There IS suffering?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

There IS suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

The First Noble Truth.. is: 'There is suffering, dukkha.
-Ajhan Sumedho
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Vene ... oble_Truth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. [6]
-kaccayanagotta sutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hi All,

I think there is a distinct difference in the above two statements.

with metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
rowyourboat wrote:I think there is a distinct difference in the above two statements.
.... because .....

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Fede
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: The Heart of this "Green & Pleasant Land"...
Contact:

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by Fede »

Yes, I'm struggling.... :?
"Samsara: The human condition's heartbreaking inability to sustain contentment." Elizabeth Gilbert, 'Eat, Pray, Love'.

Simplify: 17 into 1 WILL go: Mindfulness!

Quieta movere magna merces videbatur. (Sallust, c.86-c.35 BC)
Translation: Just to stir things up seemed a good reward in itself. ;)

I am sooooo happy - How on earth could I be otherwise?! :D


http://www.armchairadvice.co.uk/relationships/forum/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by Reductor »

They differ in that the first asserts there is dukkha but says nothing of its pervasivness while the second says dukkha is all pervasive(assuming that all is anicca).

But i hazard to say that dukkha is being used in decidedly different ways and so differ in how pervasive we should understand them to be.

Consider that the first alludes to the first noble truth. In the first truth it is the five aggregates subject to clinging that are called dukkha.

In the second the buddha says that all that arises and passes away is dukkha. This is a partial restatement of the three marks of existence: anicca, dukkha and anatta.

Now it is accepted that an arahant does not cling, so obviously he does not cling to aggregates and so he does not experience dukkha in the sense implied by the first truth. However an arahant remains percipient of the three marks so long as they continue to live.

So since the first use of dukkha implies clinging while the second doesnt, it seems unnecessary to say that they are equally pervasive

I would say the word dukkha in the second example is best interpreted to mean 'unable to give security' while the word dukkha in the first example suggests the resultant grief in trying to obtain security from something fundamentally unable to.

Or such are the thoughts that leap to mind.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by ground »

rowyourboat wrote:
The First Noble Truth.. is: 'There is suffering, dukkha.
-Ajhan Sumedho
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Vene ... oble_Truth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing. His knowledge about this is independent of others. It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. [6]
-kaccayanagotta sutta.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hi All,

I think there is a distinct difference in the above two statements.

with metta

Matheesha
Yes. The first condenses the second.

Kind regards
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 2069
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by BlackBird »

TMingyur wrote: Yes. The first condenses the second.
And seemingly causes confusion.
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Path Press - Ñāṇavīra Thera Dhamma Page - Ajahn Nyanamoli's Dhamma talks
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

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.
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Vene ... oble_Truth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would you talk on dukkha and not mention what is below?
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by PeterB »

Maybe one day rowyourboat you will begin to express openly your view of The Forest Sangha, Goenka etc. rather than allude, suggest, imply and generally go round the houses. That way an actual debate can be joined.
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by Reductor »

Would you talk on dukkha and not mention what is below?
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
You know that the interpretation of dukkha you champion denies nibbana to the arahants while they remain alive, yes? It also ignores the definition of dukkha as caused(in part) by clinging.

Certainly I find fault with this realist interpretation as surely as you seem to find fault with sumedho's. But I imagine you feel yourself more qualified than others to say what is dhamma and what is adhamma.
Last edited by Reductor on Sun May 29, 2011 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kenshou
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by Kenshou »

Yes, what is anicca is dukkha, sure. What is impermanent/unreliable etc. is stressful, unsatisfactory, and all that. But why is that?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"What do you think, Tissa: In one who is not without passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for form/feeling/perception/fabrications/consciousness, does there arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair from change & alteration in his form/feeling/perception/fabrications/consciousness?"

"Yes, lord."

...

"What do you think, Tissa: In one who is without passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for form/feeling/perception/fabrications/consciousness, does there arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair from change & alteration in his form/feeling/perception/fabrications/consciousness?"

