the who?:
The translation as "suffering" was such a bad fit to my own experience that it became something of an impediment to my learning when I first started reading about meditation years ago. Before I started practicing, I could really only stomach the most modern, secularized writings (e.g. Charles Tart) about Buddhism because I couldn't get past the idea that "there is suffering" was a premise that the whole thing started from. There was something, and something bad, that drove me to try to learn more about this practice, but "suffering", with all its baggage, was mostly not it.
This is an example of how "Buddhism" (the religion of "Buddhism") is being packaged and sold to unsuspecting people who have not taken the time to honestly investigate the Dhamma as taught by Gotama beyond just contemporary third person accounts and opinions. The impression these people obtain about "Buddhism," then, is colored (tainted) by the ideas/opinions that other people have about something that they
too have likely never honestly explored! Either that, or there is a hidden (political?) agenda behind their writings about "Buddhism," meant to influence people's minds about, in this case, the religion of "Buddhism," and, by implication, the Dhamma that Gotama taught. My point is: misunderstandings and misstatements abound around subjects like this. It's always best to return to source material if you want to have even a shred of a chance of discerning the truth about such things. That is, if the truth is
even what one is interested in obtaining.
If people would go back to source documentation
first rather than rely on biased, contemporary opinions from people who are either ignorant about the source material or who have some kind of hidden agenda to air, they might find that there is less to be skeptical about beyond what they discovered in the contemporary fare they have read and, apparently, digested and accepted as being true.
Source material would be something like the
Dhammapada, which is a compendium of thought gathered in a short volume put in verse form endeavoring to put forth the key fundamentals of early Buddhist philosophy. If, after reading something like this one still has doubts or criticisms, then at least they can claim to have taken a look at source material and honestly say that they were unimpressed. But to base one's impressions on third person opinions and biases is not giving the source (in this case, the Buddha) a fair shake in the deal.
From the Samyutta Nikaya at 56.11 (
Dhammakakkappavattana Sutta or Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dhamma) Gotama defines
dukkha as follows (Note: I have replaced the translation of the word
dukkha originally rendered as "suffering" with "dissatisfaction" and "unsatisfactory" to more clearly reflect the intent of the passage):
"Dissatisfaction [
dukkha], as a noble truth, is this: Birth is unsatisfactory, aging is unsatisfactory, sickness is unsatisfactory, death is unsatisfactory, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are unsatisfactory; association with the loathed is unsatisfactory, dissociation from the loved is unsatisfactory, not to get what one wants is unsatisfactory — in short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are unsatisfactory."
A more complete description of
dukkha can be had at accesstoinsight.org
The First Noble Truth and the translation of the discourse
Dhammakakkappavattana Sutta.
What follows is taken from the
Dhammapada (as translated by Ananda Maitreya) in the chapter on Mind:
Just as an arrowsmith shapes an arrow to perfection with fire,
So does the wise man shape his mind,
Which is fickle, unsteady, vulnerable, and erratic.
Like a fish taken from the safety of its watery home
And cast upon the dry land
So does this mind flutter, due to the lure of the tempter.
Therefore one should leave the dominion of Mara.
How good it is to rein the mind,
Which is unruly, capricious, rushing wherever it pleases.
The mind so harnessed will bring one happiness.
A wise man should pay attention to his mind,
Which is very difficult to perceive.
It is extremely subtle and wanders wherever it pleases.
The mind, well-guarded and controlled,
Will bring him happiness.
One who keeps a rein on the wandering mind,
Which strays far and wide, alone, bodiless,
Will be freed from the tyranny of the tempter.
A man of fickle mind
Will never attain wisdom to its fullest,
Since he is ignorant of the Dhamma
And has wavering faith.
The heart of the fully conscious man is fearless —
He has transcended both good and evil.
Observe this body, as fragile as an earthen vase,
Build a mind as solid as a fortified city,
Then confront Mara with the weapon of insight
And (proceeding without attachment)
Guard what you have already conquered.
Certainly before long this body will lie on the ground,
Lifeless and unconscious,
Cast aside like a useless log.
A mind out of control will do more harm
Than two angry men engaged in combat.
A well-directed mind creates more well-being
Than the wholesome actions of parents
Toward their children.