What is dukkha?

[Vaddha]

@yeshe.tenley

this does not necessarily mean that inherent satisfactoriness would arise. Agreed?

Agreed Assuming “inherent satisfactoriness” is ontologically positive.

[yeshe.tenley]

Hello @Vaddha,

I apologize if I was not clear. I’m going to stick to our discussion, because it is possible I’m getting confused by other discussions going on as well.

I didn’t mean to imply that for me “lack of inherent satisfactoriness” was the operative definition for my understanding. You asked me if rocks depended upon the absence of desire for them to have a lack of inherent satisfactoriness and I said no and then we went with “lack of inherent satisfactoriness” as the definition of “dukkha” for the sake of the discussion to see if that would help us clarify understanding.

Let’s leave “inherent” out of whatever definition we use, okay? I think since we’ve both agreed to dispense with substantialism that this might lead to a more lucid discussion.

In keeping with my earlier contention of not insisting upon my own definitions let’s use this one:

or

NOTE: I literally just put ‘unsatisfactory’ and ‘unsatisfactoriness’ in google and this is what came up. If you wish to use another common dictionary definition that would be fine as well.

Dukkha is when things are “unacceptable because poor or not good enough.”

Dukkha is the state of “the quality of being inadequate or unsuitable.”

[Green]

@yeshe.tenley

It is true that I think things lack inherent satisfactoriness, but this isn’t a great revelation to me because I think things lack inherent ____, fill in the blank:)

I believe thinking about dukkha in terms of unprotected, unsafe, unreliable is not that bad. That kind of connotation.

This also directly relates to anicca, things being unstable, temporary, fleeting, conditional.
And also to anatta, lacking core, substantial existence etc.

And it was in fact also this kind of dukkha that entered Buddha’s heart.
And i also feel this what we suffer from most.

This was what made me talk to a teacher. I shared to him that i had lost all faith or trust in life. He said to me…that is why we practice Dhamma…

Buddha also had this existential crises.

If one translates:

what is impermanent is suffering, …
that makes no sense, but if one translates:
'what is impermanent is unstable, cannot protect, is not trustworthy, that makes sense.

Ofcourse, i believe Buddha found the stable, the constant, ansankhata and has shown the Path to asankhata his whole life. It is up to us to discover it, the reliable.

Buddha, i believe was not so desperate that he saw no other escape then to cease.

[stephen]

I would suggest that if this discussion is to be limited to only 2 people then it should be taken off the discussion board and be made private.

[yeshe.tenley]

Others can join! Sorry, wasn’t trying to be exclusive. I’ll just have to sharpen my attention so as not to get confused with multiple conversations. I apologize.

[Green]

@Max

So now what do you think what was His goal then ?

I believe, he was seeking safety, protection.

[Vaddha]

@yeshe.tenley

I apologize if I was not clear.

No worries. I’m grateful for the discussion and opportunity to learn. I’m also happy to see what others say here.

@yeshe.tenley

I didn’t mean to imply that for me “lack of inherent satisfactoriness” was the operative definition for my understanding.

I can see how you didn’t mean or want to imply that. But if you go back and read our conversation, I think you’ll see that I did not just propose this as something provisional. I derived it by taking your statements at face value and asking you questions about them with a series of premises. I think the conversation only makes sense in this respect, namely, of me asking you questions to learn your perspective, regardless of what you intended the perspective originally to be. Keep in mind that this started with you making an assertion that the five aggregates are not literally suffering. So I am simply asking you questions to learn from your position and deriving what I perceive as logical conclusions from what you say. Let me know if at some point I misunderstand or make a mistake and this is not the case.

@yeshe.tenley

Let’s leave “inherent” out of whatever definition we use, okay? I think since we’ve both agreed to dispense with substantialism that this might lead to a more lucid discussion.

Sure, sounds good. For what it’s worth, I don’t think dukkha can be said to substantially or independently exist, so it’s substantial annihilation could not follow either.

@yeshe.tenley

Dukkha is when things are “unacceptable because poor or not good enough.”

Okay. So dukkha is the quality of unacceptability, not being good enough, unsuitability, inadequacy, etc. I think this could be summed up as “undesirable,” as some synonyms suggest there.

It seems to me that these are words about value, would you agree? If I say something is “inadequate” or “not good enough,” it would seem that I’m making some kind of value judgement about the thing. So in order to understand my statement on value, someone would have to understand what my values are, right? Namely, what is good enough? What is good? What is desirable, or at least, why is something undesirable?

[yeshe.tenley]

@Vaddha

I can see how you didn’t mean or want to imply that. But if you go back and read our conversation, I think you’ll see that I did not just propose this as something provisional. I derived it by taking your statements at face value and asking you questions about them with a series of premises.

Yes, that’s right. And perhaps I haven’t been careful enough in answering them or perhaps I’ve read into them or assumed views you hold that are not actually in evidence. I’ll try and do better.

@Vaddha

Okay. So dukkha is the quality of unacceptability, not being good enough, unsuitability, inadequacy, etc. I think this could be summed up as “undesirable,” as some synonyms suggest there.

Undesireable does seem to fit pretty decently with the operative way I’ve been describing how dukkha arises and ceases. Lots of puns intended.

@Vaddha

It seems to me that these are words about value, would you agree? If I say something is “inadequate” or “not good enough,” it would seem that I’m making some kind of value judgement about the thing. So in order to understand my statement on value, someone would have to understand what my values are, right? Namely, what is good enough? What is good? What is desirable, or at least, why is something undesirable?

Yes, I think this makes sense.

[Vaddha]

@yeshe.tenley

Yes, I think this makes sense.

Cool I think we should clarify one more thing.

Would you agree that ‘dukkha’ can by extension refer to the things which have the quality of dukkha, i.e. undesirable experiences? In Pāli, adjectives and nouns are the same class of word. So often dukkha is used as a noun, like “the arising of vision is the arising of dukkha” or “dukkha arises and ceases.” I noticed many people here have kind of assumed this at times at least provisionally, but it’s been left somewhat ambiguous.

Or would you define “dukkha” only as the experience of being unsatisfied? Like the feeling of disappointment or upset. Rather than “unacceptable or unsatisfying experiences” (which includes the former).

[NgXinZhao]

@yeshe.tenley

Undesireable does seem to fit pretty decently with the operative way I’ve been describing how dukkha arises and ceases.

Then it should be all the more seen that all aggregates are dukkha. By means of all aggregates are undesirable. By seeing this, all desires can cease and the goal reached.

[Green]

@yeshe.tenley

Let’s go back to this. If a thing lacks inherent satisfactoriness this for me means that if we analyze the thing and look for an essence or core we will not find a core of satisfactoriness.

Yeshe, what is the reason, what is the cause that those deva’s, apparantly, do not get bored with their pleasure, entertainment, way of life? It seems extremely boring how they live. It is almost as if those deva’s have some inherent satisfaction in there pleasures and way of living. But why and how?

I think a human being is not able. I also feel this is an interesting point, that we loose that ability to enjoy things quit easily, and have a constant urge for other or more intens input.
This year i really enjoyed the first day of warm weather. And it is somehow absurd how quickly this becomes common, i feel. After day 3 it was annoying Oh oh…what a madness
I also had a time, long ago… i watcht porn, and i also noticed that it went from mild to more extreme. I stopped this madness. I think it also is something personal but in general we tend to go more and more extreme.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Vaddha

Would you agree that ‘dukkha’ can by extension refer to the things which have the quality of dukkha, i.e. undesirable experiences?

Experiences are just experiences. We say an experience is undesirable if we find the experience “inadequate” or “not good enough”; if we have some expectation that is not wholly met or fulfilled by that experience, right? I’m not sure if that answers your question though.

[yeshe.tenley]

@NgXinZhao

Then it should be all the more seen that all aggregates are dukkha. By means of all aggregates are undesirable. By seeing this, all desires can cease and the goal reached.

If you have a ton of passionate desire for the aggregates, then practicing to see them as undesirable will counter that passionate desire to some degree. If you don’t have passion at all for the aggregates, then practicing to see them as undesirable can act as a condition for the arising of passionate aversion for the aggregates to some degree. Disillusionment is in the middle and involves an absence of passion.

[NgXinZhao]

@yeshe.tenley

undesirable can act as a condition for the arising of passionate aversion for the aggregates to some degree.

Well, that’s certainly understated. Indeed, for beginners it is a danger to fall into aversion. But in vipassana practise one of the basic skills to learn is to observe without aversion or greed for anything which is observed. Just as it is.

