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.
Yes, unreleased life is stressful, but there is also the possibility of release and it doesn't mean the end of life. Perhaps one could even say that with release life is lived more abundantly.
Nagarjuna gave one of the best distictions of the difference between ego clinging and
My teacher said something about how it is confusion to think samsara is nirvana. I can't remember and I cannot find it. I seem to remember her saying it would be like saying having the light switch on is the same as having it off. So you would have to be focused on the room still being there rather than the light going on and off.
It is not 'tantic' and I find it supportive and peaceful rather than jumping off a cliff to emptiness.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Silouan said:> I disagree that Dukkha or stress is life.
Yes, unreleased life is stressful, but there is also the possibility of release and it doesn't mean the end of life. Perhaps one could even say that with release life is lived more abundantly.
>
So you DO agree that life is Dukkha. But you just have to release from it to not be. Which is basically what we have been saying all along, more or less....?
i think Bhikkhu Bodhi 's translation of dukkha as 'stress ' creates as many problems as it solves.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I don't think I've come across any one interpretation that accurately conveys the intended meaning of the word. I've read wordy definitions, like a wonky wheel on a misaligned axle, or a series of explanatory terms, like "up-and-down", "hot-and-cold", "difficult to navigate"... but I think, to date, there hasn't been a single term, in our language, that has adequately conveyed exactly what 'dukkha' is implying.....
I agree. Much better imo to internalise the meaning from seeing it used in a number of contexts...
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I still find it confusing.
Could dukkha be simplified to mean emotional pain?
That's what my mind likes to say but life is more than emotional pain.
It is said that because there is impermanence we suffer for the want of permanence. That did used to make sense to me but now I see that because things are temporary we can better cherish them rather than taking them for granted.
@SpinyNorman: I could hardly add anything new to what has been said above.
Dukkha is one of the three marks of existence. All compounded things are dukkha.
The fact that dukkha exists does not mean that it cannot be transcended, so I don't see the contradiction with truths number three and four.
The Buddha did not cause dukkha not to exist: he simply found a way not to let dukkha affect him anymore.
First truth is a fact of life. Truths three and four are internal attitudes to face dukkha.
Rain exists and I will never be able to change that fact. But I can choose to open an umbrella.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2014
... Or as I once read, "That the bird of distress fly round your head: that you cannot change.
But that it build a nest in your hair: This, you can prevent."
@dharmamom said:
First truth is a fact of life. Truths three and four are internal attitudes to face dukkha.
I think you are trying to rewrite the 4 Noble Truths here, and IMO it's not making things any clearer. The 3rd truth clearly describes the cessation of dukkha, not merely "a strategy for coping", or whatever. You seem to be making the 1st truth an ontological statement but not the other 3 truths, which isn't consistent.
You say: "Dukkha is one of the three marks of existence. All compounded things are dukkha. " But "existence" here is a bad translation, because as I've explained the 4 truths aren't an ontological statement. So "dukkha is one of the 3 marks of conditioned experience" would be much closer. Or you could say conditioned experience is subject to dukkha.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Again with the different interpretations of Dukkha... The 3rd Noble Truth states the cessation of Dukkha, but as we both know, the Buddha continued experiencing Dukkha, so transcendence would be much closer.
Let me put it this way: In your personal considered view, do you think it would be easier and more achievable to Cease the Dukkha in your Life - or Transcend it?
@federica said:
Like I said. Cessation to me, is not an adequate interpretation. Just as 'suffering' is not a good interpretation of the word 'dukkha'.
The Arrow Sutta talks about living "disjoined" from physical pain, ie the physical pain no longer represents dukkha. So you could say there is a transcending of the physical pain resulting from the cessation of dukkha ( 3rd truth ).
@federica said:
Again with the different interpretations of Dukkha... The 3rd Noble Truth states the cessation of Dukkha, but as we both know, the Buddha continued experiencing Dukkha, so transcendence would be much closer.
No the Buddha didn't continue to experience dukkha, this is a basic misunderstanding.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
We'll have to agree to differ, as insistence merely leads to truculence.
If there is any clear support for the idea that the Buddha continued to experience dukkha I'd be interested to see it. Suttas, sutras, quotes from teachers, whatever.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
What he experienced is not in dispute. The term of what he experienced, is in dispute.
You say he did not experience Dukkha, and I say he did. Our definition of the term differs.
It's the terminology we can't agree on.
