I think what we can know is that we are suffering, and that the Buddha taught a way out of it.
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
This seems the answer, at least to me.
1 Like
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.
If i say “the soldiers are humans in uniforms with guns” that has a different meaning to “the soldiers are storming the battlements”
In the first sense of “are” i am explaining what the soldiers “literally” are, but in the second i am explaining what they are doing.
Again “the protesters are people”
Has a different meaning and sense to
“The protesters are subject to prosecution”
Foes this distinction exist in pali?
Is one sense but not the other clearly indicated in ypur sentence?
Metta.
I’m sorry, but I am unable to follow your argument here.
Are you suggesting the storming soldiers are not humans?
When I read the suttas, I found the Buddha taught to stop fabricating “self” and false view of “a being”. The differences in what you posted is:
-
“the soldiers are selves/beings/people in uniforms with guns”
-
"the soldiers are storming the battlements”
The former is personality view & suffering. The later is impersonal & free. 
No, im saying that in english we use “are” both to define what a thing is and to make statments about properties of the thing so
“Numbers that can be divided only by themselves and 1 without a remainder are Prime Numbers”
And
“Numbers that can be divided only by themselves and one without remainder are able to be squared”
Both use “are” but only in the first case are we saying that this is what the numbers “literally” are.
Is that better?
Does anyone else see the distinction i am trying to make?
It seems pretty obvious to me and i am unsure how to make it clearer other than just multiplying examples.
1 Like
I tried to explain before and failed, but let me try again.
Whenever I am reading a sutta I ask what is the most conservative reading that explains the meaning but also involves the fewest number of ontological commitments. In the case of the suttas we are discussing I think I can distill the heartwood of the sutta without making any ontological commitments.
When the Tearcher says, “Only suffering…” I take this as metaphorical and figurative language to make the following point: when we take the aggregates as a basis upon which to impute and assume the true existence of a person even though one cannot be found under analysis - we are craving after the aggregates and this leads to future suffering. The Teacher is redirecting the attention away from the faulty view of assuming true existence of persons when they can’t be found and saying something like, “Stop doing this! Doing this only leads to suffering for you!”
Thinking like this I think captures the heartwood of the meaning of these suttas without getting involved in any ontological commitments. I fear those taking a literal reading are themselves involved in investing in ontological commitments by presuming what can’t be found under analysis.
It is my working hypothesis that the Teacher taught us to refrain from any ontological commitments whatsoever. When we invest in these we are creating views of true existence that are faulty in that they do not hold up under analysis. And these views lead to future suffering.
I hope this is helpful.
Yes, I understand the distinction. I’m even more reticent than even this, but your distinction is clear to me and in accordance with how I understand the error in taking things literally that are not meant to be taken literally. Your distinction is also clear and in accordance with the world and common understanding to my mind.
Hope this helps.
In any case, I hope you can be free of both metaphorical and literal suffering, all possible types.
1 Like
A few reflections -
- If the premise is that any form of existence is dukkha, then the cessation of existence is the ending of dukkha.
This premise is supported by numerous statements by the Buddha, including in SN56.11.
Also:
SN22.30: ““Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of form is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death.
“Yo, bhikkhave, rūpassa uppādo ṭhiti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso uppādo rogānaṁ ṭhiti jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo."…[and so on for the other aggregates].
"The cessation, settling, and ending of form is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death…[and so on for the other aggregates].
Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpassa nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, dukkhasseso nirodho rogānaṁ vūpasamo jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo.”
Also:
SN36.11: "‘Suffering includes whatever is felt.’
‘yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ, taṁ dukkhasmin’ti.
(And since vedana, sañña, and viññāna are interdependent and cannot be separated, MN43), all these are dukkha too.
Also SN22.78: "What’s impermanent is suffering.
Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
There are other examples. If it’s conditional it’s fundamentally dukkha – although some conditions are experienced as pleasant. But the Buddha taught that only nibbāna is free of dukkha.
-
Even as the Buddha expressed the happiness and joy of full awakening, while alive the aggregates/senses were still present. So, not yet the final and complete cessation of dulkkha. Not that there is any identification with conditions or any experience of greed, anger, or ignorance.
It’s just the mere presence of the aggregates are dukkha unto themselves, (as in the above citations). -
With the death without rebirth of a Buddha or arahant, the aggregates/senses, all conditions, cease and do not re-arise, so dukkha ends completely.
The aggregates do not attain or achieve nibbāna. Rather, it is the cessation of the āsavas, of all the defilements, that leads to nibbāna while alive. SN41.7:
That unshakable release of the heart is empty of greed, hate, and delusion.
Sā kho pana akuppā cetovimutti suññā rāgena, suññā dosena, suññā mohena.
And it’s the final cessation of all conditions/aggregates/senses with the death of an arahant, without rebirth, that is the ending of conditional existence and hence the cessation of all dukkha, (Iti44).
