Duhkha Hypothesis: Nathan Roets's Four Noble Truths

The Duhkha Hypothesis
Nathan Roets

In his now famous discourse at Deer Park - traditionally believed to have been his first - the Buddha revealed his Four Noble Truths. These constitute what many consider to be the core ‘dharma’ (the truth about the universe and life as reflected in the Buddha's teachings). The First and Second Noble Truths offer the Buddha's specific diagnosis of ‘duhkha’, while the Third and Fourth give us his prescription for attaining ‘nirvana’ (liberation from ‘duhkha’). I want to spend some time briefly examining this diagnosis, and explore some of the ways we can know it to be true.

The First Noble Truth tells us that ‘duhkha’ pervades all of life; the Second identifies ‘tanha’ as being the ‘samudaya’ - the origin
of ‘duhkha’. But what is ‘duhkha’ - and what is ‘tanha’?
Many translators have identified ‘duhkha’ as “suffering,” and ‘tanha’ as “desire.” However, a more descriptive meaning of ‘duhkha’ is “dissatisfaction,” which appears to be closer to capturing what the Buddha intended to convey.
Similarly, “attachment” may be a more appropriate translation for ‘tanha’.
This diagnosis - that desire/attachment is the cause of an all-pervading suffering/dissatisfaction in life - does not seem immediately relatable to most. Yet herein lies the cause for their being Noble Truths - or, as some have put it, “truths for the [spiritually] noble.” For they are somewhat nuanced: only when we examine the motivations behind our every pursuit and the reasoning behind our every reaction in an honest manner, and pursue such examinations to their true conclusions, we see that dissatisfaction is to be found in every instance, and that attachment underlies every
dissatisfaction.

To understand this, we should consider two further assertions: first, that the nature of all things is impermanence and a state of near-constant change; and second, that we separate our perceptions according to subjective positivity and negativity. As such, we can see that ‘duhkha’ is caused by an attachment to impermanent things, especially those we perceive as positive. In effect, this impermanence results in our continuously striving for more - to repeat or sustain elevated levels of dopamine, our brain’s “pleasure” or “reward” chemical. This phenomenon is often referred to in psychology as “the Hedonic Treadmill.”
By way of example, let us consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. At the most basic level, we have physiological needs that must be met: air, water, food, sleep. Once the needs or desires of the first tier are temporarily satisfied, we require increased shelter and safety. The hierarchy progresses is this way to include love, esteem, and finally self-actualisation or transcendence. We see therein the Hedonic Treadmill of ‘tanha’ in action: as each tier is fulfilled, we look to the next, and must constantly validate each prior step. When we fail to fulfill or replenish any of these desires, we experience ‘duhkha’, both as dissatisfaction and as suffering.

But how do our negative experiences and perceptions fit into this concept of ‘tanha’, both as desire and attachment? After all, we don't pursue such experiences.
Once again, the connection is more nuanced than it may at first appear. Our natural aversion to negatives fits into the Second Noble Truth (that of ‘tanha’ as ‘samudaya’, the cause of ‘duhkha’) in that this aversion is, in large part, due to our attachment to the positive. In effect, it is our dissatisfaction with the impermanent nature of a positive that leads to an aversion to its absence - and even in the perceived threat to a temporary state of positivity (to which we have become attached) in the form of a perceived negative, the absence or diminishing of that positive.

I realise that the way in which I have attempted to intellectualise the matter is somewhat enigmatic, and perhaps obscures my meaning.
For this I ask the reader’s forgiveness. It would be best if I offer another illustrative example - this time, a personal anecdote.
An ex-girlfriend of mine (whom we’ll refer to as “Jane”) ended our relationship very abruptly a few years ago. No explanation was given for her decision at the time, though I later discovered - through a mutual friend - that Jane had fallen pregnant and had an abortion. I understood and respected her reasons for having the abortion: but what devastated me anew was that I couldn't have been there to offer her the emotional support she needed - or receive that which I needed too.
And therein lies my ‘duhkha’: not only in the failure of our relationship, but also in the inability to properly process the influx of feeling and emotion following the abortion. My ‘tanha’ regarding our companionship (a positive) led to an experience of duhkha in the absence (a negative) of that
companionship.

And thus the negative was really an absence of the positive to which I had grown attached. Such an experience - a failed relationship - is highly common. In this way, as well as through the application of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I feel that life teaches all of us that the Buddha's diagnosis was absolutely correct regarding both ‘duhkha’ and its root in ‘tanha’.