First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by Jechbi »

Hi there,
adosa wrote:They are not dukkha to an Arahant because Arahants no longer have the roots of craving, aversion, and delusion.
But there is still recognition of the underlying dukkha nature of phenomena, although in the case of an arahant, it is understood with equanimity. I think there's a difference between the notion of a living being suffering and the notion of the dukkha nature of phenomena. Same word -- dukkha -- used in different contexts.
acinteyyo wrote:What I'm asking for is now why are those things dukkha?
Why is the Leaning Tower of Pisa called "Leaning"? That's just the way it is. The nature of phenomena is that they come and go, they're not reliable, there's no essential "self" in there at all, etc. Those things -- all things -- have the nature of dukkha because they keep on rolling and rolling. Why? Because they are. Because they have not stopped.

Ok, those are just my thoughts. Any heavy hitters want to come in here and knock it out of the ball park for us?

:thanks:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by acinteyyo »

Jechbi wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:What I'm asking for is now why are those things dukkha?
Why is the Leaning Tower of Pisa called "Leaning"? That's just the way it is.
Hi Jechbi,
this is a good point to further try to explain a bit more what makes me wonder and why my asked question came to my mind. The leaning tower of Pisa is in fact a leaning tower. No reason for me to ask why it is called "leaning", because I intuitively see that the tower is leaning.
When it comes to dukkha, I think, it's a little bit different. For example, why isn't birth only birth? Why is it also dukkha?
The leaning tower of pisa is only a leaning tower. It can also be a tourist attraction. Then I would ask: Why is the leaning tower not only a leaning tower but also a tourist attraction. And the answer could be, because towers are usually straight and the leaning tower of pisa isn't, plus tourists are interessted in unusual things. This would make the leaning tower also a tourist attraction because it's an unusual thing.
So we could say birth is dukkha, because birth is the beginning of the whole mass of suffering. Then we would come to the things which are dukkha depending on birth. I would then ask my question again. Why is ageing, this or that dukkha? After a while I would realize that there are lots of things which are dukkha. In short the five clinging-aggregates.
And then, remembering the Kalama Sutta...
Kalama Sutta (AN3.65) wrote:"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them." [...]
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them."
I'm still asking the same question until I know for myself that whether "These qualities are unskillful [...] and should be abandoned" or "These qualities are skillful [...] and should be entered & remained in them".
As long as one don't know for himself it's not that easy to say: "That's just the way it is." When one knows for himself, then it's probably nothing easier to say: "That's just the way it is."
But, and that is for what this question is dedicated, one should not greenly think, that it is a matter of course to know for himself (let's assume this is the answer) that it's just the way it is.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by fivebells »

Before you can reason clearly about why these things might be called dukkha, don't you have to have a precise definition of what dukkha is?

I always thought that this list was the definition of dukkha.

For what it's worth, my teacher often translates dukkha as "struggle." It's pretty clear that the standard way to relate to all of those items is to struggle.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by acinteyyo »

fivebells wrote:Before you can reason clearly about why these things might be called dukkha, don't you have to have a precise definition of what dukkha is?

I always thought that this list was the definition of dukkha.

For what it's worth, my teacher often translates dukkha as "struggle." It's pretty clear that the standard way to relate to all of those items is to struggle.
Hi fivebells,
sure, there should be a definition previously. The first noble truth is a definition of dukkha, isn't it?
A little story. Let's imagine two men are walking down a street. Suddenly both men stumble, fall down and hit their heads on the ground. Both men are feeling the same pain. One man says: "Ouch! That hurts! What a bad feeling! When is this pain going to vanish!? I can't be happy as long as this unpleasant feeling exists." While the other man says. "Ouch! That hurts! But it's just another negative feeling. Just a determination and it's bound to end like all determinations. It doesn't matter, it's no more worth the attention. Then the one man says to the other: "Hey, I'm suffering from headache." The other man replies: "Why are you suffering from headache? It's just pain." Man one then says: "What? Just pain? Sure, but I am in pain!" The other man replies confused:"You are in pain? Ok, I know there is pain but where are you?"
The one man didn't know what to say and his only reaction was :jawdrop:

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by fivebells »

Sorry, not sure what your point is with that.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by rowyourboat »

Acinteyyo

I feel on one level you are confusing the problem with the solution -'why is old age suffering (problem) when the the arahanth doesn't suffer from it (solution)?'. It is like asking why an infected wound is a problem when the wound healed after antibiotics isn't.

