But it’s ‘only’ a bit of heat !
‘Tis but a scratch…
Just a flesh wound…
…Can’t you imagine the Buddha looking into my eyes with that incredible compassion,
‘Misguided man….’
1 Like
Basically our birth, as an acquisition of aggregates, is a holding of a red hot iron ball.
This is where we age, get sick and die, this is where the strong preys on the weak, where child buries parent, parent buries child, etc
The allure of this holding of a red hot iron ball is the tretcherous pleasant feeling which becomes unpleasant when it changes. Like a sweet tasting poison.
It’s a baited trap.
2 Likes
Hello Joseph,
Merry Christmas and I wish you all the best for the new year. In terms of literal and metaphorical, it’s been a while now since this came up for me in relation to Buddhism, so I am going to be fuzzy on the details. But, if I recall, it is within Abhidhamma, that the idea of two readings of the suttas came up, as a way to reconcile what were perceived to be contradictions among some of the things Buddha said. Rather than metaphorical and literal, if I recall, the distinction made was closer to what could be taken directly or what needed to be interpreted. So, in other words, some kind of hermeneutics was thought out and developed.
I think as a university educated person, especially educated in the humanities, you will have been trained in and developed strategies that far outstrip this simple hermeneutics. So, I think, for your benefit, you should just set this matter aside, recognizing that you’ve been thrown a red herring, and you’ve been taken somewhere jejune.
As for the aggregates, it’s the five grasping aggregates that are suffering. You’ll have to go look into the SN, I don’t have the time right now to find suttas on the five grasping aggregates and teachings that it is the grasping, craving, attachment in them/there that is the suffering. Or whatever exactly the word is.
I will look for them, because they certainly seem to be needed. Just sorry, I can’t right now.
2 Likes
Hello,
Here are a few examples:
SN56.11: "Now this is the noble truth of suffering… In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
Of course, there are many more.
1 Like
Yes. Obviously the headache isnt suffering or happy or a democrat or thinking about its 401k. I have the headache, so I am sufferimg. I am sufferimg from the headache. The headache isnt suffering the headache is just a headache.
1 Like
I think part of the confusion then is just the usage of language. I agree that “suffering” applies to an agent, but on the other hand people also use the term to mean that thing which is causing the agent to suffer.
For example, “malaria is one of the worst forms of suffering.” Now this can be read as [having] malaria is suffering for the person, or the malaria itself is painful. “Suffering” gets used synonymously with “painful.”
1 Like
I asked, for I think the third time:
And so far i have
Which seems to imply the “from something” camp, that is that there ARE perceptuons but that said perceptuons are unstable, unsatisfactory, suffering (from that defect) etc.
So yes, that makes more sense to me, and appears to be in line with the ebt.
Then i get
Which again ignores my actual question amd again seems ambiguous, as its not the headache that suffers but me whonsuffers fromnthe headache.
But then, in another, related thread I get
Now this is clearly a different position, it is not claiming that all things have the property of being unstable/unsatisfactory/suffering, it is using the “are” and the “only” in the other sense i posited, to claim that there is this dukka stuff which is like the water, and there are these form things, which are like the waves.
This is the idea that is being gotten at by “literally” in the “literal suffering” phrase, and this is what is clearly objectionable on any holistic and coherent reading of the ebt.
I hope people can see the difference elucidated, but I am learning not to be too confident thses days.
Anyway, thanks gang! I think i have gotten all i can from this discussion, my conclusion, which i had already on other grounds, is that suffering is a truly awful and incomprehensibly bad translation of dukkha, being formally a word for something that a person does (in bearing or enduring pain or discomfort) not a word for the thing the person is does it with ecept by a kind of semantic drift.
Metta
Knowing ‘dukkha’ is an essential first step in early Buddhism for leading to liberation from dukkha. But how to see the arising of dukkha?
I think one needs to see: 1. the connection between anicca, dukkha, anatta; 2. the reason why anicca is dukkha; and 3. what is anatta?
Sutta support that the literal reading is incorrect:
There are these five kinds of sensual stimulation.
Pañcime, bhikkhave, kāmaguṇā—
Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.
cakkhuviññeyyā rūpā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā,
Sounds known by the ear …
sotaviññeyyā saddā …
Smells known by the nose …
ghānaviññeyyā gandhā …
Tastes known by the tongue …
jivhāviññeyyā rasā …
Touches known by the body that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing.
kāyaviññeyyā phoṭṭhabbā iṭṭhā kantā manāpā piyarūpā kāmūpasaṁhitā rajanīyā.
