Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby chownah » Sat May 31, 2014 4:33 pm

Next you will probably think you deserve half of the prize money!
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2576
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Sat May 31, 2014 4:45 pm

I'm agreeable to sharing.....

:broke:

:namaste:
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby vinasp » Sat May 31, 2014 9:21 pm

Hi everyone,

Part of SN 55.40 - Nandiya

".... then Nandiya the Sakyan approached the Blessed One ....."
"Venerable sir, when the four factors of stream-entry are completely and totally nonexistent in a noble disciple, would that noble disciple be one who dwells negligently?"
"Nandiya, I say that one in whom the four factors of stream-entry are completely and totally absent is 'an outsider, one who stands in the faction of worldlings.'358 ...................." [BB CDB page 1826-7]

Note 358. As at SN 48.18

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Denisa » Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:49 am

Spiny Norman wrote:If we have no memory of being born, then why is it included in descriptions of dukkha?


Having no memory now is not a reason for that experience (birth) not to be dukkha. According to the below quote (source) baby was aware of his situation at that moment.

Why does a newly born baby immediately cry after birth?

Because doctors handle them roughly. Babies born with midwives rarely cry.
///...///
The baby was floating in a warm, dark, peaceful environment and felt surrounded by the comfort of mom's presence every second of the past 9 mos.

Suddenly, after a long and sometimes stressful journey, he is squeezed out into this loud, cold, bright totally overstimulating environment where oxygen races into his lungs, he feels gravity for the first time and then has something poked in his nose and mouth and is handled by strangers and suddenly does not feel mom all around him anymore.

They DO NOT smack newborns at birth anymore.

THAT SAID.....
Many babies who are waterbirthed or born gently with midwives do not cry or cry very little after birth. It's a very different experience than the traditional model of American hospital birth.


I have some memories of me lying on the floor on a mat looking at the ceiling. I remember the furniture around me, the colours, entrances, and also my parents coming to me when I cried. According to my explanation my parents were surprised because we left that place when I was two months old, I haven't even started mini-pushups.

Something funny: When I gave birth to my first child, he was crying like hell. I thought he must be thinking: "Oh no... not again! How many years I have to suffer this time!" I was laughing and the staff thought it was purely due to happiness.
Denisa
 
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 1:57 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:21 am

chownah wrote:The doctrine of moment to moment rebirth is sooooo wonderful; all these questions and quandaries just disappear!
chownah


According to that interpretation it's self-view which ages and dies - but isn't the death of self-view supposed to be the goal of practice? :tongue:
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:28 am

vinasp wrote:Puthujjana:lit.'one of the many folk', 'worldling', ordinary man, is any layman or monk who is still possessed of all the ten fetters ...."


I still don't understand why Buddha didn't teach clearly and unambiguously to all these people. Why make the "true" teaching so obscure that it could only be understood by an advanced minority?
And presumably modern Buddhists who say they understand the true teaching regard themselves as part of this advanced minority?
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Mkoll » Sun Jun 01, 2014 9:56 am

Spiny Norman wrote:Why make the "true" teaching so obscure that it could only be understood by an advanced minority?

He didn't.

I have taught the Dhamma, Ānanda, without making a distinction between inside and outside. The Tathagata has no closed fist of a teacher in regard to the teachings.

-SN 47.9

Anyway, the Dhamma is to be seen via practice, not intellectual reasoning

This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.

-SN 6.1
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:31 am

chownah wrote:A possible answer to the sixty four million dollar question: Could it be that ordinary people have mental constructions of birth, old age, and death......and that because people cling to those views they suffer a lot of dukkha......and that the best way to reach those people is to create a teaching which can be understood in the ordinary way by ordinary people and which also contains the elements needed for people who view experience in a less worldly way. Sort of like with residue and without residue, if you know what I mean.
chownah


I can see that ageing and death might have been included in dukkha descriptions because they are obvious examples of suffering which most people can relate to. Though to me birth isn't an obvious example because generally people can't remember the event. And yet birth is also included as a specific nidana in DO.... :thinking:
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Spiny Norman » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:32 am

Mkoll wrote:
This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise.
-SN 6.1


So who here is "wise"? ;)
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby vinasp » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:53 am

Hi everyone,

"He understands thus: 'There is no obsession unabandoned in myself that might so obsess my mind that I cannot know and see things as they actually are.
My mind is well disposed for awakening to the truths.'494
This is the first knowledge attained by him that is noble, supramundane, not shared by ordinary people." [BB MLD page 421, part of MN 48.8]

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby befriend » Sun Jun 01, 2014 2:58 pm

when you realize nibbana you aren't born into any realm you have conquered birth and death, broken the bonds of cyclical existence. birth is suffering because if your born you obviously haven't gone to the other shore which is the highest peace where there is no suffering. it doesn't have anything to do with some negative sensations you experienced while being born.
befriend
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby vinasp » Sun Jun 01, 2014 7:29 pm

Hi everyone,

Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

If we are talking about the four noble truths then birth, old-age and death, are not always included.

There are two lesser known variations on the four noble truths.

In one of these [SN 56.13] the first truth, the truth of suffering, is said to be: "the five aggregates subject to clinging."

And in the other [SN 56.14] the truth of suffering is:"the six internal sense bases."

In each case the other three truths are identical to the standard version.

Which leads to the interesting question: How can "this craving" in the second truth be the "origin of suffering", when that would mean the origin of the six-bases?

