Origin of the phrase "Life is Suffering"

[khlawng]

it is all about the state of the mind.
never consistent and constant.
always changing and in a flux.
never settled down for long.
even when external factors provide happiness,
they don't last.
it is all about the endless search for the elusive happiness in this world,
it only leads to frustration and vexation.
ultimately leading to sickness, old-age and death.
this entire and perpatual cycle of anicca is dukkha.
but you cannot explain "Life is suffering" to the lay person who has little or no mental training.
so for the lay and untrained person, we simply say "there are unsatisfactoriness or stress in life".
it is more palatable.
but for those who are on the path and have awaken,
the statement, "Life is suffering" makes a lot of sense.

[Virgo]

Insight:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Kevin

[Virgo]

... Just as, monks, even a little bit of urine is of bad odour ... a little bit of sweat ... blood is of bad odour, I do not praise even a little bit of becoming, not even for a finger-snap.

I think you get the gist. Life sucks, since whatever pleasure and enjoyment one can experience in life, is only the prelude to more suffering. The greater the pleasure, the greater is the pain of losing it or of not getting it again.

Thank you, sir.

Kevin

[Bakmoon]

Just to be clear here, I don't have any problem with the phrase life is suffering when it is understood correctly. I just think it is a bad slogan to use because a person who doesn't already understand Buddhism will probably misunderstand it and could reject all of Buddhism without even looking into it because of this misunderstanding. I personally have talked with quite a few people like that.

In any case, I'm more interested in seeing where this catchphrase got started more than whether or not it is accurate.

[mikenz66]

Just to be clear here, I don't have any problem with the phrase life is suffering when it is understood correctly. I just think it is a bad slogan to use because a person who doesn't already understand Buddhism will probably misunderstand it and could reject all of Buddhism
without even looking into it because of this misunderstanding. I personally have talked with quite a few people like that.

Hmm, yes, if you're talking about "selling" Buddhism, then, yes, it's not a good slogan, even though the meaning, if not the statement itself, is straight out of the (deeper) suttas. The Buddha was a master at instructing at a level that was suitable for his listeners. As we see in the suttas, he didn't start with the noble truths, so ignoring them altogether is probably the best approach in the "sales" area, rather than teaching them in watered down form ("it just means you shouldn't get too attached to things")...

In any case, I'm more interested in seeing where this catchphrase got started more than whether or not it is accurate.

Mike

[pegembara]

In the Book of Ones it says:

320. “Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, appamattakopi gūtho duggandho hoti; evamevaṃ kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, appamattakampi bhavaṃ na vaṇṇemi, antamaso accharāsaṅghātamattampi.”

321. “Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, appamattakampi muttaṃ duggandhaṃ hoti.. Appamattakopi kheḷo duggandho hoti.. Appamattakopi pubbo duggandho hoti.. Appamattakampi lohitaṃ duggandhaṃ hoti; evamevaṃ kho ahaṃ, bhikkhave, appamattakampi bhavaṃ na vaṇṇemi, antamaso accharāsaṅghātamattampi.”

Just as, monks, even a little bit of excrement is of bad odour, I do not praise even a little bit of becoming, not even for a finger-snap.

Just as, monks, even a little bit of urine is of bad odour ... a little bit of sweat ... blood is of bad odour, I do not praise even a little bit of becoming, not even for a finger-snap.

I think you get the gist. Life sucks, since whatever pleasure and enjoyment one can experience in life, is only the prelude to more suffering. The greater the pleasure, the greater is the pain of losing it or of not getting it again.

Pretty much the same message here:

"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.

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

Then there is this:

"With regard to those brahmans & contemplatives who are of the view, of the opinion, that 'All is pleasing to me': That view of theirs is close to being impassioned, close to bondage, close to delighting, close to holding, close to clinging. With regard to those brahmans & contemplatives who are of the view, of the opinion, that 'All is not pleasing to me': That view of theirs is close to not being impassioned, close to non-bondage, close to not-delighting, close to not-holding, close to not-clinging."

