Marxist Critique of the Four Noble Truths
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
Notice that all spiritual and mystic states, however pure and high they may be, are mental creations, mind-made, conditioned and compound (samkhata). They are not Reality, not Truth (sacca).
(Venerable Dr Walpola Rahula) [1]
Introduction
A Marxist critique is not an ethnically premised observation of the practices of one culture, through the eyes of another. It is not, for instance, a one-sided and biased judgement about a set of cultural practices developed out of one set of historical conditions, by a dominating psychological state that has been created by exactly the same formulative processes. The Marxist critique is not a Eurocentric perspective upon the world, but a perennially new and vibrant method of analysing and interpreting the world which is free of ethnocentric bias, religiosity, and the taint of bourgeois socio-economic trends and political thinking. Marx (and Engels), together developed European philosophy out of the cultural confines that historically defined it as ‘European’, and in so doing created a method of interpretation that is universally applicable to all times and all places. The Marxist method of analysis reveals trends (both obvious and hidden) contained within the historical conditioning that defines reality, through the observation of the physical world and those who inhabit it. To date, as the world transitions from a pre-modern to modern and post-modern world premised upon industrialisation and post-industrialisation, it is clear that the psychology of the masses is dominated by out-dated (feudalistic) modes of thought that are premised entirely (in the West) upon the strictures of the Judeo-Christian religion which has ruled the minds of humanity with imagined theology for over a thousand years. In India, the mind of humanity has been dominated in exactly the same manner through the theology of the Brahmanic religion. This religious attitude has morphed into a secular representation in modern societies, and is responsible for the greed of the dominant bourgeois (middle class), as well as the inability for the working class to escape its clutches through an almost pathological acceptance of exploitation through an attitude of deference projected upon those who do the exploiting. The greed riddled bourgeois behave in exactly the same dominating manner as the medieval church in Europe, and the working class conform to this domination like a faithful congregation kneeling in prayer. In the meantime their lives are systematically and ruthlessly destroyed without a second thought by the bourgeois itself which simply lives to accumulate.
Is Buddhism an extension of the Brahmanic religion spreading pre-modern superstition and belief in gods? In other words, is Buddhism in Asia performing the same function as the Judeo-Christian church in the West? There is no doubt that Buddhism contains religious elements such as gods, karma, rebirth, and escape from suffering, but this fact does not necessarily reduce Buddhism to the status of a theistic religion. The content of Buddhist philosophy does not equate with the objective of the philosophy of the Buddha. The Buddha does make use of religious elements in his teaching, but he uses such elements as a rich tapestry only in the sense of deconstructing the very premise of religion itself. Perpetuation of religion is not the purpose of the Buddha; instead the Buddha works to undermine and remove all vestiges of religiosity from the mind of the disciple. Brahmanic religious elements are used within Buddhist rhetoric as a means to free the mind from their influence. Furthermore, none of the central teachings of Buddhism rely upon a religious argument for their effectiveness as a developmental method. One such teaching is the Four Noble Truths. The concepts that the Buddha borrows from Brahmanism are so radically altered in meaning so as to render them unrecognisable to the followers of Brahmanic religion. It is as if the Buddha is using such terms in an ironic or sarcastic manner purely as a teaching device to prove the secular point of his non-theistic system. For instance, not only does the Buddha make use of the well known Brahmanic gods, but he invents a number of gods that the followers of Brahma would not have known. This demonstrates the expedient (and purely psychological) nature of how the Buddha makes use of these formerly religious terms. All the religious imagery used within Buddhist philosophy is rendered null and void in both implication and meaning in the enlightened state. In this state, the Buddha makes it clear that gods, karma, and rebirth do not exist. Therefore it is correct to assert that gods, karma, and rebirth are not the essential purpose or point of the Buddha’s system, anymore than the religious imagery used by Marx, was the point of his. A Marxist critique seeks to expose inverted thinking. Inverted thinking is exactly that state of mind that believes a divine entity, or god, has created the universe and everything within. The highly exploitative bourgeois system is an expression of this inverted thinking, and this is why Marx made the criticism of religious thinking the basis for the criticism of politics and every else that exists. For Marx, nothing escapes the influence of religion, because religion is premised entirely upon the presence of a false consciousness. This is why Marx seeks to turn the mind the right way up (and create a true consciousness) by reversing the inversion and placing world as it is (in reality) at the centre of humanity’s existence. God does not create the human mind (religion), but rather it is the human mind that creates images of god (reality).
