Not a “core” which implies a reification of something.
Actually, the Buddha does in many suttas that you’ve said you interpret as not being literal.
This is getting into abstract philosophical notions. When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of any and all conditions being dukkha can be known.
It’s not about getting into substantialist ideas or not, but about practicing direct knowing, beyond notions, ontological positions, etc.
Not disagreeable – just that the notions you ascribe to those who understand the aggregates as dukkha are not what’s actually believed. But that may also be due to my not expressing things clearly.
I mean, if you wish to continue to see the aggregates as dukkha-free that’s of course up to you. My point is that ascribing notions that come up through your viewpoint about substantialist, ontological, etc. are not applicable to how the aggregates can be understood as dukkha.
But he doesnt say words like “ontological” and “fundamentally” and “literally” … others do. Specifically, people on these forums.
The words “ontological” and “fundamental” and “literal” were introduced by others. So if we’ve arrived at abstract philosophical notions I say it is because of the usage of the words above by others. To my mind, I have not introduced philosophical notions.
Ontological positions were enthusiastically introduced by others in the thread that spurned this conversation. I asked if the positions they were advocating were meant to convey an ontological position and the answer was yes.
It seems in contrast to them that you hold a non-ontological position that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha although I confess I’m not sure what that means. I guess it means that whenever you’ve looked at the aggregates you’ve always seen or simultaneously experienced dukkha so your hypothesis is that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha but you’re not sure so you don’t take this as an ontological position?
I guess what I’d ask you: have you ever directly seen any of the aggregates with an absence of craving for them? If you have not, then how can you know that the aggregates are fundamentally dukkha? Have you ever had an experience with an absence of craving?
I think it is clear that you do not take an ontological position with regards to the aggregates as fundamentally dukkha. But others - not you - have so ascribed to my mind. I apologize for confusing your position with that of others.
I do wish to experience an absence of craving again for the mere aggregates and to strengthen this into a habit of non-craving. Why? Because in my very limited experience in the absence of this craving dukkha does not arise.
Fortunately, I’ve learned to try very hard to shun ontological positions as I find them very uncomfortable. I will no longer refer to your position as an ontological one as I see you’ve expressly disclaimed this and again I apologize for ascribing to you what is not yours.
Say you abide in the heat, 40 degrees, do you need craving to suffer?
Say you hear a very loud and awfall noise, do you need craving to suffer?
Say you look directly into the bright sun, do you need craving to suffer?
Can we say that sense contacts can an sich be painful?
I think aggregation always represents a certain weight. During life, the mind carries the weight of the aggregates. Nibbana with remainder has still this weight? Nibbana without remainder is the weightless?
Think about the weight on the mind of being angry or the weight of feeling joyful in the mind, or the weight of being optimistic, enthousiastic, the weight of rigidness. . Such thing are noticable a weight. A burden. Or think about the weight of having a body. Or the weight of restlessness. Aggregates weigh on the mind, even nice ones.
I feel, any attitude, any mentallity, is a weight on the mind. Aggregates are like a load, even without craving. There are states so subtle there is hardly any weight on the mind. Yes, the mere fact of feeling represent a certain weight.
I do not think one can say that only defilements cause a weight on the mind.
Ofcourse not That would be my ego-death.
What would be the meaning of my life if we would be in agreement?
No serious, ofcourse we do not agree. The weightless is not a mere cessation without anything remaining. That is my best guess but you never listen to me…and…you do not read the sutta’s and I do.
Some rupa loka realms and arupa loka realms have 0% pain/suffering/sorrow, they are only unsatisfactory due to eventually ending. After billions of years…
No pain/sorrow/suffering during the whole duration of an existence there.
How can anyone know that these planes are impermanent in the first place?
How did the Buddha even know these planes of existence are impermanent?
Since you wrote: When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of ANY and ALL conditions being dukkha can be known.
You don’t know this. Where does it say in the suttas that these planes are dukkha-free?
The only “thing” that’s truly and explicitly free of dukkha, according to the Buddha, is nibbāna.
The Buddha and arahants knew it and said so.
SN12.15: "Whatever arises and ceases is only dukkha arising and ceasing. Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī.
Snp3.2: “All the suffering that originates is caused by consciousness. With the cessation of consciousness, there is no origination of suffering. “Yaṁ kiñci dukkhaṁ sambhoti, sabbaṁ viññāṇapaccayā; Viññāṇassa nirodhena, Natthi dukkhassa sambhavo."
Dhp278: " All conditions are suffering. Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”
AN6.105: "What are the three states of existence you should give up? Katame tayo bhavā pahātabbā?
