EPILOGUE
BUDDHISM and REPETITIONS

Appendix D:
Development of Dukkha's meaning to Suffering

The development of the meaning of the word "Dukkha" - from "not running smoothly" to "Suffering" - and how this development reached its conclusion in the present day First Noble Truth is a long story.

I have made no great literary effort on this essay. It is long - sorry - but trying to clear up misunderstandings is always much harder than starting with nothing ...

Dukkha was the word used in Buddha's time to describe when a wheel was not running smoothly on its axle. Such a common word suddenly at the centre of a new religious teaching was sure to influence the meaning of the word.

I believe, in the 450 years it took to write Buddha's teachings down, the meaning changed and been narrowed down to "suffering".

I believe this happened mainly because 'not running smoothy' or 'not working well' wasn't dramatic enough to catch the popular imagination.

Suffering, and all the other exaggerated terms used in Buddhism like 'clinging' and 'craving'; made the message more concrete and striking ... but this diminished the universal application of Buddha's message.

I believe Buddha's message applied to everything, all the little wants and attatchments we have, why we suddenly get a pimple,and the times we end up in the kitchen and forget what we came for ... ... not only and exclusively the most extreme and manifest forms of addiction (craving and clinging) and suffering.

------------

1. If you think that in Buddha's thinking Dukkha meant "not running smoothly" - then all is fine and good - and read the other articles.

2. If you FEEL your life IS suffering then i doubt if the following will change anything - - and i would advise that Christianity is far more appropriate and has far more real help for people who feel suffering. Either that or use Buddhism as a devotional religion, as in Tibetan Buddhism.

Buddha was a Prince, had everything, all desires satisfied, he suffered no hardship (if you think he suffered tell me when or where). He left his home to find the truth as a result of seeing other peoples suffering.

Jesus suffered, not especially on the cross, (millions have been tortured, crucified, buried alive, raped and mutilated etc.); but the lies, the betrayals (not only Judas, but Peter's denial). Jesus was totally alone and everyone was against him for his beliefs and his attempts to love others, the judgements, the misunderstandings, the false witnesses, - this is the sort of suffering you and i find so hard to let go of ... it haunts us our whole lives, gnaws away at our soul - makes us feel resentment even hate - and we close our hearts.

There is certainly more to say about that, but I think that is enough to put in perspective the following rather simplistic and bland ideas in Buddha's First Noble Truth.

3. If you are UNSURE and think maybe suffering is what Buddha meant - then the following is for you. I believe Buddha was talking about something far bigger than just the answer to suffering - he was talking about the answer to happiness and the truth and how to find it.

The fact that Buddha left his home to find the answer to death, illness, and old age, is certain, but the answer he found was so much more.

Buddha knew more than just how to stop Dukkha - How could he know how to stop Dukkha, without knowing how to start Sukkha?

METAPHYSICS
I used to think this Buddhist word: 'suffering', meant that life was suffering because in some metaphysical sense we are separated from the eternal oneness ... (and it might well be that), ... but in the text to the First Truth "What is Dukkha?" - "What is Suffering?", there is absolutely no evidence of any metaphysical idea.

In the First Truth, Suffering is clearly defined with a list of very banal and manifest worldly examples ... and then, suddenly and completely incongruously it summarises this all from a totally different perspective - psychologicaly - with the Five Aggregates.

THE FIRST TRUTH
The Mahasatipatthana is the most detailed version of the Four Truths in the Pali literature.

I will use the translation from the Pali Tipitaka
www.tipitaka.org/stp-pali-eng-series#41
I suggest you read this text - try to! - all the other translations in the references are similar. Please realise: it is not me or this translation which is causing the confusion!

It seems to me there are a number of different styles and levels of thinking. I believe two or three different early teachers and scribes gave interpretations, commentaries and explanations to try and make things understandable to their students.

"And what, monks, is the Noble Truth of Suffering?" (remember suffering is the translation for Dukkha).

"Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, (sickness is suffering), death is suffering, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress are suffering, the association with something that one does not like is suffering, the disassociation with something that one does like is suffering, not to get what one desires is suffering; in short, the clinging to the five aggregates is suffering."

This is a very impressive collection of very bad worldly things which can happen.

O.K. I'd agree that illness is suffering, (though usually only temporarily), but I find it arguable if birth, death and old age are always and inevitably suffering, I find it questionable, and I think war and starvation are far better examples of worldly suffering but will make no big point about it. On the other hand I must agree: sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress are suffering, ... suffering is suffering ... not very bright - but reassuring if you are suffering ...

The list completely lacks the usual logical Buddhist objective view : - is fun suffering? - is love suffering? .. maybe ultimately fun and love are temporary and thus suffering - but the level of argument in the first truth doesn't even consider this.

Then note the incongruity of the Five Aggregates in this context ... " ... in short, the clinging to the five aggregates is suffering.". All the other examples are so blatant and in the manifest world .. and then comes: in short, (the summary), something with real psychological depth, the Aggregates. Without this reference to the Aggregates - we would be completely lost, life couldn't stand a chance of ever running smoothly ... it would all be pure worldly suffering.

After the first introductory paragraph, the First Truth continues with details about all of the examples. Was Buddha such a slow and laborious thinker that he sounded like a dictionary?

"And what, monks, is lamentation? Whenever one, monks, is affected by various kinds of loss and misfortune, that are followed by this or that kind of painful state of mind, by wailing and crying, by lamentation, by deep wailing, by deep lamentation, by the state of deep wailing and deep lamentation - this, monks, is called lamentation."

