The heart of the
Buddha’s teaching lies in the Four Noble Truths (Cattāri
Ariyasaccāni) which he expounded in his very first
sermon
to his old colleagues, the five ascetics, at Isipatana
(modern Sarnath) near Benares. In the sermon, as well have
it in the original texts, these four Truths are given
briefly. But there are innumerable places in the early
Buddhist scriptures where they are explained again and
again, with greater detail and in different ways. If we
study the Four Noble Truths with the help of these
references and explanations, we get fairly good and accurate
account of the essential teachings of the Buddha according
to the original texts.
The Four
Noble Truths are:
1.
Dukkha2
2.
Samudaya,
the arising
or origin of dukkha,
3.
Nirodha,
the cessation
of dukkha
4.
Magga,
the way leading to
the cessation of dukkha.
THE FIRST NOBLE TRUTH:
DUKKHA
The First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca)
is generally translated by almost all scholars as ‘The
Noble Truth of Suffering’, and it is interpreted to mean
that life according to Buddhism is nothing but suffering and
pain. Both translation and interpretation are highly
unsatisfactory and misleading. It is because of this
limited, free and easy translation, and its superficial
interpretation, that many people have been misled into
regarding Buddhism as pessimistic.
First of
all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If
anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic
view of life and of the world. It looks at things
objectively (yathābūtam). It does not falsely lull
you into living in a fool’s paradise, nor does it frighten
and agonize you with all kinds of imaginary fears and sins.
It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what
the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect
freedom, peace, tranquillity and happiness.
One
physician may gravely exaggerate an illness and give up hope
altogether. Another may ignorantly declare that there is no
illness and that no treatment is necessary, thus deceiving
the patient with a false consolation. You may call the first
one pessimistic and the second optimistic. Both are equally
dangerous. But a third physician diagnoses the symptoms
correctly, understands the cause and the nature of the
illness, sees clearly that it can be cured, and courageously
administers a course of treatment, thus saving his patient.
The Buddha is like the last physician. He is the wise and
scientific doctor for the ills of the world (Bhisakka)
or Bhaisajya-guru).
It is true that the Pali
word dukka (or Sanskrit dukka) in ordinary
usage means ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘sorrow’ or ‘misery’, as
opposed to the word sukha meaning ‘happiness’,
‘comfort’ or ‘ease’. But the term dukkha as the First
Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha’s view of life and
the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes
enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term
dukkha in the First noble Truth contains, quite
obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering’, but in
addition it also includes deeper ideas such as
‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’,
‘insubstantiality’. It is difficult therefore to find one
word to embrace the whole conception of the term dukkha
as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave it
untranslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of
it by conveniently translating it as ‘suffering’ or ‘pain’.
The Buddha does not deny
happiness in life when he says there is suffering. On the
contrary he admits different forms of happiness, both
material and spiritual, for laymen as well as for monks. In
the anguttara-nikāya, one of the five original
Collections in Pāli containing the Buddha’s discourses,
there is a list of happinesses (sukhāni), such as the
happiness of family life and the happiness of the life of a
recluse, the happiness of sense pleasures and the happiness
of attachment and the happiness of detachment, physical
happiness and mental happiness etc.
But all these are included in dukkha. Even the very
pure spiritual states of dhyāna (recueillement or
trance) attained by the practice of higher meditation, free
from even a shadow of suffering in the accepted sense of the
word, states which may be described as unmixed happiness, as
well as the state of dhyāna which is free from
sensations both pleasant (sukha) and unpleasant (dukkha)
and is only pure equanimity and awareness- even these
very high spiritual states are included in dukkha. In
one of the suttas of the Majjhima- nikāya, (again
one of the five original Collections), after praising the
spiritual happiness of these dhyānas, the Buddha says
that they are ‘impermanent, dukkha, and subject to
change’ (aniccā dukkhā viparināmadhammā).
Notice that the word dukkha is explicitly used.
It is dukkha, not because there is ‘suffering’ in the
ordinary sense of the word, but because ‘whatever is
impermanent is dukkha’. (yad aniccam tam dukkham).
The Buddha was realistic
and objective. He says, with regard to life and the
enjoyment of sense-pleasures, that one should clearly
understand three things: (1) attraction or enjoyment (assāda),
(2) evil consequence or danger or unsatisfactoriness (ādinava),
and (3) freedom or liberation (nissarana).