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby vinasp » Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Hi everyone,

"But, on the other hand, monks, if one does not will, nor entertain thought-constructions, nor has proclivities, then this does not become an object for the persistence of the consciousness.
The object not being there, there is no station of consciousness: consciousness not being stationed and not having grown, there is no bending: bending not being, there is no coming or going: there being no coming or going, there is no decease or birth: there being no decease or birth, there is no future birth, old age and death, grief, lamenting, suffering, sorrow, and despair. Such is the cessation of this mass of ill."

Nanananda, Concept and Reality, BPS 1986, page 90.- [cited as K.S. II. 46-47]

This is SN 12.38 - Will, see also SN 12.39 and SN 12.40

This is a difficult passage that will require extensive analysis which is beyond the scope of this thread.

But one thing seems clear, there is a "decease and birth" which ceases in the present, that is the reason why there is no "future birth, old-age and death .."

The terms "decease and birth" are not here used in a literal sense.

One possibility is that, there being no self, there is no self that was born and no self that will die, even now. So there can be no future birth, old-age and death, of that self.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby ihrjordan » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:43 am

Spiny Norman wrote:If we have no memory of being born, then why is it included in descriptions of dukkha?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... ukkha.html

Because it is akin to entering a contract. Just because you had the craving to be born again you must abide by the rules of life E.g Old Age, Sickness, Death, Pain, Emotions, Torture etc. etc. if you never would have signed the contract (been born) you would have never had to experience this dukkha... very :tantrum: similar to comcast smh
"Ko imaṃ pathaviṃ vicessati, yamalokañca imaṃ sadevakaṃ.
ko dhammapadaṃ sudesitaṃ, kusalo pupphamiva pacessati"
User avatar
ihrjordan
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:42 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Mkoll » Mon Jun 02, 2014 3:54 am

ihrjordan wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:If we have no memory of being born, then why is it included in descriptions of dukkha?

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... ukkha.html

Because it is akin to entering a contract. Just because you had the craving to be born again you must abide by the rules of life E.g Old Age, Sickness, Death, Pain, Emotions, Torture etc. etc. if you never would have signed the contract (been born) you would have never had to experience this dukkha... very :tantrum: similar to comcast smh

Image
Peace,
James
User avatar
Mkoll
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Location: California, USA

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:59 am

vinasp wrote:This is SN 12.38 - Will, see also SN 12.39 and SN 12.40
This is a difficult passage that will require extensive analysis which is beyond the scope of this thread.


Maybe we should start another thread on it. ;)

Here the Thanissaro translation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
And the Walshe translation: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .wlsh.html

The language looks quite ambiguous to me.
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby Spiny Norman » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:07 am

vinasp wrote:
Which leads to the interesting question: How can "this craving" in the second truth be the "origin of suffering", when that would mean the origin of the six-bases?


I think it ties in well with the traditional view of dukkha and DO - craving for becoming ( in the 3 realms ) is an aspect of tanha, so craving for rebirth would lead to name+form and therefore the 6 bases.
What's your alternative explanation?
Well, oi dunno...
User avatar
Spiny Norman
 
Posts: 2198
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby vinasp » Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:50 am

Hi Spiny,

Vincent:-"Which leads to the interesting question: How can "this craving" in the second truth be the "origin of suffering", when that would mean the origin of the six-bases?"

Spiny:-"I think it ties in well with the traditional view of dukkha and DO - craving for becoming ( in the 3 realms ) is an aspect of tanha, so craving for rebirth would lead to name+form and therefore the 6 bases."

Yes. Craving for becoming would lead to name+form and therefore the six bases ARISING IN THE FUTURE.

So present craving is the cause of future suffering (next life).

Spiny:"What's your alternative explanation?"

That we are creating the six-bases continuously, and that if we stop doing it then that is enlightenment.

Regards, Vincent.
vinasp
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby beeblebrox » Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:35 pm

Denisa wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:If we have no memory of being born, then why is it included in descriptions of dukkha?


Having no memory now is not a reason for that experience (birth) not to be dukkha. According to the below quote (source) baby was aware of his situation at that moment.

Why does a newly born baby immediately cry after birth?

Because doctors handle them roughly. Babies born with midwives rarely cry.
///...///
The baby was floating in a warm, dark, peaceful environment and felt surrounded by the comfort of mom's presence every second of the past 9 mos.

Suddenly, after a long and sometimes stressful journey, he is squeezed out into this loud, cold, bright totally overstimulating environment where oxygen races into his lungs, he feels gravity for the first time and then has something poked in his nose and mouth and is handled by strangers and suddenly does not feel mom all around him anymore.

They DO NOT smack newborns at birth anymore.

THAT SAID.....
Many babies who are waterbirthed or born gently with midwives do not cry or cry very little after birth. It's a very different experience than the traditional model of American hospital birth.



My mother claimed that I didn't cry when I was born... it seemed interesting for me at first, but now it doesn't mean anything. (I was born in a hospital in New Jersey.) I'm still here and experiencing life, both good and bad. That's what relevant for my practice at the moment.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Why is birth included in descriptions of dukkha?

Postby TheNoBSBuddhist » Mon Jun 02, 2014 12:38 pm

My two children had distinctly different first-time experiences.
Whether that accounts for how diverse their temperaments are, is something infinitely debatable.
:namaste:

You will not be punished FOR your 'emotions'; you will be punished BY your 'emotions'.



Image

Pay attention, simplify, and (Meditation instruction in a nutshell) "Mind - the Gap."
‘Absit invidia verbo’ - may ill-will be absent from the word. And mindful of that, if I don't respond, this may be why....
User avatar
TheNoBSBuddhist
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2014 4:06 pm
Location: Loch Lomond, via the High AND Low road....

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dhammapal, Google [Bot], mario92 and 13 guests