SUFFERING: THE TRADITIONAL FIRST TRUTH

The text of the traditional First Noble Truth is corrupt. This may seem heretical to some Buddhists, but maybe Buddha was a far greater teacher than you ever imagined.

Buddha found the truth about fulfillment in life – not just the truth about worldly suffering.

The way in which the traditional First Truth presents Dukkha as worldly suffering, made Buddha's message more attractive and easier to understand for people enduring worldly suffering.

However, the idea of worldly suffering diminishes the First Truth's universal application.

References

The Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna is the most detailed version of the Four Truths in the Pali literature.

This page uses the translation from the Pali Tipitaka. Please read the original text – all the translations in the references are similar.

I apologise in advance for the complexity of this page. It is far harder to clarify a confusion, than it is to explain the truth. There are three separate arguments:
The Text
The Incongruity
Buddha's Childhood and Enlightenment

The First Truth – The Text

In the First Truth "What is Dukkha?" – "What is Suffering?", dukkha is defined as birth, death and a detailed list of examples of worldly suffering; but then, without any connecting logic, makes the conclusion, "in short, the clinging to the five aggregates is suffering." We will examine this in detail.

"And what, monks, is the Noble Truth of Suffering?" (remember suffering is the translation for Dukkha).

"Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress are suffering, the association with something that one does not like is suffering, the disassociation with something that one does like is suffering, not to get what one desires is suffering; in short, the clinging to the five aggregates is suffering."

This is a very impressive collection of unpleasant worldly things which can happen – with one short mention of the five aggregates.

O.K. i'd agree that illness is suffering, though usually only temporarily; and i find it questionable if birth, death and old age are always and inevitably suffering, but i will make no big point about it. On the other hand I must agree: sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress are suffering... suffering is suffering... not very bright – but reassuring if you are suffering.

Then note the incongruity of the Five Aggregates in this context "... in short, the clinging to the five aggregates is suffering." All the other examples are about things in the manifest world... and then comes: in short, (the summary), something with real psychological depth, the Aggregates.

The Aggregates are only mentioned once more, at the end of the first truth – all the other manifest wordly examples of suffering are developed in great detail.

The text reveals a number of different levels of thinking. It appears that early teachers and scribes, with the best intentions, have added their own commentaries.

The Dictionary Definitions

After the first introductory paragraph, the First Truth continues with a detailed explanation of all the examples of worldly suffering.

"And what, monks, is sorrow? Whenever one, monks, is affected by various kinds of loss and misfortune, that are followed by this or that kind of painful state of mind, by sorrow, by mourning, by sorrowfulness, by inward grief, and by deep inward woe – this, monks, is called sorrow."

"And what, monks, is lamentation? Whenever one, monks, is affected by various kinds of loss and misfortune, that are followed by this or that kind of painful state of mind, by wailing and crying, by lamentation, by deep wailing, by deep lamentation, by the state of deep wailing and deep lamentation – this, monks, is called lamentation."

Was Buddha so boring that he sounded like a dictionary?

These laborious, dictionary definitions continue with descriptions of birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress. The full text is indeed an excellent collection of misery.

Then comes the extraordinarily long definitions of "being associated with what one does not like" and "being disassociated with what one does like". These are so complex and tedious that the reader tends to skip over them leaving the impression that it is probably a philosophical theory – but actually all it is, is the ever continuing dictionary definitions. Read it.

"And what, monks, is the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like? Wherever and whenever one finds pleasant, agreeable or liked objects of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or of the mind, or, whenever and wherever one finds that there are wishers of one’s own fortune, prosperity, comfort or of one’s own security, like mother and father, like brother and sister, like friends and colleagues or relatives; if one gets disassociated, one does not meet, one does not come into contact or does not get combined with them – this, monks, is called the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like."

"And what, monks, is the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like? ..." etc. as above

I cannot believe Buddha was so one-sided, and basically of little intelligence!

Where is the usual Buddhist logic? Everyone already knows that displeasure is suffering. Why is there is no discussion of the association with what one likes and getting what one wants and why this is also suffering?

