The ancient Chinese/Indo European parallels are difficult too. I think one of the reasons is that writing in China only got going in the Zhou Dynasty and in ancient India the passing of knowledge was oral of course and the Indo-Europeans also had no writing.
I have not read much on the Buddhist Tocharian texts as I have been focusing on the Tocharians long before they became Buddhist. Victor Mair is the, or one of the world leading expert on Tocharians. He has a free website: http://sino-platonic.org. He is also very open to emails (use the contact via his website) and replies quite quickly. I think he could very easily give you a good response. If you can’t get through to him please PM me and I’ll try my best to get hold of him.
Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering:
birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.
¨
“idaṃ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṃ ariyasaccaṃ:
jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ — saṃkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.
SN 56.11
Also:
दुःख duḥkha
BṛĀr.Up. 4.4.14 - ChUP. 7.26.2
There are many ways to interpret the Sanskrit:
bad hole in the nave of a wheel through which the axis runs => dukkha vs. a good hole in the nave => sukkha - As in riding a cart).
or hard digging (like a hole) [dukkha] vs. an easy digging [sukkha].
or as being related to आकाश ākāsa. Not as the space/air/ether substance (dravya) of the late Vaiśeṣika - but as the agent of आकाश् ākāś (view, recognize - ŚBr.) - √ काश् kāś ( to shine brightly; to see clearly , survey (ŚBr.).
I’ve also heard etymologies of sukha and dukkha relating to wheel technology; taking “kha” to be a space or hole makes for an ‘easy’ vs. ‘difficult’ hole in which the axle rotates. From this we have either a smooth/easy/pleasant ride or a rough/unpleasant/difficult one (the wheeled-vehicle as metaphor for the ride of life).
Apparently, this is also the root meaning of suffer — “to bear from below”, in other words — a burden.
[…]
I’ve also heard etymologies of sukha and dukkha relating to wheel technology; taking “kha” to be a space or hole makes for an ‘easy’ vs. ‘difficult’ hole in which the axle rotates. From this we have either a smooth/easy/pleasant ride or a rough/unpleasant/difficult one (the wheeled-vehicle as metaphor for the ride of life).
[/quote]I was just about to make a similar post!
If I recall right, a wheel with an off-centre axis causes a rough ride, duhkka, and an evenly centred hole makes for a smooth ride, suhkka (?).
But this is a very, very ancient etymology, dating back to Vedic times, I think. I wonder if the chariot-axis etymological connection was widely known in Buddhist times. It might have been, I wouldn’t know.
There is a lot of chariot-related similies in early Buddhism, but not a lot of metaphor, simile, or connection between specifically the axis/wheel and suffering in the sense of an off or on-centre axis, at least that I know of.
[quote=“SCMatt, post:12, topic:5025”]
The first lines of the Dhammapada relate dukkha following the fool’s actions to a wheel following the hoofsteps of a beast-of-burden.
[/quote]Yes, there is a lot of chariot imagery (even the Dhamma itself is a “wheel”, right?), but I have never actually seen an EBT that directly connected dukkha to the hole in the middle of a wheel on a chariot, its etymology. That, I find very interesting.
If I knew more, I would be more sure of this, but I think that the chariot-etymology for dukkha might not have been widely known in the time of the Buddha by Buddha’s audience (specifically those of his audience who lacked education in the Vedas, I mean) because it might be too ancient, otherwise it seems like the comparison would pop up more frequently, but I can’t think of an example of it. But I am not sure of what I just said, lacking a sufficient knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit & Pāli history.
I still feel that the most modern, relatable translation is “stress” a la Thanissaro Bhikkhu. But on an inner level when I conceptualize it, there is a cloying, kind of unsatisfactory tinge to it.
In my opinion, to correlate “life” with the 1st noble truth is merely an interpretation & a tenuous one.
For example, the word “birth” could merely refer to the difficulties women have in natural childbirth & the helplessness of a new born infant. For example, MN 38 & MN 130 state:
The mother then carries the embryo in her womb for nine or ten months with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. Then, at the end of nine or ten months, the mother gives birth with much anxiety, as a heavy burden. MN 38
`Good man didn’t you see a todler who stands and lies with difficulty, mingled in his own urine and excreta while lying?’ MN 130
Since suttas, such as MN 29 & 30, state the ‘Holy Life’ is the unshakeable freedom of mind, I personally see little merit is asserting the 1st noble truth teaches ‘life’ is suffering or unpleasant.
“So this holy life, bhikkhus, does not have gain, honour, and renown for its benefit, or the attainment of virtue for its benefit, or the attainment of concentration for its benefit, or knowledge and vision for its benefit. But it is this unshakeable deliverance of mind that is the goal of this holy life, its heartwood, and its end.” MN 29
If ‘life’ was suffering, how did the Buddha attain Nibbana while living, as in Iti 44 & MN 26?
What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left. Iti 44
SN 22.59 states the five aggregates or conditioned things are dukkha (unsatisfactory), i.e., they cannot bring (lasting) happiness (sukha). For example, SN 22.85 states the five aggregates of a Buddha are dukkha (unsatisfactory). It seems SN 22.85 cannot refer to ‘suffering’ since a Buddha is said to have overcome all suffering. However, these references obviously exclude living with Nibbana, which is the unconditioned element.
