All phenomena is dukkha

I was listening to a Phillip Moffitt talk a few days ago. He was saying that during a long retreat the
Buddha's talk about everything is burning was realized for him. He said that he noticed a friction, a disturbance (I read this as dukkha even though he didn't use that word.), everytime any phenomena entered a sense door. The phenomena could be joyful and pleasant. This line of thinking would seem to lead to the line of thinking that all phenomena, all skandhas, are dukkha even though attachment is not involved. And further that enlightenment involves stopping of all thinking. The thoughts in the last two sentences were not mentioned by Moffitt but, to me, they were implied in Moffitt's experiences.

i don't believe enlightenment implies stopping all thinking. But, have any of you noticed during deep meditation that all phenomena are dukkha?

Jack

Hi Jack,

I'm not familiar with the Phillip Moffitt talk you mentioned.

There are times in my practice where it is clear that any experience that arises -- from the smallest little tingling sensation to a more holistic state of consciousness (e.g. jhana) -- is not satisfactory, not even for a moment. This is usually most clear in the 4th samatha jhana/Equanimity nana territory, which is the springboard to cessation/fruition. At his point, though, the dukkha/unsatisfactoriness is not distressing. It is simply recognized and accepted. At this point, its seems as though the mechanisms of mind responsible for clinging and aversion may decided to call it quits, which is when cessation (i.e. release) occurs.

None of this, in my experience, has to do with stopping the mind from thinking. To stop thinking entirely requires an immense amount of concentration. The states one enters to stop thought are, in my experience, not conducive to gaining insight. They are too absorbed, too solid. Accessing a mode of experience where one may notice thoughts without getting caught up in them is more important.

Helpful?
Jackson

Hey Jackson! Do you find that in that same territory there is a sense of the natural beauty of transient phenomena as well, or only the unsatisfactoryness? In other words, do you experience the unsatisfactoryness as inhering in phenomena or as possibly read into/attributed to them by the clinging/aversive mechanisms? Does that make sense?
--Jake

Hi Jake,

Those are good questions. I hesitate to suggest that dukkha/unsatisfactoriness is "inherent" in all phenomena. I find it best to stay away from ontological assumptions, if you catch my drift

It's not so much that phenomena are inherently unsatisfactory. I think it has more to do with gaining insight into the truth that no amount of clinging, averting, or ignoring experience will result in lasting well-being. When we talk about cultivating dispassion toward phenomenal appearances, I think we're saying that we can learn to let go of this habit of resistance that results in dispensable suffering. The teaching that phenomena are marked with dukkha is best understood as a strategy for cultivating the kind of dispassion necessary for letting go, rather than as a dogmatic truth. I know there are many Buddhist types who would disagree with me on this point, but it's how I see it at this time.

And yes, the more I practice the more I learn to appreciate the transient nature of experience. There is a natural beauty to reality as experienced when clinging, aversion, and delusion are absent from present experiencing. But, as Dogen said, "Yet in attachment blossoms fall, and in aversion weeds spread."

Jackson

"When we talk about cultivating dispassion toward phenomenal appearances, I think we're saying that we can learn to let go of this habit of resistance that results in dispensable suffering. The teaching that phenomena are marked with dukkha is best understood as a strategy for cultivating the kind of dispassion necessary for letting go, rather than as a dogmatic truth. I know there are many Buddhist types who would disagree with me on this point, but it's how I see it at this time.

And yes, the more I practice the more I learn to appreciate the transient nature of experience. There is a natural beauty to reality as experienced when clinging, aversion, and delusion are absent from present experiencing. But, as Dogen said, "Yet in attachment blossoms fall, and in aversion weeds spread."

Jackson"

Nice, I think you express that very well. It's always seemed to me that dukha arises when I regard the empty and impermanent as if they weren't, as if they were solid, separate I me or mine. That clinging does run deep and at times in practice I have had very convincing experiences of pervasive suffering, where it seems like I'm uncovering something profoundly unsatisfying that was always present beneath the veneer of "ordinary life". But if I stay with it, open to it, and allow it to unfold, that "suffering" always seems to show itself as contingent upon (the exact same as, maybe) clinging/aversion/ignorance-- a mark of illusion, more than of reality. Thanks!