It can be proven through the Marxian analysis of the Four Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani) that Buddhism is not a religion, but rather a deconstructive philosophy (akin to Marxism) which assesses the world as it really is, rather than how many imagine it to be. The concept of the Four Noble Truths is expressed in Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese as:
Pali Sanskrit Chinese
Four = Cattari Catvāri 四 (Si)
Noble = Ariya Arya 聖 (Sheng)
Truths = Saccani Satyāni 諦 (Di)
Like Marx, the Buddha abandons the mistaking of imagination for truth and instead advocates the cultivation of logic and reason as a means to over-come human suffering. The Four Noble Truths are considered to be the central teaching of the Buddhist school of thought, but in reality the so-called Four Noble Truths are in reality an expression of a single truth subdivided into four categories of explanation. The four subdivisions that comprise the Noble Truths are:
1) The Noble Truth of Suffering (i.e. dissatisfaction), (Dukkha Ariya Sacca)
2) The Noble Truth of the Arising of Dukkha (Dukkha Samudaya Ariya Sacca)
3) The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Dukkha Nirodha Ariya Sacca)
4) The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation Suffering (Dukkha Nirodha Gaminipati Pada Ariya Sacca)
From the Pali title of the ‘Four Noble Truths’, the most important term for analysis is ‘Ariya’, as it is through this originally Vedic term that the Buddha’s revolutionary and new philosophical perspective is firmly presented. Ariya, wihin the Brahmanic system, usually refers to the Vedic gods (which includes Indra who is transformed in the Buddhist sutras to an enthusiastic follower of the Buddha and his teachings), and has been historically associated with the practice of theistic ritual scarcities. HW Schumann explains the Brahmanic origin of this important Buddhist term:
‘In early Vedic times the sacrifice had been understood as a ritual feasting of the gods. The word ‘arya’, with which the Indo-Aryans described themselves, means ‘hospitable’ and is – since the gods are included in their hospitality – also a name for their religion. Invisible to profane eyes, the gods visited the sacrificer, descending on the open-air alter-like sacrificial seat. They were solemnly entertained by him to food and soma drink, and showed their gratitude with counter-sacrifices, such as causing the sun to rise every day, sending rain and assuring victory and wellbeing, and granting the sacrificer success, progeny, plentiful cattle and long life and strength. The counter-sacrifice of the gods could be depended on, providing no mistake had been made in the invocation and entertainment of the “radiant ones”’ [2]
The implication of this term is that it implies the bringing of civilisation to the world through the agency of superior wisdom and knowledge. Those who possess such knowledge are considered ‘ariya’, or ‘noble’. Within ancient India such a term was used to justify the Brahmanic caste system, and to denote those who occupied its upper echelons, or higher castes. The Buddha was, of course, from the privileged Kshatryia, or the second highest caste of warriors and kings, and because of this he was well educated in the philosophy (and practices) of the Brahmanic system. In this context ‘ariya’ represents the power of the dominant castes (or classes) over the rest of the Indian people. When ‘ariya’ is used by the Buddha, however, it is in a totally different manner to its conventional usage, and implicitly and explicitly eulogises self-attained wisdom (a noble attainment), whilst simultaneously denying the validity of the Brahmanic system (the product of conditioned ignorance). The Buddha is considered ‘noble’ (ariya) because he is believed to have seen through delusion and gained a clear understanding of reality. This interpretation is confirmed through the study of the Chinese Buddhist texts, which translate the Pali term ‘ariya’ with the Chinese ideogram ‘聖’ (Sheng4) - a character used to refer to a ‘Sage’, or a perfected human being who possesses characteristics far beyond those usually associated with ordinary beings. Although the Buddha is nothing more than an ordinary human being, he has attained to a level of wisdom (and understanding) that has historically only been associated with god-like entities. When asked to express this understanding in words, he gave the teaching of the Four Noble Truths which may be viewed as a secular expression of the highest intellect free of the hindrance of religiosity. Even the term ‘ariya’ (that once referred to the gods acting on earth through their divine power) is now used only to refer to a human being exercising his intellectual capacity to its fullest extent. This is how the teachings associated with the Four Noble Truths should be approached. Their content is not divine revelation but a presentation of a psychological theory designed to free the human mind from its own limitation, or lack of knowledge about its own inherent functioning. The Four Noble Truths represent a radical departure from Brahmanistic thinking, and are symbolic of a permanent rupture between feudalistic superstitious beliefs, and the permanent regaining of the rational human mind by the Buddha. It is representative of a new psychology for humanity that is designed to re-align perception (in the mind) with regards to its own functioning, and the outer world which is perceived through the senses. True and correct perception is regained through non-attachment, or non-identification with thought. Once thought constructs are not grasped (and mistaken for reality), the human mind is then free to correctly perceive its own inner workings and the world it inhabits free of the taint of historical conditioning. For both Buddha and Marx this state of perception denotes an immediacy of awareness that the Tibetan Buddhist monk – the Venerable Lobsang Gyatso – explains as valid knowledge in the following manner:
‘Direct perception differs from inferential cognition in that inferential cognition requires a generic image (such as that provided by a map), whereas direct, valid perception does not.’ [3]