When you see a pleasant, charming and beautiful person, you
like him (or her), you are attracted, you enjoy seeing that
person again and again, you derive pleasure and satisfaction
from that person. This is enjoyment (assāda). It is a
fact of experience. But this enjoyment is not permanent,
just as that person and all his (or her) attractions are not
permanent either. When the situation changes, when you
cannot see that person, when you deprived of this enjoyment,
you become sad, you may become unreasonable and unbalanced,
you may even behave foolishly. This is the evil,
unsatisfactory and dangerous side of the picture (ādinava).
This, too, is a fact of experience. Now if you have no
attachment to the person, if you are completely detached,
that is freedom, liberation (nissarana). These three
things are true with regard to all enjoyment in life.
From it is evident that
it is no question of pessimism or optimism, but that we must
take account of the pleasures of life as well as of its pain
and sorrows, and also freedom from them, in order to
understand life completely and objectively. Only then is
true liberation possible. Regarding this question the Buddha
says:
‘O bhikkhus,
if ant recluses or brāhmanas do not understand objectively
in this way that the enjoyment of sense-pleasures is
enjoyment, that their unsatisfactoriness is
unsatisfactoriness, that liberation from them is liberation,
then it is not possible that they themselves will certainly
understand the desire of sense-pleasures completely, or that
they will be able to instruct another person to that end, or
that the person following their instruction will completely
understand the desire for sense-pleasures. But O bhikkhus,
if any recluses or brāhmanas understand objectively in this
way that the enjoyment of sense-pleasures is enjoyment, that
their unsatisfactoriness is unsatisfactoriness, that
liberation from them is liberation, then it is possible that
they themselves will certainly understand the desire for
sense-pleasures completely, and that they will be able to
instruct another person to that end, and that that person
following their instruction will completely understand the
desire for sense-pleasure.’
The conception of
dukkha may be viewed from three aspects (1) dukkha
as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha), (2) dukkha
as produced by change (viparināma-dukkha) and (3)
dukkha as conditioned states (samkhāra-dukkha).
All kinds of suffering
in life like birth, old age, sickness, death, association
with unpleasant persons and conditions, separation from
loved ones and pleasant conditions, not getting what one
desires, grief, lamentation, distress-all such forms of
physical and mental suffering, which are universally
accepted as suffering or pain, are included in dukkha
as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha).
A happy
feeling, a happy condition in life, is not permanent, not
everlasting. It changes sooner or later. When it changes, it
produces pain, suffering, unhappiness. This vicissitude is
included in dukkha as suffering produced by change (viparināma-dukkha).
It is easy to understand
the two forms of suffering (dukkha) mentioned above.
No one will dispute them. This aspect of the First Noble
Truth is more popular known because it is easy to
understand. It is common experience in our daily life.
But the third form of
dukkha as conditioned states (samkhāra-dukkha) is
the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble
Truth, and it requires some analytical explanation of what
we consider as a ‘being’, as an ‘individual’, or as ‘I’.
What we call
a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist
philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical
and mental forces or energies, which may be divided into
five groups or aggregates (paňcakkhandha). The Buddha
says: ‘In short these five aggregates of attachment are
dukkha’.
Elsewhere he distinctly defines dukkha as the five
aggregates: ‘O bhikkhus, what is dukkha? It should be
said that it is the five aggregates of attachment’.
Here it should be clearly understood that duhhka and
five aggregates are not two different things: the five
aggregates themselves are dukkha. We will understand
this point better when we have some notion of the five
aggregates which constitute the so-called ‘being’. Now, what
are these five?
The Five Aggregates
The first is the
Aggregates of Matter (Rūpakkhandha). In this term
‘Aggregates of Matter’ are included the traditional Four
Great Elements (cattāri mahābbūtāni), namely,
solidity, fluidity, heat and motion, and also the
Derivatives (upādāya- rūpa) of the Four Great
Elements.
In the term ‘Derivatives of Four Great Elements’ are
included our five material sense-organs, i.e., the faculties
of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body, and their corresponding
objects in the external world, i.e., visible form, sound,
odour, taste, and tangible things, and also some thoughts or
ideas or conceptions which are in the sphere of mind-objects
(dharmāyatana).
Thus the whole realm of matter, both internal and
external, is included in the Aggregate of Matter.