However, these are not sensual pleasures. In the training of the Noble One they’re called ‘kinds of sensual stimulation’.
Api ca kho, bhikkhave, nete kāmā kāmaguṇā nāmete ariyassa vinaye vuccantiGreedy 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 chandanti.AN 6.63
The world’s pretty things are not literal suffering. In just the same way, the aggregates are not literal suffering. The aggregates - like the world’s pretty things - are just as they are. It is desiring them that leads to suffering; therefore a wise one removes desire for them. It is reifying them into something they are not - a self - that leads to suffering; therefore one should stop reifying them.
Venerable @sunyo I took your advice and meditated on this question. Whether I’d ever had contact with a pleasurable stimulation that induced zero craving. Very limited instances, but yes I’m fortunate to have had this direct experience. Thank you for suggesting meditation as it was very beneficial for my mind!
This sutta (which the Teacher describes as deep and profound) is in accordance with my direct experience. A limited number of times, I’ve been fortunate enough to have had contact with the world’s pretty things that neither induced craving for their continued existence nor craving for their non-existence. Nor on those occasions, nor since, have I generated any craving for them to arise again. In fact, that is impossible and this does not cause my mind the slightest anxiety or stress.
I’ve yet to have the experience of pains completely unaccompanied by craving for their non-existence, but in just the same way as above my hypothesis is that this is possible and that I should remove desire for the non-existence of pains just like the wise say.
1 Like
What I was trying to express was, rather, that dukkha (note that I did not define it as “suffering” or as anything else, but left the term as it is), is what the Buddha said in SN12.15, “Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing.”
Choosing to parse different words like “are”, “or” and “literal” is up to whoever wants to do this, but the Buddha’s teaching here and in the EBTs seems direct and is confirmed, beyond words and concepts, through our practice.
2 Likes
The Teacher did say that, but to my understanding that is still figurative language and not something that should be understood literally. The AN 6.63 supports this where the Teacher made a distinction between sensual stimulation - “Sights known by the eye that are likable, desirable, agreeable, pleasant, sensual, and arousing” - which does not necessarily lead to suffering and sensual pleasure which is craving after that sensual stimulation which does lead to suffering. AN 6.63 is described as penetrative, which here means deep and profound.
Sensual stimulation is not inherently dukkha. The aggregates are not inherently dukkha. The Tathagata is not inherently dukkha. I cannot find anything - when I look through analysis - that is inherently dukkha. Rather, it is the craving after things that is the condition for the arising of suffering.
1 Like
This view is not relevant to different meanings of dukkha. The aggregates are dukkha however dukkha does not have the same meaning as when it said attachment is dukkha. The aggregates are dukkha because no satisfaction can be found in them. I read MN 115 about the three characteristics. It reads to believe happiness can be found in conditioned things is wrong view. This is what dukkha means as one of the three characteristics. It means no happiness can be found in the aggregates.
The aggregates are not " red hot iron ball". This analogy suggests the Buddha suffered. The suttas I read say a Buddha has aggregates. The aggregates are not " red hot iron ball". It is unlikely the Buddha ever said this. The Fire Sermon says greed, hatred & delusion are “fires”. If the aggregates were a " red hot iron ball" the end of suffering could never be experienced. If the consciousness required to practice meditation and if the meditation objects in Satipatthana were “red hot iron balls”, meditation would be suffering. Therefore would be no path & no result. If the aggregates are “fires”, what is the path? How is this path without aggregates practised? How can there be life without five aggregates? 
In the same verse, the Dhammapada says lust is a fire and the aggregates are unsatisfying:
202. There is no fire like lust and no crime like hatred. There is no ill like the aggregates and no bliss higher than the peace (of Nibbana)
Sensual pleasures is red hot iron ball.
371. Meditate, O monk! Do not be heedless. Let not your mind whirl on sensual pleasures. Heedless, do not swallow a red-hot iron ball, lest you cry when burning, “O this is painful!”
Becoming (bhava) is red hot iron ball.
Whoever discerns this,
as taught by the Awakened One,
would no more grasp hold of any state of becoming
than he would a hot iron ball.
I have no ‘I was,’
no ‘I will be.’
I hope you are not one of those Buddhists I have read on the internet that believes “bhava” means “a lifetime”. If so, any path will be impossible to practice, if it is believed life is suffering. Thag 16.1 quoted literally reads becoming is a hot iron ball. Thag 16.1 quoted literally reads becoming is the thinking “I was” and “I will be”. Becoming is not a lifetime. Becoming is conceptual thoughts creating a something that is real. Only when Nibbana is experienced (with the aggregate of consciousness) can it be known what bhava is. Bhava is like a hallucination about self and other selves or “beings”. Bhava is like insanity. I read a sutta saying bhava is “asava” (“fermentation”). Bhava is not aggregates. Bhava is not lifetimes. Aggregates cannot be red hot iron balls.
Hi,
Thanks for sharing.
In SN56.11 the Buddha says: "Now this is the noble truth of suffering.
Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—
Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering;…In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.
Note that rebirth and old age, in and of themselves, are dukkha, not just the craving that lead to them.
Then the khandhas are explicitly stated to be dukkha. The same is said in AN6.63.
Also, in this sutta craving is said to be the cause of dukkha; in other suttas the cause is said to be ignorance. Both are true, although craving, I think we agree, will not finally end until ignorance is finally ended.
This is related to the evidence for two sequences of DO which were later combined – but that’s another topic.
In Dhp278: All conditions are suffering—“Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”ti,
when this is seen with wisdom, yadā paññāya passati;
one grows disillusioned with suffering: Atha nibbindati dukkhe,
this is the path to purity. esa maggo visuddhiyā.
SN22.30: "“Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of form [and the other aggregates] 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.
SN36.11: "Suffering includes whatever is felt. yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ, taṁ dukkhasmin’ti.
Also note that vedayitaṁ here can also mean experienced.
The same is repeated in SN12.32.
SN56.14: And what is the noble truth of suffering?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ?
You should say: ‘The six interior sense fields’.
‘Cha ajjhattikāni āyatanānī’tissa vacanīyaṁ.
What six?
Katamāni cha?
The sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.
Cakkhāyatanaṁ …pe… manāyatanaṁ—
This is called the noble truth of suffering. …”
idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ.
There are other examples. But these are offered in support of the inherent dukkha of all conditions. None of these teachings point to only craving for these conditions as being dukkha, but rather the conditions themselves being dukkha.
Regarding
This implies the Tathagata is a “something” and/or is identical in some way with the aggregates.
The freedom of the awakened ones while they are alive is freedom from greed, anger, and ignorance, as well as the cessation of self-view.
But the aggregates and senses are still present, which are dukkha.
Dukkha finally and completely ceases at the death of an awakened one with the extinguishment of the khandhas without rebirth, (Iti44).
2 Likes
Thank you for sharing your perspective and understanding which seems clear to me. It is true that AN 6.63 has, “the five grasping aggregates are suffering”, but for me the word grasping here tells the tale and is entirely in accordance with the non-literal figurative reading. Believing that the aggregates are inherently dukkha is to believe in true existence which is at odds with my inferential understanding.
In the end, I think practice is the only thing that can differentiate which reading is correct and give true confidence. For me, I’ve had direct experience with a sensual stimulation that did not involve any craving or grasping and is in accordance with AN 6.63 and what the Teacher told me to check. So at this point I think we’ll have to agree to disagree as they say. Let everyone else check for themselves.
1 Like
No, this is meant as a non-affirming negative. It is not meant to imply anything positive. Only mere negation.
Namo Buddhaya!
What do you assert to be a Buddha? What view have you grasped?
Here no being is found, only aggregated suffering.
just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and
while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood,
[595] yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this namarupa
is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands
merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had
curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the
Ancients said:
The namarupa are really here,
But here there is no human being to be found,
For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll—
Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks - Vsm
Bhikkus form is suffering . The cause and condition for the arising of form is also suffering. As form is has originated from what is suffering, how could it be happiness." SN 3 22 19: Suffering with Cause
Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering [Dukkhataa]. Suffering that is pain [Dukkha-dukkhataa], suffering that is formations [Sankhaara-dukkhataa], suffering that is change [Viparinaama-dukkhataa]. It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated…" My translation of sn45.165
Herein, the world is, at one time or another, somewhat free from to the suffering of pain [dukhadukkhata] as well as the suffering of change [vipariṇāmadukkhatā]. Why is that? Because there are those in the world who have little sickness and are long-lived. But only the nibbāna component with no fuel remaining [anupādisesā nibbānadhātu] liberates from the suffering of fabrications [saṅkhāradukkhatā] - Nettipakarana
And what is the element of extinguishment with something left over? It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. Their five sense faculties still remain. So long as their senses have not gone they continue to experience the agreeable and disagreeable, to feel pleasure and pain. The ending of greed, hate, and delusion in them is called the element of extinguishment with something left over.
And what is the element of extinguishment with nothing left over [anupādisesā nibbānadhātu]? It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here. This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over. SuttaCentral
Only suffering arises and only suffering ceases.
The question ‘Who suffers?’ doesn’t apply.
If we were to say ‘Only suffering arises for him’, then the question ‘Who suffers?’ would apply.
But we do not say ‘Only suffering arises for him’ and therefore the question ‘Who suffers?’ doesn’t apply.
Only suffering arises and only suffering ceases.
Here no being is found, there is only aggregated suffering.
The dukkha ends only when everything felt, not being relished, ceases.
1 Like
And thank you for sharing yours. 
At the same time, and far more importantly than my perspective, are the citations from the Buddha about dukkha. These were not responded to or discussed.
Regarding the five grasping aggregates, this has been much discussed regarding whether it points to the aggregates being dukkha only if they are grasped ((and dukkha does not always mean the most painful kind of suffering), or whether they are inherently dukkha,
It may help to place this in the context of how the Buddha explained the nature of the aggregates in many other suttas – as all conditional things being anicca, dukkha, anattā.
Particular practice experiences may be insightful and transforming.
But was that experience impermanent? If so, then in SN18.10:
“Is form…consciousness permanent or impermanent?”
“Impermanent, sir.” …
“Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.”
SN26.10:
““Mendicants, the arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of form [and the other aggregates] is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death.”
Again, nothing about craving here – except, of course, in the past craving and ignorance lead to the arising of the aggregates.
Rather the conditional aggregates are themselves described as dukkha, (so that nibbidā and virāga can be developed and deepened)
Agree.
Fair enough! Thanks for the conversation.
Apologies. Your citations are valid and exemplary. I understand the point you are making by citing them and I am sorry if you feel I haven’t paid attention to them or have dismissed or ignored them. That is not my intention. Nevertheless, they do not persuade me of the necessity or benefit of a literal reading. If you wish, I can attempt to explain why again, but at this point I fear my ineloquent explanations will not be effective in conveying the reason. Let me know if you wish me to attempt anyway.
Just to answer the topic: is the Buddha literally suffering?
I prefer dissatisfactory.
Yes.
- Buddhas have to die.
- Buddhas have a body and thus can get old and sick and do get old and sick.
- Buddhas get vihesā for having to teach difficult people.
- So many rules in the vinaya, Buddha have to lay down.
- Buddha have to sacrifice time for personal meditation for the happiness in the here and now for many moments of teachings.
- Buddhas cannot thanos snap and make everyone enlightened.
- Even after the Buddha taught the dhamma, people can misunderstand the Buddha. Like so many different views we can find in this forum.
- He got challenged many times as detailed in the 8 great victories of the Buddha.
- He have to practise for super duper long as bodhisatta to become a Buddha at a final lifetime and then done. So much effort for one shining life.
- Other Buddhas get longer lifespan compared to our Buddha (but it’s good for us that the Buddha appeared in our era).
- He sometimes didn’t get food.
- He got hurt by Devadatta.
- One of his attendent before ānanda gave the Buddha’s bowl and robe to the Buddha so that the attendent can meditate under a tree, despite the Buddha asking him not to.
- The Buddha have to debate with so many people in DN.
Whatever is conditioned, it has conditioned dukkha, of dissatisfactoriness. The 5 aggregates of the Buddha is conditioned, that’s why Buddha cannot simply do whatever he wants without limit (like live forever and liberate us all via mind to mind personal guidance simulatenously). Although his power is the greatest already.
1 Like
Thanks for the answer Venerable @NgXinZhao!
It has now been a few months since I posted this and I can happily say that I’ve gotten over my shock 
All that you describe indeed seems unsatisfactory, but from this I don’t think it can/should be concluded that the Tathagata is literal suffering any more than the five aggregates are literally burning chaff. 
Where we disagree seems much less important than where we agree:
-
The desire, clinging, attraction, and attachment for these five grasping aggregates is the origin of suffering.
-
Giving up and getting rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates is the cessation of suffering.
If the view of the Tathagata as literal suffering helps others to accomplish the goal of giving up desire and greed, then all the best. If the view of the Tathagata as literal suffering interferes with the goal of giving up desire and greed, then like all views, it should be abandoned.
The proof is in the pudding.
2 Likes