The validity of the philosophical content of the Four Noble Truths rests upon the fact that it can be tested by each and every individual to see if its premise holds up under different conditions. Indeed, the fact that the Four Noble Truths are considered universally valid is accepted as another reason for the use of the term ‘ariya’, as this central Buddhist teaching is thought to be all-embracing and easily approachable. It is also the first recorded teaching that the Buddha gave at Isipatana (modern day Sarneth), near Benares (also known as Varanasi), in the state of Uttar Pradesh, north-central India. It is here, around two months after his enlightenment, that the Buddha taught the ‘Setting in Motion the Turning of the Dhamma Wheel Sutta’ (Dhamma Cakka Ppavattana Sutta). This sutta sets forth the Buddha’s basic teachings on the Four Noble Truths, (as well as the concepts of the middle way, impermanence, no-self, and dependent origination), to his former spiritual companions, the five ascetics, who became his first disciples. It is in this sutta that the Buddha asserts that rebirth has been brought to an end through the pristine nature of his psychological transformation (i.e. realisation of enlightenment). The only evidence for all of this detail lies solely within the Buddhist teachings themselves. Other than the Suttas (and other texts derived from the Buddhist tradition), there is no objective evidence to verify or disprove the story as recorded by the Buddhist tradition, and it is believed that for at least four to five hundred years after the Buddha, his teachings were remembered by monks and passed on down through the generations word of mouth. The teachings were eventually codified into a written form, and it is during this process of categorisation and logical organisation that the above text ‘Setting in Motion the Turning of the Dhamma Wheel Sutta’ was placed first in the order of the Buddhist canon. The point is that the early compilers of the Buddhist canon (possibly possessing information now lost) were of the opinion that this text was considered the first official teaching of the Buddha, and ensured that it took its place at the head of over 5000 other suttas that contain and convey the extrapolated Buddhist vision of existence and its transformation. It is interesting to note that all the Buddhist suttas convey and explain various aspects of the Buddhist teachings, they were not all delivered by the Buddha, although he is considered responsible for the vast majority. Some suttas are taught by devas and brahmas (that is various theistic entities, another example of the Buddhist undermining of Brahmanic theology), as well as by his disciples such as Sariputra and Dhammadinna, etc. [4]
Before embarking upon an indepth analysis of the four strands of the Noble Truth, it is important to establish, as far as possible, the historical and philosophical relationship between early Buddhism and Brahmanism. The Buddha, was of course, born a follower of Brahma and prior to his enlightenment would have been correctly referred to as an adherent of the Brahmanic religion. In fact, evidence suggests that early Buddhism was perceived as a radical branch of Brahmanism, rather than as an antagonistic off-shoot. This accommodating situation is recorded in the Pali canon where time and again the Buddha is seen to discuss reality with various Brahmin priests, and although profoundly disagreeing with their perspective, nevertheless, there is no open hostility. It is only much later in Indian history, where Buddhism is perceived as a threat to the dominance of Brahmanism, that open hostility began to develop between the two schools. However, certainly up to the reign of emperor Ashoka (274-232BCE), Buddhism is viewed as being firmly within the Brahmanic field of philosophical development.[5] Winston L King defines the similarities and differences between Brahmanism and Buddhism, and demonstrates that the latter is clearly a development from the former:
‘Gotama Buddha is portrayed as being at odds with the developing Brahmanical tradition, both in its Vedic-ritual and Upanishadic-modified form. For example, he demotes the Brahmanical gods to attendant godlings, is antagonistic to all ritual, especially sacrificial ritual, and he undercuts the Brahmin’s caste pretensions.
Though Upanishadic Brahmanism and early Buddhism differed radically at important points in their basic philosophy and religious positions, structurally and functionally there were also important likenesses. Buddhism, as a “heretical” product of Brahmanical culture, is to be expected to inherit from its “orthodox” parent as well as its “unorthodox” one, Gotama.
First is the central conviction that the universe of space-time experience is not ultimately real or fundamentality satisfactory. Therefore it must be radically transcended in order to achieve salvation. The second and corollary area of agreement is that a special methodology, meditation, is the best, and for Buddhism the only, means of achieving true salvational transcendence.’ [6]
It is out of this cultural milieu that the Four Noble Truths developed and although as a central Buddhist teaching they are only presented in the Setting in Motion the Turning of the Dhamma Wheel Sutta in a relatively brief (but fundamental manner), the Four Noble Truths recur continuously throughout the length and breadth of the Buddhist suttas, and as a consequence a vast body of developed knowledge has been established around this theory. As the Buddha continuously returned to the Four Noble Truths throughout the 45 years of his teaching career, it is clear that his entire philosophical departure from Brahmanic thinking is encompassed within their structure. The Four Noble Truths represent the Buddha’s establishment of rationality over that of religiously derived imagination, and signifies an important departure from the superstitious mindset that had hitherto dominated the world. This fact explains why Karl Marx refers to Buddhists as being ‘Brahmanical rationalists’,[7] and why Engels described Buddhist logic in the following positive manner:
‘Only dialectical thought is effective and correct. In this regard, only Eastern Buddhists and Greeks occupy a highly developed, and advanced stage of dialectical thought.’ [8]
The Buddha expresses the concept of dukkha in three distinct ways, none of which rely upon religious imagery, or groundless faith for validity. To understand the Four Noble Truths is in reality nothing more than understanding exactly what the Buddha means when he uses the term ‘dukkha’, and how he applies this term to his philosophy of humanity. This is why it can be clearly discerned that the Buddha uses three categories of reference when discussing and contextualising the concept of dukkha, which are;
a) Psychological – pertaining to the conscious mind.
