<p>Buddha NEVER said (translated into English, of course) &quot;Life is suffering&quot;. He said that &quot;there is suffering&quot;. It is important to clarify and highlight this significant difference.</p>
<p>The formulation, as you call it, is found in other philosophical systems of India dating back to 600-700 B.C. It is quite difficult to pinpoint which text &quot;first&quot; proposed it as such.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-04T16:35:56.630Z
2023-06-04T16:35:56.630Z
HomagetoManjushri
<p>I would say it's the first noble truth.  but to end it as stated would be wrong, and misrepresenting Buddha.  The statement requires ellipsis(...) and would continue on as such...</p>
<ol>
<li>Lifeforms suffer</li>
<li>to get what they want</li>
<li>they get (don’t get) what they want</li>
<li>this is the cycle. keep doing it, or make modifications (eightfold path + dhamma).</li>
</ol>
<p>Regardless, to answer your question, the atomic idea &quot;life is suffering&quot; might have entered mainstream western thought through <a href="https://that-which.com/schopenhauer-on-suffering-all-life-is-suffering/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Arthur Schopenhauer's</a> work.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“At all grades of its phenomenon, from lowest to the highest, the
will disposes entirely with an ultimate aim and object. It always
strives, because striving is its sole nature, to which no attained
goal can put an end. Such striving is therefore incapable of final
satisfaction.”
Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-30T15:35:06.110Z
2023-06-04T13:48:59.420Z
2023-06-04T13:48:59.420Z
blue_ego
<p>The origin appears quite obvious. There is the word 'jati' in the scriptures, which means 'a class of beings', as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[Due to <strong>ordaining as a monk</strong>] ‘Ever since I was <strong>born in the noble birth</strong>, sister, I don’t recall
having intentionally taken the life of a living creature. By this
truth, may both you and your baby be safe.’</p>
<p>‘yatohaṁ, bhagini, <strong>ariyāya jātiyā jāto</strong>, nābhijānāmi sañcicca pāṇaṁ
jīvitā voropetā, tena saccena sotthi te hotu, sotthi gabbhassā’”ti.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn86/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=asterisk&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN 86</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>And what is <strong>birth</strong>?</p>
<p>Katamā ca, bhikkhave, <strong>jāti</strong>?</p>
<p>The birth, co-conception, emergence, production of beings in this &amp; that <strong>class of beings</strong>; the manifestation of their aggregates, and [mental] acquisition of their sense objects.</p>
<p>Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi <strong>sattanikāye</strong> jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/pli/ms?layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=asterisk&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 12.2</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. <strong>To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?</strong> <strong>Any desire, passion, delight, or craving</strong> for form, Radha: <strong>when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'</strong></p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
fabrications...</p>
<p>&quot;Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
being.'</p>
<p><a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 23.2</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>There was obviously a time in Buddhism, particular with the concoction of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jataka Tales</a>, the word '<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/j%C4%81ti" rel="nofollow noreferrer">jati</a>' or '<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/j%C4%81ta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">jata</a>' came to refer to a physical birth or a lifetime. This false view continues today, in false translations such as the following, where the word 'nivāsā' is falsely translated as 'lives' and the word 'jāti' is taken to mean a physical birth rather than a 'self-identity/class lineage':</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified,
bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and
imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past <strong>lives
(nivāsā)</strong>. I recollected many kinds of past lives. That is: one, two,
three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a
thousand, a hundred thousand <strong>rebirths (jatiyo)</strong>; many eons of the world
contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons of the world
contracting and expanding.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/mn4/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=asterisk&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MN
4</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>When 'jati' is regarded as a 'lifetime' rather than as a 'self-view of a class of beings/self-identity' then verses, such as in the following dodgy translations, are misconstrued to mean <em>life is suffering</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Now this is the noble truth of suffering.</p>
<p>Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—</p>
<p><strong>Rebirth [life] is suffering</strong>; old age is suffering; illness is suffering;
death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering;
separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for
is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.</p>
<p><strong>Jātipi dukkhā</strong>, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ,
appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na
labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=asterisk&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 56.11 First Sermon of the Buddha</a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Transmigrating through countless <strong>rebirths [lives]</strong>,</p>
<p>Aneka<strong>jāti</strong>saṁsāraṁ,</p>
<p>I’ve journeyed without reward,</p>
<p>sandhāvissaṁ anibbisaṁ;</p>
<p>searching for the house-builder;</p>
<p>Gahakāraṁ gavesanto,</p>
<p><strong>painful is</strong> <strong>birth [life]</strong> again and again.</p>
<p><strong>dukkhā</strong> <strong>jāti</strong> punappunaṁ.</p>
<p><a href="https://suttacentral.net/dhp146-156/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&amp;reference=none&amp;notes=asterisk&amp;highlight=false&amp;script=latin" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dhammapada</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>This false view &amp; perversion of the Teachings becomes so obsessive that even Western monks today are now claiming the Pali word 'bhava' ('becoming') refers to a 'lifetime', despite compassionate efforts to dissuade them, such as found here: <a href="https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bhava-doesnt-mean-becoming/27463?u=geew" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhava doesn’t mean ‘becoming’</a> by Sunyo Bhikkhu (a self-proclaimed Pali &amp; Vinaya expert).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-30T12:20:42.053Z
Thank you for your answer. If I understand it, then, a change over time of the connotation of the word 'jati' caused (mis)interpretation of earlier texts in light of later texts like the Jatakas? 
Should 'Jātipi dukkhā' be understood as '[birth/emergence into a class of beings] is dukkha'?
zeno
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-30T19:29:35.060Z
Yes. In short, self-identity is suffering.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-30T20:27:48.570Z
1. Reading your tiny, seven-word comment produced, by some mechanism I'm going to investigate, a strange feeling in me which I've felt a few times before: on retreat listening to a dharma talk, and reading Nietzsche for the first time; I was very suddenly overtaken by what I can only, and very poorly, describe as a kind of energetic calm. I wish I could meditate my way into this state as easily as it seems to randomly occur.


