Question about the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma (recognition)

Yorkshireman

Thich Nhat Hanh says:

"To understand the Four Noble Truths, not just intellectually but experientially, we have to practice the twelve turnings of the wheel. The first turning is called 'Recognition'."

and these instructions are mirrored by all texts relating to the sutra.

I think I've been focusing too much on the abstract and aiming to 'recognize' all suffering in general and aiming to recognize that suffering, or the propensity for suffering, exists in all things (i.e. the three types of suffering and the eight types of suffering). Am I wrong? Should I instead by focusing on recognizing my own specific suffering.

For example should I be focusing on the niggling pain I have, the hurt caused by my brothers attitude to me, the suffering caused by various problems at work, the suffering of my ultimate aging and death, etc.

I'd really appreciate some help with this.

Citta

All those are examples of Dukkha..( suffering is an incomplete translation , its better to internaiise the shades of meaning ). But eventually you see that all sentient life is.
If you sit in one position too long, actually you shift slightly all the time , waking and sleeping , because of Dukkha.
If you eat one bite too many..
.As concentration develops you realise that some part of your body is itching at any given time. Try that now.
If you allow it to become conscious you will see that you are itching somewhere..usually you only become aware of it if it becomes particularly strong..
All that is Dukkha.
As are all the fleeting thoughts and feelings that flicker through your mind.
Even the happier ones..because they are fleeting. They are insubstantial.
The good news is there is a way ..not to reduce Dukkha but to reduce your investment in it...

Yorkshireman

But when it says 'Recognize' what exactly am I recognizing?

Hanh seems to imply I am seeking to recognize MY own suffering. He says:

"We must, first of all, recognize that we are suffering and then determine whether its basis is physical, physiologic, or psychological. Our suffering needs to be identified'.

Previous I've approached this suffering as to how it applies to all sentient beings, but now I'm wondering whether, when meditating on this first turning of the wheel, I need to be concentrating specifically on my own suffering.

Citta

Its good place to start.
Notice how both your mind and body are always looking for the next thing... as you become aware of your body that it always carries some ache, even if only a small one. That you have an itch. That you need to urinate. That you are thirsty. All this is dukkha. Not just major events in consciousness.
With meditation you realise more and more subtle states of dukkha...
More subtle forms of grasping.
All of which could be depressing if there was no alternative. But maybe that's for another day.
In the meantime ..

fivebells

Yorkshireman said:

But when it says 'Recognize' what exactly am I recognizing?

This is for the sake of the 1NT, so it's part of a series which is supposed to lead to release. Suffering you can't release, you might as well put aside for now. Also, as with any skill it's better to start with the low-hanging fruit: learn how to practice discernment and release of suffering which is easy to recognize, and has clear causal factors which are easy to abandon. That will generally mean a focus on internal suffering.

Citta

I wouldn't worry too much about the use of terms like 'recognise '..if it makes more sense just think of it as' becoming aware of...'

fivebells

It's quite valuable to have a precise understanding of the duties corresponding to the 4 noble truths.

Stress, the first category [of the 4NT], should be comprehended. In practice, this means admitting its presence, recognizing it as a problem, and then observing it with patient mindfulness to understand its true nature. One comes to realize that the problem is not with the stress and discomfort of external conditions, but with the stress and discomfort in the mind. One also sees how stress is part of a causal process, and that it is always accompanied by craving, its point of origination.

lobster

I need to be concentrating specifically on my own suffering.

Yes.
By solving your dukkha, you can eventually expand into understanding and helping others. If you don't face your own . . . just another hypocrite.

I want to link this to karma. Many of us, I speak from experience that many will be familiar with, are hoping that meditation or hanging with cyber dharma buddies or cool sanghas or reading the right books etc will overcome dukkha.

A bit true.

However no one gives up drink, smoking, killing or personal torment until they are ready to. We are truly attached to our suffering. Extraordinary. The question we have to ask is what is good for us and others? Suffering/stress sucks. Who noticed? Do you care? How much? Theoretically?

Sila is important.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/

Jeffrey

I notice that every single thing I do is to get a high. That's my realization of Dukkha. Sometimes I am just rolling with the punches but sooner or later I want some consumable or thought or experience. Even my meditation is to get high although meditation naturally rests us in the body so it isn't as bad as when I take a bath or eat a chocolate or drink a beer or smoke a pipe or drink tea etc etc etc

betaboy

Jeffrey said:

I notice that every single thing I do is to get a high. That's my realization of Dukkha. Sometimes I am just rolling with the punches but sooner or later I want some consumable or thought or experience. Even my meditation is to get high although meditation naturally rests us in the body so it isn't as bad as when I take a bath or eat a chocolate or drink a beer or smoke a pipe or drink tea etc etc etc

This is the case with most of us, actually. We all want to be stimulated at all times - else, we'll be bored. Evolution has programmed us this way.

wangchuey

Yorkshireman said:

I think I've been focusing too much on the abstract and aiming to 'recognize' all suffering in general and aiming to recognize that suffering, or the propensity for suffering, exists in all things (i.e. the three types of suffering and the eight types of suffering). Am I wrong? Should I instead by focusing on recognizing my own specific suffering.

For example should I be focusing on the niggling pain I have, the hurt caused by my brothers attitude to me, the suffering caused by various problems at work, the suffering of my ultimate aging and death, etc.

I'd really appreciate some help with this.

Perhaps we are over examining the "recognition" part of it. Could it just simply mean to recognize suffering as we see and experience it? By recognizing all forms of suffering as we experience it, we may remain true to it. Meaning that we keep the awareness of it with us at all times. Rather than not having that awareness, then causing an action that leads to suffering. The better acquainted we are with suffering, the less we will cause an action that leads to it.

By recognizing "all" forms suffering as we see it, we can develop dispassion and disenchantment early on.

lobster

By recognizing all forms of suffering as we experience it, we may remain true to it. Meaning that we keep the awareness of it with us at all times.

And there was me and the part time Buddhists thinking our daily meditation, our half hearted turning away from samsara when it suited us, would suffice . . .
Awareness at all times? Good gracious that is worse than being in Church every week, or praying to Allah five times a day . . .

Yes I would like to overcome suffering but can we spread it over several life times please or can I do it slowly and well be a little happier? Pretty please . . .

Mr Cushion you never warned me about this! Bad Cushion!

I take refuge in the Buddha. [grumble, curse - you and your 'enlightenment']
I take refuge in the Dharma. [grumble, curse - humph!]
I take refuge in the Sangha. [grumble, curse - know it alls!]

. . . and now back to the joys of samsara . . . maybe . . .

wangchuey

The thing is, awareness itself at all times is impossible anyways. Being tuned in to dukkha frequently though will help in generating dispassion and disenchantment.

Citta

wangchuey said:

The thing is, awareness itself at all times is impossible anyways. Being tuned in to dukkha frequently though will help in generating dispassion and disenchantment.

This may be a semantic/linguistic issue, but I don't think we ARE required to develop dispassion or disenchantment.
I think seeing things as they are requires equanimity...upekka/upeksha.
The ' dis ' implies rejection or aversion. It is a negating particle.
Upekkha/upeksha is the stillness at the centre of the cyclone of all that arises.
How to develop upekksha/upekha ?
It develops along with the other Brahma Viharas...Metta, Karuna and Mudita..loving kindness, compassion and symapathetic joy.
If we try to develop equanimity without metta or karuna the result is likely to be indifference.
If we attempt to develop metta without upekkha the result is likely to be sentimental over identification...the Brahma Viharas all work together.

zenff

Yorkshireman said:

But when it says 'Recognize' what exactly am I recognizing?

Hanh seems to imply I am seeking to recognize MY own suffering.

Yes, I suppose he means a personal "awakening".

At some point in a retreat – when I was following the breath - it struck me that breathing was just like the rest of life.

Breathing –when you look at it closely – is an activity of constantly removing discomfort. Breathing in and breathing out is an endless cycle of replacing one cause of stress with another one.

Maybe someone else will recognize the process when he can’t sleep and keeps tossing and turning in bed.

There must be many examples.

Citta

Your example of breathing is a good one. As are all the other biological processes. Ultimately they are both a cause and a result of Dukkha...which itself arises with Anicca...constant change.

Citta

The end result of seeing the nature of Dukkha is to see that it is not 'mine'. That is why there is an alternative to it. Its just that we are conditioned to identify it as us. As what we are.

DairyLama

Citta said:

This may be a semantic/linguistic issue, but I don't think we ARE required to develop dispassion or disenchantment.

I think disenchantment is a motivation for practice. And that dispassion is an antidote for "lust" and craving.

Citta

Perhaps you could point to those terms in the original Pali ? I think you are adopting a very skewed translation which owes more to protestant Christianity than to Buddhadharma.

DairyLama

Citta said:

Perhaps you could point to those terms in the original Pali ? I think you are adopting a very skewed translation which owes more to protestant Christianity than to Buddhadharma.

Well, most of the translations I've read use that kind of language. But as I've observed before, words like this are in fact quite neutral and don't deserve the pejorative associations that some place upon them. Though of course those pejorative associations often come from protestant Christianity. So perhaps we need to reclaim these words and use them in our own way.

fivebells

Citta said:

Perhaps you could point to those terms in the original Pali ? I think you are adopting a very skewed translation which owes more to protestant Christianity than to Buddhadharma.

