Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Pessimism in Buddhism: Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Glow
Veteran
So, the last post on this topic didn't get far off the ground, but I thought @betaboy made some interesting points.
Buddhism has often been accused of being pessimistic. This is not a totally unfounded proposition. The Buddha's teaching (at least as found in the Pali canon) plays with topics of disenchantment, disillusionment, dispassion, severing the feters that link one to cling to the world's things and beings -- topics that really work against the grain of the natural inclination of the human mind. In order to foster this, Buddhists tend to reflect on the shadow side of existence: the inevitability of pain, loss, sickness, aging, and death. Practices ranging from maranassati (mindfulness of death) to one's own or a potential love partner's innards (as in the Vijaya Sutta) are often quite shocking. I will admit, I myself have many reservations about this aspect of the Buddha's teaching. I understand the motive, but there's a somewhat unsettling quality about it.
One can certainly forgive the many people who have regarded the Buddha as a bit of a wet blanket.
There is a formula in the Pali that is repeated throughout the canon:
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe sankhara anatta
In English:
All that is contingent is impermanent.
All that is contingent is unsatisfactory.
All that is contingent is without self-nature.
There was a forum member a few months ago (I forget who... search doesn't turn up the post) who posted a version of these lines in a rather controversial translation, that rendered the second phrase something like, "All emotions are suffering." A lot of members (me included) took issue with this post at the time, but upon further reflection it's not actually a totally baseless reading. If you conflate some of the insights of anicca and anatta with the insight into dukkha, you can arrive at that conclusion. I no longer find the teaching particularly disquieting, but the totality of that word sabbe -- ALL -- is rather hard-hitting. I would say is most definitely pessimism, in the most basic definition of that word, but the salvific thrust of the Buddha's teaching -- that there is indeed a deathless, and that we can touch it, is the necessary "second wing" to this moth.
Still... I must admit, I rarely reflect on this particular teaching anymore in my practice. And the less I reflect on it, the more generally healthy I feel. Perhaps the teaching is too enmeshed with a period of depression I experienced, or I had overemphasized it in the past and am now "rebalancing" my practice... but I try not to emphasize this particular focus of Buddhism when I talk about the teaching to others.
Buddhism has often been accused of being pessimistic. This is not a totally unfounded proposition. The Buddha's teaching (at least as found in the Pali canon) plays with topics of disenchantment, disillusionment, dispassion, severing the feters that link one to cling to the world's things and beings -- topics that really work against the grain of the natural inclination of the human mind. In order to foster this, Buddhists tend to reflect on the shadow side of existence: the inevitability of pain, loss, sickness, aging, and death. Practices ranging from maranassati (mindfulness of death) to one's own or a potential love partner's innards (as in the Vijaya Sutta) are often quite shocking. I will admit, I myself have many reservations about this aspect of the Buddha's teaching. I understand the motive, but there's a somewhat unsettling quality about it.
One can certainly forgive the many people who have regarded the Buddha as a bit of a wet blanket.
There is a formula in the Pali that is repeated throughout the canon:
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe sankhara anatta
In English:
All that is contingent is impermanent.
All that is contingent is unsatisfactory.
All that is contingent is without self-nature.
There was a forum member a few months ago (I forget who... search doesn't turn up the post) who posted a version of these lines in a rather controversial translation, that rendered the second phrase something like, "All emotions are suffering." A lot of members (me included) took issue with this post at the time, but upon further reflection it's not actually a totally baseless reading. If you conflate some of the insights of anicca and anatta with the insight into dukkha, you can arrive at that conclusion. I no longer find the teaching particularly disquieting, but the totality of that word sabbe -- ALL -- is rather hard-hitting. I would say is most definitely pessimism, in the most basic definition of that word, but the salvific thrust of the Buddha's teaching -- that there is indeed a deathless, and that we can touch it, is the necessary "second wing" to this moth.
Still... I must admit, I rarely reflect on this particular teaching anymore in my practice. And the less I reflect on it, the more generally healthy I feel. Perhaps the teaching is too enmeshed with a period of depression I experienced, or I had overemphasized it in the past and am now "rebalancing" my practice... but I try not to emphasize this particular focus of Buddhism when I talk about the teaching to others.
0
Comments
The Jewel Ornament of Liberation says that to overcome attachment to pleasure we should reflect on suffering etc.
Of course, a shower is a pretty mundane example. It gets really exciting when we pay attention to a loved one: observing how we meet a different person each time we say "Hello."
:eek:
. . . wait a minute . . . who said Buddha Killing was part of the Path?
kill them too, if dead burn their teachings!
"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Monty Python dharma sketch
meanwhile . . .
now that we are in the Kali yurt/karli yogurt/end of daze . . . Kali Yuga
we have to focus on the essentials, which are . . . wait it will come to me . . .
the 8 fold origami . . . I am going to make a nice swan . . .
and now back to the more balanced wisdom . . .
And I happen to 'get' Lobster, most of the time, which ought to explain a lot . . .
The Pali Canon says "blah blah blah blah" when you leave it up to your mind to grasp it. Take the dreary words and meditate with them; keep them up on the monitor, while you watch your mind go by.
Your mind doesn't get it, at all. What does 'get it'? No idea. The heart? Sure, why not
Gassho
Is it time to dance in the hell realms yet? Can we bring heretics?
Christmas in the hell realms - fun for all the family . . .
Who said samsara=nirvana?
They must have been real party animals . . .
its SUPPOSED to be unsettling, seeing the truth about things rarely is not.
it is 100% true that this other "person" that you"love" is little more then a sack of organs, skin and meat, all conditioned along with the mind and consciousness, as are you and all beings.
our mind fools itself into being attracted to these silly things, and attached to them, so when they go away we experience loss.
for someone like me though, who has seen his share of death, watched multiple people die in front of him, and of course a good amount of dead bodies, the teaching is just natural, nothing to be freaked out over. So I guess someone who is 50 years old and still has their grandparents alive, might think of it differently.
But the portion of humanity that has it good was around then and like Buddha's day, always a tiny portion of humanity. Buddha started off as one of those privileged few.
However, the basic philosophy of life being an illusion, of impermanence, etc, does sound pessimistic. It has to, in order to be an accurate description of the world. The universe does not exist to make us happy. Neither does it exist to make us suffer. It simply exists in spite of our expectations.
A deeper understanding of the Buddha's teachings merely reveals the Truth of the matter.
It is only in the eyes clouded by longing, that this message is 'pessimistic'. The 'cognoscenti' perceive no pessimism. The human mind is not naturally thus inclined. It is thus inclined through Ignorqnce and Delusion.... We are conditioned to be thus. However, education, comprehension and application destroy these illusory states..... That's the whole point: To 'unsettle' you from this lethargy of persistent Ignorance, and to galvanise you into processing and 'upgrading' your thought processes to a more "Educated" and 'Mindful' state.... ..And commiserate, and educate. The Buddha never was, and never has been, a 'wet blanket'. perception - incorrect and Ignorant perception - has made him so.... Yes, it is. That person misunderstood, and was going simply by one (inaccurate) translation.
This was discussed in the closed thread.... You can if you want. I don't.... And also true.
Why take issue with something so honest?
Would you rather the Buddha had lied?
We've had enough lies perpetuated by those who should know better, in most religions. This glaring honesty is actually refreshing. 'You would say' incorrectly. The word is misconstrued and not entirely accurate. Other terms have superceded this word... I'd look to them, frankly.... There IS no second wing. It's all the same wing.... Which thereby generally renders most of your post, above, as redundant.
Well done....
Yes, there is - it's the Third Noble Truth.
JM2C....
When we become aware of our more subtle thoughts and feelings we see deeper and deeper layers of disquiet and loss. How could it be otherwise in a universe characterised by anicca ?
Even when engaged in pleasurable activities just beneath the surface is pain.
This is not pessimistic. Its the way things are.
And if that sense of disquiet is balanced by upekkha/upeksha then anicca is seen to be one of the causes of freedom.
This was discussed in the closed thread.... You can if you want. I don't.... And also true.
Why take issue with something so honest?
Would you rather the Buddha had lied?
We've had enough lies perpetuated by those who should know better, in most religions. This glaring honesty is actually refreshing. 'You would say' incorrectly. The word is misconstrued and not entirely accurate. Other terms have superceded this word... I'd look to them, frankly.... There IS no second wing. It's all the same wing.... Which thereby generally renders most of your post, above, as redundant.
Well done....
There is no Pope in Buddhism, but there is a strong consensus on many issues and over many schools. And Federica has voiced the general consensus on this issue.
Which is that what brings about a ' turning around in the deepest part of consciousness ' is a deeply internalised realisation of the truth of dukkha as a characteristic of consensual reality.
The fact that the 'turning about' points us in a different direction notwithstanding.
Look it's ok, let's not get pedantic...
Attempting to identify worldview is something that the authors of the sutras took in to account, so if they are misused in this way by those of limited capacity they may appear flat, slightly depressing, tools to assert philosophical authority but will still be basically moral.
-Worldview-is a faculty which is essential, especially for developing beings in this world (children) but must be controlled, else self-analysis of cognition will be severely hampered
However I have discovered that people will fight tooth and nail not to have their limited sutra based global constructs turned in upon the phenomenon of 'name', (and indeed the building blocks of their cognition).