The suttas show that the Buddha exercised great will power and composure on occasions when he fell ill. He experienced excruciating pain when a stone splinter pierced his foot after Devadatta hurled a boulder at him. He endured such pain with mindfulness and self-composure and was not overpowered by the pain (S.i,27, 210). During his last illness, too, the Buddha mindfully bore up great physical pain and with admirable courage he walked from Pava to Kusinara with his devoted attendant Ananda, resting in a number of places to soothe his tired body (D.ii,128,134). The Maha-parinibbana Sutta also reports that the Buddha once willfully suppressed a grave illness in Beluvagama and regained health (D.ii,99).
>
It seems that those who are highly developed mentally are able to suppress illness, at least on certain occasions. Once Nakulapita visited the Buddha in old age, and the Master advised him to remain mentally healthy even though the body is feeble (S.iii,1). There is physical and mental pain (dve vedana kayika ca cetasika ca). If, when one has physical pain, one becomes worried and adds mental pain too, that is like being shot with two arrows (S.iv,208). One who is spiritually evolved is capable of keeping the mind healthy proportionate to his spiritual development. As an arahant is fully developed spiritually, he is capable of experiencing physical pain only, without mental pain (so ekam vedanam vediyati kayikam na cetasikam, S.iv,209).
But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.
Thanks, but there is nothing there which says the Buddha continued to experience dukkha, the references are to the experience of physical pain.
And don't forget that well-known quote from SN22.86: "Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha."
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2014
"No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context.There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that."
"Sariputta's elaboration
[Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
This is all I'm going to say on this matter.
If you choose to stick to your guns, that's your bag.
I think it's time you backed your position up now, I've done my bit.
@SpinyNorman said:
I think you are trying to rewrite the 4 Noble Truths here, and IMO it's not making things any clearer.
I'm not trying to rewrite anything.
The first noble truth is about a fact of life. Birth happens, illness happens, aging happens, death happens, etc.
Second noble truth explains why you experience these facts as dukkha.
Third and fourth are about what you can do to better accept or deal with dukkha.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
@federica said:
What he experienced is not in dispute. The term of what he experienced, is in dispute.
You say he did not experience Dukkha, and I say he did. Our definition of the term differs.
It's the terminology we can't agree on.
Thich Nhat Hanh says there is a fourth Dharma seal which is Nirvana.
Thich Nhat Hanh is an author, practicing Buddhism through the Vietnam war, and peace prize winner. He talks a lot about creating good seeds in your life.
When I was a young monk, I believed he did not suffer but I know now that is not true. How can you not suffer when a dear friend dies? He was not a stone, he was a human being. But he suffered much less because of his wisdom and compassion. This is a very important thing to learn. The other question that had as a young monk is why did the Buddha keep practicing after his enlightenment. I know the answer today. Happiness is impermanent just like anything else. We have to feed and nourish our happiness.
"Third and fourth are about what you can do to better accept or deal with dukkha.
We'll have to agree to disagree here."
The third truth is cessation of suffering, not how to accept or deal with it.
The four truth is the path to freedom from suffering.
The following is first of three phases from Four Noble Truths:
"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving,the giving up and relinquishing of it,"
"> important thing is to accept that dukkha is simply inevitable>"
Your statement makes the third noble truth meaningless.
It's also confusing that Buddha is talking about NOBLE truths (<--I don't know what that means).
For example if my clothes have static cling we could apply the four logical ideas:
there is static cling
ignorance of adding dryer sheets causes the cling
there is a possibility to reduce the cling
there are instructions given orally by the mom of how to use dryer sheets.
Ok now waiting for a higher yogi to correct me! I know there is something about 'Noble'.
Dukkha is having an incorrect view, believing that things are I or mine and attaching to them.
4
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2014
@Meatball said:"> important thing is to accept that dukkha is simply inevitable>"
>
Your statement makes the third noble truth meaningless.
Not if you understand that Dukkha is inevitable, but we are able to overcome it. Dukkha is inevitable. Our ability to eliminate it from our focus, is not.... hence the 4th Noble Truth....
@Meatball said:
The following is first of three phases from Four Noble Truths:
"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it,"
@Meatball: could you please explain to us in your own words what exactly this paragraph means to you and the connexion you think it bears with the other truths? Thank you so much
It's also confusing that Buddha is talking about NOBLE truths (<--I don't know what that means).
