Is everything Suffering?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4531
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by Dan74 »

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 ... .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 ... .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 ... .than.html
_/|\_
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by ground »

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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by Prasadachitta »

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
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by ground »

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
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by Prasadachitta »

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
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by daverupa »

TMingyur wrote: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.
It's probably :offtopic: , but paticcasamuppada has numerous iterations such that saying the "correct" or "full" version contains 12 links is incorrect. It seems likely that this teaching was given in numerous contexts and accordingly with variable numbers of links. Confusion is likely to arise when one or another iteration is taken to be "the one". It's a much more fluid teaching.

:focus:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 4035
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by Alex123 »

kirk5a wrote:
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."
And saṅkhārā includes all and any of 5 aggregates. So Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā includes all things, aggregates included.

Also please note the other suttas. It doesn't talk about "clinging", but simple aggregates:

“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. ... same with 4 other aggregates.

The cessation of all suffering is not simply the ending of craving, but cessation of aggregate itself:
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


And the next sutta does state that : "Form is misery; feeling is misery; perception is misery; volitional constructions are misery; consciousness is misery."
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by kirk5a »

Alex123 wrote: And saṅkhārā includes all and any of 5 aggregates. So Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā includes all things, aggregates included.
If "sabbe sankhara" includes all things - everything - then why was "sabbe dhamma" used in Dhp 279? Sankhara is translated as "all conditioned things" while "sabbe dhamma" is translated as "all things" period. It would seem that what "includes all things, aggregates included" is not "sankhara" but "dhamma."

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where the Buddha said "everything is suffering." Which would perhaps be "sabbe dhamma dukkha."

I am not asking for something the Buddha said which is supposed to "mean" or "entail" that 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
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by daverupa »

kirk5a wrote:
Alex123 wrote: And saṅkhārā includes all and any of 5 aggregates. So Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā includes all things, aggregates included.
If "sabbe sankhara" includes all things - everything - then why was "sabbe dhamma" used in Dhp 279? Sankhara is translated as "all conditioned things" while "sabbe dhamma" is translated as "all things" period. It would seem that what "includes all things, aggregates included" is not "sankhara" but "dhamma."
Sabbe dhamma anatta is phrased that way in order to include nibbana, while sabbe sankhara means "all conditioned things" in sabbe sankhara anicca and sabbe sankhara dukkha, the latter being of note here. The problem seems to come from English connotations of "suffering", which is why translating dukkha as suffering is problematic as the full denotative-connotative elements of the term in Pali outstrip any single English word. This generates significant difficulty when the connotative elements are reified as being denotative, especially when this occurs across two languages which differ significantly with respect to their integral world-views.

Dhamma, of course, is another perfect example of this complex interplay, and reading it simply as "thing" is overly simplistic.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by rowyourboat »

:goodpost:

From a practical standpoint- it would be impossible to get rid of craving for aggregates, without seeing them like this:
"A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Instead the Buddha could have just said, see craving as .... - but he doesn't. There isn't a qualitative difference between a clinging aggregate (I prefer clingable aggregate) and what you see a clinging aggregate as, you will see an aggregates as, as well (it is still applicable). Further more without letting go (read 'rendering unclingable') of Everything in samsara, nibbana will never be realized/detachment from the aggregates will never be realized as the mind will always try to stay with the 'good bit' in samsara/cling to the good aggregate, without completely letting go of samsara.

'Monks because rupa is impermanent, it is suffering'. -what does suffering mean here?

:smile:

with metta

Matheesha
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by ground »

rowyourboat wrote: ... to get rid of craving for aggregates,
...
... I prefer clingable aggregate ...
Problematic linguistic expression which may seem to be paralleled in the sutta
rowyourboat wrote:
"A virtuous monk .. should attend ... to ...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
But actually considering the whole sentence the translator has at least tried to be very careful (but not succeeded due to the rules of language)
A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates
thus stressing that the aggregates are the agents as to clinging.


Kind regards
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by chownah »

I think that "clingable" denotes a self that might cling to them....not sure.
chownah
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by daverupa »

TMingyur wrote:stressing that the aggregates are the agents as to clinging
Agents? What is meant here?
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
pulga
Posts: 1502
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by pulga »

"Sabbe sankhárá aniccá" ti
yadá paññáya passati
atha nibbindati dukkhe
esa maggo visuddhiyá.

"Sabbe sankhárá dukkhá" ti
yadá paññaya passati
atha nibbindati dukkhe
esa maggo visuddhiyá.

"Sabbe dhammá anattá" ti
yadá paññáya passati
atha nibbindati dukkhe
esa maggo visuddhiyá.
Dhp 277, 278, & 279

Must one understand sankhára in the passive voice here?
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Is everything Suffering?

Post by daverupa »

pulga wrote:Must one understand sankhára in the passive voice here?
Do you suggest "All fabrications are..." --> "All fabricating is..."?

My understanding of the word is barely baby-talk, but I take the word to imply {fabricator, fabricating, fabricated} as a lump meaning, especially in poesy.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Post Reply