Existence in the sensual realm, the realm of luminous form, and the formless realm; āmabhavo, rūpabhavo, arūpabhavo –
Why give them top if they’re not dukkha?
SN22.15: “What’s impermanent is suffering. Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ”
There are other similar suttas with the same theme, which I can’t find now, where other rupa loka planes/inhabitants are also mentioned in the same way as this one:
Furthermore, another person makes pleasing choices by way of body, speech, and mind. Having made these choices, they are reborn in a pleasing world, where pleasing contacts strike them. Touched by pleasing contacts, they experience pleasing feelings that are exclusively happy—like the gods replete with glory. - AN 3.23
As soon as I find the other ones expressing the very same thing I’ll post them.
“Just as, mendicants, even a tiny bit of fecal matter still stinks, so too I don’t approve of even a tiny bit of continued existence, not even as long as a finger-snap.”
But, the Buddha being the most amazing teacher ever , also said the following despite the quote above :
The lifespan of the gods of abundant fruit is five hundred eons.
An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm.
But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.
This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.
AN4.125
If these realms where dukkha, in the way you describe dukkha, then a disciple to the Buddha would not stay the ENTIRE duration, countless of thousands of billions of years in dukkha, and from there Nibbāna = no rebirth.
But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.
So these realms are obviously not dukkha during their phase/duration.
So that is why I wonder how we can even directly know that these realms are impermanent? How did the Buddha know?
“Pleasing” here is not free of dukkha any more than pleasant vedanā in the sensual realm is free of dukkha.
So maybe we agree here.
Refers to non-returners.
The suttas don’t say this.
And even for the sake of discussion if we allow this point, the very fact of their impermanence is dukkha:
AN4.185: “All states of existence are impermanent, suffering, and perishable”
DN33: "Three forms of suffering: the suffering inherent in painful feeling, the suffering inherent in conditions, and the suffering inherent in perishing.Tisso dukkhatā—dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā. vipariṇāma means changing, altering, i.e. impermanent, as are the realms you cited.
Part of the practice is with inference, anumāna. We see and know everything we directly experience as impermanent and infer that all conditional things we don’t directly see or experience, like the thoughts and feelings of others, are also impermanent.
The Buddha brings this up in the Satipatthana practices when he instructs us to see anicca internally and also externally – with respect to others.
But I agree that faith is very important as we practice.
There is a big difference, one group of beings in the sensual realms only experience pain/suffering - another group in the sensual realms has a mix of both painful and pleasant: all the way up to the various heavens - so both humans and kama loka devas.
And starting from some realms in rupa loka and upwards, everything is only pleasurable.
So you claiming: “Pleasing” here is not free of dukkha any more than pleasant vedanā in the sensual realm is free of dukkha.” is making you miss the point.
No, only the higher rupa loka realms of the Aviha devas plane #23 to the highest Akanittha devas plane #27 are for non-returners(!)
The Buddha also mention the following:
The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon.
An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm.
But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life.
This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.
Brahma’s Host is one of the lowest rupa loka realms.
Brahma’s Host is more than 10 planes below where non-returners reside.
SN 22.95 (= SA 265) states that the aggregates are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial/vain (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asāraka). SN 35.197 (= SA 1172) states that the sense spheres are just void, just vain, just empty (suññaka).
Not really, because it’s conditional and impermanent. Did you read the sutta citations?
This sounds Abhidhammic. In either case, it’s impermanent and hence dukkha.
Did you read the sutta citations?
And this matters how with respect to ending dukkha – the very purpose of the Dhamma?
Thanks for the convo, but I’m not interested in debating planes of existence and their duration.
In the very quotes you provided, impermanence is mentioned so: dukkha, as in DN33.
The suttas clearly teach that anything impermanent is dukkha – and only nibbāna is free of all dukkha.
That’s why the teachings repeatedly state that the utter cessation of all forms of bhava, of the aggregates, of the senses, of rebirth are the liberation from dukkha. Clearly this incudes the formless realms , and all realms of existence, since they are based on ignorance and craving.
As in AN3.76:
" If there were no deeds to result in the formless realm, would continued existence in the formless realm still come about?”
“No, sir.”
“So, Ānanda, deeds are the field, consciousness is the seed, and craving is the moisture. The consciousness of sentient beings—shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving—is established in a higher realm. That’s how there is rebirth into a new state of existence in the future. That’s how continued existence is defined.”
yes, this also makes clear that Nibbana cannot be seen as a pleasing sense contact.
Nibbana is not something felt or perceived by vinnana. Also not for the living arahant.
