The First Noble Truth

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[wiscidea]

According to Gil Fronsdal (www.insightmeditationcenter.org/imc-iah.html):

"The First Noble Truth simply says that suffering occurs."

As Gil Fronsdal points out, it does not say life is suffering. Life includes suffering. Some of it is an inevitable consequence of being a living organism. But some of it is the result of how we react to the world around us.

When I first started learning about Buddhism, I found the typical Western interpretation of the First Noble Truth—life is suffering—very negative. There is much beauty and pleasure in life. It is not always bad. How could a religion or a philosophy declare all of the natural world simply suffering on top of suffering?! I felt pity toward such people.

Gil Fronsdal's interpretation, as far as I'm concerned, makes much more sense. And he is not the only modern scholar to point out the more accurate translation of the Pali texts.

So...

Buddhists:

How do you interpret The First Noble Truth?

Non-Buddhist:

How does your view correlate with Gil Fronsdal's interpretation? And where did you acquire this view?

Everyone:

Does The First Noble Truth make sense? Agree or disagree?

(I'm hoping this will be the first thread of several (twelve) dedicated to a systematic, though somewhat abbreviated, exploration of The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. Others are welcome to start the threads.)

[Flitzerbiest]

The West's love affair with Truth^© does not end at the borders of Buddhism.  The Buddha simply observed that suffering is a fact of life, but subsequent generations, particularly in the West, have been unable to resist the temptation to turn his observations into statements of doctrine, i.e. something which must be believed, in this case "Life is suffering". 

I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, but I respect the Buddha's advice that we should put in practice those teachings which are effective.  I think that the observation that suffering is a fact of life is indisputable, but don't think that the statement "life is suffering" is either true or helpful.

I hope you carry through with the 12 installments.  It would be a great service to the forum.  I would be happy to help if it is too much of a burden.

[wiscidea]

I hope you carry through with the 12 installments.  It would be a great service to the forum.  I would be happy to help if it is too much of a burden.

First, nice use of the copyright symbol!!!

Second, I'm actually moving material from "the other place", so this won't be a burden. However, I really don't want this to become a personal blog. So feel free to zero in on whichever of the "12 installments" you are most interested in. I'm certainly not an expert. I just find it very interesting and inspiring. Actually, I think you might have already started a thread for The Second Noble Truth; perhaps you'd like to change the name to clarify this?

Namaste, dude.

[kwd111]

According to Gil Fronsdal (www.insightmeditationcenter.org/imc-iah.html):

"The First Noble Truth simply says that suffering occurs."

As Gil Fronsdal points out, it does not say life is suffering. Life includes suffering. Some of it is an inevitable consequence of being a living organism. But some of it is the result of how we react to the world around us.

When I first started learning about Buddhism, I found the typical Western interpretation of the First Noble Truth—life is suffering—very negative. There is much beauty and pleasure in life. It is not always bad. How could a religion or a philosophy declare all of the natural world simply suffering on top of suffering?! I felt pity toward such people.

Forgive my lack of knowledge in this area, but actualy it is the first time I have ever heard that "life is suffering.

I will agree that there is suffering and certainly the two expressions of that suffering being the realities of living organisms or as a result of not only how we react to the world around us but also how we act in the world.

If I were to view it in the Christian perspective, it is simply the fruit of a deeper problem that being a separation or an impedence with the Creator.  This being, of course, a Christian viewpoint.  There are probably other Christian viewpoints.

The "suffering on top of suffering" was a declaration without much explanation or support so I can't really comment on that.

[Metis]

The West's love affair with Truth^© does not end at the borders of Buddhism.  The Buddha simply observed that suffering is a fact of life, but subsequent generations, particularly in the West, have been unable to resist the temptation to turn his observations into statements of doctrine, i.e. something which must be believed, in this case "Life is suffering". 

Very well said, and this is also my understanding as well.

[Kartari]

According to Gil Fronsdal (www.insightmeditationcenter.org/imc-iah.html):

"The First Noble Truth simply says that suffering occurs."

As Gil Fronsdal points out, it does not say life is suffering. Life includes suffering. Some of it is an inevitable consequence of being a living organism. But some of it is the result of how we react to the world around us.

When I first started learning about Buddhism, I found the typical Western interpretation of the First Noble Truth—life is suffering—very negative. There is much beauty and pleasure in life. It is not always bad. How could a religion or a philosophy declare all of the natural world simply suffering on top of suffering?! I felt pity toward such people.

Gil Fronsdal's interpretation, as far as I'm concerned, makes much more sense. And he is not the only modern scholar to point out the more accurate translation of the Pali texts.

So...

Buddhists:

How do you interpret The First Noble Truth?

Non-Buddhist:

How does your view correlate with Gil Fronsdal's interpretation? And where did you acquire this view?

Everyone:

Does The First Noble Truth make sense? Agree or disagree?

(I'm hoping this will be the first thread of several (twelve) dedicated to a systematic, though somewhat abbreviated, exploration of The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. Others are welcome to start the threads.)

