Ignorance and the root of suffering

Discussion
13

Practicing meditation has brought me here. Not words. I am slowly trying to learn Pali. It is difficult. I do agree that there are multiple meanings here. English is my first language. I was taught in British private schools and am well aware of the Oxford dictionary.

The ambiguity is what makes the word root so powerful. It helps orient my practice. Gives it a concrete, actionable energy. I would be completely adrift and confused looking for ignorance. When, however, in my practice I see the glow of delight, it shouts danger (fire!). Oh that pretty sight. No thank you. If I awake to reality after distraction, I look back to see where mindfulness left, and I have always found the ashes of delight.

1 Like
14

I don’t see the ambiguity that you seem to see, I guess .

To me when the Buddha says the cause of dukkha goes all the way back to avijjā through the twelve steps of paṭiccasamuppāda that would make avijjā the origin, source and the root(all three words are synonyms) of dukkha. There isn’t even a clear semantic difference between these words in this context. And it’s is just a linguistic preference by the translator to use any one of these words. The meaning is retained equally by all.

We’re definitely not on the same page here.
:heart:

2 Likes
15

It is indeed perplexing. We both speak from the truth of our individual practice. Thanks to the discussion I am learning new perspectives. :pray:

(and I’ve realized it’s cumbersome to keep both sites updated, so the link to the actively edited answer is here)

1 Like
16

I’m gonna be honest here and say I believe you are assigning a difference without a distinction with the word mūla and it being translated as “root’,” when there are two other equally valid words perfectly suitable for it that also have zero ambiguity as well.

Couldn’t agree more!
Metta :heart:

17

Putting ignorance as the root of suffering is a way of dismissing the second truth that the cause of suffering is craving.
As result someone could see the path as being the path of removing ignorance instead of what it should be, the path of removing craving. This is what I see when people think that vipassana meditation (there is not such a practice in the EBT) is the path to awakening, where by just staying with what is ultimately ignorance will go. This has been called spiritual bypassing.

3 Likes
18

Are you aware of this course, Karl?

2 Likes
19

Maybe this article by Bhikkhu Analayo can be of some interest here:
https://www.buddhistinquiry.org/article/the-underlying-tendencies/

The underlying tendencies—one of them being ignorance—are something rather subliminal that cannot be observed and addressed directly, but there are still ways to uproot them (again, the word ‘root’) clearly pointed out in the EBTs.

1 Like
20

Yes, and when we look at both AN10.61 and AN10.62 we see that beside being aware that craving and ignorance are two aspects of the same problem (of beginingless transmigration) our efforts and priority should be to identify and associate with good people.

By doing so we are kickstarting a natural process that will eventually lead to the uprooting or abandoning of both craving and ignorance, and all the suffering that comes with it.

"It’s like when it rains heavily on a mountain top, and the water flows downhill to fill the hollows, crevices, and creeks.
As they become full, they fill up the pools.
The pools fill up the lakes, the lakes fill up the streams, and the streams fill up the rivers.
And as the rivers become full, they fill up the ocean.
That’s the fuel for the ocean, and that’s how it’s filled up.
In the same way, when the factor of associating with good people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the true teaching.
When the factor of listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … proper attention … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom.
That’s the fuel for knowledge and freedom, and that’s how it’s fulfilled.”
–AN10.61

5 Likes
21

One of my favourite similes! :heart: :heart: :heart:

2 Likes
22

This is new to me.:heart:

Sadhu sadhu sadhu :pray:

2 Likes
23

I have meditated more on this and slept on it.

I am a gardener.

I grow the food I eat. I see seeds. I see the earth. I see the water. I see the air. I see the fire of the sun. From these I see the plants. I see the weed. I cut the weed. It comes back. I see the root of the weed. I uproot the weed. The weed does not come back. This is what I see.

When I see a seed, I cannot see if it be good or bad. I am stupid that way. Others are not. When I see a weed, I know it for suffering. When I pull the roots of the weed, ALL the roots of the weed, then this whole mass of weed and suffering does not come back. This is what I see.

I have faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. I have faith in the translations of the suttas. I have faith that when I pull the root of existence, it will not come back. And then there will be no more weeding or seeds of ignorance. This is what I see.

:pray:

5 Likes
24

I know what you’re talking about. I just spent 27 months on a very rural farm/vineyard in south eastern Iowa (something of an ideal meditation retreat) and have been gardening since I was a child with my father.

This is right. The root of existence is ignorance and the root of suffering also ignorance. They go hand in hand.

There is no ambiguity. It is very clear in my view.

In your orginal post that started this thread you said you felt ‘ignorance is the root of suffering’ was wrong and misleading…
Again in your last post you said:

The root of existence is ignorance as explained by the Buddha, of course. So have you changed you stance since the original post or not? Do you still feel mislead by the statement that ‘ignorance is the root of suffering?’

Not to disrespectfully disassemble your analogy, but when gardening you romove a weed by the entire root(of the plant) and that particular weed is gone, however, a half dozen ‘new’ weeds are waiting in line to replace the extracted one. I would argue that this garden weeding analogy would much better apply to āsavas(effluents/defilements) not existence as a whole. Where as biology is the root cause of all weeds(the definition of a weed is entirely subjective, by the way) and the seeds they sprout from. The removal of biology as a factor would have a similar sweeping permanent result as the elimination ignorance as the original root(not using this word in the biological meaning) cause of existence.

I really like your analogy, don’t get me wrong, but it seems much better for individual āsavas, not the fundamental original cause of it all.

I could be wrong.
:heart:

1 Like
25

The self that posted the question is not the one typing.

