First Noble Truth - dukkha?

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:41 am

alan wrote:[...] -the five clinging/aggregates themselves are dukkha.
Why? Well we know they are impermanent, inconstant, subject to change. We know they are not ours, beyond our control, never to be depended on--and yet we think and act as if this is not applicable to us!
Buddha tells us there is no lasting happiness to be found here, in these aggregates of clinging, and points to a way out.
Also keep in mind here he was coming from a state of bliss, of unrestricted awareness, beyond all viewpoints, released. How to teach a way to get there? First of all, it would make sense to let your students know that although they may think they are happy and doing well, they are in fact suffering and deluded. Comprehending this truth is the point of entry to the path. Welcome!

Hi alan,
If we would know they are impermanent, inconstant, subject to change, not ours, beyond our control, never to be dependend on - then they wouldn't be dukkha anymore, there wouldn't even be five clinging aggregates, just five aggregates would be all there is. but as you said -" yet we think and act as if this is not applicable to us!" and this misconduct makes them dukkha. The fault is "here I am -and- there is my world". It seems to me that most people know the 4 noble truths including the eight-fold-path quite well plus a lot of sutta knowledge. They know things are dukkha but they don't know why, they don't know that they are the main reason for dukkha, so they think and act as if this is not applicable to themselves. For the puthujjana everything are the five clinging aggregates, and the puthujjana thinks he is one, more or all of the five clinging aggregates. He can see without any problems that these things, of which he doesn't think that he is are dukkha but he constantly ignores the things, of which he thinks he is. Without seeing this misconduct, there will be no progress on the path. I agree with what you said: "Comprehending this truth is the point of entry to the path."
best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:18 am

Jechbi wrote:Thanks, acinteyyo.
acinteyyo wrote:So why did the Buddha say that these things mentioned in the first noble truths are dukkha?

Perhaps because in the context of this passage, the teaching has to do with contemplation, and specifically (from the translation by Maurice Walshe) --
... a monk abides contemplating mind-objects as mind-objects in respect of the Four Noble Truths. How does he do so?
Followed by instructions to understand mind objects in respect of the Four Noble Truths. Maybe that's why those particular things were mentioned, because they are helpful for this particular contemplation.

Hi Jechbi,
your right in this case. I may have not expressed myself clear enough. I'm not interessted in those particular things. Birth, death... and so on they're just expressions. Sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned things are dukkha. The five clinging aggregates are sankhara. I want to make clear why are all sankhara dukkha or why are the five clinging aggregates dukkha? The five clinging aggregates is a expression for everything existing for the puthujjana. He doesn't know anything else. The puthujjana believes in a self. He thinks he is one, more or all of the five clinging aggregates. And there is the main misconduct. He can without problems see impermanence, not-self and dukkha in all the things, of which he doesn't think that he is those things. But he constantly ignores the things, of which he thinks that he is those things. So he starts thinking he has understood, why the things are dukkha, but he has not. He is still not able to see that he himself is the problem. His belief in a self. In fact because of this misconduct he is still a puthujjana.
I hope in the things I wrote is something which may be helpful for someone.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby pink_trike » Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:33 pm

alan wrote:It is a question of how he would teach. That is the whole point of this thread. He taught dukkha first. Why?

Perhaps because humans spend nearly every waking moment of their lives unconsciously reacting unskillfully to the three kinds of dukkha which is like persistently scratching a sore.
Vision is Mind
Mind is Empty
Emptiness is Clear Light
Clear Light is Union
Union is Great Bliss

- Dawa Gyaltsen

---

Disclaimer: I'm a non-religious practitioner of Theravada, Mahayana/Vajrayana, and Tibetan Bon Dzogchen mind-training.
User avatar
pink_trike
 
Posts: 1038
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:29 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:39 pm

alan wrote:It is a question of how he would teach. That is the whole point of this thread. He taught dukkha first. Why?

