![[Watch] angel Kyodo williams talk race and Buddhism after Charlston on #MindfulMondays](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/tvCD8I1H72BKXJ7lAQeTqy44PoG3SjHel3aTy8EAdYRgk_4i1jrDRZpQ6PMaxPiO_Qi7RBWC63DgJrlNOpXVa2u8o3RM5XZ5wUd4TkYiPOpSAxjs3juINfONAl6TbJrTGoP5_cLrYDtuy6bgO6U0iQffgq2fARI0dAkWSJFcYHk=w530-h297-p)
As Buddhist practice is aimed at seeing reality "as it is", shouldn't we strive diligently to see the too often invisible system that causes so much suffering around us?
I would dispute that Buddhist practice is aimed at seeing "reality" as it is or any other way. Indeed I'd say that "reality" in this context is meaningless.34w
I'm not surprised :) But as far as I know that is still the way most Buddhists and scholars describe Buddhist soteriology; overcoming ignorance and ending suffering, two sides of a coin.34w- Except there is no basis for invoking "reality". So why do most Buddhists and scholars describe Buddhist soteriology that way? There is no word that translates as "reality".
"Suffering" as a translation of duḥkha doesn't work either, because pleasant vedanā is very clearly included under the heading of duḥkha for the unawakened.
Ironically:
Dukkhameva hi sambhoti, dukkhaṃ tiṭṭhati veti ca;
Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti, nāññaṃ dukkhā nirujjhatī ti.
(SN i.136)34w - You might have to take that up with "most Buddhists and scholars" directly :). My own sense is that the basis is there in discussions of overcoming ignorance of the way things are. Knowing and seeing the way things are, yathabhutananaadassana, = reality. If you have a better alternative translation, it would likely be article-worthy.
Suffering as a translation has become convention; I think most users, when pressed, will qualify it and give more nuance. Again, a better translation is always welcome (Thanissaro's 'stress' hasn't really caught on and I'm not a big fan of it, either; the longer 'dissatisfactoriness' - which I first heard from John Peacock but may well have originated elsewhere - is more precise but clunky...).
I miss the irony in the passage you cite, but find my own bit of irony in the one immediately preceding it:
Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā hoti saddo rato iti,
Evaṃ khandhesu santesu hoti sattoti sammuti.34w