To get to the solution the problem must be fully accepted, otherwise the problem will always persist. You cannot have one or the other.

On another level even the arahanth understands the true nature of conditioned phenomena is unsatisfactory. He goes beyond that as well at the point of death (fully nibbana- parinibbana). He experiences unpleasant sensation while alive and has to put up with an impermanant aging body, which he does with equanimity.

The sentient mind doesn't find a close perception of impermanence a satisfactory thing- arahanth or not. There is a common misconception that it is craving that makes it suffering- it certainly causes mental suffering- but there is inherant unsatisfactoriness as a quality of phenomena. If you do vipassana well you will come to know this and these doubts will vanish.

with metta
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
jhana.achariya

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by jhana.achariya »

acinteyyo wrote:What I'm asking for is now why are those things dukkha?
Acinteyyo

Adhering to his method of teaching, you may wish to consider in his first sermon the Lord Buddha gave a gradual teaching.

Also, consider the Buddha diagnosed suffering, doing so, listed the outer symptoms as well as the underlying issue (upadana) and cause (tanha).

With metta

:sage:
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by acinteyyo »

fivebells wrote:Sorry, not sure what your point is with that.
sorry... then just ignore the story. Only the first and second sentence really matters.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by acinteyyo »

Hi rowyourboat,
do you think it's enought for proper practice to just know that there is an inherent unsatisfactoriness as a quality of phenomena, even if one doesn't know why?

I think, when one doesn't know why a particular thing is a particular thing then one can't know which thing is the particular thing. Thus I think, that when one doesn't know why there is an inherent unsatisfactoriness as a quality of phenomena, one can't see the inherent unsatisfactory quality of phenomena. To say there is an unsatisfactory quality in all phenomena doesn't make it perceptible, it's such an abstract statement that it basically doesn't contain any testable conclusion. Also to say there is an inherent unsatisfactoriness as a quality of phenomena, for example just because the Buddha said it, doesn't make it perceptible either, not to mention that this even wouldn't be real knowledge. But, imho, if one really sees this unsatisfactory quality in all phenomena, then one also knows why it is there.

It's not a very good comparison but anyway I try it , let's imagine one has a small pool. One day he notices that the small pool froze up. But he doesn't know why the pool froze up. How can he know what have to be done to end freezing in this case?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
Jechbi
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am
Contact:

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by Jechbi »

acinteyyo wrote:I think, when one doesn't know why a particular thing is a particular thing then one can't know which thing is the particular thing. Thus I think, that when one doesn't know why there is an inherent unsatisfactoriness as a quality of phenomena, one can't see the inherent unsatisfactory quality of phenomena. To say there is an unsatisfactory quality in all phenomena doesn't make it perceptible, it's such an abstract statement that it basically doesn't contain any testable conclusion.
I'm not so sure about that. Are you sure you're not overthinking this? The line of reasoning reminds me of this passage:
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
(By the way, this also seems to address some themes of this thread.)

:smile:
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
Sanghamitta
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:21 am
Location: By the River Thames near London.

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by Sanghamitta »

Yes I do think its enough for proper practice to just know that there is an inherent unsatisfactoryness as a quality of phenomena without even knowing why.

Things arise dependently , "why " is not the point.
The going for refuge is the door of entrance to the teachings of the Buddha.

