Life Sux

[sukhamanveti]

Bhikkhu Bodhi:

"This is the noble truth of suffering. Birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering; association with the unpleasant is suffering; separation from the pleasant is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering.

The last statement makes a comprehensive claim that calls for some attention. The five aggregates of clinging (pañcupadanakkandha) are a classificatory scheme for understanding the nature of our being. What we are, the Buddha teaches, is a set of five aggregates — material form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness — all connected with clinging. We are the five and the five are us. Whatever we identify with, whatever we hold to as our self, falls within the set of five aggregates. Together these five aggregates generate the whole array of thoughts, emotions, ideas, and dispositions in which we dwell, "our world." Thus the Buddha's declaration that the five aggregates are dukkha in effect brings all experience, our entire existence, into the range of dukkha."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... toend.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think that Bhikkhu Bodhi should have qualified his statement. Ordinary existence is tainted by dukkha. The same discourse declares a "path leading to the cessation of dukkha"! Bhikkhu Bodhi knows that buddhas and arahants are free from dukkha. They have attained the goal. They have extinguished attachment, aversion, and delusion, and, therefore, the very tanha or craving that this discourse tells us is the origin of suffering. (Upadana or clinging, including clinging to the aggregates, is conditioned by tanha or craving, according to the scriptures. It is to be overcome as well. It is optional.) "Happy indeed are the arahants! No craving can be found in them." (SN 22.76) In other words the arahants have overcome the origin of dukkha, have ended dukkha, and have attained happiness in the truest sense. Dukkha is optional, according to the scriptures.

I think that Buddhists sometimes don't realize what we are communicating to nonBuddhists about the teachings. Many nonBuddhists perceive Buddhism as negative and "pessimistic," pervaded by hopelessness. This misperception goes all the way back to the 19th century, but it persists to this day, partly because of how Buddhists present (or misrepresent) the teachings. Recently, comedian and TV show host Bill Maher (here in the U.S.A.) said, "Buddhism is for actors. And it really is outdated in some ways - the 'Life sucks, and then you die' philosophy was useful when Buddha came up with it around 500 B.C., because back then life pretty much sucked, and then you died..." Maher, like many, sees Buddhism as a form of despair. Who would want to practice hopelessness and misery? But, clearly, that isn't what Buddhism is about. Buddhism is supremely optimistic. It teaches that suffering can be overcome!

One of the terms applied to the Buddha in the scriptures is "ever-smiling" (mihita-pubbangama). His disciples are called "joyful and elated" (hattha-pahattha), "jubilant and exultant" (udaggudagga), "free from anxiety" (appossukka), etc. (See WR's What the Buddha Taught.) I wish that more people knew what a joyful, optimistic path Buddhism is.

[Goofaholix]

Actually he did say.

If conditions are changing and there is noone there to be stressed by them are they stress?

If stress were inherent in the conditions then there would be no way of becoming free from stress other than to stop the conditions from changing. Rather the stress is in our reaction and this is something we can change.

[mikenz66]

Hi acinteyyo,

I have to disagree in one point. We are not the five aggregates! This is very important! What we believe to be our self actually is one or more or all of the five aggregates of grasping but none of it is a self. The person or personality is the pañcupadanakkandha but personality (being in essence somebody) is an illusion. It depends on upādāna, more precisely the clinging to the belief in a self (attavada) which gives rise to personality-view (sakkāya-ditthi). The Budda didn't say that we are the five aggregates of grasping but rather what we believe to be our self actually is one or more or all of the five aggregates of grasping.

I don't understand your objection. What appears to be "us" is just the five aggregates. That's how I take Bhikkhu Bodhi's statements.

Or are you suggesting that there is some part of "we" that is outside of the aggregates?

Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

I'm not too enamoured with Bhikkhu Bodhi's equation of pañcupadanakkandha with pancakhanda...

I'm trying to understand the nature of your rather cryptic comment. Do you mean that the aggregates are not always subject to clinging or are there some different aggregates when there is or is not clinging? The way I saw it was that there are these aggregates that we classify experience with. When there is clinging they are "aggregates of clinging". Just as when my car has a flat battery it is a "car subject to immobility".

A related issue, which is perhaps going off topic, but I think has some relevance to the overall discussion, is the nature of the aggregates (as categories, rather than "objects").
From Ven Nyanatiloka's Dictionary:
http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... tm#khandha" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some writers on Buddhism who have not understood that the five khandha are just classificatory groupings, have conceived them as compact entities 'heaps', 'bundles', while actually, as stated above, the groups never exist as such, i.e. they never occur in a simultaneous totality of all their constituents. Also those single constituents of a group which are present in any given body-and-mind process, are of an evanescent nature, and so also their varying combinations. Feeling, perception and mental constructions are only different aspects and functions of a single unit of consciousness. They are to consciousness what redness, softness, sweetness, etc. are to an apple and have as little separate existence as those qualities.

I'm reminded of this because in a talk by Bhikkhu Bodhi that I recently listened to he pointed out that some similes used to describe the aggregates (e.g. as parts of a cart) can give the impression that they could be taken apart and still exist by themselves (wheels, axle, etc). The apple simile is better, in that it is clearer that the hardness, colour, taste, can not be separated from the apple. [On an everyday, macroscopic, level for the chemists out there...]

Mike

[mikenz66]

Hi Goofaholix,

Actually he did say.

If conditions are changing and there is noone there to be stressed by them are they stress?

If stress were inherent in the conditions then there would be no way of becoming free from stress other than to stop the conditions from changing. Rather the stress is in our reaction and this is something we can change.

It seems to me that this is a question of definition. I.e. whether you define "stress" to be the dukkha http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... htm#dukkha eliminated by an Arahant or all possible froms of dukkha. According to the Suttas the dukkha of painful feeling, etc, remains. But, as you say, the reaction to that dukkha is gone.

