[Rqqneujr]

So is dukkha the underlying reality of this world? It seems so.

The only way out is to assume that the arahant (one who has ended suffering) has in fact ended the perception of others suffering.

I would have to disagree here. An arahant knows others are suffering. But an arahant see nama-rupa, just body & minds; just elements. But those elements are suffering. Those elements are not at peace; just like a sea is not calm but in a storm.

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the rise & fall of beings. I saw — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings rising & falling, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech & mind, who reviled noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech, & mind, who did not revile noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus — by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings rising & falling, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

[Npbfamgt]

SN 12.44 Loka Sutta: The World

Buddha used the word "the world" as a synonym for dukkha. he is referring to a mental world (rather than a physical world)

for example, there is the word "lokuttara", which means "above the world or beyond the world", i.e., the enlightened state, free from dukkha. this does not refer to being in a spaceship

it means being in the world but untouched by the world, like a lotus rises out of the mud, unsoiled by the mud

"Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata — deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent [lokuttara], connected with emptiness — are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....007.than.html Monks, these eight worldly conditions spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions. Which eight? Gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. These are the eight worldly conditions that spin after the world, and the world spins after these eight worldly conditions.

Gain/loss,
status/disgrace,
censure/praise,
pleasure/pain:
these conditions among human beings
are inconstant,
impermanent,
subject to change.

Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don't charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.

His welcoming
& rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....006.than.html

[Indessasp]

Buddha used the word "the world" as a synonym for dukkha. he is referring to a mental world (rather than a physical world)

That's an important point, if we think he was talking about the physical world then we end up going down the track of metaphysics and asking nonsensical questions about what is real etc.

However if we realise he is talking about the phenomenal world, that which we experience through the six sense doors, we can realise the problem is not out there with the physical world but in here with our perceptions of the phenomenal world.

[wp6Eg2Fm]

our perceptions of the phenomenal world.

"The "world" of which the Buddha speaks is comprised in this aggregate of body-and-mind. For it is only by the activity of our physical and mental sense faculties that a world can be experienced and known at all. The sights, sounds, smells, tastes and bodily impressions which we perceive, and our various mental functions, conscious and unconscious — this is the world in which we live. And this world of ours has its origin in that very aggregate of physical and mental processes that produces the kammic act of craving for the six physical and mental sense objects."

- Nyanaponika Thera

Perhaps either of you have an opinion on this? hi Oliver

i can offer an opinion. i concur with Goofaholix and would take care here with Nyanaponika. the Buddha did not specifically say the world is this aggregate of body-mind. he said the world arises within this body-mind.

as mentioned, the important world to comprehend is that of mental states, such as when we say to other: "You are living in your own world".

Rohitassa Sutta

Friend, that it is in this fathom-long body, with its perceptions and thoughts, that there is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world.

AN 4:45

By walking one can never reach
The end and limit of the world,
Yet there is no release from suffering
Without reaching the world’s end.

Hence the wise one who knows the world,
The one who has lived the holy life,
Will reach the end of the world,
Knowing the world’s end, at peace.
He no more longs for this world
Nor for any other.

[12Cickprior]

The Buddha says in the Pali Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta:

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: 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."

My continued impression is that this 'life' or this 'world' is simply dukkha (dissatisfying/formed from suffering). Is this your view or is there a better view or way to understand this?

I'm late on this thread and I have not yet read all the replies, so this might be a repeat.

I liked Deshy's reply and agree with it. I'm often impressed by the clarity and simplicity of Deshy's comments.

There are many ways to answer your question. At the moment I'll take this approach:

Much of your question depends on how you translate "dukkha".

As you probably know, dukkha, in its literal sense refers to a broken cart wheel. Beyond that, you can make many inferences about exactly what Gautama Buddha meant by dukkha, from the context of the many sutras that mention it.

Sometimes I find it useful to stay close to the metaphor of a broken cart wheel. "Life is a rough ride. Life is often uncomfortable. Life is unreliable."

Dukkha is often translated as "All living things suffer." I think that's misleading.

