I'm not particularly buying any of this. The central metaphor just doesn't seem true (scratching an itch can be way more pleasurable than not having one, imE, and ditto with many other instances of receding unpleasantness) and I don't think "[t]herefore what we usually take as pleasure is just scratching the sore of underlying suffering" follows from any of the stuff before (lots of types of pleasure for which this doesn't seem true).
1Thank you for this comment! It's an excellent response that gets to the heart of the matter. You're absolutely right to focus on the metaphor, as its validity determines the model's usefulness.
Let me clarify the intended meaning, because I think we use 'pleasure' in two different senses, which is exactly what the metaphor is trying to reveal.
- Distinguishing 'pleasure' from 'well-being'. The claim isn't that the sensation of scratching is less intense than the sensation of neutrality. The claim is about the overall state of the system.
In a 'scratching state' the system has a problem (a sore/itch). The scratch provides a high-contrast relief from the negative state. This relief is intensely felt and is certainly 'pleasurable' in a hedonic sense. But the system's baseline is compromised. - In a 'no sore state' the system has no problem. There is no negative state to relieve, so there's no high-contrast 'pleasure event'. Instead, there is a steady unobstructed peaceful functionality. This is what Nāgārjuna calls "more pleasurable still", not in terms of peak sensory intensity, but in terms of well-being and the absence of background suffering.
The metaphor argues that what we often chase as 'pleasure' is the first kind: the intense signal of a problem being temporarily solved. The second kind - the peace of a problem-free system - is quieter but constitutes a higher quality of existence.
A way to test this: would you choose to have a mild chronic itch in order to enjoy scratching it? Probably not. The pleasure of scratching 100% depends on unpleasantness of the itch. The pleasure is fundamentally parasitic on the problem. If you could magically have no-itch state, you would certainly choose that! This reveals that at a meta-level we value the problem-free state more, even if scratch provides a momentary peak experience of pleasure.
Translating this to worldly desires: the model suggests our worldly cravings often work the same way. The pleasure of satisfying a craving (for food, distraction, status, etc.) is often most intense when it relieves a background state of lack, anxiety, or boredom (the 'sore'). The point is not to never scratch an itch - that's impractical, the insight is:
- To recognize the itch. In other words: is this craving arising from a genuine neutral need or from a background 'sore' I'm trying to pacify?
- To aim to problem-free state. Prioritizing movement to 'no sore state' (by insight, resolution of conflicts, etc.) over optimizing for the most efficient 'scratching' routines.
So you point is valid, if we equate 'pleasure' with raw hedonic intensity. The model invites us to consider a wider perspective of well-being, where freedom from the need to scratch is superior (if less intensive) outcome.
Where in this view do pleasures fit that are not the removal of suffering? Or does it deny any such thing?
For example, listening to great music, contemplating great art, studying a field of mathematics, or creating any of these things?
This is a crucial question, thank you for asking it! It challenges the model's boundaries and forces us to be precise about what we mean by 'suffering' (dukkha) and 'craving' (tanha).
Short Answer: The model does not necessarily deny the existence of such pleasures (they would be in a different category though, more on this later). It invites us to inspect them more closely. Are they truly free from the mechanism of 'scratching a sore', or do they contain subtle elements of it? The framework suggests a spectrum rather than a binary.
- Distinguishing dukkha (the 'sore') from acute pain. First, it's important to clarify that dukkha in the first noble truth is not just gross pain or misery. It encompasses a subtle, pervasive background of unsatisfactoriness, instability, or 'dis-ease.' This can include:
- boredom: seeking stimulation (music, study)
- existential restlessness or meaning-seeking: pursuing beauty (art) or truth (mathematics)
- a sense of incompleteness or lack of accomplishment: the drive to create
If the activity primarily functions to relieve that kind of background tension, then it fits the 'scratch' dynamics, even if the activity itself is sublime. The pleasure is, in part, the relief of that subtle lack. - The concept of 'non-craving joy' (pīti, sukha). Buddhist sources themselves acknowledge states of joy that are not born of sensual craving. In deep meditation (jhāna and samadhi), one experiences rapture and happiness that arise from stillness, concentration, and letting go, not from fulfilling a lack. This is closer to the 'no-sore' state manifesting as positive affect. This is what Nāgārjuna means by "more pleasurable still", abiding in this state is pure joy.