2. Is Jātipi the only dukkha of that series which should be interpreted/translated in a non-straightforward way? ie are 'old age', 'illness' etc also mistranslated?
zeno
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-05-29T21:24:17.163Z
2023-05-30T01:06:54.380Z
2023-05-30T01:06:54.380Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>I'm wondering if anything is known about the origin of this formulation, which is ostensibly a summary of the first noble truth:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;Life is suffering&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Beyond whether this is a poor summary or translation: where did it come from? An English-language popularizer, maybe?</p>

<history><texts><terminology>
Who said "life is suffering"?
# Who said "life is suffering"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-05-29)

I'm wondering if anything is known about the origin of this formulation, which is ostensibly a summary of the first noble truth:

> "Life is suffering"

Beyond whether this is a poor summary or translation: where did it come from? An English-language popularizer, maybe?

**Tags:** history, texts, terminology


---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2023-06-04. Score: 1

Buddha NEVER said (translated into English, of course) "Life is suffering". He said that "there is suffering". It is important to clarify and highlight this significant difference.

The formulation, as you call it, is found in other philosophical systems of India dating back to 600-700 B.C. It is quite difficult to pinpoint which text "first" proposed it as such.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-05-30. Score: 1

I would say it's the first noble truth. but to end it as stated would be wrong, and misrepresenting Buddha. The statement requires ellipsis(...) and would continue on as such...

1. Lifeforms suffer
2. to get what they want
3. they get (don’t get) what they want
4. this is the cycle. keep doing it, or make modifications (eightfold path + dhamma).

Regardless, to answer your question, the atomic idea "life is suffering" might have entered mainstream western thought through [Arthur Schopenhauer's](https://that-which.com/schopenhauer-on-suffering-all-life-is-suffering/) work.