But – the First Truth hasn't finished yet!

Following the dictionary definitions, there is a section which expresses emotions.

"And what, monks, is not getting what one desires? In beings, monks, who are subject to birth the desire arises: "Oh, truly, that we were not subject to birth! Oh, truly, may there be no new birth for us!" But this cannot be obtained by mere desire; and not to get what one wants is suffering."

"In beings, monks, who are subject to old age the desire arises: "Oh, truly, that we were not subject to old age! Oh, truly, may we not be subject to old age!" But this cannot be obtained by mere desire; and not to get what one wants is suffering."

And then so on, through all the instances of sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress... it is suffering merely to read it !... until we get to THIS ONE BIT OF LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS:

"And how, monks, in short, is clinging to the five aggregates suffering? It is as follows – clinging to the aggregate of matter is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of sensation is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of perception is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of reaction is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is suffering. This, monks, in short, is called suffering because of clinging to these five aggregates."

The First Truth would be lost without the aggregates... and even this section is COMPLETELY CONFUSING because the aggregates are presented only in the context of "THE AGGREGATES OF CLINGING ".

AND THE PURITY OF THE ESSENTIAL PART "manifest form, sensation, perception, concepts ('reaction' in the above translation) and consciousness" IS PRACTICALLY LOST.

Please see Buddhism, The Five Aggregates

The Five Aggregates are Dukkha. The Five Aggregates are not running smoothly, not working well, not functioning optimally. Clinging is an extremely advanced form of desire and attachment. Desire and attachment are themselves advanced forms of attraction. Every desire starts with one turn of the wheel.

The Incongruity

The First Truth is incongruous with the Second and Third Truths. There is a clear difference in style and content. (see above)

The First Truth

The Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna's First Truth is on a completely different level to the Second and Third Truths. It discusses worldly suffering, like illness, old age, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, wailing, misfortune and grief, etc. with only two short references to the Aggregates.

The First Truth has a laborious style, it has the appearance of great depth; but these are just dictionary definitions and emotions about specific types of worldly suffering.

This is completely different to the long interconnecting logical even mathematical detail in the Second and Third Truths.

The Second and Third Truths

The Second and Third Truths discuss all the steps in the origins and cessation of Dukkha, The Second and Third Truths are pure cognitive psychology, with a touch of philosophy. There is absolutely no mention of any worldly examples of suffering.

The subject matter in the Second and Third Truth, is exclusively a discussion of the Five Aggregates, expanded to a list of Ten Aggregates, and related to each of the six sense bases. They meticulously repeat certain phrases 61 times, sticking to the point with every detail about the origin and cessation of Dukkha.

The only consistency between the first three Noble Truths is that they are all incredibly long-winded and perhaps difficult to read!

Difference in Styles

Compare the First Truth's "the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like" (see above), to the completely different level of thought in The Second Truth which discusses why pleasure and delight are Dukkha (or suffering). The following passage is one of ten almost identical passages in the Second Truth, which examine the Aggregates and their relationship to the six sense bases in precise logical detail.

"The rolling in thoughts of visible objects in the world [of mind and matter] is enticing and pleasurable; there this craving arises and gets established. The rolling in thoughts of sounds … is enticing and pleasurable; there this craving arises and gets established. The rolling in thoughts of smells … is enticing and pleasurable; there this craving arises and gets established. The rolling in thoughts of tastes … is enticing and pleasurable; there this craving arises and gets established. The rolling in thoughts of touch … is enticing and pleasurable; there this craving arises and gets established. The rolling in thoughts of mind objects, mental contents in the world [of mind and matter] is enticing and pleasurable; there this craving arises and gets established."

The Most Blatant Inconsistency

The most blatant inconsistency between the First, and the Second and Third Truths, is that the First is about suffering because of not getting what you want, or getting what you don't want, e.g.illness, death etc.

The Second and Third Truths discuss the problems of getting what you want and how pleasure and delight lead to craving.

