The four noble truths

I am writing a synthesis paper that is connecting a wide range of texts studied in our class under a thesis we need to prove. The four noble truths of Buddha is something I would love to prove in my paper. They are:
1. All is suffering (There is suffering in the world)
2. Suffering is caused by desire
3. If you get rid of desire, you get rid of suffering
4. The way to eliminate desire is to follow the noble eightfold path (Not really applicable, I'm trying to just prove the first two.)

Buddha said these are common to all humanity, so they must come up in the texts we have studied. Some of them are Hamlet, Grendel, The Things They Carried, and Tartuffe. if you have ideas to support this or you can find texts that have evidence please share!
Thanks!
-WhiteSides

It would be easier to respond if you stated more of an opinion, so that people will have something to argue against, but if your thesis is basically the four noble truths, then I guess I would say that in addition to suffering, desire can also bring happiness and that desire is fundamentally impossible to rid oneself of as a human. Hunger, pain, and anger are things that happen naturally and are basic forms of suffering or desire. Even if one can learn to suspend or ignore these indefinitely, they still probably can't ever get rid of them.

What if the desire is that of compassion? Some have the desire to help others, and if that causes suffering, then I'm confused.

First off....you cannot (or rather should not) "prove" the Noble Truths. The point of Buddhism is not to prove them, for in order to prove something you must acknowledge that there is another side to said something.

If you are, however, just looking to illustrate how the texts connect to the Noble Truths, that is a bit different.

The only text you have mentioned that I am familiar enough with is "Hamlet" - the only other one I have read is Tartuffe, but that was a while ago and I am not terribly familiar with it.

Admittedly, what I am about to propose is a bit of a stretch when it comes to Hamlet scholarship.

Hamlet's life is suffering at the start of the play (see I.ii) His initial suffering is caused by - you can say - his "desire" to remember his father (see conversation between Hamlet and Gertrude in I.ii).
In I.v he acquires a new desire - the desire for revenge. This desire leads to a whole level of suffering (see his soliloquies in II.ii, III.iii and to a lesser extent Iv.iv).

At some point - it is not exactly clear when - Hamlet loses the desire for revenge. He is no longer consumed by it. He is no longer afraid of death. In short - the Hamlet that exists in Act 5 is one that is free of suffering, particularly when compared to the Hamlet in Acts 1-3.

Hope that helps. As I said, it's a bit of a stretch. It will also be difficult to connect this to a text like Tartuffe and (what I know about) Grendel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

What if the desire is that of compassion? Some have the desire to help others, and if that causes suffering, then I'm confused.

---

Compassion should never be a desire, according to Buddhism (and I would argue Judeo-Christianity as well) - it is a way of life. A "desire to help others" suggests that you are doing so for some profit, and are likely to suffer for it. Helping others, or compassion in of itself is just part of who you are (if that is who you are) and is no more a desire than breathing.

1. All is suffering (There is suffering in the world)
Even eating pistachio parfait or great mascarponi tiramisu?
2. Suffering is caused by desire
Even desiring the guillotine?
3. If you get rid of desire, you get rid of suffering
If you don't desire the guillotine you wouldn't get decapitated?
4. The way to eliminate desire is to follow the noble eightfold path (Not really applicable, I'm trying to just prove the first two.)
In that case, let's finish business later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Compassion should never be a desire, according to Buddhism (and I would argue Judeo-Christianity as well) - it is a way of life. A "desire to help others" suggests that you are doing so for some profit, and are likely to suffer for it. Helping others, or compassion in of itself is just part of who you are (if that is who you are) and is no more a desire than breathing.

---

I couldn't disagree more. A desire is merely something that you want. I want others to be comfortable and happy without suffering. I do those things in my power to make that possible (without any profit in mind). I desire something for someone else. You can argue that for Judeo-Christianity, but you'd better be able to back it up. I will do so by an example of a selfless desire by Paul in Romans 10:1, "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." Paul desired for others to be spiritually saved. Also in Galatians there was a desire that the poor be taken care of (2:10), "They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do."

If one defines desire as only being selfish, then the argument becomes of semantics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I couldn't disagree more. A desire is merely something that you want. I want others to be comfortable and happy without suffering. I do those things in my power to make that possible (without any profit in mind). I desire something for someone else. You can argue that for Judeo-Christianity, but you'd better be able to back it up. I will do so by an example of a selfless desire by Paul in Romans 10:1, "Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved." Paul desired for others to be spiritually saved. Also in Galatians there was a desire that the poor be taken care of (2:10), "They desired only that we should remember the poor, the very thing which I also was eager to do."