> “At all grades of its phenomenon, from lowest to the highest, the
> will disposes entirely with an ultimate aim and object. It always
> strives, because striving is its sole nature, to which no attained
> goal can put an end. Such striving is therefore incapable of final
> satisfaction.”
> Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-05-29. Score: 1

The origin appears quite obvious. There is the word 'jati' in the scriptures, which means 'a class of beings', as follows:

> [Due to **ordaining as a monk**] ‘Ever since I was **born in the noble birth**, sister, I don’t recall
> having intentionally taken the life of a living creature. By this
> truth, may both you and your baby be safe.’
>
> ‘yatohaṁ, bhagini, **ariyāya jātiyā jāto**, nābhijānāmi sañcicca pāṇaṁ
> jīvitā voropetā, tena saccena sotthi te hotu, sotthi gabbhassā’”ti.
>
> [MN 86](https://suttacentral.net/mn86/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)

> And what is **birth**?
>
> Katamā ca, bhikkhave, **jāti**?
>
> The birth, co-conception, emergence, production of beings in this & that **class of beings**; the manifestation of their aggregates, and [mental] acquisition of their sense objects.
>
> Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi **sattanikāye** jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho.
>
> [SN 12.2](https://suttacentral.net/sn12.2/pli/ms?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)

> 'A being,' lord. 'A being,' it's said. **To what extent is one said to be 'a being'?** **Any desire, passion, delight, or craving** for form, Radha: **when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a being.'**
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling... perception...
> fabrications...
>
> "Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha:
> when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be 'a
> being.'
>
> [SN 23.2](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html)

There was obviously a time in Buddhism, particular with the concoction of the [Jataka Tales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jataka_tales), the word '[jati](https://suttacentral.net/define/j%C4%81ti)' or '[jata](https://suttacentral.net/define/j%C4%81ta)' came to refer to a physical birth or a lifetime. This false view continues today, in false translations such as the following, where the word 'nivāsā' is falsely translated as 'lives' and the word 'jāti' is taken to mean a physical birth rather than a 'self-identity/class lineage':

> When my mind had become immersed in samādhi like this—purified,
> bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and
> imperturbable — I extended it toward recollection of past **lives
> (nivāsā)**. I recollected many kinds of past lives. That is: one, two,
> three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred, a
> thousand, a hundred thousand **rebirths (jatiyo)**; many eons of the world
> contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons of the world
> contracting and expanding.
>
> [MN
> 4](https://suttacentral.net/mn4/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)

When 'jati' is regarded as a 'lifetime' rather than as a 'self-view of a class of beings/self-identity' then verses, such as in the following dodgy translations, are misconstrued to mean *life is suffering*:

> Now this is the noble truth of suffering.
>
> Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ—
>
> **Rebirth [life] is suffering**; old age is suffering; illness is suffering;
> death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering;
> separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for
> is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
>
> **Jātipi dukkhā**, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ,
> appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na
> labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.
>
> [SN 56.11 First Sermon of the Buddha](https://suttacentral.net/sn56.11/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)

> Transmigrating through countless **rebirths [lives]**,
>
> Aneka**jāti**saṁsāraṁ,
>
> I’ve journeyed without reward,
>
> sandhāvissaṁ anibbisaṁ;
>
> searching for the house-builder;
>
> Gahakāraṁ gavesanto,
>
> **painful is** **birth [life]** again and again.
>
> **dukkhā** **jāti** punappunaṁ.
>
> [Dhammapada](https://suttacentral.net/dhp146-156/en/sujato?layout=linebyline&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin)

This false view & perversion of the Teachings becomes so obsessive that even Western monks today are now claiming the Pali word 'bhava' ('becoming') refers to a 'lifetime', despite compassionate efforts to dissuade them, such as found here: [Bhava doesn’t mean ‘becoming’](https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/bhava-doesnt-mean-becoming/27463?u=geew) by Sunyo Bhikkhu (a self-proclaimed Pali & Vinaya expert).

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thank you for your answer. If I understand it, then, a change over time of the connotation of the word 'jati' caused (mis)interpretation of earlier texts in light of later texts like the Jatakas?  Should 'Jātipi dukkhā' be understood as '[birth/emergence into a class of beings] is dukkha'?  
> **username_3**: Yes. In short, self-identity is suffering.  
> **username_0**: 1. Reading your tiny, seven-word comment produced, by some mechanism I'm going to investigate, a strange feeling in me which I've felt a few times before: on retreat listening to a dharma talk, and reading Nietzsche for the first time; I was very suddenly overtaken by what I can only, and very poorly, describe as a kind of energetic calm. I wish I could meditate my way into this state as easily as it seems to randomly occur.   2. Is Jātipi the only dukkha of that series which should be interpreted/translated in a non-straightforward way? ie are 'old age', 'illness' etc also mistranslated?  

---

