The Four Noble Truths and their flaws
A while back I got into a discussion with someone about Christianity and Buddhism and said that one of the reasons that Christianity is clearly better is that its teaching on the human condition is more peaceful and realistic than Buddhism's as expressed in the 4 Noble Truths. I understand the appeal of the Four Noble Truths. They sound very profound until you consider a few things...
1) All life is suffering
2) Suffering is caused by desire
3) To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire
4) To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path
The first of these "truths" is manifestly not true. Anyone who has ever seen a parent hold their newborn child knows this; everyone who has become happily married knows at least several days where their life is nearly the polar opposite of suffering. Christians often disprove the argument that death is suffering. Many Christians go into death serenely and blissfully. Muslims, while often not serene about it, likewise tend to go into death blissfully (and often bombastically, it would seem). In short, birth is not suffering (it is a mix for the mother). Death can be peaceful and happy. Everything in between can also be a mix. Suffering one minute does not negate peace and joy in the next or summarize the nature of life.
The second of these "truths" is pure rubbish. People suffer for many reasons. If you take away everything that a person desires, that will cause suffering. If you give a man everything he desires, that can cause suffering. If you deny a basic human need that can cause suffering; if you fulfill it incorrectly that can cause depression which likewise causes suffering, or rather unpleasantness. Even if you give someone all they desire, thus satisfying every desire, that won't be enough to cause many people to not suffer.
The third of these "truths" can be disproved by killing a loved one of an advocate of the Four Noble Truths. Assuming they have a purely agape relationship with that loved one, there is no desire component to it. Therefore suffering was caused by a factor other than desire, and the only way to not experience suffering at this point is to stop loving that person.
The fourth I leave it up to you to decide.
Not to defend Buddhism as a belief system (I certainly don't believe it, myself), but I do not believe that by "desire" they mean eros - the "desire" which would cause suffering in the event of the death of a loved one would be "desire for person X to be present."
I do believe that you can make a coherent argument that if desire were eliminated, then suffering would be too. However, in addition to eliminating suffering, you will have eliminated humanity - human nature includes desire as a requisite component, and if a person truly did not desire, s/he would not be fully human.
Consider: would a person who did not desire anything even feed him/herself? Of course not, because eating would imply desire for nourishment. So a true practitioner of this particular "truth" starves to death amid plenty.
Thus, the third of the "truths" is only "true" in an Orwellian sense, and thus is not worthy of much consideration by people who live in the real world.
Not to defend Buddhism as a belief system (I certainly don't believe it, myself), but I do not believe that by "desire" they mean eros - the "desire" which would cause suffering in the event of the death of a loved one would be "desire for person X to be present."
I do believe that you can make a coherent argument that if desire were eliminated, then suffering would be too. However, in addition to eliminating suffering, you will have eliminated humanity - human nature includes desire as a requisite component, and if a person truly did not desire, s/he would not be fully human.
Consider: would a person who did not desire anything even feed him/herself? Of course not, because eating would imply desire for nourishment. So a true practitioner of this particular "truth" starves to death amid plenty.
Thus, the third of the "truths" is only "true" in an Orwellian sense, and thus is not worthy of much consideration by people who live in the real world.
I can almost see that, if you fiddle with the definition of "desire". if you no longer desire your circumstances to end in a particular result, like you being fed or a loved one staying safe, then where's the suffering?
With the exception of physical suffering. Or other involuntary anguish. But we're talking about emotional suffering, right? So without any emotional trappings, you get rid of a many of your problems.
Seems logical, Captain.
....
I knew I'd heard about this somewhere else!
It does all seem to make sense to me as well. I am, however, very limited in my knowledge of Buddhism. That can not be all there is to it. What do they believe about the afterlife?
A few things.
1) I'm not attacking Buddhism in general, but rather the Four Noble Truths.
2) David, I call shenanigans on the first of the noble truths because for the vast majority of people life is not suffering, death is not suffering and pretty much everything in between is not suffering. If you ask women about childbirth, many of them will call it suffering, but at the same time they consider that suffering a price perfectly WORTH PAYING to have their children. It is thus a suffering that is not regrettable to most of them.
3) I am well aware of the fact that they err on the side of eros versus agape. That is why when attacking the second noble truth I said that you can satisfy every worldly desire a man has and he will still suffer. Completely satisfying a desire is equivalent to eliminating the desire itself because either way, that desire should go away. My point was the "rich man who has it all, including the doting trophy wife and happy kids" can be utterly miserable BECAUSE he has every material desire he wished for.
4) As both Jews and Christians know, you cannot eliminate the desire for God. This is one desire that has to be fulfilled, not denied!
