All emotions are pain (The Four Seals)

[Snoopy]

Hi,

I have recently read that what would make one a “Buddhist” (should one want the appellation) is that one accepts as true the Four Seals; i.e.

All compounded things are impermanent.
All emotions are pain.
All things have no inherent existence.
Liberation is beyond concepts.

The second of these I would like to focus on: If one cannot accept that all emotions are pain, if you believe that actually some emotions are purely pleasurable, then one is not a Buddhist.

I understand that given that all things are impermanent and have no inherent existence then emotions, like everything else, “come and go.” So positive emotions do not last, and this is where they are unsatisfactory. But then also negative emotions do not last, is this also unsatisfactory?

It seems to me that one could more simply and accurately say that emotions are negative or positive and arise and decay in their turn. Why is it more truthful (or A Truth or Seal) to view emotions from just the one (negative) perspective?


s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

the four seals or axioms are not, really, what makes one a Buddhist, per se. the "official" way to become a Buddhist is to take refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha and it is somewhat different for monastics and laiety and also between schools.

the four seals are, in essence, distillations of the Four Noble Truths. however, you are wanting to talk about the second of the seals, so we shall focus upon this.

in some cases, the choice of terms for transliteration can create certain difficulties that do not exist in the original language, for a variety of reasons as i'm sure you're aware. the choice of the term "pain" for "dukkha" is just one of those, in my opinion.

a more apt transliteration of the Second Seal is:
All contaminated phenomena are, by nature, unsatisfactory.

we can see clearly the larger implications of such a transliteration over a term such as pain which carries a certain connototion of physical discomfort. Dukkha is a term, however, which is vastly more inclusive than physical sensation.

in this context, contaminated phenomena is meant to be inclusive of all things, events, experiences and so forth which are products of contaminated actions and the underlying delusions that give rise to them.

a more full explanation can be found the World of Tibetan Buddhism: Its Philosophy and Practice:

The world of Tibetan Buddhism: an overview of... - Google Book Search

pleasurable sensations are also subject to the underlying delusions which give rise to them and, further, since we know that such moments do not last they are tinged with dukkha in that manner as well.

it is correct that negative emotional states are, equally, transitory. it is the transitoriness of these states, and all other emotional states, which leads to the experience of dukkha.

it is not "more truthful" or more accurate to say that emotional experiences are, in and of themselves, negative. it is, however, correct to say that all emotional experiences arise from the underlying delusions and are tinged with Dukkha.

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Hi Vaj,

Thanks as ever for a clear post, the article I had read was interesting but managed to put doubts in my mind.

I shall read the link. Here is the article should you (or anyone else) be interested (I changed the word nirvana to liberation to avoid frightening off any "non Buddhists" from posting!)

Shambhala Sun - What Makes You a Buddhist?

(Thich Nhat Hanh has said that he believes the three authentic seals are anicca, anatta and nirvana...)

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

it is the transitoriness of these states, and all other emotional states, which leads to the experience of dukkha.
~v

Hi,

I've read the article; thanks again. I think the above comment (my bold) is my key learning point regarding my OP.


s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

I have recently read that what would make one a “Buddhist” (should one want the appellation) is that one accepts as true the Four Seals; i.e.

All compounded things are impermanent.
All emotions are pain.
All things have no inherent existence.
Liberation is beyond concepts.

The second of these I would like to focus on: If one cannot accept that all emotions are pain, if you believe that actually some emotions are purely pleasurable, then one is not a Buddhist.

I understand that given that all things are impermanent and have no inherent existence then emotions, like everything else, “come and go.” So positive emotions do not last, and this is where they are unsatisfactory. But then also negative emotions do not last, is this also unsatisfactory?

It seems to me that one could more simply and accurately say that emotions are negative or positive and arise and decay in their turn. Why is it more truthful (or A Truth or Seal) to view emotions from just the one (negative) perspective?


s.

Show me a causeless effect.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post and the kind words i am pleased to provide any help that i can for your Flower to blossom.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Show me a causeless effect.

Namaste Seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Virtual Particles seem to fit your request:

Virtual Particle -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Show me a causeless effect.

Are you just trying to slap my head?

My OP was concerned with the notion that all emotions are painful and I was wondering why a more neutral standpoint was not appropriate. But I think I get the idea now; with transcience being the reason all emotions are (ultimately) dukkha.

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Are you just trying to slap my head?

well, if you insist:

My OP was concerned with the notion that all emotions are painful and I was wondering why a more neutral standpoint was not appropriate. But I think I get the idea now; with transcience being the reason all emotions are (ultimately) dukkha.

s.

Aren't they all judgments? {New meaning to the symbol of the empty throne?}

[Snoopy]

A judgment to be neutral? Now you're filleting me!

Empty throne thing lost on me I'm afraid, sg.

Love the emoticon!!!!

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

A judgment to be neutral? Now you're filleting me!

Empty throne thing lost on me I'm afraid, sg.

Love the emoticon!!!!

s.

Emotions are judgments. And yes, one can make a judgment to be neutral. {Not to be confused with "right discernment," imo.}
The throne is a symbol of judgment (and authority.) The empty throne is a symbol associated with Buddhism. {Does that make "emptiness" the authority and judge? *grin*}

Oh, and thank you, Vajradhara, for pointing out the Virtual Particles.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Seattlegal,

my pleasure

hmm.. well.. remember.. emptiness is how it is transliterated into English and we really aren't talking about lack of physical objects or phenomena, per se, though that can enter into the conversation.

emptiness is more than a transliteration, it is also a translation and, as such, it seems to be understood somewhat differently than it seems was the intention.

emptiness is a paraphrase or summation of the teaching in Buddha Dharma of impermenance and it refers to the lack of any permenant characterstic of noumena or phenomena. so, in essence, we are saying that things are empty of these permenant markers

does that make emptiness a judgement? upon what would such a judgement be based?

metta,

~v

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

does that make emptiness a judgement? upon what would such a judgement be based?

Wouldn't that make emptiness the judgment? {from an absolutist perspective,} or the measuring device or scale used to make that judgment? {from a relativistic perspective?}

If the mind keeps moving, how can there be anything of permanence, except perhaps for the movement the mind makes and the constant measurements the mind makes? Can the mind become permanently still and not pass away?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Can the mind become permanently still and not pass away?

Certainly (and I can only speak with any authority of my own) my mind has to keep moving or it will pass away. In this respect it is like a shark.
Except for the teeth.

s.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Wouldn't that make emptiness the judgment? {from an absolutist perspective,} or the measuring device or scale used to make that judgment? {from a relativistic perspective?}

judgement requires there to be a subject/object relationship that persists in some manner, it would seem. without there being an object upon which the subject can evalutate, there is no ground for judgement.

If the mind keeps moving, how can there be anything of permanence, except perhaps for the movement the mind makes and the constant measurements the mind makes? Can the mind become permanently still and not pass away?

that is one of the fundamental teachings of the Buddha Dharma.. all phenomena and noumena are impermenant, nothing persists. the measurements or comparisons the mind makes are part and parcel of the discursive intellect and can, indeed, be calmed.

stilling the mind does not mean stopping all mental processes, it means that we are able to still the wandering thoughts and distractions which constantly arise in our mind stream. this process is done in several ways the most widely of which is meditation upon the breath which allows us to develop concentration to the degree that our wandering thoughts are stilled naturally, like the waves upon a pond that still when the wind ceases to blow.

metta,

~v