To use your words of “literal suffering” – it’s not that “literal suffering” transforms into happiness.
It is the cessation of “literal suffering” that is the bliss of extinguishment, (AN9.34: "Reverends, extinguishment is bliss! sukhamidaṁ, āvuso, nibbānaṁ.*
Hope this is helpful.
1 Like
… ah … 
And what are the four primary elements? Katamā cāvuso, cattāro mahābhūtā?
The elements of earth, water, fire, and air. Pathavīdhātu, āpodhātu, tejodhātu, vāyodhātu.
And what is the earth element? Katamā cāvuso, pathavīdhātu?
The earth element may be interior or exterior. Pathavīdhātu siyā ajjhattikā, siyā bāhirā.
And what is the interior earth element? Katamā cāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu? Anything hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. Yaṁ ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ, seyyathidaṁ— head hair, body hair, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, diaphragm, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, undigested food, feces, or anything else hard, solid, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. kesā lomā nakhā dantā taco maṁsaṁ nhāru aṭṭhi aṭṭhimiñjaṁ vakkaṁ hadayaṁ yakanaṁ kilomakaṁ pihakaṁ papphāsaṁ antaṁ antaguṇaṁ udariyaṁ karīsaṁ, yaṁ vā panaññampi kiñci ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ kakkhaḷaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ.
This is called the interior earth element. Ayaṁ vuccatāvuso, ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu.
The interior earth element and the exterior earth element are just the earth element. Yā ceva kho pana ajjhattikā pathavīdhātu, yā ca bāhirā pathavīdhātu, pathavīdhāturevesā.
This should be truly seen with right understanding like this: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’‘Taṁ netaṁ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti—evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya daṭṭhabbaṁ.
When you truly see with right understanding, you grow disillusioned with the earth element, detaching the mind from the earth element. Evametaṁ yathābhūtaṁ sammappaññāya disvā pathavīdhātuyā nibbindati, pathavīdhātuyā cittaṁ virājeti. MN 28
… ah …
Take an unlearned ordinary person who has not seen the noble ones, and is neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the noble ones. They’ve not seen true persons, and are neither skilled nor trained in the teaching of the true persons. Idha, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano ariyānaṁ adassāvī ariyadhammassa akovido ariyadhamme avinīto, sappurisānaṁ adassāvī sappurisadhammassa akovido sappurisadhamme avinīto—
They perceive earth as earth. pathaviṁ pathavito sañjānāti;
Having perceived earth as earth, they conceive it to be earth, they conceive it in earth, they conceive it as earth, they conceive that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth. pathaviṁ pathavito saññatvā pathaviṁ maññati, pathaviyā maññati, pathavito maññati, pathaviṁ meti maññati, pathaviṁ abhinandati.
Why is that? Taṁ kissa hetu? Because they haven’t completely understood it, I say. Apariññātaṁ tassā’ti vadāmi. MN1
…er … 
Once upon a time, Kevaḍḍha, a mendicant in this very Saṅgha had the following thought, Bhūtapubbaṁ, kevaṭṭa, imasmiññeva bhikkhusaṅghe aññatarassa bhikkhuno evaṁ cetaso parivitakko udapādi:
Where do these four primary elements cease without anything left over, namely, the elements of earth, water, fire, and air? kattha nu kho ime cattāro mahābhūtā aparisesā nirujjhanti, seyyathidaṁ—pathavīdhātu āpodhātu tejodhātu vāyodhātū’ti?
[…]
In the same way, after failing to get an answer to this question even after searching as far as the Brahmā realm, you’ve returned to me. Evameva kho tvaṁ, bhikkhu, yato yāva brahmalokā pariyesamāno imassa pañhassa veyyākaraṇaṁ nājjhagā, atha mamaññeva santike paccāgato.
Mendicant, this is not how the question should be asked: Na kho eso, bhikkhu, pañho evaṁ pucchitabbo:
Sir, where do these four primary elements cease without anything left over, namely, the elements of earth, water, fire, and air? kattha nu kho, bhante, ime cattāro mahābhūtā aparisesā nirujjhanti, seyyathidaṁ—pathavīdhātu āpodhātu tejodhātu vāyodhātū’ti?
This is how the question should be asked: Evañca kho eso, bhikkhu, pañho pucchitabbo:
Where do water and earth Kattha āpo ca pathavī, fire and air find no footing? tejo vāyo na gādhati; Where do long and short, Kattha dīghañca rassañca, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; where do name and form Kattha nāmañca rūpañca, cease with nothing left over? asesaṁ uparujjhatī’ti.
And the answer to that is: Tatra veyyākaraṇaṁ bhavati:
Consciousness where nothing appears, Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ, infinite, luminous all-round—anantaṁ sabbatopabhaṁ; that’s where water and earth, Ettha āpo ca pathavī, fire and air find no footing.
And that is where long and short, Ettha dīghañca rassañca, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; aṇuṁ thūlaṁ subhāsubhaṁ; that’s where name and form Ettha nāmañca rūpañca, cease with nothing left over—asesaṁ uparujjhati; with the cessation of consciousness, Viññāṇassa nirodhena, that’s where they cease. etthetaṁ uparujjhatī’ti. DN 11
Let’s add one more …
“Brahmin, these five faculties have different scopes and different ranges, and don’t experience each others’ scope and range. “Pañcimāni, brāhmaṇa, indriyāni nānāvisayāni nānāgocarāni na aññamaññassa gocaravisayaṁ paccanubhonti.
What five? Katamāni pañca? The faculties of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Cakkhundriyaṁ, sotindriyaṁ, ghānindriyaṁ, jivhindriyaṁ, kāyindriyaṁ.These five faculties, with their different scopes and ranges, have recourse to the mind. And the mind experiences their scopes and ranges.” Imesaṁ kho, brāhmaṇa, pañcannaṁ indriyānaṁ nānāvisayānaṁ nānāgocarānaṁ na aññamaññassa gocaravisayaṁ paccanubhontānaṁ mano paṭisaraṇaṁ, manova nesaṁ gocaravisayaṁ paccanubhotī”ti.
“But Master Gotama, what does the mind have recourse to?” “Manassa pana, bho gotama, kiṁ paṭisaraṇan”ti?
“The mind has recourse to mindfulness.” “Manassa kho, brāhmaṇa, sati paṭisaraṇan”ti.
“But what does mindfulness have recourse to?” “Satiyā pana, bho gotama, kiṁ paṭisaraṇan”ti?
“Mindfulness has recourse to freedom.” “Satiyā kho, brāhmaṇa, vimutti paṭisaraṇan”ti.
“But what does freedom have recourse to?” “Vimuttiyā pana, bho gotama, kiṁ paṭisaraṇan”ti?
“Freedom has recourse to extinguishment.” “Vimuttiyā kho, brāhmaṇa, nibbānaṁ paṭisaraṇan”ti.
“But what does extinguishment have recourse to?” “Nibbānassa pana, bho gotama, kiṁ paṭisaraṇan”ti?
“This question goes too far, brahmin! You weren’t able to grasp the limit of questioning. “Accayāsi, brāhmaṇa, pañhaṁ, nāsakkhi pañhassa pariyantaṁ gahetuṁ. For extinguishment is the culmination, destination, and end of the spiritual life.” Nibbānogadhañhi, brāhmaṇa, brahmacariyaṁ vussati nibbānaparāyaṇaṁ nibbānapariyosānan”ti. SN 48.42
2 Likes
Hi, are these sutta quotations meant to point out the difference ‘metaphorical’ vs ‘literal’ suffering, or, as Ven. Sunyo recently posted about the difference between “without essence” and “not real” ?
No. It’s understood that real is without essence. So there’s no point in arguing that something without essence is not real.
1 Like
Hi,
WIthout having read the whole topic, I think you’re generally on the right track with your questions. But the “lamp” you need, in my view, is deep meditation. I can’t provide that for you, nor can anybody else.
That is not just to do away with the (good) questions in a cheap way, but for you to get you to answer them for yourself. The thing is, we need to ask these questions at the right time, with the right mindset, which meditation provides. If we don’t come from this place, we’ll always take the cessation of suffering as the cessation of an “I” or will think that nibbana is useless and uninspiring, for example.
The Buddha also said that the dhamma should be taught gradually, which is to say, you don’t start with the most challenging and profound questions.
6 Likes
Thank you, but those are not my words. Others have adopted this view of the aggregates as literal suffering.
Any perception is suffering. I have not understood how other aggregates are literally suffering but to me any perception is literally suffering.
for example:
“This form is good” implies that the absence of “this form” is not good/bad/stress. The more you like/love/assert as good/right, it’s absence becomes more stressful/hateful/dukkha. This is natural and you can not avoid it.
On the other hand “This form is this color” asserts the existence of form as well as color. According to Buddhism, this assertion of existence/non-existence is wrong as well.
It is in this way, Kaccana, that there is right view. “‘All exists’: Kaccana, this is one extreme. ‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle:
This assertion creates an aversion to any thing contrary to the assertion. A person will have aversion in the future if you meet anything against it. As much as you assert, you will have as much as aversion.
I am asking if when people say “the aggregates are suffering” they mean “the aggregates are suffering” from something, the way i am suffering when i am suffering from a headache, or are they are saying “the aggregates ARE suffering” in the sense that the aggregates are actually a thing and that thing is called suffering?
I think maybe this is why I am confused, and would love have someone reassure me that I haven’t gone mad and people can see what I am saying?
This is honestly starting to feel gaslighty.
1 Like