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.
Kind regards