By the way, do any of you scholars know who first translated "dukkha" as "All living things suffer"?

Obviously, people are often happy, and other animals are also often happy, or at least comfortable. Personally, I feel pretty good today. It seems silly to say that my happiness, today, at this moment is "illusory."

If you return to the idea of a "rough ride," even rocky roads have smooth stretches, deserts have oases, and so on.

Sometimes I think of "unsettled weather" instead of a "rough ride" or "broken wheel." I think the Buddha might have meant something along those lines, though I don't think he ever used that metaphor. The weather might be pleasant at the moment. Will it last five minutes or all day? At any moment it might turn unpleasant. If it rains hard, the resulting flood might kill me. If it turns hot and muggy, it might make me very uncomfortable, even miserable.

Life is uncertain. You might get some of the things you want, or you might be repeatedly disappointed. You might get most of the things you want, but even if you do, new desires will take the place of the old ones, and you might remain dissatisfied. You might be happy today, but there is no guarantee that you will be happy tomorrow. Sudden misfortune might crush you with grief tomorrow. Nothing is certain, there is no way to protect yourself from misfortune. If you live a comfortable and fortunate life, you might enjoy it very much and hope that it will never end. But you will get old and die and you must live with that fact, even when you are young and healthy.

Pleasure and good fortune are dukkha, too, because you soon take them for granted, and miss them all the more when they are gone, and fear their loss even while you still have them. Comfort is dukkha too, because you become accustomed to comfort, and feel all the more uncomfortable when it is taken away.

I'm not sure that any notable teacher or scripture teaches dukkha quite this way. Do others think I have understood it correctly?

It interests me that the book of Ecclesiastes, in the Bible, says about the same thing:

...the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Bopshi

[WertyNtont]

Not true, IMO. I hope you already have a meaning? Mine is to be as happy as possible, to make my loved ones as happy as possible, and to leave as great an impact upon the world as is possible. To me, existance in itself is the meaning. I dont know how to explain that better! To be as happy as possible sounds like a good choice, i fall in love with Epicureanism before which says that you dont need to have much in order to be happy. Epicurean once asked a friend: "Send me a pot of cheese, so that I may have a feast when I care to."

Simplicity is lovely, dont you think!

[PoideAdelereX]

So the world is still dukkha even for those in Nibbana.

the following is very important to comprehend because most Buddhists do not comprehend it:

(1) the word 'dukkha' in the Four Noble Truths means 'mental suffering'; 'mental torment'

(2) the word 'dukkha' in the Three Characteristics means 'unsatisfactoriness' (as in impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self)

for the purpose of emphasis, it can be said both meanings are opposite to eachother

those in Nibbana do not have any dukkka#1 within but constantly experience dukkha#2 (which is the cause of their liberation)

those in Nibbana, due to seeing the world as unsatisfactory (dukkha#2), have no craving for the world, therefore their minds have no suffering (dukkha#1)

the following quote should make the two different meanings of dukkha very clear:

277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.

Dhammapada ***

[jenilopaz]

Wow! Element, you have re-opened my eyes to an important perspective of Dukkha. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply. I had not seen these subtle details before now. I will take some time to digest them before considering a direct reply.

[ANCETPYNCTEXT]

That's an important point, if we think he was talking about the physical world then we end up going down the track of metaphysics and asking nonsensical questions about what is real etc.

However if we realise he is talking about the phenomenal world, that which we experience through the six sense doors, we can realise the problem is not out there with the physical world but in here with our perceptions of the phenomenal world.

This is a tricky one. I am still of the opinion that the aggregates don't have a start and an end as such. Over time they do, but there is a wholesome non-dual characteristic, where the internal and the external are only divided by thought and sensual perception. This is so because there is no self or anatta to distinguish one body from another. This is how I initially understood the term "world". I have seen another through Element's (and your) input. Personally I am not here to advocate one view, but mention this as it seems to have been something you noticed also.

Metta

Thanks.

[Jwskwhdo]

I'm late on this thread and I have not yet read all the replies, so this might be a repeat.

