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.
2 obvious inaccuracies in the First Noble Truth
Regarding the First Noble Truth of Buddhism:
a) First, while it does acknowledge that positive happy experiences exist in life, it diminishes them and focuses on suffering and pain instead, insinuating that suffering is the true reality and happiness a mere illusion. This is highly one-sided, subjective, unproven and not entirely accurate. Simply put, it gives far more weight to one side of the coin than the other. In Taoist terms, it is only gives legitimacy to one half of the Ying Yang circle while writing off its opposite as a mere “illusion”, which is highly dualistic and not in balance with the “unification of opposites” principle. The truth is, suffering is a reality, but so are joy and happiness. While those who look at the world through rose-colored glasses are unrealistic and ignore the big picture, those who only seeing suffering and pain in the world do the same on the opposite end. The irony here is that Buddha taught that “The Middle Way”, or path between extremes, was best. Yet on this subject, it does not take “The Middle Way” at all but the extreme.
b) Second, while it is true that happy times and pleasures are transient, so are most forms of suffering as well. Disappointments, pain and sorrow usually pass too, and time heals most wounds. This Noble Truth doesn’t take that into account. Instead, “suffering” is depicted as if it were the only constant and reality, which is inaccurate. Everyone suffers in some way in their lives, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is the only reality, for its opposite is a reality too. Furthermore, while death is an inevitable part of life, not everyone has more suffering in life than joy. Some people live happier lives than others, and vice versa. These are subjective areas and exist in forms of degrees, not absolutes. For example, Tom Cruise is a movie star who has it all, yet would you lump his life in the same category as that of a homeless beggar deprived of food and shelter who is spat on everyday? While both have some sort of “suffering” in their lives, it would be ludicrous to lump them both into the same category, as Buddhism does, for the reality is that Tom Cruise’s life is infinitely more pleasurable and desirable than that of the homeless beggar.
So you see, both suffering and joy are realities of life, and both are temporary and fleeting. Such is life. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that “suffering is one aspect of life” rather than that “life is suffering”. Therein lies the inaccuracy of this foundational precept of Buddhism.
There are two obvious flaws in the Buddhist view of life described in the First Noble Truth:http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html
“1. Life means suffering.
To live means to suffer, because the human nature is not perfect and neither is the world we live in. During our lifetime, we inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death; and we have to endure psychological suffering like sadness, fear, frustration, disappointment, and depression. Although there are different degrees of suffering and there are also positive experiences in life that we perceive as the opposite of suffering, such as ease, comfort and happiness, life in its totality is imperfect and incomplete, because our world is subject to impermanence. This means we are never able to keep permanently what we strive for, and just as happy moments pass by, we ourselves and our loved ones will pass away one day, too.”
a) First, while it does acknowledge that positive happy experiences exist in life, it diminishes them and focuses on suffering and pain instead, insinuating that suffering is the true reality and happiness a mere illusion. This is highly one-sided, subjective, unproven and not entirely accurate. Simply put, it gives far more weight to one side of the coin than the other. In Taoist terms, it is only gives legitimacy to one half of the Ying Yang circle while writing off its opposite as a mere “illusion”, which is highly dualistic and not in balance with the “unification of opposites” principle. The truth is, suffering is a reality, but so are joy and happiness. While those who look at the world through rose-colored glasses are unrealistic and ignore the big picture, those who only seeing suffering and pain in the world do the same on the opposite end. The irony here is that Buddha taught that “The Middle Way”, or path between extremes, was best. Yet on this subject, it does not take “The Middle Way” at all but the extreme.
b) Second, while it is true that happy times and pleasures are transient, so are most forms of suffering as well. Disappointments, pain and sorrow usually pass too, and time heals most wounds. This Noble Truth doesn’t take that into account. Instead, “suffering” is depicted as if it were the only constant and reality, which is inaccurate. Everyone suffers in some way in their lives, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is the only reality, for its opposite is a reality too. Furthermore, while death is an inevitable part of life, not everyone has more suffering in life than joy. Some people live happier lives than others, and vice versa. These are subjective areas and exist in forms of degrees, not absolutes. For example, Tom Cruise is a movie star who has it all, yet would you lump his life in the same category as that of a homeless beggar deprived of food and shelter who is spat on everyday? While both have some sort of “suffering” in their lives, it would be ludicrous to lump them both into the same category, as Buddhism does, for the reality is that Tom Cruise’s life is infinitely more pleasurable and desirable than that of the homeless beggar.