"Calling suffering a noble thing does not at all suggest that it is something to be avoided or escaped from. The Buddha is saying that to be a human being who necessarily suffers is a dignified thing to be. What he is overthrowing is the idea that the spiritual quest consists of a flight from suffering. On the contrary, it is the flight which is undignified and shameful. Confronting and overcoming problems may seem like a painful process and most may seek to avoid it, but such avoidance simply leads to greater pain and indignity."
("The feeling Buddha" - David Brazier)
That's a good question. I think it is intuitive in the sense that we already have an insight into what that could be. Maybe it is shutting down? Dulling out instead of seeking the dharma teachings to guide the way.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@namarupa said:
I will confess that I don't know what suffering is. There I said it.
That's either extraordinarily lucky or desperately unfortunate.
Which would you say it is?
@SpinyNorman said:
there is nothing there which says the Buddha continued to experience dukkha, the references are to the experience of physical pain.
"And what is the cessation of dukkha? From the cessation of craving is the cessation of dukkha" AN 6.63
Seems to me that for a Buddha, all craving has ceased, therefore all dukkha has also ceased. It's impossible to have dukkha without craving. How can there be dukkha without craving? Something cannot continue once it's cause is no longer there. It's impossible! To say a Buddha still experiences dukkha is to say a Buddha still experiences craving. However, if there is still craving, that is by definition not-Buddha.
I don't think any scripture ever means to say "pain = dukkha" outright. Perhaps they may say that outright, but only in the context of a non-buddha. Since, for a non-buddha, pain equaling craving is inevitable. But that can't be true for a buddha because a buddha has no craving no matter what happens. Seems to me they ultimately say "pain + craving = dukkha". If you remove craving, all you are left with is just pain and that's it. No craving, no dukkha, just pain.
Physical pain is just an unpleasant sensation. It is there because of causes and conditions. It does not have to be accompanied by clinging (I am in pain, the pain is mine) and dukkha.
Examples:
There is something terribly wrong going on causing fear.
Devadatta is to blame for my pain causing aversion.
When is this pain going to stop? - aversion
You hurt me, I hurt you.
Let go. Whenever there is any feeling of clinging, we detach from it because we know that very feeling is just as it is.
The heart is just the heart; thoughts and feelings are just thoughts and feelings. Let things be just as they are! Ajahn Chah
@vinlyn said:
Now, to people like Meatball -- prove us wrong by honestly telling us you have reached the plateau where there is absolutely no suffering.
I don't think it's helpful to take cheap shots like this in order to score points.
@federica said:
"Sariputta's elaboration
[Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
I think it's time you backed your position up now, I've done my bit.
My position is backed up by the 4 Noble Truths which describe the origination and cessation of dukkha - they couldn't be clearer.
The list of stuff in the first truth ( above ) is experienced as dukkha, until we reach Buddha-hood. A Buddha doesn't experience these things as dukkha - it's actually very straightforward. And it doesn't make sense to say that pain is the only thing in the list still experienced as dukkha by a Buddha.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@pegembara said:
Physical pain is just an unpleasant sensation. It is there because of causes and conditions. It does not have to be accompanied by clinging (I am in pain, the pain is mine) and dukkha.
Exactly. That's why the Arrow Sutta talks about being "disjoined" from physical pain, which isn't dukkha for a Buddha.
Yes, "dukkha is inevitable" isn't what the first truth says - what it actually says is "dukkha exists". And dependent origination tells us that the root cause or condition for dukkha is ignorance, ie while ignorance persists then so does dukkha. The proximate cause or condition for dukkha is craving, ie while craving persists then so does dukkha.
If the first truth really was "dukkha is inevitable" then we'd be stuck with it, no escape from it, so no point in doing Buddhist practice.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited July 2014
Could I just say as a participant that I think an awful lot of what has been discussed hinges on personal viewpoint, opinion and interpretation.
While I understand that Suttas say this, that and the other, we are still left with the English versions, translations and written interpretations of others to go by, because very few of us comprehend Pali in any totally fluent sense.
I think, as we are all striving to release ourselves from Dukkha, transcend it, overcome it, cease it or whatever - we're all striving for the same thing. We're all practising as best we can, we're all walking in the same direction - and getting hung up on discussions of this kind, is actually like tying our bootlaces together. Comical, inhibitive, and occasionally amulatory, until we tumble and open our knees up on the rough terrain...
Is there much point continuing this discussion? Seriously. What are we getting out of it, other than just more Dukkha and a good side-portion of papanca?
@federica said:
Is there much point continuing this discussion?
The point presumably is to get a clearer understanding of dukkha and the 4 truths. Some suttas can be interpreted in different ways, but they are quite clear on the 4 truths.
@SpinyNorman: you're like a dog with a bone.
Originally I did not say something much different than what you have said, and harping on the subject has only drifted us farther apart.
So dukkha exists. By relinquishing ignorance we can change the way we relate to dukkha. Dukkha is a fact, cessation of dukkha is an attitude.
Through ignorance you have created more dukkha to yourself, through wisdom and seeing dukkha for what it is, you can cease to create more dukkha for yourself.
But birth will still be there, illness will still be there, death will still be there.
Take out attachment and craving to a wrong view of reality and you can relate in a different way to what is there.
@federica said:
Is there much point continuing this discussion? Seriously. What are we getting out of it, other than just more Dukkha and a good side-portion of papanca?
@dharmamom said:
So dukkha exists. By relinquishing ignorance we can change the way we relate to dukkha. Dukkha is a fact, cessation of dukkha is an attitude.
No, dukkha isn't a "fact" in the way you mean. The presence of dukkha is a state of mind, which results from craving. The absence of dukkha, ie nirvana, is a state of mind freed from craving.
Obviously a Buddha still experiences bodily pain, ageing and death, but for a Buddha they are no longer experienced as dukkha.
OK, a dog with a bone, but it's a very important bone and the source of much misunderstanding.
Comments
So the wrong view of self does not need to be fixed then?
The wrong view of self is the origin of Dukkha. Dukkha is a symptom, the disease is wrong view.
Right View does not fix dukkha piecemeal.. Dukkha ceases to arise in the case of that individual.
So from that perspective its 'fixed'..
In the same way that removing a diseased appendix fixes appendicitis..but it doesn't fix the diseased appendix.
I disagree that Dukkha or stress is life.
Yes, unreleased life is stressful, but there is also the possibility of release and it doesn't mean the end of life. Perhaps one could even say that with release life is lived more abundantly.
My teacher said something about how it is confusion to think samsara is nirvana. I can't remember and I cannot find it. I seem to remember her saying it would be like saying having the light switch on is the same as having it off. So you would have to be focused on the room still being there rather than the light going on and off.
Roll it up homies!
For anyone who is interested in Lama Shenpen's teacher student sessions here is a link... http://ahs.org.uk/what-we-offer/
It is not 'tantic' and I find it supportive and peaceful rather than jumping off a cliff to emptiness.
>
So you DO agree that life is Dukkha. But you just have to release from it to not be. Which is basically what we have been saying all along, more or less....?
'life' is just a meditation. At times it is pleasure at times pain.
i think Bhikkhu Bodhi 's translation of dukkha as 'stress ' creates as many problems as it solves.
I don't think I've come across any one interpretation that accurately conveys the intended meaning of the word. I've read wordy definitions, like a wonky wheel on a misaligned axle, or a series of explanatory terms, like "up-and-down", "hot-and-cold", "difficult to navigate"... but I think, to date, there hasn't been a single term, in our language, that has adequately conveyed exactly what 'dukkha' is implying.....
I agree. Much better imo to internalise the meaning from seeing it used in a number of contexts...
I still find it confusing.
Could dukkha be simplified to mean emotional pain?
That's what my mind likes to say but life is more than emotional pain.
It is said that because there is impermanence we suffer for the want of permanence. That did used to make sense to me but now I see that because things are temporary we can better cherish them rather than taking them for granted.
@SpinyNorman: I could hardly add anything new to what has been said above.
Dukkha is one of the three marks of existence. All compounded things are dukkha.
The fact that dukkha exists does not mean that it cannot be transcended, so I don't see the contradiction with truths number three and four.
The Buddha did not cause dukkha not to exist: he simply found a way not to let dukkha affect him anymore.
First truth is a fact of life. Truths three and four are internal attitudes to face dukkha.
Rain exists and I will never be able to change that fact. But I can choose to open an umbrella.
... Or as I once read, "That the bird of distress fly round your head: that you cannot change.
But that it build a nest in your hair: This, you can prevent."
Life is dukkha.
Metta,
Raven
_ /\ _
I think you are trying to rewrite the 4 Noble Truths here, and IMO it's not making things any clearer. The 3rd truth clearly describes the cessation of dukkha, not merely "a strategy for coping", or whatever. You seem to be making the 1st truth an ontological statement but not the other 3 truths, which isn't consistent.
You say: "Dukkha is one of the three marks of existence. All compounded things are dukkha. " But "existence" here is a bad translation, because as I've explained the 4 truths aren't an ontological statement. So "dukkha is one of the 3 marks of conditioned experience" would be much closer. Or you could say conditioned experience is subject to dukkha.
Again with the different interpretations of Dukkha... The 3rd Noble Truth states the cessation of Dukkha, but as we both know, the Buddha continued experiencing Dukkha, so transcendence would be much closer.
Let me put it this way: In your personal considered view, do you think it would be easier and more achievable to Cease the Dukkha in your Life - or Transcend it?
The Arrow Sutta talks about living "disjoined" from physical pain, ie the physical pain no longer represents dukkha. So you could say there is a transcending of the physical pain resulting from the cessation of dukkha ( 3rd truth ).
Yes, in a way.
No the Buddha didn't continue to experience dukkha, this is a basic misunderstanding.
We'll have to agree to differ, as insistence merely leads to truculence.
If there is any clear support for the idea that the Buddha continued to experience dukkha I'd be interested to see it. Suttas, sutras, quotes from teachers, whatever.
What he experienced is not in dispute. The term of what he experienced, is in dispute.
You say he did not experience Dukkha, and I say he did. Our definition of the term differs.
It's the terminology we can't agree on.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
If it please you, I have this:
And this:
>
>
From here:
>
Here.
Thanks, but there is nothing there which says the Buddha continued to experience dukkha, the references are to the experience of physical pain.
And don't forget that well-known quote from SN22.86: "Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha."
"No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that."
"Sariputta's elaboration
[Ven. Sariputta:] "Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
This is all I'm going to say on this matter.
If you choose to stick to your guns, that's your bag.
I think it's time you backed your position up now, I've done my bit.
I'm not trying to rewrite anything.
The first noble truth is about a fact of life. Birth happens, illness happens, aging happens, death happens, etc.
Second noble truth explains why you experience these facts as dukkha.
Third and fourth are about what you can do to better accept or deal with dukkha.
We'll have to agree to disagree here.
Thich Nhat Hanh says there is a fourth Dharma seal which is Nirvana.
Thich Nhat Hanh is an author, practicing Buddhism through the Vietnam war, and peace prize winner. He talks a lot about creating good seeds in your life.
http://tnhaudio.org/tag/right-view/
"Third and fourth are about what you can do to better accept or deal with dukkha.
We'll have to agree to disagree here."
The third truth is cessation of suffering, not how to accept or deal with it.
The four truth is the path to freedom from suffering.
The following is first of three phases from Four Noble Truths:
"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving,the giving up and relinquishing of it,"
"> important thing is to accept that dukkha is simply inevitable>"
Your statement makes the third noble truth meaningless.
It's also confusing that Buddha is talking about NOBLE truths (<--I don't know what that means).
For example if my clothes have static cling we could apply the four logical ideas:
there is static cling
ignorance of adding dryer sheets causes the cling
there is a possibility to reduce the cling
there are instructions given orally by the mom of how to use dryer sheets.
Ok now waiting for a higher yogi to correct me! I know there is something about 'Noble'.
Dukkha is having an incorrect view, believing that things are I or mine and attaching to them.
>
Your statement makes the third noble truth meaningless.
Not if you understand that Dukkha is inevitable, but we are able to overcome it. Dukkha is inevitable. Our ability to eliminate it from our focus, is not.... hence the 4th Noble Truth....
"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it,"
@Meatball: could you please explain to us in your own words what exactly this paragraph means to you and the connexion you think it bears with the other truths? Thank you so much
I have to side with federica on this. We will always be subject to suffering. The degree is up to us.
Now, to people like @Meatball -- prove us wrong by honestly telling us you have reached the plateau where there is absolutely no suffering.
@Jeffrey said:
"Calling suffering a noble thing does not at all suggest that it is something to be avoided or escaped from. The Buddha is saying that to be a human being who necessarily suffers is a dignified thing to be. What he is overthrowing is the idea that the spiritual quest consists of a flight from suffering. On the contrary, it is the flight which is undignified and shameful. Confronting and overcoming problems may seem like a painful process and most may seek to avoid it, but such avoidance simply leads to greater pain and indignity."
("The feeling Buddha" - David Brazier)
I will confess that I don't know what suffering is. There I said it.
That's a good question. I think it is intuitive in the sense that we already have an insight into what that could be. Maybe it is shutting down? Dulling out instead of seeking the dharma teachings to guide the way.
That's either extraordinarily lucky or desperately unfortunate.
Which would you say it is?
Too many options. Can't think
"And what is the cessation of dukkha? From the cessation of craving is the cessation of dukkha" AN 6.63
Seems to me that for a Buddha, all craving has ceased, therefore all dukkha has also ceased. It's impossible to have dukkha without craving. How can there be dukkha without craving? Something cannot continue once it's cause is no longer there. It's impossible! To say a Buddha still experiences dukkha is to say a Buddha still experiences craving. However, if there is still craving, that is by definition not-Buddha.
I don't think any scripture ever means to say "pain = dukkha" outright. Perhaps they may say that outright, but only in the context of a non-buddha. Since, for a non-buddha, pain equaling craving is inevitable. But that can't be true for a buddha because a buddha has no craving no matter what happens. Seems to me they ultimately say "pain + craving = dukkha". If you remove craving, all you are left with is just pain and that's it. No craving, no dukkha, just pain.
Physical pain is just an unpleasant sensation. It is there because of causes and conditions. It does not have to be accompanied by clinging (I am in pain, the pain is mine) and dukkha.
Examples:
There is something terribly wrong going on causing fear.
Devadatta is to blame for my pain causing aversion.
When is this pain going to stop? - aversion
You hurt me, I hurt you.
I don't think it's helpful to take cheap shots like this in order to score points.
My position is backed up by the 4 Noble Truths which describe the origination and cessation of dukkha - they couldn't be clearer.
The list of stuff in the first truth ( above ) is experienced as dukkha, until we reach Buddha-hood. A Buddha doesn't experience these things as dukkha - it's actually very straightforward. And it doesn't make sense to say that pain is the only thing in the list still experienced as dukkha by a Buddha.
Ok.
No, the third and fourth truths describe the cessation of craving and dukkha, and the path leading to this, ie the 8-fold path.
Again, to summarise the 4 truths:
1. Dukkha;
2. Origination of dukkha
3. Cessation of dukkha
4. 8-fold path.
If you still don't believe me, please read the relevant suttas.
Exactly. That's why the Arrow Sutta talks about being "disjoined" from physical pain, which isn't dukkha for a Buddha.
Yes, "dukkha is inevitable" isn't what the first truth says - what it actually says is "dukkha exists". And dependent origination tells us that the root cause or condition for dukkha is ignorance, ie while ignorance persists then so does dukkha. The proximate cause or condition for dukkha is craving, ie while craving persists then so does dukkha.
If the first truth really was "dukkha is inevitable" then we'd be stuck with it, no escape from it, so no point in doing Buddhist practice.
Could I just say as a participant that I think an awful lot of what has been discussed hinges on personal viewpoint, opinion and interpretation.
While I understand that Suttas say this, that and the other, we are still left with the English versions, translations and written interpretations of others to go by, because very few of us comprehend Pali in any totally fluent sense.
I think, as we are all striving to release ourselves from Dukkha, transcend it, overcome it, cease it or whatever - we're all striving for the same thing. We're all practising as best we can, we're all walking in the same direction - and getting hung up on discussions of this kind, is actually like tying our bootlaces together. Comical, inhibitive, and occasionally amulatory, until we tumble and open our knees up on the rough terrain...
Is there much point continuing this discussion? Seriously. What are we getting out of it, other than just more Dukkha and a good side-portion of papanca?
The point presumably is to get a clearer understanding of dukkha and the 4 truths. Some suttas can be interpreted in different ways, but they are quite clear on the 4 truths.
@SpinyNorman: you're like a dog with a bone.
Originally I did not say something much different than what you have said, and harping on the subject has only drifted us farther apart.
So dukkha exists. By relinquishing ignorance we can change the way we relate to dukkha. Dukkha is a fact, cessation of dukkha is an attitude.
Through ignorance you have created more dukkha to yourself, through wisdom and seeing dukkha for what it is, you can cease to create more dukkha for yourself.
But birth will still be there, illness will still be there, death will still be there.
Take out attachment and craving to a wrong view of reality and you can relate in a different way to what is there.
Totally agree here!
No, dukkha isn't a "fact" in the way you mean. The presence of dukkha is a state of mind, which results from craving. The absence of dukkha, ie nirvana, is a state of mind freed from craving.
Obviously a Buddha still experiences bodily pain, ageing and death, but for a Buddha they are no longer experienced as dukkha.
OK, a dog with a bone, but it's a very important bone and the source of much misunderstanding.