Could listening to Bach or contemplating an elegant proof trigger a similar non-acquisitive non-lacking joy? Possibly, if it is experienced with a mind free from craving - free from the 'itch' to possess it, to use it for status, to escape something else, or even to prolong the experience itself. The pleasure then is not a relief from a negative, but an appreciation of a positive that arises in a still mind. Then it should be called joy, really. - The model itself might serve as a litmus test. To distinguish between pleasure and non-contrived joy one might ask:
- is it addictive? Does its absence create a craving or a sense of loss? (Suggests a 'scratch' dynamic.)
- what is its emotional aftertaste? Does it lead to contentment and release, or to a craving for more? (The former suggests satiation; the latter suggests the 'sore' remains.)
- could I enjoy this equally if no one ever knew I experienced it? (Helps isolate it from the 'sore' of social validation).
Creating great art or mathematics often involves immense struggle (a 'sore'), but the moment of breakthrough can feel like a transcendent release from that very struggle. Yet, the appreciation of the final product by a still mind might be different - a pure non-contrived joy.
Therefore, the model doesn't automatically categorize all pleasure on the same level (there is a non-contrived joy which is beyond the scope of pleasure). What it does: it asks us to discern the underlying mental state. A huge portion of what we chase is relief-driven ('scratching'), and that a state of peace ('no sore') is superior and can itself be profoundly positive. So the pleasures you list could sit anywhere on this spectrum between pleasure and non-contrived joy. The final litmus test is whether there is craving or not.
The worried voice in my head says:
"Doesn't this all just add up to negative-utilitarianism and extinctionism? If all action is rooted in desire, if 'everything is suffering', then eliminating 'desire and suffering' means eliminating the motives for action, which ultimately means eliminating life."
To which a reassuring voice responds:
"Think about eating habits. There is such a thing as healthy eating. But a lot of people's eating habits are dominated by craving and gluttony; or self-loathing and bingeing; or other cycles of self-reinforcing suffering. Healthy eating doesn't look like eliminating the action of eating, that is, starving yourself! (But it certainly doesn't look like pigging out and hating yourself, or getting envious over whether your gourmet meal is less cool than the other guy's, or eating whatever maximizes the profits of the food industry.) Attempting to starve yourself would be part of one of these cycles of suffering. Healthy eating entails eliminating those cycles. The same thing applies to other sorts of suffering."
Worried voice again:
"Okay, sure, eliminating specific intense knots of 'desire and suffering' makes sense to me. But what about the limit case? If the theory says 'everything in life is suffering', then after you eliminate those knots, the theory is still going to aim at eliminating everything else in life. That's extinctionism right there. Hey wait a minute, doesn't nirvana mean extinction to begin with?"
Reassuring voice:
"Hey, hold on, I like that 'knots of desire and suffering' idea. You're thinking of painful knots in a muscle, where it's tense and it's keeping itself tense, and causes you pain. But there's a big difference between relieving a knot in a muscle, and never putting any tension on that muscle at all. Healthy muscle motion isn't a knot, but it also isn't disuse and atrophy. Unknotting the knots is part of getting to healthy motion. It doesn't mean the end goal is to go totally limp and relaxed all the time. But if the reason you can't relax at all is because of painful knots, then worrying about disuse and atrophy is the wrong cognitive behavior."
W:
"Yeah, I was also thinking of Knots by Laing, and the idea of self-reinforcing interpersonal suffering. But seriously, what about the limit case?"
R:
"We are so far from the limit case that it doesn't make sense to worry about it! If we set out eliminating knots of suffering, the heat-death of the universe would come long before we actually got to the limit case where it makes sense to worry about extinctionism. Extinction is going to happen anyway eventually, but it's so very far in the future. And by reducing suffering, we would have had a happier future."
W:
"So, you agree that present-day extinctionists are just wrong? That eliminating human life isn't the correct way to eliminate human suffering?"
R:
"Yeah, definitely. They're bonkers bozos and always lose. Entropy happens but there's no point in worshiping it!"
W:
"Okay, fine, I'm a little bit more on board with this Buddhism stuff."
This is a fascinating dialogue, thank you for sharing it! I want to jump on board of the Reassuring Voice and add some comments.
First, nirvana is not extinction of a person, life or experience. What is extinguished is suffering (dukkha) and its cause - craving (tanha). It's the extinction of the fire of ignorance, clinging and aversion - not of consciousness or life. The result is described as the highest bliss, supreme security and freedom. All are positive terms. It is the end of problematic mode of being and not of being itself.
Second, the first noble truth doesn't say "everything is suffering". It says that life as conditioned by clinging (upadana) is pervaded by suffering (dukkha). It's a statement about a process (clinging to the five aggregates), not a condemnation of pure sensory experience itself.
Eliminating the 'knots' (craving/clinging) is not like trimming a tree branch by branch until nothing is left. It's like untying a knot in a hose. Once the knot (the obstruction) is gone, the water (life, energy, consciousness) can flow freely, without distortion or blockage. The goal isn't to stop the flow; it's to remove the distortions that cause the "painful pressure" and "blocked functionality".
Third, the Buddhist path is about cultivating positive qualities, not just negating negatives (even more so!) The four noble truth, the noble eightfold path is a training in skillful action, not inaction. It cultivates: wisdom (prajñā), ethical conduct (śīla) and meditative absorption (samādhi). These states represent a re-orientation from "scratching itches" (craving-driven action) to skillful, compassionate and clear engagement with the world.
Last, on present day Extinctionists R is right to dismiss them. Extinctionism mistakes the problem (suffering born of craving and ignorance) for the vehicle of experience (life itself) and seeks to destroy the vehicle to solve the problem. The Buddhist solution is to repair the flawed navigation system of the driver (the mind), not to crash the car.
Your dialogue beautifully resolves the issue. The 'knots' metaphor is perfect. We aim to untie the painful, self-reinforcing knots of craving and aversion so that the muscle of our being can be strong, flexible, and capable of healthy, responsive tension - not perpetually knotted up in suffering, nor limp and atrophied in a pseudo-nirvana of inaction (stupor really).
The goal isn't the extinction of life but the transcendence of a specific flawed operating system (the 'itch-and-scratch' or 'knot-forming' system) and its replacement with one of wisdom and compassion. That is the opposite of extinctionism, it's about making life actually work.
Rationality involves understanding the hidden structures of our own cognition and motivation. A common failure mode is conflating symptom-relief with genuine problem-solving. Buddhist sources offer a stark, 2,500-year-old model of this, which I'll explore here using Nāgārjuna's potent analogy to reveal how pleasure relates to suffering.
The first noble truth declares:
— Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth[1]
The usual remark to this noble truth, "Not everything in life is suffering: we experience so many pleasant things in this life that it is preposterous to call everything suffering." But I would like to question that remark with the following words by Nāgārjuna:
— Nāgārjuna, The Precious Garland, 169[2]
It unveils a deep-rooted truth concerning pleasure we get from the worldly desires. He compares pleasure with scratching a sore. The sore in that case is deep rooted suffering. If it weren't for underlying suffering we might not get the worldly desires at all!
It is also true when stated backwards as in the second noble truth:
— Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth[1]
What that means is that craving or worldly desires and suffering are interrelated. One cannot arise without another. We attempt to avoid suffering by scratching the sore, i.e. by craving for pleasure. If it weren't for suffering the desire to scratch might not even arise! The opposite is also true: if there were no desire to scratch, it would mean there is no sore of suffering. Therefore, what we usually call pleasure is just scratching the sore of suffering.
But to be without sores would be more blissful than scratching them. And that is revealed in the third noble truth:
— Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth[1]
Therefore what we usually take as pleasure is just scratching the sore of underlying suffering. And to get rid of that sore and be free from it requires insight into the nature of the appropriator of craving or the self. That would lead one beyond that loop of itch-and-scratch, craving-and-gratification.
Why I enjoy that verse of Nāgārjuna that much? It is a terse and lucid expression of the three noble truths which reveals the mechanism of pleasure and provides a proper metaphor to understand it.
Tripitaka, Samyutta Nikaya 56.11, Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting Rolling the Wheel of Truth.
Nāgārjuna, The Precious Garland.