But the aggregates are dukkha.
Where’s the explicit destruction of suffering in this sutta?
yes. and at the cease of clinging to the clinging-aggregates the aggregates are no more dukkha. Read the previous Sutta
Ok, so I think it’s about differentiating between nibbāna while the arahant is alive and nibbāna after the final death.
We agree that the cessation of greed, anger, and ignorance does not lead to the immediate cessation of the aggegates (and senses). These remained until they ceased without remainder after the death of the Buddha and arahants.
SN22.22 is about the cessation of craving and nibbāna realized while the aggregates are still present.
But since the aggregates are dukkha, not all dukkha ceases until after the final death without rebirth.
Is this what you’re pointing to?
“And what is the burden? The five grasping aggregates, it should be said. What five? The grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. This is called the burden.”
“And what is the picking up of the burden? It’s the craving that leads to future lives, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure wherever it lands. That is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence. This is called the picking up of the burden.”
"And what is the putting down of the burden? It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not clinging to it. This is called the putting down of the burden.”
- Yo: That
- tassāyeva: the same
- taṇhāya: of craving
- asesavirāganirodho: complete cessation of craving without remainder
- cāgo: relinquishment
- paṭinissaggo: giving up
- mutti: freedom
- anālayo: unattached/not clinging
Not clinging, being unattached, relinquished here is referring to craving. This is the way to end the burden which are aggregates.
no. The dukkha from the aggregates will cease at the arhantahood, with the complete cease of ignorance and the clinging to aggregates.
From that point, the notions of live and death are revealed like delusion and there is no a fundamental border between alive or death. Because this reason, we can find how nibbana and parinibbana were both applied to the alive arhants in the first original teaching.
In short, our views on parinibbana arise because we conceive a solid border between live and death, although this is not the case for the Buddha and the arhants. The thesis is that the transcendental character of the Buddha teaching was higher in its first period, although later it was lowered by an orthodoxy which collected many teachings from the Past, although their interpretations in these higher points were “more worldly” than in the original times. And the use of nibbana and parinibbana for the alive people in the first times would show that fact.
The first original Buddhism would have been more transcendental in the issue on live/death. It was more “Matrix”, to say it in popular words, regarding the difference between live and death than what the later orthodoxy interpreted.
Please if you wish review those previous messages in the thread with the related Suttas and the mentions of papers from some translators, their explanations, footnotes and etc.
we think the same about the purpose, although no about the consideration of live and death in the ultimate perspective (we would wish to believe similar to the arhant so we can talk about this).
The five senses and the aggregates are not exactly the same issue. As previously appeared in Suttas this thread, the remainder are the five senses instead the aggregates. And there is no mention in the Suttas about the destruction of aggregates
The five senses belongs to the first gross acquisition of a -self. However, in the second acquisition of a -self the Reality still is produced and there is experience without the five senses. Please review the previous messages around the problem of the intermediate stage in the Orthodoxy
Thanks.
How do you reconcile this with
SN22.30: "The arising, continuation, rebirth, and manifestation of feeling …
Yo vedanāya …pe…
perception …
yo saññāya …pe…
choices …
yo saṅkhārānaṁ …pe…
consciousness is the arising of suffering, the continuation of diseases, and the manifestation of old age and death.
yo viññāṇassa uppādo ṭhiti abhinibbatti pātubhāvo, dukkhasseso uppādo rogānaṁ ṭhiti jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo.
The cessation, settling, and ending of form is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death.
Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpassa nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, dukkhasseso nirodho rogānaṁ vūpasamo jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo.
The cessation, settling, and ending of feeling …perception …choices …
consciousness is the cessation of suffering, the settling of diseases, and the ending of old age and death.”
yo viññāṇassa nirodho vūpasamo atthaṅgamo, dukkhasseso nirodho rogānaṁ vūpasamo jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo”ti.
and
SN12.15: "… what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī.
and
SN22.85: "“Reverend Yamaka, suppose they were to ask you:
‘When their body breaks up, after death, what happens to a perfected one, who has ended the defilements?’
‘yo so, āvuso yamaka, bhikkhu arahaṁ khīṇāsavo so kāyassa bhedā paraṁ maraṇā kiṁ hotī’ti?
How would you answer?”
“Reverend, if they were to ask this,
I’d answer like this:
‘Reverend, form is impermanent.
‘rūpaṁ kho, āvuso, aniccaṁ.
