1st Noble Truth

[3bob]

I've quoted part of what I hear as an insightful text that I came across below; I think it relates to some of the problems in interpreting and understanding Buddhism; btw I'm not a Buddhist but I can appreciate parts of its teachings. (highlight and underline below by me)

------------------

 

"....The First Noble Truth is not a dismal metaphysical statement saying that everything is suffering. Notice that there is a difference between a metaphysical doctrine in which you are making a statement about The Absolute and a Noble Truth which is a reflection. A Noble Truth is a truth to reflect upon; it is not an absolute; it is not The Absolute. This is where Western people get very confused because they interpret this Noble Truth as a kind of metaphysical truth of Buddhism - but it was never meant to be that.

 

You can see that the First Noble Truth is not an absolute statement because of the Fourth Noble Truth, which is the way of non-suffering. You cannot have absolute suffering and then have a way out of it, can you? That doesn’t make sense. Yet some people will pick up on the First Noble Truth and say that the Buddha taught that everything is suffering..."

 

-----------------

Thus my pov about the Tibetan wheel of life where it shows a Buddha (or Buddha nature) in each of the realms - is that the Buddha (or Buddha nature) is not suffering there-in because of non-attachment through wisdom and compassion to such realms. Further then, escape 'so to speak' is really to Buddha nature and thus not necessarily or only outside the Wheel per-se, although outside of it's various states of conditioning.

Edited September 20, 2014 by 3bob

[allinone]

when you done with suffering1 then after that there is another waiting in the storehouse. Its circling, but its not the same circle next time.

 

absolute does not deny that it can't be improved.

[C T]

absolute does not deny that it can't be improved.

huh?

 

[allinone]

huh?

 

 

everything is suffering because everything can be improved, if there wouldn't be any need for improving then there would be no movement.

[3bob]

[C T]

When does a human brain deeply comprehends values it holds to be absolute? When it finally sees them from an unattached, selfless perspective.

 

As D. T. Suzuki explained, Asian languages had pointed towards suchness for countless centuries. The Japanese used sono-mama. The Chinese employed chih mo, or chih che shih. Much earlier, the Sanskrit term tatatha had become a core notion of Mahayana Buddhism. The word referred to the absolute buddha-nature of all things in the universe.

 

Of course, a word like suchness soon becomes wielded as though it were an abstract concept. Even so, its original "buddha nature" usage still points towards some kind of ultimate principle that human minds imagine must lie beyond all categorical distinctions. Hence, when used in this manner, suchness continued to suggest some basic reality residing behind and beyond the mere appearance of all things (and concepts) which are only temporary phenomena.

 

Gradually, a more explicit phrase entered common English usage: "seeing all things as they really are." Each word in this phrase conveys subtleties of meaning. Together, they point to the profound qualities of the insights in kensho and satori that realize the timeless, immanent, interrelated nature of all things.

 

Suzuki goes on to say, "I hold suchness to be the basis of all religions."

 

If suchness were the basis of all religious experience, then why doesn't everyone know what suchness means? The problem, as Suzuki noted, is that it must be experienced. Suchness defies a clear-cut definition. It gets lost when you present it as an idea. According to Suzuki, "Strictly speaking... any philosophy built on it will be castles in the sand." So, suchness begins beyond reach of ordinary discursive intellect. It is a profound experience of realization, not some thought you can conceive from the armchair.

 

Shunryu Suzuki had these profound words to say about selfless awareness: "Not to be attached to something is to be aware of its absolute value."

 

The above excerpt, taken from the book Zen Brain Reflections, presents the reader with an understanding of how suffering arise when selfless awareness gets overshadowed by attachment, which is both the simultaneous cause and effect of greed, hatred and ignorance, perpetuating (rebirthing) an unending cyclical process (what 3Bob calls the 'Wheel') conditioned by dualistic views that compound every facet of the unawakened life.

 

Experience never errs. Only your judgement errs by promising itself results which your experiments didn't produced. -- Leonardo Da Vinci

Edited September 20, 2014 by C T

[allinone]

whatever

i already know whatever is written is wrong, but its wrong not because its wrong, its wrong because nobody agrees with it.

if i wake up tomorrow i don't believe it either.

