There's no one solution?

[donq]

The more I'm getting older, the more I feel that there's no one solution. Though it might be the very final solution, that doesn't mean we will find it. More than that, the varied solutions we already have might still work. That said, sometimes the solution which has worked for us for a long time might not work anymore. That means we still don't find the real solution or the best one?

What I like most about Buddhism is its core that the teachings have nothing to do with making us become supermen. I mean to gain super spiritual achievement. Not at all. But I won't bother you with the details here. Suffice to say that the core teachings of Buddhism are the followings (I make a bit of a change here for smooth reading without any jargon):

1. The Four Noble Truths
-The truth of the problems
-The truth of the cause of the problems
-The truth of the cessation problems

-The truth of the way leading to the cessation of problems

2. The dependent origination
It is often summarized (by the Buddha) as:

“When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this isn’t, that isn’t. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.”

So, it that aspect, Buddhism or not is not important to me, as long as it deals with finding a real solution.

 

Still, it's not always as easy as it looks. As everyone is unique, so is the solution to each person's problem. Besides, the solution to a problem is complex, and it varies from person to person. A solution that may fix one person's problem immediately, but may turn out to be only a minor solution for another. This is because of the way each person reacts to the very same problem depends on his/her biological, psychological and cultural background. More than that, the way we used to deal with the problem in the past also influences the way we deal the same problem today. So does the way we anticipate (expect) the solution in the morrow. 

Then, how we could really find the real/final solution?
Even doctors cannot say. Let me quote from a medical book here:

How to formulate a diagnosis

Diagnosing by recognition:
For students, this is the most irritating method. You spend an hour asking all the wrong questions, and in waltzes a doctor who names the disease before you have even finished taking the pulse. This doctor has simply recognized the illness like he recognizes an old friend (or enemy).

Diagnosing by probability:
Over our clinical lives we build up a personal database of diagnoses and associated pitfalls. We unconsciously run each new ‘case’ through this continuously developing probabilistic algorithm with increasing speed and effortlessness.

Diagnosing by reasoning:
Like Sherlock Holmes, we must exclude each differential, and the diagnosis is what remains. This is dependent on the quality of the differential and presupposes methods for absolutely excluding diseases. All tests are statistical rather than absolute (5% of the population lie outside the ‘normal’ range), which is why this method remains, like Sherlock Holmes, fictional at best.

Diagnosing by watching and waiting:
The dangers and expense of exhaustive tests may be obviated by the skillful use of time.

Diagnosing by selective doubting:
Diagnosis relies on clinical signs and investigative tests. Yet there are no hard signs or perfect tests. When diagnosis is difficult, try doubting the signs, then doubting the tests. But the game of medicine is unplayable if you doubt everything: so doubt selectively.

Diagnosis by iteration and reiteration:
A brief history suggests looking for a few signs, which leads to further questions and a few tests. As the process reiterates, various diagnostic possibilities crop up, leading to further questions and further tests. And so history taking and diagnosing never end.
-from Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine