jcsuperstar wrote:i think it depends on how we use the word suffering.. this is why some feel dukkha should be left untranslated.
we say the Buddha was "free from suffering" what does that mean? that he didn't suffer or that suffering no longer kept him bound? is there a difference? let the arguments begin!
I agree. It sometimes seems to me that there is an aversion to admitting that everything that makes up our current experience is dukkha, at least in the sense of "unsatisfactory". Isn't this exactly the sort of denial that the Buddha was trying to get us to break through?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html
"The Noble Truth of Suffering (dukkha), monks, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to receive what one desires is suffering — in brief the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
[Repeat for the other aggregates...]
Let me anticipate the objections that what the Buddha was talking bout was "aggregates of clinging":
1. For one thing, adding "of clinging" doesn't change the definition (in my opinion).
2. For another (if you don't agree with (1)), since we are not (as far as I know) Arahants, they are most certainly still "aggregates of clinging" for all of us.
As Peter would say, the Buddha proposed a radical approach to dukkha. That's what we need to come to terms with.