What’s impermanent is suffering.
Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
What’s suffering has ceased and ended.
yaṁ dukkhaṁ taṁ niruddhaṁ tadatthaṅgataṁ.
Feeling …
perception …
choices …
consciousness is impermanent.
viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ.
What’s impermanent is suffering.
Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
What’s suffering has ceased and ended.’
yaṁ dukkhaṁ taṁ niruddhaṁ tadatthaṅgatan’ti.
The aggregates and senses, being constructed through craving and ignorance, are therefore intrinsically dukkha. So the arahant is free of “mental” anguish associated with craving, ignorance, and self-view.
But since the aggregates and senses remain, there is still the dukkha of their mere presence until final death.
This is not to create a concrete “border” or “boundary” between life and death in terms of concepts. Rather death, as in the sutta, refers to the ultimate cessation of the senses and aggregates without rebirth.
Greetings,
I think you misunderstood the annihilationist’s predicament.
The annihilationist conceives that things like perception truly exist
And so he describes & thinks about the cessation of perception & feeling as people generally think about the cessation of existant things, rather than thinking in terms of dependent origination.
Consider this course of interrogation of a buddhist-annihilationist, he says
No being is extinguished, only the aggregates
How so?
Because a being can not be pinned down as true & real. The word ‘being’ is merely a convention used when the aggregates are present. Feeling is not a being, perception is not a being, etc
But can you pin the aggregates as true & real?
Yes
But how so? When perception is also not feeling, not in feeling, not outside of feeling, etc.
The eternalist would answer that the aggregates don’t truly exist.
Ariyas answer that that the assertion ‘everything exists’ is one extreme and the asertion ‘everything doesn’t exist’ is another extreme, and avoiding these two extremes they teach & think in terms of dependent origination.
As to your talk with Puerh about whether all aggregates are dukkha, it’s a different topic
1 Like
BASED ON MY THOUGHTS
The words 'annihilated’, ‘destroyed’, and ‘does not exist after death’ that you quote refer to ‘body perish at death’. Because it is impossible to use the word ‘cessation’ for ‘body perish at death’ (because body will disintegrated, destroyed, annihilated, not cessation of body), so, the word ‘cessation’ is more appropriately associated with ‘being or non-being’ (because it’s non physical as body) or it refer to the words that you quote → 'rejoice in (the idea of) non-being ’ or we can say it ‘rejoice in cessation of non-being’
Bhikkhu Sujato translated it like this in the Diṭṭhigatasutta
And how do some get stuck? Because of love, delight, and enjoyment of existence, when the Dhamma is being taught for the cessation of existence, the minds of some gods and humans are not secure, confident, settled, and decided. That’s how some get stuck.
And how do some overreach? Some, becoming horrified, repelled, and disgusted with existence, delight in ending existence: ‘When this self is annihilated and destroyed when the body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death: that is peaceful, that is sublime, that is how it is.’ That is how some overreach.
Based on his translation, the words ‘annihilated’, ‘destroyed’ refer to ‘self’, not physical ‘body’. This is easier to understand, and I feel more precise. Even though I realized I had to cross-check it again with the original text.
I hope my words can help.
Please correct if there is something wrong.
Thankyou 
but note it doesn’t have the logics in the Dhamma. All the Reality is marked by dukkha like these Suttas shows, and the Buddha teaching was given precisely to eradicate all dukkha.
When dukkha is eradicated there is knowledge about the becoming and the reality is dukkha, although there is no dukkha because there is no clinging and no more immersions in dukkha.
I.e: You are into the water, in the sea. And you think “I’m drowning, I’m wet, this is the water, this is the sea”. If then you leave the waters you wouldn’t say “I’m not drowning, I’m not wet anymore, there is no more water, there is no more sea”.
You will say: “I’m not drowning, I’m not wet anymore, although there is that water, there is that sea”.
If you still would suffer just because the presence of the sea, then we will need to talk about a trauma or something. Although this will be a worldly situation. That possibility is not related with Enlightenment
True about the topic. The responses were addressed to how the topic developed with respect to aggegates and dukkha.
Also, one need not affirm an ontological reality to the senses or aggregates to understand them as manifestations of dukhha, via DO.
The problem arises when we don’t think in terms of dependent origination for not having understood it. One may know not to affirm the ontological reality but can he do it? Test him.
For example, two annihilationists who have never heard of DO, are observing a fire become extinguished.