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

When this was said, Ven. Udayin said to Ven. Sariputta, "But what is the pleasure here, my friend, where there is nothing felt?"
"Just that is the pleasure here, my friend: where there is nothing felt.

Nibbana Sutta

Life sucks if there is any clinging. Sukha is dukkha in disguise. In short the five aggregates of clinging is dukkha.

[Kusala]

I just wondered when did this phrase first get used. It turns up a lot in misconceptions about Buddhism, but I have no idea where it originally came from. I don't think it would be from a translation as there really isn't any phrase that could be translated like that. I would guess it's probably from one of those really inaccurate 19th century books about Buddhism but I don't have any particulars in mind.

Check out Life Isn't Just Suffering http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... eisnt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

"When Theravada - the only form of Buddhism to take on Christianity when Europe colonized Asia - was looking for ways to head off what it saw as the missionary menace, Buddhists who had received their education from the missionaries assumed that the question was valid and pressed the first noble truth into service as a refutation of the Christian God: look at how miserable life is, they said, and it's hard to accept God's verdict on his handiwork..."

[Dhammanando]

In any case, I'm more interested in seeing where this catchphrase got started more than whether or not it is accurate.

The statement is so common in the autobiographies, memoirs and travelogues of 19th century missionaries and colonial servants in Ceylon, Burma, French Indo-China, etc., that I suspect they were doing no more than repeating explanations given to them by the Buddhists themselves. In that case there would be no particular interest in ascertaining who repeated it first.

But as for the scholars who voiced such an understanding, one fairly early instance (though certainly not the earliest) would be the sanskritist Monier-Williams:

• What, then, was the light that broke upon the Buddha? What was this enlightenment which has been so much written about and extolled? All that he claimed to have discovered was the origin of suffering and the remedy of suffering. All the light of knowledge to which he attained came to this:—that suffering arises from indulging desires, especially the desire for continuity of life; that suffering is inseparable from life; that all life is suffering; and that suffering is to be got rid of by the suppression of desires, and by the extinction of personal existence.
  
  Here, then, is the first great contrast. When the Buddha said to his converts, 'Come (ehi), be my disciple,' he bade them expect to get rid of suffering, he told them to stamp out suffering by stamping out desires (see pp. 43, 44). When the Christ said to His disciples, 'Come, follow Me,' He bade them expect suffering. He told them to glory in their sufferings—nay, to expect the perfection of their characters through suffering.
  
  It is certainly noteworthy that both Christianity and Buddhism agree in asserting that all creation groaneth and travaileth in pain, in suffering, in tribulation. But mark the vast, the vital distinction in the teaching of each. The one taught men to be patient under affliction, and to aim at the glorification of the suffering body, the other taught men to be intolerant of affliction, and to aim at the utter annihilation of the suffering body.
  
  Sir Monier Monier-Williams, Buddhism, In its Connexion with Brahmanism and Hinduism, and in Its Contrast with Christianity
  
  http://www.gutenberg.org/files/47214/47214-8.txt

[Jetavan]

....
Check out Life Isn't Just Suffering http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... eisnt.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
....

From the article:

So the first noble truth, simply put, is that clinging is suffering.

Yeah, I agree, but how many Buddhist or Buddhism scholar authors write "Clinging is suffering", instead of some variation of "Life is suffering", as her or his short summary of the First Noble Truth?

[freedom]

Clinging is one of the origins (causes) of suffering (Dependent Origination). Short form of the first noble truth: "the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering" SN56.11

[Ahern = Element]

It is stated in the suttas that:

Sabbe sankhara dukkha
All conditioned things are suffering.

E.g. Dhammapada 278.

"Life is unsatisfactory (apart from nibbana...)"

Hi Mike. Isn't the Buddhist way of life called the 'Holy Life' or the 'Art of Living'? If so, is not this way of life not suffering? Maybe conditioned things may not be able to bring lasting happiness (are unsatisfactory) but do not the terms 'Holy Life' or 'Art of Living' suggest there is much more to life than just conditioned things and conditioned happiness? Thanks.

