The Cause of Suffering

Buddha’s Second Noble Truth deserves a closer look. And, of course, we’ll also consider how the other Truths relate to this. However, as Buddha pointed out, carefully diagnosing the cause of a problem is an essential step to finding the optimal solution. Alas, resolving our ‘life problem’ is not like fixing a flat tire or any other external problem. It is all within us; the solution comes naturally through a deeply self honest diagnosis of the cause. Nevertheless, we usually rush this step and jump to conclusions and solutions. For this innermost ‘life problem’, you could say that ‘right understanding’ is the solution! The other ‘right steps’ on Buddha’s Path follow in due course spontaneously. And what is needed for ‘right understanding’? Only self honesty. Without self honesty, ‘right’ understanding is always beyond reach. First, let’s review the Second Noble Truth:

The Second Noble Truth is the cause of suffering. The cause of suffering is lust. The surrounding world affects sensation and begets a craving thirst that clamors for immediate satisfaction. The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things. The desire to live for the enjoyment of self entangles us in a net of sorrows. Pleasures are the bait and the result is pain.

Desire or Need?

Did you notice the use of the words, lust, thirst and desire? Desire is a villain in religion. Of course, in Buddhism, desire redeems itself where, in the Fourth Noble Truth, the ’sole desire is the performance of duty’. Somehow desire has to be directed. Enter free will, explicit or implied, i.e., we just need to choose the ‘right’ path and we just need to control desire. This parallels the Taoist view where “the sage desires not to desire“. We just need to… you name it! Thus, we sometimes draw a distinction between desire and need as though they were opposites, and yet…? Mmmmm? Let’s consider this carefully.

Need conveys a primal driving force—plants need water. I guess you could even say water ‘needs’ to flow downhill. Why, on the other hand, does it sound silly to say water desires to flow down, or that plants desire water? Presumably because we don’t think of either as having free will and the power to choose.

Moving up the food chain,… how about a dog? Dogs need water. Can they ‘desire’ water as well? Or is it just instinctive need that drives them? Up the food chain further,… we humans need water. We can also desire a tall cool glass of it as well. What is the distinction between need and desire? Why bother asking? Perhaps by pondering desire (the ‘villain’) more deeply we can narrow the gap between our innate ignorance and the ‘right understanding’ we seek. So, on with the question…

Is Responsibility the Distinction Between Need and Desire?

We are not responsible for needing water. That’s the nature of our biology. Here, the desire to drink water meshes with instinct. How about a desire to fill our swimming pools and water our lawns during a drought? Are these wrong and irresponsible choices? If so, then it seems we are responsible for desire that is not driven by biological necessity, i.e., we don’t need pools and lawns.

We are not responsible for needing food either. The desire to eat also meshes with instinct. How about a desire to eat fish? That’s fine if you’re not vegan. But, what if that desire leads to the extinction of a particular species of fish? Are we ethically responsible? How about when a particular fungi’s appetite leads to the extinction of a plant species (e.g. the American Chestnut)? Is the fungus ethically responsible? No? Why? Is it because it was ignorant and didn’t know better? But, human culture holds that ignorance is no excuse. When we do something out of ignorance we are still responsible, we’re born ’sinners’, born with ‘bad karma’, while fungi gets off scot free. What gives? The elephant in the middle of the room here is ‘we’, ‘you’, and ‘I’. It appears that ‘you’ and ‘I’ (’we’) are responsible under certain conditions, while the rest of nature is innocent, i.e., nature is never ‘bad’ or ‘evil’, is it? We see ourselves outside of nature, not only above the fungi who decimated that tree, but above all other species. Curiously, we place ourselves in a special category—unlike the rest of nature, ‘we’ deem our selves conscious and responsible.

Does the Distinction Lie in the Perception of Self?

We don’t view other species as having a self to be responsible. They don’t think or say, “I want to eat”. So, when a cow over-grazes, it’s just doing so through instinct. When we ‘over-graze’ we are making irresponsible choices. The implication is that we ’should’ know better. That we label ourselves homo sapiens—’wise man’—says it all. Adam and Eve ate the apple and bingo, they knew ‘right’ from ‘wrong’—‘good’ from ‘bad’.

We assume that we’re able to ‘know’, while other species are not. More curious is the fact that this ability to know ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ only kicks in when we approach adulthood. Young children, we believe, don’t know ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ well enough to have free will, or is it the other way around? Anyway, we don’t hold them morally responsible for their actions, and the desires which drive them, at least theoretically. It is as though we are playing a game and these are the rather arbitrary rules we’ve set up. Central to playing this game is the essential belief that ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’ are able to be responsible (at some arbitrary age) and freely choose ‘right’ from ‘wrong’.

