This noble truth of the origin of suffering should be given up.’ Such was the vision that arose in me … ‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering has been given up.’
Bodhi Translation
‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.
“‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering has been abandoned’: thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light.
Is it Craving that is being referred to and must be given up? The way I read it, it is as if it is the Noble Truth of it that needs to be given up, which doesn’t make much sense to me. It is the phrasing that I find confusing. I have always understood this text to mean that the causes of suffering are to be understood, and given up. But re-reading it has caused more confusion …
Could anyone provide some assistance or point to a teaching. Note, it is not the substance of DO or of craving that I find problematic, but that the Noble Truth part of it, is to be abandoned. ie not the causes that are the origin of suffering, but the Noble truth of the origin of suffering.
Mendicants, I will teach you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft: it’s for crossing over, not for holding on. Listen and pay close attention, I will speak.”
“Yes, sir,” they replied. The Buddha said this:
“Suppose there was a person traveling along the road. They’d see a large deluge, whose near shore was dubious and perilous, while the far shore was a sanctuary free of peril. But there was no ferryboat or bridge for crossing over. They’d think, ‘Why don’t I gather grass, sticks, branches, and leaves and make a raft? Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I can safely reach the far shore.’ And so they’d do exactly that. And when they’d crossed over to the far shore, they’d think, ‘This raft has been very helpful to me. Riding on the raft, and paddling with my hands and feet, I have safely crossed over to the far shore. Why don’t I hoist it on my head or pick it up on my shoulder and go wherever I want?’
What do you think, mendicants? Would that person be doing what should be done with that raft?”
“No, sir.”
“And what, mendicants, should that person do with the raft? When they’d crossed over they should think, ‘This raft has been very helpful to me. … Why don’t I beach it on dry land or set it adrift on the water and go wherever I want?’ That’s what that person should do with the raft.
In the same way, I have taught how the teaching is similar to a raft: it’s for crossing over, not for holding on. By understanding the simile of the raft, you will even give up the teachings, let alone what is against the teachings.
This is what I thought it might be alluding to, but what I understand from the responses from Dana and Bhante Sujato, is that this is not the meaning, that the phrasing is just an artifact of the grammar. Unless I have misunderstood…
Because abandoning craving and the causes of suffering is not something that one leaves behind, it is permanent, unlike the raft in the similie for crossing over. It would be like saying that the far shore is to be abandoned once one has reached it.
It came to mind that to teach the truth one has to share it and let it go. I’ve never been able to teach anything without letting it go. And in the letting go, the giving up, others made it their own.
SN56.11:6.2: ‘This noble truth of the origin of suffering should be given up.’ Such was the vision that arose in me …
What about when understanding or realising the truth, and then abandoning it. I sort of ‘intuit’ your point in a very transcendental way - that there is no permanent ‘truth’ just as in there is no self, but in the context of this sutta, that just doesn’t ring true to me, especially when the other 3 refrains for the other 3 Noble Truths do make sense in the normal way…
Hence my questioning it is puzzling.
Furthermore, if it is a problem of grammar that makes the meaning hazy, what can be done other than undertake the lengthy process of learning Pali to the point of fluency. It doesn’t seem very satisfactory from a translation point of view
It seems like the closest parallel is SA 379, which does given a little more context. It’s the knowledge of the noble truth of suffering that begins the passage, but it still sounds a little strange, like the second truth is literally being abandoned.
“Furthermore, the knowledge of the noble truth of suffering should again be known, which is something that’s never been heard before and must be rightly considered. Then, vision, knowledge, insight (vidya), and awakening arise. Once the noble truth of suffering’s origins is known, it should be abandoned, which is something that’s never been heard before and must be rightly considered. Then, vision, knowledge, insight, and awakening arise.”
Do you think 正思維 and Rightly Considered is compatible ?
Isnt here is referring to Approriate Attention or Wise Attention ? Would rightly considered convey the meaning better ? Just a thought .
Seeking the origin of suffering is part of the goal of the path. It is our goal to end what we find there.
When the path is realized, suffering has ceased with the realization that the root of suffering, which is Nandī, itself has to be given up. And in giving up Nandī, the spiritual path ends. It is given up. Extinguished. The truth of the origin of suffering is no longer useful to oneself and can be given away, given up. To give up something is to not be driven by it.
It seems that it was a translation of yoniśo-manasikāra, but I’m not sure how we can get “wise” out of 正, which basically means “right” or “correct.” I could see 思惟 meaning attention or reflection. The verb basically means to apply thought to something.
Possibly, by calling it noble and to be abandon is a cause for us to reflect on the Buddhist thought in general. If a higher consciousness to be attained, it is not a degradation of a certain type of consciousness which we came to call: reason, conventional reality, reflexive consciousness, ignorance …etc
The above seems evident by how Arahants show much respect to conventional truths, making perfect morality one of the main criteria of knowing one, hence it remains a noble truth to be abandoned.
So, as per the above, @cdpatton confirmed that at least in Chinese parallels, the odd phrasing is also found. I assume the issue may also be found in Sanskrit parallels?
The unanswered question then is what is the right exegesis of this particular passage?
is there another sutta or even a chapter within the Nikayas that allow us to form a view about what the Buddha actually meant by the weird phrasing recorded?
Thanks in advance for your attention and reply bhante @sujato!
I’ll just toss something into the mix, I just listened to a dhamma talk and meditation by Ajahn Brahm, where he just casually mentions the 2nd Noble truth in the context of giving it up. I’ll link it below. The pertinent passage is from minute 9 till minute 12. It is in terms of what is going on when one can’t achieve peace and stillness in the mind for meditation.
What I understand from this is that he is drawing a parallel between the suffering in the mind and the 2nd Noble truth - there is a cause for suffering (ie the defilements causing suffering in the mind). He goes on to describe how he stopped that suffering and was able to achieve peacefulness and samadhi (stillness) by letting go of the reasons for the suffering.
Hi @Viveka I watched the video between minutes 9 and 12 minutes, but he is not talking about the second noble truth it seems.
He was talking about developing mindfulness while keeping a right attitude of kindness kindness.
This is consistent with the second path factor of right thought/attitude, which is itself threefold
And what is right thought?
It is the thought of renunciation, good will, and harmlessness.
This is called right thought. SN45.8
The question about what is the right exegesis of the weird phrasing of the second noble truth as found in SN56.11 remains unanswered.
I did a bit of search on the relevant Pali verb associated with the odd phrasing around the 2nd noble truth and found this interesting passage of the Kathāvatthu:
I did Google a bit for an English translation of the Paṭisambhidāmagga but was not very successful…
As with most of what I found in the Kathāvatthu, I don’t know how to make sense of it! Maybe it is worth checking if bhante @Dhammanando can help us here?
it is puzzling.
Sorry