These long-winded, laborious, dictionary definitions then describe birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and distress.

The full text is indeed an excellant collection of misery ... then follows the definitions of "being associated with what one does not like" and "being disassociated with what one does like". On the first look, this may apear to be an attempt at a general theory - but actually all it is, is the ever continuing dictionary definitions.

"And what, monks, is the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like? Wherever and whenever one finds pleasant, agreeable or liked objects of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch or of the mind, or, whenever and wherever one finds that there are wishers of one’s own fortune, prosperity, comfort or of one’s own security, like mother and father, like brother and sister, like friends and colleagues or relatives; if one gets disassociated, one does not meet, one does not come into contact or does not get combined with them - this, monks, is called the suffering of being disassociated with what one does like."

I cannot believe Buddha was so boring, one-sided, dogmatic, basicly of little inteligence! There is absolutely no mention of "being associated with what one does like" and perhaps because this is temporary it is also 'suffering' - Why not? Who on earth wrote this? And, it hasn't finished!

"And what, monks, is not getting what one desires? In beings, monks, who are subject to birth the desire arises: "Oh, truly, that we were not subject to birth! Oh, truly, may there be no new birth for us!" But this cannot be obtained by mere desire; and not to get what one wants is suffering."

"In beings, monks, who are subject to old age the desire arises: "Oh, truly, that we were not subject to old age! Oh, truly, may we not be subject to old age!" But this cannot be obtained by mere desire; and not to get what one wants is suffering."

and then so on, through all the instances of sickness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and distress ... it is suffering merely to read it !! ... until we get to THIS ONE BIT OF LIGHT IN THE DARKNESS:

"And how, monks, in short, is clinging to the five aggregates suffering? It is as follows - clinging to the aggregate of matter is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of sensation is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of perception is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of reaction is suffering, clinging to the aggregate of consciousness is suffering. This, monks, in short, is called suffering because of clinging to these five aggregates."

We would be lost without the aggregates ... and even this section is COMPLETELY CONFUSING because the aggregates are presented only in the context of "the aggregates of clinging" and so the text is inextricably dominated by this idea of clinging.

AND THE PURITY OF THE ESSENTIAL PART "manifest form, sensation, perception, concepts ('reaction' in the above translation) and consciousness" IS LOST

As i discuss in Buddhism and Wheels
The Five Aggregates are defined only in terms of "the Five Aggregates of Clinging". 'Clinging' severly limits their interpretation and their potential as a universal theory. Their primary attribute is once set in motion, once the wheels start turning, they keep repeating. Attachments (and clinging) only develop as a result of the repetitions.

THE SECOND and THIRD TRUTHS
For me, the proof and confirmation of my interpretation is in the Second and Third Truths.

Though they are incrtedibly long winded, the subject matter, - in the full text of this oldest Pali rendering,- is exclusively a discussion of the Five Aggregates expanded to a list of Ten Aggregates and related to each of the six sense bases. It is pure psychology and philosophy, and there is absolutely no further mention of any worldly examples of suffering like birth, lamentation, wailing, misfortune, grief etc. etc.

I find this First Truth has caused 2,000 years of extra suffering by so successfully obscuring the truth. Dukkha means 'not running smoothly'. The six sense bases are not running smoothly or turning smoothly because the aggregates, when influenced by pleasure, get distracted by repetitions. (See Part One of Empathy with Animals)

INFLUENCING FACTORS
a) I believe very important is that many people converting to religions do so when they feel suffering .. they seek some hope, understanding or at least to make sense of their predicament - rather than seeking for truth.

b) Let's take another angle - a writer wants a good story, and the start of Buddha's story is well established and seems very plausible - Buddha was a prince who became aware of old-age, sickness and death and he left his home to seek the answer to suffering (other people's suffering) ... so a good end to this story would be for him to find the answer to old-age, sickness and death. But this 'happy end' is so limiting ... what he found was so much more - what he found was the truth. The truth about life - not just the truth about suffering.

Buddha knew more than just how to stop Dukkha - How could he know how to stop Dukkha, without knowing how to start Sukkha?

c) method of transmitting the teaching:
The Hindu tradition had perfected the memorising of texts - by repeatedly repeating the same wordings.

Maybe some monks had an almost photographic memory for some phrases ... but it seems highly doubtful that any one genius could spontaneously remember for example, one entire Sutra. I believe the texts took a period of time till they found a form - maybe only a matter of weeks - But in the time it took to remember, texts were developed and arranged, labelled and sometimes numbered so they could be easily remembered. We have almost certainly some phrases which are Budhas words - and then a mix from peoples memories of what they had understood. Once one person could remember a form with the same wordings every time - he could teach this to others.

And, from wikipedia :Pali Cannon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon

30 years after Buddhas death Ananda and Upali recited the texts to a group of Arhats (monks). I don't know by which method Ananda and Upali could have taught other monks. Did they repeat sections to different groups? .. maybe 50 times for different groups to be able to remember parrot fashion? ... what process was used to put together a whole sutra?

The texts were then subject to several oral translations before they were committed to writing during the Fourth Buddhist Council in 29 B.C. - (in which language?)

Paper became easier to make starting around 100 B.C. in China (They didn't have papyrus as in Egypt). Following this everything started getting written down. Early paper was fragile would deteriorate and texts needed rewriting. There were further translations, .. so that the earliest fragments of the Pali Cannon are in Chinese from 400 A.D. The Sri Lankan version is most complete from the 5th and 6th century B.C.

Epilogue Index -- Next Page