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.
There are 4 noble truths which are taught together. To stop at the first one kind of misses the point.
If we also don't know about the 3rd noble truth of the possibility of the liberation from suffering of course we'd try to find the pleasant moments in life and take a positive view of our existence. Life is suffering when compared to nirvana, supposedly even the best, happiest bits.
The problem is, most of us only know the world and its joys and pains. There is nothing else to compare it with. Nirvana for most is just a concept, not an experience.
@music, That's the entire point of "practice", of the Noble Eightfold Path (which includes meditation), to acquaint us with how things really are and lessen our craving/attachment in regard to the "world" (the aggregates). Our initial understanding of the Four Noble Truths is bound to be less than complete, but with time and effort things will become clear.
Enlightenment is really the gradual path of coming to perfect Right View of the Four Noble Truths. It's something we do primarily through direct experience; merely being told how things are, or knowing what they mean conceptually, isn't enough. We are literally changing our minds (how they work or relate to phenomena) through this process, so it's not just a matter of knowledge.
I've been talking about buddhism with people of late, and one consistent response I get is: "Well I don't think life is suffering."
Whats up with that denial- any thoughts?
I'd say more suffering is needed.
But also deep meditation shows how deep suffering actually is. You see the more there is NOT, the more peace there is. Than it may become apparent how even happiness is suffering. See here.
Clinging to the five aggregates (which are suffering), which constitute our psycho-physical organism, is the real problem. So we are enjoined by the Buddha to abandon the 2nd Noble Truth (cp. S.v.422). But we can only do it by transcendence since we can't reform our aggregates.
I've been talking about buddhism with people of late, and one consistent response I get is: "Well I don't think life is suffering."
Whats up with that denial- any thoughts?
I don't think it's denial. You can not deny things that you are not aware of to begin with. It's just a result of "ordinary perception". If impermanence can not be seen, dukkha can not be seen either. In order to deny it, you must first see it and then reject it. But if you don't see it, then it really can't be "denied".
By our ordinary perception, we are not able to see the impermanence of things because impermanence is hidden by the illusion of continuity...
...When yogis comprehend that mind and matter arise and disappear, they understand that mind and matter are impermanent. When they see that they are impermanent, they next understand that they are unsatisfactory because they are always oppressed by constant arising and disappearing. After comprehending impermanence and the unsatisfactory nature of things, they observe that there can be no mastery over these things; that is, yogis realize that there is no self or soul within that can order them to be permanent. Things just arise and disappear according to natural law. By comprehending this, yogis comprehend the third characteristic of conditioned phenomena, the characteristic of anatta, the characteristic that things have no self. One of the meanings of anatta is no mastery — meaning that nothing, no entity, no soul, no power, has mastery over the nature of things. Thus, by this time, yogis have comprehended the three characteristics of all conditioned phenomena: impermanence, suffering, and the non-self nature of things — in Pali, anicca, dukkha, and anatta.
Yogis can comprehend these three characteristics by observing closely the mere lifting of the foot and the awareness of the lifting of the foot. By paying close attention to the movements, they see things arising and disappearing, and consequently they see for themselves the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self nature of all conditioned phenomena. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/silananda/bl137.html
The problem is, most of us only know the world and its joys and pains. There is nothing else to compare it with. Nirvana for most is just a concept, not an experience.
Nirvana can't be brought to anyone so they can experience it. For example, if I climb a mountain, I can talk about my climb—even write a book about it. But I can't bring the mountain to you or to anyone. The mountain I climbed is only a mental image in your mind but it is real for me.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
There are 4 noble truths which are taught together. To stop at the first one kind of misses the point.
If we also don't know about the 3rd noble truth of the possibility of the liberation from suffering of course we'd try to find the pleasant moments in life and take a positive view of our existence. Life is suffering when compared to nirvana, supposedly even the best, happiest bits.
The problem is, most of us only know the world and its joys and pains. There is nothing else to compare it with. Nirvana for most is just a concept, not an experience.
Yes, its true, but so are things like God or heaven and such.
Personally I feel more time should be spent teaching about the benefits of the meditative life as these things aren't obvious in our daily lives.
"Life is suffering" isn't accurate. It should be more like "Life is full of dissatisfaction" But the first quote is much more catchy.
The original word was dukkha. It was either translated to English incorrectly or the word suffering was used for dramatic effect, and now it kinda stuck.