These suttas appear unrelated to the 1st noble truth, which appears to summarise all (psychological) suffering as attachment (upadana). SN 22.1 appears to clarify this.
I suggested earlier a problem of attempting to translate ‘dukkha’ in one-way. It could be possible this problematic path of Gethin, Bodhi, Thanissaro, Harvey & other Western scholars may possibly be culturally conditioned by the Western belief in ‘monotheism’ or ‘one word’.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.…John 1.1
For me, as previously indicated, there are three primary ways the word ‘dukkha’ is used that I personally have distinguished, namely:
In the context of the Four Noble Truths (SN 56.11), referring to psychological suffering, which appears to be the suffering to be eradicated via abandoning craving.
In the context of the Three Characteristics (SN 22.59), referring to an inherent characteristic of both (impermanent) material & mental things, which appear unrelated to suffering itself but can be object of suffering when attached to.
In the context of ‘vedana’ (‘feelings’), which appear unrelated to suffering itself but can be object of suffering when attached to (as described in countless suttas, such as Iti 44, MN 37; MN 38; SN 36.6, etc).
Thus, SN 38.14 states there are three sources or types of suffering, namely: (i) suffering due to pain; (ii) suffering due to change (impermanence); (iii) suffering due to mental concocting/proliferating. SN 22.1 seems to suggest all of these three types of suffering only occur due to attachment.
I have no proficiency with Pali however it seems lots of linguistic gymnastics have been performed on ‘dukkha’. The following is by an old but highly decorated Thai scholar monk named Buddhadasa (for which I am unqualified to comment on the merits).
We’ve been discussing methods of contemplating impermanence alone, however, true experience of impermanence finds dukkham and anatta within that impermanence. How does this happen? Seeing the deeper aspects of impermanence, so that we also see dukkham, can be categorized according to various meanings of the word dukkham. We will look at three of these meanings.
A. Dukkham as “Enduring Suffering”: In the word dukkham, many meanings can be inferred. It is composed of two components: du and kha (or kham). If we take du to mean "difficult: and khama to mean “endure,” then dukkham means “difficult to endure.”
B. Dukkham as “Disgusting to See”: If we take du to mean “ugly” or “evil” and kha (from ikkha) to mean “look,” then this aspect has the meaning “once seen, it is ugly.” When one really sees it, it’s abhorrent and repulsive.
C. Dukkham as “Uglily Void, Wickedly Empty”: By separating the components of dukkham and taking du to mean “ugly” and kham to mean “void, empty,” we arrive at the meaning “uglily void.” The condition we call “wickedly empty” refers to the fact that all sankharas have nothing but impermanence, namely, swiftly flowing, endless spirals of change.
The delusion of some people is absolutely stunning.
This generation (with its devas, brahmas, maras, humans, etc.) [SN 56.11], said Buddha, delights in adhesion (ālaya)* [SN 6.1].
Some people are dying to “live” - as in clinging to the world of senses; not only in this life - but in the other too. This is delusion and saṃsāra in its purest form.
I didn’t want to put Olivelle’s translation of the BṛĀr.Up. 4.4.14 and ChUP. 7.26.2 above, for copyright reason. But I believe that just this following sentence won’t break the law.
Note that Olivelle’s translation of duḥkha by “misery” in the BṛĀr.Up. pericope, has the same cause; viz. “seeing not rightly” (in the BU. case, it is not √ पश् paś (to perceive, to see [with the spiritual eye]) that is involved; but √ विद् vid (veda > [sacred] knowledge).
But the context remains the same for both pericopes - that is to say: “to see rightly”.
When a man rightly sees, he sees no death, no sickness or distress.
tadeṣa śloko na paśyo mṛtyuṃ paśyati na rogaṃ nota duḥkhatām
ChUP. 7.26.2
We find the √paś in the following Nikayas’ sutta also:
“Therefore, Rādha, see form (feeling, …,) as Māra, see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease, as a tumour, as a dart, as misery (confusion-nīgha), as real misery.
Those who see it thus see rightly.
tasmātiha tvaṃ, rādha, rūpaṃ māroti passa, māretāti passa, mīyatīti passa, rogoti passa, gaṇḍoti passa, sallanti passa, aghanti passa, aghabhūtanti passa.
ye naṃ evaṃ passanti te sammā passanti.
SN 23.1
Here, paśyati and passanti have the same meaning; (√dṛś floating around).
So the “pleasant life” is outside this (Buddhist) “world” (kama loka), and the world of forms (rūpa loka) - SN 35.82.
There is no way to escape this truism of echt Buddhism. No way.
O, I know - derision is going to shower over me, from the maras’ clique. But one thing I have noticed with maras & friends, is that derision always come with that precarious and doubtful look afterwards.
Derision is the eidos of maras & friends (the latter being or not, conscious of it) - and so is, this unstable mental reservation behind it. Always.
