Everything is suffering. Is it really?

[Houzan]

I am reading Uchiyama’s book «Opening the Hand of Thought” and once again came across the dharma seal: 'everything is suffering'. Is this really true?

When we say 'everything is suffering' we have gone far beyond “birth, sickness, old age, and death”. We are saying that everyTHING is suffering. All of it. In his book "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching', TNH argues that it is difficult to see an ultimate truth where suffering is in all things. He goes as far as to exclude this dharma seal, leaving only three. His argument, which for me seems reasonable, is:

It is not difficult to see that a table is impermanent and does not have a self separate of all non-table elements […]. But is it suffering? A table will only make us suffer if we attribute permanence or separateness to it. When we are attached to a certain table, it is not the table that causes us to suffer. It is our attachment.

Maybe we could argue that everything has a potential for suffering because we have the potential to grasp it, and therefore attach to it, but this is not really the same as saying 'everyTHING is suffering'. It would be closer to maybe saying 'life is suffering'. In his book “Mindfulness”, Goldstein writes:

Mindfulness of the four postures illuminates the truth of dukkha […] in a very immediate way. This becomes clear when we investigate why it is we move or change posture. When we pay close attention, we see that almost all movements are an attempt to alleviate some kind of pain or discomfort.

We could maybe even go further and say that ALL movements and ALL communication have the deep intention of achieving or avoiding something. In this sense, it could be argued that 'life is suffering'. However, even this does not seem 100% as there certainly are moments in life, also while not sitting with our legs crossed and before any Buddhist practice, that we put away all of our goals, intentions, wants, or needs and therefore don't suffer. Suffering will for sure return, but it seems it would be closer to the mark to say 'a big part of life is suffering' or 'most of life is suffering'. But we are still far away from 'everyTHING is suffering'.

Maybe my starting point in understanding this is incorrect. Maybe this is an example of 'bring along what works for you'? Would love to get your take on this. Thanks in advance!
Sorry for running long.

Gassho, Michael
Satlah

[Bion]

Everything is suffering. Is it really?

Suffering can only go hand in hand with delusion, according to all buddhist teachings, thus safe to say that the meaning of that dharma seal is that everything touched by delusion experiences suffering. Suffering requires sentience, thought etc I’ve seen plenty people twist the idea into “life is suffering”, but I think the reality of existence of suffering does not equal the inevitability of it, thus the existence of the opposite concept of Nirvana. This discussion has been had here before, so a little digging will help you go down that rabbit hole [emoji1]

[emoji1374] Sat Today

[Houzan]

Everything is suffering. Is it really?

Suffering can only go hand in hand with delusion, according to all buddhist teachings, thus safe to say that the meaning of that dharma seal is that everything touched by delusion experiences suffering. Suffering requires sentience, thought etc I’ve seen plenty people twist the idea into “life is suffering”, but I think the existence of suffering does not equal inevitability of it, thus the existence of the opposite concept of Nirvana. This discussion has been had before here, so, a little digging will help you go down that rabbit hole [emoji1]

[emoji1374] Sat Today

Not to be taken literally. It makes sense then. Thank you, Bion

Michael
Satlah

[Bion]

Not to be taken literally. Thank you, Bion

Michael
Satlah

Take that as just my own flawed understanding. [emoji3526]

[emoji1374] Sat Today

[Houzan]

Take that as just my own flawed understanding. [emoji3526]

[emoji1374] Sat Today

Much appreciated. Will also do the digging

Gassho, Michael
Satlah

[Ryumon]

In this episode of The Zen of Everything podcast, Dukkha Sucks, Jundo and I discuss dukkha, or suffering, and what it means when we talk about life being suffering. (Spoiler: it’s not; it contains a lot of dukkha, which isn’t always what we would call suffering.)

https://www.zen-of-everything.com/80

Sometimes dukkha is just a bumpy wagon wheel.

Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat

[Houzan]

In this episode of The Zen of Everything podcast, Dukkha Sucks, Jundo and I discuss dukkha, or suffering, and what it means when we talk about life being suffering. (Spoiler: it’s not; it contains a lot of dukkha, which isn’t always what we would call suffering.)

https://www.zen-of-everything.com/80

Sometimes dukkha is just a bumpy wagon wheel.

Gassho,
Ryūmon (Kirk)
Sat

Thank you, Kirk. Will certainly listen!

Gassho, Michael
Satlah

[Jishin]

אני חושב שהכאב נמצא בכל מקום, אבל אנחנו צריכים להתמקד בכאב שאנחנו יכולים לעשות משהו לגביו עם הכלים העומדים לרשותנו כמו הדעות והפעולות שלנו.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Rich]

Very simple. If you are attached to form, it brings suffering.
Accepting that suffering it transforms to reduce attachment.
Not accepting suffering makes more suffering.

Sat/lah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jishin]

Very simple. If you are attached to form, it brings suffering.
Accepting that suffering it transforms to reduce attachment.
Not accepting suffering makes more suffering.

Sat/lah


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

תן לי את כל רכושך כדי שתוכל להיות מאושר

[emoji3]

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Rich]

תן לי את כל רכושך כדי שתוכל להיות מאושר

[emoji3]

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

I wouldn’t do that because my possessions would make you miserable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jishin]

I wouldn’t do that because my possessions would make you miserable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

חחחח. תשובה טובה.

[emoji3]

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Kokuu]

As Kirk points to, 'suffering' is often used as a translation of the sanskrit word Dukkha, which can also be rendered as 'unsatisfactory'.

In terms of dharma seals all compounded things are seen as impermanent and without a self, and as such are unsatisfactory. In what way are they unsatisfactory? This leads into what Rich says - compounded things are unsatisfactory to rely on because they are impermanent and without a self. If we expect them to remain the same, as we often do, or comform to our wishes, then we will almost certainly suffer.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday-

[Jundo]

אני חושב שהכאב נמצא בכל מקום, אבל אנחנו צריכים להתמקד בכאב שאנחנו יכולים לעשות משהו לגביו עם הכלים העומדים לרשותנו כמו הדעות והפעולות שלנו.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

Having to cut and paste this into my translation software is causing me suffering. English please, as you are a native English speaker. I don't read Hebrew. My father believed that "religion is the Opiate of the people," so I never went to Hebrew school.

Gassho, J

stlah

PS = Jewish word for Dukkha/Suffering = Tsuris. The Jews were a couple of thousand years ahead of the Buddha on this. "All of life is Tsuris" ...

https://momentmag.com/jewish-word-tsuris/

[Jundo]

My too simple definition of Dukkha (Buddhist suffering) is that all of life is suffering if it is X, but we wish it to be Y (or to stay as X and not become Y).

So, that includes sickness, physical pain, failure, aging, an ugly table, a rainy day for our picnic, loss of a loved one, our own death (X) if we wish things to be some other way (Y), e.g., healthy, successful, sunny, etc. If we are okay with sickness to be sickness, well, it may be painful and unpleasant, but it is not "Dukkha."

It also includes health, success, youth, a beautiful table, a sunny day, falling in love, birth of a child (X) if we cling and wish these always to stay and remain so, and never change (Y).

It even includes our sadness, fear, grief at loss, regrets for the past (X) if we wish not to feel sad, a bit afraid, grieving or regretful right now (Y). That is a bit subtle one, and folks sometimes miss it. I feel that one can be equanimious, peaceful and accepting even of the fact that, sometimes, we feel a bit sad, afraid, etc. right now.

The treatment and cure for Dukkha is Shikantaza Zazen, in which we practice sitting (X) with whatever is (X) as fulfilled and complete just by sitting and "just what is" (X), with no room for or possibility of (Y). Then, both X and Y drop away. as do all opposites, and there is just Flowing Wholeness.

What is more, our practice is how to be "X-not-X/Y-not-Y" at once. By that I mean that we learn to encounter this world with two views at once: A little disappointed/worried/regretful/sad perhaps (out of one eye) but thoroughly with equanimity/acceptance/peace/even joy (out of the other eye), with both eyes open at once provided clarity. We are then simultaneously being equanimiously-disappointed, irritated-tranquil, worried-calm, sad-joyous at once, as if our heart holds each feeling in separate chambers but beats together as one. For example, joyous to be sometimes broken hearted, feeling grief and acceptance and joy-of-life and loneliness and unity all at once. We can welcome the things in life, including what we do not welcome (like loss and sickness), thus welcoming-not-welcoming as one!

You can read more about this here:

Buddha-Basics (Part I) — Scooby Dooby Dukkha

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?7720-Buddha-Basics-%28Part-I%29-%C2%97-Scooby-Dooby-Dukkha

Buddha-Basics (Part II) — Noble Truths

https://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showthread.php?7719-Buddha-Basics-%28Part-II%29-%C2%97-Noble-Truths

Gassho, J

stlah