oh... seems that I missed this quote. That is not the whole point of this thread! The question is not "why taught the Buddha dukkha first?" the question is why are the five clinging-aggregates dukkha? or why are those things dukkha, which were well-defined as dukkha by the Buddha?
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby Jechbi » Sat Oct 03, 2009 8:55 pm

acinteyyo wrote:Hi Jechbi,
your right in this case. I may have not expressed myself clear enough. I'm not interessted in those particular things. Birth, death... and so on they're just expressions. Sabbe sankhara dukkha. All conditioned things are dukkha. The five clinging aggregates are sankhara. I want to make clear why are all sankhara dukkha or why are the five clinging aggregates dukkha? The five clinging aggregates is a expression for everything existing for the puthujjana. He doesn't know anything else. The puthujjana believes in a self. He thinks he is one, more or all of the five clinging aggregates. And there is the main misconduct. He can without problems see impermanence, not-self and dukkha in all the things, of which he doesn't think that he is those things. But he constantly ignores the things, of which he thinks that he is those things. So he starts thinking he has understood, why the things are dukkha, but he has not. He is still not able to see that he himself is the problem. His belief in a self. In fact because of this misconduct he is still a puthujjana.
I hope in the things I wrote is something which may be helpful for someone.
best wishes, acinteyyo

In that case I think you're making a statement, not asking a question.
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
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:17 pm

Jechbi wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Hi Jechbi,
your right in this case. I may have not expressed myself clear enough. I'm not interessted in [...]

In that case I think you're making a statement, not asking a question.

sure, you're right again. I wanted to clarify what I think in relation to the question. 'cause it seems to me that my question is not understood properly. The answers are an indication for my assumption.
It's like as I would ask why is a car a car? And someone responds because of the tires. But that's not right. The tires are a part of a thing which is called "car" and which has the meaning of car. Yes tires constitute a car in some way. But tires aren't the reason for that thing to be a car. A bike isn't a car although both things have tires. Maybe the wrong interpretation of the question results from the fact that the responder takes for granted that a car is a car and does not understand that the questioner puts exactly this into question. My question is not as simple meant as it maybe sounds.
This is not a very good simile but I hope you can imagine what I want to say.
And making a statement doesn't replace the question, does it?
best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby Jechbi » Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:49 pm

acinteyyo wrote:And making a statement doesn't replace the question, does it?

I'll take the 5th.
: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.
User avatar
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby mikenz66 » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:30 am

alan wrote:It is a question of how he would teach. That is the whole point of this thread. He taught dukkha first. Why?

He taught Dukkha first to a group of like-minded ascetics for whom that teaching was appropriate.

He didn't teach dukkha so bluntly to uncommitted lay people, which is Ben's audience...

Mike
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby adosa » Sun Oct 04, 2009 2:21 pm

Hi Acinteyyo.

Sorry but you lost me here. Pardon my ignorance. I have to agree with the Venerable Appicchato that it is clinging or craving (or aversion) that makes these things dukkha. They are just events. They are the nature of the universe but we want a different outcome, not because of misconduct, but because that is the way we are wired. To me misconduct indicates something we could control with effort. However, we can't control craving. Not yet at least. I do believe it is an evolutionary survival thing. But I digress.

So these things are dukkha. Not in and of themselves but because of clinging, craving and adversion. Until the switch is flipped and we see reality all the way to our core, beyond our intellect, they will continue to be dukkha. They are not dukkha to an Arahant because Arahants no longer have the roots of craving, aversion, and delusion.

That's my view but somehow I think I missed the mark of your question as it has been answered this way before. So please, what is your answer? It seems like you have one but have yet to present it. I'd like to know because now I have more dukkha trying to crack this riddle. :shrug:


adosa
"To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas" - Dhammapada 183
User avatar
adosa
 
Posts: 263
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:23 pm

adosa wrote:Hi Acinteyyo.