And how do those with vision see? There is the case where a monk sees what's come to be as what's come to be. Seeing this, he practices for disenchantment with what's come to be, dispassion for what's come to be, and the cessation of what's come to be. This is how those with vision see...

Those, having seen
what's come to be
as what's come to be,
and what's gone beyond
what's come to be,
are released in line
with what's come to be,
through the exhaustion of craving for becoming.
If they've comprehended what's come to be —
and are free from the craving
for becoming & not-,
with the non-becoming
of what's come to be —
monks come to no further becoming.

Citta

What I asked was about the original Pali terms...I have for example seen upekkha translated by a well known Bhikkhu as ' indifference' which is very clearly skewed.
So what for example is being translated as 'disenchantment ' ?
If its 'nibbida ' in that passage then it needs careful handling.
Ajahn Brahm among others says that nibbida has no overtone of aversion.

Yorkshireman

Thank you so much for all of that wonderful guidance. It has really given me a lot of food for thought.

I think my original interpretation was too abstract and that wasn't really helping me. By focusing on my own personal suffering first, and getting a clear understanding of that, will help me to progress to a point where I am able to better see, and understand the suffering of all sentient beings.

fivebells

I agree, nibbida ideally has no overtone of aversion. But aversion can play an important role earlier in the process of fostering nibbida particularly for extremely strong attachments.

"In the same way, householder, a disciple of the noble ones considers this point: 'The Blessed One has compared sensuality to a chain of bones... a lump of flesh... a grass torch... a pit of glowing embers... a dream... borrowed goods... [disputed] fruits of a tree, of much stress, much despair, & greater drawbacks.' Seeing this with right discernment, as it actually is, then avoiding the equanimity coming from multiplicity, dependent on multiplicity, he develops the equanimity coming from singleness, dependent on singleness, where sustenance/clinging for the baits of the world ceases without trace.

Citta

Its certainly frequently the case that it is our suffering or that of those close to us. that provides us with the impetus needed to ask the fundamental questions.

DairyLama

Citta said:

So what for example is being translated as 'disenchantment ' ?
If its 'nibbida ' in that passage then it needs careful handling.
Ajahn Brahm among others says that nibbida has no overtone of aversion.

I think "disenchantment" captures the meaning quite well - seeing that something is unsatisfactory and unfulfilling.

Citta

All I can say is that as a term it has no resonance for me.
But I am a long term advocate for the non translation of key terms.
I think we need to go to Dharma. Not expect it to come to us in linguistic forms which have not evolved to express it.

Citta

Lets look at the origin of the word 'Nibbida' often translated as 'disenchantment ''
Its formed from two roots ' nis' which means "without "and 'vindati ' which means "finding."
So ' without finding ' what ?
Without finding anything which is unconditioned, uncompounded and not fleeting.
No implication of rejection...no aversion, And most importantly no acceptance of consensual reality which is subsequently rejected.
The seeing of the reality of conditioned things is itself the antidote to attraction and aversion.
Dharma is subtle.

fivebells

What's the basis for that etymology, and how does it relate to the way "nibbida" is used throughout the pali canon?

Citta

a) The Pali Text Society. And expansion by David Webster . B )It is vital to a contexualised understanding of the term found in the Canon.
Nibbada is frequently conflated with 'viraga'. Which means the absence of 'raga' which is over idenification with emotional states.
Bhikkhu Bodhi points out that 'viraga' is for many a precursor to Dharma/Dhamma.
An exhaustion of raga. Which carries no implication of the arising of insight into the nature of the conditioned as does nibbida.

fivebells

I'd be really interested to read some specific citations about this interpretation of nibbida which gives examples of concordant usage in the Pali canon.

DairyLama

Citta said:

Lets look at the origin of the word 'Nibbida' often translated as 'disenchantment ''
Its formed from two roots ' nis' which means "without "and 'vindati ' which means "finding."
So ' without finding ' what ?
Without finding anything which is unconditioned, uncompounded and not fleeting.

Yes,or you could say without finding satisfaction, fulfillment, permanence etc. Though I think that as usual though we're looking at a "virtuous cycle", ie the various path factors supporting each other in a process of development - not necessarily a linear model.

Citta

Its not an interpretation per se. It shows the etymological derivation of the term according to the Pali scholar and practising Buddhist Dr David Webster.
In part he is making a corrective to interpretations, which assume that nibbida refers to an act of sustained rejection of something, when in fact it is a result, a fruit, of vipassanna..insight.
( Note small case 'v' we are not talking about the Burmese school specifically. )

DairyLama

Citta said:

In part he is making a corrective to interpretations, which assume that nibbida refers to an act of sustained rejection of something, when in fact it is a result, a fruit, of vipassanna..insight.

