I interpret it more along these lines 
1 Like
So is dukkha a purely mental phenomena?
I’ve been reprimanded by Christians that Buddhism is pessimistic – even before I start talking about The Four Noble Truths. (Some people simply assumed I was Buddhist based on my skin color and nationality in the Deep South of Baptist America aka The Bible Belt.) I’m starting to believe that holding the view that “Life is Suffering” can lead to depression.
The way I understood buddhism is that it’s about letting go of our conditioned views and seeing things as they are. Life is suffering due to changing phenomena. Understanding nature for what it is can give one a peaceful feeling. This feeling can happen in the here and now. The understanding happens as we practise and slowly let go of views.
2 Likes
And what about the good moments - are they also ‘suffering’? Or would you say ‘they don’t count’?
What about association with the liked , seperation from the disliked , and getting what I wish for? Why should ‘suffering’ represent the whole of life? (from Gabriel)
The problem is with the fact that one is liable to suffering if one is identifying with life or things within it. Even if one is associated with the agreeable, there is the inevitable possibility that it will change, and one cannot control that.
If one wants or tries to hold on to the good ‘moments’,that is suffering because those things (the aggregates) are not in ones control.
Suffering is not the thing itself but the identification with it, the idea that this thing,this state is mine and I have control over it.
So indeed life is not suffering, but rather its me that suffers because I assume life to be mine.
When there is no assumed(upadana) identification with the aggregates , then life is just life, pain is pain, pleasure is pleasure,just like it says in the sutta to bahiya :
In that case, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In what is seen there must be only what is seen, in what is heard there must be only what is heard, in what is sensed there must be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there must be only what is cognized. This is the way, Bāhiya, you should train yourself.
“And since for you, Bāhiya, in what is seen there will be only what is seen, in what is heard there will be only what is heard, in what is sensed there will be only what is sensed, in what is cognized there will be only what is cognized, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be with that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be with that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be in that; and since, Bāhiya, you will not be in that, therefore, Bāhiya, you will not be here or hereafter or in between the two—just this is the end of suffering.”
7 Likes
I would just like to add…
Life is suffering due to changing phenomena which i am identified with.
Impermance is only suffering when it concens me (my views, my attachments ,my family,my feelings etc).
I do not suffer on account of a thing changing if that thing is not mine.
5 Likes
I agree. Views of self attached to that suffering need to be understood. 
2 Likes
Just, there are millions of things in life that I’m not identified with. Are there ‘two lifes’? One identified, attached, demanding consciousness, being in the foreground of the drama, - and the other a subcurrent, unidentified, unattached, going on unnoticed, drama-free, yet underlying life as a whole, like the flow of blood in my veins that doesn’t care at all if the mind is attached to anything?
In a way, this is obviously the case. That Buddhism doesn’t mention the latter is significant I find, in that it is concerned with the mind/consciousness, and not with life as such.
I know the following is not what you mean, but since my concern is a proper description of Buddhist fundamentals I take the liberty to take the sentence literally… It sounds like the phantasm of an obsessive control-freak. If we ask common people “Do you live your life wanting to completely control it?” the ones with some historical awareness would point out the hubris in the question of a man wanting to be god. Sure, we want to expand our control in life, but normal maturity consists of accepting that full control is not possible.
Moreover, to any farmer, and especially the ancient farmer of India, the lack of control was a daily experience city dwellers cannot fathom, with floods, droughts, crop-disease, etc. The ‘wanting to control’ aspect, I think, should be located in the unconscious, as part of the fabric of the unconscious mind, not of man. Transposed to man the want of control is neurotic and is bound to create paradoxical problems in the navigation of normal life - which I think we can see in meditation as well, that we have to be very gentle in the exercise of ‘control’ so much so that I don’t think we can call it ‘control’ at all, but rather energy or maybe really sammā-vāyāma.
1 Like
A Noble truth must apply to all. The present translation of the Noble truth yields false when it’s applied to Arihants.
A non-Arihant → The life is suffering → true
An Arihant → The life is suffering → false
This therefore is the wrong translation. The correct translation is this.
A non-Arihant → A life conjured pleasant or unpleasant leads to suffering → true
An Arihant → A life conjured pleasant or unpleasant leads to suffering → true
The Noble truth speaks of a function of the mind - not an external object or situation.
The Arihant’s mind never finds the life pleasing. Therefore he does not mentally suffer even if he is about to get run over by a bus.
(Link deleted)
2 Likes
Life is suffering, from a conventional standpoint, is untrue. There is happiness it in it (as well).
