Is everything Suffering?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Is everything Suffering?

Postby kirk5a » Sat Jul 23, 2011 3:27 pm

rowyourboat wrote: having the Right View that 1) everything IS suffering

Where did the Buddha say "everything is suffering"? And where did he say Right View is "everything is suffering"?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Gunaratana's Teaching Method in "Mindfulness"

Postby Alex123 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 12:11 am

kirk5a wrote:
rowyourboat wrote: having the Right View that 1) everything IS suffering

Where did the Buddha say "everything is suffering"? And where did he say Right View is "everything is suffering"?




Whether it be pleasant or painful, Along with the neither-painful-nor-pleasant, Both the internal and the external, Whatever kind of feeling there is: Having known, This is suffering (dukkhanti), Perishable, disintegrating, Having touched and touched them, seeing their fall, Thus one loses one's passion for them” SN36.2(2)

"Pleasant feeling, bhikkhus, should be seen as painful;"
Sukhā, bhikkhave, vedanā dukkhato daṭṭhabbā -SN 36.5(5)


" Whatever is felt is included in suffering." yaṃ kiñci vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmi’nti - SN 36.11(1)

All formations are stressful. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’’ti , Dhp 278

'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Stressful' with regard to the stressful is a non-perversion of perception, a non-perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Gunaratana's Teaching Method in "Mindfulness"

Postby kirk5a » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:01 am

Alex123 wrote:“Whether it be pleasant or painful, Along with the neither-painful-nor-pleasant, Both the internal and the external, Whatever kind of feeling there is: Having known, This is suffering (dukkhanti), Perishable, disintegrating, Having touched and touched them, seeing their fall, Thus one loses one's passion for them” SN36.2(2)

"Pleasant [b]feeling, bhikkhus, should be seen as painful;[/b]"
Sukhā, bhikkhave, vedanā dukkhato daṭṭhabbā -SN 36.5(5)


" Whatever is felt is included in suffering." yaṃ kiñci vedayitaṃ taṃ dukkhasmi’nti - SN 36.11(1)

All formations are stressful. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’’ti [/i], Dhp 278

'Pleasant' with regard to the stressful is a perversion of perception, a perversion of mind, a perversion of view. 'Stressful' with regard to the stressful is a non-perversion of perception, a non-perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I do not see "everything is suffering" there.
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Gunaratana's Teaching Method in "Mindfulness"

Postby mikenz66 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:12 am

kirk5a wrote:I do not see "everything is suffering" there.

Perhaps that statement is just slightly extreme. :tongue:
Would you prefer "all conditioned things are dukkha"?

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10383
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby reflection » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:30 am

Nibbana is not suffering. So not :quote: everything :quote: is suffering. :juggling:
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby kirk5a » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:33 am

mikenz66 wrote:Perhaps that statement is just slightly extreme. :tongue:
Would you prefer "all conditioned things are dukkha"?

Thanks for making a new topic. It's not a matter of preference. "All conditioned things are dukkha" is something he actually said.
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html

Now if "everything is suffering" were true then the following could not also be true:


The unfashioned, the end,
the effluent-less, the true, the beyond,
the subtle, the very-hard-to-see,
the ageless, permanence, the undecaying,
the featureless, non-elaboration,
peace, the deathless,
the exquisite, bliss, solace,
the exhaustion of craving,
the wonderful, the marvelous,
the secure, security,
unbinding,
the unafflicted, the passionless, the pure,
release, non-attachment,
the island, shelter, harbor, refuge,
the ultimate.
— SN 43.1-44

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... andha.html

So how could "everything is suffering" be right view?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:52 am

"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."
SN 35.23

Not that I can say anything valuable about this but it seems appropriate to consider. Also look into what my signature says.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Alex123 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:54 am

kirk5a wrote:So how could "everything is suffering" be right view?


Nibbāna is not everything.

All formations are stressful. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’’ti, Dhp 278

“Bhikkhus, the arising, continuation, production, [32] and manifestation of form is the arising of suffering, the continuation of disease, the manifestation of aging-and-death. The arising of feeling … of perception … of volitional constructions …of consciousness is the arising of suffering, the continuation of disease, the manifestation of aging-and-death. “The cessation, subsiding, and passing away of form … of consciousness is the cessation of suffering, the subsiding of disease, the passing away of aging-and-death.” - SN22.30 (9) Arising BB Trans

And what, bhikkhus, is misery? Form is misery; feeling is misery; perception is misery; volitional constructions are misery; consciousness is misery. This is called misery." - SN22.31 (10) The Root of Misery BB Trans.
”Even the water melting from the snow-capped peaks finds its way to the ocean."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2853
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby ground » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:06 am

In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stress.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... tml#part-6


So everything in the context of the five clinging-aggregates is dukkha. I am assuming that if the aggregates lose their quality of "clinging" then they actually cease. So therefore I guess it is appropriate to say that "everything is dukkha" because with the cessation of the aggregates, "everything" ceases and dukkha ceases.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:39 am

Aren't the aggregates always ceasing.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby kirk5a » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:43 am

Alex123 wrote:
kirk5a wrote:So how could "everything is suffering" be right view?


Nibbāna is not everything.

All formations are stressful. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā’’ti, Dhp 278

Right. And again, that does not say "all things are stressful."

"All formations are stressful" is not the same as "All things are stressful." Which is why Dhp 278 says "all conditioned things (formations)" and Dhp 279 says "all things."
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:55 am

What is a thing?


Im not sure "things" being Dukkha should much of a surprise.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby ground » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:00 am

Prasadachitta wrote:Aren't the aggregates always ceasing.


An aggregate as a particular event arises and ceases, yes. But once a particular has ceased the next one arises. In this sense one speaks about "the aggregates" referring to the continuum of particulars that arise and cease each on its own. In the same sense "the aggregates" have not ceased although each particular belonging to the class "the aggregates" ceases if there is still an arising (and ceasing) of particulars.
"the cessation of the aggregates" means that no particular will arise again, the continuum is ended.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby kirk5a » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:02 am

Prasadachitta wrote:What is a thing?


Im not sure "things" being Dukkha should much of a surprise.

"thing" is an English word. The word in Pali is "dhamma." And he did not say all dhammas are dukkha. He did not say all things are dukkha. Not that I see.

dhamma [Skt. dharma]:
(1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbāna.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#d

For comparison:
thing
O.E. þing "meeting, assembly," later "entity, being, matter" (subject of deliberation in an assembly), also "act, deed, event, material object, body, being," from P.Gmc. *thengan "appointed time" (cf. O.Fris. thing "assembly, council, suit, matter, thing," M.Du. dinc "court-day, suit, plea, concern, affair, thing," Du. ding "thing," O.H.G. ding "public assembly for judgment and business, lawsuit," Ger. ding "affair, matter, thing," O.N. þing "public assembly"). Some suggest an ultimate connection to PIE root *ten- "stretch," perhaps on notion of "stretch of time for a meeting or assembly." For sense evolution, cf. Fr. chose, Sp. cosa "thing," from L. causa "judicial process, lawsuit, case;" L. res "affair, thing," also "case at law, cause." Old sense is preserved in second element of hustings and in Icelandic Althing, the nation's general assembly. Used colloquially since c.1600 to indicate things the speaker can't name at the moment, often with various meaningless suffixes, e.g. thingumbob (1751), thingamajig (1824). Southern U.S. pronunciation thang attested from 1937. The thing "what's stylish or fashionable" is recorded from 1762. Phrase do your thing "follow your particular predilection," though associated with hippie-speak of 1960s is attested from 1841.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=thing
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1758
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:39 am

TMingyur wrote:
Prasadachitta wrote:Aren't the aggregates always ceasing.


An aggregate as a particular event arises and ceases, yes. But once a particular has ceased the next one arises. In this sense one speaks about "the aggregates" referring to the continuum of particulars that arise and cease each on its own. In the same sense "the aggregates" have not ceased although each particular belonging to the class "the aggregates" ceases if there is still an arising (and ceasing) of particulars.
"the cessation of the aggregates" means that no particular will arise again, the continuum is ended.


Kind regards

He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
MN 121
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Dan74 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:59 am

I see a couple of possible issues here. First is postulating the existence of "things" outside the aggregates. And second is understanding "being-in-the-world" as inherently stressful - dukkha. The first one is easy - patently false in all Buddhist schools. The second may be trickier. There was a long debate about arahats and whether the aggregates still function in them. Because if aggregates are dukkha and arahats do not experience dukkha, then they don't have use of the aggregates.

