Origin of the phrase "Life is Suffering"

[Bakmoon]

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.

[mikenz66]

It is stated in the suttas that:

Sabbe sankhara dukkha
All conditioned things are suffering.

E.g. Dhammapada 278.
Suffering is really too strong a term for some aspects of dukkha, which can range from the mildly annoying to the excruciatingly painful, but the verse certainly implies that:
"Life is unsatisfactory (apart from nibbana...)"


Mike

[Jason]

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.

I'm not entirely sure where the Pali phrase originates, but here's my take on it from a previous discussion:

• It's often said that Buddhism is a pessimistic religion in that it teaches life is nothing but suffering (i.e., suffering is the only true reality) and denies any kind of happiness or joy. While a common enough criticism, I think it's not only unfair but completely untrue.
  
  For starters, when people say that Buddhism teaches 'life is suffering,' this is mostly likely referring to a misunderstanding of the Pali phrase, "Sabbe pi dukkham" (All is dukkha).
  
  The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves.
  
  In SN 35.23, the Buddha defines 'the all' (sabbam) as the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavours, body and tactile sensations and intellect and ideas. According to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as 'that which is hard to bear.'
  
  Moreover, in SN 35.24, the Buddha defines 'the all' as a phenomenon to be abandoned [via the abandonment of greed/passion (raga) in regard to the six sense media]. Without the presence of greed/passion in regard to the six sense-media, they are no longer 'difficult to bear.' This is a far cry from the blanket statement 'life is suffering.'
  
  As for the claim that Buddhism denies happiness, the suttas are full of references to various forms of bliss, joy, pleasure, rapture, etc., especially in relation to various states of meditative absorption (jhana).
  
  In AN 5.28, for example, the pleasure (sukha) and rapture (piti) experienced in first jhana is said to be "born from withdrawal [from the hindrances], accompanied by directed thought and evaluation." In the second jhana, a more refined form of pleasure and rapture is said to be "born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought and evaluation."
  
  Then there's the "pleasant abiding" of the third jhana where one "permeates and pervades, suffuses and fills this very body with the pleasure divested of rapture, so that there is nothing of his entire body unpervaded with pleasure divested of rapture," and the fourth where one sits "permeating the body with a pure, bright awareness, so that there is nothing of his entire body unpervaded by pure, bright awareness."
  
  Additionally, in AN 4.62, there's mention of "four kinds of bliss" that can be attained by a householder "partaking of sensuality" (i.e., indulging in a non-contemplative lifestyle): the bliss of having, the bliss of wealth, the bliss of debtlessness and the bliss of blamelessness.
  
  And of course, there's nibbana, "the highest bliss" (Dhp 204).
  
  Far from being a joyless path, Buddhism embraces pleasure and happiness. But the type of pleasure the Buddha advocates is one that doesn't come at the expense of, or place any burdens upon, others.

[SarathW]

I prefer the word "Stress" used by Ven. Thanissaro.
What I find is when you practice you will get the real meaning of the word "Dukkha"
I think the idea of Dukkha was exist before Buddha's time.
However Buddha is the one who discover the end of total suffering.


===================================

Dukkha: 1 'pain', painful feeling, which may be bodily and mental see: vedanā

2 'Suffering', 'ill'. As the first of the Four Noble Truths see: sacca and the second of the three characteristics of existence see: ti-lakkhana the term dukkha is not limited to painful experience as under 1, but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering, and this includes also pleasurable experience. Hence 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings, if not for stylistic reasons. Hence the first truth does not deny the existence of pleasurable experience, as is sometimes wrongly assumed. This is illustrated by the following texts:

;Seeking satisfaction in the world, Bhikkhus, I had pursued my way. That satisfaction in the world I found. In so far as satisfaction existed in the world, I have well perceived it by understanding. Seeking for misery in the world, Bhikkhus, I had pursued my way. That misery in the world I found. In so far as misery existed in the world, I have well perceived it by understanding. Seeking for the escape from the world, Bhikkhus, I had pursued my way. That escape from the world I found. In so far as an escape from the world existed, I have well perceived it by understanding; A. 111, 101.

;If there were no satisfaction to be found in the world, beings would not be attached to the world. If there were no misery to be found in the world, beings would not be repelled by the world. If there were no escape from the world, beings could not escape therefrom; A. 111, 102.

See dukkhatā For texts on the Truth of Suffering, see W. of B. and 'path'.



