gabrielbranbury wrote:Dhammanando said:
There is much that arises and passes away that does not involve gross suffering; and there are some things, like headaches, whose passing away is pleasurable. Nonetheless, with regard to the dukkha of formations (saṅkhāra-dukkha), the Suttas plainly teach that "whatsoever is experienced, all that is included in dukkha."
Then why isnt the first and second noble truth "1)Everything is dukkha
Because the Buddha was one who taught by analysing (vibhajjavādin) and your proposal would amount to too sweeping a statement. The word "everything" would presumably encompass all dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned. But the unconditioned dhamma, Nibbāna, is treated under the third truth, while the conditioned dhamma of craving is treated under the second, and the eight mental factors that constitute the eightfold path are treated under the fourth.
2)Everything causes dukkha"?
This also would be too sweeping a statement, for Nibbāna doesn't cause dukkha. Moreover, the aim of the second truth is not to itemize every single thing that's involved in the arising of dukkha, but rather, to draw attention to that which needs to be abandoned.
First Noble Truth
"And what are the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stressful? Form as a clinging-aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging-aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: These are called the five clinging-aggregates that, in short, are stressful.
So when clung to the Kandas are stressful. Sort of like if Im late to work driving is stressful but if not there is no stress.
The khandhas are intrinsically dukkha, whether clung to or not. The complete abandoning of upādāna means that certain kinds of dukkha (e.g. sorrow, despair) will arise no more in the present life, and no more khandhas will arise after death. But while the arahant's present set of khandhas last he will still be subject to bodily pain, which is dukkha-dukkhatā, and each dhamma that arises in his continuum will be oppressed by rise and fall, which is saṅkhāra-dukkhatā.
Regarding the term upādānakkhandha, "aggregate of grasping", this is to be understood in two senses:
1. Upādānasambhūta: being produced by [past] grasping.
2. Upādānagocara: being the resort (literally "pasture") of [present conascent] grasping.
The cankerless aggregates (anāsava khandha) of an arahant are upādānakkhandhas in the first sense only, while the cankered aggregates (sāsava khandha) of the non-arahant are upādānakkhandhas in both senses.
So that's the Mahāvihāra's retort to the popular assertion of modern psychotherpy-centred Buddhists that when the Buddha said "in brief, the five aggregates of grasping are dukkha" he only meant the aggregates at moments when defilements are present. And also to the older claim of some Mahāyāna Buddhists, who, hoping to live for ever, posit a post-awakening endless continuum of dhammas that are neither themselves afflictions nor products of past afflictions.
"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.
If Kandas are clung to in any of these ways they are stressful.
No Greed, No Hate, No Delusion....
And that's all there is to it, eh?
The four noble truths are one application of the principle of dependent arising — a teaching that is "profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise." Do you really think your take on the noble truths could be characterized in such terms?
I do agree, btw, that there is "no problem" for one who has abandoned the three akusala roots. But "no problem" doesn't mean no dukkha of any sort. More to the point, there will be no abandoning of the three akusala roots without the development of insight into the danger in conditioned dhammas; there will be no development of insight into the danger in conditioned dhammas so long as one adheres to the wrong view that there might be some such dhammas that don't have dukkha-lakkhaṇa as an inherent and inalienable feature.
Now a question in return: what do you
understand the Buddha to mean by "the dukkha of formations" (saṅkhāra-dukkha)? For example, when he says regarding vedanā: "Whatsoever
is felt, that is included in dukkha" (yaṃ kiñci vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmiṃ
— Rahogatasutta, SN. iv. 216; Kaḷāra Sutta, SN. ii. 53)?