Dukkha is more than suffering.

[anatta]

Dukkha is more than suffering.

Clarify your practice. Let your practice clarify you.

siddhearta.blogspot.com

In his first sermon, the Buddha taught:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha.

It is easy to see how the early translators of the dharma may have chosen suffering or pain as a substitute for the Sanskrit term dukkha. It makes sense, birth is painful, aging is suffering, not getting what you want is painful. Those translations offer insight into what the Buddha was trying to convey.

But words are limited in their meaning.

The Buddha first states that birth, aging, illness and death are all dukkha.
stage of human life is dukkha. The human condition is subject to pain and suffering, discomfort and unease.

The Buddha then says that uniting with what is displeasing is dukkha. It is unsatisfying, frustrating, miserable.

Next we find that separation from what is pleasing is dukkha. It is grief, sadness, distress.

The Buddha goes on to say that not getting what one wants is dukkha. It is despair, disappointing, upsetting.

Finally, the Buddha states that the five aggregates, or all conditioned phenomena, are dukkha. There is a basic unsatisfactoriness that pervades all forms of the human condition, which is subject to change, impermanent and without any lasting substance. That which changes, is impermanent and without lasting substance is incapable of satisfying us.

Later in his first discourse, the Buddha taught that dukkha was to be fully understood. What are we to understand? Is it enough to understand that life is suffering?

We need to understand the human condition in its entirety. The central tenet of the Buddha's teachings is that we need to understand our own pain and suffering, but also the myriad ways in which we fall into states of loss and sadness, dissatisfaction and despair. We need to fully understand how all things change, how the very nature of this life and this world is that it is impermanent and without any lasting substance.

Dukkha includes understanding suffering, but it is much more than suffering. It is understanding the human condition, and all that it entails.

Finally, we should take a look at what is meant by 'understand'. Is it to be known, acknowledged or perceived?

It is not enough to know the words or even the meaning. To fully understand dukkha we have to be aware of dukkha, acknowledge it, feel it and sit with it. We need to see it and listen to it. We need to fight the urge to wallow in it, push it away or pretend it isn't there. Then we might understand the truth of dukkha.

 

[Rumpelstil]

Dukkha?

 

[anatta]

Dukkha?

glad you asked (im a salesman and love to talk) this is a short read but gives good info on dukkha as the inevitable human condition, but can be managed - but not removed- since it is a human condition.
the human experience is unsatisfactory (lacking bliss) at the root level

What did the Buddha mean by suffering?

The Buddha said that life is characterized by dukkha, a word often translated as "suffering" or "dissatisfaction," but we can be free from dukkha.

tricycle.org

The Buddha’s first noble truth is most often—but inaccurately—rendered in English as “life is suffering.”
As is often the case, this piece of ancient text loses a lot in translation.

The Pali word dukkha, usually translated as “suffering,” has a more subtle range of meanings. It’s sometimes described metaphorically as a wheel that is off its axle. A more literal translation of the first noble truth might be
“life does not satisfy.”

The Buddha taught there are three kinds of dukkha. The first kind is physical and mental pain from the inevitable stresses of life like old age, sickness, and death. The second is the distress we feel as a result of impermanence and change, such as the pain of failing to get what we want and of losing what we hold dear. The third kind of dukkha is a kind of existential suffering, the angst of being human, of living a conditioned existence and being subject to rebirth.

At the root of all kinds of dukkha is craving, or attachment. We go through life grasping at or clinging to what we think will gratify us and avoiding what we dislike. The second noble truth tells us that this very grasping, or clinging, or avoidance is the source of dukkha. We are like drowning people who reach for something floating by to save us,
then discover that what we’ve latched onto provides only momentary relief, or temporary satisfaction.
What we desire is never enough and never lasts.


The third noble truth assures us there is another way to find an end to suffering, and that way, as explained in the fourth noble truth, is the practice of the noble eightfold path. As we practice, we develop a happiness that is not dependent on external objects or life events but results from a cultivated state of mind that does not come and go as circumstances change. Even physical pain becomes less stressful with the awareness of a cultivated mind.


So, the teaching of the four noble truths is not that life is destined to be nothing but suffering, but that the means of finding liberation from suffering is always available to us. In this sense Buddhism is not pessimistic, as many people assume, but optimistic.

 

[OrphanSlug]

There is plenty of room in philosophy to be very critical of the concept of Dukkha (Pali, or in Sanskrit as duḥkha,) and it is correct to say much has to do with translation of a word and a concept.

The problem comes down to did we ask the right question on why the term became a fundamental lesson or teaching of Buddhism. In the greater lesson of the 'Four Noble Truths' the idea is more about explanation than anything else as a fundamental cycle of life truth. There will be pain, discomfort, sadness, etc.

The real question is has a concept has Dukkha become nothing more than a philosophical parking lot for all things negative or difficult in life? A strong answer is yes, based on the inherent teachings of the concept and some of which is outlined by the OP. If one can make the argument that anything from real pain and sorrow down to stress or even just discomfort are all Dukkha as a lesson of life, then the idea is a parking lot when an individual can apply the concept to just about anything in life that is not positive.

In that context it does not matter how the word appears in older text, nor the translations over the years, as applied to a lesson from Buddhism if the interpretation can be that broad.

So, perhaps the enlightenment from the concept is simply understanding the pains of life are a truth in that negative things are going to happen, immediately explainable or not, we can either accept as truth or endlessly question in a manner that does not reveal much answer. Said another way, prolong the difficulty of those pains of life by placing ourselves in continued misery from asking all the wrong questions.

