FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS – part 2, Samudaya

Samudaya/Jū 集 –  “arising”

‘Sam’ means ‘together/completely’. ‘Ud-i’ means ‘to arise/go’. Therefore, ‘samudaya’ can be understood to mean ‘originating’, ‘source’ – and in later Madhyamaka schools it is understood as ‘co-arising’. Therefore, samudaya refers to the source or cause of duḥkha.

If we refer back to the same sūtra as before (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta), we see the Buddha’s own definition of samudaya;

“And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.”

TṚ́ṢṆĀ

And so, we see that ‘craving’ (tṛ́ṣṇā – Sanskrit, taṇhā – Pāli, ‘Ai’ 愛 – Japanese‎) is the root cause of our duḥkha, because we seek out the pleasures of the five aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness). To better understand this, let us take a look at the meaning and definition of tṛ́ṣṇā.

Tṛ́ṣṇā, meaning ‘thirst’ possibly derives from Proto-Indo-European ‘ters’, meaning ‘dry’.

Early scriptures three types of tṛ́ṣṇā;

1. Kama-tṛṣṇā (欲愛) – Craving of sensual pleasures. ‘Kama’ means ‘pleasure’, ‘enjoyment’, ‘desire’, and refers to the pleasures we derive from our six senses (taste, touch, smell, sight, sounds, and mind), however it can also be used in reference to our attraction to and enjoyment of the pleasure derived from various activities. Within the context of Buddhism, ‘kama’ is mostly associated with lust, or sexual desire. The Buddha describes our realm of existence as the ‘Realm of Desire’ – or ‘Kāmadhātu’. Although ‘kama’ is mostly associated with lust, we should not overlook all the other forms of sensual desire we have.
2. Bhava-tṛṣṇā – Craving for becoming/existence. ‘Bhava’ means ‘being’, ‘existing’, ‘becoming’ and in terms of our craving, it is in reference to our desire to ‘be’. At its most basic, it is the desire for life, and to keep living. Although so-called ‘bio-hackers’ are the rage, for a long time humans have tried, and failed, to not only live for a long time, but also remain looking young. But ‘bhava’ can also be in reference to our sense of identity, who we perceive ourselves to be, or our status, or a desire for us to be remembered after our death. On a much more subtle level, it can refer to our character and emotional tendencies. All these are used to create a sense of “self”. The most obvious examples of this are people who over inflate their status, their knowledge, or their skills, to try and boost their sense of self. However, it’s not just about boosting our ego, as it is the same as when we belittle ourselves, or believe we have no worth. These “positive” or “negative” views of ourselves creates an identity that we have forged ourselves, and we will often then behave in accordance to reinforce that identity.
3. Vibhava-tṛṣṇā – Craving for non-existence. ‘Vibhava’ is the opposite of ‘bhava’. In this sense, it refers to the desire to not ‘be’, or annihilation. At its most basic, this is the desire to end our lives. However, on a more subtle note, it can be described as the desire to remove certain aspects, or feelings, from our lives, or the desire to escape. This feeling can also be described as an ‘aversion’.

What a lot of people will notice is our desire for enlightenment can seem to be one or more of these three types of desire. However, the Buddha differentiated between the types of desire that keeps us within samsara, and the types of desire that guides us towards freedom from samsara. In modern discourse, this is what commentators call ‘chanda’.

CHANDA

The term ‘chanda’ has a similar meaning to ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’. Depending on the context, it can mean ‘intention’, ‘interest’, or ‘desire to act’. According to Abhidharma commentaries, whereas ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’ only has negative connotations, ‘chanda’ has both negative and positive connotations, depending on the circumstances, or mental factors. The positive connotation is the desire to act with an intended goal that is over-all positive. For example, the desire to end suffering is a positive one, and therefore not considered ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’, but instead is ‘chanda’. This also goes for other desires, such as the desire to be happy, or for others to be happy and free from suffering. So, we can say that the desire to act charitable, for example, is ‘chanda’, not ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’. However, it is not always so simple, as if we desire to act charitable for our own sake and status, then this is indeed ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’. As we can see, our mental attitude is important here. Similar to ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’, this can also be more subtle, such as the desire to study the dharma, or the desire to give up unwholesome actions and/or thoughts.