Where does this sense of ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’ come from? Recall the Second Noble Truth: …The illusion of self originates and manifests itself in a cleaving to things. Naturally, cleaving to a belief that ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘we’ can freely choose ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ only reinforces this illusion of self. If we extinguish the illusion of self, of ‘I’, as suggested in the Third Noble Truth, how will we play this game? We might also ask ourselves whether we want to play it?

Back to Square One

We all agree that the need for water is a biologically-based drive. Thirst will drive us to seek water. Hunger will drive us to seek food, just as it drives a dog, a cow, or fungi. Ah, here is the common denominator between need and desire. It’s thirst: the subjective experience of being driven towards that which we subjectively feel a lack of and a need for. Our confusion and hypocrisy arises only after we begin to objectify the thirst experience. We parse thirst into ethical degrees ranging from natural needs to frivolous (or worst) desires. Isn’t this simply drawing aesthetic lines in the sand? We are inclined to rationalize our subjective thirst as serious need, yet we objectify other people’s thirst as frivolous desires. My ‘need’ trumps your ‘desire’. Voila, hypocrisy is born.

A good example of drawing ethical and aesthetical lines in the sand is love and compassion. That’s a bag of inconsistencies if there ever was one. Where do we draw the ‘compassion’ line? Do we hold human life more precious than rest, or shall we draw the line at mammals as a whole? Everything else ranks ‘lower’. Fish are cute, so let’s draw the line at—ugh—insects. No? Then at bacteria?… virus? Surely not at plants? I know, there is a ‘good’ reason for drawing the line here… or perhaps there? Honestly though, the reasons are just rationalizations to make us feel comfortable with killing something we feel we need. But, but, but,… you say! Like children, we always find a way to justify what we feel we need.

Let’s consider this subject from a strictly subjective point of view. If I’m dying of thirst, I feel I need water. Once I have all the water I feel I need, I’ll ‘thirst’ for the next thing that I feel I need, like imported bottled water. Once satiated, I’ll ‘thirst’ for the next thing that I feel I need, and then… you name it. Really! Name something! Remember, we’re talking about the subjective I feel I need experience here! With each thirst quenched, perceived need tends to up the ante. My standard of living’s bottom line rises naturally, just like a pet cat who becomes a picky eater once food is disconnected from survival. Because my standard of living’s bottom line rises, my thirst for what I feel I need always feels serious to me, even though it may look frivolous to you. I still feel I’m ‘dying of thirst’ in that I really need (name something) to be happy. Ironically, no matter how well off I am, objectively speaking, I always end up back at square one, need-wise. No amount of money or good fortune reverses this process, and in fact, can makes it worse. As Jesus said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God”. Our wealth and power enable us to innovate and meddle with nature’s bottom line… Opps!

The Two Polar Energies—Attraction and Aversion

Life has two biologically polar ‘energy’ resources. One is ‘need energy’ that always pushes life forward. The other is ‘fear energy’ which always pulls life backward. Both work in concert, yang and yin style, to keep living things in relative balance, from birth to death. These primal ‘energies’, are open ended—meaning they don’t burn out. Satisfying their pushing and pulling only ups the ante, or changes the focus. Biology ‘hoodwinks’ life with a compelling illusion; we feel subjectively certain that if we just satisfy ‘this need’ or avoid ‘this fear’ we will be ultimately content. This emotion is what actually ‘chooses’ what we do and don’t do. It goes something like this: we ‘need’ what we like, we ‘fear’ what we dislike, we ‘need’ to eliminate what we dislike and we ‘fear’ losing what we like. The First Noble Truth sums it up like this:

The First Noble Truth is the existence of suffering. Birth is suffering; growth, decay, and death are suffering. Sad it is to be joined with that which we dislike. Sadder still is the separation from that which we love, and painful is the craving for that which cannot be obtained.

Of course, our ‘ego’—the illusion of self—thinks ‘it’ is in control of this situation. Herein lies the source of our unnecessary sufferings and insanities. This ‘hoodwink’ illusion is so convincing that we go round and round endlessly chasing the needs we feel and avoiding the fears we feel to find ‘happiness’. And, herein lies the value of the Fourth Noble Truth.

‘Natural Discipline’—Nature’s Push Back on the Polar Energies.

