"I declare ONLY suffering and its cessation." — The Buddha, indeed

Essays
61

I think we agree that not being pinned own points to the absence (suñña) of an essence, a soul, a self, or whatever we call it, in or as any thing. There’s no permanent or distinctly definable essence or core to any thing.

But that doesn’t mean conditional selfless processes aren’t without different characteristics. Hence, “rocks and tables” are different experiences from the standpoint of what we can know and experience via the six sense fields.
In our direct experience we distinguish “this body” from “rocks and such.” Yes?

At the same time, because all experiences that are known via the six sense fields are anicca, they are dukkha.
Sabbe sankhāra dukkha.

What things may or may not be externally (from the senses), cannot be directly assessed and was not the Buddha’s concern in terms of the Path of practice.

:pray:

1 Like
62

What if they are not grasped at or clung to? What if they were not accompanied by the arising of craving for them not to be anicca? Would they still be dukkha? If so, how? I’m aware of one sutta where the Teacher distinguishes between experiences of sense objects not accompanied by craving versus those that do and are seemingly thus said to be dukkha. :pray:

1 Like
63

Hi,

There is a sutta which I can’t recall specifically at this moment that appears to distinguish between the aggregates with and without craving. I think it’s in AN.
I take it to point to the fact that when there’s no grasping and the defilements have ended for an arahant, there is no perpetuation of dukkha and the arahant remains at peace even as the aggregates are still present.

In many other suttas, the aggregates, all experiences, are said to be dukkha:
In SN22.97 all the aggregates are anicca. And in
SN22.15: "What’s impermanent is suffering. Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ

Also,
Dhp278: " All conditions are suffering—*“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”, when this is seen with wisdom, one grows disillusioned with suffering: this is the path to purity."
SN36.11: "Suffering includes whatever is felt (experienced).’ ‘yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ, taṁ dukkhasmin’ti.

These and other suttas establish that all experiences/six senses/aggregates are dukkha, even pleasant ones. Only the ending of rebirth ends the possibility of the aggregates/senses arising again → final nibbāna.

P.S. - Having previously trained for years in the Mahayana, this is very different than the teaching that samsāra = nibbāna and that all “things” are perfect and are the jewel-like manifestations or ornaments of the pure Buddha Mind. I’m not sure if this is the basis of your points or not, but just wanted to clarify that this doctrine does not appear in the Nikāyas.

:pray:

3 Likes
64

Yes but in that sutta the Buddha will have been showing how to surmount suffering. The Buddha does not teach about some kind of permanent or essential metaphysical properties, he is approaching from the perspective of - our ‘world’ is fabricated on the basis of Contact (via 6 senses) ie our experience, as Ajahn Brahmali pointed out.

Mind is the forerunner of all things. And the Buddha posits that this is the source of suffering. Not through logical deduction, inferences or philosophical view, but because he was able to witness the mechanisms of mind directly.

So in that example, if there is no grasping, clinging or desire what-so-ever, then one has crossed over > Nibbana. No more suffering, as Ven Jasudo has pointed out.

The less craving, the less sense of self, then the less the suffering. Simple cause and effect. Dependent Arising.

It is a sliding scale based on how few defilements are left. Putujana, sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami, arahant can all be characterised by the degree and type of suffering experienced.

Note it is not the conditions/experiences themselves that one bumps into, but how these experiences are perceived and dealt with.

This is clearly evident as one progresses along the Path, even at the very beginning, with the increase of ease from the practice of sila.

So we can see that what the Buddha taught is indeed all about suffering from so many angles, so many permutations and illustrations of the 4 Noble Truths. Indeed, i dont think there is a single sutta that can’t be linked to one of the 4NT - the fact of it, the mechanics of the arising, the mechanics of the ceasing, and the processes to acheive it, ie the N8fP.

I think I would go so far as to describe the Buddha Dhamma as a fractal on the theme of suffering :slightly_smiling_face::pray:t2::relieved:

3 Likes
65

I was referring to AN 6.63 but it doesn’t distinguish between the aggregates with craving versus without. Rather it distinguishes between sense pleasures and sense stimulation.

Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
The world’s pretty things aren’t sensual pleasures.
Nete kāmā yāni citrāni loke;
Greedy intention is a person’s sensual pleasure.
Saṅkapparāgo purisassa kāmo,
The world’s pretty things stay just as they are,
Tiṭṭhanti citrāni tatheva loke;
but a wise one removes desire for them.
Athettha dhīrā vinayanti chandant.

AN 6.63

:pray:

1 Like
66

Nicely stated! :grinning:

2 Likes
67

Thanks.