 

If i would agree then there wouldn't have been any improvement.

[allinone]

absolute does not deny that it can't be improved.

absolute does not deny that it can be improved.

[Silent Answers]

absolute does not deny that it can be improved.

Perhaps it would be simpler to say: Suffering is the darkness, from which life shines.

 

Although, that's taking the thread in a slightly different direction.

[allinone]

When does a human brain deeply comprehends values it holds to be absolute? When it finally sees them from an unattached, selfless perspective.

 

As D. T. Suzuki explained, Asian languages had pointed towards suchness for countless centuries. The Japanese used sono-mama. The Chinese employed chih mo, or chih che shih. Much earlier, the Sanskrit term tatatha had become a core notion of Mahayana Buddhism. The word referred to the absolute buddha-nature of all things in the universe.

 

Of course, a word like suchness soon becomes wielded as though it were an abstract concept. Even so, its original "buddha nature" usage still points towards some kind of ultimate principle that human minds imagine must lie beyond all categorical distinctions. Hence, when used in this manner, suchness continued to suggest some basic reality residing behind and beyond the mere appearance of all things (and concepts) which are only temporary phenomena.

 

Gradually, a more explicit phrase entered common English usage: "seeing all things as they really are." Each word in this phrase conveys subtleties of meaning. Together, they point to the profound qualities of the insights in kensho and satori that realize the timeless, immanent, interrelated nature of all things.

 

Suzuki goes on to say, "I hold suchness to be the basis of all religions."

 

If suchness were the basis of all religious experience, then why doesn't everyone know what suchness means? The problem, as Suzuki noted, is that it must be experienced. Suchness defies a clear-cut definition. It gets lost when you present it as an idea. According to Suzuki, "Strictly speaking... any philosophy built on it will be castles in the sand." So, suchness begins beyond reach of ordinary discursive intellect. It is a profound experience of realization, not some thought you can conceive from the armchair.

 

Shunryu Suzuki had these profound words to say about selfless awareness: "Not to be attached to something is to be aware of its absolute value."

 

The above excerpt, taken from the book Zen Brain Reflections, presents the reader with an understanding of how suffering arise when selfless awareness gets overshadowed by attachment, which is both the simultaneous cause and effect of greed, hatred and ignorance, perpetuating (rebirthing) an unending cyclical process (what 3Bob calls the 'Wheel') conditioned by dualistic views that compound every facet of the unawakened life.

 

Experience never errs. Only your judgement errs by promising itself results which your experiments didn't produced. -- Leonardo Da Vinci

 

 

if you have cessation with fruition then you also know at some point the way to the next cessation with fruition.

 

there is meditation needed because there is still real progress needed energywise that you will finally ready for liberation from wrong thinking burden and have a cessation.

 

Path is most likely set in stone, predetermined. path to first cessation can be pretty unconscious but not the last step of making a connection what causes immediate cessation with fruition or path change.

 

 

Gradually, a more explicit phrase entered common English usage: "seeing all things as they really are." Each word in this phrase conveys subtleties of meaning. Together, they point to the profound qualities of the insights inkensho and satori that realize the timeless, immanent, interrelated nature of all things.

 

These meanings have no meaning if not know the energy code or design behind it. Knowing what to sense and cultivate is a shortcut and imho only way.

Words are for direct pointing to what to cultivate, and cultivation is energy based. When energies reach headbased center then you can have a path moment.

 

In other words, if self is realized then need also to cultivate it, now can cultivate it because its energy is recognized and at the end liberate your self.

 

 

Of course, a word like suchness soon becomes wielded as though it were an abstract concept. Even so, its original "buddha nature" usage still points towards some kind of ultimate principle that human minds imagine must lie beyond all categorical distinctions. Hence, when used in this manner, suchness continued to suggest some basic reality residing behind and beyond the mere appearance of all things (and concepts) which are only temporary phenomena.

 

Suchness is energy. Qualities of energy are eternal but the appearances are not.

 

 

The above excerpt, taken from the book Zen Brain Reflections, presents the reader with an understanding of how suffering arise when selfless awareness gets overshadowed by attachment, which is both the simultaneous cause and effect of greed, hatred and ignorance, perpetuating (rebirthing) an unending cyclical process (what 3Bob calls the 'Wheel') conditioned by dualistic views that compound every facet of the unawakened life.

