Dear friends
While I agree with the general idea,
The Buddha explained that attachment to equanimity nay become the
hindrance to the achievment of liberation.

Nibbana is actually not equanimity, and it is nothing less of
Nibbana that should be aspired for.
it is the release of any desire, even that to abandon suffering.
Du Kha actually means bad space, it is in relation to the actual
brain space, the embodiment of a personal mind, and I use the words
in the most conventional way.
so actually, it simply means bad, trouble, if you look at the
definition, it is simply that life is trouble, not pessimistic or
nihilistic, the understanding is such.
the presence of wisdom is the reason, the support, the truth of
Nibbana, and by that, any of these adverbs is rendered inadaquate.

if it does not seem to make sense, remember that it is anna:
of a different wisdom, a different kind of consciousness.

Metta
Jothiko

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "John Kelly" <palistudent@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Leo,
>
> No, quite definitely the first noble truth cannot be interpreted
> simply as "life has suffering". This would clearly be just a
> watering-down of what the Buddha is actually saying.
>
> From the Buddha's first discourse (Dhammacakkhappavattana Sutta)
we have:
> "Ida.m kho pana bhikkhave, dukkha.m ariyasacca.m: Jaati’pi
dukkhaa,
> jaraa’pi dukkhaa, vyaadhi’pi dukkho, mara.nampi dukkha.m.
Appiyehi
> sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho. Yampiccha.m na labhati
> tampi dukkha.m. Sa"nkhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa."
> "Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is
> suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is
> suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation
> from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is
> suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are
> suffering."
>
> The Buddha is not at all denying that there is happiness in life -
> there is plenty - but it is essentially the fact that we cling to
> whatever is pleasant that brings us suffering, because all is
> impermanent. The Buddha exhorts us to develop equanimity with
whatever
> is pleasant or unpleasant. Then a byproduct is that our
happinesses
> will be greater, since we will just be in the present with them,
and
> not consciously or subconsciously creating suffering for ourselves
by
> clinging to that happiness and wanting it to last. Similarly our
> pains in life will be lessened, because with equanimity again we
> simply stay in the present with them and we eliminate all the
mental
> proliferation of thinking about our pain that intensifies our
> suffering. Of course, this is all much easier said than done -
because
> of the roots of greed, aversion, and delusion that are within us.
But
> that's what the Buddhist practice is all about.
>
> I hope this is a little helpful.
>
> With metta,
> John
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leoaive@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I am not sure about correct translation of th First Noble Truth.
> > In some cases it looks to me it is translated as: Life is
suffereing.
> > In other cases, there are Suttas, that tells about different
happiness
> > in life. So from that I can come to conclusion, that First Noble
Truth
> > shouls be: Lafe has suffering. (not life is suffering, or all
suffering)
> > I would really appreciate, if you would tell me if it can be
translated
> > like that: Life has suffering, from Pali language.
> >
> > With Metta
> >
> > Leo
> >
>