b) Physical – pertaining to the living body.
c) Philosophical – pertaining to insight of the non-substantiality of existence.[9]
These categories are not separate and distinct, but rather represent different aspects of the same condition – namely dukkha. Although arranged in a logical order designed to bring clarity of thought, these categories are at source integrated, interconnected, and interlocked. The Buddha states over and over again in the suttas that his path involves nothing more than understanding that life is ‘dukkha’, and that once this is understood through a (permanent psychological) transformative experience, the suffering of life ceases:
‘He who sees suffering, sees also the arising of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of Suffering.’ [10]
Elsewhere in the suttas the Buddha is referred to as the ‘peerless physician’ (bhisakko), and as the ‘supreme surgeon’ (sallakatto anuttara), implying that his teaching – the Dharma – is a medicine for the illness of humanity, and like a medicine, is not to be used after the illness (dukkha) has been cured. If there is no ailment, treatment is not required. This is a very different position to that maintained by theistic religions that routinely state that their teachings of theology must be applied to all circumstances, everywhere, and for all time, regardless of the historical conditions of those circumstances and situations. Built into the Buddha’s teaching is its own redundancy. The Dhammapada states:
‘I have conquered all, I know all, and my life is pure; I have left all, and I am free from craving. I myself found the way. Whom shall I call teacher. Whom shall I teach?’ [11]
The Buddha’s answer is not in religion, but expresses the acquisition of a higher logic free of the lower instinctive responses imported into the human mind and body at an earlier time in its evolution. These instinctive responses once served the purpose of species survival, but have now been superseded by the development of the human brain and the higher intellectual faculties. However, each human being appears to be born with an equal amount of instincts juxtaposed with intellection. Human society, culture and psychology are riddled with this dichotomy that signifies a continuous battle between basic instincts, and rational thought. Usually at best a balance is achieved premised upon compromise, suppression, and oppression, etc. This process of conditioning begins with a young child growing up in a particular cultural environment. This environment, which is itself nothing other than the product of historical conditioning, trains the child’s instincts and intellection to function in a manner suitable to the cultural norms of the society he/she happens to be born within. The Buddha, (like Karl Marx) however, would not settle for this most basic of conditioning, and instead sought to psychologically (and physically) break free of its influence through a concerted effort of will. The result is the Four Noble Truths.
This article continues with: Marxist Critique of the Four Noble Truths - Part 1
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.
[1] Rahula, Sri Walpola, Ven, Dr, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978), Page 38, Footnote 1.
[2] Schumann, HW, The Historical Buddha, - The Times, Life and Teachings of the Founder of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2004), Page 32.
[3] Gyatso, Lobsang, Venerable, The Four Noble Truths, Snow Lion Publications, (1994), Page 15. The author is quoting from the book entitled ‘Mind in Tibetan Buddhism’ by Lati Rinbochay and Elizabeth Napper, (1980), Page 16.
[4] Skilton, Andrew, A Concise History of Buddhism, Windhorse, (1994), Chapter 9 The Tripitaka: The Mainstream Buddhist Canon - Pages 73-83 for a very interesting study concerning the early oral history of the Buddhist teachings, the number of suttas contained in the Buddhist canon, and examples of other beings teaching in place of the Buddha, etc.
[5] King, Winston, L, Theravada Meditation – The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga, Motilal Banarsidass, (1992), Chapter 1 Yogic Factors in Gotama Buddha’s Enlightenment, Pages 1-17 for an indepth treatment of this subject. King’s research presents very convincing evidence of a philosophical and practical over-lap between the existing Brahmanic-yoga tradition and the developing Buddhist school.
[6] Ibid Pages 1-2.
[7] Husain, Iqbal, Editor, Karl Marx On India – from the New York Daily Tribune (Including Articles by Frederick Engels) and Extracts from Marx-Engels Correspondence 1853-1862, Tulika Books, Page 247 – Sepoy Revolt in India – New York Daily Tribune, September 1, 1857, Printed as a Leading Article.
[8] Quoted from the unfinished 1883 book entitled ‘Dialectics of Nature’ by Frederick Engels. See my English translation of the original Chinese language article by Deng Lai Song (邓来送) entitled ‘My Understanding of Buddhism’ < http://buddhistsocialism.weebly.com/my-understanding-of-buddhism.html>Accessed 30.5.14.
[9] Thera, Piyadassi, The Buddha’s Ancient Path, Munshiram Manoharlal, (2005), Chapter 3, The Central Conception of Buddhism (The four Noble Truths), the First Noble Truth; Dukkha: Suffering, Pages 37-53, for an excellent discussion regarding dukkha as psychological, physiological, and philosophical concept.
[10] Ibid, Page 40 – referenced as S. v. 437.
[11] Mascaro, Juan, The Dhammapada, Penguin, (1988), Chapter 24 Cravings, Verse 353, Page 85.