If one defines desire as only being selfish, then the argument becomes of semantics.

---

Oh, it is absolutely semantics. For example, taking the example you provided: "my heart's desire and prayer to God" - Why is not not "my desire?" why "my heart's desire?" Desire is intrinsically linked to the worldly or bodily...hence the heart's desire....compared to his prayer, where prayer is linked to the spiritual. Desire is (in Buddhism) considered selfish because it is a bodily fulfillment. Wanting others to be well is not a bodily fulfillment - just as praying is not - so it is not a desire (unless you want others to be well so you can fell better about yourself).

Admittedly Buddhism is a more introspective religion than Christianity. The Eightfold Path stresses Wisdom (1-2), Ethical Conduct (3-5), and Mental Development (6-8):

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

But if you follow these you will see that Right intention, speech, action in particular lead towards treating other people right. This is not a "desire" is something that "is".

Also....consider "Right Intention"

Ask yourself - why do you have the desire to comfort or help others? What is the intention. There are those (and I am not accusing you here) but there are those who desire to help others because they see themselves as better off and wish to raise others to their level. While this may be seen as a good deed, is it good intention? As long as there is self-fulfillment, there is desire, and there is suffering becasue you are chained to your bodily state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Oh, it is absolutely semantics. For example, taking the example you provided: "my heart's desire and prayer to God" - Why is not not "my desire?" why "my heart's desire?" Desire is intrinsically linked to the worldly or bodily...hence the heart's desire....compared to his prayer, where prayer is linked to the spiritual. Desire is (in Buddhism) considered selfish because it is a bodily fulfillment. Wanting others to be well is not a bodily fulfillment - just as praying is not - so it is not a desire (unless you want others to be well so you can fell better about yourself).

Admittedly Buddhism is a more introspective religion than Christianity. The Eightfold Path stresses Wisdom (1-2), Ethical Conduct (3-5), and Mental Development (6-8):

1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration

But if you follow these you will see that Right intention, speech, action in particular lead towards treating other people right. This is not a "desire" is something that "is".

---

"My heart's desire" is to say, "what I am feeling"...so it is synonymous with saying "my desire". Nonetheless, Christianity is not Buddhism. So if the argument is semantics, then there really is no purpose for the argument at all. If one is to define desire as only being selfish, then the deck is stacked.

However, it will be hard to prove that ALL desire produces suffering, for many desires are not acted upon. Second, it will be impossible to prove that by getting rid of desire, that ALL suffering will be gotten rid of. While SOME desires do produce SOME suffering. Not ALL desires produces ALL sufferings. There are some sufferings that just happen. The still born child that was conceived without a complete or proper set of chromosomes brings suffering and pain to the mother and father. Or the suffering of the one who smashes his thumb working to put food on the table because his children must eat. Generalizations are often incorrect when they are applied to every circumstance.

Buddhism relies on proof no more than Christianity does. It's religion - proof does not enter into it. As for the stacked deck - I do not think the two are as different as you make it seem. While not an expert on Christianity, I do know that Christianity teaches to focus on the spiritual rather than the worldly. Humbleness and charity are of utmost importance, things that remove you from yourself and connect you to something larger. Once again, the importance of "desire" is that is it bodily or worldly.

And no, you cannot fully remove yourself from desire or suffering, no more than you can follow the rules/laws set out in the Bible or the teachings of Christ to the letter, and still operate in a 21st century society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Darnay

Buddhism relies on proof no more than Christianity does. It's religion - proof does not enter into it. As for the stacked deck - I do not think the two are as different as you make it seem. While not an expert on Christianity, I do know that Christianity teaches to focus on the spiritual rather than the worldly. Humbleness and charity are of utmost importance, things that remove you from yourself and connect you to something larger. Once again, the importance of "desire" is that is it bodily or worldly.

And no, you cannot fully remove yourself from desire or suffering, no more than you can follow the rules/laws set out in the Bible or the teachings of Christ to the letter, and still operate in a 21st century society.

---

You say that "desire" is carnal, but it is not. For Paul directed that we "desire" the more perfect gifts, faith, hope, and love, but especially of love. One can desire spiritual things.

