moralobjectivity.net: copyright Robert M. Ellis 2008
This book is also available as a paperback or pdf download from Lulu.com
The Third Noble Truth is traditionally stated as the truth of Nirvana, or in Pali Nibbana. That is, that enlightenment is possible as an alternative to the cycle of unenlightened existence, and that we can get beyond greed, hatred, ignorance, and the dukkha that results from them, into a state of endless calm and wisdom.
Once this possibility has been asserted (usually by the historical assertion that the Buddha actually attained this state), the Path, or Fourth Noble Truth, is then traditionally asserted. If there is an alternative to the unenlightened cycle, the Path can then be understood as the way to move from the unenlightened state to the enlightened state. Before we set out on the Path, it is assumed, we need to know where we are going.
Except that, at the same time, it is admitted that we do not know where we are going. Buddhist assertions about the metaphysical status of nirvana are nearly always accompanied by further assertions of how little we know about it, and how difficult it is to understand from the unenlightened perspective. The odd thing is that this acknowledgement of ignorance never extends to questioning whether we need the conception at all, let alone whether Buddhists need to believe in it. Buddhists are usually prepared to accept a vague open-mindedness about nirvana, but in my experience, they are not usually prepared to address the unnecessary assumptions on which Buddhist belief in it is based.
The first of these unnecessary assumptions is the underlying idea that a Path necessarily needs a goal. Of course, if we set out on a journey, having some idea where we are going is often a good practical motivator. However, if the journey is understood as an especially long and mysterious one, there is no requirement at all for an ultimate destination to even be named, let alone known in any detail. When I reach a fork in the road, I will probably need a reason for choosing one route rather than another in the form of an intermediate goal. However, having an ultimate goal (especially when it is not always clear what the best route is to that ultimate goal) is more likely to confuse me than otherwise.
To switch the metaphor, it is also not always good to plan too far ahead. A teenager making precise plans for her retirement would not only be an oddity: she would also be wasting her energy, for many of the assumed conditions on which the planning would have to be based would be too much subject to change during the intervening time. A Buddhist who says that they are aiming for nirvana (whether in this lifetime or a later one) and claims to find this a meaningful and genuinely encouraging goal, does not in fact (on their own admission) know what they are talking about, and is almost inevitably applying the label “nirvana” to some lesser intermediate goal. When Buddhists claim to recognise that they do not know what nirvana is, but also still use the concept to represent a goal, they not only do not know what they are talking about, but they are contradicting themselves.
As with the other Noble Truths, however, there is nevertheless an insight behind the contradictions. What nirvana does genuinely seem to represent for many Buddhists is the mere possibility of progress. We would not be motivated to move outside our current comfort zone, or to make any effort in spiritual practice, if we did not believe that progress was possible. What “nirvana” can mean, for many Buddhists, is the realisation “Yes, I can move beyond this self-destructive cycle of unreflective craving or hatred. Yes, I can break this addiction or this bad habit, however deeply entrenched it seems to be. Yes, I can be different from what I am now.” Clearly such realisations can be of tremendous positive importance for all of us.
A further unnecessary assumption commonly made in Buddhism, then, is that the possibility of progress is based on nirvana. That nirvana must have existed as a state achieved by the Buddha, and perhaps by other Buddhist teachers, and that believing in the past achievement of this state somehow makes progress in our current situation more possible.
On the contrary, the reality or non-reality of this historical event is of no relevance at all to the possibility of us making progress. Someone known to us who makes progress in a way we can understand and relate to may have a strong effect, but it is this assurance of progress in particular cases in our experience that encourages us, not the assurance of progress in general drawn from the abstraction of an unattainable goal apparently gained thousands of years ago. Again, perhaps Buddhists often use the enlightenment of the Buddha to stand for or symbolise more specific goals that relate to their experience, but in that case, it is the specific achievable goals that make the Buddha’s enlightenment meaningful, not the other way round.
Worse, the assurance of this past event takes place in such abstraction that it frequently becomes the basis of dogmatic beliefs about the authority of the Buddha’s teachings. This is an issue I shall return to in the next chapter. In this case, belief in the Buddha’s enlightenment is not just irrelevant to progress, but it has the negative effect of passing off our own responsibility for our progress onto the authority of a past enlightened master, and leading us to take his words far too seriously.
So, the insight that lies behind the Third Noble Truth seems to be that of the possibility of moral and spiritual progress, a possibility which must first be experienced. That experience might then be symbolised by the enlightenment of the Buddha (as it might by many other things), but it is a major error to think that there is any necessary link or requirement between spiritual progress and belief that the Buddha was enlightened.
A third unnecessary assumption made in traditional Buddhism seems to be that the Third Noble Truth logically precedes the Fourth one, i.e. that the Path must be defined (and indeed can only be understood at all) in terms of its ultimate goal. On the contrary, the Third Noble Truth can only be understood in terms of the Fourth: we only begin to recognise where we are going when we set out on the journey.
We cannot possibly claim to know any truths of the universe without first having a method for getting near to discovering them. The Fourth Noble Truth, in the shape of the
Again, the defect in the traditional Buddhist approach here is that it is metaphysical. It starts off by claiming to know truths about the universe and then derives further “truths” from this. Instead, I am recommending an epistemological approach, i.e. one that starts with the question of how we justify our beliefs.
continue to part e: The Four Noble Principles