Is the Tathagata literal suffering?

Q & A
25

It’s like asking ‘Is the Tathagatha without feeling?’ The answer is no.

So if feeling is a burden the Tathagatha is with the burden in as far as we are speaking about a Tathagatha.

This doesn’t mean that Tathagatha can be pinned down as a truth & reality.

“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?.. Elsewhere than form?.. In feeling?.. Elsewhere than feeling?.. In perception?.. Elsewhere than perception?.. In fabrications?.. Elsewhere than fabrications?.. In consciousness?.. Elsewhere than consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?”

“No, lord.”

“And so, Anuradha — when you can’t pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, ‘Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, lord.”

My advice is to consider whether things like ‘consciousness’, ‘feeling’, ‘reasoning’, ‘fabrications’, can be pinned down as a truth & reality and what would be the epistemological basis for this.

One could then compare how it fares in comparison to a word like ‘a person’.

26

It’s worth asking this question because if one asserts that no thing can be pinned down as a truth & reality then all things become equal in that.

I don’t know whether it’d be helpful to you or not but it’s a good exercise imho.

27

It has nothing to do with whether a Tathagata can be pinned down as saccato thetato. I accept that he cannot. What I can’t seem to accept is that we should correctly think of the Tathagata or any person as literally carrying the aggregates as if they were luggage you carry to the airport. That the aggregates are something with actual weight that can be measured on a weight scale like you weigh the ingredients you put in your bread recipe. I cannot understand this and despair to understand how you think this.

What I can accept is that the Teacher never intended for these words to be taken literally as meaning people literally carry around the aggregates like persons carry luggage to the airport. Rather, it makes sense to my limited mind that the Teacher intended his words to be understood metaphorically. That, it is not the actually case, that persons literally carry around the aggregates, but rather we should think as if we carry around the aggregates to counteract our habit of craving after them.

I also do not think form is an actual illusion or consciousness an actual magic trick performed by a magician. The Phena sutta, for me, is to be understood metaphorically being composed of figurative rather than literal language.

Further, I think the ontological commitment necessary to hold this view of persons literally carrying around aggregates is itself a burden and a heavy weight. Again, to be understood figuratively and not literally. Taking all the teachings literally like you do seems to my mind like a thicket of views I do not want to take part in.

:pray:

28

This is unwise attention. (You’re assuming a person.)

You’re mixing up cause and effect. After you achieve true happiness (nibbāna) then you understand the nature of the aggregates. Samma Vimutti → Samma Kāya

Remember that while the Buddha taught that all this is suffering, he didn’t only teach suffering. He also taught that there is a cessation of suffering.

So focus on the gradual training. That is, contemplate the asubha nature of the body and take refuge in more refined, spiritual sources of happiness (i.e. jhāna). As you let go of the grosser aggregates, you’ll find yourself becoming happier and suffering less. Then, just let go more and more until…

As Ajahn Chah said: “Let go a little, get a little happiness. Let go a lot, get a lot of happiness. Let go completely, and…” see what happens!

Hope that helps!

29

Hmm. I don’t think that is the case? Rather, I think I was echoing the assumed conclusion of others: that persons are asserted to be mere labels on the basis of literal suffering. My echo was in the form of a question though and could have been more precisely stated. I apologize for my imprecision; let me try again.

What is the referent of your usage of the word “you” here? Is the referent literal suffering? How is it possible that literal suffering can achieve true happiness? That is my question and I think I stated it without assuming the true existence of a person?

:pray:

1 Like
30

this is implied by the

if “you”, “me” and the “thathagata” just equate to “the five aggregates” and “the five aggregates” just equates to “suffering” then “tathagata” equates to “suffering”.

Do you see that?

@yeshe.tenley

yes, that is @Sunyo 's position and the position of many Theravadins, see the excellent

for more information.

yes, that is a logical consequence of the view.

this is less clear, first of all, given that the Theravadin believes that there is no one who is trapped in the first place, escape does not apply, this is a logical consequence of their view.

this is sort of the same as the last question.

I think that this would be true for both the Therevadin and the “EBT’er” for a “thing” to escape there must be some sort of “thingyness” by which that thing could be pointed to, but the Buddha cannot be pointed to by gods or men.

again, yes. This is the orthodox Theravadin position.

In order to prosecute this sectarian view the Therevadins downplay the undeclared points, the danger gratification escape suttas, and any number of other ideas and arguments in the ebt that don’t support thier sectarian position.

They also overplay much rarer ideas and arguments, like SN22.85 and SN5.10 and SN44.10 that do occur in some EBT, but more rarely and more often without parallels.

See for example my thread

Basically this board seems to ebb and flow in it’s perspective, when I joined a couple of years ago it was actually quite full of interesting perspectives and detailed textual explorations from both the Theravadin and many other perspectives.

Because of the historical fact that the monastic scholar that built the site that this discussion board is for is actually ordained into the Theravadin lineage there is always going to be a core representation of this viewpoint here, while unfortunately, many of the researchers with different perspectives have drifted away, with some telling me in private that the constant prosecution of the Theravadin position has contributed to this.

I tenaciously refuse to leave, mostly because this is the only buddhist forum i know that uses discourse and i can’t stand having to click into pre-defined subcategories on forums, but also because I find it invigorating to argue with people who hold a different perspective to mine as it forces one to improve their argumentation.

