Dukkha

[Pathless]

In the Christ, my Bodhisattva thread, Vajradhara embedded a link to a discussion of dukkha under the tag of "stress." Since stress is something that stresses me out and something I try to resolve, I was intrigued. A cursory peak at the link opened my eyes to the following paragraph and got me thinking:

No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.​

I've emphasized a few words and sentences in the paragraph that are triggering my thoughts here. It seems to me that the emphasized text is not only about a vague, ultimately untranslatable concept called "Dukkha" (Dookie?? Pardon my irreverence--but irreverence is a profound Buddhist value, no?), but about the pardox of existence, the paradox of Samsara/Nirvana.

Much idealistic, hazy, wishy-washy, otherworldly musing is put into a concept of "Nirvana" that is supposedly beyond all conceptualization. A Nirvana that is a cessation of suffering, one that is not concrete, neither here nor there.

As an elementary concept, one that provides "the other shore" and some hope of an abstract, heavenly peace freed from the sometimes seemingly random sufferings and tribulations of our shared world of Maya, this wishy-washy concept of Nirvana is a useful tool. But the deeper one falls into the stony and thorny depths of being, the clearer it seems to become that there is no escape! To which we can respond: "Dammit!!! I'm tired of becoming! I'm so sick of forms and illusion! Give me peace!!" and resume our counter-current struggle upstream for Nirvana and/or Heaven. Yet we can also respond with the letting go that is profound, the release:

Ahhhhhh. Damn. I'm still stuck here. Well. What to do? Wow, this hurts. And damn these briars and barbed wires are amazing! How did this get here, embedded in my temple? Ouch!!! ​

I'm sick of struggling. Whatever. This hurts, but look at the sun there. Wow!​

And in so doing, in focusing on the beauty and miracles of unconditioned existence all around us, rather than the problems and the pain and the cracks in the concrete that need to be fixed, we wake up, at least for a moment. We glimpse the Root, or a small fractal of the root--an image of it. And enamored of its beauty, we become entranced, devoting our lives to seeking it out, to living within it, finding it everwhere, floating in its abundance. We begin to understand that the fractal is everywhere we look, is bigger and better and always more amazing than we had thought before:

it's always deeper, subtler, and more satisfactory than that.​

Existence, as we glimpse more and more truth and become established in our own truth, becomes more beautiful in its ever-present becoming and refinement. Why focus on Dukkha? Why suffering? Sure, it's there. We all know that, no problem. Yet so is pleasure. Why not focus on the pleasure and the beauty? Would Buddhism cease to be Buddhism if it got rid of some of its stoic stoniness and instead cashed in some of the cosmic belly-laughs of the Buddha? Naw, I don't think so. It would just be a shifting of focus. For the better? Not necessarily. It is all vague and subjective after all.

Not trying to carve anything in stone here or make new definitions. Just offering my perspective.

As a pluralist and joyful heretic, as a resident anarchist, I leave you with a poetic translation of Kabir, the ineffable Indian seer:

Friend, hope for truth while you are alive.​

Jump into experience while you are alive! ​

What you call "salvation" belongs to the time before death.​

If you don't break your ropes while you're alive, do you think ghosts will do it after?​

 

[Snoopy]

How about "the human condition"...?

...Who am I?

...What is this?

...Why?

Do we need to examine "suffering" to experience real joy, from liberation?

(Obviously if I knew the "answers" I'd be a rich man, or have a far groovier beard)

s.

 

[Pathless]

Examine it, sure. Get stuck on it, though, and you're toast!

 

[Francis king]

...I don't think duhkha shouldn't be viewed in isolation... it is only one truth, and we need to consider the other four....

