The First Noble Truth
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
The first Noble Truth:
The age old problem... the meaning of "Dukkha" which more often than not, gets lost in translation so..................
According to Walpola Rahula - exerts taken from his book "What The Buddha Taught"
Dukkha
"The First Noble Truth Dukkha is generally translated by most scholars a "The Noble Truth of Suffering" and it is interpreted to mean that life according to Buddhism is nothing but suffering and pain. Both translation and interpretation are highly unsatisfactory and misleading. It is because of this limited, free and easy translation, and its superficial interpretation, that many people have been misled into regarding Buddhism as pessimistic."
First of all, Buddhism is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. If anything at all, it is realistic, for it takes a realistic view of life and of the world. It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit dukkha) in ordinary usage means 'suffering', 'pain', 'sorrow' or 'misery', as opposed to the word sukha meaning 'happiness', 'comfort' or 'ease'. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha's view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophicalmeaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of 'suffering', but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as 'imperfection', 'impermanence', 'emptiness', insubstantiality'. It is difficult therefore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so, it is better to leave it untranslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it by conveniently translating it as 'suffering' or 'pain'. The Buddha does not deny happiness in life when he says there is suffering.
The conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects: (1) dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-hukkha), (2)dukkha as produced by change (veparinama-dukkha) and (3) dukkha as conditioned states (samkhara-dukkha). All kinds of suffering in life like births, old age, sickness, death, association with unpleasant persons and conditions, separation from beloved ones and pleasant conditions, not getting what one desires, grief, lamentation, distress - all such forms of physical and mental suffering, which are universally accepted as suffering or pain, are included in dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha).
A happy feeling, a happy condition in life, is not permanent, not everlasting. It changes sooner or later. When it changes, it produces pain, suffering produced by change (viparinama-dukkha) mentioned above. No one will dispute them. This aspect of the First Noble Truth is more popularly known because it is easy to understand. It is common experience in our daily life.
But the third form of dukkha as conditioned states (samkhara-dukkha) is the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble Truth, and it requires some analytical explanation of what we consider as a 'being', as an 'individual', or as 'I'.
What we call a 'being', or an 'individual', or 'I', according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces of energies, which may be divided into five groups or aggregates (pancakkhandha). The Buddha says : 'In short these five aggregates of attachment are dukkha'. Elsewhere he distinctly defines dukkha as the five aggregates: 'O bhikkhus, what is dukkha? It should be said that it is the five aggregates of attachment'. Here it should be clearly understood that dukkha and the five aggregates are not two different things; the five aggregates themselves are dukkha.
Even though I tend to use 'unsatisfactory' I'm guilty of using the term 'suffering' as a quick fix translation in some Dharma conversations, however I often assume (be it correctly or incorrectly at times) that others understand that "Dukkha" means a whole lot more .....
When you entered on the path did you 'suffer' when first confronted with the misleading and somewhat pessimistic words "Life is Suffering" ?
Comments
Initially yes, I read about it in a book and almost immediately decided Buddhism wasn't for me. It wasn't until years later that I understood better.
If you were writing a book about it, how best would you define it?
I prefer the term dissatisfaction with some examples given. At the time, i was 24 years old and this was in a world religions college class. With a text that covered all major world religions in like 120 pages. It was a very pessimistic "life is nothing but suffering" view and honestly as someone who was then the mom of a boy who was struggling mightily (undiagnosed autism) and with a partner who was an alcoholic, the last thing I wanted to hear was "life is nothing but suffering." My life was suffering every day, 24 hours a day, with no end in sight. I certainly didnt want to believe that kind of pain was all there was. I wanted a release from that, but the book didn't focus at all on the "yes, there is suffering but there is a way out, too" it was quite the opposite.
Then, in the time I have seen people at retreats who flat out deny any suffering or dis-satisfactoriness in their lives, despite that in their arguing against it, they are displaying exactly that.
But it is also quite possible that at 24 and recently disengaged from my Christian upbringing that I completely misunderstood as well and just was not ready for what Buddhism had to offer. I was searching for something, actively, rather than letting it find me.
I found this quite early in my investigation about Buddhism. Seems to be saying much the same as the above.
I like the presentation as three things: the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of skhandas/composition.
Life is suffering like rolling down a hill of briars is suffering. Maybe you hit a clearing, maybe you hit a pool of elegant soft feathers, but it's still a giant hillside of thorny bushes.
Dukkha is a good word, and i like the translation "unsatisfactoriness" ... it's the knowledge of the word Satisfaction that we can even begin to contemplate "unsatisfactoriness," you see? Our baseline expectation is much different than our experience, and thus we must look into the nature of the hill of briars. We must see it for what it truly is.
"Renunciation is the feet of meditation" and without your feet, how would you walk?!
I sometimes find the focus on suffering in Buddhism rather challenging, the continual reminder that suffering is inevitable.
This is worth a look:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html
Indeed. Other paths focus on Joy, Beauty and having a nice day ...
http://www.rodneyohebsion.com/sufism.htm
Where is the fun in that ... ahem ... mmm ... I think you might have find the duck in the Dukkha @SpinyNorman
I use the term 'stressful'. I point out that 'stress' isn't necessarily bad, unless it's preceded by 'dis-'.
