Ending suffering is ending life?

The Watercooler
62

“Life is dukkha” is one extreme, “Life is not dukkha” is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, we stays with the middle way: With ignorance as condition, we see life as dukkha, we see life as “not dukkha”. Without ignorance as condition, we do not see life as dukkha, we do not see life as “not dukkha”. We see life as it actually is. This is the middle way.

With ignorance as condition, we will crave and cling to the existence of life. We will see the existence of life as “This is mine, this I am, this is my self.” However, the existence of life is impermanent, so if we cling to it and if it is good now, we will see it as “Life is not dukkha.” However, because of its impermanent nature, it will change to bad soon and we will very soon see it as “Life is dukkha.”

With ignorance as condition, we will crave and cling to the non-existence of life. We will see the non-existence of life as “This is mine, this I am, this is my self.” However, the non-existence of life is impermanent, so if we cling to it and if it is good now, we will see it as “Life is not dukkha.” However, because of its impermanent nature, it will change to bad soon and we will very soon see it as “Life is dukkha.”

Without ignorance, we will not cling to the existence of life. We will not see the existence of life as “This is mine, this I am, this is my self.” The existence of life is simply the existence of life. It is what it is. It comes and it goes away. That is its impermanent nature. Since we detached from it, whatever happens to it has no effect to our mind, so we are not influenced by its effects. Therefore, if it is good, we do not see it as “Life is not dukkha”, if it is bad, we do not see it as “Life is dukkha.”

Without ignorance, we will not cling to the non-existence of life. We will not see the non-existence of life as “This is mine, this I am, this is my self.” Non-existence of life is simply non-existence of life. It is what it is. It comes and it goes away. That is its impermanent nature. Since we detached from it, whatever happens to it has no effect to our mind, so we are not influenced by its effects. Therefore, if it is good, we do not see it as “Life is not dukkha”, if it is bad, we do not see it as “Life is dukkha.”

In other words, life is life. It is what it is. However, with ignorance as condition, we see life as dukkha, we see life as happiness, we see life as half dukkha and half happiness, we see life as emptiness, we see life as mine, we see life as precious, as not precious… All of these assertions are just thicket of views.

Without ignorance as condition, we do not see life as dukkha, we do not see life as free of dukkha, or anything else, we do not see life as mine, we do not see life as not mine. We see life as it actually is.

When we do not see life or anything as “This is mine, this I am, this is my self.” The questions: “What am I”, “Am I that?”, “Am I not that?”, “What will I become?”, “What will be my life?”, “Am I life?”, “Am I not life?”, “Do I have life?”… are invalid questions. These questions come up because of improper attention caused by ignorance.

An arahant is the one who has completely cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that it is no more subject to future arising of the self view: “This is mine, this I am, this is my self.” Therefore, any reference to the arahant is invalid.

When we do not cling to either of these extremes, we will not make invalid questions such as: “Does an arahant exist?”, “an arahant not exist?”, “an arahant feel pain? not feel pain?”… and will not make invalid assertions such as: “an arahant exists”, “an arahant does not exist”, “an arahant exists and does not exist”, “an arahant feels pain”, “an arahant does not feel pain”, “life is dukkha”, “life is not dukkha”, “life is dukkha and is not dukkha”… These are thicket of views. We can argue to the rest of our life and it will never end.

1 Like
63

Anything dependently originated is dukkha, so this would include life.

64

But we aren’t talking about putting a plaster on a wound. The Buddha entered meditation to find some temporary relief from pain.

65

We also see in SN 12.123 that the 5 aggregates are suffering, a disease, a boil, a dart, misery, an affliction even for Buddhas and Arahants.

1 Like
66

Interesting. Could you point me to a sutta to this effect?

67

Good point about the middle way teaching and its practice.

Life and dukkha are the same, this is one extreme, there is no noble life; life and dukkha are different one from the other, this is the other extreme, there is no noble life. Dukkha exists, this is one extreme. Dukkha does not exist, this is the other extreme.