Bhikku Bodhi.
User avatar
fivebells
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by fivebells »

acinteyyo wrote:sorry... then just ignore the story. Only the first and second sentence really matters.
OK, those sentences were
sure, there should be a definition previously. The first noble truth is a definition of dukkha, isn't it?
The first noble truth is
"Now what is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful; separation from the loved is stressful; not getting what one wants is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
Here "stress" is used to translate "dukkha." So, as I said, this list constitutes the definition of dukkha. They are dukkha by definition.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by acinteyyo »

Well, thank you guys! Since I can't verify whether my question might be wrongly asked or not and it seems to me we're drifting apart from the question itself, and I'm not sure about how you understood what I wanted to say, and I'm not sure whether I understood correctly what you have said, I think it would be the best to stop here. I'm going to think about, and contemplate all what have been said here.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by rowyourboat »

Acinteyyo

If you stick your finger in a fire isnt it enough to know that it is painful for you to avoid it in the future? In fact you (because of that experience) would have no option but to avoid it in the future because you have a very strong memory of the pain. Similarly the mind which truly experiences anicca (not just know, but experience through vipassana) has a similar reaction and a deep memory. It leads to detachment and non-craving.

I mentioned that the sentient mind is not able to accept anicca- to tolerate its moment to moment experience. This was my attempt to explain why anicca was unsatisfactory. -like water and oil cannot tolerate each other. Hence we are talking of a characteristic- not arising due to any particular reason (except for the arising of phenomena itself- which really is the problem).

When the mind sees through to deep anicca- it lets go of all arising- hence nibbana- the psychic 'non'experience of mind completely letting go.
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Post by acinteyyo »

I made up my mind, my understanding is that the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha because of wrong view (ditthi) [(and related to "belief in a self" (attavada)].
One only suffers when one creates conceivabilities. These conceivabilities aren't in line with the phenomena as they are. In fact they are never in line with the nature of all dhamma as long as there is wrong view. (atta-ditthi, sakkāya-ditthi, sassata-ditthi, uccheda-ditthi...) As long one believes he or she is substantially somebody, he or she will create conceivabilities.
MN1 Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence wrote:The Blessed One said: "There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — perceives earth as earth. Perceiving earth as earth, he conceives [things] about earth, he conceives [things] in earth, he conceives [things] coming out of earth, he conceives earth as 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.

"He perceives water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind1 ... beings as beings... gods as gods...Pajapati as Pajapati...Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being2 ... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception3 ... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized4 ... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity5 ... the All as the All6 ...

"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding.7 Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you.
The Trainee

"A monk who is a trainee — yearning for the unexcelled relief from bondage, his aspirations as yet unfulfilled — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, let him not conceive things about earth, let him not conceive things in earth, let him not conceive things coming out of earth, let him not conceive earth as 'mine,' let him not delight in earth. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you.
The Arahant

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations — who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of passion, he is devoid of passion, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of aversion, he is devoid of aversion, I tell you.

"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations... directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you.
The Tathagata

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you.

"The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you.

"He directly knows water as water... the All as the All...

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.
When one holds the view that sun, no clouds and 20 - 30°C is "good" weather, then there is automatically the other view, and he or she will suffer when there are other conditions as defined as "good" weather. That is also a kind of wrong view. Because there is no good weather or bad weather. Weather is just weather. No reason to cling to (the view of) "good" or bad weather. This is where it all beginns...
when there is right view (sammaditthi) one will come to the point where tathatā (suchness) is realized, then birth is just birth, death is just death, the five aggregates are what is left but there's no more clinging.
When the delusion is seen as delusion then it vanishes and with it the craving. Without the existance of craving there is no more birth, ageing or death, in short the five clinging-aggregates. Without craving there is no origin of dukkha.
I still say there must be right view to enter the path, the stream otherwise there is no entering the path. It isn't possible to let go wrong view by simply want it. Wrong view has to be seen as wrong view.

This is how I see the teachings.
I wish you all the best, acinteyyo
Last edited by acinteyyo on Sat Oct 10, 2009 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Post Reply