[mikenz66]

Hi Mike. Isn't the Buddhist way of life called the 'Holy Life' or the 'Art of Living'? If so, is not this way of life not suffering.

The Holy Life is lived to put an end to suffering. It's not the end in itself.

"Brahman, this holy life doesn't have as its reward gain, offerings, & fame, doesn't have as its reward consummation of virtue, doesn't have as its reward consummation of concentration, doesn't have as its reward knowledge & vision, but the unprovoked awareness-release: That is the purpose of this holy life, that is its heartwood, that its final end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Mike

[Ahern = Element]

The Holy Life is lived to put an end to suffering. It's not the end in itself.

"Brahman, this holy life doesn't have as its reward gain, offerings, & fame, doesn't have as its reward consummation of virtue, doesn't have as its reward consummation of concentration, doesn't have as its reward knowledge & vision, but the unprovoked awareness-release: That is the purpose of this holy life, that is its heartwood, that its final end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Thanks for clearing that up Mike. Thanks for your introducing the 'Holy Life' into this topic about the nature of 'Life'. It was insightful of you to bring a different perspective to the same old hum drum topic of 'Life is Suffering'. The scripture you quoted states: "the unprovoked awareness-release: That is...this holy life['s]...final end" and you personally explained: "The Holy Life is lived to put an end to suffering. It's not the end in itself". So, you seem to be saying living the Holy Life does not include unprovoked awareness-release and the end to suffering. You seem to be saying Nirvana is not part of the Holy Life. Its like a journey to a city. The road to a city is not the city itself. Its like the Buddha was not living the Holy Life after his awakening (but only before). Or did the Buddha's Nirvana only happen after he died at 80 years old? Oh, I think I understand now. So you seem to be saying the Holy Life is also suffering. Ah, OK. That makes everything so clear, I think. The Holy Life is unsatisfactory. OK. I think I understand now. The 8 fold path is unsatisfactory or suffering. But we use the unsatisfactory to reach the satisfactory and the satisfactory occurs not during life but after life, i.e., at death. Thanks for your insightful contribution. If I keep practising this unsatisfactory 8 fold path, I will cross my fingers, with unshakeable faith, that it will all work out after I die. Thanks for that. Finally, it has all been cleared up for me.

[Kalama]

Good choice of subject, Bakmoon,

I had that in mind too for quite some time.

It is the wordling, the person, pocessed of the delusion this I am, this is mine, this I want etc.... the Khandha attachment , its conditioning, for which the phrase is only valid and therefore by omission misleading. That is and has been confusing for some Buddhists not to talk about followers of other religions, e.g. the Vatican , claiming Buddhism is a pessimistic world view.
For heaven's sake , aren't there no living (have there not been convincing examples of ) Noble Ones ?
And those among us ( not so rare as often supposed) who experienced at least one extraordinary moment ( 'peak' ) in their lifes , will certainly not neglect that there is the possibility of salvation , cessation of suffering , Nibbana , happiness .

Kalama

[dhammapal]

Hi Bakmoon,
The following quote suggests that it originated from Buddhists who received their education from Christian missionaries:

According to Genesis, this was the first question that occurred to God after he had finished his creation: had he done a good job? He then looked at the world and saw that it was good. Ever since then, people in the West have sided with or against God on his answer, but in doing so they have affirmed that the question was worth asking to begin with. When Theravada — the only form of Buddhism to take on Christianity when Europe colonized Asia — was looking for ways to head off what it saw as the missionary menace, Buddhists who had received their education from the missionaries assumed that the question was valid and pressed the first noble truth into service as a refutation of the Christian God: look at how miserable life is, they said, and it's hard to accept God's verdict on his handiwork.

This debating strategy may have scored a few points at the time, and it's easy to find Buddhist apologists who — still living in the colonial past — keep trying to score the same points. The real issue, though, is whether the Buddha intended his first noble truth to answer God's question in the first place and — more importantly — whether we're getting the most out of the first noble truth if we see it in that light.
From: Life Isn't Just Suffering by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

With metta / dhammapal.