Mike

[Annapurna]

So does Life Suck?

Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.

Neither state is permanent.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

I'm not too enamoured with Bhikkhu Bodhi's equation of pañcupadanakkandha with pancakhanda...

I'm trying to understand the nature of your rather cryptic comment. Do you mean that the aggregates are not always subject to clinging or are there some different aggregates when there is or is not clinging? The way I saw it was that there are these aggregates that we classify experience with. When there is clinging they are "aggregates of clinging". Just as when my car has a flat battery it is a "car subject to immobility".

What I meant is that there are no pañcupadanakkandha for an arahant, only pancakhanda.

Thus pañcupadanakkandha and pancakhanda are not synonymous terms.

I also agree with what acinteyyo said above.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

What I meant is that there are no pañcupadanakkandha for an arahant, only pancakhanda.

Yes I agree. Since an Arahant is not clinging, there are no aggregates subject to clinging. But does that change the nature of the aggregates? Of course, certain subsets of aggregates won't arise - formations involving hatred for example. But presumably what arises can still be classified under form, feeling, perception, formations, consciousness.

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Only that they no longer form the basis of "being"...

SN 23.2: Satta Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta,
Retro.

[bodom]

The portion of Bodhi's article in question is describing how an ordinary unelightened being relates to the five aggregates not an Arahant. Or am I missing something?

[mikenz66]

Hi Bodom,

The portion of Bodhi's article in question is describing how an ordinary unelightened being relates to the five aggregates not an Arahant. Or am I missing something?

I thought so. That's why I am having trouble figuring out what exactly the objection is to Bhikkhu Bodhi's statement, which I understand to mean that what we take as a "me" is just selfless phenomena (that can be classified under the headings of the five aggregates) coming and going.

SN22:82

"Venerable sir, is that clinging the same as the five aggregates subject to clinging, or is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates subject to clinging?"

"Monk, that clinging is neither the same as the five aggregates subject to clinging, nor is the clinging something apart from the five aggregates subject to clinging. But rather, the desire and lust for them, that is the clinging there."

[Bhikku Bodhi comments that the aggregates are not reducible to clinging, but there is no clinging that does not have the aggregates as support and object.]

Mike

[acinteyyo]

Hi acinteyyo,

I have to disagree in one point. We are not the five aggregates! This is very important! What we believe to be our self actually is one or more or all of the five aggregates of grasping but none of it is a self. The person or personality is the pañcupadanakkandha but personality (being in essence somebody) is an illusion. It depends on upādāna, more precisely the clinging to the belief in a self (attavada) which gives rise to personality-view (sakkāya-ditthi). The Budda didn't say that we are the five aggregates of grasping but rather what we believe to be our self actually is one or more or all of the five aggregates of grasping.

I don't understand your objection. What appears to be "us" is just the five aggregates. That's how I take Bhikkhu Bodhi's statements.

Hi Mike,
what appears to be "us" is just the five aggregates, that's fine. It makes clear that "us" isn't based upon the wrong belief in a self. But when someone just says "we are the five aggregates" it's not clear. There "we" could be meant in terms of self, which would imply that "our self" ("we") is the five aggregates. But the five aggregates aren't the self, they're not-self. Now clearer what I was trying to point out?

Or are you suggesting that there is some part of "we" that is outside of the aggregates?

No.
best wishes, acinteyyo

[bodom]

Hi Acinteyyo,

I think you are taking Bodhi's words too literally. Bodhi did not "just" say say we are the aggregates. It is clear he did not. What he is saying is that whatever or whoever we believe we are, the sense of I, me and mine, arises solely because of the indentification with the aggregates. From where else would a sense of self arise? "We" are the aggregates. "I" am the aggregates. "You" are the aggregates.

He goes on to say "Whatever we identify with, whatever we hold to as our self, falls within the set of five aggregates. Together these five aggregates generate the whole array of thoughts, emotions, ideas, and dispositions in which we dwell, "our world."

I think Bodhi is very clear and I dont believe anyone after reading this particular section will leave feeling that Bodhi is advocating that "we" are the aggregates. At least I didn't.

[acinteyyo]

Hi Acinteyyo,

I think you are taking Bodhi's words too literally. Bodhi did not "just" say say we are the aggregates. It is clear he did not. What he is saying is that whatever or whoever we believe we are, the sense of I, me and mine, arises solely because of the indentification with the aggregates. From where else would a sense of self arise? "We" are the aggregates. "I" am the aggregates. "You" are the aggregates.

He goes on to say "Whatever we identify with, whatever we hold to as our self, falls within the set of five aggregates. Together these five aggregates generate the whole array of thoughts, emotions, ideas, and dispositions in which we dwell, "our world."

I think Bodhi is very clear and I dont believe anyone after reading this particular section will leave feeling that Bodhi is advocating that "we" are the aggregates. At least I didn't.

maybe, language in itself often is unclear. I don't have any problems with what Bhikkhu Bodhi says. Actually I totally agree. Sometimes I just prefer a different phrasing, however I don't insist on a particular phrasing at all so I'm fine with that.
best wishes, acinteyyo

[thecharmedbaja]

Remember where the first Noble Truth leads - there is always a way out. I also noticed that you said life 'sux' - is that because some individuals believe the only way out is death; you can only become enlightened at death? Think of Gautama Buddha: he was able to teach for forty years after his enlightenment.

It depends how you make your life - i.e. whether or not you stick to the teachings, which can help you get out of unsatisfatoriness.

I have come across many non Buddhists who hold this view - life is rubbish and Buddhism is pessimistic - simply because they do not take into account the last two Noble Truths...

,

Jasmine