(Venerable Dr Walpola Rahula) [1]
Introduction
A Marxist critique is not an ethnically premised observation of the practices of one culture, through the eyes of another. It is not, for instance, a one-sided and biased judgement about a set of cultural practices developed out of one set of historical conditions, by a dominating psychological state that has been created by exactly the same formulative processes. The Marxist critique is not a Eurocentric perspective upon the world, but a perennially new and vibrant method of analysing and interpreting the world which is free of ethnocentric bias, religiosity, and the taint of bourgeois socio-economic trends and political thinking. Marx (and Engels), together developed European philosophy out of the cultural confines that historically defined it as ‘European’, and in so doing created a method of interpretation that is universally applicable to all times and all places. The Marxist method of analysis reveals trends (both obvious and hidden) contained within the historical conditioning that defines reality, through the observation of the physical world and those who inhabit it. To date, as the world transitions from a pre-modern to modern and post-modern world premised upon industrialisation and post-industrialisation, it is clear that the psychology of the masses is dominated by out-dated (feudalistic) modes of thought that are premised entirely (in the West) upon the strictures of the Judeo-Christian religion which has ruled the minds of humanity with imagined theology for over a thousand years. In India, the mind of humanity has been dominated in exactly the same manner through the theology of the Brahmanic religion. This religious attitude has morphed into a secular representation in modern societies, and is responsible for the greed of the dominant bourgeois (middle class), as well as the inability for the working class to escape its clutches through an almost pathological acceptance of exploitation through an attitude of deference projected upon those who do the exploiting. The greed riddled bourgeois behave in exactly the same dominating manner as the medieval church in Europe, and the working class conform to this domination like a faithful congregation kneeling in prayer. In the meantime their lives are systematically and ruthlessly destroyed without a second thought by the bourgeois itself which simply lives to accumulate.
Is Buddhism an extension of the Brahmanic religion spreading pre-modern superstition and belief in gods? In other words, is Buddhism in Asia performing the same function as the Judeo-Christian church in the West? There is no doubt that Buddhism contains religious elements such as gods, karma, rebirth, and escape from suffering, but this fact does not necessarily reduce Buddhism to the status of a theistic religion. The content of Buddhist philosophy does not equate with the objective of the philosophy of the Buddha. The Buddha does make use of religious elements in his teaching, but he uses such elements as a rich tapestry only in the sense of deconstructing the very premise of religion itself. Perpetuation of religion is not the purpose of the Buddha; instead the Buddha works to undermine and remove all vestiges of religiosity from the mind of the disciple. Brahmanic religious elements are used within Buddhist rhetoric as a means to free the mind from their influence. Furthermore, none of the central teachings of Buddhism rely upon a religious argument for their effectiveness as a developmental method. One such teaching is the Four Noble Truths. The concepts that the Buddha borrows from Brahmanism are so radically altered in meaning so as to render them unrecognisable to the followers of Brahmanic religion. It is as if the Buddha is using such terms in an ironic or sarcastic manner purely as a teaching device to prove the secular point of his non-theistic system. For instance, not only does the Buddha make use of the well known Brahmanic gods, but he invents a number of gods that the followers of Brahma would not have known. This demonstrates the expedient (and purely psychological) nature of how the Buddha makes use of these formerly religious terms. All the religious imagery used within Buddhist philosophy is rendered null and void in both implication and meaning in the enlightened state. In this state, the Buddha makes it clear that gods, karma, and rebirth do not exist. Therefore it is correct to assert that gods, karma, and rebirth are not the essential purpose or point of the Buddha’s system, anymore than the religious imagery used by Marx, was the point of his. A Marxist critique seeks to expose inverted thinking. Inverted thinking is exactly that state of mind that believes a divine entity, or god, has created the universe and everything within. The highly exploitative bourgeois system is an expression of this inverted thinking, and this is why Marx made the criticism of religious thinking the basis for the criticism of politics and every else that exists. For Marx, nothing escapes the influence of religion, because religion is premised entirely upon the presence of a false consciousness. This is why Marx seeks to turn the mind the right way up (and create a true consciousness) by reversing the inversion and placing world as it is (in reality) at the centre of humanity’s existence. God does not create the human mind (religion), but rather it is the human mind that creates images of god (reality).
