What is dukkha?

The Watercooler
21

I agree that that statement is what you disagree with. But I don’t know what you mean by it. I personally don’t feel comfortable saying the aggregates are ontologically/fundamentally/literally/independently anything in particular. Especially because I have noticed that you tend to interpret certain common words in ways that imply metaphysical views on part of the speaker. I don’t know how you personally assign views to particular words and phrases, so I would not agree that we have an understanding of the issue at hand.

This is why I would like to understand how you define “dukkha.” Because one thing I’ve noticed in some of the threads and comments about this topic is that the meaning of “dukkha” doesn’t seem to ever be discussed between the parties. Only the meaning of “literal” and “fundamental” and “core” and “aggregates” and “ontological” and “mere” and so on are discussed. But we are supposed to be talking about dukkha. So what are we talking about?

In short, no, I don’t believe your contention is a mistake. Because I don’t fully understand the arguments being proposed. I have some guesses and suspicions about what people mean. But that’s about it right now.

Not in a pejorative sense, as I think you were trying to make a meaningful distinction. I just think that the conversation could be reduced to language games and that it lacked any kind of clarity or coherency without further clarification of what we are really talking about. It seemed more rhetorical (not just on your side) than meaningful. But I would not suppose that you were trying to avoid meaningful discourse. So I assume instead that we are not on the same page about what these terms refer to.

22

Yup !
But quoting Pali suttas won’t really convince anyone of anything. These things have to be seen personally.

1 Like
23

Conditioned things are dukkha, whether or not they are “ultimately” anything.

SN 12.15:

what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing.

SN 6.15 (and others):

Oh! Conditions are impermanent, their nature is to rise and fall; having arisen, they cease; their stilling is true bliss.

SN 22.15:

What’s impermanent is suffering.

Three kinds of dukkha:
-Dukkha-dukkha: suffering due to pain (painful bodily and mental feeling)
-Sankhara-dukkha: suffering due to formations (all conditioned phenomena, because they are oppressed by rise and fall)
-Viparinama-dukkha: suffering due to change (pleasant feeling, which brings suffering when it comes to an end)

3 Likes
24

I believe it is not really important Yeshe but like mere cessation for me, this is clearly a huge theme for you. But i think we can agree that important is that we are guided to peace of heart, being at ease in a world on fire, Nibbana.

If we remain passionate to experience this or that, or to be in this or that state, then we do not arrive there. I think we all agree that our inner desire and habits to constantly judge what we experience in terms of like and dislike or disinterest is not the Path of wisdom.

The problem is, people who are relative happy, strong, young, do not see this wisdom. They are not really connected to a vital sense of lack of control, such as serious sick people. We are so used that our body does what we want, or that our pains, our afflictions disappear more or less automatically. We take such things often for granted. But there comes a time when this does not happen anymore and then we can see if we have learned something of Dhamma.

A healthy person cannot know the Dhamma. He has to great ego, and still feels to much in control and winner and real ruler. First we have to become realistic by the real life experience of suffering and lack of control, like me :innocent:

A girlfriend had MS (passed away)…my God…about lack of control…we have no idea what this really is. Healthy people are always delusional. For them lack of control is for others, for sick people. Healthy people take so many things for granted. Only because of that they have no wisdom.

We can look at depend origination as something very doctrinal, but in a psychological sense avijja also refers to taking things for granted and not seeing that all dependendly arises and ceases and can change any moment.

It is like people who know no mental problems. They feel it so self-evident to have no anxieties or social issues etc. . They are fundamental ignorant living in their self-evident world. They have no idea.

Almost all sympathie, compassion, love etc is fake news and merely the conceietd attitude of healthy people towards sick people. They pity them. That is also dukkha. That denigration of sick people.
That vainglory the healthy always have.

Dukkha? Alienation.

2 Likes
25

Thank you @Vaddha, I will attempt:

Dependent upon the desire for things to be other than they are, the experience of dukkha arises.

Dependent upon the cessation of the desire for things to be other than they are, the experience of dukkha ceases.

This is given and offered as a general functional description of how dukkha arises and ceases by my limited mind. Believing things to be other than they are or believing that things can be other than they are acts as a condition for the arising of desire.

  • Form should be known as form
  • Feeling should be known as feeling
  • Perception should be known as perception
  • Choices should be known as choices
  • Consciousness should be known as consciousness
  • Dukkha should be known as dukkha
  • Burning chaff should be known as burning chaff
  • Experience should be known as experience
  • Sukha should be known as sukha
  • Impermanence should be known as impermanence
  • Desire should be known as desire

Just as form is not literally burning chaff; just so form is not literally suffering. It is easy to see the former and no one has an objection when I say this. The latter is where everyone objects because they believe that the suttas teach that form has the essence of dukkha. That dukkha is innate to what form is. I do not believe this is the case. “Form is suffering” and “form is burning chaff” are said to provoke disillusionment with form.

