Is suffering illusion?

[DarwidHalim]

Dear members,

I would like to ask your opinion about suffering. Is suffering real or illusion?

If I quote from [Samyutta Nikaya LVI, 11]

The First Noble Truth with its three aspects is: "There is suffering, dukkha. Dukkha should be understood. Dukkha has been understood."

My question is:
a) There is (REAL) suffering, (REAL) dukkha.
b) There is (ILLUTION) suffering, (ILLUTION) dukkha.

WHich one is correct according to you?

I would like to introduce you this famous Chinese lesson.

"An old Chinese farmer loses his best horse one day. His neighbors come over to express their regrets, to which the farmer replies, "Good or bad, ... how do I know?"

The next day the prized horse returns bringing with it 6 other wild horses. His neighbors come over to speak of what good fortune has fallen to him. The farmer responds, "Good or bad, ... how do I know?"

The following day the farmer's son begins training the wild horses, but is thrown off and breaks his leg. Again the neighbors come to bemoan what they feel is the farmer's bad luck. He answers, "Good or bad, ... how do I know?"

On the rising of the next sun, army officers come by looking for young recruits to take off to war, but because the son's leg is broken, they leave him with his father. The neighbors come over to exclaim how well everything has turned out, to which the old farmer says again, "Good or bad, ... how do I know?"
"
As from this story tell us, from any phenomena, we cannot say it is good or bad. We cannot tell it is suffering or happiness. At least this is what I have learned from that story.

When compare it with the first noble truth: There is suffering, dukkha.

But from that story, suffering can arise and cannot arise, so "there is suffering, dukkha" is not alwayt true. It depends on your mindset, attitude, attachment, etc.

If something can arise and cannot arise, do you say it as real or illusion?

When you see something as real, how does it help you to get rif of something you don't like it? Do you reject it like an enemy?

When you see something as illusion, how does it help you to get rif of something you don't like it? Do you accept it as what it is because since day 1 you know it is not a suffering, but your reaction?

[David2]

Dukkha is real, but it is based on illusion.

[acinteyyo]

As from this story tell us, from any phenomena, we cannot say it is good or bad. We cannot tell it is suffering or happiness. At least this is what I have learned from that story.
When compare it with the first noble truth: There is suffering, dukkha.
But from that story, suffering can arise and cannot arise, so "there is suffering, dukkha" is not alwayt true.

Hi DarwidHalim,

you should make yourself more familiar with the concept of dukkha. It seems you think dukkha can be simply considered what is "bad" in contrast to what is "good". But it is not as simple as this.
What is considerd "good" as well as "bad" in the world is subject to change and therefore unsatisfactory (dukkha).

'Three feelings have been taught by the Blessed One: pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. But the Blessed One has also said that whatever is felt is within suffering.'

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Ben]

Greetings acinteyyo,

you should make yourself more familiar with the concept of dukkha. It seems you think dukkha can be simply considered what is "bad" in contrast to what is "good". But it is not as simple as this.
What is considerd "good" as well as "bad" in the world is subject to change and therefore unsatisfactory (dukkha).

'Three feelings have been taught by the Blessed One: pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. But the Blessed One has also said that whatever is felt is within suffering.'

best wishes, acinteyyo

Its good to see you here again, my friend.
One quibble with the above, it appears that you are suggesting that vedana is dukkha. While all vedana are dukkha, dukkha is wider than just vedana. All phenomenology, bar nibbana, are dukkha.
with metta

Ben

[acinteyyo]

Hi Ben,
nice to see you too

... all vedana are dukkha, dukkha is wider than just vedana. All phenomenology, bar nibbana, are dukkha.

Certainly Ben. I was just refering to the "Good... bad, how do I know"-thing of the chinese story DarwidHalim mentioned.

[daverupa]

"An old Chinese farmer...

This is a Taoist story designed to convey Taoist principles, and is therefore inadequate for conveying any Dhamma perspective.

[Ben]

Hi Ben,
nice to see you too

... all vedana are dukkha, dukkha is wider than just vedana. All phenomenology, bar nibbana, are dukkha.

Certainly Ben. I was just refering to the "Good... bad, how do I know"-thing of the chinese story DarwidHalim mentioned.

No problem, friend!

[Dan74]

Suffering is empty of any inherent essence. It is really a mass of mental habit built upon ignorance that can be seen through and dissolved. In that sense it is an illusion or a misunderstanding of a sort.

Like Ajahn Brahm has said even in the hells, the door out is always open.

[santa100]

It depends on the frame of reference. To the Buddha or any enlightened one who has reached pari-nibbana, obviously dukkha no longer holds. But to us mortals, who are still struggling to swim across the ocean of suffering, then sure, dukkha is still very real. Thank you DarwidHalim for the great lesson. And here's another good one straight from Matrix, the movie. The scene is when Neo had just been unplugged from the Matrix and undergoing training by the great Morpheus. They trained inside a virtual simulation and Neo was doing his first "long jump" attempt by jumping from one building to another. The first attempt failed and Neo got a big nasty fall down to the ground (virtual ground that is). When they got out of the simulation, Neo was all tired and stuff, wiping blood from his mouth and said to Morpheus: "You said it wasn't real". And Morpheus replied: "Well, your mind makes it real". So, is Morpheus' suffering real or not real? Well, the only way to know is to see if there's still blood in his mouth...

[chownah]

"An old Chinese farmer...

This is a Taoist story designed to convey Taoist principles, and is therefore inadequate for conveying any Dhamma perspective.

Equanimity, dispassion, non-proliferation....all good Theravada lessons to be learned. The farmer did not cling to fabricated outcome so the farmer did not suffer. A taoaist might say the farmer is watching the muddy water waiting for it to settle and be clear.
chownah

[whynotme]

Suffering is empty of any inherent essence. It is really a mass of mental habit built upon ignorance that can be seen through and dissolved. In that sense it is an illusion or a misunderstanding of a sort.

Like Ajahn Brahm has said even in the hells, the door out is always open.

Dear Dan,

Could you say more about it, the door in hell is always open?

Thanks

[Dan74]

Check out this page, whynotme:

http://www.understandwisdom.com/ajahn-b ... e-of-mind/

In my own words, we perpetuate our own suffering ("Mind is the forerunner of all things"). Once we see that there is a choice, that we don't have to go there, suffering ends. We walk out the door. We've all done it with some things, just not all things.

[pegembara]

A man realise he had a winning lottery number but unfortunately for him, he was too late and was unable to claim "his" prize of a million dollars. He would obviously be very upset thinking he had lost what was "his" for the taking. Would he be right in thinking the money was "his" although he was too late to claim it? The money couldn't have been his in the first place or he would have won it! If it wasn't his, he had no right to be upset.

His illusion/delusion that the winnings was "his" [claiming ownership] caused his suffering.

It is delusion/illusion of ownership (my property, body, family etc etc) that creates dukkha.

Suffering has a cause, that is the delusion of taking things to be me, mine and myself.

[Dan74]

And perhaps the delusion that there is a lottery to be won...

[octathlon]

Dear members,
I would like to ask your opinion about suffering. Is suffering real or illusion?

It's very real. Obviously.