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.
Isn't the first of the four noble truths just obvious?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
To "understand" fully would be to reach the "end of suffering", therefore I make no claim at full understanding, and the implication is also there that I MISunderstand.
But as I understand it, suffering is not one side of the coin, of which pleasure is the other. The "First Truth" is not seeking to point out that certain "things" exist that either are suffering itself or will lead to suffering. It is in fact saying that life in its totality IS suffering (i.e. the unenlightened life)
That living from the hub of a "self" that sees some things as suffering and others as pleasure, and seeking less of the one and more of the other.......this WHOLE way of living and seeking IS suffering.
Which leads, in various unfoldings of the dharma, to such words as "if you wish to know the truth only cease to cherish opinions". And more broadly, to the words of the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart......"They can truly enjoy the feast who would just as willingly fast."
What lies in between is our own unique path, called "practice".
You say that the existence of suffering is obvious to you. Are you talking about the suffering of other people hit by earthquakes in Japan, crushed in revolutions against dictators in Africa and the Middle-East, oppressed by poverty in India, or are you referring to your own personal painful experience of life?
There are people to whom suffering does not exist, let alone obvious. I don't mean to say that they are not aware of suffering. It is just that they don't have any hang up about it. To them, it's no big deal.
So unless a person is already enlightened (or just completely oblivious), they need to prepare for the inevitability of suffering.
Everybody eventually gets sick and dies. Nobody can deny that. Why die unprepared?
For people who don't want to recognize this, that's their problem. I'm not going to try to make anybody recognize anything. If people accept it, they do. If they don't, they don't.
The word "sankhara" here is related to sankhara khanda, which means to think, to mental concoct, to mentality proliferate, to become via thought.
Where as "dukkha-dukkha"means "pain" and "viparinama-dukkha" means "unsatisfactoriness". All good translators who understand the dhamma, unlike Thanissaro, use the word "unsatisfactoriness" for the 2nd characteristic of annica, dukkha & anatta.
When the Buddha experienced dukkha-dukkha and viparinama-dukkha, his mind did not experience "stress". In fact, from the experience of viparinama-dukkha, the Buddha's mind experienced enlightenment & the end of the mental effluents (asava).
As I said, the Buddha said if you understand sankkhara-dukkhata, you understand everything. To the contrary, if you do not understand sankkhara-dukkhata, you understand nothing.
Please practise for the purpose of seeing
With metta
Regarding your post above on Dhammawheel, my answer is posted below.
My view is it is the ignorance & craving towards birth, ageing and death which causes dukkha.
To be more accurate, as the Buddha advised in the 1st Noble, it is attachment (upadana) to birth, ageing and death as "my birth", "my ageing" and "my death" which is dukkha.
When the Buddha advised in the 1st Noble: "IN SUMMARY, attachment to the five aggregates is dukkha", he dismissed the ordinary idea that birth, ageing and death were dukkha.
This we can confirm by analysising the suttas. For example, the Nakulapita Sutta could not be anymore unambiguous about this matter or truth.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html
However, it is best to confirm this through practise & insight.
We must see only attachment is dukkha. In the Culatanhasankhaya Sutta, the Buddha advised to understand this is to understand everything.
Best wishes
DD
i am not sure what you are trying to say in your post
the First Truth is to be seen, to be witnessed, to be comprehended
in India, in the Ajunta Caves, there is a stone carving of four deer with one head
this means when one truth is seen the others are seen
the Four Noble Truths are really just one truth
the 1st truth is the truth of attachment, of self-view
when the suffering of attachment is comprehended, then the way to end suffering via non-attachment will be comprehended
ok
DD
Our mind suffers from resistence due to personal clinging & other forms of cherishing.
The Hsing Hsing Ming's "cease to cherish opinions" is instruction for setting out on the path. This advice should be highly regarded & practised.
Meister Eckhart's "willingly fast" is even more basic.
But the Buddha's First Noble Truth is the diagnosis of suffering according to reality, such as E = MC2.
The Buddha did not teach mysticism. It is our mind that still does not comprehend the Buddha.
All the best
We shall have to disagree.
The two quotes are no more about the beginning than the end, or even the middle, yet I agree they have nothing to do with mysticism.
I spoke of our own unique path.
To "understand" fully would be to reach the "end of suffering"........as you say, the Four Noble Truths are just one truth. Again we agree here.
However. the main point was as said, the first truth is to be "understood". For me, again as said, to understand it is NOT to look upon "suffering" as one aspect of a larger reality......one side of a duality. Perhaps I was unclear.
All the best
The First, to be understood.
