Buddha and dukkha

[seeker242]

painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed

How can one suffer and be unperturbed at the same time? It's not possible. To suffer means to be perturbed, not to be unperturbed. If you are unperturbed, then you are not suffering.

[Ceisiwr]

Monier-Williams Sanskrit dictionary:

1 duHkha 1 mfn. (according to grammarians properly written %{duS-kha} and said to be from %{dus} and %{kha} [cf. %{su-kha4}] ; but more probably a Pra1kritized form for %{duH-stha} q.v.) uneasy , uncomfortable , unpleasant , difficult R. Hariv. (compar. %{-tara} MBh. R.) ; n. (ifc. f. %{A}) uneasiness , pain , sorrow , trouble , difficulty S3Br. xiv , 7 , 2 , 15 Mn. MBh. &c. (personified as the son of Naraka and Vedana1 VP.) ; (%{am}) ind. with difficulty , scarcely , hardly (also %{at} and %{ena}) MBh. R. ; impers. it is difficult to or to be (inf.with an acc. or nom. R. vii , 6 , 38 Bhag. v , 6) ; %{duHkham} - %{as} , to be sad or uneasy Ratn. iv , 19/20 ; - %{kR} , to cause or feel pain Ya1jn5. ii , 218 MBh. xii , 5298.
2 duHkha 2 Nom. P. %{-khati} , to pain SaddhP.

[Ceisiwr]

“The ancient Aryans who brought the Sanskrit language to India were a nomadic, horse- and cattle-breeding people who travelled in horse- or ox-drawn vehicles. Su and dus are prefixes indicating good or bad. The word kha, in later Sanskrit meaning "sky," "ether," or "space," was originally the word for "hole," particularly an axle hole of one of the Aryan's vehicles. Thus sukha … meant, originally, "having a good axle hole," while duhkha meant "having a poor axle hole," leading to discomfort.”

https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Dukkha

[Ceisiwr]

painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed

How can one suffer and be unperturbed at the same time? It's not possible. To suffer means to be perturbed, not to be unperturbed. If you are unperturbed, then you are not suffering.

Because he is struck by the first dart, not the 2nd.

[seeker242]

painful, fierce, sharp, wracking, repellent, disagreeable — but he endured them mindful, alert, & unperturbed

How can one suffer and be unperturbed at the same time? It's not possible. To suffer means to be perturbed, not to be unperturbed. If you are unperturbed, then you are not suffering.

Because he is struck by the first dart, not the 2nd.

Which means he didn't suffer as the 2nd dart is itself the suffering. The first dart is simply mere sensation.

[Ceisiwr]

How can one suffer and be unperturbed at the same time? It's not possible. To suffer means to be perturbed, not to be unperturbed. If you are unperturbed, then you are not suffering.

Because he is struck by the first dart, not the 2nd.

Which means he didn't suffer as the 2nd dart is itself the suffering. The first dart is simply mere sensation.

If it weren’t painful it would just be a meaningless sensation. The Buddha still experienced pleasurable, painful and neutral feelings. Feelings are inherently dukkha. What was removed was ignorance in relation to them. So, feeling physical pain he experiences one form of dukkha (the first dart) but not the 2nd (due to the absence of ignorance and resistance/craving). He endured the dukkha of painful feeling.

If he were totally free from every speck of dukkha he wouldn’t have had to have endured anything. He wouldn’t even be walking around in a world full of dukkha. He would have already ceased without remainer.

To be clear, I conceptualise this as a tiny ripple of dukkha in a vast ocean of Nibbanic consciousness. Only at final death is the ocean fully stilled and calm, ripple free. Or, to put it another way, during life the fire goes out but the embers still burn, slowly going out until, at final death, they grow completely cold.

[seeker242]

Because he is struck by the first dart, not the 2nd.

Which means he didn't suffer as the 2nd dart is itself the suffering. The first dart is simply mere sensation.

If it weren’t painful it would just be a meaningless sensation. The Buddha still experienced pleasurable, painful and neutral feelings. Feelings are inherently dukkha. What was removed was ignorance in relation to them.

And with the removal of ignorance, there is simultaneously the removal of suffering. What is left is meaningless. The fact that it's meaningless is why he won't return.

[AlexBrains92]

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.

“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling does not lie behind this.

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.

“This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling.”
(SN 36.6)

This is only an aftershock
Goodnight

[Ceisiwr]

Which means he didn't suffer as the 2nd dart is itself the suffering. The first dart is simply mere sensation.

If it weren’t painful it would just be a meaningless sensation. The Buddha still experienced pleasurable, painful and neutral feelings. Feelings are inherently dukkha. What was removed was ignorance in relation to them.