 

ok.

 

 

If suchness were the basis of all religious experience, then why doesn't everyone know what suchness means? The problem, as Suzuki noted, is that it must be experienced. Suchness defies a clear-cut definition. It gets lost when you present it as an idea. According to Suzuki, "Strictly speaking... any philosophy built on it will be castles in the sand." So, suchness begins beyond reach of ordinary discursive intellect. It is a profound experience of realization, not some thought you can conceive from the armchair.

 

so does energy loses its meaning if its talked like its a concept.

[GrandmasterP]

Is it " Suffering"?

I seem to recall reading that "Suffering" is a disputed translation of the original word.

Will have a looksee.

Edited September 21, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[GrandmasterP]

Thought so...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

 

It could as easily be rendered 'unsatisfactoriness' .... Which has different connotations to 'suffering'.

Still and all, if people want 'suffering' then suffering they shall have.

I prefer....

"Life can such that every now and again you're gonna be a bit pissed off."

Live with that fact and be satisfied with what you've got.

Job jobbed.

Instant Nirvana.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[C T]

Thought so...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

 

It could as easily be rendered 'unsatisfactoriness' .... Which has different connotations to 'suffering'.

Still and all, if people want 'suffering' then suffering they shall have.

I prefer....

"Life can such that every now and again you're gonna be a bit pissed off."

Live with that fact and be satisfied with what you've got.

Job jobbed.

Instant Nirvana.

 

 

Core issue really is the lack of awareness around habitually 'being pissed off', like how it tends to erode some good habits already in place, or not realising how it sometimes leads to new unwholesome habits -- that is the heart of unsatisfactoriness, and not the reaction itself.

 

Its not so much about exercising restraint to reactions (causes a seeping of it into other parts of one's base tendencies); its about being conscious enough to choose a different, more enlightened option when such reactions become self-defeating. Consciousness of the reaction is wisdom -- knowing that one has the option of choosing one's reactions is also wisdom, and then actually acting upon a more noble choice, whenever possible, is compassion.

[allinone]

Thought so...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

 

It could as easily be rendered 'unsatisfactoriness' .... Which has different connotations to 'suffering'.

Still and all, if people want 'suffering' then suffering they shall have.

I prefer....

"Life can such that every now and again you're gonna be a bit pissed off."

Live with that fact and be satisfied with what you've got.

Job jobbed.

Instant Nirvana.

 

 

 

While you are suffering then you are suffering only,otherwise this isn't called suffering. Of course you can choose to ignore it but it doesn't eradicate the cause of suffering, it will stay as a weed in your mind. There is also lots of suffering as a seed status what are waiting to show up.

 

Ignorance also means not knowing your future causes

Edited September 22, 2014 by allinone

[C T]

Ignorance also means not knowing your future causes

Im not saying this to snub your post, but is there any chance you meant to say 'past causes'?

[GrandmasterP]

Suffering is one thing.

Unsatisfactoriness is another.

I know which I'd choose if I had to have one or the other..

(Not suffering)

Was that translation another example of Christian-background translators reverse engineering contemporary or preferred 'meaning' into an ancient language I wonder?

Christianity in some of its facets is very big on suffering.

We can't know for sure what the Buddha taught, it's all interpretations and re-readings down the centuriess so each will tend towards her or his preferred interpretation.

I prefer 'unsatisfactoriness'.

Edited September 22, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

Typically "suffering" is understood to mean "unsatisfactoriness (imperfection?)" or even "impermanence."

 

It is a subtle concept in buddhism.

...

Edited September 22, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[GrandmasterP]

This pizza is a bit salty = Unsatisfactoriness.

 

Biliary Colic =. Suffering

 

for two examples.

 

If the Buddhists wish to call petty quibbles 'suffering' then fair play to them.

Me...

Nah.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[9th]

 

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.

