"some scholars".. Not ones of Buddhism.
Anicca anatta and dukha are the three marks of existence. These are usually translated, unsatisfactoriness, impermanence and not-self. They are not the causes of suffering, they are intrinsic to reality, to being itself. Denying or ignoring this, is what contributes to suffering.
The Pratītyasamutpāda or cycle of dependent origination, is usually given as having 12 nidanas or steps. Each of these contributes to suffering, forming a vicious circle. But the first step is ignorance, falling away from the true knowledge of things. And enlightenment, awakening, unshakeable liberation, should be understood as above all arrival back at understanding the true nature of things.
A modern 'atheist' interpretation of The Four Noble Truths:
"The Four Noble Truths are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. They suggest
a course of action to be followed rather than a set of dogmas to be
believed. The four truths are prescriptions for behavior rather than
descriptions of reality. The Buddha compares himself to a doctor who
offers a course of therapeutic treatment to heal one’s ills. To embark
on such a therapy is not designed to bring one any closer to ‘the
Truth’ but to enable one’s life to flourish here and now, hopefully
leaving a legacy that will continue to have beneficial repercussions
after one’s death." -Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist
Discussed further here: Which discipline of philosophy is most interested and relevant to studying the nature of change?
This path of these Four Noble Truths, the core of Buddhism, does not mean an end to facing your karma from past action, but ceasing to cause suffering. This is deeply related to the Buddhist challenge to our intuitions about the self, as having some unchanging quality, some unique essence. As well as anatta, this relates to sunyata: dependent origination, or emptiness, or interbeing. The principle that everything results from causes and conditions. Easy to state, hard to practice the truth of.
What is usually called in English 'oneness', is better understood I think as intersubjectivity, following the ancient Indian metaphor 'Indra's Net'. Discussed here: According to the major theories of concepts, where do meanings come from?