 

[ataraxia]

What I have found troubling in Buddism is this idea of "detachment". It seems to lead to a sort of nihilism and depression, a general disinterest in engaging in life and the world. When Buddhists DO engage in the world (politics, their work, love of family and friends, etc...) they try to justify it as "well, we're doing it despite being detached from them". But how do you become accomplished in your work and craft if you're really deep down inside detached from it? It seems to undermine your efforts. How do you love your children to where you are willing to sacrifice your very life for them? That doesn't seem very detached.

What I have found interesting to compare with Buddhism is the Greco-Roman philosophy of Stoicism. They share a lot of features, too numerous to list here. What you are trying to achieve in stoicism is not the Buddhist concept of "Nirvana" (nothingness) but of "ataraxia" (freedom from anxiety/perturbation). That approach seems to make more sense to me: how you can remain engaged and attached to the world, without getting too upset when things don't work out, as can so often happen. This Christian prayer, but which is ultimately based on Greco-Roman stoicism, encapsulates this approach, and makes more sense to me (I am an agnostic BTW, but that does not keep this prayer from still making a lot of sense to me):

"Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference."

 

[anatta]

What I have found troubling in Buddism is this idea of "detachment". It seems to lead to a sort of nihilism and depression, a general disinterest in engaging in life and the world. When Buddhists DO engage in the world (politics, their work, love of family and friends, etc...) they try to justify it as "well, we're doing it despite being detached from them". But how do you become accomplished in your work and craft if you're really deep down inside detached from it? It seems to undermine your efforts. How do you love your children to where you are willing to sacrifice your very life for them? That doesn't seem very detached.

What I have found interesting to compare with Buddhism is the Greco-Roman philosophy of Stoicism. They share a lot of features, too numerous to list here. What you are trying to achieve in stoicism is not the Buddhist concept of "Nirvana" (nothingness) but of "ataraxia" (freedom from anxiety/perturbation). That approach seems to make more sense to me: how you can remain engaged and attached to the world, without getting too upset when things don't work out, as can so often happen. This Christian prayer, but which is ultimately based on Greco-Roman stoicism, encapsulates this approach, and makes more sense to me (I am an agnostic BTW, but that does not keep this prayer from still making a lot of sense to me):

"Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference."

Buddhism doesnt want detachment -it's normal to love and like money and other attachments
But when they are gone, you need to learn they are ephemeral. and not to "cling to attachment"

It is the clinging that causes the suffering
Buddhist Maxim -"everything is impermanent -even the universe itself"

 

[anatta]

There is plenty of room in philosophy to be very critical of the concept of Dukkha (Pali, or in Sanskrit as duḥkha,) and it is correct to say much has to do with translation of a word and a concept.

The problem comes down to did we ask the right question on why the term became a fundamental lesson or teaching of Buddhism. In the greater lesson of the 'Four Noble Truths' the idea is more about explanation than anything else as a fundamental cycle of life truth. There will be pain, discomfort, sadness, etc.

The real question is has a concept has Dukkha become nothing more than a philosophical parking lot for all things negative or difficult in life? A strong answer is yes, based on the inherent teachings of the concept and some of which is outlined by the OP. If one can make the argument that anything from real pain and sorrow down to stress or even just discomfort are all Dukkha as a lesson of life, then the idea is a parking lot when an individual can apply the concept to just about anything in life that is not positive.

In that context it does not matter how the word appears in older text, nor the translations over the years, as applied to a lesson from Buddhism if the interpretation can be that broad.

So, perhaps the enlightenment from the concept is simply understanding the pains of life are a truth in that negative things are going to happen, immediately explainable or not, we can either accept as truth or endlessly question in a manner that does not reveal much answer. Said another way, prolong the difficulty of those pains of life by placing ourselves in continued misery from asking all the wrong questions.

Dukkha isnt to be avoided, it's to be embraced because it's the human condition. Hence the title "dukkha is more then suffering" it is literally whom we are
The 4 Noble Truths -the last one (4th) is important because it shows the 8 Fold Noble Path is the way out of suffering-
not necessarily the end to samsara -but a "Middle Way"- "the eight steps are a course of treatment that can lead us to health and well-being; we avoid the extremes of self-indulgence on the one hand and total self-denial on the other"

 

[OrphanSlug]

Dukkha isnt to be avoided, it's to be embraced because it's the human condition. Hence the title "dukkha is more then suffering" it is literally whom we are
The 4 Noble Truths -the last one (4th) is important because it shows the 8 Fold Noble Path is the way out of suffering-
not necessarily the end to samsara -but a "Middle Way"- "the eight steps are a course of treatment that can lead us to health and well-being; we avoid the extremes of self-indulgence on the one hand and total self-denial on the other"

I was not trying to comment on avoidance or embracement of any condition necessarily, more understanding that it exists as a means for healing. Intelligence and application as a means to understanding truth.

 

[ataraxia]

Buddhism doesnt want detachment -it's normal to love and like money and other attachments
But when they are gone, you need to learn they are ephemeral. and not to "cling to attachment"

It is the clinging that causes the suffering
Buddhist Maxim -"everything is impermanent -even the universe itself"

Hmmm.... I have been fascinated by the similarities/differences between Buddhism and Greco-Roman Stoicism for a while. I thought this was an interesting discussion between a Buddhist and a modern Stoic: