Ayya Dhammadipa's Articles on Lions Roar

Konin Cardenas, Mark Unno, Thubten Chodron, and Bhikkhu Bodhi examine what dukkha is, why it matters, and how we can approach it in our lives. From the Winter 2017 issue of Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma: Dukkha is the starting point of Buddhist teachings, but not everyone speaks about it in the same way. Speaking from your own tradition, what does dukkha mean? Bhikkhu Bodhi: In the Pali suttas, the discourses of the Buddha, the word dukkha is used in at least three senses. One, which is probably the original sense of the word dukkha and was used in conventional discourse during the Buddha's time, is pain, particularly painful bodily feelings. The Buddha also uses the word dukkha for the emotional aspect of human existence. There are a number of synonyms that comprise this aspect of dukkha: soka, which means sorrow; aryadeva, which is lamentation; dolmenasa, which is sadness, grief, or displeasure; and upayasa, which is misery, even despair. The deepest, most comprehensive aspect of dukkha is signified by the term samkara-dukkha, which means the dukkha that is inherent in all conditioned phenomena simply by virtue of the fact that they are conditioned. Konin Cardenas: In the Zen tradition, dukkha is often translated as “suffering,” although more often it means dissatisfaction or the nagging sense that something is off, or sometimes even existential angst. It seems that dukkha is discussed more explicitly in American Zen than it commonly has been elsewhere in the Zen world. In my experience, Japanese Zen tends to assume that people come to practice seeking enlightenment—I can’t think of a single time I heard the word “dukkha” used during my Japanese training. American Zen, however, acknowledges that whether or not people are seeking some kind of transcendent experience, they often come to practice motivated by the feeling that their life is difficult; I hear “dukkha” often at the places where I’ve trained in the U.S. But regardless of where it’s practiced, Zen identifies the fundamental source of suffering as confusion about the true nature of things. If we don't spend time considering what dukkha is, then we won't seek liberation and awakening. Instead, we’ll use the dharma only to make our samsaric life a little bit better. -Thubten Chodron. Mark Unno: The suffering of samsara is due to human attachment. In the Jodo Shinshu tradition, we sometimes simply say, “Things don’t go the way I want them to.” It's a relatable way of talking about attachment as a fundamental cause of suffering. Within that, there is physical suffering such as illness or injury, and there is emotional suffering of various kinds, but those might be categorized as finite sufferings that are addressed within the tradition; the fundamental suffering is the suffering of existence, which is due to attachment to existence, particularly ego attachment. In Shin Buddhism, the term we use most often to describe the cause of dukkha is “blind passions.” Human beings are driven by their passions. There's nothing inherently wrong with the basic desires for food, sleep, sex, success. But problems arise when we grow attached to preconceived notions of how to fulfill those desires, to notions of who we think we are or should be, or to who we think others should be or are. It's really the attachment to notions of reality that causes our feelings and desires to become blinded, hence the term “blind passions.” Thubten Chodron: I think “suffering” is a very confusing translation for the word dukkha. Suffering often refers to painful feelings and only that, whereas the word dukkha is much more inclusive. We often speak of three types of dukkha. The first is painful sensations, which can be mental or physical. The second is the dukkha of change—even when we have happiness in samsara, it doesn't last. The activity that we believe is bringing us happiness isn't truly of the nature of happiness; if we keep doing it, eventually it too becomes painful, like eating too much and eventually feeling sick. The subtlest level of dukkha is the pervasive dukkha of conditioning, taking the five aggregates again and again under the influence of afflictions and polluted karma. Even though we want happiness and peace, because our mind isn’t free from mental afflictions—ignorance, animosity, and attachment—and the karma or actions that we perform under their influence, we are reborn in cyclic existence and experience dukkha again and again. Buddhadharma: Are there English translations of dukkha that are preferable to “suffering”? Mark Unno: There can be a lot of confusion around the term, but I like “suffering” as a translation; it’s a relatable term that has deep resonance with the fundamental condition that Buddhism is seeking to address. It’s also the most common translation, and over time, especially in a religious context, words in the vernacular can absorb more subtle layers of meaning. So when “suffering” is used within the Buddhist context now, it's understood with an increasing