The second is the
Aggregate of Sensations (Vedanākkhandha). In this
group are included all our sensations, pleasant or
unpleasant or neutral, experienced through the contact of
physical and mental organs with the external world. They are
of six kinds: the sensations experienced through the contact
of the eye with visible forms, ear with sounds, nose with
odour, tongue with taste, body with tangible objects, and
mind (which is the sixth faculty in Buddhist Philosophy)
with mind-objects or thoughts or idea.
All our physical and mental sensations are included in this
group.
A word about
what is meant by the term “Mind’ (manas) in Buddhist
philosophy may be useful here. It should clearly be
understood that mind is not spirit as opposed to matter. It
should always be remembered that Buddhism does not recognize
a spirit opposed to matter, as is accepted by most other
systems of philosophies and religions. Mind is only a
faculty or organ (indriya) like the eye or the ear.
It can be controlled and developed like any other faculty,
and the Buddha speaks quite often of the value of
controlling and disciplining these six faculties. The
difference between the eye and the mind as faculties is that
the former senses the world of colours and visible forms,
while the latter senses the world of ideas and thoughts and
mental objects. We experience different fields of the world
with different senses. We cannot hear colours, but we can
see them. Nor can we see sounds, but we can hear them. Thus
with our five physical sense-organs-eye, ear, nose, tongue,
body-we experience only the world of visible forms, sound,
odours, tastes and tangible objects. But these represent
only a part of the world, not the whole. What of ideas and
thoughts? They are also a part of the world. But they cannot
be sensed, they cannot be conceived by the faulty of the
eye, ear, nose, tongue or body. Yet they can be conceived by
another faculty, which is mind. Now ideas and thoughts are
not independent of the world experienced by these five
physical sense faculties. In fact they depend on, and are
conditioned by, physical experiences. Hence a person born
blind cannot have ideas of colour, except through the
analogy of sounds or some other things experienced through
his other faculties. Ideas and thoughts which form a part of
the world are thus produced and conditioned by physical
experiences and are conceived by the mind. Hence mind (manas)
is considered a sense faculty or organ (indriya),
like the eye or the ear.
The third is
the Aggregate of Perceptions (Saňňākkhandha). Like
sensations, perceptions also are of six kinds, in relation
to six internal faculties and the corresponding six external
objects. Like sensations, they are produced through the
contact of our six faculties with the external world. It is
the perceptions that recognize objects whether physical or
mental.
The fourth
is the Aggregate of Mental Formations
(Samkhārakkhandha).
In this group
are included all volitional activities both good and bad.
What is generally known as karma (or kamma)
comes under this group. The Buddha’s own definition of
karma should be remembered here: ‘O bhikkhus, it is
volition (cetanā) that I call karma. Having
willed, one acts through body, speech and mind.
Volition is ‘mental construction, mental activity. Its
function is to direct the mind in the sphere of good, bad or
neutral activities.’
Just like sensations and perceptions, volition is of six
kinds, connected with the six internal faculties and the
corresponding six objects (both physical and mental) in the
external world.
Sensations and perceptions are not volitional actions. They
do not produce karmic effects. It is only volitional
actions- such as attention (manasikāra), will (chanda),
determination (adhimokkha), confidence (saddhā),
concentrate (samādhi), wisdom (paňňā), energy
(viriya), desire (rāga), repugnance or hate (patigha,
Ignorance (avijjā), conceit (māna), idea
of self (sakkāya-ditthi) etc. – that can produce
karmic effects. There are 52 such mental activities which
constitute the Aggregate of Mental Formations.
The fifth is
the Aggregate of Consciousness (Viňňānakkhandha).
Consciousness is a reaction or response which has one of
the six faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind) as
its basis, and one of the six corresponding external
phenomena (visible form, sound, odour, taste, tangible
things and mind-objects, i.e., an idea or thought) as its
objects. For instance, visual consciousness (cakkhu-viňňāna)
has the eye as its basis and a visible form as its
object. Mental consciousness (mano- viňňāna) has the
mind (manas) as its basis and a mental object, i.e.,
an idea or thought (dhamma) as its objects. So
consciousness is connected with other faculties. Thus, like
sensation, perception and volition, consciousness also is of
six kinds, in relation to six internal faculties and
corresponding six external objects.