Some stress is good; it keeps us on our toes and the adrenaline flowing. And it's a requirement, for the healthy function of our survival instinct.
Stress can also manifest in positive and beneficial situations: For example, happiness and elation, joy and laughter can put certain organs in a different mode of function, which is good for us, but this alteration in function, is also putting the organ under stress, albeit in a good way.
We 'stress' certain matters. In other words, we put emphasis, we underline, we make stronger impact. But that doesn't necessarily make them negative.
Stress covers a number of things, and is for me, a better expression.
Yes, I prefer positive expressions of the path. Here's one example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Factors_of_Enlightenment
Stress, suffering, unsatisfactoriness, all of those and more. Dukkha is multi-layered and multi-faceted, and very difficult to capture with a single word translation. It's perhaps better left untranslated.
But if the five aggregates are dukkha, then how is there an escape from dukkha? I've seen it translated as the "five aggregates subject to clinging".
Short answer....Meditate Meditate meditate and then meditate some more....
Quotes from the same book:
"What we call a 'being' or an'individual', or 'I' is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. "Whatever is impermanent is dukkha. This is the true meaning of the Buddha's words: 'In brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha.' They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in flux of momentary
arising and disappearing."
"Buddhaghosa, the great commentator, explains: '… a fire that burns on account of wood burns only when there is a supply, but dies down in the very place when it (the supply) is no longer there, because then the condition has changed, but (the fire) does not cross over to splinters, etc., and become a splinter-fire and so on; even so the consciousness that arises on account of the eye and visible forms arises in that gate of sense organ (i.e., in the eye), only when there is the condition of the eye, visible forms, light and attention, but ceases then and there when it (the condition) has changed, but (the consciousness) does not cross over to the ear, etc., and become auditory consciousness and so on."
"The world is in continuous flux and is impermanent.' One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self (Atman), individuality, or anything that can in reality be called 'I'.
Every one will agree that neither matter, nor sensation, nor perception, nor any of those mental activities, nor consciousness can be really called 'I'. But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are independent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of 'I'. But this is only a false idea, a mental formation, which is nothing but one of those 52 mental formations of the fourth Aggregate which we have just discussed, namely, it is the idea of self (sakkhaya-ditthi). These five Aggregates together, which we popularly call a 'being' are dukkha itself. There is no other 'being' or 'I' standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says: 'Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; The deed are, but no doer is found.'"
"What The Buddha Taught" (Start at page 15 through to 20)
@SpinyNorman It's not so much as an 'escape' from dukkha as such, it's more so a letting go, a free flowing of the consciousness through the Teflon coated sense doors...
In a nutshell Buddhism is like a fire, it ruins 'you'......And the Phoenix rises from your ashes....
No need to sugarcoat it. According to Buddha, life is suffering because everything is dependently arising. Pessimism has nothing to do with it, it is an unfortunate fact.
To me, @Genie, you overstate it. As said on Buddhanet: "The First Noble Truth is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering. Notice that there is a difference between a metaphysical doctrine in which you are making a statement about The Absolute and a Noble Truth which is a reflection. A Noble Truth is a truth to reflect upon; it is not an absolute; it is not The Absolute. This is where Western people get very confused because they interpret this Noble Truth as a kind of metaphysical truth of Buddhism - but it was never meant to be that. You can see that the First Noble Truth is not an absolute statement because of the Fourth Noble Truth, which is the way of non-suffering. You cannot have absolute suffering and then have a way out of it, can you? That doesn’t make sense. Yet some people will pick up on the First Noble Truth and say that the Buddha taught that everything is suffering."
@vinlyn if a person says there is suffering and no end to it, then yes that's pessimism, a wrong view. But if a person says there is suffering and also an end to it, that's not pessimism and therefore a right view.
I think you need to reread my comment.
How does Dukka arise from impermanence and interconnectedness? Ending is inevitable and connected to all else.
The place of Dukka in the Dharmic system is central.
We all know what Dukka is, and all the suffering/dissatisfaction/unease/disease are just words that try.
In our choices we increase or decrease Dukka.
One area that orthodox buddhism lets us down is in the lack of focus on Sukka within practice.
Cultivate Sukka!
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha
We haz plan!
Will there be Sukha cake?
I'm not sure we do though. I sometimes think we skate over the First Truth because we are impatient to find out what the escape route is.
We know what Dukka is in the sense of the inevitable negativity of experience. Kids, nonbuddhists, christians, we all get it, even if we can't define it.
But this is not the First Noble Truth, the First Noble Truth is that life is dukka(all conditioned phenomena is dukka... etc).
I think you are right that we "skate over" it without asking/experiencing why is life dukka. There are reasons, but they are in the three marks, not the 4NT.
I still don't really get it.
Another "fake" Buddha quote perhaps.