In general relativity, where space time itself can change, the law behind the conservation of energy doesn’t hold. Energy is only conserved when the laws of physics are the same throughout time. When spacetime itself changes, energy can be not conserved.
Example, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the first free electromagnetic wave in the universe when the universe becomes cooled enough for plasma to form atoms. Atoms are invisible to EM waves and thus they radiate out in all directions and it’s the furthest reach we can probe on the cosmos with EM telescopes. Now when they were first emitted, they were super hot and thus on the high frequency/ energy side of the EM spectrum, maybe even higher than ultraviolet? Regardless, now they are super cold, in the microwave region and thus lost energy and the number of photons doesn’t seem to increase in that they don’t magically go duplicate into two less frequency photons. Their frequency are reduced via expansion of space. Thus energy is lost for the cosmic microwave background radiation.
It’s dangerous to use physics onto Buddhism when one doesn’t have a lot of physics knowledge.
When looked at, seen into, and seen through with direct experience the truth of ANY and ALL conditions being dukkha can be known.
I then bring up that there is no pain/sorrow/suffering during the wholeduration in both the various rupa loka and arupa loka realms. And they last for billions of years.
I therefore wonder how you can know for sure that these realms are really impermanent in the first place? ”direct experience the truth of ANY and ALL conditions being dukkha can be known.” implies this is possible. But how? Rather it is only with faith in the Buddha, not with direct experience like you claim.
You then say:
You don’t know this. Where does it say in the suttas that these planes are dukkha-free?
I mention that there are suttas in AN explaining how these realms are exclusively pleasant and that a disciple to the Buddha can spend the whole duration in one of those realms, from one eon in Brahma’s host to thousands of eons in some formless realm. They are only dukkha because they finally come to an end. Why would any disciple stay billions of years in dukkha and then ”Nibbāna”? So from this it is evident that these realms are not dukkha during their phase/duration.
You then equate something in the sensual heavens as also applying to these rupa loka and arupa loka realms. And I then point out that you are missing the whole point.
Your reply to this is: ”Not really, because it’s conditional and impermanent. Did you read the sutta citations?”
You claim to know this because ”Part of the practice is with inference.” While at the same time you are ”not interested in debating planes of existence and their duration.”
Great, but since you are not interested in the planes of existence and their duration (which is the only way to truly know and directly experience their impermanence in the first place) you should not write: ”You don’t know this. Where does it say in the suttas that these planes are dukkha-free?” While at the same claiming: ”with direct experience the truth of ANY and ALL conditions being dukkha can be known.”When it is you who obviously doesn’t know and on top of it doesn’t even care about the planes of existence and their duration.
It matters in that disciples to the Buddha can stay THE WHOLE duration, so where did the dukkha end?
I do have physics background. GR is not the final theory. The way you state that conservation of energy does not hold in GR is basically a mathematical trick that is the minority view of GR theorists. No loss of energy has actually been observed. I understand your admonishment of being careful about integrating knowledge of physics with knowledge of Buddhism. I do try and be careful.
Fair point in terms of direct experience. Agree that saddha, faith, applies here.
But also, again, it’s clear that these realms are conditional and arise due to craving and ignorance – as in AN3.76 – so they are fundamentally dukkha, as are all conditional, impermanent experiences.
SN22.13:
"Mendicants, form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are suffering. “Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ, vedanā dukkhā, saññā dukkhā, saṅkhārā dukkhā, viññāṇaṁ dukkhaṁ.
You appear to be conflating the pleasantness in these realms with utter liberation from all dukkha – which the Buddha teaches only occurs with final nibbāna.
Because they’re not fully liberated and still have some craving and ignorance. They can only be fully liberated from dukkha, nibbāna, if craving and ignorance are extinguished. Maybe that happens in these realms.
Right. The details of these planes and their duration don’t appear to be needed to practice the N8FP and to attain liberation. What if they lasted only a million years? What if they lasted 2 years? What difference does it make for the purpose of the Dhamma teachings?
And all forms of existence, bhava, are dukkha, as in DN15 and many other suttas.
Also, as I believe @NgXinZhao could verify, time is not an absolute. It depends on one’s relative velocity and slows down at relativistic speeds compared to the perspective of others at slower velocities; so what can be a billion years in one frame of reference (realm) can be shorter or longer in others. But this is just a light side point…
But, look, if you or anyone else is into this realm information, fine. I’m just saying the particular details imo don’t have a direct and practical bearing on one’s practice to attain liberation.
That would be my ego-death.
and I do.
, also said the following despite the quote above 
: