Zen & Dukkha -- Is Everything Suffering?

No this does not reflect Zen teachings. Thich Nhat Hanh is his own man in his attempt to reconcile Buddhism with popular views such as scientific materialism. He even recently attempt to try to re-translate the Heart Sutra to fit his own conceptions. I could be wrong my judgement of him, he could in actual fact be practicing skillful means to teach Buddhism to skeptical, pleasure seeking westerners who do not want to hear that all things are suffering. In fact the Buddha himself did not teach the doctrine of suffering to laymen because of the risk of misunderstanding. You can see from the sutta quoted above that he taught it specifically to advance monks.

By itself not teaching suffering is ok, there are examples of suttas where the Buddha taught about better births which are more pleasurable than our current life to lay Buddhists who has good ethics. Mahayana Sutras like Pure Land sutras are also employ skillful means of teaching the reward of bliss first for practicing Buddhism such as the Pure Land of Supreme Bliss of Amitabha. However I think Thich Nhat Hanh harms the cause of Buddhism when he starts going around claiming that various doctrines does not reflect the teachings of the Buddha, as if he knew better than all the previous masters who agreed on the teachings of the Buddha and preserved them.

In fundamental Buddhist doctrine: All conditioned existence are ultimately suffering.

However from a conventional point of view many of the states of existence will be described as extremely blissful and peaceful.

As I understand it, everything is suffering in the sense that they are ultimately unsatisfactory because of impermanence.

Sure the experience of the Jhana/Chan/Zen is supremely blissful and peaceful compared to physical suffering or even physical pleasures. The fact is that even the state of the Jhanas are themselves impermanent and subject to dependent origination. It is of course better to be in meditative Jhana rather than indulging in immoral pleasures because negative consequences result from the latter.

However if you are attached to the pleasures of Jhana you will experience suffering when you are out of that state. Ultimate you must be detached to them all and that detachment is Nirvana. That is also the realization that all conditioned existence is suffering.

Edit

So I got side tracked with some of the claims regarding suffering here including the claims of Thich Nhat Hanh. As some posters pointed out, the error is in the 'scope' of 'all'.

Here is the Four Dharma Seals:

1. All compounded things are impermanent
2. All conditioned phenomena and experiences are unsatisfactory
3. All phenomena are non-self
4. Nirvana is true peace

A Chinese translation:

1. 一切行無常印 - All 'conditioned experience' (sankhara) are impermanent
2. 一切行苦印 - All conditioned experience are suffering
3. 一切法無我印 - All dharmas are not self
4. 涅槃寂滅印 - Nirvana is the end (of suffering)

The Three Suffering

1. Dukkha-dukkha, the dukkha of painful experiences.
2. Viparinama-dukkha, the dukkha of the changing nature of all things.
3. Sankhara-dukkha, the dukkha of conditioned experience.

Chinese: 三苦

1. 苦苦 "Suffering of Suffering"
2. 壞苦 "Suffering of (Pleasures) becoming broken"
3. 行苦 "Suffering of Sankhara - mental formation"

In the Three Realms, the Desire Realm - that is the realm of sensuality suffers from all three types including pain, loss of pleasure, and impermanent conditioned mental formations.

The Form Realm - corresponding to the Four Jhanas do not suffer from pain, but from losing what is pleasurable through impermanence, and conditioned mental formations.

The Formless Realm - corresponding to the Formless Jhanas suffer from neither pain nor pleasure but continue to suffer from the impermanence of mental formations. So the Chinese translation does not include the word 'pervasive'. However suffering is pretty pervasive from an experiential basis in any of the three realms...

But as some posters point out there is a case where there is the end of suffering, as long we are talking about Nirvana, the detachment from your pain, pleasure and mental formations, outside of the scope above.

From the Theravada perspective.

Whatever is felt is included in suffering - Raho,gata Sutta & Maha Kamma,vibhaṅga Sutta

Feeling are 3 types which are related to unsatisfactoriness (everything is not satisfactory or unpleasant):

• Pain is suffering on its own but pleasant when it changes (dukkha-dukkhatā)
• Pleasure in itself is not suffering but leads to suffering since it changes and ends hence Whatever is felt is included in suffering (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)
• Neutral feeling are suffering as conditioned existence birth, old age and death is unsatisfactory (Sankhara-dukkha) {what is satisfactory is Nirvana which is not associated with any sensation} and also this can very well lead to the above two types of suffering. This is painful when unknown and pleasant when known.

The main reason for our continued existance which opens us to future situation of suffering (birth, decay, mishaps and death) is craving towards pleasant feeling, aversion towards unpleasant and being ignorant of reality when experiencing neutral feelings. [Pahāna Sutta, Cūla Vedalla Sutta, Avijja Pahana Sutta 2]

Coming back to conditioned existance which associated with unsatisfactoriness of existance (Sankhara-dukkha) is suffering as you are not exempt from birth, aging and death. This is associated with ignorance. This can become a pleasure if known (eradicate ignorance) but painful when unknown (with ignorance). Conditioned existance is not unpleasant entirely but connected to it. [Cūla Vedalla Sutta]

"All-pervasive suffering" is one translation of Sankhara-dukkha. Here are several other translations.

Does that analysis of dukkha comes from one sutta? Dukkha Sutta (SN 38.14) says,

There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness.

Instead of looking for a translation of Sankhara-dukkha and instead of translating it as "everything is suffering" or "life is suffering" or "all-pervasive suffering", it might be better to figure out what sankhara means.

Note this series of comments, where Ven. Yuttadhammo implies that "life is suffering" doesn't accurately quote what the Buddha said.

• I don't know of any example where the Buddha actually said "life is suffering". – yuttadhammo

• Do you know a better English-language paraphrase/summary/approximation of the First noble truth? – ChrisW

• the first noble truth is simply "This is the truth of suffering." Nowhere in the enumeration of what is suffering does it refer to life. – yuttadhammo

One more story, I read this somewhere:

Thich Nhat Hanh said that, when he was seven years old, he saw a picture of the Buddha on the cover of a Buddhist magazine.

He was sitting on the grass ... very peaceful ... smiling. And I was impressed. Around me people were not like that, so I had the desire to be someone like him.

I take it that we're meant to understand that the Buddha himself found a way to escape 'suffering'.

Wikipedia says,

As suffering is not an inherent aspect of existence[4] sometimes the second seal is omitted to make Three Dharma Seals.[5][6]

Those footnotes reference Thich Nhat Hanh, but also two other authors, Rulu and Hsing Yun (who I think are both Chinese).

My interpretation would be that all things are not suffering, for several reasons.

First of all, the first Noble Truth needs to be seen in context with the other Noble Truths - it says in life there is suffering, but also that there are causes and a path to the cessation of suffering. Most composite entities are not alive and so cannot follow the path. It stands to reason that most composite things follow a natural path to physical decomposition and recomposition, which doesn't necessarily include (mental) suffering.

Second, in the sutra's the words 'conditioned things' often refers to Sankhara, which is a term that largely refers to mental phenomena. To extend this to try and construct a doctrine which implies that the whole physical world is suffering is an error in conception.

Without clinging there can be no suffering, and clinging is a property of mental formations. I would say that Thich Nhat Hanh may well be right. Others are likely better placed to comment on Zen beliefs and practices regarding suffering.

Thich Nhat Hanh made an error because he was attempting to rationalize another error. If Thich Nhat Hanh actually understood the teachings, he would not state the teaching of 'samskara dukkhata' is false but instead, simply rectify the error in the interpretation of the teaching.

The spirit of what Thich Nhat Hanh said is correct, namely, there is no inherent or pervasive suffering in the five aggregates & there is a state of bliss & freedom living beings can experience, which is called Nirvana. The teachings explain quite unambiguous that it is attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates that is suffering rather than the five aggregates themselves.

As for the Three Characteristics, the 2nd characteristic is not 'suffering' but 'unsatisfactory'. The five aggregates are unsatisfactory (in that because of their impermanence they cannot bring lasting happiness) but the five aggregates are not 'suffering'.

In short, the idea of all-pervasive suffering ("the suffering of composite things",samskara dukkhata) does not exist in the Pali suttas because the term 'samskara dukkhata' does not mean "the suffering of composite things" but means "the suffering of mental constructing".

Thich Nhat Hanh has correctly said that nirvana is the joy of completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts. However, Thich Nhat Hanh does not intellectually understand that the word 'samskara' has many meanings dependent on context and, in the context of the compound 'samskara dukkhata' means 'ideas and concepts'.

Thus, using the language of Thich Nhat Hanh, the three kinds of dukkha are translated correctly as: "suffering about pain" (dukkha dukkhata); "suffering of ideas & concepts" (samskara dukkhata) and "suffering about change" (viparinama dukkhata).

Intellectually, Thich Nhat Hanh was wrong but spiritually Thich Nhat Hanh was correct.