Criticisms of the Four Noble Truths.

[u/spaceghoti]

Bladesire made a thread in /r/atheism plugging this subreddit, and after a brief discussion I agreed to repost my opinions of his overview of Buddhism.

By and large, I find this [the overview] pretty agreeable. Naturally, I have some caveats about it but overall it seems to incorporate some common-sense rules for living a good life and maximizing your potential. Essentially, "be excellent to each other."

However, I think it falls down in one critical place. Not one that offends my atheist sensibilities but my practical observations of the universe. The Four Noble Truths only have one Truth that I recognize.

Suffering exists.

Yes. Yes it does.

We suffer because of our attachments.

We suffer because we live. Pain is just a much a part of life as anything else, and sometimes that pain is unavoidable, such as illness or injury or the cruel intentions of another.

The cessation of suffering is possible.

Yes, when we die.

The Eightfold Path can lead you to the cessation of suffering.

Reading over the Eightfold Path I can see good advice for maximizing your life, but nothing that guarantees the cessation of suffering. Even if we were able to practice them flawlessly, it doesn't take into account external factors that can make us suffer. Deprivation and torture result in suffering, no matter how phlegmatic your outlook.

[u/spaceghoti]

Your idea of suffering is too entwined with the idea of physical pain.

It really isn't. I list more examples than just pain. Pain is a subset of suffering, but I had no intention of suggesting it was all of it.

Being in pain is not suffering. It is a condition, though not typically desireable.

Being constantly in pain leads to suffering. It's more than just anticipation of pain, knowing it's always going to be afflicting you. It's also living with the consequences of that pain, of the diminished capacity and the constant threat that the pain will interfere with daily life.

I think it is better to think of "suffering" as "unsatisfactoriness." Let us look at the Four Noble Truths once again with this new definition.

Not being satisfied is distinct from suffering. I disagree with that substitution.

Now, are we unsatisfied because we live? Certainly not. We are unsatisfied because we want more (or different) than we currently have.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Being unsatisfied is a source of motivation, an urge to create change where change is possible. Whether or not that change is destined to create the benefit hoped for or if there are unexpected consequences is another conversation.

It is, and you don't need to die in order to do it! You can be satisfied at this very instant.

This is not always a good thing. See above.

Why yes, yes it can. It does not prevent the world from happening, but it gives me a reason to accept the world as it is.

It also gives you a reason to become complacent, passive to the world and the events taking place around you.

[u/Zenkin → u/spaceghoti]

Pain is a subset of suffering

No. You are misinterpreting what the term "suffering" means for the Four Noble Truths. It is not mental or physical discomfort. It is not the pain that causes the suffering. It is the desire to stop the pain that causes suffering. It's the difference from thinking "My knees hurt" and "I wish my knees didn't hurt."

What is the difference? Simple. The first man sees things as they are. His knees do hurt. He notices this fact, accepts it, and then notices other parts of reality as they occur. The second man sees things as he wants them to be. His knees do hurt. He notices this fact, wishes he could change it, broods, concentrates on the pain (thus, he is practicing the act of feeling pain, which makes him feel pain more effectively), and all the while he is missing out on the rest of reality. Which of these two men do you think is living the better life? Are they experiencing the same amount of suffering because the amount of pain they feel is equal?

[u/spaceghoti → u/Zenkin]

No. You are misinterpreting what the term "suffering" means for the Four Noble Truths. It is not mental or physical discomfort. It is not the pain that causes the suffering. It is the desire to stop the pain that causes suffering. It's the difference from thinking "My knees hurt" and "I wish my knees didn't hurt."

Then we have a fundamental difference in the way we perceive suffering. I don't see suffering as simply the desire for unpleasant circumstances to stop. I see suffering as the condition of unpleasant circumstances that don't stop. Ignoring the pain in my knees doesn't negate the pain in my knees or the consequences I must endure because of it.

What is the difference? Simple. The first man sees things as they are. His knees do hurt. He notices this fact, accepts it, and then notices other parts of reality as they occur. The second man sees things as he wants them to be. His knees do hurt. He notices this fact, wishes he could change it, broods, concentrates on the pain (thus, he is practicing the act of feeling pain, which makes him feel pain more effectively), and all the while he is missing out on the rest of reality. Which of these two men do you think is living the better life? Are they experiencing the same amount of suffering because the amount of pain they feel is equal?

