SuttaCentral
“Everything that has a beginning has an end” is said to be the sentence that signifies right understanding of Dependent Origination.
In order for life to be, death must be. It follows that all life is dukkha.
Is this a correct Interpretation of the sentence?
My answer is “no”. If “dhammacakkhu” were that simple, I’m afraid I would have attained the fruit of stream-entry a long time ago.
Does Dependant Origination only observe suffering? Is walking the Noble Eightfold Path on the way to Awakening suffering at every step? And in Nibbana with remainder, is Dependant Origination imperceivable? After all, the Buddha cannot be found in the aggregates, or in this world even before the breakup of His body.
“Life” is rather an ambiguous term, for example in certain definitions Life may not have the beginning.
But quite obviously by life you mean experience. And of course since any experience is temporal, arising, disappearing and change is evident, there is nothing wrong with statement “life is suffering”.
But again, such suffering is a part of structure known as The Four Noble Truths, and one who knows that
even an experience of the highest devas is dukkha, knows the state free from dukkha.
In other words, puthujjana should understand that any experience is dukkha, it is his task to perform, not his knowledge. But these who argue that life, being the person living in the world, isn’t really dukkha, failed to understand what Lord Buddha teaches them, and instead of trying to understand the First Noble Truth, they argue with it.
There may be something among us or within us that is not suffering, if we were to attain Nibbana, though it is not of this world, from above, as this world is from below…
On the other hand let’s try living without desire and craving.
Isn’t it impermance? And then that which is impermanent is not-self, and that which is not-self is suffering. He also doesn’t say in order for life to be, death must be. He actually lays out how he sees it and is very clear about that.
Nibbana is not permanent. It is not a “thing” or a “place”.
It is the absence of all of this.
When everything comes down to zero, how can you call that permanent? It’s just kind goodbye to Samsara, no more permanent than Buddhahood or becoming a Deva. Becoming a Buddha will always keep you a Buddha, but what were you before, was that permanent? Why is the next stage, albeit higher, called permanent when time measures forward endlessly in the Saha World, and none at all in Nibbana? The Deathless and Timeless. Buddhahood may be forever, but this world and Nibbana neither exist nor not exist. So where is the permanent in Sunyata? This world isn’t even here.
Nothing is permanent. Namaste.
Interesting. So that’s neither a Yes nor a No?
IMO DO is definitely impermanent. Or else there would be no possibility of cessation.
There’s an aspect talked about in a certain form of Buddhism, by those who follow the Lotus Sutra, an aspect called “the true aspect”. One way this could be looked at is that the teachings Anatta, Sunyata, and Anicca, clearly share the principle of it, and so does Dependant Origination.
In the Teaching of no Self, the truth is told that there is no substantiality and no entity, in Emptiness there is no real world, because though this world is as serious of a place as certain death, it is an illusion, and in everything being temporary, this illusion isn’t even here, nor not here… And Dependant Origination, the Teaching by which we come to extinction, provides the truth that the Mystic Law of Cause and Effect is the Law of all Buddhas, yet everything the Buddhas Teach is to minimize sensuality and suffering, and ask us to enter Nibbana, as well as walk the Path to help others do the Same. Dependant Origination, no more exists than and is just as temporary as a Buddha, because Buddhas and Dependant Origination are part of the true aspect I mentioned, and a Law that states that there is no coming and no going, no entering Nibbana or cessation, it is all an illusion, and temporary because there is no permanent Self of any kind, not any kind of Self, and no person to be found. So even a forever abiding Buddha is as temporary as a dewdrop, though He or She may never leave Their respective Buddha-field by choice. Still because They possess the same true aspect as a droplet of water. But again in the true aspect of it it is also not temporary, neither existing nor not existing. It is indescribable in words.
Perhaps “life” is just cellular respiration. Or life is the experience of the mind within this temporary realm. Either way, they are the same, as they lead to suffering and an ultimate termination of this experience, in this temporary realm. It is only the here and now which we are experiencing, although our senses and the background noise of life can easily invade if we are not vigilant witnesses to the manner in which the senses, grasping, and attachment can create impediments to peace and be the causes of unnecessary suffering. In my experience meditation is a tool that allows me to just “be”. It opens all the gates that are otherwise closed when the senses take dominion. Meditation brings clarity and insight that seem to “arrive” to my mind when my mind is quiet and the internal dialogue stops. The mind becomes a receiver; receptive. And I am guided in my meditation, without effort, to live in the light of metta.
I think it literally means everything. From the biggest things to the minutest things. From stars, planets, etc. to microscopic things. From feelings, perceptions etc. Everything. I used to think that as well, as in Life itself is suffering, and in a way it is. But I think this quote you’re referring to is literally everything within the world/universe has a beginning and an end. That’s my understanding anyway.
“There is no first beginning, there is no first beginning knowable.” Is a Buddhist [paraphrased?] Sutta quote I remember attributed to the Buddha. So let’s stock up on infinity.
Are you sure? 
Is
equal to: there was no first beginning?
Here’s a special verse from the connected discourses that I encountered recently (and it has stuck in my mind ever since):
"Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.
"Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being’.
"It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases."
Would it relate to your question perhaps?
Hopefully we can attribute a sense of knowledge to all relevant and necessary things. So if there is a first beginning, and no one knows about it, not even the fully Enlightened Buddha, or some other Omniscient One, then there must be some shrouded secrecy and unknowable wisdom to do with it, akin to unheard of magic or sorcery, like an impersonal force without any true mesmerization towards knowledge, and I do not believe that our beginning would be such a shattered blow to reality, stuck in an eternal cement we cannot reach. Time is too fluid for such an aperture to be so immobile and unseen. Beginingless time seems like much more of a reasonable factor.
Also the Buddha did not say that there is some detail we may know about the first beginning, or some detail we may not know about it, the quote I remember is “There is no first beginning, there is no first beginning knowable.”