I liked Deshy's reply and agree with it. I'm often impressed by the clarity and simplicity of Deshy's comments.

There are many ways to answer your question. At the moment I'll take this approach:

Much of your question depends on how you translate "dukkha".

As you probably know, dukkha, in its literal sense refers to a broken cart wheel. ...

Dukkha is often translated as "All living things suffer." I think that's misleading.

By the way, do any of you scholars know who first translated "dukkha" as "All living things suffer"?

Obviously, people are often happy, and other animals are also often happy, or at least comfortable. Personally, I feel pretty good today. It seems silly to say that my happiness, today, at this moment is "illusory."

If you return to the idea of a "rough ride," even rocky roads have smooth stretches, deserts have oases, and so on.

Sometimes I think of "unsettled weather" instead of a "rough ride" or "broken wheel." (cut for space)

Thanks for your input, Bopshi
You are right, Dukkha is hard to grasp, especially when life seems to have many pleasures. Even a child's laugh or a smile from a stranger makes one question if Dukkha is really so common. Yes, I also like Deshy's clarity.

I haven't heard the expression of a broken wheel before. I like the analogy of "unsettled weather", it is perceived but not necessarily a major obstruction to our routine, so it has that similarity to how dukkha may dissatisfy us.

Thanks!

[rNr5Di3S]

(2) the word 'dukkha' in the Three Characteristics means 'unsatisfactoriness' (as in impermanent, unsatisfactory & not-self)

those in Nibbana do not have any dukkka#1 within but constantly experience dukkha#2 (which is the cause of their liberation)

Please correct me if i am wrong, but the three marks of existance according to Mahayana school does not include "unstatisfactoriness". You said that seeing the second type of Dukka is the cause of liberation, so is it safe to conclude that all those who follow Mahayana Buddhism can never get liberated?!

[itititit]

Please correct me if i am wrong, but the three marks of existance according to Mahayana school does not include "unstatisfactoriness".

Unsatisfactoriness is a translation of Dukkha, probably more accurate than suffering, I can't see how Mahayana could leave that out.

[crestosssa]

Please correct me if i am wrong, but the three marks of existance according to Mahayana school does not include "unstatisfactoriness". You said that seeing the second type of Dukka is the cause of liberation, so is it safe to conclude that all those who follow Mahayana Buddhism can never get liberated?!

A Mahayana explanation for the three marks of existence can be found in "Pointers, Doors and Openings" by Ken Mcleod (a former student of the late Kalu Rinpoche of the Tibetan Kagyu school)

Dukkha is described as 'discomfort' and 'dissatisfaction'.

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/three-marks-three-doors

[aAaBecker]

Hello,

Thich Nhat Hanh is a very experienced Buddhist monk, but he believes that the three marks of existance should be Anicca, Anatta and Nibbana. I know that most Buddhist scholars agree that the three marks of existance are Anicca, Dukkha and Anatta, but there is no consensus. To think that the majority is what decide the truth is a logical fallacy.

Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated? how about if i see the world as impermenant, yet satisfied with it as it is! Does that mean i am not wise?

If there is a contradiction between a 2500 years old translated text, and reality as i see it, which one should i believe? my eyes or the text?

Finally, can we say that the world is objectively unsatisfactory? Or to describe it as dukkha is a completely subjective?

[Trercakaressy]

Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated? how about if i see the world as impermenant, yet satisfied with it as it is! Does that mean i am not wise?

Not the physical world but the phenomenal world perceived through the six sense doors. If you are truly satisfied then you are wise, actually most probably enlightened. However if you have never observed the pervasive nature of Dukkha and learned to be free from it by facing up to it and understanding it then I'd say that was ignorance in action.

If there is a contradiction between a 2500 years old translated text, and reality as i see it, which one should i believe? my eyes or the text?

Well I don't really understand why you'd want to be a Buddhist, you'd need to throw out the four noble truths for a start. If you have no inkling of wanting things you can't have or having things you don't want and then tension they create then I don't really understand why you'd want to be discussing Buddhism on the Internet.