It should be
clearly understood that consciousness does not regconize an
object. It is only a sort of awareness-awareness of the
presence of an object. When the eye comes in contact with a
colour, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises which
simply is a awareness of the presence of a colour; but it
does not recognize that it is blue. There is no recognition
at this stage. It is perception (the third Aggregate
discussed above) that recognizes that it is blue. The term
“visual consciousness’ is a philosophical expression
denoting the same idea as is conveyed by the ordinary word
‘seeing’. Seeing does not mean recognizing. So are the other
forms of consciousness.
It must be
repeated here that according to Buddhist philosophy there is
no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered
‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’, as apposed to matter, and that
consciousness (viňňāna) should not be taken as
‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. This point has to be
particularly emphasized, because a wrong notion
consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a
permanent substance through life, has persisted from the
earliest time to the present day.
One of the
Buddha’s own disciples, Sāti by name, held that the Master
taught: ‘It is the same consciousness that transmigrates and
wanders about.’ The Buddha asked him what he meant by
‘consciousness’. Sāti reply is classical: ‘It is that which
expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of
good and bad deeds here and there’.
‘To
whomever, you stupid one’, remonstrated the Master, ‘have
you heard me expounding the doctrines in this manner?
Haven’t I in many ways explained consciousness as arising
out of conditions: that there is n arising of consciousness
without conditions’. Then the Buddha went on to explain
consciousness in detail: ‘Consciousness is named according
to whatever condition through which it arises: on account of
the eye and visible forms arises a consciousness, and it is
called visual consciousness; on account of the ear and
sounds arises a consciousness, and it is called auditory
consciousness; on account of the nose and odours arises
consciousness, and it is called olfactory consciousness; on
account of the tongue and tastes arises a consciousness, and
it is called gustatory consciousness; on account of the body
and tangible objects arises a consciousness, and it is
called tactile consciousness; on account of the mind and
mind-objects (ideas and thoughts) arises a consciousness,
and it is called mental consciousness.’
Then the
Buddha explained it further by an illustration: A fire is
named according to the material on account of which it
burns. A fire may burn on account of wood, add it is called
wood-fire. It may burn on account of straw, and then it is
called straw-fire. So consciousness is named account to the
condition through which it arises.
Dwelling on
this point, Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, explain: ‘…
a fire burns on account of wood burns only when there is a
supply, but dies down in that very place when it (the
supply) is no longer there, because then the condition has
changed, but (the fire) does not cross over to splinters,
etc., and become a splinter-fire and so on; even so the
consciousness that arise on account of the eye and visible
forms arises in that gate of sense organ (i.e., in the eye),
only where there is the condition of the eye, visible forms,
light and attentions, but ceases then and there when it (the
condition) is no more there, because then the condition has
changed, but (the consciousness) does not cross over to the
ear, etc, and become auditory consciousness and so on …’
The Buddha
declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on
matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that
it cannot exist independently of them. He says:
‘Consciousness may exist having matter as its means (rūpupāyam),
matter as its object (rūpārammanani), matter as
its support (rūpa-patittham), and seeking delight it
may grow, increase and develop; or consciousness may exist
having sensation as its means… or perception as its means…
or mental as its means, mental formations as its objects,
mental formations as its support, and seeking delight it may
grow, increase and develop.
‘Were a man
to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing
away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the
development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation,
perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of
something that does not exist.’
Very brief
these are the five Aggregates. What we call a ‘being’, or an
‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient name or a label
given to the combination of these five groups. They are all
impermanent, all constantly changing. ‘Whatever is
impermanent is dukkha’ (Yad aniccam tam dukkham).
This is true meaning of the Buddha’s words: ‘In brief the
five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha’. They are
not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not
equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and
disappearing.
‘O Brāhmana,
it is just like a mountain river, flowing far and swift,
taking everything along with it; there is no matter, no
instant no second when it stops flowing, but it goes on
flowing and continuing. So Brāhmana, is human life, like a
mountain river.’
As the Buddha told Ratthapāla: ‘The world is in continuous
flux and is impermanent.’
One thing
disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a
series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance
in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a
permanent Self (Ātman), individuality, or anything
that can in reality be called ‘I’. Every one will agree that
neither matter, nor sensation, nor perception, nor any one
of those mental activities, nor consciousness can really be
called ‘I’.