5) Tim, I see where you are coming from and yet I would call them sophists for making that argument. Doing that would be a mental trick, a sort of evasion of facing the fact that the desire still exists. You can think of it as a religious version of a friend of mine's attitude toward tests: "if I go in expecting nothing, and I pass, I can be REALLY happy because I did better than I thought I would!"
If you desire to eliminate suffering, eliminate desire.
Huh.
I see it as being a matter of eliminating desire so much as changing what you desire. If you desire what is self-destructive then the obvious result is suffering, but if you desire what is good and noble then the more likely result is at the very least a major lessening of suffering.
I don't think that fits into their framework, Morris. The very idea that life is suffering and that desire (eros?) is at the heart of it make noble desires seem no less capable of causing suffering under this model than base desires.
perhaps rather than defining desire, we should define suffering. If we desire only what is good and noble, that would mean we only desire God. The Bible teaches us that following God most likely leads to suffering and persecution.
Re: truth # three. Another method of tantric Buddhism is to eliminate desire by satisfying it completely.
Roci, even that may be impossible. Desire itself is not the root cause of suffering. Sin is because it separates us from God. You can fulfill all of a man's earthly desires and he will yet suffer because his creator rejects his wretched, unrepentant soul. However, one need only look at the rich throughout history to see that satisfying desires does not alleviate suffering. That satisfaction will also probably be very fleeting, and require more and more. Appetites do feed on themselves, you know.
Buddhism is just luke-warm nihilism. Any study into history of the Buddhist world isn't one of peace and everyone chilling out until they metaphysically decompose.
I think it's pretty dangerous, if you take the Christian world-view very seriously.
Indeed. If anything, I can't think of a single country that has grown more peaceful and civilized for having converted to Buddhism.
1) All life is suffering (Nobody can escape birth, age, sickness and death due to good or bad karma)
> I think its not true as human being are made to create karma or even sin. I read in the bible that God had Jesus incarnated in miraculous birth marked by the Star of Bethleham (thus birth is joy of creation, not suffering), performed miraculous HEALINGS (not any meaningless street magic like David Blaine) on the blind, lame, even lepers as a sign that He is commissioned by God (thus demonstrated that diseases can be defeated), RESURRECTED from the cross as testifed by the statements of 4 witnesses as documented in the 4 Gospels (thus demonstrated that death can be defeated), and proclaimed himself not only God of the Jews, not God of the Christians, but He is the Saviour of the whole world promising eternal life through believing in God(thus defeating age). Once anyone believes, though he still suffers temporarily in this world, it is nothing compared to the eternal promise that will eliminate the 4 noble truths in this present world.
2) Suffering is caused by desire (Whether the right desire in seeking any philosophical way of life or wrong desire in seeking pleasure, still causes suffering)
> Without desire, nobody can make any progress in life. We need suffering to mature, grow in character and personality, wisdom, grow in spiritual and seek God.
3) To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire
> Eliminate the wrong desire. Eliminate the desire for truth, for God, does not eliminate suffering. Knowing the truth, knowing God, definitely increases suffering more. Even if we can live forever, we still need to learn how to manage suffering whilst we are living.
4) To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path
> Not necessary. You can follow the Nofold Path, Infinity-fold Path, Unknownfold Path, Strangefold Path etc too.
God cannot lie. But in all scriptures, there exists 1) evidence yet to be discovered (eg. the Hebrew scriptures codes documenting recent events) and 2) false evidence (eg. nonsensical bible codes claimed to be discovered and hap-hazzardly interpreted by unwise people; the scientific studies of reincarnation by Dr Ian Stevenson which were made in good faith, but the possibilities of unseen principalities sharing detailed knowledge of dead people with living children who claim to have past lives memory, cannot be ruled out) Also the enemies of God, say Satan, can also quote scriptures for his own purposes. If one religion says "All religions are the same." whereas the bible says "Thou shall have no other gods before me", then one has to be true and the other false.
Buddha did not explain the world creation or how humans came about, but he believed in multi-realms of demons, ghosts, demi-gods, semi-gods, animals, humans, gods. He believed in reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. Though some incidents may be a direct or indirect consequences of our actions or other people's actions, there are also many sufferings that are random in nature. We suffer a result of our own sins or ancestral sins, but we may also suffer as a result of our foolishless for not making certain decisions.
The truth is, good or bad things happen to good people or bad people alike. 'Bad' people are not 'cursed' or punished more for the extra sins they committed. Say the lepers,they are not cursed because they sinned, as Jesus have demonstrated His love by touching them at the risk of contacting leprosy. In fact, 'bad' peopls receivd equally numerous rewards than 'good' people, some who may merely have asked for normal happy lives but misfortune after misfotune struck.
Do not blame God.