Form has no essence that can be found. Investigating and understanding this, disillusionment with form is generated; not aversion to form or passion for form - disillusionment.

One major cause for disagreement with the presentation above - form and the aggregates not ultimately having the nature of dukkha - is the belief that with death of an enlightened one that the aggregates substantially cease and do not act as conditions for the arising of other aggregates. Those who hold this understanding of parinibbana do so based on the belief that form and the other aggregates do ultimately have the nature of dukkha. At least that is my hypothesis as I do not know their minds.

:pray:

1 Like
26

Hi @yeshe.tenley . Forgive me, but your definition of dukkha is circular. Here is my summary of the above interaction:

A: How do you define ‘dukkha’?
B: ‘Dukkha’ is the dukkha that arises when there is desire.

Is dukkha equivalent to ‘desire’ for you then? Is the cause of dukkha dukkha?

(Let me know if you think I’ve misunderstood the definition provided.)

Mettā

27

@Vaddha,

You are right that I gave a description for how dukkha arises and ceases, but I did not give a description for what dukkha is.

For that I go with the translations of dukkha into the common english words suffering and unsatisfactoriness. As for the definitions of those I’d point to the common dictionary as I don’t think any jargon is necessary. All these are just conventional words and conventional words require agreement so jargon can often lead to more confusion than otherwise. I think the Teacher himself said we shouldn’t insist upon our own definitions - which incidentally seems like an often overlooked piece of advice.

Dukkha, like all conditioned things, has no essence. I don’t believe we’re going to find the is of dukkha no matter how hard we look and no matter how deep we go. All “is’s” are provisional :wink: :pray:

28

Thank you.
“Unsatisfactoriness” is just the abstract noun for the quality of being “unsatisfactory.”
“Unsatisfactory” is a negation of “satisfactory.”
“Satisfactory” is the quality of being able to satisfy.
“Satisfy” means “to make happy.”

We could then bring this back and say that “dukkha” is the quality of not being able to make us happy.
The opposite would be the quality of being able to make us happy. The closest equivalent to this would seem to be sukha. As we mentioned already, “unsatisfactory” is a negation of “satisfactory,” and now we see the same with “dukkha” being a negation of “sukha.”

Do you agree that this is a decent summary, then, of what “dukkha” means?

Do you think that form is inherently capable of satisfying? Do you think that feeling is inherently capable of satisfying? Do you think that perception is inherently capable of satisfying? Do you think that choices are inherently capable of satisfying? Do you think that consciousness is inherently capable of satisfying?

Do you think that form, feeling, perception, choices, or consciousness provide pure happiness?

Mettā

1 Like
29

Yeshe, you can stop, really. Mere cessationalist see all as suffering. You cannot teach them something else. Because all is suffering, literally all. You cannot change their minds. They want to cease. Point.

They will always see everything as suffering. That is part of mere cessationalist doctrine. Only when you (as lifestream) do not exist anymore, and do no re-arise again anymore, that they see as the end of suffering. The end of suffering will never be experienced, known nor personally attained. Being not anymore existent, that is seen as the end of suffering.

Suffering in mere cessation doctrine is never mirrored against bliss, happiness, peace but equals to non-existence. That is considered as the end of suffering.

1 Like
30

Hello @Vaddha,

I have no particular objection with it :joy:

No, because I don’t think form is inherently anything :joy:

Maybe this will elucidate:

Bob: Rocks are dukkha
Alice: By that do you mean that the experience of rocks inevitably gives rise to suffering or unsatisfactoriness?
Bob: Yeah, I guess that’s more or less what I mean.
Alice: Dependent upon desire for (or view of) rocks to be other they are, the experience of rocks gives rise to suffering or unsatisfactoriness.
Alice: Dependent upon the cessation of desire for (or view of) rocks to be other than they are, the experience of rocks does not give rise to suffering or unsatisfactoriness.
Bob: I disagree! The experience of rocks inevitably gives rise to suffering or unsatisfactoriness regardless if the desire for (or view of) rocks to be other than they are is present! Rather, when the desire for (or view of) for rocks to be other than they are ceases, sometime after that the experience of all rocks also ceases never to arise again, but in the meantime experiencing rocks is dukkha!

