Buddha: "Now this, monks, is the noble truth of
stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is
stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are
stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation
from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is
stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are
stressful.
Namdrol: The suffering the Buddha was talking about was
mental and physical disease and pain i.e. illness, aging and
death.
No one can refute that illness is suffering, aging is suffering and
death is suffering. That is was the truth of suffering is actually
about -- not some rarified middle Indian abhidharma
redefinition.
.....
Namdrol: At the level of the 4NT, belief does not ever need to
enter into it. This is the beauty of the Hīnayāna approach -- one
never needs to beleive anything. One can decide to experiment with
the 4NT as a hypothesis and see if it is correct.
Mahāyāna and other forms of Buddhism (apart from Dzogchen) require
more of a metaphysical commitment from the get go.
Tobes: I think even on the most basic level, a certain amount of
belief is required: to experiment with any degree of efficacy, one
also has to assume that there is something true or meaningful in
the 4NT's.
Namdrol wrote: No, suffering is self-evident.
Tobes wrote: It's not at all. Suffering is not a good
translation for duhkah - because duhkah pertains to why conditioned
phenomena are unsatisfactory.
It seems clear to me that most people take it as self-evident that
conditioned phenomena are satisfactory. That's why everyone is out
driving bmw's, getting pissed, eating chocolate and shagging.
Namdrol: In the contrary, suffering is a perfectly adequate
translation for dukkha. Suffering is self-evident because all
actions in which sentient beings engage is aimed at avoiding
suffering, for example, driving beamers, getting pissed, eating
choclate and shagging.
Kirtu: Only gross personal suffering is evident for
everyone.
Namdrol: That is sufficient.
tobes wrote:But unless you're presupposing a Buddhist framework,
there is no necessity to define these pursuits in the negation.
Someone like Bentham would just say: these people are looking for
and finding pleasure, and gaining tangible and quantifiable
satisfaction from it.
Namdrol wrote: Pleasure is defined by misery, as satisfaction is
defined by dissatisfaction.
tobes wrote: The avoidance of suffering would be refraining from
visiting your mother-in-law or walking into a fire.
Namdrol wrote: Yes.
tobes wrote: So you take the axiomatic Buddhist definition of
duhkah - that conditioned pleasure is in reality duhkah because it
is conditioned - as a self-evident truth, when really it is a truth
claim which stands contrary to many other truth claims.
Namdrol wrote: The suffering the Buddha was talking about was
mental and physical disease and pain i.e. illness, aging and
death.
No one can refute that illness is suffering, aging is suffering and
death is suffering. That is was the truth of suffering is actually
about -- not some rarified middle Indian abhidharma
redefinition.
tobes wrote: I think I mentioned this responding to you in
another thread: the state of duhkah gains its formal definition
only in relationship to an enduring state of satisfaction (i.e.
nirvana). If there was no such enduring satisfaction, then there is
no real basis to define intransient bliss as duhkah.
Namdrol wrote: Bliss in Buddhism is a strictly negative
definition i.e. it is the absence of suffering just as health is
defined as the absence of illness.
In fact that notion of dukkha and the notion of roga (disease) are
intimately related.
tobes wrote: I take your points Namdrol. Definitely in the Pali
sutta's duhkah is explicitly cached out as -literally - the
dis-ease of having aggregates etc.
I have been thinking about it more metaphysically, from an
Abhidharmic and Madhyamakan point of view. I suppose there are some
interesting distinctions to be made in this respect.
Namdrol wrote: The Buddha's approach regarding the 4NT was to
introduce an irrefutable experiential fact: everywhere you look
there is suffering, because everything and everyone ages, then
sickens, then dies. The point is that this is an experiential fact
no needs guess at it -- everyone knows what suffering means.