Why shouldn't I? Why should I?
or
Where shouldn't I? Where should I?
I prefer to keep it within the suttas, but won't complain if other references our made.
Wishing you all good-will.
DanieLion

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

danieLion wrote:Sometimes I like to translate dukkha as "conflict" and nirodha as "resolution."
Spiny O'Norman wrote:danieLion wrote:Sometimes I like to translate dukkha as "conflict" and nirodha as "resolution."
Could you say why?
Spiny

David N. Snyder wrote:Interesting; I have never seen those terms used before.
Is all dukkha conflict? For example, is child birth a conflict? Many emotional pains could be called conflict, but there are other pains and sufferings that don't appear to have conflict.
Isn't conflict mostly adversarial? Or maybe I'm thinking of Marx when I hear conflict (conflict theory dualism).

Alex123 wrote:IMHO dukkha as 'stress' seems to be a good. Childbirth is stressful , and so are emotional conflicts.

danieLion wrote:David N. Snyder wrote:Is all dukkha conflict? For example, is child birth a conflict? Many emotional pains could be called conflict, but there are other pains and sufferings that don't appear to have conflict.
I don't know if all conflict is dukkha, but all conflict involves dukkha, and perhaps the reverse--all dukkha involves conflict.
chownah wrote:It is clear to me that there is a typo in the title for this thread...it should be "Conflict as dukkha, Resolution as nirodha."
chownah


danieLion wrote:If you look at the "twelfth link" of dependent origination, for example, you get a flavor of the different manifestations of dukkha, and it is by no means exhaustive. And in general, dependent origination explicates the conflictual aspects of dukkha.
Birth is followed by death in which there is the sense of loss, change, the passing away of that state of experience. "I used to be happy;" "I used to be successful;" "I was content in the last moment," and so on. The passing away of that state of experience, the feeling of being deprived or separated from the identity, "I used to be…" is the moment of death. In that moment of death, we sense a loss of good meditation experience, the good emotional experience. We say it’s gone. And associated with that sense is the pain and the grief, the despair of our loss.
http://www.dharma.org/ij/archives/1999a/christina.htm
SilvioB wrote:Dukkha is conflict when not accepting change. Dukkha is fighting & resisting change.

SilvioB wrote: Dukkha is fighting & resisting change.
chownah wrote:I think if one is not attached to conflict then one does not experience dukkha thereby.
I think if one is attached to resolution then one does expereince dukkha thereby.
chownah

Spiny O'Norman wrote:SilvioB wrote: Dukkha is fighting & resisting change.
That's a good way of putting it, and the Buddha did say that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory.
Spiny

danieLion wrote:Spiny O'Norman wrote:SilvioB wrote: Dukkha is fighting & resisting change.
That's a good way of putting it, and the Buddha did say that whatever is impermanent is unsatisfactory.
Spiny
Fighting fair is a skillful use of anicca properly understood.
D
danieLion wrote:chownah wrote:I think if one is not attached to conflict then one does not experience dukkha thereby.
I think if one is attached to resolution then one does expereince dukkha thereby.
chownah
Hi chownah,
Why separate dukkha from conflict experientially? Is not the experience of conflict stressful? Is not the experience of the resolution of conflict liberating?
By "attachment" do you mean upadana?
D
danieLion wrote:Fighting fair is a skillful use of anicca properly understood.
Spiny O'Norman wrote: Do you mean working with change? Could you maybe give some examples?

Registered users: Alex123, Awarewolf, Billymac29, Bing [Bot], binocular, corrine, dharmagoat, Dmytro, Feathers, Google [Bot], ground, Helyron, Hickersonia, kmath, Mindstar, Mojo, Mr Man, onaquest, robertk, Sam Vara, Zenainder