It can be proven through the Marxian analysis of the Four Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani) that Buddhism is not a religion, but rather a deconstructive philosophy (akin to Marxism) which assesses the world as it really is, rather than how many imagine it to be. The concept of the Four Noble Truths is expressed in Pali, Sanskrit and Chinese as:
Pali Sanskrit Chinese
Four = Cattari Catvāri 四 (Si)
Noble = Ariya Arya 聖 (Sheng)
Truths = Saccani Satyāni 諦 (Di)
Like Marx, the Buddha abandons the mistaking of imagination for truth and instead advocates the cultivation of logic and reason as a means to over-come human suffering. The Four Noble Truths are considered to be the central teaching of the Buddhist school of thought, but in reality the so-called Four Noble Truths are in reality an expression of a single truth subdivided into four categories of explanation. The four subdivisions that comprise the Noble Truths are:
1) The Noble Truth of Suffering (i.e. dissatisfaction), (Dukkha Ariya Sacca)
2) The Noble Truth of the Arising of Dukkha (Dukkha Samudaya Ariya Sacca)
3) The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering (Dukkha Nirodha Ariya Sacca)
4) The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation Suffering (Dukkha Nirodha Gaminipati Pada Ariya Sacca)
From the Pali title of the ‘Four Noble Truths’, the most important term for analysis is ‘Ariya’, as it is through this originally Vedic term that the Buddha’s revolutionary and new philosophical perspective is firmly presented. Ariya, wihin the Brahmanic system, usually refers to the Vedic gods (which includes Indra who is transformed in the Buddhist sutras to an enthusiastic follower of the Buddha and his teachings), and has been historically associated with the practice of theistic ritual scarcities. HW Schumann explains the Brahmanic origin of this important Buddhist term:
‘In early Vedic times the sacrifice had been understood as a ritual feasting of the gods. The word ‘arya’, with which the Indo-Aryans described themselves, means ‘hospitable’ and is – since the gods are included in their hospitality – also a name for their religion. Invisible to profane eyes, the gods visited the sacrificer, descending on the open-air alter-like sacrificial seat. They were solemnly entertained by him to food and soma drink, and showed their gratitude with counter-sacrifices, such as causing the sun to rise every day, sending rain and assuring victory and wellbeing, and granting the sacrificer success, progeny, plentiful cattle and long life and strength. The counter-sacrifice of the gods could be depended on, providing no mistake had been made in the invocation and entertainment of the “radiant ones”’ [2]
The implication of this term is that it implies the bringing of civilisation to the world through the agency of superior wisdom and knowledge. Those who possess such knowledge are considered ‘ariya’, or ‘noble’. Within ancient India such a term was used to justify the Brahmanic caste system, and to denote those who occupied its upper echelons, or higher castes. The Buddha was, of course, from the privileged Kshatryia, or the second highest caste of warriors and kings, and because of this he was well educated in the philosophy (and practices) of the Brahmanic system. In this context ‘ariya’ represents the power of the dominant castes (or classes) over the rest of the Indian people. When ‘ariya’ is used by the Buddha, however, it is in a totally different manner to its conventional usage, and implicitly and explicitly eulogises self-attained wisdom (a noble attainment), whilst simultaneously denying the validity of the Brahmanic system (the product of conditioned ignorance). The Buddha is considered ‘noble’ (ariya) because he is believed to have seen through delusion and gained a clear understanding of reality. This interpretation is confirmed through the study of the Chinese Buddhist texts, which translate the Pali term ‘ariya’ with the Chinese ideogram ‘聖’ (Sheng4) - a character used to refer to a ‘Sage’, or a perfected human being who possesses characteristics far beyond those usually associated with ordinary beings. Although the Buddha is nothing more than an ordinary human being, he has attained to a level of wisdom (and understanding) that has historically only been associated with god-like entities. When asked to express this understanding in words, he gave the teaching of the Four Noble Truths which may be viewed as a secular expression of the highest intellect free of the hindrance of religiosity. Even the term ‘ariya’ (that once referred to the gods acting on earth through their divine power) is now used only to refer to a human being exercising his intellectual capacity to its fullest extent. This is how the teachings associated with the Four Noble Truths should be approached. Their content is not divine revelation but a presentation of a psychological theory designed to free the human mind from its own limitation, or lack of knowledge about its own inherent functioning. The Four Noble Truths represent a radical departure from Brahmanistic thinking, and are symbolic of a permanent rupture between feudalistic superstitious beliefs, and the permanent regaining of the rational human mind by the Buddha. It is representative of a new psychology for humanity that is designed to re-align perception (in the mind) with regards to its own functioning, and the outer world which is perceived through the senses. True and correct perception is regained through non-attachment, or non-identification with thought. Once thought constructs are not grasped (and mistaken for reality), the human mind is then free to correctly perceive its own inner workings and the world it inhabits free of the taint of historical conditioning. For both Buddha and Marx this state of perception denotes an immediacy of awareness that the Tibetan Buddhist monk – the Venerable Lobsang Gyatso – explains as valid knowledge in the following manner:
‘Direct perception differs from inferential cognition in that inferential cognition requires a generic image (such as that provided by a map), whereas direct, valid perception does not.’ [3]