* Ālaya [Sk. आलय ālaya (ā-laya) - (ā-√ lī - to cause to cling (Br.)),] is related to the world of senses - Bodhi translates it as “adhesion”. But the underlying meaning is that people delight & rejoice in “anything that causes clinging”.
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”
“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”
"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.
"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father… the death of a brother… the death of a sister… the death of a son… the death of a daughter… loss with regard to relatives… loss with regard to wealth… loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while transmigrating & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.
“Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”
SN 15.3 the truth of dukkha -dukkha sacca- (not suffering deeply, which is not useful in the Path) is what needs to be realized.
This appears to be a reasonable quote since it points out the culprit of dukkha is ālaya (adhesion).
This appears to be another reasonable quote, since it refers to “when a man sees rightly”. To “see rightly”, a man must be alive, i.e., living. Thus MN 43 states wisdom & consciousness are inseparable.
This quote appears out of context since there are many suttas that state it is adhesion to form, feeling, etc, that is the “killer” or “Mara”, such as SN 22.63, SN 22.64, SN 22.65, SN 23.23, SN 23.24, etc.
SN 23.1 to Radha appears to be a teaching specifically for Radha. Per translation, it states: “When there is form, there might be Mara”…“see form as Mara”… “see itas a disease… misery”… “those who see it thus see rightly”.
This teaching is unusual since, again, most suttas state (eg. MN 140) it is conceiving ‘self’, i.e., adhesion, that is a “tumour, dart, misery”.
Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving… Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. MN 140
Therefore, SN 23.1 continues when Radha asks: “What is the purpose of seeing rightly?” The Buddha then replies: "Revulsion… dispassion… liberation… ". This reply begins to make SN 23.1 consistent with the majority of suttas, such as SN 22.59 (the 2nd sermon), which state it is revulsion & dispassion towards form, feeling, etc, that results in liberation.
SN 23.1 ends with a positive view about “life”, namely, “the Holy Life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, as its destination, as its final goal”.
It seems the Buddha ended all adhesion (clinging) with he was 35 years old but continued to live life for another 45 years without adhesion. Thus it seems life is not adhesion but something different from adhesion.
However, you appear to be asserting the sense spheres & clinging are the same thing. How can this be when suttas such as MN 38 & Iti 44 describe liberation occurring with the sense spheres still operating, i.e., alive?
[quote=“suci1, post:16, topic:5025”]
The delusion of some people is absolutely stunning… O, I know - derision is going to shower over me, from the maras’ clique.[/quote]
Due to the derision of other views found in your post, naturally, this opens up your post to derision in return.
‘Dukkha’ is said to be ‘adhesion’ or the creation of ‘self-views’ yet your post is chock full of ‘self-views’ about “some people”, “me”, “Mara’s clique”, etc.
So you seem to be arguing quite passionately that the end of dukkha is the utter extinguishing of life yet, I ask: ’ how is this state going to be reached apart from the abandonment of self-views’?
How will the ‘Nibbāna-element with no residue left’ ever be reached if the ‘Nibbāna-element with residue left’ is not realised in this very life, while still living & breathing?
This quote makes little sense to me because the suttas state in so many places that craving causes clinging, ignorance causes craving, etc. ‘Life’ does not cause clinging. The sense spheres in themselves do not cause clinging. The five aggregates per se do not cause clinging. Suttas such as SN 22.81 state it is when the sense spheres are tainted by ignorance that they contribute to clinging, i.e., it is ignorance that causes clinging. How can the material eye, material ear or a material sense object, such as a rock or tree, cause clinging?
[quote=“Mat, post:17, topic:5025”]…the tears you have shed…crying & weeping… long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss
[/quote]
The part of SN 15.3 seems to be about suffering deeply due to the loss of loved ones, which arises from fabricating self-views (‘atta’) of ‘beings’ (‘satta’) such as ‘mother’, ‘father’, ‘sister’, ‘brother’, etc.
This seems to be the ‘suffering’ (‘dukkha’) of attachment (upadana) & craving (tanha), which is the subject of the 1st sermon (SN 56.11).
[quote=“Mat, post:17, topic:5025”]swelling the cemeteries… enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released… SN 15.3 the truth of dukkha -dukkha sacca- (not suffering deeply, which is not useful in the Path) is what needs to be realized.
[/quote]
This seems to be related to realising the impermanence & ‘unsatisfactoriness’ (‘dukkha’) of conditioned things or ‘life’, which is the subject of the 2nd sermon (SN 22.59).
There is a sutta (which I cant find right now) where Ven. Sariputta seems to suggest that Dukkha doesn’t quite exist (my paraphrasing). The Buddha says don’t say that, Sariputta, dukkha does exist.
I understood it to mean that we need to engage with the emotional material in the Dhamma (even though dukkha might be a Truth, and not just suffered through emotionally) at an emotional level, too.
We don’t need to suffer, but need to empathize with the suffering I am putting myself through in this life and in lives to come. This is on a conventional level.
This doesn’t mean that there is a self -that suffers. There is only aggregates mistaken for a self, which is arising and passing away, when seen through vipassana. The Buddha said there is only suffering that arises and passes away.
