Thursday, July 10, 2003
Understanding Suffering in the 4 Noble Truths
I was reading the material on the link you provided (thanks) and noticed this at the bottom of the page:
"It must be pointed out that the first truth does not merely refer to actual suffering, i.e. to suffering as feeling, but that it shows that, in consequence of the universal law of impermanency, all the phenomena of existence whatsoever, even the sublimest states of existence, are subject to change and dissolution, and hence are miserable and unsatisfactory; and that thus, without exception, they all contain in themselves the germ of suffering. Cf. Guide, p. 101f."
Instead of seeing "subject to suffering" as a negative way of putting things, I thought of it as a way of conveying a precise point. In a sense, you could say that all life is suffering because it inevitably involves pain, age, death, and impermanence. But although those things might bring some form of pain, they need not be experienced as suffering since the cessation of craving (in all its manifestations) presumably allows one to view them with detachment and thus achieve "cessation of suffering." So although life might seem to "mean suffering" or "involve suffering," in fact it is only "subject to suffering" because a truly enlightened person would have the same set of experiences that others regarded as suffering but would not experience them as suffering. Does that make any sense?
So the idea of "subject to suffering" makes sense to me, but it makes you realize the challenge involved in reaching true enlightenment.
Everything
just as it is,
as it is,
as is.
Flowers in bloom.
Nothing to add.
- Robert Aitken, Roshi, As it Is
"It must be pointed out that the first truth does not merely refer to actual suffering, i.e. to suffering as feeling, but that it shows that, in consequence of the universal law of impermanency, all the phenomena of existence whatsoever, even the sublimest states of existence, are subject to change and dissolution, and hence are miserable and unsatisfactory; and that thus, without exception, they all contain in themselves the germ of suffering. Cf. Guide, p. 101f."
Instead of seeing "subject to suffering" as a negative way of putting things, I thought of it as a way of conveying a precise point. In a sense, you could say that all life is suffering because it inevitably involves pain, age, death, and impermanence. But although those things might bring some form of pain, they need not be experienced as suffering since the cessation of craving (in all its manifestations) presumably allows one to view them with detachment and thus achieve "cessation of suffering." So although life might seem to "mean suffering" or "involve suffering," in fact it is only "subject to suffering" because a truly enlightened person would have the same set of experiences that others regarded as suffering but would not experience them as suffering. Does that make any sense?
So the idea of "subject to suffering" makes sense to me, but it makes you realize the challenge involved in reaching true enlightenment.
Everything
just as it is,
as it is,
as is.
Flowers in bloom.
Nothing to add.
- Robert Aitken, Roshi, As it Is
the Four Noble Truths
I'm often struck by how people's differing views of Buddhism are illustrated by the way in which they describe the first of the four noble truths. I tend to think the truths run along these lines:
there is suffering
suffering has a cause
there is a way of ending suffering
this needs to be done by following the path.
Modern Western Buddhist writings often seem to present things in the above way, and I take Rosenberg's suggestion that the mind creates suffering in the same light (disease, aging, etc, are also causes of suffering, but even with these it is what the mind makes of them)
However, sometimes the first truth is presented more negatively. For example, the German Buddhist monk Nyanatiloka, whose "Buddhist Dictionary" I have found very helpful, says existence is subject to suffering, which seems more negative. (see his discussion of the four noble truths and dukkha He says elsewhere "in consequence of the law of impermanency, all the phenomena of existence whatever...are miserable and unsatisfactory, and...all contain in themselves the germ of suffering."
Clarke ("Ten Great Religions," Boston 1871) was writing without the benefit of much western understanding or even study of Buddhism, but he describes the first truth in this way "All existence is evil, because all existence is subject to change and decay."
The rest of your question about Clarke I'm not sure I can answer, though you might want to look at the book sometime. Not surprisingly he comes to the conclusion that Christianity is better than Buddhism. "in Buddhism man struggles upward to find God, while in Christianity God comes down to find man." Christianity "accepts the Buddhistic doctrine of rewards and puinishments, of law, progress, self-denial, self-control, humanity, charity, equality of man with man, and pity for human sorrow; but to all this it adds -- how much more! It fills up the dreary void of Buddhism with a living God; with a life of God in man's soul, a heaven here as well as hereafter. It gives us, in addition to the struggle of the soul to find got, a God coming down to find the soul. It gives a divine as real as the human, an infinite as solid as the finite."