I think this might more or less represent two different viewpoints? I share Alice’s viewpoint and not Bob’s. Perhaps this clarifies where we might disagree. It isn’t, to my limited mind, an unimportant disagreement. :pray:

31

You end the causes of suffering . You experienced the ending of suffering in terms of the after effects . You attained the ending of suffering when the cycles of psycho physical through clinging were given up . But part of the past kamma which is dukkha still have to take it courses .

32

Hi @Green, I was asked to clarify a possible disagreement so I’m trying to do just (and only) that. I don’t intend any kind of polemic or even to convince others that I am right. This discussion forum can be used to clarify understanding of dhamma and to share and test that understanding between dhamma friends acting to the best of their ability in accordance with right speech.

When disagreement arises it can be understood and expressed respectfully. Disagreements can be aired without adopting an air of superiority or engaging in harsh speech. That’s what I’m attempting to do at least even if I may fail.

When @Vaddha and I have come to the conclusion we disagree, then I’m happy to do so respectfully and let it end there. :pray:

2 Likes
33

Conditioned reality is like what the German philosopher Hegel called a bad eternity.

It is like Mara the Demon tried to create something eternal, but because of his ignorance he only created the wheel of life, death, old age, decay. He botched his eternity.

This is an allegorical way to think about it. It would explain why the world is essentially Dukkha.

34

Yes, which is the same as ending the causes for a new existence. You become as lifestream non-existent at a final death. Becoming non-existent as lifestream after a last death is seen as the goal of the holy life.

35

I think it can be refined further.

What is unsatisfactory cannot give real happiness, permanent happiness, nibbāna. In this sense, even without experiences, the rock is unsatisfactory too.

Eg. Lego toys. I used to love spending the whole day dismantling my lego toy, arranging it neatly and then use the materials to build a new structure. That craving for enjoyment prevented me from seeing the inherent unsatisfactoriness of the lego toys.

Now if I am no longer attached to playing lego, and then I got forced to build a lego set and not allowed to do anything else for happiness. I see it as it is. that it cannot provide ultimate happiness for me. Regardless of whether I am thinking about it, or seeing it or experiencing it, the lego toy remains unsatisfactory, because it cannot satisfy me. Even if it did, it’s temporary, thus there’s no security there, no refuge there.

Same with the whole world. Thereby all desires can be weakened and then abandoned.

Yes, experiences don’t have to be unpleasant feelings dukkha, but one can still be aware that all objects of experiences including experiences don’t satisfy. Doesn’t bring permanent happiness. The experience itself can be very blissful, without craving, like seeing Nibbāna. Or neither perception nor non-perception. It still doesn’t bring permanent happiness, as arahants cannot be in fruition attainment forever.

As long as a sliver of hope exists for anything conditioned by some conditioning would provide permanent happiness, therein craving would take root there. Therein, the path to nibbāna is blocked.

This is similar to that as long as anything is not seen as not-self/ empty of self. It can be grasped as a true self.

Arahants seeing things as they are, dukkha, don’t suffer mentally on that account, but is happily detached, but still knows that nibbāna without remainder as his experience is, is impermanent due to the remainder is impermanent. There’s no attachment to the remainder, or to Nibbāna itself, as there’s nothing that can be attached in Nibbāna.

2 Likes
36

I think you got it reversed . When Buddha was practising He didnt know there is such a goal of what you called it non existent . :grin:

1 Like
37

Do you intend by ‘nibbāna’ here to mean ‘permanent freedom from suffering’? If you look at what I presented above, then all experiences - as long as they are not accompanied by the desire for (or view of) them to be other than they are - do not act as a condition for the arising of suffering; freedom from suffering. This is a very different viewpoint than the one which believes that all experiences are inherently dukkha. :pray:

38

Yeshe, you are not pushing and that is why mere cessationalist accept you, do not ignore you, and look at you with relative friendly eyes and are able to have a descent contact with you, respectfully.
But do not dream. This all changes when you would openly and clearly take position against mere cessation.

My experience, all people with a position, like me, feel superior in their views. They probably denie this but it is true. I have never met a mere cessationalist who does not show superiority in view. I do never meet a doubting mere cessationalist. They always only sent to me…Green you are wrong, we are right.
Facts Yeshe

39

See, you admitted for the experience to be free from suffering, the condition has to be that there’s no desire there. It’s different from Nibbāna which is unconditioned. Anything conditioned is not nibbāna, not permanent freedom from suffering.

So

is true because of the conditionality you presented above. Dukkha of conditionality. Experience itself can never be Nibbāna, even the experience of nibbāna, that experience itself is not the same as the object of nibbāna. Because experiences are conditioned, and nibbāna is not.

40

I agree with this. I agree that mere cessation was not his goal.