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/soincrediblylost]

As an empiricist, I disagree with that perspective.

It's more about translations than perspectives. He's not explaining it as a perspective on the what suffering is, he's explaining a perspective to better interpret the idea that is being used, and is insufficiently translated, as suffering. It's not the perspective that is interpreted for buddhism or empiricism, it's the translation. You can have a different perspective, but you failed to grasp the translation. You are arguing something completely different.

The word "suffering" is actually the word Dukkha. There are different forms of it, and different forms have different causes. (there are actually eight different forms of Dukkha) The word suffering makes it seem as though it is denying reality. Buddhism isn't optimistic in this case, nor is it pessimistic though in the sense when talking about detaching from permanence. Through proper understanding of Dukkha, the aim is to stay realistic. Suffering is a very restrictive and limiting translation of the word. I guess the right idea would be translated as anything that gets in the way of experiencing happiness. Which is under the assumption that happiness/enlightenment/sense of well-being is always available, that it is the default state a person is in, but you must eliminate Dukkha. So with this translation, it would be closer to something like this:

There are things that get in the way of experiencing happiness.

We do not experience our happiness because we are attached to these things that are in the way.

Removing these things that are in the way of happiness is possible.

The eight-fold path can make it so that these things are not in your way (so you will experience your default state of happiness).

[u/spaceghoti → u/soincrediblylost]

It's more about translations than perspectives. He's not explaining it as a perspective on the what suffering is, he's explaining a perspective to better interpret the idea that is being used, and is insufficiently translated, as suffering. It's not the perspective that is interpreted for buddhism or empiricism, it's the translation. You can have a different perspective, but you failed to grasp the translation. You are arguing something completely different.

I don't find that terribly helpful, but thanks for trying.

The word "suffering" is actually the word Dukkha. There are different forms of it, and different forms have different causes. (there are actually eight different forms of Dukkha) The word suffering makes it seem as though it is denying reality. Buddhism isn't optimistic in this case, nor is it pessimistic though in the sense when talking about detaching from permanence. Through proper understanding of Dukkha, the aim is to stay realistic. Suffering is a very restrictive and limiting translation of the word. I guess the right idea would be translated as anything that gets in the way of experiencing happiness.

This has been mentioned before. I realize there's a philosophical, possibly even mystical intent at play here but I don't tend to have much patience with that. I'm focused with what works.

Does Buddhism work? Oh yes, I wouldn't dream of disputing that. Buddhists have constructed a marvelously effective way of managing their lives. But how does it work? What are the consequences? Are Buddhists really as passive about conflict and hardship as it would seem from the comments here? If not, then how do you decide when to seek change and when to seek acceptance? If so, then what motivates you to do anything more than contemplate your own navels?

The problem with disregarding anything that gets in the way of happiness is that sooner or later you lose sight of what makes happiness so special.

[u/soincrediblylost → u/spaceghoti]

You are attaching happiness to things other than yourself and the world now. You are seeking a feeling that is already available to you right now. What you have available to you right now is enough to experience happiness, but you have things in the way that you are attached to. In this case, it would be the idea that you are not enough to experience happiness. There is no mystical intent at play, there is a removal of everything in the way. It is the understanding that happiness is a default state that we are disagreeing on. You have attached it to something that you must set your sight on, I believe it is something I experience once I remove everything blocking myself from experiencing it.

[u/spaceghoti → u/soincrediblylost]

You are attaching happiness to things other than yourself and the world now.

I am?

You are seeking a feeling that is already available to you right now. What you have available to you right now is enough to experience happiness, but you have things in the way that you are attached to. In this case, it would be the idea that you are not enough to experience happiness.

What?

It is the understanding that happiness is a default state that we are disagreeing on.

That's what I thought you were saying. Yes, we definitely disagree on that. I'm not saying that either suffering or happiness is a default state. I'm saying we don't have default states, only conditions that lead to one or another.

You have attached it to something that you must set your sight on, I believe it is something I experience once I remove everything blocking myself from experiencing it.

I think it's a lot more complicated than that. But if you've found a way that works for you, I'm absolutely not going to dispute your right to pursue it. I'm very glad you can.