Yes, I get that, I was observing that, as with Right View, it's a progressive thing. So like with the 8-fold path, the factors are mutually supportive and there is a kind of positive feedback - it's not a linear process where you complete one path factor and then move onto the next.

fivebells

Citta said:

It shows the etymological derivation of the term according to the Pali scholar and practising Buddhist Dr David Webster.

Are you referring to The Philosophy of desire in the Buddhist Pali Canon? Looks like an interesting book. Any specific section you're referring to?

fivebells

No mention of nibbida in the index.

Citta

fivebells said:

Citta said:

It shows the etymological derivation of the term according to the Pali scholar and practising Buddhist Dr David Webster.

Are you referring to The Philosophy of desire in the Buddhist Pali Canon? Looks like an interesting book. Any specific section you're referring to?

No, he discusses it in notes of a talk he made to the Pali Text Society. If I eventually figure how to do it on a Chromebook I will post an excerpt. Chromebooks are very good in general terms, but they seem to have some rather major drawbacks...Not being able to access one's Paypal account being another one such....

Citta

SpinyNorman said:

Citta said:

In part he is making a corrective to interpretations, which assume that nibbida refers to an act of sustained rejection of something, when in fact it is a result, a fruit, of vipassanna..insight.

Yes, I get that, I was observing that, as with Right View, it's a progressive thing. So like with the 8-fold path, the factors are mutually supportive and there is a kind of positive feedback - it's not a linear process where you complete one path factor and then move onto the next.

D' accord.

fivebells

Citta said:

Ajahn Brahm among others says that nibbida has no overtone of aversion.

Not saying he didn't say this, but he also said "Nibbida is an aversion. It's perhaps one of the only negative states of mind which should be encourgaged in the human being."

Do you know where he said it has no overtone of aversion?

It's a pity, I went looking for a nice positive talk to go with my breakfast, and I found this.

Citta

On the surface that contradicts what he himself ( Ajahn Brahm ) says elsewhere as well as what Ajahn Amaro says about the meaning of nibbida..but that might be context and audience.

Citta

Although I quoted him earlier Ajahn Brahm would not be the first authority I would turn to in matters of interpretation.

fivebells

Anyway, people rely too much on authorities without considering whether the arguments the authority is putting forward stand on their own merits.

That's why I'd like to read Webster's original claim, so I can assess his argument.

Citta

There is an alternative to comparisons between interpretations of translations of texts.
That is to find a teacher that shows the fruits of practice and ask them...
Of the opinions of the translations of texts there is no end.

fivebells

Well, if you're taking David Webster as your teacher, I'll have to take a closer look...

Chaz

Citta said:

There is an alternative to mcomparisons between interpretations of translations of texts.
That is to find a teacher that shows the fruits of practice and ask them...
Of the opinions of the translations of texts there is no end.

And that's undoubtedly the best route go take.

To be able to compare translations requires an understanding of the source language great enough to accurately assess a translation. That takes years of training and experience. I don't think any of us have that.

Better to work with a trusted teacher and / or translator. Has anyone thought to ask Ven. Samahita?

If you can't find such a person, better to simply practice.

fivebells

I can give you chapter and verse on Thanissaro's intepretation and the role it plays in my own practice, if you care.

Chaz

fivebells said:

I can give you chapter and verse on Thanissaro's intepretation and the role it plays in my own practice, if you care.

I don't care about that.

If you trust his interpretation, then you're set. No need to worry about anyone else's. After that, are you gualified to compare the accuracy or veracity of a given text?

fivebells

I'm confident about what I've said in this thread, based on my experience and understanding.

wangchuey

What's a word that describes something that distrauts you, causes you to become dispassionate, yet propels you to do something about it? My guess is that is what nibbida means. Its suppose to describe what the Buddha felt when he saw birth, old age, sickness, and death for the first time. I agree with @fivebells that its a positive form of aversion.

Perhaps the words disenchantment and dispassion are unappealing to some because it can mislead people to think that Buddhism is a form of nhilism. I think those words are fine. There's nothing in Buddhism that says you have to ordain to be a Buddhist.

DairyLama

fivebells said:

Not saying he didn't say this, but he also said "Nibbida is an aversion. It's perhaps one of the only negative states of mind which should be encourgaged in the human being."

Sounds reasonable to me. I think it's like saying there are wholesome desires.

fivebells

Yeah, it's a good talk. Quite hardcore, and not what I went looking for, but it definitely improved the quality of my day and the skill with which I related to it.