What Is The Nature Of Dukkha?

[camerata]

I read an article yesterday about research that showed how elephants display some human emotions such as compassion and grief. It cited the case of a female elephat that was bitten by a snake and another elephant tried to help it stay on its feet. After it died, other elephants came to grieve over the corpse. But then the article mentioned that the other females refused to suckle the dead mother's calf and it died!

I wonder if, from the Buddhist perspective, animals experience dukkha? It's clear that they suffer and have emotions such as boredom, depression, fear and anxiety, but is that dukkha if there is no self to experience it? I once saw a documentary in which a jealous senior female chimp snatched the baby of a junior chimp and bashed its head on the ground until it was dead (she then hugged the mother!). Clearly, the jealousy stemmed from attachment/craving and the mother's anguish stemmed from attachment. So was that dukkha?

If that's dukkha, it seems only the higher mammals with complex nervous systems (and brains) that enable the physical manifestations of suffering are able to experience it. Presumably a bug or a fish doesn't have the physical capacity for it. So, does the ability to experience dukkha depend on a complex nervous system, a brain, or a mind that is self-aware? And I wonder at what point in his evolution did man first experience dukkha...

[chownah]

I believe that according to the Buddha's teachings all sentient beings experience dukkha. Dukkha is not an emotion. Dukkha is the experience of things being stressful, painful, inadequate, unsettling, disruptive, etc......there is no exact translation. For example, a fish must constantly be on the alert so as not to get eaten....if an animal is sentient then it experiences dukkha.

[camerata]

I believe that according to the Buddha's teachings all sentient beings experience dukkha. Dukkha is not an emotion. Dukkha is the experience of things being stressful, painful, inadequate, unsettling, disruptive, etc......there is no exact translation. For example, a fish must constantly be on the alert so as not to get eaten....if an animal is sentient then it experiences dukkha.

It's obvious that animals experience suffering, but this suffering doesn't seem to equate exactly to dukkha. As you said in another topic, "the Buddha taught that the reason this impermanence causes the dukkha is that we all live under the assumption that we each have a certain type of self (or ego) but this assumption is a false one and we really do not have the kind of self that we imagine." In other words, the prerequisite for dukkha is ego. Ego makes us blind to the reality of impermanence, and that causes dukka. Animals have suffering that looks to us like human suffering, but it isn't caused by the delusion of a self.

I can't find any reference to the Buddha discussing animal dukkha yet. It seems to me that while dukkha is often described as suffering, it is specifically ego-generated suffering. That's why negation of the ego eradicates suffering and animals can't become enlightened (as animals).

I think if you put a man and a monkey into cages with no hope of ever getting out, they would exhibit many of the same symptoms of boredom and depression. They'd probably have similar physical sensations and a similar chemical reaction in the brain. But the difference would be that the man would be thinking, "Why is this happening to me? What have I done to deserve this? Please, God, let me out!" Both suffering but only the man gets the dukkha.

[sabaijai]

The Burden of Dukkha in the Lower Planes

The khandha of beings in the four lower worlds burden them by four ways.

Sankhata dukkha: Unwholesome volitional actions cause beings to arise in the four lower worlds. There is the declaration: 'Papasmimramate mano' (The minds of beings take delight in evil actions). They perform evil actions according to their wishes and do not consider it as suffering while they can enjoy their lives according to their inclinations, and so its burden of sankhata consequences may be said to be not very heavy, but by judging the severity of the resultant effects, it may be said that its burden of sankhata consequences is very heavy indeed.

Santapa dukkha: As regards the beings that arise in the four lower worlds, the Buddha declared that it was not possible to explain in full how these beings are burdened by santapa, because they are numerous and it would occupy a great deal of time. They have been discussed generally in the Samvega-Vatthu.

Those who arise in hel_l will have their bones, nerves, flesh, hearts, lungs, brains, etc., all red-hot and tongues of fire will spring out of their skins. Thus they will remain for hundreds of thousands, billions, trillions, and decillions of years, experiencing intolerable heat. So long as their resultant effects are not exhausted they will not be free from such misery. In like manner there are myriads of beings who are arising in the various lower worlds, and who are suffering there for decillions and decillions of years.

(The Samvega-Vatthu also describes the santapa-dukkhe relating to the petas, ghosts, asuras (demons) and animals.)

Viparinama dukkha: In the case of viparinama at the end which is the passing away, one may arise in an infernal region for a single unwholesome volitional action; and when resultant effect comes to an end, one may pass away from there due to the burden of viparinama and be reborn in a lower region which is deeper than that of one's previous existence. One may not have the opportunity to arise in the happy higher planes even after thousands of existences.

Here the explanation given by the Sammohavionodani Commentary may be pointed out. For beings wandering in samsara the number of existences in which they live up to the principles of virtue are comparatively few. Most of the existences are in the lower worlds where beings prey upon one another.

Even if they happen to be reborn in the world of men for many a time, in one out of a hundred of such existences would they be able to encounter the Buddha-Dhamma and practise it. They would hold wrong views or be vicious people in a greater number of existences. Evil conduct in deeds, words and thought done by any being in an existence is incalculable. So, among worldly beings existing in the present life, any one being possesses myriads of evil actions done by him in the innumerable past existences that could drag him to hel_l.

Those beings who are destined to arise in the hells, in the peta world and in the asura world also possess myriads of old accumulated unwwholesome volitional actions; and the same is the case with those who arise in the planes of devas and Brahmas.

If a being who dies from the world of men, the deva plane or the Brahma plane happens to be reborn for a time in hel_l, all the unwholesome kamma done by him in his past existences will have the opportunity to play their parts. One evil kamma after another would cause him to be reborn continually in the four lower worlds and he would not have an opportunity to arise in the happy course of existence in another one thousand, ten thousand or a hundred thousand existences. A being bound to be reborn in the lower worlds by having performed a comparatively small amount of evil action, could arise there continuously for a great number of aeons due to his successive past kamma. There are decillions and decillions of such beings who become 'rooted in hel_l' and who have no opportunity to arise in the happy course of existence.

Here ends the brief exposition as to how the beings belonging to four lower worlds are burdened by way of way of santapa and viparinama.

This also explains how the khandha of a being in any one existence is burdened by sankhata, santapa and viparinama.

From The Manual of the Four Noble Truths.

[Suthep_Steve]

Animals have suffering that looks to us like human suffering, but it isn't caused by the delusion of a self.

I would have to strongly disagree with this. Animals perhaps do not generate intellectually formed delusions such as not believing in past and future lives. Therefore they do not become depressed about what will happen to them after death based on this delusion.

However they can suffer from non intellectually formed delusions such as grasping at an inherently existent self. This is a spontaneous experience experienced by all sentient beings in the six realms. This gives rise to in animals case animal suffering. Human suffering is based upon the same base but because karma and the environment experienced by humans there suffering has some unique aspects.

I can't think of any scriptual references off the top of my head but the wheel of Life that Buddha gave to King Bimbasara explains this in pictoral form.

[camerata]

However they can suffer from non intellectually formed delusions such as grasping at an inherently existent self.

I really have a hard time imagining a bug grasping at an inherently existent self if it lacks (as we assume) any sense of self-awareness. According to Carl Sagan, the only animal species that recognize themselves in a mirror (and are thus aware of themselves as a separate entity from others) are chimps, bonobos and orangutans. And that's a pretty rudimentary form of self-awareness. I can see that a monkey clutching its baby or running off with food to eat alone might be thought of as having a sense of me and mine, but I reckon this is nothing more than genetic programming dictating behaviour.

[chownah]

Camerata,

I think that the concept of self as expounded in the Buddha's teachings is a much more subtle concept than what scientists usually study....perhaps that's why it seems odd to you that animals would be considered to have a concept of self as taught by the Buddha.

Chownah

Edited August 17, 2006 by chownah

[camerata]

Camerata,

I think that the concept of self as expounded in the Buddha's teachings is a much more subtle concept than what scientists usually study....perhaps that's why it seems odd to you that animals would be considered to have a concept of self as taught by the Buddha.

Chownah

Could be, but I don't recall the Buddha expounding any concept of self since he taught that we don't have one. He explained in detail about the five skandhas that we think are self, but the comments on the problem of self were pretty generic: that it is an illusion and that we think it is unchanging. Personally I don't see how an animal can have an illusion of self or the notion that it is unchanging. It seems to me that from the Buddhist perspective, self is a uniquely human illusion.

But I'm keeping an open mind on this...

[chownah]

Camerata,

I think that the concept of self as expounded in the Buddha's teachings is a much more subtle concept than what scientists usually study....perhaps that's why it seems odd to you that animals would be considered to have a concept of self as taught by the Buddha.

Chownah

Could be, but I don't recall the Buddha expounding any concept of self since he taught that we don't have one. He explained in detail about the five skandhas that we think are self, but the comments on the problem of self were pretty generic: that it is an illusion and that we think it is unchanging. Personally I don't see how an animal can have an illusion of self or the notion that it is unchanging. It seems to me that from the Buddhist perspective, self is a uniquely human illusion.

But I'm keeping an open mind on this...

I believe that the Buddha taught that the best thing to do is to have no view on self at all....this means that having a view that you have a self or having a view that you have no self are both wrong view. I believe that the Buddha taught that anyone who has ANY view on self will be drawn into thought processes like "Am I or am I not....was I before or was I not before...how was I before...how will I be...will I stop being?" The Buddha described this as a "thicket of views" or a "contortion of views" and this will be a hindrance to achieving the goal.....so he taught that one should eliminate ALL views on self including whether you have a self or not....so this is what I wouild suggest is the Buddha's doctrine of self....perhaps it would be more appropriately called a doctrine of self view.

As you probably know the concept of self vs. no-self is controversial even within Theravada Buddhism which overall is considered to be a conservative school.

Chownah

P.S. I don't think that a belief that an animal experiences dukkha or not is particularly relevant to following the Path...but I could be wrong!!!

Chownah

[camerata]

he taught that one should eliminate ALL views on self including whether you have a self or not....

Sure, no argument there. Getting backing to the nature of dukkha, I came across this from Buddhadasa Bhikkhu:

The Buddha summarized his explanation of dukkha by saying, "In short, dukkha is the five aggregates (khandha) in which there is clinging (upadana)." This means that anything that clings or is clung to as "I" or "mine" is dukkha. Anything that has no clinging to "I" or "mine" is not dukkha. Don't think that dukkha is inherent in the body and mind. Only when there is clinging to "I" and "mine" do they become dukkha.

[JoySword]

"Dukkha" is notoriously difficult to translate because its connotation changes depending on the situation described. The following is from a Theravada chant called "Salutation of the Triple Gem, but the concepts are found elsewhere in the Pali Canon:

Birth is dukkha

Aging is dukkha

And death is dukkha;

Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha;

Association with the disliked is dukkha;

Separation from the liked is dukkha.

All of these experiences or states occur to animals and so it would appear that they too experience dukkha.

Edited August 20, 2006 by JoySword

[sabaijai]

"Dukkha" is notoriously difficult to translate because its connotation changes depending on the situation described. The following is from a Theravada chant called "Salutation of the Triple Gem, but the concepts are found elsewhere in the Pali Canon:

Birth is dukkha

Aging is dukkha

And death is dukkha;

Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha;

Association with the disliked is dukkha;

Separation from the liked is dukkha.

All of these experiences or states occur to animals and so it would appear that they too experience dukkha.

Yes good way to put it, the atrributes of dukkha.

[Abrasol]

Sabbam Dukkham, „all is suffering“ - so "animal life" shouldn't be excudet.

1. Dhukka Dukkha means pain, physical pain - animals are certainly not excuded.

2. Viparinama Dukkha means suffering due to impermanence, changes etc. - animals may loose there buddy, sexual partner. They may be successful while hunting, and loose that ability over time. They will get aware of those changes for sure and probably suffering from this, even if it's translated in a form of starving.

3. Samkara Dukkha means „suffering due to conditioned states“ - it refers to disapointment due to these states. Here it becomes a little tricky for human beeings as well as for "animal conciousneness". The question is more like if the animal is aware of those conditioned states or not. In case it is aware, even in a primive form, it probably consciously suffers from this. But even if it's not aware it is suffering for sure, because it must know some form of anticlimax anyway.

If one sees (or devides) Dukkha in these 3 forms or levels, it is just a way of making its complexity more intelligible. In fact Dhukka is a whole and complex process. Hence we may deduce that it concerns animals as well, in one way or the other.

Edited August 21, 2006 by Abrasol

[thaibebop]

I read an article yesterday about research that showed how elephants display some human emotions such as compassion and grief. It cited the case of a female elephat that was bitten by a snake and another elephant tried to help it stay on its feet. After it died, other elephants came to grieve over the corpse. But then the article mentioned that the other females refused to suckle the dead mother's calf and it died!

I wonder if, from the Buddhist perspective, animals experience dukkha? It's clear that they suffer and have emotions such as boredom, depression, fear and anxiety, but is that dukkha if there is no self to experience it? I once saw a documentary in which a jealous senior female chimp snatched the baby of a junior chimp and bashed its head on the ground until it was dead (she then hugged the mother!). Clearly, the jealousy stemmed from attachment/craving and the mother's anguish stemmed from attachment. So was that dukkha?

If that's dukkha, it seems only the higher mammals with complex nervous systems (and brains) that enable the physical manifestations of suffering are able to experience it. Presumably a bug or a fish doesn't have the physical capacity for it. So, does the ability to experience dukkha depend on a complex nervous system, a brain, or a mind that is self-aware? And I wonder at what point in his evolution did man first experience dukkha...

This is kind of off topic but something related. I think you should read Regarding Animals by Arnold Arluke & Clinton R. Sanders (ISBN 1-56639-441-4) It dealt alot with issues such as this, not from a Buddhist viewpoint, but a more science based western view. Very interesting and eye opening.