 

The definition

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

— SN 56.11

A contemporary definition:

Dukkha is:

Disturbance, irritation, dejection, worry, despair, fear, dread, anguish, anxiety; vulnerability, injury, inability, inferiority; sickness, aging, decay of body and faculties, senility; pain/pleasure; excitement/boredom; deprivation/excess; desire/frustration, suppression; longing/aimlessness; hope/hopelessness; effort, activity, striving/repression; loss, want, insufficiency/satiety; love/lovelessness, friendlessness; dislike, aversion/attraction; parenthood/childlessness; submission/rebellion; decision/indecisiveness, vacillation, uncertainty.

— Francis Story in Suffering, in Vol. II of The Three Basic Facts of Existence(Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983)

Only dukkha

"Both formerly & now, it is only dukkha that I describe, and the cessation of dukkha."

— SN 22.86

[GrandmasterP]

No disrespect but that 'A Contemporary Definition' isn't a definition at all, it's a list .

Edited September 22, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[C T]

Suffering is one thing.

Unsatisfactoriness is another.

I know which I'd choose if I had to have one or the other..

(Not suffering)

Was that translation another example of Christian-background translators reverse engineering contemporary or preferred 'meaning' into an ancient language I wonder?

Christianity in some of its facets is very big on suffering.

We can't know for sure what the Buddha taught, it's all interpretations and re-readings down the centuriess so each will tend towards her or his preferred interpretation.

I prefer 'unsatisfactoriness'.

Unsatisfactoriness is a condition; suffering arise from not being able to overcome the fundamentality of that condition, due to festering dualistic tendencies (grasping/aversion) despite repeated efforts which are incongruent to reality, or seeing things as they are (Skt. Tatatha, or Suchness). This could explain why Buddhist texts repeatedly indicate clearly that the root of suffering is ignorance (of the ultimate inseparability of the dependent co-arising of form & emptiness). This ignorance pervades all of one's efforts, resulting in the cyclical inescapability of the first condition, which is unsatisfactoriness. This perpetuates further and deeper misperceived sense of helplessness and desperation, until such time one gets overtaken by desire, greed and anger. Its all connected, one fuelling the other, and so on.

 

In the context of the Four Noble Truths, both unsatisfactoriness and suffering are admissible & relevant to the subsequent third and fourth Truths, insofar as there is an inclusive embodiment of the truth of cessation (knowledge - 3rd truth) and the path (Wisdom derived from that knowledge -4th truth) which leads to complete cessation. If this understanding is neglected, then the first two Truths, instead of containing the seeds of liberation, suddenly transform into obstacles which yield opposing, negative results. This could explain the lack of clarity and aversion common to reactions around the First Noble Truth.

[allinone]

Im not saying this to snub your post, but is there any chance you meant to say 'past causes'?

 

Future causes as, there is burried in me seeds what are waiting to be revealed but they won't unless i remove my current cause.

When i destroy the cause of my current suffering, then i will be not obscured by it anymore but i now am obscured by new one what was hidden before.

 

i think they can also be named past causes, causes what comes from past where i didn't removed them are now defining my current life.

[allinone]

This pizza is a bit salty = Unsatisfactoriness.

 

Biliary Colic =. Suffering

 

for two examples.

 

If the Buddhists wish to call petty quibbles 'suffering' then fair play to them.

Me...

Nah.

 

 

 

your whole view is affected by suffering. You are talking about choices within your view.

 

When you are sick then everything is affected, you don't want to ride with a ferrari, you don't care. Your view is defiled from birth, you will know that it was when you have a cessation until then you need faith.

[C T]

Future causes as, there is burried in me seeds what are waiting to be revealed but they won't unless i remove my current cause.

When i destroy the cause of my current suffering, then i will be not obscured by it anymore but i now am obscured by new one what was hidden before.

 

i think they can also be named past causes, causes what comes from past where i didn't removed them are now defining my current life.

Yes, latent impressions. Very good.

[GrandmasterP]

your whole view is affected by suffering. You are talking about choices within your view.

 

When you are sick then everything is affected, you don't want to ride with a ferrari, you don't care. Your view is defiled from birth, you will know that it was when you have a cessation until then you need faith.

 

Taking that list as 'Dhuka' then you are right.

Everything is 'suffering' according to that list.

My point is that everything isn't necessarily suffering.

Some things are merely inconveniences, such as spilling tea for example.

There are distinctions and we all make those all the time.