The arahanth has emotional suffering, is also untrue.
In terms of arising and passing away of phenomena; that impermanence is suffering; no one controls it or can control it. It’s happening incessantly as long as samsara persists. It permeates the arahath while he is alive. This isn’t an emotional suffering- its wisdom. It also stop when nibbana-dhatu manifests upon attainments. This is at the four steps of attainment.
1 Like
Thanks for stating the obvious. That’s why we conventional people should also not run around promoting Buddhism in this way. Maybe an arahant can, properly explaining what they mean.
Also, we have in the suttas that the Buddha teaching dukkha-samudaya-nirodha-magga was conditioned:
And when he knew that X’s mind was ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, joyful, and confident the Buddha explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path. (AN 8.12, AN 8.21, AN 8.22, MN 56, MN 91, DN 3, DN 5, DN 14)
So the Buddha was also not walking around teaching randomly “dukkha!”, leaving aside that there is a big difference between ‘There is suffering’ (majority of suttas) and ‘Life is suffering’ (absolute minority of dukkha-Buddhism).
2 Likes
I haven’t been proven wrong, that the early Buddhist were seeking happiness! Sensual pleasures were a type of happiness but they were searching something even better - and even more refined were the jhanas and even more, nibbana.
Ha! Is this a Greek caricature, of some sort?
I don’t think the Buddha was describing ‘absolutes’ - it was a personal perspective of unsatisfactoriness which allowed the practitioner to let go at the level of latent tendencies.
1 Like
Sorry what’s this Jambudvipa theory of Sri Lanka being the birthplace of the Buddha being promoted here, and covertly in this linked presentation! It’s been denounced in Sri Lanka as well!
2 Likes
Ajahn Sona explains the First Noble Truth very well in the recent Youtube video about The Four Noble Truth. He cuts through the nonsense and misunderstandings and addresses the many ways in which Westerners spin the Buddha’s teachings to reconcile the extreme beliefs in the eternal heaven or the material anihilationism.
In summary:
- There is suffering: unsatifactory existence is a merry-go-round
- There is a cause to suffering: ignorance about the conditioned existence being subject to anicca (aka nothing lasts forever)
- There is an end to suffering: there is a cure (since it is posiible to put an end to suffering, it is a choice to get off the merry-go-round)
- There is a way leading to the end of sufferring, that is The Noble Eightfold Path: prescription on the ending of suffering, the intentional practice to get off the merry-go-round.
2 Likes
That is because it contains the truth about the Buddha. The last section has been updated there. Read and be specific with what/why etc.
Here is the pertinent information about this
1 Like
(I agree with Gabriel that the way Buddhism is sometimes summarized as “life is suffering” stop many people right at the 1st noble fact. Even by adding “but there is a way out” seems pretty delusional and may end up in thinking “Ok Buddhists are negative depressed people and they believe in a illusory way out, represented by people who don’t even exist nowadays.”
At the refined level of perception sabbe sankhara dukkha. But it is still a fact that there is also sukhavedana not just dukkhavedana. Just seeing the rise of the day for example and being in awe. So summarizing all of our experience by “life is suffering” is really an overgeneralization, a cognitive distorsion. And the Buddha would be seen as a pessimist, unable to be content with little life pleasures. Quite the opposite of contentment that is also permeating Buddhism (“Contentment is the highest gain”).)
But I revive this topic not for agreeing with Gabriel. But rather to inquire whether we can precisely find this “life is suffering” expression at all in pali. It seems to me that NOWHERE in the Tipitaka can be found the exact phrase “life is suffering” but rather “dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ”. No “life”. No equivalence. Is that correct ?
Thank you for your attention.
You are right I think. I too have not come across an exact Pali equivalent to “life is suffering”. But when I consider the following, I get to ask myself the question “is there anything other than that in life?”. Then it makes sense to me.
“jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ—saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.”
With Metta
1 Like
Thanks Nimal.
Regarding the formal expression : so it seems inaccurate and do not represent the exact word of the Buddha although we find it everywhere.
For the rest, in my understanding : No clinging. No suffering. But still physical pain until death of the body, yes.
This is true. Physical pain too remains only for a worldling. A noble disciple experiences only one pain like being struck with one arrow.
“When a worldling experiences painful physical feelings they sorrow and pine and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. They experience two feelings: physical and mental.
It’s like a person who is struck with an arrow, only to be struck with a second arrow. That person experiences the feeling of two arrows.” (SN 36.6, Salla Sutta)
With Metta
1 Like