degree of sophistication. Thubten Chodron: My experience is that when people hear “suffering,” they think of the ouch kind of pain, either physical or mental, so when their lives are going well they think, “My life isn’t the nature of dukkha. I have a house, a job, a family—everything is fine. I'm not suffering.” Similarly, when you're trying to encourage compassion, people can readily have compassion for those who are poor or sick, but they don't think of extending it to residents of Beverly Hills or the West Side of Manhattan. So I think the word “suffering” actually limits people's understanding of dukkha. I just use the Sanskrit and Pali term dukkha now and explain it when I talk. Sometimes I translate it as “unsatisfactory circumstances,” but that becomes rather bulky. Is it the case that all of the misfortune and disappointments that come to us, including physical pain and illness, are necessarily the result of our past karma? In the Buddha's suttas I have not found a statement to that effect. -Bhikkhu Bodhi. Konin Cardenas: I agree. Using a phrase like “the unsatisfactory nature of things” or simply using the term dukkha and explaining it is preferable because it encompasses the pervasive way in which dukkha is a part of life—that it’s more intrinsic than a tension between positive or negative or joyful versus not joyful. Bhikkhu Bodhi: It's good to have a little debate here. I'm more comfortable with dukkha, though I'm also going to come to the defense of Mark’s preference for “suffering.” I agree that dukkha has a much more extensive meaning than the English word suffering; without explanation, it could easily be misunderstood. However, the Buddha picked up the word dukkha—which during his time meant suffering—and placed it within the architecture of his teaching, from which multiple ramifications of the word arose. Similarly, through explanation one can show that what we call suffering encompasses a much wider range than we commonly understand—we start with the word that indicates pain, dissatisfaction, what is defective or inadequate, and then show that the things that we take to be pleasant, blissful, and enjoyable, when examined more closely and deeply, are in fact unsatisfactory and inherently defective. There are a number of discourses in which the Buddha explains how when a meditator attains the higher levels of meditative absorption, the advanced stages of samadhi—the four janas, the four divine abodes, the bramaviharas, and the four formless meditations—and then examines those states that we generally consider to be sublime or blissful, they too will be seen as impermanent, as dukkha, as a disease, a boil, an affliction, a tumor, and so forth. So we can extend our understanding of suffering to include even these exalted states. Buddhadharma: Rather than insist on a single translation, might it be better to talk of dukkha as a spectrum of experience? Thubten Chodron: Yes. One end of the spectrum is mental and physical suffering. The other end is the basic fact that our minds are not free. Due to afflictions and karma—the second noble truth, the truth of the origin of dukkha—continuous rebirth in samsara occurs. That's a very subtle kind of dukkha that is difficult for people to realize; we don't even tend to think of it as anything undesirable. We just take our body and mind for granted. But it is said that aryas, those who perceive reality directly, perceive that kind of dukkha with the same intensity as we would having a hair in our eye; they desire to be free from that unbearable experience. If I don't continually anchor my practice in awareness of that kind of dukkha, my practice isn't touching the essence of what the Buddha was trying to get across. It limits practice to overcoming the unhappiness, confusion, and pain in this life, whereas dukkha really embraces the whole experience of uncontrollable rebirth. I think that's important for us to understand. Mark Unno: A practical way to think about that spectrum in the Shin tradition is that oftentimes one can take the more superficial level of suffering, with mental or physical pain, as a point of entry that leads the practitioner into a deeper awareness of the fundamental condition. The parallel to that in terms of karma is the relationship between individual and collective karma. As one's practice deepens, one becomes increasingly aware that collective karma is actually not separate from one's own individual karma, that all karmic suffering is realized as one's own suffering. Konin Cardenas: I agree that presenting dukkha as a spectrum is important. It helps the practitioner understand that even in the midst of a life that’s seemingly comfortable, there is still dukkha that can be addressed by our practice. There is another kind of liberation that isn't about becoming more comfortable materially or psychologically. Bhikkhu Bodhi: If we don't accept that deeper dimension, then when dukkha gets adapted to the Western...

The Mind That Knows Itself

Understanding Dukkha

TEACHINGS

LIFE

EXPLORE BUDDHISM

NEWS