Marxist Critique of the Four Noble Truths - Part 2
2) The Noble Truth of the Arising of Suffering, (Dukkha Samudaya Ariya Sacca)
At this juncture, it is important to establish that there is no ‘first cause’ within Buddhist thinking. Immediately this excludes the theological construct of ‘Creationism’. The universe has not been ‘created’ out of nothing as the biblical scholars would have us believe. There is no god that stands behind the universe and influences events through his divine will. The Buddha further rejects the notions that suffering is solely caused by the individual (sayamkara), or that suffering originates only within the physical environment that exists external to the individual (parakara). The former argument is that suffering is caused only by self and is equated (by the Buddha) with the ‘Eternalist Theory’ (sassatavada), whilst the latter argument – that suffering is caused by an external agency – amounts to the ‘Annihilationist Theory’ (ucchedavada). The Buddha states continuously throughout his teachings that suffering is the five aggregates, and that all existence (without exception) is pervaded by suffering. Suffering is not limited to the single aggregate of matter (external world), nor to any of the other four aggregates of sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness (mind). Suffering is of both the mind and the environment and represents a connected and integrated complexity of experience (mana-rupa). Therefore it can be correctly summarised that Buddhism rejects ‘idealism’ (Eternalist Theory) as the principle of ‘experience’ can not be limited to an isolated brain or its function of mind – as a mind must have something to ‘sense’; and also rejects ‘materialism’ (Annihilationist Theory), as the physical world does not exist isolated from the mind that perceives it. Whilst presenting this interaction and integration, the Buddha firmly rejects the idea that reality can be reduced to a ‘monism’ or a ‘dualism’. Buddhist reality is not a state of vague ‘oneness’, nor is it a diverse and chaotic ‘duality’ – but is rather something else – a reality that includes both these two states, (as well as their opposites) in a unifying, non-contradictory whole that is only realisable by those who have thoroughly trained their minds.
Suffering arises from habitual conditioning associated with the mind and body. The Buddha states that it is only through volitional action that suffering is generated and perpetuated, and it is through volitional action that the mind (and body) can be purified of suffering. Volition (cetana), is the habit in the mind that produces thoughts and thought patterns premised upon the taints of greed, hatred, and delusion, and which are converted into actions via the body on the physical plane. A deluded mind produces deluded actions, and deluded actions produce further deluded thoughts in a continuous cycle of conditioning. Deluded thoughts produce deluded actions – this is explained through the Buddhist concept of ‘karma’. Buddhist karma encompasses deluded thought (motivation), and the ‘actions’ (fruit) these thoughts produce through word and deed. The type or standard of thought in the head produces a corresponding set of behaviours in the body (which effect the environment and everyone and everything within it). The words, deeds, and thoughts of an individual have the potential to permeate out through time and space. As there is no ‘first cause’, human ignorance is the result of dependent origination which is the conditioning interaction of the five aggregates within the deluded state. Buddhist karma, however, does not include all actions or experiences, but only those initiated through the agency of human free will (volition). All other actions and experiences, as they are not mediated through the agency of human free will, are not considered ‘karma’ producing events within the Buddhist schematic. Buddhist karma is the presence of one thought (or set of thoughts), that has been conditioned by previous thoughts, and which will condition the creation of further deluded thoughts. Although general ignorance is the cause of human suffering, the Buddha often describes ‘craving’ (tanha) as a pivotal attribute. Craving has three distinct attributes:
1) Craving for sense pleasures.
2) Craving for existence.
3) Craving for non-existence.
Craving gives rise to actions, and actions produce results; results which condition and bring about new desires, and new cravings. The psycho-physical nexus that constitutes a human being is in a state of continuous flux – nothing is ‘still’ or ‘permanent’ for even a single second. Every aspect of this nexus has been produced and sustained, solely through the force of volitional habit. Delusion creates delusion in a continuous cycle or stream of experience (samsara). Buddhist karma is not a moral force that represents some kind of universal measure of ultimately ‘good’ or ultimately ‘bad’ actions that are either rewarded or punished, etc. Strictly speaking, Buddhist karma is volitional action that gives rise to consequences or ‘fruit’ (karma-vipaka). These karmic fruits may be good or bad, and are purely relative in nature, this is because ordinary human culture varies from one ethnic group to another, and what is considered ‘good’ behaviour in one area, may well be considered ‘bad’ behaviour in another. Furthermore, cultural norms evolve and change over-time, so behaviour that was acceptable one hundred years ago, may not be acceptable today, etc. Good behaviour that is volitional creates good karma and bad behaviour that is volitional creates bad karma, and so on. However, it must be understood that whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’, both types of karma occur within the deluded state of suffering and actively contribute to the continuance of that state. It is only when the ignorance of ‘craving’ (tanha), or ‘thirst for being’ is thoroughly exhausted and uprooted that volitional karma (and the suffering it generates) comes to an end, and the cycle of samsara (or the conditioned habit it creates) is finally broken.