That said it can get depressing. and sometimes leave one with the feeling of talking to brick walls, so it’s important to take breaks and remember that there is a bias here, as i say mostly simply by historical happenstance, and that other perspectives should be sought out when necessary.

Hope you stick around!

Metta.

(Edited to remove an “unfortunately” which made it sound like i thought it unfortunate that Therevadins where here, what i meant was its unfortunate some non-Therevadins have left)

1 Like
31

Ah, I think I see the confusion here. You’re accusing me of a kind of monism? Rest assured, I don’t believe that the aggregates are made out of some kind of suffering substance. :rofl: That’s not what “the aggregates are suffering” means :rofl:

1 Like
32

Hi @josephzizys; I definitely don’t want to argue. My goal is to learn and if in the process I can be of some small tiny bit of help to someone else to try my best. So far I think this website is fantastic and full of curious fellow dhamma friends trying their best to understand the path and to practice accordingly.

My goal is to employ Right Speech and not to foist my limited understanding on others. If I end up doing that, then I’ll be harming others as well as myself and I happily encourage others to let me know if I veer away from Right Speech and engage in arguing. You would truly be doing me a service so this is my invitation to others to let me know. I hope I will hear others when they correct me and respond in a way befitting my teachers. If I do not it is my own fault and I take full responsibility.

It is difficult to encounter ideas contrary to our own when we’ve heavily invested in them. I’m hoping to give up such views as they are too burdensome. I’ve enjoyed interacting with you too @josephzizys and thank you for the warm welcome and the kind comments.

:pray:

1 Like
33

Aha- the core issue!
And the great source of suffering.

(Thanks for pointing this out Venerable)

1 Like
34

I don’t believe I have accused you of anything have I? If that is the case, then I am sorry and apologize. I thought I was asking a question that arose based on (mis)understanding what you said?

I also didn’t mention any “substance” in my question did I? I meant no disrespect and did not intend to accuse of anything. If that is how I am perceived, then please feel free to ignore the question and I will stop asking.

:pray:

35

Did you see the restatement of my imprecise wording? Do you still perceive that I am assuming the true existence of a person? :pray:

36

Hi @yeshe.tenley I am sorry, I know that english is not your first language so this is probably a source of confusion here. In English “argument” can mean both “a heated conflict between persons” and also “a sequence of reasoning to support a conclusion” when I say I like to debate here to hone my arguments I do not mean “fight with people” I mean “practice and refine my reasoning and explication of reasoning in support of my conclusions”.

you definitely won’t learn unless you learn how to make and understand arguments, that is basically what learning means.

anyway, glad you are enjoying the forum!

37

I think almost all of us do, especially myself!

I have confidence the Buddha must be right about this, although it certainly seems there is a ‘me’ !

1 Like
38

Oh! You meant what I think of as debate operated in forum of mutually humility and good will. Yes, if invited I am willing to try if it would be helpful or constructive for myself or others. Sorry for the confusion.

:pray:

2 Likes
39

Dukkha, being not real, arises by causal condition; having arisen it ceases completely by causal condition. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (empty of self or of anything belonging to self).

40

Well, at least we are in agreement that this is an improper thing to be doing! I too often assume. I too am trying to quit this pernicious habit. I rejoice that we have found a common understanding! :grin:

:pray:

3 Likes
41

I think what we can know is that we are suffering, and that the Buddha taught a way out of it.

42

What does it mean tho @Khemarato.bhikkhu ? I am genuinely somewhat confused about how this part of the argument works - i have always asssumed that the phrase meant something along the lines of "any phenomena at all, and any collection of phenomena, is subject to inconstancy, imperfection, change, arising and ceasing, and therfore should not be taken as “mine” or “me”. But if i am to understand that any phenomena or collection of phenomena literally “is suffering” like a sick person suffers, then i am just not sure how that makes sense.

Could you elaborate?

2 Likes
43

This seems the answer, at least to me.

1 Like
44

Venerable Yeshe. “Only suffering comes to be…” occurs in relation to the false view “a being” (SN 5.10) or the false view of “self” (SN 12.15).

I was taught aggregates are not literally “suffering”. Attachment to the aggregates is suffering, stress & anxiety (SN 56.11). If there is the belief you own, possess & are the aggregates, there will be anxiety. But the aggregates themselves are “unsatisfactory”(SN 22.59). I have read different translators and I incline towards translators like Mendis, Buddharakkhita & Suddhāso (SuttaCentral) who translated ‘dukkha’ as one of the three characteristics to mean ‘unsatisfactory’.

SN 5.10 reads as though it is not the convention that is the arising of suffering but the view of “a being” that is the arising of suffering. Mara had the view of a being. Mara had suffering. The nun had convention. The nun had no suffering.

The aggregates are not literally suffering. The translation of suffering reads inaccurate and misleading. The aggregates being impermanent are unsatisfactory because satisfaction cannot be attained from impermanent things. Where as attachment to the aggregates is stressful because attachment itself is stressful & anxious.

These translations are unclear. I would translated them as:

  • Nothing more unsatisfactory (unable to satisfy) than the aggregates.

  • Fabricating [from ignorance] is the foremost suffering.