One says
The fire ended, there is nothing left of it.
Another say
Indeed friend such is the cessation of all things.
Then they look at an enlightened being pass away.
One says
His heat has subsided, mental faculties are ended, there is nothing left of it.
Another says
Indeed friend such is the cessation of all things.
These lines of reasoning, have nothing to do with dependent origination, and these people don’t understand the extinguished, they don’t understand the extinguishment, and they don’t undetstand what makes it possible.
Because they are stuck thinking about cessation existant things. And it doesn’t matter that they know that there is a problem in affirming & denying the true existence of things, they literally can’t think differently due to preconceived notions about the world & everything in it.
If you teach them that things are dependently originated, this is not news to them, and lest they actually understand they won’t be able to think about the khandanirodha differently.
1 Like
fully agree, that’s the point. The cessation is the cease of dependent arising phenomena, instead of truly existing things. And at that same point, we can think again in the difference between nibbana and parinibbana and the aggregates.
You resume the issue much better than me
If i draw a parallel to eternalist talkikg about cessation
One says
The fire ended, there is nothing left of it but there never was a fire if we think about it.
Another say
Indeed friend such is the cessation of all things.
Then they look at an enlightened being pass away.
One says
His heat has subsided, mental faculties are ended, there is nothing left of it, but these never really existed in the first place.
Another says
Indeed friend such is the cessation of all things.
1 Like
Honestly, I’m having difficulty understanding your point through all this maññati.
It comes down to experiences that are really experienced via the senses and aggregates. In this sense, as in the 4NTs, they are real experiences.
Beyond this, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Instead of going around and around debating the meanings of abstract nouns and terms, can you reply to the direct teachings cited about the aggregates and dukkha in the suttas I posted?
Aggregates and senses = dukkha; cessation of these = cessation of dukkha.
No need to bring in views of annihilationists and eternalists regarding this particular point.
If dukkha, as manifested and experienced as the aggregates and senses, is not “real” in/as experience, then what’s the point of practicing for liberation?
Hello! 
47 posts since I last checked, need to go through everything and reply and heart certain posts, but too busy now 
Just really quick though:
I take it cessationists refuse to acknowledge that this applies to both ”And how do some get stuck?” & ”And how do some overreach?”
Simple really, Dhamma is being taught for the cessation of existence and some overreach with conclusions of total termination and even rejoicing in the idea, thinking it is ”peaceful, sublime & that is how it is” (descriptions of Nibbāna, mind you) but that is to overreach.
I will return later on and write much more but it is important that the context is ”When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being” so regardless of a self involved or not, to imagine total termination as ”peaceful, sublime & that is how it is” is to overreach, but actual Nibbāna on the otherhand is: ”peaceful, sublime & that is how it is” but more like AN 10.6 & AN 10.7 and plenty of other suttas and not what cessationists imagine.
I would also like to add the following:
I mean what else but ”When Dhamma is taught to them for the cessation of being” could have even made cessationists have their views in the first place?
Aha! Maybe Dhamma!?? 
Don’t worry about it.
We have been talking about some of this while you were away.
Perhaps these posts clear it up
There are also some post by Ceisiwr around, which i think to illuminate the point
I know reading more is probably not what you want, when having read much already to no end, but don’t give up. Take your time to understand Ceisiwr if not me.
Greetings Venerable!
My main gripe is that AN 10.6 & AN 10.7 is described as ”peaceful, sublime etc.” and is an immersion beyond all the elements and beyond ALL the planes of existence - yet one can still perceive.
Now if this is possible, to perceive and this immersion is Nibbāna, why at the death of the body, a very trivial thing, can’t an arahant attain this peaceful, sublime state of immersion?
I don’t understand why or even how anyone would draw this conclusion?
Beyond ”The All”, yet still perceiving.
I argue that it because one can perceive in such an immersion that even a puthujjana, as in MN 1 delights in Nibbāna and calls it ”me” & ”mine” - but we are told not to do so. How else could a puthujjana even delight in Nibbāna in the first place? (the Pali even uses the locative case)
1 Like
I’ve read the threads you listed and many more.
My post wasn’t about not being able to comprehend the Dhamma points being discussed, but rather was about my simply not knowing what point you were trying to make regarding the aggregates and dukkha.
Anyway, this is a side issue on this thread which about Annihilation so I’ll leave it here so as not to disrupt the thread.