First, let’s review the Fourth Noble Truth:

The Fourth Noble Truth is the Middle Path that leads to the cessation of suffering. There is salvation for him whose self disappears before truth, whose will is bent on what he ought to do, whose sole desire is the performance of his duty. He who is wise will enter this path and make an end to suffering. The first step on this path is right understanding….

The principle power of this Truth lies in “whose will is bent on what he ought to do, whose sole desire is the performance of his duty”. This turns desire around and points it back in the direction of primal need. How? Duty has a long term quality to it, as opposed to fleeting desires that pop up and lead us off on one pleasure-hunt after another. The constant and old rut quality of duty puts the breaks on desire’s impetuous nature. This slows, stops, or may even reverse the inexorable rise that civilization causes in the ‘bottom line’ of your standard of living. The Fourth Truth helps compensate for the loss of ‘natural discipline’ which uncivilized ‘wild’ circumstances provide all living things to help them maintain balance. This ‘natural discipline’, nature’s pushing back, keeps ‘the energies’ of life in check… except for us. We discovered how to meddle with nature and finagle more than we need.

For example, we evolved an instinctive attraction to sweet and fatty food. ‘Natural discipline’ would limit us in the pursuit of this pleasure. Nature doesn’t hand out french fries and cup cakes. Nature forces us to hunt and gather to satisfy our craving for sweets and fats. A berry here, a termite there. Maybe some fresh carrion left over from a lions feast. ‘Eden’ from a more Taoist perspective would be the time when we were one (connected) with nature’s wild side. We weren’t expelled from Eden… we left to pursue pleasure, comfort, and security!

Simply put, we didn’t evolve biologically to be civilized! ‘Desiring not to desire’ attempts to compensate for the disconnect from nature which civilization causes—actually, to be more precise, which ‘tool use’ causes. Without ‘tool use’ there would be no civilization. As tool use increases, civilization advances, and the gulf between natural need and ‘frivolous’ desire deepens. Need and fear (attraction and aversion) evolved to drive survival in the wild, not in a profoundly innovative tool using environment that our species has cleverly devised.

Tool use has been, and is, the driving force behind civilization. Tools, devised by our mind and made by our ‘opposable thumb hands’ weaken nature’s pushing back on need and fear. Tools enable us to grab more than we need for basic survival, and help us avoid the uncomfortable wild aspects of nature that we fear. This loss of ‘natural discipline’—and the emotional imbalance that ensues—has made us unwittingly neurotic and driven by desire. Religion is our attempt to redress the woe this causes us. The dawn of the age of electricity has upped the ante exponentially, possibly comparable to the agricultural revolution of 10,000 years ago. Wow! Our species is in for quite a ride over the next millennia or so. It is time we climb down from our ’sapiens’ pedestal and see ourselves as we are—a sharp witted ape too clever for its own good. With more humility as a species, we might hesitate long enough to reconsider our priorities. Who knows, we might find a way to return to the inner peace for which we all yearn.

How Do We Climb Down From Our Pedestal?

The first step is seeing the problem, i.e., ‘right understanding’, step #1 on Buddha’s Eight Fold Path. I don’t see that we’ve really gone much beyond this first step as a species. And I don’t know of any preliminary step that can help us take this first step. We have to start the journey somewhere. When we take that step, we can not help but take the next. Take the first step and the next step comes into view. No choice, free will, or even responsibility is required! It all happens naturally. Of course, ‘understanding’ is an ongoing process, like maturing. So, each step taken into understanding leads to the next deeper step in understanding.

What about the Other Steps on Buddha’s Eight Fold Path?

I may sound a little heretical, but these steps are not something to pursue. Trying to ‘do’ them is as silly as trying to be honest or trying to sleep. I am or I’m not… I do or I don’t. The more I try, the further away I get. In short: I lose what I hang on to… I hang on to what I’ve lost. Straightforward words seem paradoxical. Jesus alluded to this dilemma when he said, “Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.”

In trying to do these steps, I only end up being a phony. I am who I am. Pretending to be otherwise, even disciplining myself to be otherwise, is living a lie. As my understanding—’right understanding’ if that adds legitimacy—broadens and deepens, I can not help but feel (intuitively know) the next step I ‘need’ to take. Words fail to convey how simple this is. It is profoundly easy. Our imagination, ideals and expectations complicate it and make it feel difficult.

Regarding the Eight Fold Path as a set of commandments like those Ten in Judeo Christianity only ends in hypocrisy. Instead, think of these Eight as milestones to notice as we pass by them on our life’s journey—not as ’shoulds’ to do. We can relax. It is out of our hands! One caveat… my observations only apply to those ‘old souls’ exhausted by their ’shoulds’, and ready to do less and less until they do nothing at all, and then nothing will be left undone!