I agree with you and Gil.  The focus on suffering was to lay the logical framework for suffering's causes and the path to suffering's elimination, so that true peace can be experienced instead.

[kwd111]

According to Gil Fronsdal (www.insightmeditationcenter.org/imc-iah.html):

"The First Noble Truth simply says that suffering occurs."

As Gil Fronsdal points out, it does not say life is suffering. Life includes suffering. Some of it is an inevitable consequence of being a living organism. But some of it is the result of how we react to the world around us.

When I first started learning about Buddhism, I found the typical Western interpretation of the First Noble Truth—life is suffering—very negative. There is much beauty and pleasure in life. It is not always bad. How could a religion or a philosophy declare all of the natural world simply suffering on top of suffering?! I felt pity toward such people.

Gil Fronsdal's interpretation, as far as I'm concerned, makes much more sense. And he is not the only modern scholar to point out the more accurate translation of the Pali texts.

So...

Buddhists:

How do you interpret The First Noble Truth?

Non-Buddhist:

How does your view correlate with Gil Fronsdal's interpretation? And where did you acquire this view?

Everyone:

Does The First Noble Truth make sense? Agree or disagree?

(I'm hoping this will be the first thread of several (twelve) dedicated to a systematic, though somewhat abbreviated, exploration of The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. Others are welcome to start the threads.)

I agree with you and Gil.  The focus on suffering was to lay the logical framework for suffering's causes and the path to suffering's elimination, so that true peace can be experienced instead.

I agree...  as Christians we believe that jesus is that path to suffering's elimination.

Rev 21:4-7
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying , neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.  KJV

[SteveC]

According to Gil Fronsdal (www.insightmeditationcenter.org/imc-iah.html):

"The First Noble Truth simply says that suffering occurs."

As Gil Fronsdal points out, it does not say life is suffering. Life includes suffering. Some of it is an inevitable consequence of being a living organism. But some of it is the result of how we react to the world around us.

When I first started learning about Buddhism, I found the typical Western interpretation of the First Noble Truth—life is suffering—very negative. There is much beauty and pleasure in life. It is not always bad. How could a religion or a philosophy declare all of the natural world simply suffering on top of suffering?! I felt pity toward such people.

Gil Fronsdal's interpretation, as far as I'm concerned, makes much more sense. And he is not the only modern scholar to point out the more accurate translation of the Pali texts.

So...

Buddhists:

How do you interpret The First Noble Truth?

Non-Buddhist:

How does your view correlate with Gil Fronsdal's interpretation? And where did you acquire this view?

Everyone:

Does The First Noble Truth make sense? Agree or disagree?

(I'm hoping this will be the first thread of several (twelve) dedicated to a systematic, though somewhat abbreviated, exploration of The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. Others are welcome to start the threads.)

I agree with you and Gil.  The focus on suffering was to lay the logical framework for suffering's causes and the path to suffering's elimination, so that true peace can be experienced instead.

I agree...  as Christians we believe that jesus is that path to suffering's elimination.

Rev 21:4-7
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying , neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.  KJV

There's also the atheist's perception that death ends all suffering. Unfortunately, I don't have any scripture to back it up.

Although I can not pretend that I understand what it feels like to suffer all the time, like some do, I do agree with forum members, that life offers many pleasures and provides many noble endeavors. I have no reason to complain.

[kwd111]

According to Gil Fronsdal (www.insightmeditationcenter.org/imc-iah.html):

"The First Noble Truth simply says that suffering occurs."

As Gil Fronsdal points out, it does not say life is suffering. Life includes suffering. Some of it is an inevitable consequence of being a living organism. But some of it is the result of how we react to the world around us.

When I first started learning about Buddhism, I found the typical Western interpretation of the First Noble Truth—life is suffering—very negative. There is much beauty and pleasure in life. It is not always bad. How could a religion or a philosophy declare all of the natural world simply suffering on top of suffering?! I felt pity toward such people.

Gil Fronsdal's interpretation, as far as I'm concerned, makes much more sense. And he is not the only modern scholar to point out the more accurate translation of the Pali texts.

So...

Buddhists:

How do you interpret The First Noble Truth?

Non-Buddhist:

How does your view correlate with Gil Fronsdal's interpretation? And where did you acquire this view?

Everyone:

Does The First Noble Truth make sense? Agree or disagree?

(I'm hoping this will be the first thread of several (twelve) dedicated to a systematic, though somewhat abbreviated, exploration of The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path. Others are welcome to start the threads.)

I agree with you and Gil.  The focus on suffering was to lay the logical framework for suffering's causes and the path to suffering's elimination, so that true peace can be experienced instead.

I agree...  as Christians we believe that jesus is that path to suffering's elimination.

Rev 21:4-7
4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying , neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.  KJV

There's also the atheist's perception that death ends all suffering. Unfortunately, I don't have any scripture to back it up.

Although I can not pretend that I understand what it feels like to suffer all the time, like some do, I do agree with forum members, that life offers many pleasures and provides many noble endeavors. I have no reason to complain.

I agree also

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 21
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC