The Four Noble Truths?

[an anarchist]

I am reading the Dhammapada and the translator’s introduction talks about the Four Noble Truths. Apparently, after a long night of mediation, Siddhatta Gotama (who became Buddha) realized the Four Noble Truths and became enlightened.

The author lists the Four Noble Truths as:
1. There is suffering in this world
2. Suffering has a cause
3. Suffering has an end
4. A path exists to end suffering

My question is: is this supposed to be taken literally? I’ve seen some interpretations of the Four Noble Truths say it is ultimately about shedding your attachments and losing the perception of suffering.

Is it not about the end of literal suffering? Is the Buddha not saying that there exists a path for humanity to transcend suffering altogether, in every sense of the word?

Anecdote. Several years ago, I was meditating and reciting the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Then, a vision came to me. I saw a flower which I never saw before ascend from a pond, then open. I later researched the description of the flower and found it was a lotus. I remember now, it was in this vision with the lotus that my new philosophy was bestowed upon me: suffering is not inevitable. This was before I read the Dhammapada and of the Four Noble Truths. It was a conclusion I reached through deep meditation. At the moment of realization, I reached peak spiritual ecstasy.

So, because of anecdotal reasons, I believe the Four Noble Truths are meant to be taken in the most literal sense.

What is your perspective of the Four Noble Truths? I am a complete layman and novice in theology and philosophy altogether.

 

[Quintessence]

It isn't something I've given much thought to in many years as it is a teaching from outside of my religious tradition.

That said, religion is mythos. I am never inclined to treat mythos as logos - that is madness and nonsense to me. My inability to understand the folly of treating mythos as logos when I was younger is part of why I reacted poorly to Buddhism (and all other religion) at the time. I took it literally and taking it literally makes it nonsense, so I dismissed Buddhism out of hand as being yet another example of the stupid nonsense that was religion. After all, it is self-evidently obvious that there is no end to suffering; anyone promising otherwise is trying to sell you on false promises and lies. I wasn't interested in yet another salvation racket and failed to understand the entire point of religion is to deal with the existential nature of human life and living thorough telling stories that help us navigate challenges (including but hardly limited to suffering). I took it literally (as logos) instead.

I do not commit that metaphysical mistake today as an adult but Buddhism still doesn't appeal to me because I already found my own path. I would have to give it a proper study before wanting to comment on it much from a contemporary perspective. But commenting on it through the eyes of a Druid, there is a heck of a lot of truth in the notion that non-attachment or suspending expectations being a path to peace. A huge volume of human suffering is self-inflicted because of the stories we tell ourselves about how the world "should" be. When you stop telling those stories and accept things for what they are, you find peace. It's something I do practice in my own religion, and it is very possible these ideas in contemporary Paganism do derive from Buddhism. Eastern religion was not an insignificant inspiration for contemporary Paganism as it was developing in the mid-20th century.

 

[crossfire]

I am reading the Dhammapada and the translator’s introduction talks about the Four Noble Truths. Apparently, after a long night of mediation, Siddhatta Gotama (who became Buddha) realized the Four Noble Truths and became enlightened.

The author lists the Four Noble Truths as:
1. There is suffering in this world
2. Suffering has a cause
3. Suffering has an end
4. A path exists to end suffering

My question is: is this supposed to be taken literally? I’ve seen some interpretations of the Four Noble Truths say it is ultimately about shedding your attachments and losing the perception of suffering.

Is it not about the end of literal suffering? Is the Buddha not saying that there exists a path for humanity to transcend suffering altogether, in every sense of the word?

Anecdote. Several years ago, I was meditating and reciting the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Then, a vision came to me. I saw a flower which I never saw before ascend from a pond, then open. I later researched the description of the flower and found it was a lotus. I remember now, it was in this vision with the lotus that my new philosophy was bestowed upon me: suffering is not inevitable. This was before I read the Dhammapada and of the Four Noble Truths. It was a conclusion I reached through deep meditation. At the moment of realization, I reached peak spiritual ecstasy.

So, because of anecdotal reasons, I believe the Four Noble Truths are meant to be taken in the most literal sense.

What is your perspective of the Four Noble Truths? I am a complete layman and novice in theology and philosophy altogether.