I think the logic behind the four noble truths is unimpeachable. I believe that if you follow the philosophy and practices of the Buddha you can end suffering. The question though is whether one would actually want to end suffering. Passion, ambition, desire itself... are these things we really want to overcome? Attachment may often lead to disappointment, but it can also lead to pleasure and happiness. Asceticism can go far, liberate one from many human obsessions and pains. In doing so it also strips from us much that makes us human. Do we really want to become Buddhas? Do we want to forgo the battles, avoiding the victories as well as the defeats? Shall we quell the storms and stifle the fires which rage inside our hearts? Will our tragectory be straight and even or will it be wild with violent and exhilarating fluctuations, rocketing up, plummeting down? I don't know. For the average lay Buddhist I suppose these considerations do not apply. For most people Buddhism is a way to arrive at some truths and attain some peace of mind. Not everyone takes it as far as sitting under a tree meditating for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

You say that "desire" is carnal, but it is not. For Paul directed that we "desire" the more perfect gifts, faith, hope, and love, but especially of love. One can desire spiritual things.

---

It's just semantics. Clearly it is good to desire virtue, and bad to desire those things which damage the self and others. It's not usually couched in terms of desire. You could replace desiring virtue with wishing for virtue to make the distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I think the logic behind the four noble truths is unimpeachable. I believe that if you follow the philosophy and practices of the Buddha you can end suffering. The question though is whether one would actually want to end suffering. Passion, ambition, desire itself... are these things we really want to overcome? Attachment may often lead to disappointment, but it can also lead to pleasure and happiness. Asceticism can go far, liberate one from many human obsessions and pains. In doing so it also strips from us much that makes us human. Do we really want to become Buddhas? Do we want to forgo the battles, avoiding the victories as well as the defeats? Shall we quell the storms and stifle the fires which rage inside our hearts? Will our tragectory be straight and even or will it be wild with violent and exhilarating fluctuations, rocketing up, plummeting down? I don't know. For the average lay Buddhist I suppose these considerations do not apply. For most people Buddhism is a way to arrive at some truths and attain some peace of mind. Not everyone takes it as far as sitting under a tree meditating for years.

---

Your response here seems to be from a purely human viewpoint. The Four Noble Truths and the end of suffering have to be taken, and are taught, in the context of countless lives from reincarnation and the effects of karma.

You assume that the choice is between following a human course of passion, ambition and the vagaries of human fortune and of a life of self denial and asceticism. This can only be true for your present life. There is no guarantee that you will be reborn as a human. The Buddha said that the chance of attaining a human life is very rare, and there is no telling how your Karma will combine to determine your next life. It could be that you are reborn as a human, as an animal, as a hungry ghost or in hell.

The nature of samsara is that it is the very pursuit of passion, attachment and what we think of as pleasure in pursuit of happiness that ensures that it is unrealiseable. The message of the Four Noble Truths is that even earthly pleasure leads to suffering. It is a radical thought, and difficult to accept. What our pleasures do is to develop our attachent to them. We then want or expect more and suffer when we cannot attain or have them.

Even as a human you are lucky to have a life where you can even consider these things. So many humans, millions of them, are born where there is famine, natural disaters, intolerance or war. Also being reborn as a human, you have no control of who your family or peers will be. It is a very insecure position.

Finally, any one of us could die before our next meal. Whatever ambitions we might harbour, we have no idea when we will be struck down by death or illness.

I try to be cheerful though. :biggrin5:

Paulclem, I believe in the veracity of the four noble truths and in the efficacy of the eightfold path, but I don't accept the doctrines of karma and reincarnation. The Buddha said to think things through yourself, question them, take nothing on anyone else's authority. The four noble truths and the eightfold path beautifully withstand such a test. Karma and recincarnation do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Paulclem, I believe in the veracity of the four noble truths and in the efficacy of the eightfold path, but I don't accept the doctrines of karma and reincarnation. The Buddha said to think things through yourself, question them, take nothing on anyone else's authority. The four noble truths and the eightfold path beautifully withstand such a test. Karma and recincarnation do not.

---

I recently met an English Geshe who said that he had previously, whilst still a monk, not believed in reincarnation, and so I understand your position. Quite right too to question.

I merely point out that your position on the Four Noble Truths is missing what is the usually accepted context. With the prospect of only one life, I'd probably agree with you and try to make the very best of this life within the confines of what is achievable. When you add the idea of Karma, Reincarnation and countless lives into the equation, the potential of this life, as opposed to the prospect of countless future lives and the potential for unimaginable suffering, makes the prospect of ending suffering the logical choice.

Another well known western monk - I forget his name - recently wrote a book in which he explained hw he came to appreciate the reality of reincarnation. He worked for the office of HH The Dalai Lama, and studied for 20 years. We in the west usually consider someone who has devoted themselves at a high level to the pursuit and study of something as expert. What he realised was that in comparing himself to the other Lamas, he was way way behind them in their development of things like wisdom and compassion. He concluded that they must have begun a long time - lives long time - before he had. Anyway, that's his proof. I like the story though.