If there’s no ignorance and craving, “things” will be as they are for an arahant. But that doesn’t mean they’re not dukkha.

:pray:

1 Like
68

What I mean is that all we have is the world of perception. The world “outside” is inaccessible to us and so we don’t really know what it is. Sounds are heard by us, but in the world all we have are air molecules hitting the eardrum. But even these air molecules are just a way of describing and visualising something we don’t know. Physicist now speak of quantum fields and that these somehow are the fabric of the world. Similar ambiguities exist for all the senses. In the end, one wonders whether the world outside has any real existence apart from our perceptions. It might even be that rocks and tables are in some sense mental, as in idealist philosophy. This is certainly not foreign to certain schools of Buddhism. We are left with the fact that rocks and tables primarily exist as experiences. Anything else is speculation.

So far as I can tell, this outlook does fit rather nicely with the suttas. As we have seen above, the six senses are said to be the all. In the Rohitassa Sutta (AN 4.45), the Buddha says the world is found in this fathom-long body. Taken at face value, this must mean either that there is no world outside of perception or that this world is inaccessible and so of no interest.

8 Likes
69

One prominent physicist, Carlo Rovelli, has an interpretation that says those quantum fields should be understood as relationships and that no physical state should be understood to exist as anything but a relationship. A groundless interpretation if you will. Carlo Rovelli wrote a book about how he found a deep connection with the writing of Nagarjuna in the MMK. :pray:

1 Like
70

Hi Ajahn,

Rocks and chairs are certainly suffering when somebody hits us over the head with them! :smiley: But they aren’t suffering when we’re not aware of them. They aren’t by themselves suffering, as metaphysical “entities”, is what I meant, assuming that they may exist as things independent of awareness, which seems reasonable enough.

Or are you saying that rocks and chairs, or the things they’re made of, exist only when we’re experiencing them? For early Buddhism I’d say that would lean too much towards metaphysical idealism.

When the Buddha defines ‘the world’ as the senses and their experiences, I don’t think he is saying, “this is all there is in the universe” but instead “this is ‘the world’ you should be concerned with”. He’s trying to prevent the whole metaphysical discussion we’re having here! :smiley: The discourse with Rohitassa you mentioned, to me is a clear indication that the definition is a pragmatic matter and not a metaphysical one. Rohitassa wants to travel to the end of the physical world to find the end of suffering. The Buddha effectively replies, “That won’t work. Look for the end of ‘the world’ of the senses instead.” He isn’t explaining to Rohitassa the idealist view that, “the world exists only when it’s experienced” or “all that exists is experience”. That doesn’t seem to fit the context to me. The Buddha is replying not to a metaphysical question but to Rohitassa’s pragmatic error (one which, moreover, seems exaggerated to make a point). His “definition” of ‘the world’ is of the kind “mother’s milk is blood in the Noble One’s dispensation”: not a literal definition but one that gets us thinking differently.

Idealist ideas aren’t spelled out elsewhere either. There are indications to the contrary, though, that things are assumed to exist even when they’re not experienced. In MN28, for example, Sāriputta gives a situation where the senses exist, the sense external objects (e.g. forms, sounds) come within their range, yet still no consciousness arises. This indicates he assumes things to “exist” even when not experienced, even if it’s clearly not meant as a metaphysical position, but just done out of pragmatism/common sense.

So I think Ven. Vaddha had a good point. All we can know about the world is through the six senses, but from that we can’t conclude that experience/suffering is all there is.

In fact, it seems common sense that there are things outside of experience. All the little pebbles and rocks around my hut are in the exact same place every time I get back there. The easiest explanation for this is that they are simply there in some form even when nobody is aware of them. And at that point those rocks and pebbles aren’t suffering. That’s what I meant.

Again, not that it matters whether things exist outside of awareness or not. My whole point is that this type of metaphysics is irrelevant to the path, to such an extent that the Buddha wouldn’t even engage the whole debate—if it even was a lively discussion at the time, which I highly doubt.

You might be thinking of “life is suffering”. Which actually is very close to, almost literally, a quote of the Buddha. But that’s another subject.

5 Likes
72

For me the sticking point here is what lies behind the assumptions of ‘exists’. This is an imagining, a conceiving, a proliferation. This is the part that is completely insubstantial and unreliable and impermanent! It is simply a conceptualisation. You say ‘rock’… but this, in itself, is what the Buddha is pointing at as a symptom of not seeing reality as it is. You ‘see’ ‘rock’… but not really - you are simply attaching to the conceptual proliferation of a rock. You have created ‘rock’. And due to conventions there is agreement with everyone else - yes that is ‘rock’, and so it is made real - and really exists… not really at all. :smile: Nothing that one can take a stand on - ie a View.