Ignorance is the root of suffering. Ignorance is not the root of suffering

The discomfort I felt and still feel is that I associate root of suffering with the word of the Buddha. It is a key phrase in the canon. For me to say either phrase would be wrong and a complete misrepresentation of what the Buddha actually said. If any enlightened person representing the living Buddha would say either of these phrases, I would have no issue. I do not know you personally, so I cannot say what you can say. I only know what I can say.

(By the way, I am well aware of DO. The issue here is not comprehension. It is right speech)

1 Like
26

No one wants to misrepresent the Buddha I hope. Though it does happen. It certainly did happen when he was alive.

1 Like
27

It might be worth remembering that early Buddhist texts were not recorded in English. “Root,” as used in the subject heading for this thread is a linguistic representation for an abstract concept, namely, causation. In other words, “root” used in this context is a metaphor. As with all metaphors, it imperfectly captures an abstract concept because there is no perfect way to translate experiences into language in a way that makes a one-to-one connection between that concept and its linguistic representation. So when people speaking English refer to any cause as a “root” of its effect, there is is inevitable ambiguity.

It is more productive to use as literal language as possible when discussing abstract concepts, keeping in mind that all language is a mix of literal and metaphorical expression. So when using a metaphor such as “root” to mean causation, best to acknowledge upfront the limitations of the metaphor to capture the concepts that are under examination.

Edit: “Root” could also serve as a metaphor for the concept of origination, which is different from causation. This only further reinforces my point that all metaphors are inherently ambiguous in the meanings they convey and therefore warrant caution when deploying them in a discussion of abstract concepts.

2 Likes
28

The Buddha spoke to all. Even nibbhana was used to refer to the cooling of rice (The Island). The suttas rely on analogy to convey meaning to the broadest audience. For example, we have The Seed.

The subtle use of root in MN1 is a case in point. MN1 relates the perception afforded different levels of practice. Buddha was well aware of farming. And all farmers know that origination of a plant is from seed. MN1 deals pragmatically with how the root of existence as perceived should be dealt with. Itś a root, hence can be perceived/seen. However the root is NOT the seed (i.e., origination). Literally. This would have been crystal clear to farmers of that age. Today in our age of metaphor, these literal words are a bit looser and imprecise. We think of root as origination. It is not. Plants originate in seeds and are fed by roots. You cannot take away the seed to stop suffering–it is long gone. You can however, uproot the plant.

As far as I know, nowhere in the Pali Canon is it said directly that the root of ignorance is or is not suffering. The commentaries do in fact sometimes say that ignorance/delusion is the root (of the wheel of rebirth, etc.). We do have delight as the root of suffering. And the literal analogy is quite accurate. The root feeds the plant. Desire feeds suffering. Literally. In fact, even with ignorance gone and fully aware of the truth of suffering and its birth from unwary ignorance, we can still fool ourselves into feeding the plant and stroking the desire. To end suffering, take up the root. Desire.

Remarkably, MN1 does not say that desire is the root of suffering. Instead nandi is used. What is remarkable is that the lightest meaning of nandi is delight. We all understand craving as bad. But delight? How could delight be bad? The innocent flight of the butterfly on the summer day–how could that be bad? Then much later we see the caterpillar and understand that the delight of the butterfly will always be connected to the suffering of the plant.

1 Like
29

@karl_lew I find your observation about mūla intriguing. It seems possible that this Pali word was intentionally chosen by the Buddha because of it’s double meaning (causation as well as biological root), especially since there are, I believe, other Pali words that don’t have such multiple meanings (hetu, paccaya). I am not a linguist, so I can only imagine that there are ways to determine if this is plausible. In any case, the English translation as “root”, which has the some double meaning seems quite appropriate.

Are you familiar with suttacentral.net/thag6.5/en/sujato-walton ?

3 Likes
30

It could be that it is more relatable to an agrarian society and not as obtuse or abstract as some other words.

1 Like
31

I was not aware. Thank you.

Amusingly, I was born in the year of the Monkey and love bananas. I laughed when I read your referenced sutta.
:pray:

32

I think its same meaning, the root, the cause etc, but what is different and argueable is the understanding of ignorance.

From our standing point of view, we can only understand this much because blinded by the choices, names, feeling, craving. If the fruitation occurs and one is enlightened , he might be able to understand but might be unable to explain.

I’d like to add another interesting point of view of avijja ; the unknown, ignorance.

The knowledge we all had is very limited, in fact the more we know , the more we do not know.

The scientist has already proved these, the more they find out about atoms, they found out that there’s even smaller particles than atoms, more unknown. The more they travel through space and universe, now they found out the unobservable universe which is way vast than the observeable universe.

Limitation of the knowledge, intellectual mind, and physical world. One would eventually questioning all his knowledge, the sources, and then, by never arriving to a conclusion, he admit he actually dont know a single thing in everything. All the names, identification, knowledge, conceptual thinking, do we ever really know anything at all?

Buddha helps us build ladders, then we climb, but upon reaching the last door, the unknown, even the ladders we must clear up. If a SE is uncertain for their attainment, sadagami, anagami even more uncertain. An Arahant, absolutely uncertain.

If we let go all of our limitations and small size knowledges, whats left? I’d picked : sense.
One would start all over again the meditation process, and only sense, without acknowledgment, there might lies the truth, sensing the emptiness of self; anatta. To go beyond avijja and vijja, the duality of ignorance and knowledge, One must surrender entirely .One might lose the fetter : avijja. Avijja ; The Ignorance, the source of creation, the root in dependant origination.

:pray:t2:

3 Likes