One of the most misunderstood aspects of Buddhism is this idea that we must relinquish all forms of desire. As we can see from the above, this is not true at all. What is most important is our intention.

Although ‘tṛ́ṣṇā’ is most synonymous with the cause of ‘duḥkha’, it is not the only cause.

ATTACHMENT

‘Upādāna’ (Shu 取) is the Sanskrit term meaning ‘attachment’, ‘grasping’, ‘taking hold of’, ‘fuel’, and along with tṛ́ṣṇā is considered one of the primary causes of duḥkha. The connotation of this word is something we hold on to and don’t want to let go of, and it is essentially a strong form of tṛ́ṣṇā. People often equate ‘love’ with ‘attachment’, and so mistakenly believe that if they are not attached to something, then they become cold, distant, and unloving. Whilst it’s true that we often become attached to what we love, it is entirely possible to love without attachment.

The Buddha described four types of upādāna (Sanskrit – catvāra upādānāni, Japanese – 四取);

1. Sensual clinging (kāmopādāna, Japanese – 欲取). This is closely related to ‘kama-tṛṣṇā’, but adds the additional element of ‘attachment’. One way of understanding this difference is the mistaken view that we need a particular thing in order to be happy or fulfilled, or by viewing these things as “mine” and is best described as what follows after ‘kama-tṛṣṇā’. To break it down – first we desire an object, and then after gaining the object, we call it “ours/mine”, we identify with it, sustaining our views of who or what we are, and we feel we have a need to keep this object for various reasons. If this object is taken from us, we react with intense emotion.
2. Clinging to views (dṛṣṭyupādāna, Japanese – 見取). The term ‘dṛṣṭi’ means ‘view’, or ‘opinion’. The mistaken assumption with this particular form of clinging is the idea that having no views is liberating. However, this is not entirely true, as the Buddha continuously emphasised the importance of having right view (samyak-dṛṣṭi), and discerning it from wrong view (mithyādṛṣṭi). Right View is one aspect of the Eight-Fold Path, however, it is important that we do not cling or become attached to this – but what does that mean? In this context, similar to clinging to the senses, clinging to views mean we see our views as defining ourselves, creating a sense of “me”, or calling it “ours/mine”. It also refers to the idea that a particular view alone will bring liberation. I have also noted, that those who are attached to their views, even if they are traditionally part of Buddhist “right view” will often ostracise those who do not agree with them. This is a symptom of being attached to views.
3. Clinging to mere rules and vows (śīlavratopādāna, Japanese – 戒禁取). I personally feel this form of attachment is one of the most misunderstood. One of the earliest ways of translating this word ‘śīlavratopādāna’ (sīlabbata-parāmāso in Pāli), was “rites and rituals”, however I believe this to be misleading. Śīla/sīla means ‘morals/ethics’, and vrata/bata (vata becomes bata after the vowel in Pāli) means ‘rite’ or ‘observance’, which at the time of the Buddha, meant ascetic rites, vows, and other “ritual” observances.

“The old form sīlavata still preserves the original good sense, as much as “observing the rules of good conduct,” “being of virtuous behaviour.”

BuddhaSasana: Concise Pāli-English Dictionary.

So, ‘śīlavrata’ refers to the practice of taking vows and observing particular ethical practices – not rituals per se but ritual absolutism that is divorced from wisdom. I personally believe that the translation of sīlabbata as ‘rights and rituals’ and the conflation of this with religious or even Mahāyāna style rituals/mantras, etc, actually shows either an orientalist or sceptical bias of the early translators of Buddhist texts. This has then fed down to modern western converts who tend to prefer the more sceptical/secular idea of Buddhism. The reason we must be cautious of attachment or clinging to these is the same as clinging to views or the senses – because we begin to see these observances as defining us, as “mine/ours”, and we begin to mistakenly believe that if we miss an observance, then there’d be no hope for us to attain enlightenment. Although ‘śīlavrata’ is specifically referring to ethical observances, we can apply it to all forms of practice, and so we must be careful not to become attached to all forms of practice. But this does not mean we should abandon all forms of practice, as we can see in numerous other sources where the Buddha praises various rituals and observances because they bear fruit.