The First Truth told us "the association with something that one does not like is suffering, the disassociation with something that one does like is suffering". Everyone already knows that not getting what you want, and getting what you don't want is bad news. It is straight and simple direct displeasure... It hardly takes a Buddha to tell us this!

The Second and Third Truths discuss the dukkha of why pleasure is bad news, why geting what you want is suffering. This is a far more difficult nut to crack.

The opening file in this Chapter: Budhhism: Dukkha and Repetitions explains the dukkha of pleasure.

The traditional understanding is that this is because pleasure leads to attachment or craving, and "craving leads to rebith".

But ultimately, as one translation suggests, the first step of any sequence, is simply repetition:

Reference: The Second Truth – from English Translations, Ref 1: Pali Tipitaka " And what, monks, is the Noble Truth of the Arising of Suffering?
It is this craving that occurs again and again..."

The Pali word which everyone else is translating as rebirth, can also be translated as "again and again"!

Pleasure and wanting lead to repetition. Repetition is the essence of the sequence which binds us to karma.

Buddha's Childhood and Enlightenment

Why does The First Truth emphasise worldly suffering?

The Story Line

During the first 450 years as Buddhas's ideas were developed and translated before being written; early Buddhists and story tellers created legends about him. This is human culture, it would be unnatural not to do this.

The legendary story of how Buddha started on his quest for enlightenment offers a solid basis for the idea that dukkha refers to worldly suffering.

The story is that Buddha who certainly was a prince, after a sheltered life, one day when he was around 30 years old, asked to go outside his palace walls where he saw old-age, sickness and death for the first time. And this is given as the reason he left his home to seek enlightenment and the answer to suffering.

The obvious, simple, and logical conclusion to this story is for him to find the answer to worldly suffering.

But this story is incredible. It is unexplainable behaviour for any inquisitive youngster. Was Buddha so uninterested in normal life that he took 30 years till he went outside for the first time?

Then, it seems highly unlikely that an intelligent, rich and powerful person who was deeply concerned about other people's illness, old age and death, callously ignored this, and left his home without first establishing hospitals and hospices.

Buddha's Search For Truth
As a prince, his teachers would have been Hindu priests who would have taught religious ideas which discussed truth, life and death. This could understandably have instilled a thirst for the truth in him.

Then, as many other spiritual seekers in those times, he left his home with the intention of following that most noble of all pursuits, finding the truth; without any consideration of worldly suffering. Even if Buddha left his home to find the answer to common worldly suffering, the answer he found was so much more.

This story line about worldly suffering is extremely limiting. Buddha found the truth. The truth about how to find fulfillment in life – not just the truth about suffering.

The simple truths have been obscured with romantic stories and legends. This has confused countless generations of Buddhists.

I can well believe that later in his teaching, Buddha developed compassion for everyday worldly suffering, old age and illness. However he gave us the Four Noble Truths directly after his enlightenment. It is unversally accepted that these teachings were first given to five ascetics who had already renounced the material world – it is inconceivable that Buddha would have preached to them about birth, sickness, death and the transcience of material life.

Giving People Hope
The main reason the original sense of the first truth would have been adapted, was because it didn't speak to the common suffering in the everyday lives of normal people.

Most people converting to religions do so when they actually feel suffering – they seek some hope, understanding, or at least a sense of identity with their own suffering – rather than seeking for truth.

Suffering, and all the other exaggerated terms used in Buddhism like 'clinging' and 'craving'; made the message more appealing and awesome.

I repeat: if you believe that Buddha found the truth, then this truth was about fulfillment in life – not just the truth about worldly suffering, clinging and craving.

A good wheelwright would not only cure Dukka, he would make a wheel Sukkha.

In closing, it must be mentioned that mixed among all the different forms of Buddhism, are Buddhists of great faith, treating others with something deeper than respect, satisfied to embrace the ancient texts as divine. And this faith alone can overcome many obstacles.

Back to Dukkha in Depth
Back to Chapter Four : Buddhism and Wheels
Back to THE PANORAMA SENSES Priority Pages