"No, lord."
All conditioned phenomena remain dukkha as a general characteristic, in that they remain unsatsifactory, unable to provide any lasting happiness due to their impermanence. But, what of "sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair"? The ending of those things is pretty straightforward. So, I do not buy what you are trying to imply.
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by ground »

BlackBird wrote:
TMingyur wrote: Yes. The first condenses the second.
And seemingly causes confusion.
Brief statements often do cause papanca. The intellect often is not willing to renounce and be content with what is just said.

Kind regards
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

Yes of course I see that ending of craving ends mental suffering in the arahanth. I also see that the death of the arahanth as the ending of sankhara dukkha as well, so it is significant.

My question is why leave out such a significant part of the dhamma (what is anicca, is dukkha) out of a talk on suffering. IMHO he did this because he knew what his audience was like- they needed a certain ..'sunshine' shall we call it, in a talk of dukkha. They are laypeople after all, not ordained. However it leaves me dissatisfied because I feel that this puts a spin on dhamma-vinaya which I believe can be avoided if they stick to topics like compassion, morality and generosity. This I think is the problem of a monk being dependant on his lay followers and the message not being truly independent. Who can speak without fear of upsetting one's followers?

I have heard Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta as 'self-less' in what I assume to be a talk similar to this in some ways (it was done for a lay audience as well). Now while it is not technically incorrect, it can mislead the listener as they will naturally come to the wrong conclusion, when it is not then described in depth. While it is not an untruth in the speakers mind, it is nevertheless a misrepresentation of the dhamma- which I don't believe in, whatever the cost. Better have your listeners battle through their own cravings and reach the truth, rather than not know where the truth lies at all. One person I admire in this issue is the Dalai Lama who keeps it simple, beneficial and true, rather than mildly untrue, yet beneficial.

The Buddha said that after his dimise the dhamma-vinaya will be the arbitatror, not individuals. I do feel an urge to pop dhamma-lite wherever I see it- it is a weakness, I know. :shrug: I'm not against any tradition per-se, just what I think is potentially misleading. :thinking: Who appointed me? Yes, well... :embarassed:

With metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7216
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by bodom »

rowyourboat wrote:However it leaves me dissatisfied...
It seems to me that maybe it is you yourself who needs to look more closely into anicca and dukkha if your are going to be averse too and dissatisfied with one talk out of the thousands that Ajahn Sumedho has given. Why not let the feeling of dissatisfaction go and move on with your day instead of nitpicking and starting a thread about it? Rest assured Ajahn Sumedho is the last person you need to worry about bringing the demise of the dhamma-vinaya.

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by Goofaholix »

rowyourboat wrote:My question is why leave out such a significant part of the dhamma (what is anicca, is dukkha) out of a talk on suffering.
So these paragraphs from the link you posted aren't enough for you?
The Pali word, dukkha, means 'incapable of satisfying' or 'not able to bear or withstand anything': always changing, incapable of truly fulfilling us or making us happy. The sensual world is like that, a vibration in nature. It would, in fact, be terrible if we did find satisfaction in the sensory world because then we wouldn't search beyond it; we'd just be bound to it. However, as we awaken to this dukkha, we begin to find the way out so that we are no longer constantly trapped in sensory consciousness.

So do not grasp these things as personal faults but keep contemplating these conditions as impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. Keep reflecting, seeing them as they are. The tendency is to view life from the sense that these are my problems, and that one is being very honest and forthright in admitting this. Then our life tends to reaffirm that because we keep operating from that wrong assumption. But that very viewpoint is impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.”
― Ajahn Chah
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: There IS suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

Hi Goof

I prefer the clarity of the following:
'He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing'. - The Buddha
This leaves no room for confusion. Even today, many learned Buddhists will find this statement shocking because it gets to the point without faffing around.

Try to find that in your meditation -then you know you are doing vipassana, and not samatha which you thought was vipassana.

:anjali:

with metta
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
Post Reply