68

Sure. In the definition of the 1st Noble Truth, where the Buddha defines what dukkha is, we find

“And what is suffering, what is the origin of suffering, what is the cessation of suffering, what is the way leading to the cessation of suffering? Birth is suffering; ageing is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain (dukkha), grief (domanassa), and despair are suffering; not to obtain what one wants is suffering; in short, the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering. This is called suffering.

MN 10

The Buddha also defined all vedanā as dukkha. Indeed, we find painful vedanā included within dependent origination, and dependent origination is about how dukkha arises. Only suffering arises, only suffering passes away. If it arises, then it is dukkha. To say that Buddhas and Arahants do not experience any dukkha whilst walking around talking to people is to say that things which arise aren’t always dukkha. I don’t get the impression that was the idea the Buddha wanted us to have. It’s quite common for Buddhists today to claim that the view “life is suffering” is a misunderstanding. Based on the early texts, the misunderstanding is the other way around. The message I get is that in order to fully let go of everything, in order to awaken, we have to see everything that is conditioned as being dukkha. That would include all types of feeling, including pain.

2 Likes
69

In the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta the summary of what is included in the first noble truth contains dukkha and domanassa. In the expanded exposition of the first truth in the Saccavibhangasutta, MN141, the former is identified with bodily pain.

Katamañcāvuso, dukkhaṃ? Yaṃ kho, āvuso, kāyikaṃ dukkhaṃ kāyikaṃ asātaṃ kāya­samphas­sa­jaṃ dukkhaṃ asātaṃ vedayitaṃ, idaṃ vuccatāvuso: ‘dukkhaṃ’.

And what is pain? Physical pain, physical displeasure, the painful, unpleasant feeling that’s born from physical contact. This is called pain.

Katamañcāvuso, domanassaṃ? Yaṃ kho, āvuso, cetasikaṃ dukkhaṃ cetasikaṃ asātaṃ mano­samphas­sa­jaṃ dukkhaṃ asātaṃ vedayitaṃ, idaṃ vuccatāvuso: ‘domanassaṃ’.

And what is sadness? Mental pain, mental displeasure, the painful, unpleasant feeling that’s born from mind contact. This is called sadness.

2 Likes
70

I have read a sutta where the Buddha said something like my back hurts, I shall rest it. I’ve read another sutta where the Buddha has said this body is old… only in samadhi do I experience no pain. I’ve not read any suttas though, where the Buddha says that he actively seeks out samadhi to get away from pain. It almost seems like if he has nothing else to do, or if another disciple is capable of teaching then he rests in samadhi because that is the optimal thing to do.

I think the part in bold is the key to contextualising everything before it. The reason we know this is because he says in short, which is another way of saying in summary. Birth, ageing etc. is suffering because of clinging. Absent of clinging they are not suffering.

If he said in short, the five aggregates are suffering, we could assume that he suffered while alive. But because he said in short, the five aggregates affected by clinging are suffering, we know that he did not suffer because he had already uprooted clinging…

@Mumfie - I believe that your quote is another version of above, if I’m not mistaken?

I couldn’t find this in MN10. It just seems to give instructions on how to observe feelings.

1 Like
71

The Buddha in SN 36.6 = SA 470 explains the difference between a person who has both bodily feeling (the three feelings) and mental feeling, and a person who only has one feeling, the bodily, not the mental:
Pages 109-111 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (231.4 KB)

72

When we say that Buddha and Arahant experience dukkha such as pain, we are saying that the Buddha and Arahant see the pain as “my pain” or “I am in pain,” and they suffer or experience dukkha because of that pain even if they do not say or think so. However, there is nothing that the Buddha or the arahant take as “my or I.” Therefore, they never see the pain as “my pain” or “I am in pain.” To them, pain is simply pain. It arises then it ends. Their minds do not like or dislike it. They do not hate, horrify or tremble because of that pain. Therefore, we cannot say that they suffer or experience dukkha from that pain. They experience the pain, but their mind is not troubled by it, even if it is a deadly pain.