See The Three Basic Facts of Existence, II. Suffering WHEEL 191/193


http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... dic3_d.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Goofaholix]

It is stated in the suttas that:

Sabbe sankhara dukkha
All conditioned things are suffering.

E.g. Dhammapada 278.
Suffering is really too strong a term for some aspects of dukkha, which can range from the mildly annoying to the excruciatingly painful, but the verse certainly implies that:
"Life is unsatisfactory (apart from nibbana...)"

I think the OP wants to know is when did "All conditioned things" first get translated as "Life".

[Jetavan]

The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves.

The phrase "five clinging-aggregates are dukkha", though, seems to mean that the aggregates themselves are dukkha: "aggregates" is the only noun in the phrase, and "clinging" simply describes a particular quality of those aggregates.

If only the "clinging" part of the "five clinging-aggregates are dukkha" phrase were meant to defined as dukkha, then shouldn't the phrase be written something like "the five ways of clinging to the five aggregates are dukkha"?

[mikenz66]

It is stated in the suttas that:

Sabbe sankhara dukkha
All conditioned things are suffering.

E.g. Dhammapada 278.
Suffering is really too strong a term for some aspects of dukkha, which can range from the mildly annoying to the excruciatingly painful, but the verse certainly implies that:
"Life is unsatisfactory (apart from nibbana...)"

I think the OP wants to know is when did "All conditioned things" first get translated as "Life".

2500 years ago?


Mike

[Goofaholix]

2500 years ago?

I doubt it. Using the word "Life" here I think adds a fatalistic quality.

[mikenz66]

OK, can you spell out the difference between "all conditioned things", "life", and "samsara", all of which seem to me to be unsatisfactory according to the Suttas.


Mike

[Goofaholix]

OK, can you spell out the difference between "all conditioned things", "life", and "samsara", all of which seem to me to be unsatisfactory according to the Suttas.

If "life" is suffering then the solution is death, it suggests there is no escape from suffering while still alive.

If "all conditioned things" are suffering, then the solution is presumably that which is unconditioned.

Whether or not there is a technical difference isn't the point, the point is what is understood by someone first hearing this message.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

A likely source for the translation of dukkha as suffering is passages like this in the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta:

Jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, maraṇampi dukkhaṃ, sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsāpi dukkhā, appiyehi sampayogopi dukkho, piyehi vippayogopi dukkho, yampicchaṃ na labhati tampi dukkhaṃ, saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

And what is suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, death is suffering, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair are suffering, association with the unloved is suffering, separation from the loved is suffering, not getting what one wishes is suffering, in brief, the five aggregates of grasping are suffering.

The translation of dukkha as suffering, at least in this context is clearly correct.

When babies are born, the first thing they do is cry, and no one can deny that getting old and dying are suffering in the sense of being oppressive and disliked. When referring to the five aggregates as suffering, it is perhaps better to use another term, since pleasure, delight, happiness and other positive feelings are also included in the five aggregates. Pleasure and so forth are dukkha, not because they are painful and difficult to bear, but because they are oppressive due to being insatiable, unstable, and difficult to obtain.

[freedom]

If "life" is suffering then the solution is death, it suggests there is no escape from suffering while still alive.

Death is not the solution for suffering because death is the beginning of another life/suffering (samsara). However, suffering is what drives us to find the escape from it. Thanks to life, we have the opportunity to learn the teaching of the Buddha, so we can practice and be able to escape from suffering.

[Anagarika]

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.

You make a very good point. Many in the west equate Buddhism with being centered on suffering; some have said they were attracted to Buddhism because of its focus on suffering.

But, as we know, the Buddha's message was one that was very positive, very optimistic, in that with the acknowledgement of suffering and its origins, there is the truth of the liberation of suffering. Such a positive message...the restatement of the original quote in the OP might be "life has the potential for freedom from stress and suffering." Now, that is a message.

[kirk5a]

This passage is pretty close to making a statement about "life", especially if "bhava" is translated as "existence" rather than "becoming" (which in my opinion is peculiar uasge of that word and not readily meaningful in context)

All levels of becoming,
anywhere,
in any way,
are inconstant, stressful, subject to change.

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

Bhava [cp. Sk. bhava, as philosophical term late, but as N. of a deity Vedic; of bhū, see bhavati] "becoming," (form of) rebirth, (state of) existence, a "life."

http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/p ... :3508.pali

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

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.