So you see, both suffering and joy are realities of life, and both are temporary and fleeting. Such is life. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that “suffering is one aspect of life” rather than that “life is suffering”. Therein lies the inaccuracy of this foundational precept of Buddhism.
0
Comments
Perhaps you dont really see what dukka is and where it comes from? Maybe ask yourself, why is the first noble truth, true?
This is why i prefer to see Dukka as "inevitable negative" and then speak of strain, suffering, stress etc only in terms of qualitative human experience:)
>In Taoist terms, it is only gives legitimacy to one half of the Ying Yang circle while writing off its opposite as a mere “illusion”, which is highly dualistic and not in balance with the “unification of opposites” principle.
Dukka hasn't an opposite, that's like saying "what's the opposite of gravity?" There may be experiences that are low on dukka and high on sukka, but I don't see the help of thinking of that in terms of opposites:)
>>>The truth is, suffering is a reality, but so are joy and happiness.
I don't see it like that, again, its more fundamental. Joy is an emergent property of experience, dukka is a foundational property of all contingent systems in a finite possibility space.
>>>While those who look at the world through rose-colored glasses are unrealistic and ignore the big picture, those who only seeing suffering and pain in the world do the same on the opposite end.
But the dharmic path isnt to change the way we relate to these things, its to change the "we", take it totally out of the equation, as it were. There is nobody to look through rose, or grey, tinted spectacles in dharmic terms:)
>>>The irony here is that Buddha taught that “The Middle Way”, or path between extremes, was best. Yet on this subject, it does not take “The Middle Way” at all but the extreme.
No, I am afraid you havent understood this point then:) He desnt teach a middle way between suffering and joy, he teaches the middle way from suffering to joy.
[/QUOTE]
No, joy is not a reality of life, it needs to be strived for, especially if it is to last:) Again perhaps you are confused by the "life is suffering" defination of Dukka, I suggets you look to understand more about Dukka to see that it isn't cached out in these simple "opposite" terms that you seem to think:)
Thanks
Mat
Buddhism acknowledges the happiness we experience. It's referred to as lokiya sukha. This is conditioned. Some people are content with this. However for those who are not, there is buddhadhamma which teaches lokuttara sukha or unconditioned peace/happiness.
The Buddha never ccreated a religion. He simply taught the true nature of things and dukkha and it's cessation. He understood that not all people are interested in this. And that's fine. Buddhism isn't "the one true path to heaven" or something. It's simple a few core truths that when realized lead to unconditioned peace or nibbana in this moment.
Sometimes we could be the same guy! I agree:)
Mat
First of all, you made certain assertions about Nichiren, which were pointed out to you as inaccurate.
Then, your Critique on Buddhism contained several points you were pulled up on.
You also enquired whether Buddhism is a pessimistic path - which again, is an inaccurate point of view....
Now - this.
The Four Noble truths are so-called because they are indisputably insightful and Accurate.
Would it not be better to say, "There's something I don't understand...." rather than claiming the First Noble Truth to contain '2 obvious inaccuracies'?
Do you think the Noble Truths have stood thus far, for millennia, only waiting for you to come along and 'Eureka!' suddenly find them, inaccurate?
Perhaps a more thorough research of such matters might stand you in good stead.
In brief, The First Noble truth cannot be taken in isolation form the others. they form a composite of Wisdom, which is the basis of the Buddha's teaching:
Life is 'Dukkha' (you've already been told that in translation, this has diverse meanings, and does not mean solely "Suffering". We're talking 'up and down', unsatisfactory', 'frustrating', 'trying'......)
It is Dukkha [all of the above] because we cling, desire grasp and are attached to the Impermanent.
We want (cling/grasp/desire) that which is unpleasant to cease for ever, and never recur.
we want that which is pleasant to be permanent, and to remain for ever.
neither option is possible.
That's what we find unsatisfactory, frustrating, trying.....
There is a way out of Dukkha.
That way, is to follow the Eightfold path.
Please tell me where the 'obvious inaccuracies' are.
Or go back and do a little more research.
next, would be the Five Precepts, I would suppose.....:rolleyes:
It is for those who sees or feels the inherent unsatisfactoriness of conditioned existence. As long as one is in samsara there is a constant move towards our likes, a rejection of our dislikes and not registering the other aspects of our experiences.
If one is "satisfied" with life one cannot see the truth of dukkha and not attempt to find a way out.
The 1st NT goes like this
"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."
NOT "life is suffering" but “suffering is one aspect of life”
This Truth applies to everyone whether you are king, beggars, monks, men, women and children.
Surely you agree that Tom Cruise and the beggar are both subjected to the same rule. Of course Tom has "less suffering" as he gets most of what he wants unlike the beggar but the 1st NT still applies.
Why is it that some who has just enough for living eg. monks, monastics etc. are so happy compared to those who have so much and are still dissatisfied?
Ponder this point.
Hi o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o
Indeed, we can give the experience of "that which is hard to bear" a more profound meaning.
However, it often is subjective.
For example, I noticed it causes less confusion when we say "There is dukkha" rather than "Life is dukkha".
So did the Buddha on many occasions, by the way.
With metta.
in any event I never said it wasn't subjective. My first post makes this clear. Nevertheless it's all still dukkha in the end, even when people don't recognize it. Again, dukkha is not pain and suffering or even "that which is hard to bear." fede's post explains dukkha well....
I am not referring to dukka, but the English translation. If I misunderstood something about Buddhism, then please point it out.
The description of the First Noble Truth that I quoted is standard and typical. It says that life is suffering and that suffering is the only true reality. That is unproven.
Why is suffering the true reality and joy an illusion? Can you prove that or provide logical reasons why?
Someone here said joy is something to strive for. I suggest you listen to Wayne Dyer. He will tell you that "there is no way to happiness. happiness is the way."
I made two important and simple points above in the first post. None of you have addressed them or explained why they are wrong or inaccurate. The points were simple, straightforward and logical. There is no way my points can be misunderstood.
Can you retsate them again please, as I dont think we can see them!:)
As simple as possible, pour favor:D
Mat
Dukkha/suffering is traditionally broken into 3 types, they are:
The suffering of suffering or blatant suffering includes all the miseries of the lower realms or unfortunate births, as well as the sufferings of birth, old age, sickness and death in the upper realms or fortunate births, and also separation from what we hold dear, having to encounter what is undesirable, and not achieving what we want even after pursuing it.
All these types of suffering, big or small, are undesirable from the very first moment they appear, and are therefore understood to be painful.
The suffering of change means that no matter where we find ourselves, whether in this world system or any other, even if we are in the higher realms, and no matter how seemingly pleasurable and attractive our dwelling place, physical body or sensory enjoyments, our situation can not possibly remain as it is, but is bound to change, because of not being beyond the laws of impermanence.
When it does change, what was previously a pleasurable experience becomes a source of suffering. It is just like the sorrow caused by the death of a child: it is because we were so happy when the child was alive that their death is so painful. This is the reasoning behind the statements that even joyous situations are marked by dukkha, or suffering.
Even on a micro level you can think of an icecream headache and say that icecream sure was good but now my head hurts, this is the suffering of change.
The suffering of being conditioned refers to all experience that is bound up with the ordinary psycho-physical aggregates/skandas. No matter whether we are experiencing temporary pleasure or suffering, or even a neutral state, we are always setting ourselves up for future suffering. Why? Because our present skandas are direct causes for our future skandhas, which will be the supports for suffering in the future.
That means all our present experiences are in some way the causes for sufferings that will come to us later on. Since the skandas are conditioned, impermanent and subject to karma and change they will always end up as a source of suffering, unless we are liberated from conditioned existence through practicing the path.
Every aspect of our conditioned existence brings with it the potential for future suffering, so it is also known as the ‘all-pervasive suffering of conditioned existence.’
these reasonings are quite rational and founded in the teachings and largely supported by both empirical and introspective study.
I gave you the various translations of Dukkha and pointed out the errors made when people don't know what they're talking about.
Sez you.
So you didn't read my post then, about clinging, grasping, desire, impermanence and the Four Noble Truths needing to be taken as a whole?
If you read my post, you'll have an inkling. People cling to 'good times' wanting them to last, and stay for ever. But they don't. THAT's what brings the suffering. Wanting impermanence to not be impermanent. And desiring the permanent halt to all things negative. Equally impossible. It's meeting with them, and treating "Those two impostors just the same".
This is dreadful! Is it? don't worry it will pass!
This is wonderful! Is it? Don't worry. It will pass.
we know. This happiness, as it's called, is the inner joy we're cultivating.
The one that stands steadfast, no matter what is happening on the outside.
Good, or bad, inner joy, serenity, happiness - is the way. to be still, calm and serene, internally, no matter what goes on externally.
That what it means.
Eer....I think I did.... And also 'Ignorant' and wildly inaccurate.
But they're wrong. However, there seems there is no way you can understand what we mean, either.
there is no perfect English translation of dukkha. Yeah, you're going to have to do some research. The Truths don't end with one sentence. The tipitaka and Mahayana sutras are rather extensive.
Secondly, once again, please read the Truths as a whole. The second explains the first. It does not say suffering is reality and joy is an illusion. Please read our previous posts. I tried to explain very clearly that mundane, conditioned joy isn't denied. Dukkha is not simply suffering.
The translation isn't perfect but it works when read in context.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html
Nowhere does it say "Life means suffering". All these websites are often someones interpretation of Buddhism. If you want to know what the first noble truth is, it's best to go to the source of our teachings. The suttas and sutras.
You are refering to the English translation of Dukkha. We are telling you it is a mistranslation. How is that ducking your question, when your question was based on a mistranslation?
Nios.
It is? Really? Who has told you that is the 'standard and typical' description?
Perhaps I had a very differing perspective on the First Noble Truth, but I thought defining it as "Life = Dukkha = Suffering" was grossly inaccurate. The quote that you gave is misleading in my opinion. The First Noble Truth explains that suffering exists, not necessarily that it is what defines your existence, negating all other forms of relationships. I would agree with what others have written, try reading the noble truths translated more accurately and perhaps some confusion will disappear.
There is a reason they are called the "Four NOBLE Truths." Not that you shouldn't question them to better understand them, but you shouldn't just question them in order to try and prove yourself right and the truth incorrect and inaccurate. In doing so I don't think the motive for good is not there, just more ego feeding nature.
Other than that, I think everything else has been covered quite clearly . . . although we appear to start slinging a little mud . . .
However, when somebody comes in and tries to tell practising and seasoned Buddhists that something is wrong (not questioning - telling) and inspite of several different explanatory posts, still insists on not listening, but that we're the ones who have misunderstood - I think it's in order to be emphatic in our responses.
I know mud-slinging when I see it.
And nobody's slung nuthin'.
Yet.
And I'm equally sure nobody will resort to it, either.....:)
I wasn't trying to imply anything. I know you keep a clean ship. Just saying that some of the responses were starting to get rather . . . um . . . directed. Not that they aren't warranted, just that you can tell the dialog has a changing tone as you read further through the posts.
Anywho, wasn't intended to be "mud fling-ish".
But if you want, just say the word Fede
However, when somebody comes in and tries to tell practising and seasoned Buddhists that something is wrong (not questioning - telling) and inspite of several different explanatory posts, still insists on not listening, but that we're the ones who have misunderstood - I think it's in order to be emphatic in our responses."
It appears Fed was "clinging" to her comfortable world of not dealing with frustrating people... Fed did well as did the rest of you!!! It is not always easy when someone is poking you in the eye...
in the language of the interwebs it means you're a noob.
And fyi Fed is not a dude, so maybe edit your previous post to be more gender accurate.
peace
I consider you always invited, always welcome
Well, as a Moderator, I have to be a little bit more 'clingy' than some...
It's part of my job spec...trying to pre-view problems as they might arise, and just be a bit firmer than most, on some stuff....
The Buddha never said that 'self-defence' isn't allowed... so being poked in the eye isn't something we should ever passively sit by and permit to happen.
I think defence of the Dhamma is acceptable, in such cases as this.
we're very pleased to have you here, may I say!
Although this may be considered relative delusion and not what the sutras say the Buddha actually said, it's very helpful to me.
You guys have your own Dukkha, think of it and experience it any darn way you like!! nya nya nya
I wish you to know it in your own way that leads you out of the 's..t' storm.
So There!
http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm
No, it doesn't. You're taking it completely out of context. The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves.
As for the term "dukkha" itself, there's no single English equivalent. According to the commentaries, it's defined as "that which is hard to bear." So while it can be translated as suffering, it can also be translated as dis-ease, pain, stress, etc.
The suttas are full of references to various forms of bliss, joy, pleasure, rapture, etc., especially in relation to various states of meditative absorption (jhana).
In AN 5.28, for example, the pleasure (sukha) and rapture (piti) experienced in first jhana is said to be "born from withdrawal [from the hindrances], accompanied by directed thought and evaluation." In the second jhana, a more refined form of pleasure and rapture is said to be "born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation."
Then there's the "pleasant abiding" of the third jhana where one "permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture, so that there is nothing of his entire body unpervaded with pleasure divested of rapture," and the fourth where one sits "permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness, so that there is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness."
Additionally, in AN 4.62, there's mention of "four kinds of bliss" that can be attained by a householder "partaking of sensuality" (i.e., indulging in a non-contemplative lifestyle): the bliss of having, the bliss of wealth, the bliss of debtlessness and the bliss of blamelessness.
And of course, there's nibbana, "the highest bliss" (Dhp 204).
Like I said, study the discourses of the Buddha that are recorded in the Pali Canon directly for your critique, not some half-assed synopsis.
Just to be clear, my initial response was to the OP, not you. I apologize for any confusion.
QFT
Applying this to the thread topic, both happiness and suffering are characterized by duhkha, and both are impermanent. Anything that is characterized by duhkha is impermanent, and anything impermanent is characterized by duhkha. It contradicts Buddhist teaching to say that suffering is both permanent and characterized by duhkha, and it contradicts Buddhist teaching to say that happiness is both impermanent and not characterized by duhkha.
Life's a gentle tickle on the scrotum....
then an INEVITABLE spiked steel toed kick in the balls...
I believe the #1 noble truth is correct,
Life may be pleasurable, but pleasure... it is not the dominant side of the coin......
not balanced like yin/yang,
Suffering or Dukka, is compounded over the eons. the boredom and pain...It gets exponential...but forget that idea for now. anyway,
Wouldn't it be hell if you realized your pleasures in life.. are fruitless
and bankrupt? they are self centered and lead to no where...?
Then all you got is suffering...
SHIT..
we trick ourselves into clinging to pleasure, avoiding distress..
but the truth is, our inability to conform to an un-conceivable reality messes us up..
the pleasures in life are weak compared to the potency of the sufferings..
and that means that the majority of.... self-centered delusional life, is suffering..
maybe I didn't really read your question, or look at the replies, or care too much, but that's my answer MUAHHAAHA
or an exaggeration ...whatever we know that right?
and you say all things impermanent are characterized by duhhka ? or duhhka characterized by.... impermanence? noooo that can't be true?
it's our non acceptance of impermanence that generates duhhka! impermanence is a sexy mistress.:eek:..
....
........
.....i'm hittin that..... :cool:
The Buddha taught life is Nibbana, free from suffering.
The first noble truth describes the state that is dukkha.
The second noble truth describes that which is to be abandoned.
The third noble truth describes that which is to be realised & abided in.
The fourth noble truth describes the method for realising & abiding in Nibbana, here, now, today.
Sure. All you have to do is scroll up to the first post, but if you're too lazy to do that... then here:
a) First, while it does acknowledge that positive happy experiences exist in life, it diminishes them and focuses on suffering and pain instead, insinuating that suffering is the true reality and happiness a mere illusion. This is highly one-sided, subjective, unproven and not entirely accurate. Simply put, it gives far more weight to one side of the coin than the other. In Taoist terms, it is only gives legitimacy to one half of the Ying Yang circle while writing off its opposite as a mere “illusion”, which is highly dualistic and not in balance with the “unification of opposites” principle. The truth is, suffering is a reality, but so are joy and happiness. While those who look at the world through rose-colored glasses are unrealistic and ignore the big picture, those who only seeing suffering and pain in the world do the same on the opposite end. The irony here is that Buddha taught that “The Middle Way”, or path between extremes, was best. Yet on this subject, it does not take “The Middle Way” at all but the extreme.
