Some people reject Buddhism as nihilistic, but perhaps they are simply shooting the messenger. It is hard to deny the basic insight of the four noble truths. What you decide to do about it is another question, and perhaps that is what separates the Buddhist from the non-Buddhist. The first two tenets amount to a definition of what it means to be alive and what it means to be sentient. In the first case, we observe that no one is exempt from suffering. Some suffer more and some suffer less, but we all experience it. The exact amount is actually quite hard to measure with great accuracy, but that is due to the subjectivity of experience and I guess that means we're jumping ahead. That's fine. Let's just be clear that no one is denying that suffering is a fundamental part of being alive, whether or not you are human.
The second noble truth is particular to human suffering. Maybe it is more accurate to say that it spans both sentient and non-sentient life, but only conscious creatures endure its full extent. Buddhism attributes the cause of all suffering to attachment to desire. One can argue that it is a bit of an over-statement to say that all suffering stems from such attachment. What about physical pain? What about neurological disorders? There are definitions of attachment that attempt to generalize it to these things as well. Whether or not we accept that, it is safe to say the Buddhism in practice is mostly aimed at what we might classify as spiritual suffering. After all, the religion originated in a pre-scientific era where there wasn't much you could do about these physical phenomena.
For the time being, let's limit ourselves to the definition of attachment and craving that is straightforward. Think of Maslov's hierarchy of needs. This where we reach our first point of contention. Is it really fair to say that all desire is suffering? Certainly some desires, such as those for food or sex, are necessary for humanity to even survive. I suppose that doesn't mean these desire aren't painful. However, anyone can acknowledge that much pleasure can be derived from the desire as well. I'm not even talking about the satisfaction of the desire. There is pleasure in wanting something as well. There is pleasure in anticipation. And when the object of desire finally comes into possession, the pleasure of having it is magnified by the craving that preceded our acquisition.
I think that Buddhism is merely asking us to acknowledge that we may not obtain our object or that we may lose them after getting them. This causes fantastic amounts of suffering for humans. Moreover, it often causes a chain reaction of suffering, where we inflict pain upon others in response to our pain or to our need to satisfy a desire. Not all attachment to desire to suffering, but much suffering comes from such attachment.
I should also emphasize that the second noble truth is not a moral statement really. For those of us who approach it from a moral universe created by Christianity, it is easy to equate attachment to desire to sin. However, sin is what is dishonorable to a god. Attachment is about what causes you pain. As I said, some attachment inspires us to inflict pain upon others, but a lot of it is self directed. If you choose to acknowledge this or not is your business. If you choose to do anything about it our not, that is also your business. Buddhism is offering some suggestion that might help you, but ignoring those doesn't result in eternal punishment at the hands of an angry god. You just go one living as you have.
That brings us to the third noble truth, which is that we bring an end to suffering by relinquishing attachment to the object of our desires. This is where the charges of nihilism really set it. Are you telling me that I have to become an ascetic? I have to give up family and friends and live a life of complete deprivation on a mountain top? Contrary to popular belief, I think that Buddhist text go to some lengths to adopt the path to many walks of life.
As with the second noble truth, your decision to apply the third truth is mostly about what you want to achieve in life. Yes, to avoid all possibility of suffering, we would have to eliminate attachment to friends and family. It is hardly controversial to say that people die or fall out of love and that by choosing to love we set ourselves up for this outcome. However, it can also be true that it is better to have loved and lost and to have never loved at all. It is not necessarily a question of morality or judgement. It is not immoral to be attached to something or moral to forsake all attachment.
Buddism is asking you to look at the world with open eyes. It is asking you to see the cause of your suffering so that you can make decisions with complete information. If you accept attachment knowing that it may cause you suffering, go right ahead. If on the other hand you see that a problem stems from a form of attachment that is no good for you, then find your way out of that attachment will put an end to that suffering.
The way out is the fourth noble truth. This is the only point that I consider really worth debating. When we see the first three truths with clarity, they are self evident. They practically define human experience. Where Buddhism adds its special mark is when it proposes the forth noble truth, the medicine which heals the sickness. This is not merely meditation, which is sometimes believed as the whole of Buddhism. Meditation is an important part, but it is only one of the eight practices that the fourth noble truth advances. Perhaps there are other ways to live, other ways to address suffering and its causes. The statement that the eight way path is the only path is a little presumptuous of the Buddha to say. Nonetheless, it is a practical plan of action and it works for many people.