Attachments (upadana) = addictions. Craving (Tanha) is part of what drives and perpetuates addictions. Suffering (Dukkha) is what comes from addictions. All you have to do is look at the suffering junkies go through to see this, and to see that the mechanics of addiction and its resulting suffering are not just limited to physical substances.

 

[mangalavara]

Is it not about the end of literal suffering? Is the Buddha not saying that there exists a path for humanity to transcend suffering altogether, in every sense of the word?

It is about the end of dukkha. The Pali word dukkha, which is found in Theravada texts such as the Dhammapada, is usually translated as ‘suffering’ but it also means ‘dissatisfaction.’ Suffering is part of dissatisfaction. No creature, no object, and no place will give you unending satisfaction. We crave that kind of satisfaction or maybe temporary satisfactions one after another, but we will never obtain it because all of existence is characterized by dissatisfaction. This is why craving satisfaction naturally leads to dissatisfaction. So, what the Buddha taught is that there is a path for us follow in order to become free from dukkha or dissatisfaction.

What is your perspective of the Four Noble Truths?

I agree that there is dissatisfaction in life. That there is a cause of dissatisfaction, I agree. That dissatisfaction can be ended, I agree. That following the Noble Eightfold Path can end suffering is not something that I disagree with. If some individuals find that it works for them, that is very good. In my case, I follow a different path to be free of dissatisfaction. From a Dharmic perspective, there are many, many such paths. The path taught by Gautama Buddha is just one of them.

 

[Spice]

I see the Four Noble Truths as a way of explaining the more modern saying of "mind over matter." It's encouragement for a peaceful state of living. ie.:

 

[wellwisher]

I am reading the Dhammapada and the translator’s introduction talks about the Four Noble Truths. Apparently, after a long night of mediation, Siddhatta Gotama (who became Buddha) realized the Four Noble Truths and became enlightened.

The author lists the Four Noble Truths as:
1. There is suffering in this world
2. Suffering has a cause
3. Suffering has an end
4. A path exists to end suffering

My question is: is this supposed to be taken literally? I’ve seen some interpretations of the Four Noble Truths say it is ultimately about shedding your attachments and losing the perception of suffering.

Is it not about the end of literal suffering? Is the Buddha not saying that there exists a path for humanity to transcend suffering altogether, in every sense of the word?

Anecdote. Several years ago, I was meditating and reciting the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Then, a vision came to me. I saw a flower which I never saw before ascend from a pond, then open. I later researched the description of the flower and found it was a lotus. I remember now, it was in this vision with the lotus that my new philosophy was bestowed upon me: suffering is not inevitable. This was before I read the Dhammapada and of the Four Noble Truths. It was a conclusion I reached through deep meditation. At the moment of realization, I reached peak spiritual ecstasy.

So, because of anecdotal reasons, I believe the Four Noble Truths are meant to be taken in the most literal sense.

What is your perspective of the Four Noble Truths? I am a complete layman and novice in theology and philosophy altogether.

There is genuine suffering. But there is also self imposed suffering. Buddha was from a very rich royal family. As a young man he was not exposed to much genuine suffering, due his privileged fate. His suffering, later in life, was more based on self imposed suffering, when he removed himself from the buffer of privilege, to seek a higher truth that applied even to those, who by fate, had genuine suffering.

What he learned was most suffering of the world comes from the outer man or ego; competing and keeping up with the Jones. He learned that we also had an inner man; inner self, that is natural and can adapt/accept, since like nature there is no good and evil, but survival and adaptation; joy in natural simplicity.

 

[Alien826]

There is genuine suffering. But there is also self imposed suffering. Buddha was from a very rich royal family. As a young man he was not exposed to much genuine suffering, due his privileged fate. His suffering, later in life, was more based on self imposed suffering, when he removed himself from the buffer of privilege, to seek a higher truth that applied even to those, who by fate, had genuine suffering.

According to the story, he led a very sheltered early life where he was not exposed to "suffering", discomfort or whatever. He then managed to make four trips outside the palace and observed a sick person, a senile old man, a funeral with grieving relatives and a wandering holy man. The first three trips opened his eyes to the existence of suffering in the world and how sheltered he had been from it. The last trip, inspired him to search for a way to escape from the first three things. He then left the palace and started his search for what eventually became enlightenment.