This clearly is a case where one needs to look at the Pali to see how it seems to be nuanced.
there is suffering
suffering has a cause
there is a way of ending suffering
this needs to be done by following the path.
Modern Western Buddhist writings often seem to present things in the above way, and I take Rosenberg's suggestion that the mind creates suffering in the same light (disease, aging, etc, are also causes of suffering, but even with these it is what the mind makes of them)
However, sometimes the first truth is presented more negatively. For example, the German Buddhist monk Nyanatiloka, whose "Buddhist Dictionary" I have found very helpful, says existence is subject to suffering, which seems more negative. (see his discussion of the four noble truths and dukkha He says elsewhere "in consequence of the law of impermanency, all the phenomena of existence whatever...are miserable and unsatisfactory, and...all contain in themselves the germ of suffering."
Clarke ("Ten Great Religions," Boston 1871) was writing without the benefit of much western understanding or even study of Buddhism, but he describes the first truth in this way "All existence is evil, because all existence is subject to change and decay."
The rest of your question about Clarke I'm not sure I can answer, though you might want to look at the book sometime. Not surprisingly he comes to the conclusion that Christianity is better than Buddhism. "in Buddhism man struggles upward to find God, while in Christianity God comes down to find man." Christianity "accepts the Buddhistic doctrine of rewards and puinishments, of law, progress, self-denial, self-control, humanity, charity, equality of man with man, and pity for human sorrow; but to all this it adds -- how much more! It fills up the dreary void of Buddhism with a living God; with a life of God in man's soul, a heaven here as well as hereafter. It gives us, in addition to the struggle of the soul to find got, a God coming down to find the soul. It gives a divine as real as the human, an infinite as solid as the finite."
This clearly is a case where one needs to look at the Pali to see how it seems to be nuanced.
Question about "The Beginning" Posting
In the first posting you wrote that Larry Rosenberg's (and Buddhism's) concept that the mind creates suffering " is a far cry from James Freeman Clark who wrote in the 19th c. that the first of the four noble truths is that life is evil." I was wondering what you meant, and what your source was. I've thought of Clark as a very liberal Unitarian, who focused on using religion as a way of creating social reforms. Did he see himself as taking on the evil and suffering of the world? I'm really interested, so thanks for any help you can provide.
A Handful of Leaves
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
A Handful of Leaves
The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
Zen Verses: Selected Quotations III
Zen Verses: Selected Quotations III:
"In the morning, bowing to all;
In the evening, bowing to all.
Respecting others is my only duty--
Hail to the Never-despising Bodhisattva.
In heaven and earth he stands alone.
A real monk
Needs
Only one thing--
a heart like
Never-despising Buddha.
- Ryokan
Translated by John Stevens
Three Zen Masters, p. 128
When you hear the splash
Of the water drops that fall
Into the stone bowl,
You will feel that all the dust
Of your mind is washed away.
- Zen Tea Master, Sen-No-Rikyu
"In the morning, bowing to all;
In the evening, bowing to all.
Respecting others is my only duty--
Hail to the Never-despising Bodhisattva.
In heaven and earth he stands alone.
A real monk
Needs
Only one thing--
a heart like
Never-despising Buddha.
- Ryokan
Translated by John Stevens
Three Zen Masters, p. 128
When you hear the splash
Of the water drops that fall
Into the stone bowl,
You will feel that all the dust
Of your mind is washed away.
- Zen Tea Master, Sen-No-Rikyu
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
MN 118: Anapanasati Sutta
The beginning...
Larry Rosenberg sez -- and I have to find the quote again-- that the mind causes (creates?) suffering. This is a far cry from James Freeman Clark who wrote in the 19th c. that the first of the four noble truths is that life is evil.