b) Second, while it is true that happy times and pleasures are transient, so are most forms of suffering as well. Disappointments, pain and sorrow usually pass too, and time heals most wounds. This Noble Truth doesn’t take that into account. Instead, “suffering” is depicted as if it were the only constant and reality, which is inaccurate. Everyone suffers in some way in their lives, but that doesn’t mean that suffering is the only reality, for its opposite is a reality too. Furthermore, while death is an inevitable part of life, not everyone has more suffering in life than joy. Some people live happier lives than others, and vice versa. These are subjective areas and exist in forms of degrees, not absolutes. For example, Tom Cruise is a movie star who has it all, yet would you lump his life in the same category as that of a homeless beggar deprived of food and shelter who is spat on everyday? While both have some sort of “suffering” in their lives, it would be ludicrous to lump them both into the same category, as Buddhism does, for the reality is that Tom Cruise’s life is infinitely more pleasurable and desirable than that of the homeless beggar.
So you see, both suffering and joy are realities of life, and both are temporary and fleeting. Such is life. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that “suffering is one aspect of life” rather than that “life is suffering”. Therein lies the inaccuracy of this foundational precept of Buddhism.
Restating "as simple as possible" does not mean copying and pasting what you wrote before. If you want a clearer answer, you need to ask a clearer question.
Richard linked you to the essay containing this quote earlier but it seems you ignored it: "he Pali word, dukkha, means "incapable of satisfying" or "not able to bear or withstand anything": always changing."
Ok so if what I read about the First Noble Truth is an inaccurate translation, then you should start a campaign to educate all Buddhist authors to translate the "dukka" correctly. I mean, every book about Buddhism in English that I've opened up and looked through all say that the First Noble Truth is that "Life is suffering".
So if all these translations are wrong, then you need to organize a campaign to educate these authors on getting it right. Why hasn't that been done long ago?
People educated in the Dhamma know it already. Which is why we tend to use the word 'Dukkha' instead of 'suffering'.
And which is why, when people come onto this forum with misconceptions, we're quite happy to put the record straight.
It doesn't usually take this long, however......:rolleyes:
The basic meaning of "dukkha" is 'difficult to bear', 'hard to endure'.
For example, birth is difficult to bear. When a woman gives birth to a child, is that something easy or difficult? Does the new born child wallowing in its excrement & vomit abide in difficulty or in ease? Is looking after the child with sleepless nights easy or difficult?
The same with sickness, aging & death. Are these things easy for people to bear or difficult to bear?
Generally, they are difficult to bear.
But then the Buddha summarised the problem of dukkha in one word, namely, attachment.
Suffering is not actually birth, sickness, aging or death but attachment to the five aggregates as "I" & "mine".
Birth, aging, sickness & death are ordinary dukkha for ordinary unenlightened people.
But enlightened people realise dukkha is not these things but attachment.
"My birth", "my aging", "my sickness", "my death", "my pain", "my loss", "my separation" = dukkha.
Why don't you make that your job. You go tell them how wrong they are. I triple dog dare you.
I am actually very interested in knowing what books you are talking about. What books have you opened up and said, verbatim "Life is suffering"?
I can't remember any books that have translated the First Noble Truth directly to mean "Life is suffering." Perhaps some have tried to translate it as "Suffering/Dukkha is a part of life" or "Suffering/Dukkha exist" but I don't remember any that have gone so far as to say "Life IS suffering."
I'm interested to know which books (actual books, not internet translations) you are referring to.
He's mostly likely referring to a misunderstanding of the Pali phrase, "Sabbe pi dukkham" (All is dukkha).
In SN 35.23, the Buddha defines the all (sabba) as the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavours, body and tactile sensations and intellect and ideas. In SN 35.24, the Buddha defines the all as a phenomenon to be abandoned [via the abandonment of greed/passion (raga) in regard to the six sense media].
Without the presence of greed/passion in regard to the six sense-media, they are no longer "difficult to bear." This is a far cry from the blanket statement, "Life is suffering."
as said there is no correct translation. Many words besides suffering are used. This is why I said it's best to leave some words untranslated and instead explain them thoroughly. The authors aren't wrong, they're just trying there best and using a standard translation. If you would read beyond that single summarized line it would be best. Also I thought you grew up a Buddhist? Have you never had a teacher explain these things to you? I'm not sure how in your extensive research you've never heard these things before.
I don't doubt that there are books that mistranslate the first truth, but I haven't been able to find them.