So , the OP wasnt saying anything of suicidal to be clear . But to a buddhist , they have a two fold of thinking , in one they says life is precious , two they are saying life is dukkha too . The difference between a suicidal person and a buddhist is , a suicidal person would continues in samsara and a buddhist dont want to return to this world again though it is so precious ie no more future life by ending dukkha .
What is dukkha/suffering? What is life?
You said dukkha isnt real , so i asked for references .
This is mainly the teaching of the middle way (e.g. SN12.15 = SA 301): Everything exists, this is one extreme; everything does not exist, this is the other extreme. When dukkha arises, it arises; when dukkha ceases, it ceases. So, dukkha, being not real, arises and ceases, by causal condition. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (not-self âanattaâ).
Pages 192-5 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (274.5 KB)
Real (definition) : occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed .
I think the sutta sn12.15 mentioned above doesnt say dukkha is not real .
âRealâ also means existent, having reality or existence.
I can sympathise with the sentiment. From what I understand, seeing the truth of all that arises passes awayas a stream-winner is not something you can un-see. Further, it motivates you to act in a way that is in line with the Dhamma, which is why Arahantship is guaranteed. Similarly with once and non returners.
So the paradox is that if a person doesnât become at least a stream-winner, they donât have the knowledge to help others. On the other hand, if a person becomes a stream-winner or above, then the choice to stick around is out of their hands because they are destined for Arahantship.
We can see this with the Buddhaâs own story. He didnât stay a bodhisattva forever. Also, the people he did help as a bodhisattva didnât gain any special attainments because the bhodisattva didnât have the knowledge to help them on the path. He could only help people once he was a Buddha, after which he attained parinibbana.
Mendicants, these four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise. What four? âThis is sufferingâ ⌠âThis is the origin of sufferingâ ⌠âThis is the cessation of sufferingâ ⌠âThis is the practice that leads to the cessation of sufferingâ ⌠These four things are real, not unreal, not otherwise.
Thatâs why you should practice meditation âŚâ
2 Likes
âRealâ is also similar to âexistent, having reality or existenceâ.
Dear All,
Thanks for the contributions. Please note that slow mode has been temporarily setup, to give a chance for reflection before posting anything further. Editing is only allowed after that the pause has passed, so please pay extra attention before posting again.
With Metta,
Ric
On behalf of the moderators
2 Likes
Iâm just trying to clarify the terms you are using. I have given you the the forms of dukkha that the path addresses in SN 45.165. Do you equate the following three with the term âlifeâ?
The suffering inherent in painful feeling;
the suffering inherent in conditions;
and the suffering inherent in perishing.
If so, then my question is why would that be considered âpreciousâ?
So what Iâm suggesting is that it depends on what your definition of âlifeâ is, as to whether âlifeâ can be considered precious or not.
Some people use the term âlifeâ when talking about âbhavaâ, in dependent origination? If this is the term that you are translating as life, Iâd ask in a different way. - Why would we call something that is dependently originated on the basis of avijja (not understanding things according to reality) âpreciousâ?
But of course you may be talking about something different when you say the word âlifeâ.
Iâm using the term âpreciousâ in a different way here. If what you call âlifeâ is an inevitable wandering on through the various realms of existence, then of course I would say that (big picture âlifeâ) is not precious. That is samsara and it is the polar opposite of the great goal of of the EBTs, Nibbana. But given that inevitable wandering on, getting the chance to hear dhamma and practice towards the ending of that wandering on, is a fortunate rebirth. Indeed it is a precious opportunity. Hereâs mn129, which has the famous simile of the one eyed turtle in support.
If the Buddha never experienced dukkha again, he wouldnât have to mindfully endure feelings. He wouldnât have to enter into meditation for some respite from an illness, because if he never experienced dukkha again they would be, as you say, nothing to him at all. This is why Mahayana has to argue that that was all a show, a magical illusion, which he did to teach skilful means. I donât find that explanation too convincing myself.
Suppose you broke your leg and it was in a cast. It doesnât hurt, but youâre not allowed to walk on it. Does the fact that you donât walk on it mean you are suffering?
My thoughts on why the Buddha did what he did was because it was the most logical thing to do. Pain is a signal that the body needs to be repaired. It also contracts the mind somewhat. So it would make sense that he would exercise actions that would optimise the bodyâs ability to repair and the mindâs ability to stay uncontracted. If craving and aversion is gone then suffering, by definition must be absent.
2 Likes
What it would mean if I had said it is that life is something precious to the (unenlightened) beings that have it.
âAll tremble at violence; to all life is dear. Comparing others with oneself, one should neither kill nor cause another to kill.â
Dhammapada 130
On the other hand, it canât be said to be intrinsically precious, else we wouldnât have arahants talking like this:
âI do not long for death; I do not long for life; but I await my time, as a servant his wages.â
TheragÄthÄ 606
And the Buddha talking like this:
âBhikkhus, just as even a trifling amount of excrement has a foul smell, so too I do not praise even a trifling amount of existence, even for a mere snap of the fingers.â
AN1.328
1 Like
It seems you didnt read the OP ,
It is simple if you ask yourself , do you treasure your own life ? Is it precious or not ? I dont think i need to answer for you . 
How do you treasure your own life (if you think ending dukkha is ending life)?
1 Like
Isnt that as a buddhist you have to answer it yourself , dont tell me .
In terms of Dhamma, yes. The Buddha included physical pain in his definition of dukkha. The idea that dukkha is simply mental anguish is lopsided, and ignores the broader idea of what dukkha means. Dukkha is both mental and physical. It is everything that is conditioned. This is how one turns away from the world, because they see how all states, all forms of existence, all life is dukkha. When awakened the Arahant perceives all contact as being dukkha. All their contacts are experiences of dukkha, they just donât go onto fabricate more dukkha in the mind.
Pain is to be seen as a dart
Pleasant feeling as pain
Equanimity as impermanent
How then can there be any existence that is dukkha free on such a view? There canât be. Hence the Wishless/Nothingness Samadhi.
2 Likes
Iâm questioning that assertion. Does the idea that there is a precept against killing mean that life is to be treasured? It could simply mean that (in Buddhism), killing leads you away from the goal, for example.
1 Like