What he learned was most suffering of the world comes from the outer man or ego; competing and keeping up with the Jones. He learned that we also had an inner man; inner self, that is natural and can adapt/accept, since like nature there is no good and evil, but survival and adaptation; joy in natural simplicity.

Yes. I'm not sure that is how it is described, but you don't "get rid of" the things that cause suffering, but adjust your reaction to them, in part by realizing the impermanence of everything in this world. Eventually you escape the cycle of death and rebirth where we are drawn back into this world by our "attachment" to it.

 

[Secret Chief]

I am reading the Dhammapada and the translator’s introduction talks about the Four Noble Truths. Apparently, after a long night of mediation, Siddhatta Gotama (who became Buddha) realized the Four Noble Truths and became enlightened.

The author lists the Four Noble Truths as:
1. There is suffering in this world
2. Suffering has a cause
3. Suffering has an end
4. A path exists to end suffering

My question is: is this supposed to be taken literally? I’ve seen some interpretations of the Four Noble Truths say it is ultimately about shedding your attachments and losing the perception of suffering.

Is it not about the end of literal suffering? Is the Buddha not saying that there exists a path for humanity to transcend suffering altogether, in every sense of the word?

Anecdote. Several years ago, I was meditating and reciting the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Then, a vision came to me. I saw a flower which I never saw before ascend from a pond, then open. I later researched the description of the flower and found it was a lotus. I remember now, it was in this vision with the lotus that my new philosophy was bestowed upon me: suffering is not inevitable. This was before I read the Dhammapada and of the Four Noble Truths. It was a conclusion I reached through deep meditation. At the moment of realization, I reached peak spiritual ecstasy.

So, because of anecdotal reasons, I believe the Four Noble Truths are meant to be taken in the most literal sense.

What is your perspective of the Four Noble Truths? I am a complete layman and novice in theology and philosophy altogether.

I believe, unsurprisingly perhaps, there to be truth expressed in these ... er... truths. Does that make it "literal" ?

My other comment would be, as already noted, to translate dukkha into the English word "suffering" is too limited in its scope. The word dukkha encompasses more than that, but there doesn't seem to be an equivalent word in English for dukkha. (Conditioned) living is perceived as dissatisfying in various degrees (even ecstasy ends.... how disappointing...) Dukkha also refers to this inherent dissatisfaction we typically experience. Change eh? Bugger.

Finally... a line from the Heart Sutra... (cos there is the mundane and there is the ultimate) :

"There is no suffering, no origination, no stopping and no path."

 

[sayak83]

I am reading the Dhammapada and the translator’s introduction talks about the Four Noble Truths. Apparently, after a long night of mediation, Siddhatta Gotama (who became Buddha) realized the Four Noble Truths and became enlightened.

The author lists the Four Noble Truths as:
1. There is suffering in this world
2. Suffering has a cause
3. Suffering has an end
4. A path exists to end suffering

My question is: is this supposed to be taken literally? I’ve seen some interpretations of the Four Noble Truths say it is ultimately about shedding your attachments and losing the perception of suffering.

Is it not about the end of literal suffering? Is the Buddha not saying that there exists a path for humanity to transcend suffering altogether, in every sense of the word?

Anecdote. Several years ago, I was meditating and reciting the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Then, a vision came to me. I saw a flower which I never saw before ascend from a pond, then open. I later researched the description of the flower and found it was a lotus. I remember now, it was in this vision with the lotus that my new philosophy was bestowed upon me: suffering is not inevitable. This was before I read the Dhammapada and of the Four Noble Truths. It was a conclusion I reached through deep meditation. At the moment of realization, I reached peak spiritual ecstasy.

So, because of anecdotal reasons, I believe the Four Noble Truths are meant to be taken in the most literal sense.

What is your perspective of the Four Noble Truths? I am a complete layman and novice in theology and philosophy altogether.

But suffering is a perception. As far as I understand, post enlightenment, events that previously led to the arising of suffering no longer do so. Events happen...but the suffering does not arise from them.

 

[ChatwithGod]

Yes, the Four Noble Truths are generally taken quite literally in Buddhism as foundational teachings. They guide followers to understand and ultimately transcend suffering through the Eightfold Path, which includes right understanding, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. This path helps in shedding attachments, as you mentioned, leading to a deeper peace and freedom from suffering.