I have read it in many dharma books but I'm pretty sure the First Noble Truth is simply that dukkha is identifiable and that it is like a disease brought on by craving. (I guess that's both 1NT and 2NT)
If the 1NT could be boiled down to "Life is suffering" then the 3NT and 4NT would contradict the 1NT.
I like that Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates it as "stress".
So many misunderstandings for the newcomer to wade through.
Do not trust anything that you have to force yourself to believe no matter who else may believe it.
Buddha was not nihilistic nor was he pessimistic. He was a realist and because he was a realist, we can be optimistic as his reality is a joy that has no opposite.
These events are described by Buddha as dukkha all over the suttas but I can't for the life of me find Buddha saying something like "experiencing a fragrant cup of tea is dukkha".
Hazard a guess as to why?
1NT- Dukkha is identifiable
2NT- Dukkha is like a disease brought on by craving
3NT- There is a treatment
4NT- 8FP
-Not to pick the nit, but it seems to me there is nothing "unfortunate" about it; it is what it is. Of course the corollary is there is a way to lay one's burdens down...
This misunderstanding is getting old...
Can you please show me in a sutta where Buddha says that "Life is suffering" in those words?
It simply doesn't makes sense to say that everything is suffering because of dependent arising as if it is a bad thing that we are all dependently arising.
Dependent arising is what it is and there is nothing we can do about that but suffering is a totally different matter.
What you are saying completely misses the mark and it is precisely that kind of misinformation that turns people away.
Dukkha is an umbrella term like dementia so it is little surprise it can't be completely nailed down.
If life were inevitably suffering then there would be no escape from it. I think the 1st Noble Truth can be adequately expressed as "suffering exists".
@SpinyNorman, I agree to a point and it may sound like a small distinction but that it exists goes without saying... It's just stating the obvious and not the best way to start a 4 part revelation.
They already know that suffering exists.
That it has been identified naturally and logically leads into a known cause or the 2NT.
If left at "Suffering exists" beginners have to rely on a kind of logical faith that this revelation naturally flows into suffering having a known cause.
The 4NTs is a logical position so there would be a natural flow from one point to the other.
@ourself, Impermanence therefore suffering; life is changeable, therefore "life" is suffering. That's probably where the misunderstanding comes from...
I prefer, this is suffering.
@Will_Baker;
That still doesn't make any sense... Impermanence is not equal to suffering.
Impermanence is what it is. Suffering can come from craving permanence but not from impermanence itself, do you see that?
I can appreciate the beauty of something even more because of its impermanence and don't need to be upset when it changes. To appreciate things as they are is to appreciate the impermanence also.
the problem is that some Buddhists want to actually cling to the suffering because they misunderstand the teaching (as @ourself points out)...they wallow in it.
It doesn't say that ALL life is suffering. We know that's not true if we just think about our own experiences. But enjoyment doesn't usually last.
-I get what you are saying, I was tying to explain where I believe some of the confusion comes from around "life is suffering."
As regards impermanence, I'm with you; at least on a good day that's how it works for me as well :-)
The death of a loved one still trips me up and at one point I had lost the three people closest to me in one year (year and a half, sorry). First my Mom, then my wife then my little brother... My Dad passed when I was 8.
Right now I have a fiance and an 18 month old daughter... Where would she be right now if I let impermanence equal suffering?
By her eyes and her laugh, I get the feeling she would rather be here for the ups and downs rather than not be given the chance.
It's not like it will last forever and then perhaps we can go back to doing "nothing" if that's all "it" is.
Life should not be a chore...
Do you know why the mountains have to once again be mountains?
So we can say to one another "Wow, look at that beautiful mountain!" before it's gone from view.
Well said @vinlyn
The first noble truth emphasises the trough of the inevitable change from yin to yang. Some even like to pretend that Dharma is a form of religiously sanctioned depression. @thickpaper rightly reminds us of Sukha.
So we could start with Sukha and reduce things to two noble Truths
and now back to Dukkha ... if you must ...
I guess it might be best to just say:
There is suffering/dissatisfaction/unease/etc etc (dukkha)
There is the cause of suffering
There is a way to eliminate the cause
And this is the way ( and it's my way or the highway)
-(mind you "inevitable" does have a nicer ring to it and perhaps it will make people think a little more outside the box ie stretch ones imagination )
You have to eat your dukkha first @lobster then you can have some Sukha cake
Suffering is dependent on contact.
I teach only 2 things, sukha and the the way to eternal sukha. This will sell.
Where do I sign up for this?
Dighavu Sutta
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/23.16-Dighavu-S-s55.3-piya.pdf
Looking at how dependent origination is framed, the First Truth could be expressed as: "suffering is inevitable while ignorance persists".
Life sucks and blows.
So does a vacuum cleaner.....
With or without the attachments?
Suffering not in the sense that you're in constant pain. More like existential angst, some sort of stress in the background even whilst being happy....
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry to hear that you're in constant stress. I have great days and great weeks with no angst. They just don't last forever.
I've actually written the exact opposite.
Do you mean like a sense of impending doom that some people have ? always on edge even when being/feeling happy....
That's an aspect of dukkha too. Recognising that pleasure and joy are fleeting experiences.