And seeing the aggregates as it is, undesirable, a dart, a boil, unsatisfactory, danger, etc, does help to cultivate disillusionment then dispassion. Anytime aversion shows up, one has to deal with the aversion first by asking what is being attached to, or do metta. Then continue to see the dukkha side of aggregates until it sinks in deep. This is not just about the balance between aversion and greed.

[Jasudho]

An issue with limiting dukkha to “undesirable” experiences is that it’s limited to a person’s cognitive-emotional reaction(s) to a given experience.

These reactions are ever-changing, so is this to imply that today’s experience is dukkha because it’s considered/feels “inadequate”, but a similar experience next month is not because it feels “good enough?”

Perhaps I’m missing the main point here?

If a general wins a battle and revels in the victory after all the killing, is that not dukkha because their experience is “adequate”?
Or is it dukkha despite the general’s reaction to the experience?

[Vaddha]

@Jasudho

Perhaps I’m missing the main point here?

Well this is why I made the point that this is a statement of value, and that in order for it to be meaningful, there have to be some underlying or unspoken values assumed that inform the judgement.

You’ve rightly pointed out that different people can have different values, so the value judgements they make (X is of worth, Y is unworthy) will vary.

If dukkha is indeed a value judgement, then the values underlying it must be Buddhist values. If we can identify Buddhist values, or how early Buddhism engages with value, then we can identify what is considered of less value, i.e. inadequate or undesirable.

So long as the values are consistent, there’s no problem in dukkha being a value judgement. So if the Buddha had a coherent set of values or statements about value, then so long as we stick to those, it’s not a problematic definition.

[Vaddha]

@yeshe.tenley

Experiences are just experiences. We say an experience is undesirable if we find the experience “inadequate” or “not good enough”

Right. Again, this goes back to value. Value is a quality attributed to something. Rocks are rocks. But a rock can be deemed more or less valuable once we establish a schema or system of values to sort things into.

This means that a word like “inadequate” is really meaningless unless we define what is “adequate” or why something is inadequate, as we’ve both agreed already.

But it seems you would say that if an experience were in fact considered “inadequate” within the Buddhist system of values, then it could be called “dukkha,” right?

@yeshe.tenley

if we have some expectation that is not wholly met or fulfilled

It’s not that we need a kind of emotional expectation. Just a system of values. If we decide that we are going to paint a wall red, then any blue paint would be inadequate. But that doesn’t mean that we must have emotional cravings and expectations involved in order to reject blue paint and engage in such a system of value. I assume you’d agree with this?

[NgXinZhao]

@Vaddha

inadequate” within the Buddhist system of values

I think I provided one above then. The ultimate value is of permanent happiness which doesn’t depend on any conditions to remain as it is.

Since no conditioned thing satisfies this value, all conditioned things are inadequate.

[Vaddha]

@NgXinZhao

Since no conditioned thing satisfies this value, all conditioned things are inadequate.

Yes, I think this is a correct assessment of the Buddha’s position.

I think that ‘dukkha’, in this particular sense, is primarily a negation. So the value system is something like this:

If X is not a permanent, unconditioned source of happiness, then it is not sukha.
Whatever is not sukha is deemed dukkha.

A similar statement is when the Buddha says “Whatever is impermanent is dukkha.” If we go by this agreed upon definition, then he’s simply stating a basic value system: if it isn’t permanent, it isn’t fully adequate. Therefore, it is deemed “inadequate.”

Here, “good” or “adequate” basically meaning “supreme, perfect, permanent happiness.”

Painful feeling of any kind is automatically excluded, because it isn’t even happiness, let alone perfect happiness.
Impermanent or changing things are excluded, because they are not perfect or permanent happiness.
Conditioned or dependent things are excluded, because they are not permanent or independent happiness.

In this way, we can see how a mere system of values places conditioned experienced in the category of ‘dukkha.’

[yeshe.tenley]

@Vaddha

Right. Again, this goes back to value.

Rather, I say it goes back to desire. A rock can be deemed adequate or inadequate depending upon what desire we hold for the rock to be and whether it is what we desire. I contend that dukkha cannot arise in the absence of desire for something to be other than it is or a view of something that is not concordant with what it is.

It seems to me you are proposing a schema where we sort things into buckets of desirable and undesirable. Things that are as we desire them to be and things that are not as we desire them to be. I do not think this schema is wise.

Instead, I propose we should look at what desire is and is not and what it is rooted in.