"Hi Jake,

Those are good questions. I hesitate to suggest that dukkha/unsatisfactoriness is "inherent" in all phenomena. I find it best to stay away from ontological assumptions, if you catch my drift

It's not so much that phenomena are inherently unsatisfactory. I think it has more to do with gaining insight into the truth that no amount of clinging, averting, or ignoring experience will result in lasting well-being. When we talk about cultivating dispassion toward phenomenal appearances, I think we're saying that we can learn to let go of this habit of resistance that results in dispensable suffering. The teaching that phenomena are marked with dukkha is best understood as a strategy for cultivating the kind of dispassion necessary for letting go, rather than as a dogmatic truth. I know there are many Buddhist types who would disagree with me on this point, but it's how I see it at this time.

And yes, the more I practice the more I learn to appreciate the transient nature of experience. There is a natural beauty to reality as experienced when clinging, aversion, and delusion are absent from present experiencing. But, as Dogen said, "Yet in attachment blossoms fall, and in aversion weeds spread."

Jackson"

"Apprecciate the transient nature of experience". Interesting. I have had a taste of what you are talking about. I have never understood why many commentators equate transient with dukkha.

The words I put to my experience are slightly different. At times in deep meditation I can experience all phenomena arising and passing away without distinction between them. I can observe subjective states objectively. I don't experience dukkha or joy either. Its just phenomena arising and passing away.

Jack

I've come across this theme several times, and I see what you are getting at with all phenomenon as dukkah or just clinging. I don't have a solution or anything, but here goes.

What The Buddah Taught - Rahula p 25: 'Whatever is impermanent is dukkha' (Yad aniccam tam dukkham). This is the true meaning of the Buddha's words: 'In brief the five Aggregates of Attachment are dukkha.'
p18: In one of the suttas of the Majjhima-nikaya, after praising the spiritual happiness of these dhyanas, the Buddha says that htey are 'impermanent, dukkha, and subject to change' (annica dukkha viparinamadhamma). Notice that the world dukkha is explicitely used. It is dukkha, not because there is 'suffering' in the ordinary sense of the word, but because 'whatever is impermanent is dukkha' (yad aniccam tam dukkham).

From the above it seems easy to say all phenomenon is impermanent, thus dukkah. And why one might think stopping thought is stopping dukkah. It is my understanding that stopping all thought is a particular state, ie, nirodha samapatti. Though I suppose this might be considered stopping dukkah, if temporarily.

On the other hand, take passage on p 29: Even this 'thirst', tanha, which is considered as the cause or origin of dukkha, depends for its arising (samudaya) on something else, which is sensation (vedana), and sensation aries depending on contact (phassa), and so forth goes on the circle which is known as Conditioned Genesis (Pattica-samupada).

So we get the notion of craving as separate from phenomenon, and as the main cause of dukkha. And to eliminate dukkha is to eliminate this main cause.

I would fall in line with everyone else here, and emphasize that I am utterly convinced, through the sum of my direct experience and the stuff I read, that there is no suffering at all outside of craving, aversion and misperception.

Implying that if there is any measure of the former, there will be some of the later.

Viz. Eliminate craving and aversion and misperception, and living becomes inherently enjoyable, wonderful, and meaningful.

Nice Bruno! I have to agree, if only based on my own experience so far. It really does seem that sans the reactivity of the three poisons, there's more to life than "equanimity" or simply noticing what is. There's... well, there's LIFE!!! And it's pretty amazing.

I guess that's why I'm a little skeptical about renunciate approaches to liberation, or at least, I think it's important to acknowledge that there may be a significant element of culturally-constructed interpretation in the normative forms of "awakening" which emerged in renunciate social contexts.

Not that awakening is a social construction, but that the interpretations of it which orient practice before awakening and teaching after awakening IS partially constructed. I'm thinking of the classical Sutric Buddhist practice, for example, common to both Theravada and Mahayana Sutric Buddhism, of cultivating (intentionally) disgusting fantasies of "the body" as a corpse, a meat bag, etc. These sorts of practices, and the attitudes which give rise to them, seem to be so... well...
dukkha-inspiring, rather than duckkha-revealing

Honestly, I suspect that putting "dukkha" on a par with impermanence and no-self is a residue of such constructive activity, rather than an insight of direct experience. That's my own opinion-- based on the experiences I've had and the understanding I currently feel confident in-- so I hope no one takes offense. This "enactionist" view of dukkha though seems to be implied in the whole structure of the four noble truths-- there is a cause, and an end, to dukkha. And it isn't slitting your wrists, ergo, experience-- life-- is possible sans dukkha according to a straight reading of early dharma, IMHO.