I suggest a common sense solution of this is simply that aggregates may refer to the "unenlightened aggregates" and "unenlightened aggregates". Enlightened aggregates are something like what was taught by the Buddha to Bahiya:

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

Through hearing this brief explanation of the Dhamma from the Blessed One, the mind of Bahiya of the Bark-cloth right then and there was released from the effluents through lack of clinging/sustenance. Having exhorted Bahiya of the Bark-cloth with this brief explanation of the Dhamma, the Blessed One left.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html

The unenlightened aggregates are the source of dukkha, or better said are dukkha, because there is of course no dukkha apart from the aggregates.

In practical sense most of us don't recognize dukkha most of the time, because it is the default state - the background to our experience. The Buddha likened this to the leper enjoying cauterising his body over the pit of glowing embers:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of sensuality.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.075x.than.html

But once cured, this would of course be a source of pain.

I think we should be careful in disentangling ourselves from attachments and cravings lest we replace them with aversion for the people and the world. Saying that "the world is suffering" carries a massive emotional connotation. Equanimity is the right attitude, not aversion or indifference.

PS Thank you for posting the passage above, Prasadaccita! Here's the link to Ven Thanissaro's translation:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html
_/|\_
User avatar
Dan74
 
Posts: 2644
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby ground » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:19 am

Prasadachitta wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Prasadachitta wrote:Aren't the aggregates always ceasing.


An aggregate as a particular event arises and ceases, yes. But once a particular has ceased the next one arises. In this sense one speaks about "the aggregates" referring to the continuum of particulars that arise and cease each on its own. In the same sense "the aggregates" have not ceased although each particular belonging to the class "the aggregates" ceases if there is still an arising (and ceasing) of particulars.
"the cessation of the aggregates" means that no particular will arise again, the continuum is ended.


Kind regards

He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
MN 121


This passage obviously is not a description of cessation of the aggregates but a description of a meditative experience. And since there is experience there are the aggregates which are nothing other than experience.

And since it is a conditioned experience it belongs to the category of "dukkha".

kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Aug 17, 2011 4:45 am

TMingyur wrote:
Prasadachitta wrote:He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
MN 121

This passage obviously is not a description of cessation of the aggregates but a description of a meditative experience. And since there is experience there are the aggregates which are nothing other than experience.

And since it is a conditioned experience it belongs to the category of "dukkha".

kind regards


Hi Tmingyur,

And yet the Buddha calls it unsurpassed so how can what is unsurpassed be Dukkha?. Also, directly before the quote above is the statement
He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'


Metta

Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby ground » Wed Aug 17, 2011 5:23 am

Prasadachitta wrote:
TMingyur wrote:
Prasadachitta wrote:He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.
MN 121

This passage obviously is not a description of cessation of the aggregates but a description of a meditative experience. And since there is experience there are the aggregates which are nothing other than experience.

And since it is a conditioned experience it belongs to the category of "dukkha".

kind regards


Hi Tmingyur,

And yet the Buddha calls it unsurpassed so how can what is unsurpassed be Dukkha?.

Well he also advocates the jhanas which actually are in the sphere of dukkha.

Prasadachitta wrote: Also, directly before the quote above is the statement
He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'


This actually is a contradiction because if there is consciousness birth cannot be ended.

The alternative would be the interpretation that there are both clinging-aggregates and non-clinging aggregates and that DO applies only to the clinging ones but not to the non-clinging ones.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Postby Prasadachitta » Wed Aug 17, 2011 1:28 pm

TMingyur wrote:This actually is a contradiction because if there is consciousness birth cannot be ended.

The alternative would be the interpretation that there are both clinging-aggregates and non-clinging aggregates and that DO applies only to the clinging ones but not to the non-clinging ones.


Kind regards


Hello Tmingyur,

Is it possible you have misinterpreted DO? If the Sutta contradicts itself maybe its meaning is more subtle. Perhaps there is another alternative which neither you nor I have the experience or the language to declare.

Metta

Prasadachitta
Last edited by Prasadachitta on Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
Prasadachitta
 
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Exabot [Bot] and 7 guests