8 ms·
IMHO, I think the translation "life is suffering" is inaccurate enough to be particularly negative/nihilistic. Though, maybe "pain is an inescapable part of lif
by kup0 8y ago
IMHO, I think the translation "life is suffering" is inaccurate enough to be particularly negative/nihilistic. Though, maybe "pain is an inescapable part of life" is too much the other way, not sure.
"Life is dukkha" seems to mean so much more than that. Especially as the Buddha expounds on multiple types of Dukkha, only one of which is suffering/pain. The other two, being impermanence and conditioned states.
- arpa 8y agoOne could go even further and say that life can not be easily defined by a single term; hence the three marks of existence, which also seem to be reflected in a way in a western ethos. But even these three marks, in my humblest ans undereducated opinion, are just an entrypoint to describing the human condition. It is probably most safe to say: "life is such". But that's akin to saying nothing; perhaps in this lies the absolute truth?
- iliketosleep 8y agoVery true. Translating dukkha as just "suffering" is a vast oversimplification.