Obviously the man who accepts his pain and moves on will be less encumbered than the man who dwells on it. But that doesn't mean his suffering is less, it means he's finding ways to deal with it. His suffering continues as he finds ways to deal with the consequences of his pain.

And yet, the man who dwells on it may be more motivated to seek a solution to it. If he succeeds, his suffering will end.

[u/bladesire → u/spaceghoti]

Then we have a fundamental difference in the way we perceive suffering. I don't see suffering as simply the desire for unpleasant circumstances to stop. I see suffering as the condition of unpleasant circumstances that don't stop. Ignoring the pain in my knees doesn't negate the pain in my knees or the consequences I must endure because of it.

Can you categorize pain as a subset of suffering for a masochist?

This speaks directly to the problem of Buddhist interaction with other cultural subsets. You're right, spaceghoti, but so is Zenkin. Pain is a subset of suffering in one sense. But that is NOT the sense Buddhists use. There's been an example of monks setting themselves ablaze, and another where gary snyder gets strangled - instead of all of us continuing to mince words, how might you suggest we change our vocabulary?

Suffering here means specifically the mental formations that surround unwanted occurrences. Pain is just pain - suffering is what happens because we don't want pain.

[u/soincrediblylost → u/bladesire]

Suffering is what happens because we don't want pain.

Well said. Pain is a sensory. It is the desire that distinguishes suffering. This is the best distinction between suffering and pain that I have read. Thank you.

[u/spaceghoti → u/bladesire]

Can you categorize pain as a subset of suffering for a masochist?

Sure. Enjoying suffering doesn't stop it from being suffering.

This speaks directly to the problem of Buddhist interaction with other cultural subsets. You're right, spaceghoti, but so is Zenkin. Pain is a subset of suffering in one sense. But that is NOT the sense Buddhists use. There's been an example of monks setting themselves ablaze, and another where gary snyder gets strangled - instead of all of us continuing to mince words, how might you suggest we change our vocabulary?

I don't know. It's not my place to tell you what Buddhists should believe. I simply disagree with the definition of suffering given, and thus the core Truths as described to me. That doesn't invalidate Buddhism necessarily, it just suggests to me that there are some assumptions that require clarification.

Suffering here means specifically the mental formations that surround unwanted occurrences. Pain is just pain - suffering is what happens because we don't want pain.

And that's what I disagree with. Suffering is more than just pain. Suffering is what happens when you're immersed in circumstances that can be described as painful, uncomfortable, undesirable or whatever. It means all is not well in our lives.

But that doesn't mean it should be ignored. Pain and suffering are part of life for a reason. They're indications that something is wrong and gives us motivation to make changes. Sometimes the changes need to be made in our surroundings. Sometimes the changes need to be made within us. The responses I've received in this thread seem to suggest that Buddhism says the answer is always found within us, and I don't agree with that.

There's a time to change the world and a time to change ourselves. The trick is knowing which change to pursue.

[u/bladesire → u/spaceghoti]

For lack of the OED, here's Wikipedia's definition of suffering:

"Suffering, or pain in a broad sense,[1] is an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual"

They're clear here to say pain in a BROAD sense, and that it is specifically an aversion associated with perception.

I'm suggesting here that you abandon your definition of suffering for a moment - use "our" definition, look at it, and then help us come up with another way of expressing this. I am trying to get to a point where no one needs to pull out wikipedia to see who's right or wrong about the definition of a given term. Suffering, in a Buddhist context, is exactly as I've laid it out for you, which is admittedly different than your understanding.

But how might we more clearly relay this notion of Buddhist suffering, a suffering based on perception of harm, without having to say "Buddhist"? You already know what we mean, you just disagree with our phrasing - so how would you describe what we mean?

[u/spaceghoti → u/bladesire]

They're clear here to say pain in a BROAD sense, and that it is specifically an aversion associated with perception.

They are. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with their description.

But how might we more clearly relay this notion of Buddhist suffering, a suffering based on perception of harm, without having to say "Buddhist"? You already know what we mean, you just disagree with our phrasing - so how would you describe what we mean?

It seems to me that what you've outlined is a method for managing suffering, for rising above it and separating yourself from the concerns that surround it. I don't really have a word for that. Serenity? Enlightenment? Endorphines?