Buddhist commentators often include a discussion within the Second Noble Truth, the notion of past lives, and future lives in the form of rebirth. This must be viewed in a non-religious context. The Buddha confirms that a human being is only a bundle of the five aggregates driven by the power of habitual thought and action (karma). There is no permanent soul (anatman), behind the surface presence, secretly pulling strings that cause movement in the physical world. There is only the force of conditioned habit, nothing more. As there is no soul, according to the Buddha, then it logically follows that there is no permanent entity that can be reborn in a theoretical future existence. The Buddha talks of rebirth only existing for those who dwell in the deluded existence, but states continuously that within the enlightened state, not only is there no longer a karma producing habit (i.e. that karma ceases to operate), but that the requirement for rebirth comes to an end. It is an interesting question to consider that if re-birth does not ultimately exist, then does it ever really exist at all? Does the Buddha make use of the commonly held belief in rebirth in ancient India, to lead his disciples away from such an idea? The early Buddhist suttas certainly suggest this scenario. The notion of Buddhist rebirth only exists within the realm of delusion, but does not exist in the fully enlightened state. This being the case, it logically follows that belief in rebirth is delusional and not factual. It also seems logical to suggest that the Buddha, in regard to the notion of rebirth, begins to talk in a manner that suggests he is referring to human survival (from one generation to the next) in a more general manner, particularly when he states that a person born elsewhere is neither the same person as before, nor a different person (na ca so na ca anno). A similar explanation is often given to the process of aging, where an older person is not the same younger person they once were, and yet there is an obvious continuation (and connection) between the two. There is an unbroken association between the youth and the mature person. The further question arises that seeks to explain whether the obvious and factual association between a youth and his elder self, can be used to assume an unbroken association between a living being – here and now – with a theoretical presence in the past, and an equally theoretical presence in the future. Whereas there is a living and functioning body that connects a youth to his elder self, there is no such physical agency that connects a past life essence of habit, with a present existence, or a future existence after death. For those Buddhists who believe that rebirth is real and continuous, it is the habit of deluded thought production that is passed-on from one existence to another, despite the obvious lack of conveying agency. As the physical body dies, there is no physical vehicle of conveyance, and as consciousness within Buddhist thought is dependent upon contact with external objects – and ceases to exist and function when that contact is broken – consciousness as defined by Buddhist philosophy can not be the vehicle of conveyance for rebirth.
This article continues with: Marxist Critique of the Four Noble Truths - Part 3
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.
At this juncture, it is important to establish that there is no ‘first cause’ within Buddhist thinking. Immediately this excludes the theological construct of ‘Creationism’. The universe has not been ‘created’ out of nothing as the biblical scholars would have us believe. There is no god that stands behind the universe and influences events through his divine will. The Buddha further rejects the notions that suffering is solely caused by the individual (sayamkara), or that suffering originates only within the physical environment that exists external to the individual (parakara). The former argument is that suffering is caused only by self and is equated (by the Buddha) with the ‘Eternalist Theory’ (sassatavada), whilst the latter argument – that suffering is caused by an external agency – amounts to the ‘Annihilationist Theory’ (ucchedavada). The Buddha states continuously throughout his teachings that suffering is the five aggregates, and that all existence (without exception) is pervaded by suffering. Suffering is not limited to the single aggregate of matter (external world), nor to any of the other four aggregates of sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness (mind). Suffering is of both the mind and the environment and represents a connected and integrated complexity of experience (mana-rupa). Therefore it can be correctly summarised that Buddhism rejects ‘idealism’ (Eternalist Theory) as the principle of ‘experience’ can not be limited to an isolated brain or its function of mind – as a mind must have something to ‘sense’; and also rejects ‘materialism’ (Annihilationist Theory), as the physical world does not exist isolated from the mind that perceives it. Whilst presenting this interaction and integration, the Buddha firmly rejects the idea that reality can be reduced to a ‘monism’ or a ‘dualism’. Buddhist reality is not a state of vague ‘oneness’, nor is it a diverse and chaotic ‘duality’ – but is rather something else – a reality that includes both these two states, (as well as their opposites) in a unifying, non-contradictory whole that is only realisable by those who have thoroughly trained their minds.
