因此，本文的主旨是想釐清一個非常細緻且新穎的問題：苦諦 的意涵究竟是「生命的本質是苦的」(the nature of life is suffering)， 抑是「生命是苦的」(life is suffering)?我們提出幾個理由來證成苦諦 的意涵應是「生命的本質是苦的」，而不是「生命是苦的」。一、前者比後者較能解釋《雜阿含經》或其它佛典中所說的，生命除了苦 受外，還有樂受及不苦不樂受之說。二、「生命的本質是苦的」較 能符應強化佛教追求解脫得涅槃的內在動機及終極目標。另外，在這樣詮釋的苦諦意涵之下，我們也可澄清有些西方大眾，因苦諦的 主張，而誤解佛教為一悲觀消極宗教的問題。
The Buddha proffers the First Noble Truth so that we need to cease saṃsāra and obtain nirvana. Most of the Buddhist scholars, however, have focused on literature collation or the interpretation of the First Noble Truth, rather than to examine its meaning and to offer any innovative view. Although Wei-Hsun Fu’s innovative appeal is for Buddhist ethics, it should be applied to other areas of Buddhism as well.
Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to analyze the meaning of the First Noble Truth through identifying two different kinds of proposition: ontological—“the nature of life is suffering” and phenomenological—“life is suffering.” We argue that the meaning of the First Noble Truth should be the former. For, first, the ontological proposition can explain that there is pleasure or happiness in life said by Saṃyuktāgama or other Buddhist literature. Second, it meets and reinforces the Buddhist motive to obtain nirvana. Besides, the ontological proposition can also resolve a misunderstanding of some western scholars that Buddhism is a pessimistically passive religion
Besides, we need to employ the method of analytic philosophy to see the fine difference between those two propositions and to bring in the discussion of the Second Noble Truth to better comprehend the First Noble Truth. By doing so, we would have a better understanding of those two noble truths. This paper makes a significant contribution to Buddhism since there is no similar analysis for those two noble truths in Buddhist literature。
Finally, we acknowledge that there will be concerns with this essay given its creative and challenge arguments. Therefore, we hope to induce more discussions among Buddhists by publishing this paper.