Granted, this is far outside the ‘common’ view. I should explain, by way of example, how not pursuing the Eight Fold Path leaves nothing undone. Consider, for instance, the difference between your revulsion at the genocide of ethnic minorities, and your delight (or at least positive emotion) at the genocide of the smallpox virus. As you are able to understand how this simply mirrors your own self interest, true compassion deepens. You are less apt to stomp on that bug that’s bothering you (right action); you’re less apt to rail against that politician you used to revile (right speech); you’re more likely to feel deeper appreciation for that fish or tomato you’re eating (right mindfulness); you’re more apt to seek out and neutralize your own hypocritical self serving biases (right effort and concentration). This, in turn, leads to deeper self realization (right understanding). You see, it all takes care of itself. You could say that your only task is to be tentative enough to peek around your belief’s certainty.

On the other hand, to discipline yourselves to play the role of a vegetarian, for example, in order to be a ‘good’ person easily leads to self righteous purity and hypocrisynot that this is ‘bad’ mind you! It’s what you feel you needto do. The point here is to simply and honestly identify what is going on—to understand,not to “cast a stone at” others or at ourselves. The deeper ‘right understand’ penetrates, the easier it is to “judge not, that we be not judged”, as Jesus put it.

Who Is Choosing, If ‘I’ Is an Illusion?

I would like to end this long winded analysis with a challenge and a personal note. First the challenge: Carefully watch yourself in the moment to observe the origin of your actions and non-actions. Can you see whether your actions are driven by free-will-free-choice, or by need and fear?

There are two obstacles in this otherwise simple challenge. First, how you watch is important. Awareness has a dual nature, which might be described as ‘watching something’ and ‘watching nothing’. The ’something’ happens when life grabs our attention. The ‘nothing’ happens when we give attention to life. This challenge may require a keener awareness of ‘nothing’ in the moment than you are used to giving. The other, somewhat larger obstacle, is your belief in free will. Every time you believe you are choosing via free will, ask yourself what you are feeling you need at that moment. Are you not simply viewing this need feeling as free will? Now, be honest! Poof! Where is the ‘I’ am choosing now?

We tend to interpret our experiences to fit our preconceptions. If you believe ‘you’ are in control, that is what you will need to see. Simply put, we see things the way we need to see them, which makes it awfully difficult to see them any other way. It is a closed system really. Take giving advice to someone, for example—especially unsolicited advice. “You should __(fill in the blank)__”. What you are really saying is this…”All you need to do, is to feel the same need, that I feel I need for you to feel”. This is projection of needs, plain and simple. We can’t see the forest of need for we’re lost in it. As you have probably guessed, this ’should’ syndrom plays out even more so internally. “I should __(fill in the blank)__”.

It is here, in our subjective battleground (who ‘I’ am vs. who ‘I’ desire to be), where the distinction between desire and need manifests itself fully. The mind ’sees’ an ideal, and the emotions feel a corresponding ‘desire’ which is either ’seconded’ or ‘outvoted’ by a dominant primal need. (see balance of needs principle below). Thus, we are often torn between what we think we need (ideals and desire) and what we emotionally need (primal and original). Note: The dynamics are more indistinct and shadowy than I’ve described here, what with the multiple lines of feedback between the mind’s thoughts, the emotion’s feelings, and by means of this.. Nevertheless, I hope you get the drift… and good luck on the challenge!

The King: Our Social Instinct

I suppose our plea, “don’t be an animal” speaks to the power of primal needs over idealistic ones. This absurd ‘plea’ is symptomatic of our struggle to make large scale civilization work. This is simply a projection of our subjective ‘battleground’, i.e., who you are vs. who ‘I’ desire you to be. I suspect that the human social instinct is the driving force behind this projection, and everything else we do —yes, everything— whether one is a hermit, a socialite, or anything in between. In truth, our social instinct begins its drive at ‘home’ within our psyche as a relationship between ‘me’, ‘myself’ and ‘I’, e.g., ‘I’ am ashamed of ‘myself’. The social instinct is so omnipresent that it is difficult to discern just how universal it’s influence is over our lives—free will indeed!