Suffering arises from habitual conditioning associated with the mind and body. The Buddha states that it is only through volitional action that suffering is generated and perpetuated, and it is through volitional action that the mind (and body) can be purified of suffering. Volition (cetana), is the habit in the mind that produces thoughts and thought patterns premised upon the taints of greed, hatred, and delusion, and which are converted into actions via the body on the physical plane. A deluded mind produces deluded actions, and deluded actions produce further deluded thoughts in a continuous cycle of conditioning. Deluded thoughts produce deluded actions – this is explained through the Buddhist concept of ‘karma’. Buddhist karma encompasses deluded thought (motivation), and the ‘actions’ (fruit) these thoughts produce through word and deed. The type or standard of thought in the head produces a corresponding set of behaviours in the body (which effect the environment and everyone and everything within it). The words, deeds, and thoughts of an individual have the potential to permeate out through time and space. As there is no ‘first cause’, human ignorance is the result of dependent origination which is the conditioning interaction of the five aggregates within the deluded state. Buddhist karma, however, does not include all actions or experiences, but only those initiated through the agency of human free will (volition). All other actions and experiences, as they are not mediated through the agency of human free will, are not considered ‘karma’ producing events within the Buddhist schematic. Buddhist karma is the presence of one thought (or set of thoughts), that has been conditioned by previous thoughts, and which will condition the creation of further deluded thoughts. Although general ignorance is the cause of human suffering, the Buddha often describes ‘craving’ (tanha) as a pivotal attribute. Craving has three distinct attributes:
1) Craving for sense pleasures.
2) Craving for existence.
3) Craving for non-existence.
Craving gives rise to actions, and actions produce results; results which condition and bring about new desires, and new cravings. The psycho-physical nexus that constitutes a human being is in a state of continuous flux – nothing is ‘still’ or ‘permanent’ for even a single second. Every aspect of this nexus has been produced and sustained, solely through the force of volitional habit. Delusion creates delusion in a continuous cycle or stream of experience (samsara). Buddhist karma is not a moral force that represents some kind of universal measure of ultimately ‘good’ or ultimately ‘bad’ actions that are either rewarded or punished, etc. Strictly speaking, Buddhist karma is volitional action that gives rise to consequences or ‘fruit’ (karma-vipaka). These karmic fruits may be good or bad, and are purely relative in nature, this is because ordinary human culture varies from one ethnic group to another, and what is considered ‘good’ behaviour in one area, may well be considered ‘bad’ behaviour in another. Furthermore, cultural norms evolve and change over-time, so behaviour that was acceptable one hundred years ago, may not be acceptable today, etc. Good behaviour that is volitional creates good karma and bad behaviour that is volitional creates bad karma, and so on. However, it must be understood that whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’, both types of karma occur within the deluded state of suffering and actively contribute to the continuance of that state. It is only when the ignorance of ‘craving’ (tanha), or ‘thirst for being’ is thoroughly exhausted and uprooted that volitional karma (and the suffering it generates) comes to an end, and the cycle of samsara (or the conditioned habit it creates) is finally broken.
Buddhist commentators often include a discussion within the Second Noble Truth, the notion of past lives, and future lives in the form of rebirth. This must be viewed in a non-religious context. The Buddha confirms that a human being is only a bundle of the five aggregates driven by the power of habitual thought and action (karma). There is no permanent soul (anatman), behind the surface presence, secretly pulling strings that cause movement in the physical world. There is only the force of conditioned habit, nothing more. As there is no soul, according to the Buddha, then it logically follows that there is no permanent entity that can be reborn in a theoretical future existence. The Buddha talks of rebirth only existing for those who dwell in the deluded existence, but states continuously that within the enlightened state, not only is there no longer a karma producing habit (i.e. that karma ceases to operate), but that the requirement for rebirth comes to an end. It is an interesting question to consider that if re-birth does not ultimately exist, then does it ever really exist at all? Does the Buddha make use of the commonly held belief in rebirth in ancient India, to lead his disciples away from such an idea? The early Buddhist suttas certainly suggest this scenario. The notion of Buddhist rebirth only exists within the realm of delusion, but does not exist in the fully enlightened state. This being the case, it logically follows that belief in rebirth is delusional and not factual. It also seems logical to suggest that the Buddha, in regard to the notion of rebirth, begins to talk in a manner that suggests he is referring to human survival (from one generation to the next) in a more general manner, particularly when he states that a person born elsewhere is neither the same person as before, nor a different person (na ca so na ca anno). A similar explanation is often given to the process of aging, where an older person is not the same younger person they once were, and yet there is an obvious continuation (and connection) between the two. There is an unbroken association between the youth and the mature person. The further question arises that seeks to explain whether the obvious and factual association between a youth and his elder self, can be used to assume an unbroken association between a living being – here and now – with a theoretical presence in the past, and an equally theoretical presence in the future. Whereas there is a living and functioning body that connects a youth to his elder self, there is no such physical agency that connects a past life essence of habit, with a present existence, or a future existence after death. For those Buddhists who believe that rebirth is real and continuous, it is the habit of deluded thought production that is passed-on from one existence to another, despite the obvious lack of conveying agency. As the physical body dies, there is no physical vehicle of conveyance, and as consciousness within Buddhist thought is dependent upon contact with external objects – and ceases to exist and function when that contact is broken – consciousness as defined by Buddhist philosophy can not be the vehicle of conveyance for rebirth.
This article continues with: Marxist Critique of the Four Noble Truths - Part 3
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.