...yes, its true all suffer, but as well as this, its important to remember that although 1:duhkha (misery or misfortune) exists, most of ur misery is due to trsna, or :2 attachment, it's never permanent, it will end, 3: and if u follow the noble eightfold path then ur not as likely to suffer in future...4..

examining ur woes and miseries is no good if u approach them from the angle of a poor defenseless victim- the dhammapada says-

"...he beat me, he robbed me, he abused me: in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease..."

so, what consitutes suffering? in buddhism there are different types of "duhkha": there's the 3 poisons (anger, greed, delusion), the ten afflictions, (qualities such as jealousy, arrogance, duplicity, etc) and the five fetters(the things that hold u back, such as laziness, indecision, etc)...

now, instead of hating urself for these "sins", instead of beating urself up for transgressing some moral code of Buddha, the only reason u should try to rid urself of these things is because they will adversely affect ur experience of life and make u and/or other ppl miserable...

if u are going to examine these qualities u have to examine them from the perspective of an enlightened being, try to see as much of the other side of the coin as possible...

for me, we don't examine these concepts because without them we will not know joy, but we examine them so we can get rid of them, and then comes greater happiness...

I've said this b4 ere but... I translate samsara to be, sam, completetly, sa, own, ones own, ra, tastes/desires...

so the samsara we drown in is completely our own creation... sometimes the things we are attached to bring us nothing but misery, we grasp too tightly to things we should let go...

what happens then if nirvana, instead of being bliss or the cessation of all suffering, is really just "nir varna", no colour, perception without bias, a kind of clear seeing which isnt supernatural, just the way things are before we overlay them with our own issues... a clear reality, without worries, doubt, fear, hate, greed, etc, etc... ? wouldn't that be liberation...?

of course, we would still live, still experience some misfortunes, after all, we don't make 100% of our own misery- other ppl have a hand in things too, but we wouldn't let it affect us, we wouldn't grasp it, we could appreciate that the suffering comes from X, is a product of Y, can be fixed by Z, but we would be in a position to see things as they are, not how we think they are...

the way the doctrine is presented is often at fault, I think, and instead of seeing samsara and nirvana as absolutes, we should see them for what they are, concepts, products, and conventional truths...

...all things are relative...

 

[Pathless]

Very in-light-ening post, Francis. Thank you very much for the fresh perspective!

if u are going to examine these qualities u have to examine them from the perspective of an enlightened being, try to see as much of the other side of the coin as possible...

for me, we don't examine these concepts because without them we will not know joy, but we examine them so we can get rid of them, and then comes greater happiness...

I've said this b4 ere but... I translate samsara to be, sam, completetly, sa, own, ones own, ra, tastes/desires...

so the samsara we drown in is completely our own creation... sometimes the things we are attached to bring us nothing but misery, we grasp too tightly to things we should let go...

what happens then if nirvana, instead of being bliss or the cessation of all suffering, is really just "nir varna", no colour, perception without bias, a kind of clear seeing which isnt supernatural, just the way things are before we overlay them with our own issues... a clear reality, without worries, doubt, fear, hate, greed, etc, etc... ? wouldn't that be liberation...?

of course, we would still live, still experience some misfortunes, after all, we don't make 100% of our own misery- other ppl have a hand in things too, but we wouldn't let it affect us, we wouldn't grasp it, we could appreciate that the suffering comes from X, is a product of Y, can be fixed by Z, but we would be in a position to see things as they are, not how we think they are...

the way the doctrine is presented is often at fault, I think, and instead of seeing samsara and nirvana as absolutes, we should see them for what they are, concepts, products, and conventional truths...

...all things are relative...

 

[Francis king]

when I said- we need to consider the other four, of course I meant 3..lol.. it wont let me edit, so...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Pathless,

thank you for the post.

I've emphasized a few words and sentences in the paragraph that are triggering my thoughts here. It seems to me that the emphasized text is not only about a vague, ultimately untranslatable concept called "Dukkha"

dukkha is not a vague concept, in my understanding of the Teachings. that the term requires more than one English word to express the depth of its meaning is not an indication that the concept being expressed is somehow untranslatabe.

on the contrary, the Buddha explicitly says that Dukkha should be known and understood to wit:

"'Dukkha should be known. The cause by which dukkha comes into play should be known. The diversity in dukkha should be known. The result of dukkha should be known. The cessation of dukkha should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of dukkha should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are dukkha; association with what is not loved is dukkha, separation from what is loved is dukkha, not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.