But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are
interdependent are working together in combination as a
physio-psychological machine,
we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea, a
mental formation, which is nothing but one of those 52
mental formations of the fourth Aggregate which we have just
discussed, namely, it is the idea of self (sakkāya-ditthi).
These five Aggregate
together, which we popularly call a ‘being’ are dukkha
itself (samkhāra-dukkha). There is no other ‘being’
or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates, who
experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:
‘Mere suffering exists,
but no suffering is found;
The deeds are, but no
doer is found.’
There is no
unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It
is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is
movement itself. Life and movement are not two different
things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the
thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you move the
thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot
fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically
opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think,
therefore I am.’
Now a
question may be raised whether life has a beginning.
According to the Buddha’s teaching the beginning of the
life-stream of living beings is unthinkable. The believer in
the creation of life by God may be astonished at this reply.
But if you were to ask him ‘What is the beginning of God?’
he would answer without hesitation ‘God has no beginning’,
and he is not astonished at his own reply. The Buddha says:
‘O bhikkhus, this cycle of continuity (samsāra) is
without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings
wandering and running round, enveloped in ignorance (avijjā)
and bound down by the fetters of thirst (desire, tamhā)
is not to be perceived.’
And further, referring to ignorance which is the main cause
if the continuity of life the Buddha states: ‘The first
beginning of ignorance (avijjā) is not to be
perceived in such a way as to postulate that there was no
ignorance beyond a certain points.’
Thus it is not possible to say that there was no life beyond
a certain definite point.
This in
short is the meaning of the Noble Truth of Dukkha. It
is extremely important to understand this First Noble Truth
clearly because, as the Buddha says, ‘he who sees dukkha
sees also the arising of dukkha, sees also the
cessation of dukkha, and sees also the path leading
to the cessation of dukkha.’
This does
not at all make the life of a Buddhist melancholy or
sorrowful, as some people wrongly imagine. On the contrary,
a true Buddhist is the happiest of beings. He has no fears
or anxieties. He is always calm and serene, and cannot be
upset or dismayed by changes or calamities, because he sees
things as they are. The Buddha was never melancholy or
gloomy. He was described by his contemporaries as
‘ever-smiling’ (mihitapubbamgama). In Buddhist
painting and sculpture the Buddha is always represented with
a countenance happy, serene, contented and compassionate.
Never a trace of suffering or agony or pain is to be seen.
Buddhist art and architecture, Buddhist temples never give
the impression of gloom or sorrow, but produce an atmosphere
of calm and serene joy.
Although
there is suffering in life, a Buddhist should not be gloomy
over it, should not be angry or impatient at it. One of the
principal evils in life, according to Buddhism, is
‘repugnance’ or hatred. Repugnance (pratigha) is
explained as ‘ill-will with regard to living beings, with
regard to suffering and with regard to things pertaining to
suffering. Its function is to produce a basis for unhappy
states and bad conduct.’
Thus it is wrong to be impatient at suffering. Being
impatient or angry at suffering does not remove it. On the
contrary, it adds a little more to one’s trouble, and
aggravates and exacerbates a situation already disagreeable.
What is necessary is not anger or impatience, but the
understanding of the question of suffering, how it comes
about, and how to get rid of it, and then to work
accordingly with patience, intelligence, determination and
energy.
There are
two ancient Buddhist texts called the Therigāthā
which are full of the joyful utterances of the Buddha’s
disciples, both male and female, who found peace and
happiness in life through his teaching. The king of Kosala
once told the Buddha that unlike many a disciple of other
religious systems who looked haggard, coarse, pale,
emaciated and unprepossessing, his disciples were ‘joyful
and elated (hattha-pahattha), jubilant and exultant (udaggudagga),
enjoying the spiritual life (abhiratarūpa), with
faculties pleased (pinitindriya), free from anxiety (appossukka)
serene (pannaloma), peaceful (paradavutta) and
living with a gazelle’s mind (migabhūtena cetasā),
i.e., light-hearted.’ The king added that he believed that
this healthy disposition was due to the fact that ‘these
venerable ones had certainly realized the great and full
significance of the Blessed One’s teaching.’
Buddhism is
quite opposed to be melancholic, sorrowful, penitent and
gloomy attitude of mind which is considered a hindrance to
the realization of Truth. On the other hand, it is
interesting to remember here that joy (piti) is one
of the seven be cultivated for the realization of Nirvānā.
