Life Sux

[Sanghamitta]

" Dukkha" " Kamma" "Metta " along with a number of key Pali terms have no equivilant one word translation in any modern language. Hence the need in my view to internalise them.

[Shonin]

I'm with you. Agreed.

[Sanghamitta]

[altar]

The Buddha didn't just teach that birth was suffering. He taught that "the all" was suffering, "the world" was, the five khandas subjected to clinging. It's clear, I think, that "life is not without suffering," except for one well gone, who's just left with physical pain as the occasions arise.
Not all life is the same, so some might have more suckiness than others. But does it all suck at the bottom of it? Wherever there is clinging, there is suffing. So if there is clinging to life, there is suffing.
I think it's said that no existence, no state of being, is truly desireable. Even a happy life might be undesireable. Certainly preferable to an unhappy life (all other things being equal).
By the way, retro, a picture of a monk smiling, while maybe a nice photo, isn't really a serious kind of argument. We could contemplate that those very teeth may one day be in a garbage bin somewhere, who knows, to say nothing of the skin and internal organs.

[Mafi]

Life is life; everything that happens in life and whether we think it sucks or is great is just a perception isn't it? What others think sucks others may enjoy, which once again goes back to mental conditioning.

Shine on,
-Mafi

[sukhamanveti]

The Buddha didn't just teach that birth was suffering. He taught that "the all" was suffering, "the world" was, the five khandas subjected to clinging. It's clear, I think, that "life is not without suffering," except for one well gone, who's just left with physical pain as the occasions arise.
Not all life is the same, so some might have more suckiness than others. But does it all suck at the bottom of it? Wherever there is clinging, there is suffing. So if there is clinging to life, there is suffing.
I think it's said that no existence, no state of being, is truly desireable. Even a happy life might be undesireable. Certainly preferable to an unhappy life (all other things being equal).
By the way, retro, a picture of a monk smiling, while maybe a nice photo, isn't really a serious kind of argument. We could contemplate that those very teeth may one day be in a garbage bin somewhere, who knows, to say nothing of the skin and internal organs.

Hi, altar. My problem with rendering the first noble truth as "Life sux" is that it implies that nothing can be done about it, that one may as well throw up one's hands in despair. If life itself were suffering, dissatisfaction, and the like, then I think that one might logically conclude there would be no escape. In fact, many nonBuddhists seem to assume that this is precisely what the Buddha taught. But the Buddha and the arahants were frequently described as happy, joyful people, entirely freed from dukkha, as Walpola Rahula points out in his book What the Buddha Taught. There is a way out.

[dragonwarrior]

You make it sux
You make it meaningful

[withoutcolour]

This made me think of a very famous rhyme I heard when I was a teenager.
And it made me change it to this:

Life sucks, then you die
%$#@ the world, let's all... meditate.

[effort]

Hello Tree, all,

The Buddha never taught that "Life is suffering".

He taught that "There is suffering".

with metta
Chris

so whats the difference? as he said everything is impermanence and impermanent is dukka so life is also dukka.

[Phra Chuntawongso]

I dont think my life sux.
Recently at work I hurt my back.But I am not in pain.
There is pain-it is not constant and it is not mine.
The first noble truth only points the way to the third and forth noble truths,
Thanks to Lord Buddha for pointing that out.

[Goofaholix]

so whats the difference? as he said everything is impermanence and impermanent is dukka so life is also dukka.

He didn't say impermanence is dukkha, there is nothing sucky about impermanence it's just the way thinkgs are. However not accepting and acknowledging the fact of impermanence is one of the causes of dukkha, this is why I say it's not life that sux but our attitude towards life.

And of course what's really unsucky about all this is that there is a way to change our attitude and the Buddha explained it.

[Zom]

He didn't say impermanence is dukkha, there is nothing sucky about impermanence it's just the way thinkgs are

Actually he did say.

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

"What do you think, Anuradha: Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord." (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

If we equate life with mind-body, then life is stressful:

"Now what, friends, is the noble truth of stress? Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; not getting what is wanted is stressful.In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

However, though it is always stressful, it is not stressful on 100%:

"If consciousness were exclusively stressful — followed by stress, infused with stress and not infused with pleasure — beings would not be infatuated with consciousness. But because consciousness is also pleasurable — followed by pleasure, infused with pleasure and not infused with stress — beings are infatuated with consciousness. Through infatuation, they are captivated. Through captivation, they are defiled. This is the cause, this the requisite condition, for the defilement of beings. And this is how beings are defiled with cause, with requisite condition."
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

[Lombardi4]

Bhikkhu Bodhi:

"This is the noble truth of suffering. Birth is suffering; aging is suffering; sickness is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering; association with the unpleasant is suffering; separation from the pleasant is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering.

The last statement makes a comprehensive claim that calls for some attention. The five aggregates of clinging (pañcupadanakkandha) are a classificatory scheme for understanding the nature of our being. What we are, the Buddha teaches, is a set of five aggregates — material form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness — all connected with clinging. We are the five and the five are us. Whatever we identify with, whatever we hold to as our self, falls within the set of five aggregates. Together these five aggregates generate the whole array of thoughts, emotions, ideas, and dispositions in which we dwell, "our world." Thus the Buddha's declaration that the five aggregates are dukkha in effect brings all experience, our entire existence, into the range of dukkha."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... toend.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

I'm not too enamoured with Bhikkhu Bodhi's equation of pañcupadanakkandha with pancakhanda...

Metta,
Retro.

[acinteyyo]

What we are, the Buddha teaches, is a set of five aggregates — material form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness — all connected with clinging. We are the five and the five are us. Whatever we identify with, whatever we hold to as our self, falls within the set of five aggregates. Together these five aggregates generate the whole array of thoughts, emotions, ideas, and dispositions in which we dwell, "our world." Thus the Buddha's declaration that the five aggregates are dukkha in effect brings all experience, our entire existence, into the range of dukkha.

I have to disagree in one point. We are not the five aggregates! This is very important! What we believe to be our self actually is one or more or all of the five aggregates of grasping but none of it is a self. The person or personality is the pañcupadanakkandha but personality (being in essence somebody) is an illusion. It depends on upādāna, more precisely the clinging to the belief in a self (attavada) which gives rise to personality-view (sakkāya-ditthi). The Budda didn't say that we are the five aggregates of grasping but rather what we believe to be our self actually is one or more or all of the five aggregates of grasping.

best wishes, acinteyyo