Why did Buddha say all life is suffering?

[Swift of Spirit]

Originally Posted by kingfisher

First, a bit of deconstruction........what the historical Buddha actually said, the word he actually used, could well be lost in the mists of time. The Pali word eventually used to record his words is dhukka.

An English born Theravada monk , Nanamouli ( spelling? ) when translating various Pali texts into English, originally had the intention of:- one Pali word will always equal one English word. He found in practice that such was not possible - the context of each use of each word dictated the use of different English words in order to convey the meaning.

But we need not despair. The words above "in practice" hold the key. Ehipassiko........."come and see for oneself" - variously translated!

The goal of the Holy Life is "unshakeable deliverance of mind" ( Majjhima Nikaya, Bhikku Bodhi's translation) If we do not have such we suffer. That is all.

"I teach this and this alone, suffering and the ending of suffering" ( Buddha )

That's great thank you, so what are your thoughts on it's meaning, now you have deciphered it so eloquently?

I read, ''I will embrace suffering, as I perceive it, and conquer it in my mind and actions?'' . . .

[Gem]

Originally Posted by odyssey

As per the four noble truths, first one is: All life is suffering, pain and misery.

It's a very complex thing as the links between mentalities and the manifest are involved, so it goes deep into Buddhist philosophy and you can start with 4 noble truths and follow the trial from there.

[God-Like]

Life of the physical planes is one of the most dense experiences one can endure.

Think about what it would feel like after the world has been lifted from your shoulders.

That's the difference so to speak, even peace of mind associated to the physical experience isn't the peace that is beyond it. Emotional love is not the love beyond it ..

That's why many suggest at some point to rise above or to go deep within because what lies at the surface of physicality is always suffering.

One of course has to realize what it's like for the world to be no longer carried upon one's shoulders to know that the world is there at all .


x daz x

[Jeremy Bong]

Buddha only stated a part of life situation : life is suffering.

Life is suffering and enjoying, meeting and departing, born and death, healthy and sick, from empty to possession to departure of emptiness, child to youth to old age and death, from pure (empty) to full to empty again.... There are so many encounters and stages of life but within life not only sad, suffering ,depression.... There are more...

When Buddha said life is suffering, it's at that time the people were more poor and hard to live an easy life and he is pointing to the suffering of that situation. And he said life is merged in the sea of bitterness

And even God's life is still not easy that's the one he didn't say. When we think of suffering it can mean only a part of life not the whole part and other feelings are also intervening to life.

[Jared.L]

Maybe because our mind makes life a suffering? Buddhism is all about training your mind to experience less suffering.

[kingfisher]

Originally Posted by Swift of Spirit

That's great thank you, so what are your thoughts on it's meaning, now you have deciphered it so eloquently?

I read, ''I will embrace suffering, as I perceive it, and conquer it in my mind and actions?'' . . .

Hi Swift, I would say "see" the source of suffering rather than "conquer it". Anyway, eloquent or not (many accuse me of waffling...... ) I was just seeking to point to the deception of words and the need for practice. Without wishing to disparage anyone, I hear so often in association with this subject the point of view that "yes, there is suffering, but there is also joy", or some such idea. This is to miss the point (of the Buddha) entirely. As I understand him, he was seeking to point to the entire idea of a life with a "self" at its centre, a self that sees some things as "suffering" and some as "joy" and seeks to have one without the other, or at least, more of one as this "self" progresses, "attains", or "grows............that such a view of life is itself the source of suffering, the fundamental problem. To live in such a way is to suffer.

A well known Buddhist Dictionary states that the unique teaching of the Buddha is "anatta"(not-self) and that not to understand this is to invite a misunderstanding of all the Buddhist teachings. And as far as Buddhism is concerned, to "understand" is to go beyond any intellectual grasp and instead, to LIVE a teaching.

To LIVE a teaching is, as far as the four noble truths are concerned, is to "understand anguish, let go of its origins, realize its cessation, and cultivate the path. It is not to believe that "Life is Suffering" that "the cause of suffering is Craving" - and so on. (Thanks to Stephen Batchelor for highlighting this distinction in his book "Buddhism Without Beliefs")

In my own Pure Land way, we say the nembutsu, namu amida butsu (NOT a mantra) It is said in all the circumstances of life, both good and bad. Over time I have found it morphs into just saying "thank you" and then just a way of choiceless awareness. And I must insist, my experience is that such is not a resignation, a passive acceptance of merely "what is". Paradoxically, it is a way of radical activity, one of personal transformation.

Anyway, must go. The grandchildren have gone but other chores call.

[Still_Waters]

Has anyone considered the possibility that, as in a lucid dream, the nightmare suddenly looks very different from the perspective of the lucid dreamer, so does earthly suffering appear altogether different when perceived from the perspective of the pure thought-free awareness that manifests quite naturally and spontaneously in the Buddhist jhanas (absorptions) ?

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Has anyone considered the possibility that, as in a lucid dream, the nightmare suddenly looks very different from the perspective of the lucid dreamer, so does earthly suffering appear altogether different when perceived from the perspective of the pure thought-free awareness that manifests quite naturally and spontaneously in the Buddhist jhanas (absorptions) ?

I've mentioned that before as a strange kind of linked phenomenon. You can "wake up" in a sense in a normal dream if you realize you are dreaming while in the dream. Then you are in what is called a "lucid dream" or a state of dreaming with your normal awake consciousness.

Then you have Buddha and others describing enlightenment as "being awake." It is like waking up in normal life. If you think about it, what is added in a dream to make it become lucid is awareness. What triggers a normal dream to become lucid is becoming aware you are in a dream. Then, the "you" as you know yourself to be suddenly appears as another layer above what was perceiving before. You are in both dreams, the normal one and the lucid one, the difference is in what you experience yourself to be while in the dreams.

That's the same in waking life. You are in non-enlightened life and in enlightened life, the difference is in what you experience yourself to be while in life.

There is a sense something new in present when you go from a normal dream to a lucid one. It really does feel like you "woke up" in the dream. It's odd because you were in the normal dream but not in a way you would recognize yourself when you become lucid. It's almost like you were half asleep in the dream, like a movie or music was playing in the background and you are semi aware of it. You just passively follow along while not being completely awake.

That's true of waking life as well. If you get an insight into yourself and "wake up" in a sense to what was passively accepted as reality before, there is the sense of not being there before. Like you were not you before the insight. People like Buddha have conceptualized it like being asleep. Meaning they were not conscious or awake before. But we are awake in waking life. We are walking around living our lives. We are conscious. But the question would be, conscious as what?

In a normal dream, you are the dream. There is no "you" that is separate from it. There is no space between you and the dream. The dream determines your experience. When you become lucid, you are adding a witness. Another element is added. Now it is you and your dream. In normal waking life, it is similar. You are your life, your thoughts and beliefs, and opinions etc are all you. There is nothing existing as consciousness above and superior to this "you." When enlightenment occurs, a new element is born. You are then perceiving the old "you" from a different perspective. You are separate from it.

I can see how somebody may read all that and say...no you are describing duality. That's bad. Well duality is a false perception of "me and that" not an actual perception of it. Obviously there is a difference between us and a banana. Somebody may also say, "In enlightenment, you are one with everything. There is no me and that." This is about the realization of what is not you. When you become self-realized, which means perceiving what is not you that you normally passively accepted as you, then perception is singular. There is no influence from thought or ego. You perceive yourself as one with everything because "everything" is no longer an idea. It is no longer conceptual. There is nothing to become between you and that. You know yourself as you are, but no, you don't believe yourself to be a tree or a rock. You just are perceiving non-conceptually, non-verbally.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

I've mentioned that before as a strange kind of linked phenomenon. You can "wake up" in a sense in a normal dream if you realize you are dreaming while in the dream. Then you are in what is called a "lucid dream" or a state of dreaming with your normal awake consciousness.

Then you have Buddha and others describing enlightenment as "being awake." It is like waking up in normal life. If you think about it, what is added in a dream to make it become lucid is awareness. What triggers a normal dream to become lucid is becoming aware you are in a dream. Then, the "you" as you know yourself to be suddenly appears as another layer above what was perceiving before. You are in both dreams, the normal one and the lucid one, the difference is in what you experience yourself to be while in the dreams.

That's the same in waking life. You are in non-enlightened life and in enlightened life, the difference is in what you experience yourself to be while in life.

There is a sense something new in present when you go from a normal dream to a lucid one. It really does feel like you "woke up" in the dream. It's odd because you were in the normal dream but not in a way you would recognize yourself when you become lucid. It's almost like you were half asleep in the dream, like a movie or music was playing in the background and you are semi aware of it. You just passively follow along while not being completely awake.

That's true of waking life as well. If you get an insight into yourself and "wake up" in a sense to what was passively accepted as reality before, there is the sense of not being there before. Like you were not you before the insight. People like Buddha have conceptualized it like being asleep. Meaning they were not conscious or awake before. But we are awake in waking life. We are walking around living our lives. We are conscious. But the question would be, conscious as what?

In a normal dream, you are the dream. There is no "you" that is separate from it. There is no space between you and the dream. The dream determines your experience. When you become lucid, you are adding a witness. Another element is added. Now it is you and your dream. In normal waking life, it is similar. You are your life, your thoughts and beliefs, and opinions etc are all you. There is nothing existing as consciousness above and superior to this "you." When enlightenment occurs, a new element is born. You are then perceiving the old "you" from a different perspective. You are separate from it.

I can see how somebody may read all that and say...no you are describing duality. That's bad. Well duality is a false perception of "me and that" not an actual perception of it. Obviously there is a difference between us and a banana. Somebody may also say, "In enlightenment, you are one with everything. There is no me and that." This is about the realization of what is not you. When you become self-realized, which means perceiving what is not you that you normally passively accepted as you, then perception is singular. There is no influence from thought or ego. You perceive yourself as one with everything because "everything" is no longer an idea. It is no longer conceptual. There is nothing to become between you and that. You know yourself as you are, but no, you don't believe yourself to be a tree or a rock. You just are perceiving non-conceptually, non-verbally.

Although I used the term "lucid dream" in my post since it serves as an understandable metaphor for the "end of suffering" process, a more powerful practice is "conscious sleep" whereby one remains aware in the "deep sleep" state and can be similarly aware of dream formation from start to finish as well as the transition to the so-called "waking state". This process allows one to be aware of the inner pressures that trigger dreams and lead to the entire process of dream formation as well as the "way out" of suffering inherent in some dreams. It is described in the Mandukya Upanishad (to a degree) and is often used in Buddhist, Yoga, and Sufi traditions (and probably other traditions as well). I used the lucid dream only as an understandable metaphor to facilitate understanding of the "end of suffering" process. Once one understands the process, then an understanding of the Buddhist jhanas and the "end of suffering" becomes clearer. Since this goes beyond thought, it obviously cannot be described in words.

[RyanWind]

An interesting thing about the idea of selflessness is truly no one is there to want anything.