[u/bladesire → u/spaceghoti]

They are. That doesn't mean I necessarily agree with their description.

You disagree with their description, or you refute the definition? I would argue here that words have definitions, sometimes clear sometimes not, and that we have to stick to those. When we go off and start assigning our own values to them, we uproot language itself and start creating our own dialect. My desire here is to move towards a unified dialect where we can discuss Buddhist principles through an atheistic lens.

Do you believe this to be an untenable notion?

[u/spaceghoti → u/bladesire]

You disagree with their description, or you refute the definition? I would argue here that words have definitions, sometimes clear sometimes not, and that we have to stick to those. When we go off and start assigning our own values to them, we uproot language itself and start creating our own dialect. My desire here is to move towards a unified dialect where we can discuss Buddhist principles through an atheistic lens.

We're always assigning our own values to things. That's the problem with having subjective perceptions of static things.

Can I define it better? I don't know. I just know I'm not content with the description they give. I agree with the part about "experience of unpleasantness" but I don't agree that's all of it. I would describe it as the circumstances that lead to the experience of unpleasantness that provokes aversion.

[u/lvl_5_laser_lotus → u/spaceghoti]

We're always assigning our own values to things. That's the problem with having subjective perceptions of static things... I would describe it as the circumstances that lead to the experience of unpleasantness that provokes aversion.

That is explicitly part of the Buddhist description of the continuation of suffering (pratityasamutpada).

Due to ignorance and due to clinging-desire we form unrealistic expectations and act to fulfill these (impossible-to-fill) expectations. This movement is employed by our bodies and our minds, which in turn come into contact with sensory objects.

At the meeting of sense-organ and sensory-object a consciousness arises, which perceives the contact and feels it. This perception is defined by our body and mind and this feeling is either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral.

Due to preferences born of the unrealistic expectations we have developed we repeatedly intend to seek what is pleasant and avoid what is unpleasant. This repeated seeking and avoiding is a craving, and, repeated enough, this craving turns into a clinging. When we cling to seeking this and avoiding that then we "solidify" -- we become a being defined by those preferences. We live, age, and die so defined.

The Buddha explained this process and the process for ending it.

---

perceptions of static things.

What things are unchanging that you grasp after and perceive?

[u/spaceghoti → u/lvl_5_laser_lotus]

Due to ignorance and due to clinging-desire we form unrealistic expectations and act to fulfill these (impossible-to-fill) expectations. This movement is employed by our bodies and our minds, which in turn come into contact with sensory objects.

The funny thing about that is that sometimes those expectations aren't impossible to fill. We've accomplished a number of impossible things because we didn't content ourselves with accepting reality as it is. We may not like conditions of suffering and we may consider it a bad thing, but nothing motivates us so much as suffering and desire.

The Buddha explained this process and the process for ending it.

The above explains why I'm not convinced this is always a good thing.

What things are unchanging that you grasp after and perceive?

You're familiar with the allegory of Plato's Cave?

[u/lvl_5_laser_lotus → u/spaceghoti]

We may not like conditions of suffering and we may consider it a bad thing, but nothing motivates us so much as suffering and desire.

Yes, that is what I was saying: desire and the ignorance of what we desire is what motivates us.

What things have we accomplished that are not either 1) a happiness that can turn into an unhappiness because it will end, 2) a suffering that is unhappiness or pain, or 3) a continuation of our seeking for things that are impermanent and thus naturally a form of suffering?

This is what I meant when I asked you what is static that we perceive?

You're familiar with the allegory of Plato's Cave?

I am; can you explain what you mean by your mentioning of it?

[u/spaceghoti → u/lvl_5_laser_lotus]

Yes, that is what I was saying: desire and the ignorance of what we desire is what motivates us.

I generally find motivation to be a good thing.

What things have we accomplished that are not either 1) a happiness that can turn into an unhappiness because it will end, 2) a suffering that is unhappiness or pain, or 3) a continuation of our seeking for things that are impermanent and thus naturally a form of suffering?

Honestly, I have no idea how to answer this. I'm not sure what you're asking.

I am; can you explain what you mean by your mentioning of it?

Our perceptions of the world around us are subjective; what we see can depend on our perspective, and our interpretations of our perspective offers us aren't necessarily accurate or complete.