"And what is the cause by which dukkha comes into play? Craving is the cause by which dukkha comes into play.

"And what is the diversity in dukkha? There is major dukkha & minor, slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in dukkha.

"And what is the result of dukkha? There are some cases in which a person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that dukkha results either in bewilderment or in search. This is called the result of dukkha.

"And what is the cessation of dukkha? From the cessation of craving is the cessation of dukkha; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha.

"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns dukkha in this way, the cause by which dukkha comes into play in this way, the diversity of dukkha in this way, the result of dukkha in this way, the cessation of dukkha in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of dukkha."
— AN 6.63

(Dookie?? Pardon my irreverence--but irreverence is a profound Buddhist value, no?), but about the pardox of existence, the paradox of Samsara/Nirvana.

i'm unaware of any of the teachings which implore one to be irreverant.. in fact, most of the teachings state quite the opposite

Much idealistic, hazy, wishy-washy, otherworldly musing is put into a concept of "Nirvana" that is supposedly beyond all conceptualization. A Nirvana that is a cessation of suffering, one that is not concrete, neither here nor there.

Nirvana is the cessation of dukkha and happens, in a time/space sense, in the present.. i would agree that much thought has been put into the concept.

As an elementary concept, one that provides "the other shore" and some hope of an abstract, heavenly peace freed from the sometimes seemingly random sufferings and tribulations of our shared world of Maya, this wishy-washy concept of Nirvana is a useful tool.

Nirvana is not a 'heavenly' sort of existence in an other planar dimension, Nirvana is to be experienced by the wise in the present. moreover, i am unclear why you would characterize the cessation of dukkha and the completeing of the task "wishy-washy".

We glimpse the Root, or a small fractal of the root--an image of it.

are you referring to the root of dukkha? it seems as if you are making a reference to some sort of eternal aspect of reality in some manner.

Why focus on Dukkha?

because it is this rebirth that we have the experience of Dukkha with the opportunity and ability to put an end to it.. moreover, it is a common experience of sentient existence as Dukkha means much more than the simple term "suffering". in short, dukkha is the five clinging aggreggates and, as such, encompasses all the pleasurable and positive feelings and sensations as well.

Why suffering? Sure, it's there. We all know that, no problem. Yet so is pleasure. Why not focus on the pleasure and the beauty?

the term dukkha encompasses all of that.. anything that arises through the five clinging aggreggates.

It is all vague and subjective after all.

the Doctrine and Discipline is quite specific regarding many things though this often gets brushed aside in an attempt to remove what seems like unncessary or unpalatable teachings.

metta,

~v

 

[Snoopy]

i'm unaware of any of the teachings which implore one to be irreverant.. in fact, most of the teachings state quite the opposite

Hi,

I wonder if, looking at Pathless' "spiritual journey" (which includes zen), he is here referring to the playfulness to be found in zen, rather than the knockabout comedy which is notable in the teachings of the Buddha by their relative scarcity?

s.

 

[Pathless]

Hi,

I wonder if, looking at Pathless' "spiritual journey" (which includes zen), he is here referring to the playfulness to be found in zen, rather than the knockabout comedy which is notable in the teachings of the Buddha by their relative scarcity?

s.

Bingo.

As for the rest... I lose interest, my eyes glaze over, I feel like I am in a lecture hall.

Apologies for that.

Although I definitely do agree with this:

Nirvana is the cessation of dukkha and happens, in a time/space sense, in the present..
Nirvana is not a 'heavenly' sort of existence in an other planar dimension, Nirvana is to be experienced by the wise in the present.

I initiated this thread after pattimax and I went back and forth about Nirvana and Samsara in the Christ! My Boddhisatva (exclamation point mine) thread. What I was trying to communicate in that thread has been said very concisely and well by Vajradhara in the above quote. So thanks, Vajradhara.

Peace,
P