And with the removal of ignorance, there is simultaneously the removal of suffering. What is left is meaningless. The fact that it's meaningless is why he won't return.

With the cessation of ignorance there is Nibbana with fuel remaining. 99.99999% of dukkha has ceased completely. What’s left is winding down.

At “physical” death there is final Nibbana, or Nibbana without fuel remaining (parinibbāna). 100% of dukkha ceases without remainder.

[Ceisiwr]

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.

“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling does not lie behind this.

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.”
(SN 36.6)

This is only an aftershock
Goodnight

Once again, first dart but not the second.

[AlexBrains92]

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.

“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling does not lie behind this.

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.”
(SN 36.6)

This is only an aftershock
Goodnight

Once again, first dart but not the second.

"Detached from suffering" means nothing to you?

(I need to sleeeeeep!)

[seeker242]

If it weren’t painful it would just be a meaningless sensation. The Buddha still experienced pleasurable, painful and neutral feelings. Feelings are inherently dukkha. What was removed was ignorance in relation to them.

And with the removal of ignorance, there is simultaneously the removal of suffering. What is left is meaningless. The fact that it's meaningless is why he won't return.

With the cessation of ignorance there is Nibbana with fuel remaining. 99.99999% of dukkha has ceased completely. What’s left is winding down.

At “physical” death there is final Nibbana, or Nibbana without fuel remaining (parinibbāna). 100% of dukkha ceases without remainder.

I'm fully aware of that. "fuel remaining" does not continue to cause suffering, which is why experiencing whatever sensation, (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) is unperturbing.

[Pondera]

The Buddha suffered. Many of you are not well read.

"Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, [19] that his body is more comfortable.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .vaji.html

[WindDancer]

“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.

“Being contacted by that same painful feeling, he harbours no aversion towards it. Since he harbours no aversion towards painful feeling, the underlying tendency to aversion towards painful feeling does not lie behind this. Being contacted by painful feeling, he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure. For what reason? Because the instructed noble disciple knows of an escape from painful feeling other than sensual pleasure. Since he does not seek delight in sensual pleasure, the underlying tendency to lust for pleasant feeling does not lie behind this. He understands as it really is the origin and the passing away, the gratification, the danger, and the escape in the case of these feelings. Since he understands these things, the underlying tendency to ignorance in regard to neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling does not lie behind this.

“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached. If he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. This, bhikkhus, is called a noble disciple who is detached from birth, aging, and death; who is detached from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; who is detached from suffering, I say.

“This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the instructed noble disciple and the uninstructed worldling.”
(SN 36.6)

This is only an aftershock
Goodnight

Thank you for this quote. Because of chronic illness, I experience a high level of physical pain most days. This quote points me toward a solution I can use in everyday life.

With much appreciation,

WindDancer

[chownah]

“"There are these three forms of dukkha, my friend: the dukkha of pain, the dukkha of fabrication, the dukkha of change. These are the three forms of dukkha."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

You don't say why you present this....I will assume that you are suggesting that this shows that either dukkha is defined to be pain or that pain is defined to be dukkha. I think that dukkha can not be said to be defined as being pain in that dukkha encompasses much more than just pain so pain is not an adequate definition.....I also can't see how "the dukkha of pain" is defining pain as being dukkha....I think the most it says is that sometimes there is some pain which is dukkha.
An example of how "the dukkha of pain" is not defining pain as being dukkha: take the phrase "the joy of childbirth"....if we interpret this to mean that childbirth is joy we would be right some of the time and be wrong some of the time.....many parents are not joyous about having born a child....similarly...."the dukkha of pain" is showing that sometimes some pain is dukkha for some people and THAT is "the dukkha of pain" whereas other people might feel a pain would not be dukkha (in that those people would have cut off craving, severed the fetters (to existence) and, through the full penetration of conceit, have made an end of suffering...like the sutta says.
chownah

The sutta quite clearly defines physical pain as dukkha. Part of 3 forms of dukkha.

No it doesn't for the reasons I have shown.....it clearly says that with pain there can be dukkha which it calls "the dukkha of pain"......and for most people this is the important message since for most people whatever pain they have it results in dukkha.....I think the lesson the buddha is imparting with this is meant for people still suffering from their pains and of course those people who have already figured some stuff out and who don't suffer from their pains do not need this teaching.

Another example: "The fear of flying" and "the joy of flying"....sometimes there is fear which arises when someone flies in an airplane....but then again sometimes there is joy.....either statement is only applicable some of the time.

chownah
edit: Just found this:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
An excerpt:

And what is the escape from feelings? The subduing of desire-passion for feelings, the abandoning of desire-passion for feelings: That is the escape from feelings.

There you have it.....the escape from feelings....and surely pain is a feeling so this is the escape from pain I guess....don't know for sure....
chownah