The meaning of the word dukkha includes not only that which is pain or sad. But also everything that changes. Also everything that is conditioned.
The term suffering is only a literal translation of the term dukkha. Not a similarity of meaning.
2 Likes
Suffering is an awful translation as far as literal translations go. Suffering means to bear up, endure, carry something- almost the opposite of dukkha- which according to my googling has sketchy etymology but probably means something like âunstableâ or âIll-fittingâ.
2 Likes
The word Dukkha is used in many indian languages. When I have used it colloquially it has been to refer to sorrow and sadness. For example, when someone dies or what someone feels when their loved one is sick.
2 Likes
yes, but suffering in English is what we do with sorrow, not the sorrow itself, it means to âput up withâ something, and is connected with things like sufferance, as in allowing something via tha absense of an objection rather than endorsement, sorrow is better, IMO.
I guess itâs all ultimately a matter of taste, but I think that a lot of the English words used to translate Pali where sort of decided on and fixed in the 19th century by people who where frankly trying to affect an âupper-classâ air that to my ear now sounds horribly stale and trite.
There also seems to have been a deep concern for the nuance and etymology of the Pali by the translators, but a total and blithe disregard for anything to do with the etymology of the English words used to translate them, this to me was a mistake, probably based on the conceit âI know what English words mean, Iâm English!â and not realizing that different classes and periods of English speakers use English words differently and that the best way to guard against this it to use words that have at least an etymology that agrees with their contemporary usage, suffering being a good example of a word that was used a lot in the 19th century to mean sorrow and distress but which has etymologically a different meaning and which is actually not that commonly used in any context these days (with the obvious exception of Buddhism!) like in english people will understand what you mean if you say âI am suffering form a coldâ but you would probably much more likely hear someone say âI have a coldâ or âIâve got a coldâ similarly someone would be much more likely to say say âIâm sad because my dog diedâ than âIâm suffering because my dog diedâ âsufferingâ sounds a bit âformalâ these days and is most naturally used to describe pain as in âhe was really suffering during the last month of the cancerâ or âat least having the massive stroke she didnât sufferâ This shows how the âbroadnessâ of the 19th century usage has actually narrowed in 21st century usage and if anything is now the opposite, in that in the 19th century one suffered from things that where not painful per say, like when one âsuffers the little childrenâ, but now the word is practically never used outside the context of physical pain, except in the the case of âI suffer from Xâ when people talk about an existing medical conditions.
That is new for me. So, just because a cloud changes, dukkha is an aspect of cloud. Is that the way i have to understand it? It does not have any relation to suffering here.
From MN64: âWhatever exists therein (in jhana, Green) of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not selfâ
The contemplation on dukkha is explained as: seeing the khandhaâs as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, affliction. It is related to suffering.
The contemplation on anicca refers here to: seeing the khandha;s as impermanene and disintegrating
The contemplation on anatta refers here to: seeing those formationsas alien, void, not-self
Change that refers more, i belief, to anicca- nupassana. I do still not think one can say that anything conditioned, like a cloud, is dukkha.
I think it is better to see those tilakkhana as perceptions, a certain way one views things at a certain moment.
For example; sense-pleasures like eating an icecream. If one sees the element of suffering (dukkha) in this sense-pleasure (longings will increase, reward center of brain will get stronger) one sees things more complete. One also sees the danger in sense-pleasure.
Yes, those who perceive the interconnection between everything do indeed view it like this. This view has found common expression, IMO in our times as âThe Universeâ which looks after and responds to everything.
MN1
He perceives all as all. Having perceived all as all, he conceives himself as all, he conceives himself in all, he conceives himself apart from all, he conceives all to be âmine,â he delights in all. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
1 Like
Once, Dipa Ma answered that question with one word:
Wisdom
2 Likes
Arahant does have a personality. And the personality are not against any ethics in this world. They are able to control their mind, speech and deed. A perfect personality, indeed.
The end result will be an ending attachment to dukkha. Dukkha is Dukkha. It is just come & go. People feel good because they still attached to Dukkha. When long for an end of suffering therefore we get attached to suffering. People feel an attainment of nirvana because they are attached to suffering or Dukkha.
The person is not becoming Arahant. Or this or that. Thatâs why Buddha said I am Awakened. Because thatâs something that is always in life. Without the unborn there canât be the born. I am Awakened. Itâs like saying I am in the present moment what I am thatâs it.
Because no person will stay Arahant like no person can stay a baby forever. Thatâs why every split of second you just are at this moment.
Seeing the body as truly solid is thinking itâs not just energy changing constantly. Transitory.
Mind.
More accurately Mind-stream.
1 Like
The idea of a person is dependent on your own sense desire and âsense perceptionâ in terms of âsankahra perceptionâ. Itâs like asking who is sleeping, in the sleep no question like that appears in the mind (for sleeping person) the same is for person who attained Nibbana.
arahat is one who has himself overcome the enemies of his own defilements. so the person is the arahat in the colloquial or conventional sense.
but since there is no self (all anatta) there is âno oneâ who is liberated! empty phenomenon rolling-on. sabbe dhamma anattaâti. no one is creator. no one liberated. sabbe dhamma anattaâti.
when the arahat take parinibbana - he passes away just like a flame is extinguished. where does a flame go after being extinguished? does the flame go anywhere? if the flame was âsomethingâ it would have âgone somewhereâ!
there is liberation FROM defilements & not liberation of âsomeoneâ from defilements! anatta!
and an arahat take parinibbana. just like the flame is extinguished - he just passes away. since it is an anupadhisesa nibbana (nibbana without any residue of bhava kamma sankhara) - the arahat is not born again.
Itâs not the question of self or no-selfâŚâŚthis is an extreme.
The teachings are the middle way, avoiding the extremesâŚâŚtranscendentâŚâŚwhich escapes the cycle of samsara (birth and death). Itâs not annihilation.
The unbornâŚâŚawakened mindâŚâŚremember me as âawakenedââŚâŚdwells with unrestricted awarenessâŚâŚnibbana bliss.
Oke, but an extinguished flame does not exist anymore. But the Buddha does not want to claim that an arahant and Tathagata do not exist after death. Why? If they are extinguished like a flame.
You guys seem to miss the point, the disappearance of flame is not related to nonexistence but the mind can not reach that or grasp it to understand where it goes as one does not grasp the concept of where the flame goes after disappears. Even people who quote it do not understand how it is, thatâs why only people who are at least Sotapanna will understand suttas and everything related to Dhamma - all other people who try to understand Dhamma without any insight knowledge will always miss the point
I agree. After several deep dives into the richness of what dukkha conveys, suffering doesnât cover it for me. Thanissaro translates dukkha as stress and I think thatâs even more tangental than suffering. For me, Dukkha is one of those Pali words that is best leaving untranslated.
Arahantship is to give up thinking in those terms.
2 Likes