Even though the Buddha and Arahant do not take anything as “I or my,” but for the sake of communication, they may say “my back” or “I” but without grasping to that. Similarly, when we say “they experience”, “their mind”… these are just for communication’s purpose.

Pain is pain. It is not equal to dukkha. They are not the same. Pain is simply an unpleasant feeling but it does not come from our craving for it (of course, we do not crave for pain), however, dukkha is caused by our craving or clinging. By craving for pleasant feelings, we do not like unpleasant feelings, and if we experience unpleasant feelings then we do not like it, so it causes dukkha to arise in the mind. Dukkha is a negative state of mind that opposes what it does not like.

The arising of pain is experienced as dukkha if we crave for its absence. However, if we do not crave for its absence then the arising of pain is simply the arising of pain or the arising of an unpleasant feeling. In other words, if we do not oppose it, dukkha will not arise. However, if we oppose it then dukkha will arise and we see pain as dukkha.

Pain arises because of the body. Without the body, there is no pain. This is the residue of this current life. The living Buddha and arahant experience and endure it without disliking it. If we do not dislike it, we do not experience dukkha because of the present of the pain. We only experience dukkha because we dislike or oppose something that we do not want.

Since the Buddha and Arahant do not take anything as "I, my’'; therefore, “I experienced” or “I do not experience” does not occur to them. To them, only dukkha arises and dukkha ceases. That’s all. They are nowhere to be found, so how can we describe them? If we cannot describe and cannot pinpoint them, how can we say that they are experiencing dukkha or they are not experiencing dukkha? Both of these assertions are invalid and they are just a thicket of views.

1 Like
73

I see , you are free to question and interpret it in anyway . I keep it simple , it is irreplaceable and invaluable . :grinning:

74

After the Buddha had commenced the rainy season residence, he fell severely ill, struck by dreadful pains, close to death.

Atha kho bhagavato vassūpagatassa kharo ābādho uppajji, bāḷhā vedanā vattanti māraṇantikā.

But he endured unbothered, with mindfulness and situational awareness.

Tā sudaṁ bhagavā sato sampajāno adhivāsesi avihaññamāno.

DN 16

1 Like
75

You may want to review your statement , you cant simply twists what the Buddha taught . You are saying , “Life is dukkha” is one extreme , now you are saying the Buddha taught extremism (in a sense) . But 4NT isnt about extremism , it is about Middle Path . According to buddhism “Life is dukkha” is a Noble Truth not extreme teachings . :smile:

1 Like
76

The first noble truth said that:

“Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.”

This does not explicitly say that life is suffering. In fact, it does not cover all aspects of life. Therefore, we cannot conclude that life is suffering or not suffering here.

It said that union with what is displeasing is suffering, but it does not say that union with what is pleasing is suffering. It says that aging is suffering, but it does not say that young, beauty and healthy is suffering,…It says that the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering, but it does not say that the five aggregates not subject to clinging are suffering.

Life has both happiness and suffering depending on its conditions. Therefore, if we simply says that “Life is suffering” then it is one extreme. Or if we says that “Life is not suffering” then it is another extreme. Saying so is not the middle way. The middle way is to avoid both of them.

3 Likes
77

Maybe you mistaken what is Noble Truth and something called extreme . Both are different . Life is dukkha , life cannot be separated from whatever exists . If you disagree with what the Buddha taught , you have to deal with Him directly . :grin:

78

If we do not crave and cling to “whatever exists” then we will not suffer. We suffer because we crave and cling to them. We do not suffer because of their existences. The cause of suffering is cravings. “Whatever exists” is not the cause of suffering.

2 Likes
79

How do you define suffer .

80

MN141 is an expanded account of it. The Dhammacakkappavattanasutta merely lists the things included in the first noble truth but doesn’t define them.

https://suttacentral.net/mn141/en/sujato

81

Craving (tanha) or desire-hatred-delusion (raga-dosa-moha) (i.e. mental feeling ‘cetasika vedana’) is the main cause of dukkha, not life is dukkha.