The Second, to be abandoned.
The Third, to be realized.
The fourth, to be developed/cultivated.
From the First Discourse of the Buddha.
The word "fully" does not apply.
Attachment is to be comprehended and suffering will end to the degree of the comprehension.
As for your discussion of "duality", this is irrelvent.
Your posts here are probably as irrelevent to the thread as my posts are on the Bodhidharma thread.
I suppose I can agree with you on that matter.
Best you stick to the Mahayana Advaita Non-Duality One Permanent Mind God Consciousness.
But thank you for offering your own comprehension.
You disagree with the Dhamma, not with "me".
It is "you" versus the Lord Buddha.
Thats the end.
All the best
It is not the end.
For example, if you bite into a piece of rotten fruit, you immediately spit it out of your mouth.
The Four Truths are the same.
When suffering is comprehended, it is abandoned; when abandoned, the end of suffering & the path is realised & practised.
All the best
Fully here is the fully of an enlightened being, being it stream enterer or arahant.
It is fully seen, understood & witnessed with direct insight that attachment (upadana) is suffering.
If we are suffering and due to our experience of suffering we decide to take refuge in Buddhism, suffering is not yet fully understood.
Doctors, for example, fully understand certain diseases. In their full understanding, they create medicines. When the medicine is taken, it cures the disease.
The Four Noble Truths are the same. When suffering is fully understood, its causes will be abandoned, the path will be practised and its cessation will be realised.
The Four Noble Truths are the scientific teachings of Fully Enlightened Buddhas and not mystics whose minds dwell in the Cloud of Unknowing.
2.....When suffering is fully understood, its causes will be abandoned, the path will be practised and its cessation will be realised.
One the words of misunderstanding, of mysticism, a dwelling in a cloud of unknowing.........another the "scientific comrehension" of the Buddha's words.
Bless you all. Now I know again just why once I left Buddhist forums well behind!
All the best
:cool:
:screwy:
Still, all the best and goodbye!
i do recall praising taiyaki to so many
when taiyaki first came here, taiyaki negotiated through my onslaught with grace
i said: "that is the first I have ever witnessed"
bone fide taiyaki
as for my ignorant self, i request taiyaki's forgiveness
i may have misread some of what you said, as my mind had formed an opinion of your view
but i cannot agree with what you have said above
your interpretation of the 1st truth above is too cosmic, too all embracing
The "First Truth" is seeking to point out that certain "things" exist that either are suffering itself or will lead to suffering. It IS NOT in fact saying that life in its totality IS suffering
I can only recommend you read the First Truth literally, as spoken by the Buddha and not according to pre-conceived notions accumulated from various teachers
Everything in the 1st truth are exclusive states of suffering. The Buddha did not say in the 1st truth "pleasure, happiness, virtue, wisdom or peaceful mental states were suffering"
As for "birth", the Buddha was referring to giving birth to children, which is suffering, painful
However, that all conditioned things are "unsatisfactory" due to impermanence, yes, the Buddha taught this, but not in the 1st noble truth
Kind regards
for me, when the buddha first taught, he meant physical birth
but later, after expounding dependent origination, the definition of birth there included "acquisition of the five aggregates", i.e., taking possession or appropriating
for me, there are different meanings of the word 'birth'
in the Devaduta Sutta, Buddha describes birth as an new born infant rolling & soiled in its excrement
in MN 141, Sariputta expounds the 4NT with detailed explanation and used the Dependent Origination meaning in birth
but still, the "appearaance" & "obtaining" of the aggregates can be from a mother's womb
the word "birth" in Buddhism has so many meanings
for example, in his Viddhimagga, Buddhaghosa said birth (jati) can mean: "becoming", "clan", "child birth", "rebirth", "social class", etc, dependent on the context
so in the 1st noble truth, for me, the Buddha lists the physical kinds of suffering as birth, aging, sickness & death
kind regards
Now this truth doesn't apply to you alone, everyone is in the same boat -- even the Lord Buddha and his enlightened disciples. They differed from us only in one respect, and that was their acceptance of the way things are. They saw that it could be no other way.
Our Real Home
Aj Chah
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/bl111.html
He should practice freeing himself from clinging to the six sense faculties and not attach his thoughts to them; secondly, he should practice releasing himself from dependence on the six objects and not attach his thoughts to them either. Thirdly, he should stop clinging to the connecting link between the six senses and the six sense objects, as well as to the six sense contacts, the six feelings, the six elements, the five aggregates and the four formless realms, as well as to all that is seen, heard, thought, perceived, and investigated in the mind.
Anathapindika must have followed this detailed presentation with his heart so that even as he was listening, he was already practicing in the way the wise and holy Venerable Sariputta had instructed him. At the end of the instructions, tears came to Anathapindika's eyes. The Venerable Ananda turned to him compassionately and asked him to calm himself and be at peace. But Anathapindika replied: "I cannot calm myself and be at peace, O worthy Ananda. I have served the Master and the spiritually accomplished monks for a long time, and yet I have never heard such a profound discourse."
Then Venerable Sariputta said: "Such profound talk, O householder, will not be clear enough for white-clad lay followers; it is clear enough for ascetics."
Anathapindika answered: "Venerable Sariputta, let such talks on the Dhamma be given to white-clad laity, too. There are those with just a little dust on their eyes. If they don't hear such teachings, they will be lost. Some may be able to understand."
The difference from the previously presented teaching of the Buddha is significant. Here we are concerned with ultimate questions, with the highest deliverance, not just on a theoretical basis but as practice. Anathapindika was aware, as a disciple who possessed the fruit of stream-entry, of the transitory nature the five aggregates of clinging, and he himself had expressed the fact that he knew the three characteristics of existence: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. But there is a great difference as to whether one merely hears these things and ponders them, or whether one actually practices and applies their relevance to oneself. In this distinction lies the essential difference between the methods the Buddha used to teach householders and he used to teach monks.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel334.html
P
P
P
By "good translators" I assume you mean those who agreee with your interpretation.
P
Love And Light,
Nidish
I did not notice you dismiss this or comment on this Porpoise.
Your issue is you do not understand Pali.
Painful feelings in Pali are called "dukkha vedana". Dukkha here means "pain". But it does not mean "suffering".
I already quoted MN 37 for you, which states a person is liberated via the destruction of craving, where feelings, whether pleasurable or painful, are merely observed.
The quote below about Nibbana cannot be anymore unambiguous in describing Nibbana as including the experience of dukkha vedana.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044
"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.
To be honest, I do not know much about this teaching or Pali terms, because, in my studies, which are not complete, I have only found these terms in one sutta, spoken by Sariputta.
The point or essense of the matter is if "dukkha" here does mean "suffering", it is still the suffering of attachment.
Dukkha-dukkha may mean suffering about "pain". However, pain is not dukkha. Only a person without mindfulness & wisdom suffers due to pain.
Viparinama-dukkha may mean suffering about "change". However, change is not dukkha. Only a person without mindfulness & wisdom suffers due to change.
Sankhara-dukkha may mean suffering about formations or fabrications. Fabrications, for the most part, are dukkha. Still, only a person without mindfulness & wisdom suffers due to fabrications.
In short, it is only ignorance, craving & attachment that make suffering from birth, sickness, aging, death, pain, change, etc.
The Buddha said knowing this is to know everything.
Kind regards
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.budd.html
17. Then, when the Blessed One had passed away, some bhikkhus, not yet freed from passion, lifted up their arms and wept; and some, flinging themselves on the ground, rolled from side to side and wept, lamenting: "Too soon has the Blessed One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Happy One come to his Parinibbana! Too soon has the Eye of the World vanished from sight!"
But the bhikkhus who were freed from passion, mindful and clearly comprehending, reflected in this way: "Impermanent are all compounded things. How could this be otherwise?"
18. And the Venerable Anuruddha addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Enough, friends! Do not grieve, do not lament! For has not the Blessed One declared that with all that is dear and beloved there must be change, separation, and severance? Of that which is born, come into being, compounded and subject to decay, how can one say: 'May it not come to dissolution!'?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html
The other thought was: that I'm sure that -- particularly when younger -- one really does see that there is much suffering in life. As I have gotten older, and my health has somewhat declined, I look at suffering much differently. Not only my own, but also that of others. For example, my mother had serious heart problems, and only recently have I begun to understand her suffering...not only in terms of the heart problem itself and its ramifications, but also in terms of the mental suffering that went along with it.
I do think that Buddhists sometimes put too much emphasis on suffering, in that there is also much joy in life. But, again, particularly when younger, one does not understand the balance between the two forces.
A withstanding peace that has no sustaining requirements, does not need to find/acquire sense pleasures or cling to existence/non-existence or other such views. A peace that ends the cycle!
I don't mean if someone put a bullet in your head that everything would just disappear, as if it was your mind generating the entire universe. That would deny the existence of other people as being real, you'd basically be saying they were all figments of your imagination. We're all part of this, but we don't all see it clearly, and in our ignorance we bring suffering upon ourselves and others. Sorry if I was unclear.