https://sites.google.com/site/dharmadepository/...
Suffering in Buddhism
In Buddhism one often hears of the three kinds of suffering
(tri-duḥkhatā). This is one broad classification for categorizing
the general characteristics of suffering (duḥkha) in Buddhism. For
the purposes of this post I want to consider the meanings of these
terms as well as the potential ramifications this concept has on a
person. I would argue that two conclusions are easily drawn if one
accepts the reality of suffering as described below. Firstly, that
there is no lasting happiness in life. Secondly, the only logical
course of action to take is to seek liberation.
Let us begin by examining the words of Asaṅga (4th century) in
his work the Abhidharma-samuccaya.
It is said there are three forms of suffering. The eight kinds
of suffering are included in them [birth, ageing, disease, death,
association with the unpleasant, separation from the pleasant, not
obtaining what one desires and five aggregates of attachment]. In
that case are the eight included in the three, or are the three in
the eight? They are grouped according to their own order: the
sufferings of birth, ageing, disease, death, and association with
what is unpleasant are mere sufferings (duḥkha-duḥkhatā); the
sufferings of separation from what is pleasant and and not
obtaining what one desires are sufferings caused by transformation
(vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā); in brief, the five aggregates of attachment
are suffering as suffering caused by conditioned states
(saṃskāra-duḥkha).(1)
The “suffering of suffering” (duḥkha-duḥkhatā) is easily
understood as the common physical pains we experience throughout
life such as disease and dying. Most would agree that such
experiences cause mental unease and are undesirable.
The “suffering of change” or otherwise known as the “suffering
of transformation” (vipariṇāma-duḥkhatā) is the suffering
experienced due to the immutable fact that all conditioned
phenomena are impermanent and subject to decay. The Monier-Williams
Sanskrit-English Dictionary defines the word vipariṇāma as “change
, exchange , transformation”. As Asaṅga points out the separation
from what is pleasant is included within this type of suffering.
Put another way this is the failure of happy moments to last.
The analysis taken further will have one conclude that ordinary
states of happiness or pleasure are actually just states of
suffering. This is because upon ending they either result in a
state of suffering or because they condition a being to attempt to
reproduce the same experience, amplifying addiction to sensory
pleasures. This is not say one should abandon anything that brings
about pleasure, but it is best to identify and understand these
states for what they are rather than what we would normally want
them to be.
The “suffering caused by conditioned states” (saṃskāra-duḥkha)
is, according to Asaṅga, the five aggregates of attachment, which
are cause for agitation. The “five aggregates” (pañca-skandha) here
refer to the five psycho-physical components which make up a
person. They are form (rūpa), sensation (vedanā), perception
(saṃjñā), mental formations (saṃskāra) and consciousness (vijñāna).
This might also be called a “mass of suffering” because every
ordinary aspect of it fosters future conditioned existence which is
ultimately unsatisfying. When I say “ordinary” this is in contrast
to aspects directed towards liberation, such a willed intention to
be liberated, whose result would be cessation of this mass of
suffering, otherwise known as a sentient being.
After considering the three kinds of suffering it is clearly
apparent that life is full of suffering. There is to be found no
lasting or ultimately satisfying happiness in mundane pleasures and
pursuits as it is all subject to decay and moreover conditions
future unsatisfying existence. It is the desire for sensory
pleasures (kāma) which propels a being through cyclic existence,
otherwise known as saṃsāra, as it predisposes the psycho-physical
process, which is the sentient being, towards action (karma)
directed at the experience of agreeable sensation. All worldly
pleasures and favourable sensations experienced are merely
palliative opiates that dull the pain of existence without
remedying the root source of the disease. There should never be an
expectation that worldly pleasures and temporal success will ever
be satisfying. They should be seen for what they are, rather than
what we would want them to be.
It would be best here to point out that because rebirth or
reincarnation is a core component of Buddhism there is no point in
suggesting that “if you have nothing to live for and all is
suffering, you might as well die” because death does not rob a
person of the causes of suffering. In modern times the general
conception of death, owing to influences from materialist thinking,
is that upon cessation of activity in the brain there is a kind of
oblivion awaiting the individual when all sense of subjectivity and
awareness are effectively terminated and erased. This position has
been argued against by numerous schools of thought, including the
Buddhists, over the centuries in India and elsewhere but I shall
not go into that discussion here. If you are interested in
empirical evidence of rebirth I recommend looking into the research
conducted at the University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual
Studies. The point I should like to emphasize is simply that in the
Buddhist model rebirth is a reality and unless one cures the causes
for suffering then death will be of little aid to a person seeking
relief.
Fortunately there is relief and liberation – known as the Third
Noble Truth – the truth of nirvāṇa. This indeed is the goal of any
Buddhist tradition. Nirvāṇa is to saṃsāra as health is to illness.
Being that there is no ultimately satisfying happiness to be found
in life and being that the process of birth and death will continue
indefinitely life after life, one may be inclined to investigate a
remedy to the illness. There really is no other alternative. In the
Buddhist context this is the primary driving force behind what in
English is termed “practice”. Buddhists like to talk about their
“practice” and this refers to activities directed at the cessation
of their suffering. These activities are generally classified into
three categories called the “three trainings” (śikṣā-traya), which
are moral disciple or ethics (śīla), meditation (samādhi) and
wisdom (prajñā). Wisdom is generally only possible through having
gained mental stamina via meditation, which is only possible if one
lives a proper lifestyle free from harmful behaviours.
Liberation being the only goal worth seriously pursuing in life
many dedicated Buddhist practitioners can and will engage in
activities that most ordinary people would find unreasonable and
intolerable. One such example would be extended meditation
retreats, which might be done in a cave or deep in a forest, where
one is free from all human interaction and entertainment. However,
such activities are not necessarily painful. Someone adept in the
yogic arts will experience bliss in meditation. In a more down to
earth context another example of what ordinary people might find
unreasonable would be the practitioner’s willingness to forsake
money, career, position, power, sex, romance and/or worldly success
in favour of yogic endeavours.
While it may seem unreasonable to many people, the reality is
that upon understanding the nature of suffering and the precarious
situation we as unliberated beings find ourselves in there is no
other alternative but to seek liberation and do whatever it takes
to achieve that goal. The more one tastes the bitterness of
saṃsāra, the more one seeks the liberation from it.
—-—-—-—-—-—-—-——-
(1) Asaṅga, Abhidharmasamucaya The Compendium of the Higher
Teaching (Philosophy) by Asaṅga, translated into French and
annotated by Walpola Rahula, English version from the French by
Sara Boin-Webb (Fremont: Asian Humanities Press, 2001), 85.