When I first learned of this, it made me reevaluated my views on life. Dissatisfaction makes more sense. The word suffering seems too specific, relatively, to describe life. Dissatisfaction seems to cover more. Even when a person lives a generally happy life, they can still find something that they are not satisfied with. The word suffering gives a very grim view on life, and that doesn't make sense in Buddhism's gravitation towards moderation. Even "dissatisfaction" may not be broad enough to cover what dukkha really means.
I can understand how some people can easily take that phrase to heart. One can use it as an excuse for their crappy life. "Buddhism says life is suffering, that's why my life is shit." People sometimes use it to validate their pessimistic view on life. I knew of a guy in high school who did this and wallowed in it. He did have a rough life, and he did try to make it better. But he used that line to excuse his failings when he didn't even need to. It was hard for him to accept failure. He put a lot of undue pressure on himself to succeed.
Anyway,I'm rambling or ranting, or both. I just think that phrase does more harm than good. It sucks when an inaccurate catchphrase carries so much weight.
"Life is suffering" isn't accurate. It should be more like "Life is full of dissatisfaction" But the first quote is much more catchy.
The original word was dukkha. It was either translated to English incorrectly or the word suffering was used for dramatic effect, and now it kinda stuck.
When I first learned of this, it made me reevaluated my views on life. Dissatisfaction makes more sense. The word suffering seems too specific, relatively, to describe life. Dissatisfaction seems to cover more. Even when a person lives a generally happy life, they can still find something that they are not satisfied with. The word suffering gives a very grim view on life, and that doesn't make sense in Buddhism's gravitation towards moderation. Even "dissatisfaction" may not be broad enough to cover what dukkha really means.
I can understand how some people can easily take that phrase to heart. One can use it as an excuse for their crappy life. "Buddhism says life is suffering, that's why my life is shit." People sometimes use it to validate their pessimistic view on life. I knew of a guy in high school who did this and wallowed in it. He did have a rough life, and he did try to make it better. But he used that line to excuse his failings when he didn't even need to. It was hard for him to accept failure. He put a lot of undue pressure on himself to succeed.
Anyway,I'm rambling or ranting, or both. I just think that phrase does more harm than good. It sucks when an inaccurate catchphrase carries so much weight.
I suppose it depends on what's happening in life at any given moment. It doesn't take too many glimpses of suffering to feel that "life is suffering" is a useful concept. Totally get what you are saying, though, about the nuances of translation and how they can be helpful or not helpful, depending on the individual.
The need for renunciation, though, would seem to indicate that life is more suffering than it is non-suffering; renouncing an existence in its entirety is quite a drastic reaction, and one would think it wouldn't come about due to mere dissatisfaction, but an overwhelming grief or rejection at the depths of life's suffering.
I think the nature of suffering itself is key--suffering is a strong word. Is suffering, as a very negative experience, balanced out by equivalent periods of ecstasy? Or is a sort of peaceful neutrality--pleasant phases of life--a better concept of the "good" in life, compared to the "bad?"
From my viewpoint, when suffering happens it can be very intense, memorable and life-changing...the kind of life-changing experience that leads to renunciation. It doesn't mean I don't rejoice at the birth of a child or experience the beauty of nature, but it does mean that this current existence, for all its good moments, is overall defined (to me) by a suffering--both my own and others'--that I absolutely reject and strive to be liberated from. It doesn't mean I'm glum or depressed (though sometimes I am) but that I hopefully am motivated.
Life's good things, which we sometimes point to as evidence that life is "okay," all pass away--so we are right to want good things, but wrong to think that trapping them and ourselves in conditioned existence is the way to make everything okay.
I think it's not so different from trying to say that the existence of cancer is okay because sometimes there are good moments during a cancer patient's treatment; by rejecting cancer and working to end it, we are not rejecting the cancer patient's good moments, nor are we saying that "cancer is 100% suffering," but rather we are accepting that cancer causes incredible suffering and absolutely must be eradicated if at all possible.
I agree though that if we made t-shirts saying "Cancer is Suffering," it would bum people out, and the phrase "Life is Suffering" can do the same. I guess it might be important to think what phrase motivates people the most to end the problem--both those phrases are pretty powerful, and in their heart, many people recognize them as true. I guess as always one has to strike a balance between being happily complacent versus agonizingly motivated.
Personally I think Lama Zopa Rinpoche is one interesting example of a tirelessly positive, yet utterly motivated person. His teachings strike me as a sort of happy whirlwind of effort.
The original word was dukkha. It was either translated to English incorrectly or the word suffering was used for dramatic effect, and now it kinda stuck.
"Dukkha" has many levels of meaning and cannot be translated adequately with a single word like "suffering".
Here's an interesting intro from Access to Insight:
"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."
Comments
Enlightenment is really the gradual path of coming to perfect Right View of the Four Noble Truths. It's something we do primarily through direct experience; merely being told how things are, or knowing what they mean conceptually, isn't enough. We are literally changing our minds (how they work or relate to phenomena) through this process, so it's not just a matter of knowledge.
But also deep meditation shows how deep suffering actually is. You see the more there is NOT, the more peace there is. Than it may become apparent how even happiness is suffering. See here.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html
Personally I feel more time should be spent teaching about the benefits of the meditative life as these things aren't obvious in our daily lives.
"Life is suffering" isn't accurate. It should be more like "Life is full of dissatisfaction" But the first quote is much more catchy.
The original word was dukkha. It was either translated to English incorrectly or the word suffering was used for dramatic effect, and now it kinda stuck.
When I first learned of this, it made me reevaluated my views on life. Dissatisfaction makes more sense. The word suffering seems too specific, relatively, to describe life. Dissatisfaction seems to cover more. Even when a person lives a generally happy life, they can still find something that they are not satisfied with. The word suffering gives a very grim view on life, and that doesn't make sense in Buddhism's gravitation towards moderation. Even "dissatisfaction" may not be broad enough to cover what dukkha really means.
I can understand how some people can easily take that phrase to heart. One can use it as an excuse for their crappy life. "Buddhism says life is suffering, that's why my life is shit." People sometimes use it to validate their pessimistic view on life. I knew of a guy in high school who did this and wallowed in it. He did have a rough life, and he did try to make it better. But he used that line to excuse his failings when he didn't even need to. It was hard for him to accept failure. He put a lot of undue pressure on himself to succeed.
Anyway,I'm rambling or ranting, or both. I just think that phrase does more harm than good. It sucks when an inaccurate catchphrase carries so much weight.
The need for renunciation, though, would seem to indicate that life is more suffering than it is non-suffering; renouncing an existence in its entirety is quite a drastic reaction, and one would think it wouldn't come about due to mere dissatisfaction, but an overwhelming grief or rejection at the depths of life's suffering.
I think the nature of suffering itself is key--suffering is a strong word. Is suffering, as a very negative experience, balanced out by equivalent periods of ecstasy? Or is a sort of peaceful neutrality--pleasant phases of life--a better concept of the "good" in life, compared to the "bad?"
From my viewpoint, when suffering happens it can be very intense, memorable and life-changing...the kind of life-changing experience that leads to renunciation. It doesn't mean I don't rejoice at the birth of a child or experience the beauty of nature, but it does mean that this current existence, for all its good moments, is overall defined (to me) by a suffering--both my own and others'--that I absolutely reject and strive to be liberated from. It doesn't mean I'm glum or depressed (though sometimes I am) but that I hopefully am motivated.
Life's good things, which we sometimes point to as evidence that life is "okay," all pass away--so we are right to want good things, but wrong to think that trapping them and ourselves in conditioned existence is the way to make everything okay.
I think it's not so different from trying to say that the existence of cancer is okay because sometimes there are good moments during a cancer patient's treatment; by rejecting cancer and working to end it, we are not rejecting the cancer patient's good moments, nor are we saying that "cancer is 100% suffering," but rather we are accepting that cancer causes incredible suffering and absolutely must be eradicated if at all possible.
I agree though that if we made t-shirts saying "Cancer is Suffering," it would bum people out, and the phrase "Life is Suffering" can do the same. I guess it might be important to think what phrase motivates people the most to end the problem--both those phrases are pretty powerful, and in their heart, many people recognize them as true. I guess as always one has to strike a balance between being happily complacent versus agonizingly motivated.
Personally I think Lama Zopa Rinpoche is one interesting example of a tirelessly positive, yet utterly motivated person. His teachings strike me as a sort of happy whirlwind of effort.
now that is the knid of suffering Buddha was talking about!
"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."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html