There are multiple suttas that describe this, including AN4.24 Kalakaramasutta
(incl also MN1 )

“In this world—with its gods, Māras and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind: that I know.

In this world—with its gods, Māras, and Brahmās, this population with its ascetics and brahmins, its gods and humans—whatever is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, and explored by the mind: that I have insight into. That has been known by a Realized One, but a Realized One is not subject to it.

If I were to say that ‘I do not know … the world with its gods’, I would be lying.

If I were to say that ‘I both know and do not know … the world with its gods’, that would be just the same.

If I were to say that ‘I neither know nor do not know … the world with its gods’, that would be my fault.

So a Realized One sees what is to be seen, but does not conceive what is seen, does not conceive what is unseen, does not conceive what is to be seen, and does not conceive a seer. He hears what is to be heard, but does not conceive what is heard, does not conceive what is unheard, does not conceive what is to be heard, and does not conceive a hearer. He thinks what is to be thought, but does not conceive what is thought, does not conceive what is not thought, does not conceive what is to be thought, and does not conceive a thinker. He knows what is to be known, but does not conceive what is known, does not conceive what is unknown, does not conceive what is to be known, and does not conceive a knower.

Since a Realized One is poised in the midst of things seen, heard, thought, and known, he is the poised one. And I say that there is no better or finer poise than this.

Such a one does not take anything seen, heard, or thought to be ultimately true or false. But others get attached, thinking it’s the truth, limited by their preconceptions.

Since they’ve seen this dart to which people are attached and cling, saying, ‘I know, I see, that’s how it is’, the Realized Ones have no attachments.”

I include a translation of the 6th paragraph by Ven K Nanananda just to round it out a bit more and emphasise the point.

“Thus monks, a Tatagatha does not imagine a visible thing as apart from seeing, he does not inmagine an unseen, he does not imagine a thing worth seeing, he does not imagine a seer. He does not imagine an audible thing as apart from hearing, he does not imagine an unheard, he does not imagine a thing worth hearing, he does not imagine a hearer. He does not imagine a thing to be sensed as apart from sensation, he does not imagine an unsensed, he does not imagine a thing worth sensing, he does not imagine one who senses. He does not imagine a cognizable thing as apart from cognition, he does not imagine an uncognized, he does not imagine a thing worth cognizing, he does not imagine one who cognizes.”

It is interesting to compare Bhikkhu Bodhis translation which uses ‘misconceive’ instead of ‘does not conceive/imagine’ - which implies that there is a correct conceiving… this is entirely the important point - there is no proliferation, no papancha no mannati …

I include the above simply as a point to contemplate during practice, not to argue about or to advance a set View, as it points to looking at and examining the constructing and fabricating properties of the Mind.

4 Likes
73

My argument is that even a pillow is suffering! :blush:

What I am suggesting is that rocks, tables, and chairs are constructions of the human mind, constructions based on a certain sensory input. Colours are perceived by the mind, but only exist as wavelengths in nature. The wavelengths themselves do not have colours. Light is perceived by the mind, but exists as photons in nature. Photons are not in themselves luminous. If you push this argument to its logical limit, then even space and time are mental constructions. In other words, the way we perceive the world has very little relationship to what the world actually is like. It does not make any sense to say that there are rocks or tables independent of the observer.

The point is that we don’t really know much about the world “outside” apart from saying that it can be measured in terms of the usual physical quantities, such as mass, charge, spin, etc. Even these measures are in themselves just a dashboard that is a convenient way of quantifying the world. What the world actually is – if anything at all – remains a mystery, and will forever be inaccessible to our cognition.

Because we cannot say much about the world outside, then for all practical purposes, the world is indistinguishable from our perception of it. The external world becomes irrelevant. Our world is limited by the six senses and there is nothing accessible beyond.

Then there is the alternative of idealism, that the world as we perceive it is in fact mental in nature. I am not sure if this necessarily contradicts early Buddhism. One way of thinking about this is to see the physical world around us as an image of a larger mentality, just as our own bodies may be regarded as images of our own mentality. I admit this is speculative. My point is just that we have a number of possible options when it comes to understanding the nature of the world.

Yes, but metaphysics matters. A materialist world is not compatible with rebirth, and so we need another metaphysic to cater for it. Dualism is not really acceptable from a philosophical point of view. If we want the world to take fundamental teachings such as rebirth seriously, it is helpful to establish a philosophical framework within which it is at least possible. Idealism would seem to be one such framework. There may be others, such as panpsychism and more. In the end, truth should be compatible across the various approaches for discovering it, whether its science, mystical experience, or solid philosophical arguments.