Finally, can we say that the world is objectively unsatisfactory? Or to describe it as dukkha is a completely subjective?

We observe it subjectively in our own experience, see the signals of of the same kind of thing being experienced by others, and through that can infer how pervasive it is.

[rikdpola]

Not the physical world but the phenomenal world perceived through the six sense doors. If you are truly satisfied then you are wise, actually most probably enlightened. However if you have never observed the pervasive nature of Dukkha and learned to be free from it by facing up to it and understanding it then I'd say that was ignorance in action.

So we both agree that wisdom is statisfaction. Then why to observe "unsatisfactoriness" in the world? Why not to start observing satisfactoriness instead? Why to empower our fault-finding mind by seeking to find more faults?

If unsatisfactoriness is the problem, then logically the solution is to start being satisfied now. To look for beauty (Nibbana) instead of looking for Dukkha,

Well I don't really understand why you'd want to be a Buddhist, you'd need to throw out the four noble truths for a start. If you have no inkling of wanting things you can't have or having things you don't want and then tension they create then I don't really understand why you'd want to be discussing Buddhism on the Internet. Being here on this forum is one of many dialy activities i do during the day. It is a part of the beaty of life, talking to intellegent and open minded people is a nice thing to do, why should not I?

In addition, i think Buddhism is the only religion where you can hardly find two people who agree on everything, which makes it beautiful in my opinion. Being the devil advocate should not offend anyone but it might enrich the discussion and enhance our understanding especially if we dont take things personal.

We observe it subjectively in our own experience, see the signals of of the same kind of thing being experienced by others, and through that can infer how pervasive it is. So perceiving and infering are both subjective? then calling it a "mark of exisitance" can be seen as a misleading assertion.

[Wmshyrga]

Being the devil advocate should not offend anyone but it might enrich the discussion and enhance our understanding

Understanding of what?

The point is Bundokji, you strongly hold on to the opinion that cessation of suffering is a complete and utter myth. You accept that there is suffering but you do not accept that cessation is possible or even needed. To you, sadness and all other vexing mental qualities are natural and should be accepted as they are. So the question is, what do you look for in Buddhism? Because Buddhism is about one thing - suffering and its cessation. To you, metal unsatisfactoriness is to be experienced as part of life. So what is it that you look for in Buddhism anyway?

[Pataacculakp]

Now that leaves us with the question: Do i have to view the world in such a negative way as "unsatisfactory" in order to get liberated?

Once again, this is not a question. This is a contradictio in adjecto. If you do not identify anything "unsatisfactory" or "suffering" what are you trying to get liberated from?

[TSVIDeo]

Bundokji, it is not a new-found philosophy that, by not examining the dualistic quality of our experiences, we find some "beautiful peace". My own mother lives this way. To me, this is similar to a man with an aching wound, accepting the pain of the wound and living with it rather than treating the wound. Accepting it is better than fretting about it. He believes this realization is a "beautiful peace", non-dualistic and natural.

However, this is not Buddhism. Buddhism is for those who identify suffering as suffering and want to be free from it. Identifying this suffering does not cause the suffering. Suffering was already there to be identified. However, one person choses to just accept it as natural and the other tries to remedy it. These are two different schools of thought which contradict. No matter how many pages and paragraphs you write here, they will always be just that - a contradiction. So I suggest that you stay on whatever shore you find beautiful.

[trubreTab]

Hello Element,

If you have a motor car that keeps breaking down, i.e., constantly exhibits impermanence in its functioning, is that motor car satisfactory or unsatisfactory?

If you have a wife or husband that keep being unfaithful to you, i.e., constantly exhibits impermanence in their faithfulness, is your wife or husband satisfactory or unsatisfactory?

You can complain about things when they are yours, when you own them, your example is very clear (a car, a partner). To own something, there should be an owner, right?

Do we own life? are we in a postion to say how things should be? or is it our ignorance and arrogance that is giving us that false impression that "we can and we should control things".

In other words, our search for a permenant experience has to be the outcome of a strong view of a permenant self, and it has created the unsatisfactoriness you have mentioned in your post.