In fact, I assume that the universal belief in free will (explicit or implied) serves an important social, hierarchal purpose. Our notion of ‘choice’ endorses social ranking—a crucial element in tribal politics. Just imagine, if everyone acknowledged that all action simply mirrors the innate animal emotions of need and fear, we’d have no rational justification for judging others as either superior or inferior to ourselves. Believing that people have free will allows us to more easily “behold the mote in our brother’s eye, yet consider not the beam that is in our own eye”, as Jesus put it. Carefully watch your moment-to-moment in order to observe the social instinct at work, in yourself and others; you’ll be surprised. I could go on,… but I’ve said more than enough!

So what about me? First, it is simply social instinct that drives me to write this down. Next, do I need to believe that ‘I’ don’t have free-will, and ‘I’ am not in control? No. I simply need to know what’s what; let the chips fall where they may. I didn’t choose to be this way—I was born this way. Twenty years ago I started to seriously wonder about free-will. I began looking for some solid evidence—any proof would do. I could not—and still can’t—find any. Thus, over the years I gradually lost the ‘blind faith belief’ I had in free will from childhood. Every situation I have examined, I can explain simply by what I call the balance of needs principle. Here, the dominant need I feel now tips the scale, overrides other needs, and decides what I will do now. I see this principle applies not only to our species, but to all life on earth, and in fact, to all existence. Am I right? Can I prove it? Who care! Seeing it this way induces a more compassionate sense of connection with ‘everything’—effortlessly! And that feels better than the alternative—thus my challenge to you to check it out for yourself.

Why is a belief in free will, either explicit or implied, so universal? I assume that we instinctively fear feeling what ensues whenever we sense we’re not in control, i.e., truly powerless and utterly interconnected with ‘everything’… Ahhh! Such universal mutuality rubs against our social tribal instinct as well. We need to feel we are strong, separate and special—as individuals and as members of our elite group, e.g., church, nation, company, race, sport, political party,… you name it. Indeed, this social tribal instinct is the biological cornerstone of the other two: free will and the illusion of self. They are mutually supportive, with each expressing itself in the other two. It is ironic that the two things we hold so dear—our self and its cousin, free will—are the source of our suffering. Which bring us back around to the Third Noble Truth:

The Third Noble Truth is the cessation of suffering. He who extinguishes self will be free from lust. He no longer craves and the flames of desire find no material to feed upon, thus they are extinguished.

What Do I Do Without Free Will?

Nothing really changes. For example, I knew before that a ’stitch in time saved nine’, just as I do now. I did the best I could when I believed I had free will, just as I do now. Knowing that it is easy to deal with a situation before symptoms develop is what drives me to live life carefully. Of course, when I ‘ignore’ that, I stumble and fall. I did that when I believed I had free choice, and I still do now when I don’t. I have no more or less control over my life now than I did then. I do live a wiser life now; I’m simply older (and wiser). It is not our ‘free will’ that chooses what we do, it is need and awareness—knowing—that ‘chooses’. For example, I need to survive. If I know a ’speeding bus’ is headed toward me, I will ‘choose’ to step out of the way as would any creature that likewise needed to survive and realized the danger.

So, is it all the same then? No! No! No! For one thing, I realize that there is danger inherent in all belief i.e., it is impossible to see a ’speeding bus’ behind belief. Here, by losing faith in my belief in free will, I am no longer at war with myself and others. I no longer think I (or you) ’should’ or could be other than I am (or you are). This weakness, that losing my ‘free willed self’ incurs, gives me a more effective way to live. For example, I smoked tobacco during all the years I believed in free will. I invoked my free will a dozen times over those years ‘choosing’ not to smoke—and I would succeed for awhile. After realizing I had no free will, I gave up struggling over it, and just accepted that I would quite if and when I did. A few years later, I needed to not smoke more than I needed to smoke, and have felt no desire to smoke for 15 years. Well, of course, I gained 30 pounds. I lugged that around until about 5 years ago, when I needed to feel lighter than I needed to fill my belly. Now, I’m no longer overweight. It really is just that simple. In the end ‘choice’ simply comes down to a balance of needs, with need winning over ’should’ every time. Why complicate Nature by pretending that will and choice are ‘free’?

There is a bonus though. Surrendering this ‘battle of wills’, helps me feel more at peace with my self. This inner peace diminishes my need to _(you name it)_. Thus, it appears that the needs we feel (like my smoking and overeating) often reflect our inner conflict. The illusion is that if we just satiate our current pressing need, we will be at peace. In truth, contentment comes first. When we are content, our needs subside, or rather those desires that go beyond primal needs subside. I am more at peace now and, ironically, with that peace I’m becoming a little more like who I always wanted to be. But, don’t take my word for it. If you have read this far you are probably reflective enough to verify all this through poking deeply into your own experience.