illusion: who are we? The concept of sunyata comes into play here. All of our cells, our bodies, our experiences, and more are all given or forced upon us. Even the words and language we use to express ourselves is not our own. So, the eternal question arises: who are we? Who am I?
We are empty. All of our experiences are empty. And like a collection of satellites pulled by their own gravitational pull in a vacuum, so do we exist as a collection of experiences that pull, cling, and weave themselves to for our selves. Our past. Our present.
But the cause of suffering is attachment. This clinging and grasping desperately to a formed “self” ignores the reality: we are no one. We are not the main character. We are not a hero destined to defeat the villain. Nor are we Buddha, though we contain Buddha (as all things contain Buddha nature).
We are no one. We are many. We are the empty bowl filled with our history and experiences and attachments. And the third truth asks us to spill those attachments and recognize the beauty of an empty bowl.
But I have not covered anxiety and the future. If we construct our realities, then it follows that we construct our futures. Our desires and beliefs of success, or our beliefs that X or Y will make us happy or fulfilled. These are all projects of our attachments and signals to our own grasping thoughts.
Still to add...
Compassion of others
Projection of self onto others
Bill hicks: we are all of one consciousness….
8 Fold Path
Oh Mahne Padme Hum
6 Perfections