No doubt it has a pragmatic intent, but this does not mean there are no metaphysical implications. The best pragmatic approaches are rooted in metaphysics. The nonself strategy – as the contemplation of nonself is termed by Ajahn Thanissaro – works so well precisely because there really is no self.

Yes. As suggested above, an idealist perspective would be that the pebbles are still there because they are the representation or appearance of a broader mind, just as our human bodies can be regarded as the representation of our human minds.

4 Likes
74

How about the hypothesis that rebirth is compatible in the complete void of metaphysical speculation. In the void of a materialist view; the void of a dualist view; the void of a idealist view; the void of a panpsychist view. In that void, we can hypothesize phenomena and find agreement on skillful explanations. :pray:

1 Like
75

I agree that this can be a good stance to take. The truth is that metaphysics is not important if you have confidence and faith in the Dhamma.

The problem, as I see it, is that many people will have a metaphysical position, which tends to be aligned with the latest fashion in the sphere of popular philosophy. And so now a lot people are materialists, which makes them reject rebirth as ancient cultural baggage, when in fact it is materialism that is the cultural baggage! I think it is useful to point this out to people so that they don’t get trapped in the zeitgeist. Materialism is just a modern philosophical position, and it’s already changing. I believe we are currently witnessing a paradigm shift in science and philosophy. In few years time, perhaps a couple of decades, these things will have shifted enormously!

5 Likes
76

Perhaps you are right. :pray:

1 Like
77

You know, Buddhism isn’t philosophical nihilism, and you are veering strongly into the the type of thinking evinced by the Japanese militarists who sought philosophical justification in Buddhism for their “nothing” is killing or carrying out war.

I think the suttas are clear: Buddha was materialist and his epistemology rests on the phassayatana. He is an empiricist and with statements like this …

When attention arises (manasikārasamudayā), phenomena (dhammānaṁ) arise (samudayo), when attention ceases (manasikāranirodhā), phenomena (dhammānaṁ) end (atthaṅgamo).

Naḷakalāpīsutta (SN 12.67)

it’s apparent that he did phenomenology long, long, long before the West.

1 Like
78

This does not resemble what I said nor practice: non killing of sentient beings. Nor do I think what I said amounts to any type of nihilism whatsoever. The non grasping of views is what the Teacher taught to my understanding. It can’t be the case that not grasping at an ontological view is somehow tantamount to nihilism. :pray:

79

Well it is, because it’s impossible not to deal with epistemology as well as ontology. Buddha could never have obtained his Awakening without it, and he says as much in the suttas.

80

The Teacher rebuked the ancient materialist school of his time and described it as wrong view in contrast to right view. Given this, I wonder how you think it possible that holding onto and grasping at the ontological commitment of a materialist world view is what the Teacher endorsed.

Not grasping at any view is not in conflict with the 4NT. It is not in conflict with the dhamma seals; taking refuge in the three jewels; the noble eightfold path; ethical conduct; the doctrines of kamma and rebirth; dependent arising; the four immeasurables. It is not in conflict with any of the holy dhamma to my mind. Not grasping any views is what the Teacher taught.

I think I understand your concern though. It is true that many have in the past misunderstood dhamma and what it means to not grasp at any view. They have misunderstood and equated it with nihilism or silly and foolish ideas with slogans like “nothing is true!” to utter disaster and tragedy. They mishandled a snake and it bit them very badly; leading to ruin.

One thing I take very seriously is my teacher’s advice to put down any snake if I start thinking like this that somehow not grasping at ontological views is the same as thinking the 4NT are not truths or that there is no consequence to killing living creatures or that “nothing exists.” The second I start thinking this might be the case I know very well that I have misunderstood and that I should put down that harmful conception immediately. It has served me as a very important guardrail and I can honestly say that I am not conceiving any of those harmful things with what I say above.

I hope this allays your fears that I am advocating anything like those Japanese militarists. I’m simply not.

:pray:

81

There is another sutta that makes clear the ‘dukkha’ meaning in “dukkhañceva paññāpemi”. In my opinion.

Aharasutta SN12.11

Ime, bhikkhave, cattāro āhārā kiṁnidānā kiṁsamudayā kiṁjātikā kiṁpabhavā? Ime cattāro āhārā taṇhānidānā taṇhāsamudayā taṇhājātikā taṇhāpabhavā.

And what is being especially pointed out as cattāro āhārā? This life, this attabhava of course. (How secure is a flame dependent on fuel?)

And by taṇhānidānā what is being especially pointed out is past tanha(ponobhavika).