• Clinging to the “self” (ātmavādopādāna – 我語取). The concept of the ‘self’ can be understood in several ways;
  • Externalism – in this view there is a permanent, unchanging, eternal being or aspect of being, that exists throughout time and from life to life. This most closely aligns with the Christian notion of a soul.
  • Viewing the Five Aggregates as self – in this view we tend to see one or more of the aggregates as identifying who we are. We may view the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness) as ‘self’ itself. Or we may see the aggregates as “containing/possessing” the self, like a receptacle. Or we may view the self as materialising as the aggregates. Or we may view the aggregates as generating/creating self. These four are known as the four types of satkāyadṛṣṭi (personal identity), or twenty types of personal identity when applied to each of the five aggregates.
  • Subtle identity – subtle forms of identity are more difficult to ascertain, more difficult to remove and can even remain even into advanced levels of meditation attainment. It is a deep-rooted, non-verbal feeling of identity that persists even when we no longer believe in a permanent self. Because it is so subtle, it is only removed in the much higher stages of meditation and practice, thus our teachings and practices tend to focus on the more crude and obvious aspects of the self.

Note: in Mahāyāna Buddhism, the view of ‘self’ become more nuanced in light of doctrines such as ‘emptiness’, Buddha-nature, and sūtras such as the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra. These will be looked at in detail at a later date.

THREE POISONS

The Three Poisons (Sanskrit – Triviṣa, Japanese – sandoku 三毒, Pāli – akusala-mūla, “unwholesome roots”) are the three root causes of negative states, including but not limited to duḥkha.

1. Raga (Japanese – Ton 贪/Tonyoku 貪欲) means ‘a reddish colour/hue’ but in Buddhism is used to refer to ‘greed’, ‘sensual desire’, ‘lust’, or ‘attachment to sensory objects’. In Abhidharma it is described more specifically as ‘attachment to sensual pleasures’. In the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra, two forms of raga are described, ‘bad desire’ (mithyārāga) and simple ‘desire’. The prefix ‘mithyā’ doesn’t refer to intensity but delusion or false knowledge. Mithyārāga arises from what is called the ‘Four Inversions’ (caturvidha-viparyāsa – 四顛倒);
   1. Desire for what is believed to be lasting (anitye nityasaṃjñā)
   1. Desire for what is believed to give true happiness (duḥkhe sukhasaṃjñā)
   1. Desire for what is believed to be pure (aśucau śucisaṃjñā)
   1. Desire ties to self-identity (anātmani ātmasaṃjñā)

As these are “delusions” or “false knowledge” they do not refer to pursuit of enlightenment. In this case we can understand the above four as the following Four Wrong Views of;

1. The view that what is impermanent is permanent
2. The view that what brings suffering is pleasurable
3. The view that what is tainted is pure
4. The view that what is non-self is self

An alternative term to Raga used most predominantly in the Pāli Nikaya is Lobha, however this has the same meaning as raga, meaning ‘greed’, ‘desire’, ‘lust’, etc. As we can see, it is closely related to tṛ́ṣṇā, but from a slightly different point of view.

• Dveṣa (Jin 嗔/Shini 瞋恚 (hatred/aversion). Although dveṣa is understood to mean hatred or ill-will, within the Mahāyāna traditions, it is also related to aversion, or a desire to avoid something, or to be separated from it. In Abhidharma texts it is described as aversion, ill-will, anger, irritation, annoyance, etc. In the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra there are two forms of dveṣa identified; ‘bad dveṣa’ and simple ‘dveṣa’. Just like raga, these are linked to the Four Wrong Views/Four Inversions. I personally also believe we can include indifference as a way of understanding dveṣa, however, ‘Moha’ is traditionally described as indifference.
• Moha (Chi 痴/Guchi 愚痴 (delusion/ignorance).  Moha can also mean ‘confusion’ or understood as a dullness of the mind and is best understood as the opposite of wisdom, thus, numerous aspects of our lives and mindset can be linked to Moha. Our own ignorance can lead us down the wrong path or to make the wrong decisions, often without us realising it. Just like Raga and Dveṣa, according to the Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra there are two forms of Moha, ‘bad moha’ (mithyāmoha) and simple moha. Again, these are linked to the Four Wrong Views.