The validity of the philosophical content of the Four Noble Truths rests upon the fact that it can be tested by each and every individual to see if its premise holds up under different conditions. Indeed, the fact that the Four Noble Truths are considered universally valid is accepted as another reason for the use of the term ‘ariya’, as this central Buddhist teaching is thought to be all-embracing and easily approachable. It is also the first recorded teaching that the Buddha gave at Isipatana (modern day Sarneth), near Benares (also known as Varanasi), in the state of Uttar Pradesh, north-central India. It is here, around two months after his enlightenment, that the Buddha taught the ‘Setting in Motion the Turning of the Dhamma Wheel Sutta’ (Dhamma Cakka Ppavattana Sutta). This sutta sets forth the Buddha’s basic teachings on the Four Noble Truths, (as well as the concepts of the middle way, impermanence, no-self, and dependent origination), to his former spiritual companions, the five ascetics, who became his first disciples. It is in this sutta that the Buddha asserts that rebirth has been brought to an end through the pristine nature of his psychological transformation (i.e. realisation of enlightenment). The only evidence for all of this detail lies solely within the Buddhist teachings themselves. Other than the Suttas (and other texts derived from the Buddhist tradition), there is no objective evidence to verify or disprove the story as recorded by the Buddhist tradition, and it is believed that for at least four to five hundred years after the Buddha, his teachings were remembered by monks and passed on down through the generations word of mouth. The teachings were eventually codified into a written form, and it is during this process of categorisation and logical organisation that the above text ‘Setting in Motion the Turning of the Dhamma Wheel Sutta’ was placed first in the order of the Buddhist canon. The point is that the early compilers of the Buddhist canon (possibly possessing information now lost) were of the opinion that this text was considered the first official teaching of the Buddha, and ensured that it took its place at the head of over 5000 other suttas that contain and convey the extrapolated Buddhist vision of existence and its transformation. It is interesting to note that all the Buddhist suttas convey and explain various aspects of the Buddhist teachings, they were not all delivered by the Buddha, although he is considered responsible for the vast majority. Some suttas are taught by devas and brahmas (that is various theistic entities, another example of the Buddhist undermining of Brahmanic theology), as well as by his disciples such as Sariputra and Dhammadinna, etc. [4]
Before embarking upon an indepth analysis of the four strands of the Noble Truth, it is important to establish, as far as possible, the historical and philosophical relationship between early Buddhism and Brahmanism. The Buddha, was of course, born a follower of Brahma and prior to his enlightenment would have been correctly referred to as an adherent of the Brahmanic religion. In fact, evidence suggests that early Buddhism was perceived as a radical branch of Brahmanism, rather than as an antagonistic off-shoot. This accommodating situation is recorded in the Pali canon where time and again the Buddha is seen to discuss reality with various Brahmin priests, and although profoundly disagreeing with their perspective, nevertheless, there is no open hostility. It is only much later in Indian history, where Buddhism is perceived as a threat to the dominance of Brahmanism, that open hostility began to develop between the two schools. However, certainly up to the reign of emperor Ashoka (274-232BCE), Buddhism is viewed as being firmly within the Brahmanic field of philosophical development.[5] Winston L King defines the similarities and differences between Brahmanism and Buddhism, and demonstrates that the latter is clearly a development from the former:
‘Gotama Buddha is portrayed as being at odds with the developing Brahmanical tradition, both in its Vedic-ritual and Upanishadic-modified form. For example, he demotes the Brahmanical gods to attendant godlings, is antagonistic to all ritual, especially sacrificial ritual, and he undercuts the Brahmin’s caste pretensions.
Though Upanishadic Brahmanism and early Buddhism differed radically at important points in their basic philosophy and religious positions, structurally and functionally there were also important likenesses. Buddhism, as a “heretical” product of Brahmanical culture, is to be expected to inherit from its “orthodox” parent as well as its “unorthodox” one, Gotama.
First is the central conviction that the universe of space-time experience is not ultimately real or fundamentality satisfactory. Therefore it must be radically transcended in order to achieve salvation. The second and corollary area of agreement is that a special methodology, meditation, is the best, and for Buddhism the only, means of achieving true salvational transcendence.’ [6]
It is out of this cultural milieu that the Four Noble Truths developed and although as a central Buddhist teaching they are only presented in the Setting in Motion the Turning of the Dhamma Wheel Sutta in a relatively brief (but fundamental manner), the Four Noble Truths recur continuously throughout the length and breadth of the Buddhist suttas, and as a consequence a vast body of developed knowledge has been established around this theory. As the Buddha continuously returned to the Four Noble Truths throughout the 45 years of his teaching career, it is clear that his entire philosophical departure from Brahmanic thinking is encompassed within their structure. The Four Noble Truths represent the Buddha’s establishment of rationality over that of religiously derived imagination, and signifies an important departure from the superstitious mindset that had hitherto dominated the world. This fact explains why Karl Marx refers to Buddhists as being ‘Brahmanical rationalists’,[7] and why Engels described Buddhist logic in the following positive manner:
‘Only dialectical thought is effective and correct. In this regard, only Eastern Buddhists and Greeks occupy a highly developed, and advanced stage of dialectical thought.’ [8]
The Buddha expresses the concept of dukkha in three distinct ways, none of which rely upon religious imagery, or groundless faith for validity. To understand the Four Noble Truths is in reality nothing more than understanding exactly what the Buddha means when he uses the term ‘dukkha’, and how he applies this term to his philosophy of humanity. This is why it can be clearly discerned that the Buddha uses three categories of reference when discussing and contextualising the concept of dukkha, which are;
a) Psychological – pertaining to the conscious mind.
b) Physical – pertaining to the living body.
c) Philosophical – pertaining to insight of the non-substantiality of existence.[9]
These categories are not separate and distinct, but rather represent different aspects of the same condition – namely dukkha. Although arranged in a logical order designed to bring clarity of thought, these categories are at source integrated, interconnected, and interlocked. The Buddha states over and over again in the suttas that his path involves nothing more than understanding that life is ‘dukkha’, and that once this is understood through a (permanent psychological) transformative experience, the suffering of life ceases:
‘He who sees suffering, sees also the arising of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the path leading to the cessation of Suffering.’ [10]
Elsewhere in the suttas the Buddha is referred to as the ‘peerless physician’ (bhisakko), and as the ‘supreme surgeon’ (sallakatto anuttara), implying that his teaching – the Dharma – is a medicine for the illness of humanity, and like a medicine, is not to be used after the illness (dukkha) has been cured. If there is no ailment, treatment is not required. This is a very different position to that maintained by theistic religions that routinely state that their teachings of theology must be applied to all circumstances, everywhere, and for all time, regardless of the historical conditions of those circumstances and situations. Built into the Buddha’s teaching is its own redundancy. The Dhammapada states:
‘I have conquered all, I know all, and my life is pure; I have left all, and I am free from craving. I myself found the way. Whom shall I call teacher. Whom shall I teach?’ [11]
The Buddha’s answer is not in religion, but expresses the acquisition of a higher logic free of the lower instinctive responses imported into the human mind and body at an earlier time in its evolution. These instinctive responses once served the purpose of species survival, but have now been superseded by the development of the human brain and the higher intellectual faculties. However, each human being appears to be born with an equal amount of instincts juxtaposed with intellection. Human society, culture and psychology are riddled with this dichotomy that signifies a continuous battle between basic instincts, and rational thought. Usually at best a balance is achieved premised upon compromise, suppression, and oppression, etc. This process of conditioning begins with a young child growing up in a particular cultural environment. This environment, which is itself nothing other than the product of historical conditioning, trains the child’s instincts and intellection to function in a manner suitable to the cultural norms of the society he/she happens to be born within. The Buddha, (like Karl Marx) however, would not settle for this most basic of conditioning, and instead sought to psychologically (and physically) break free of its influence through a concerted effort of will. The result is the Four Noble Truths.
This article continues with: Marxist Critique of the Four Noble Truths - Part 1
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2014.
[1] Rahula, Sri Walpola, Ven, Dr, What the Buddha Taught, Gordon Fraser, (1978), Page 38, Footnote 1.
[2] Schumann, HW, The Historical Buddha, - The Times, Life and Teachings of the Founder of Buddhism, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, (2004), Page 32.
[3] Gyatso, Lobsang, Venerable, The Four Noble Truths, Snow Lion Publications, (1994), Page 15. The author is quoting from the book entitled ‘Mind in Tibetan Buddhism’ by Lati Rinbochay and Elizabeth Napper, (1980), Page 16.
[4] Skilton, Andrew, A Concise History of Buddhism, Windhorse, (1994), Chapter 9 The Tripitaka: The Mainstream Buddhist Canon - Pages 73-83 for a very interesting study concerning the early oral history of the Buddhist teachings, the number of suttas contained in the Buddhist canon, and examples of other beings teaching in place of the Buddha, etc.
[5] King, Winston, L, Theravada Meditation – The Buddhist Transformation of Yoga, Motilal Banarsidass, (1992), Chapter 1 Yogic Factors in Gotama Buddha’s Enlightenment, Pages 1-17 for an indepth treatment of this subject. King’s research presents very convincing evidence of a philosophical and practical over-lap between the existing Brahmanic-yoga tradition and the developing Buddhist school.
[6] Ibid Pages 1-2.
[7] Husain, Iqbal, Editor, Karl Marx On India – from the New York Daily Tribune (Including Articles by Frederick Engels) and Extracts from Marx-Engels Correspondence 1853-1862, Tulika Books, Page 247 – Sepoy Revolt in India – New York Daily Tribune, September 1, 1857, Printed as a Leading Article.
[8] Quoted from the unfinished 1883 book entitled ‘Dialectics of Nature’ by Frederick Engels. See my English translation of the original Chinese language article by Deng Lai Song (邓来送) entitled ‘My Understanding of Buddhism’ < http://buddhistsocialism.weebly.com/my-understanding-of-buddhism.html>Accessed 30.5.14.
[9] Thera, Piyadassi, The Buddha’s Ancient Path, Munshiram Manoharlal, (2005), Chapter 3, The Central Conception of Buddhism (The four Noble Truths), the First Noble Truth; Dukkha: Suffering, Pages 37-53, for an excellent discussion regarding dukkha as psychological, physiological, and philosophical concept.
[10] Ibid, Page 40 – referenced as S. v. 437.
[11] Mascaro, Juan, The Dhammapada, Penguin, (1988), Chapter 24 Cravings, Verse 353, Page 85.