Sorry but you lost me here. Pardon my ignorance. I have to agree with the Venerable Appicchato that it is clinging or craving (or aversion) that makes these things dukkha. They are just events. They are the nature of the universe but we want a different outcome, not because of misconduct, but because that is the way we are wired. To me misconduct indicates something we could control with effort. However, we can't control craving. Not yet at least. I do believe it is an evolutionary survival thing. But I digress.

So these things are dukkha. Not in and of themselves but because of clinging, craving and adversion. Until the switch is flipped and we see reality all the way to our core, beyond our intellect, they will continue to be dukkha. They are not dukkha to an Arahant because Arahants no longer have the roots of craving, aversion, and delusion.

That's my view but somehow I think I missed the mark of your question as it has been answered this way before. So please, what is your answer? It seems like you have one but have yet to present it. I'd like to know because now I have more dukkha trying to crack this riddle. :shrug:
adosa

Hi adosa,
I try to make it more clear.
DN22 Maha-satipatthana Sutta wrote: "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 the Buddha told us what is dukkha. Birth, aging, death and so on... in short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha. Or here:
Dhammapada (277-279) wrote:Sabbe sankhárá aniccá; All determinations are impermanent;
sabbe sankhárá dukkhá; All determinations are suffering (unpleasurable, stressful);
sabbe dhammá anattá. All things are not-self.

The Buddha told us again what is dukkha.
Somewhere else (I can't remember at the moment where exactly) the Buddha told us:
"Whatever counts as impermanent is suffering and whatever counts as suffering is not-self."
This tells us again what is dukkha, or what has to be seen as dukkha.
This for example tells us not that something is dukkha because of its impermanance. It only tells us that something which is impermanant is dukkha, too. Nothing more, and not why it is dukkha.

What I'm asking for is now why are those things dukkha?

I have an idea, but I think I'm unable to explain it so that someone will understand. It's difficult enough for me to explain it in german and even more for me in english. Furthermore:
DN22 Maha-satipatthana Sutta wrote:"And what is the noble truth of the origination of stress? The craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

The second noble truths tells us how or why dukkha arises or rather from what dukkha originates. In other words how or why those things mentioned above arise or from what they originate. But in my eyes the second noble truth does not tell us why those things mentioned above are dukkha.
I may missed a sutta where the Buddha said something like this: "because of this, those things are dukkha (or have to be seen as dukkha)". Does someone know such a statement?
In my eyes the Buddha did not say: "the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha because of craving". As I understand it, the Buddha said: "from craving the five clinging-aggregates originate and the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
No explanation again, why the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

I'm of the opinion that to end dukkha it is essential to understand dukkha. Not only to know that the Buddha said this or that is dukkha, but to have fully understood what is dukkha and why is it dukkha. How can one understand the other three noble truths when one still doesn't understand the first one?! This is my intention.
Take a look in my signature. This is what the Buddha said about his teachings.
Ask as much as you want, if it's still not clear for you.
best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby Jechbi » Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:59 pm

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
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:32 pm

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
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby fivebells » Sun Oct 04, 2009 5:54 pm

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.
fivebells
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:08 pm

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
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby fivebells » Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:15 pm

Sorry, not sure what your point is with that.
fivebells
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:52 am

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby rowyourboat » Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:34 pm

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
rowyourboat
 
Posts: 1949
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby jhana.achariya » Mon Oct 05, 2009 2:53 am

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:
jhana.achariya
 

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Oct 05, 2009 3:23 pm

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.
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby acinteyyo » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:32 pm

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
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Both formerly, monks, and now, it is just suffering that I make known and the ending of suffering.
Pathabyā ekarajjena, saggassa gamanena vā sabbalokādhipaccena, sotāpattiphalaṃ varaṃ. (Dhp 178)
Sole dominion over the earth, going to heaven or lordship over all worlds: the fruit of stream-entry excels them.

:anjali:
User avatar
acinteyyo
 
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: First Noble Truth - dukkha?

Postby Jechbi » Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:54 pm

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.
User avatar
Jechbi
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Nicolas, Sokehi, Yahoo [Bot] and 8 guests