Nibbana is only a certain type of freedom from suffering in the first place. It is not the only one. However, it is a real means to end suffering and one we should follow.
“‘[M]endicants, give up these five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken dukkha, and meditate spreading a heart full of dukkha to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, spread a heart full of dukkha to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless …’”
Edited from SN 46.54
@Dogen’s meditation practice? 
2 Likes
Arent you saying rupa loka beings are free of dukkha ? Whether it is one being or many beings it really doesnt matter . Thats mean the being in rupa loka still feel dissatisfied and get agitated which is dukkha . 
Generally I meditate on brahmavihārās actually, gradually moving on to more of a what we could call zazen / silent mind.
But that’s how I realise, as with all dhammas, even those are to be let go, and can be a source of suffering.
Can you always care about everyone without being affected by it? Is it possible to cultivate a pure heart free from dukkha when the evils and sufferings of the world is inexhaustible?
What about the “good” emotions that accompany our spiritual success? For example, helping others make us feel good. Then that “feel-good” feeling subsides. Isn’t it then another source of suffering (a pleasant feeling fading away is suffering).
Is there anything permanent about brahmavihārās or sukkha that falls outside of teacher saying “Let go of all dhamma, not to speak of adhamma”? 
3 Likes
The way I see it, these are way too broad and categorical statements - so broad that it becomes easy to find counterexamples. For example: a simple watch is subject to change and is used to track time, or piece of furniture, or the three robes monks were wearing - and they had contentment with those three robes not unsatifaction.
Do you think the Buddha had compassion and loving-kindness, or was it too much of an emotional challenge for him?
The Buddha spoke of pleasure to be cultivated and pleasure not to be cultivated. It’s a matter of gradual refinement. Of course: even helping others can’t be our source for ultimate happiness. We can’t always be helping others!
“Furthermore, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. Then they reflect: ‘Even this heart’s release by love is produced by choices and intentions.’ They understand: ‘But whatever is produced by choices and intentions is impermanent and liable to cessation.’ …”
MN 52
According to the suttas, no.
2 Likes
Let’s do a thought experiment. There’s only sukha and neutral feelings. Our feelings range from 0 sukha to infinite sukha
Doing good, eating donuts having sex, these all increase our sukha. 100 sukha, 500 sukha, 1000 sukha. Then once the feeling starts to fade away, back to 500, 200, 50, 0. Well, that’s undesirable, isn’t it? We would rather have all the sukha. Suddenly, 0 sukha, or low levels of sukkha are unsatisfactory, because we’ve tasted more sukha. 1000 sukha is always better than 10 sukha. That’s the definition of 1000 sukha.
What if this sukha is permanent? Then there’s no variation, no fluctuation, nothing that happens whatsoever changes this level. I don’t even have a comparison to consider it sukha or dukha - it’s just a gray stasis. If I see a rape victim and help, it makes no difference to me. If I commit said act, it makes no difference to me. My sukkha is permanent, and I have no inclinations to do anything. There’s no more reard/punishment scheme for my actions, no change of my psyche based on what I see and react.
This is the exposition.
1 Like
He obviously had those in abundance, but even his patience had a limit. A cursory look at Vinaya is full of times when Buddha was disappointed, frustrated, bored. He had preferences for staying in silent places and chose to skip places where people were loud and obnoxious. He obviously had discentment and fluctuating levels of sukkha/dukkha.
1 Like
What is this though experiment supposed to illustrate?
This is just challenging the notion of all conditioned phenomena are dukkha. So in the spirit of trying to see the whole world as dukkha to cultivate dispassion, challenge accepted.
Watch can be unsatisfactory, because we have to wear them. Why can’t they be digital? Or have infinite life battery? Why can’t watches be free from having to be repaired forever? Well, 2nd law of thermodynamics says no such thing as a watch that cannot be broken.
A piece of furniture… why can’t it shapeshift to fit people of all sizes as a chair, and then double as a table. Why it cannot be both a chair and a table at the same time? Oh mass conservation? Well, have to get more of it. What? With shape shifting tech, some parts get left behind like the blue tag? So troublesome. Why can’t I just sit in the furniture and no need to get up ever. Oh then become fat like the people in Wall-E.
3 robes… why can’t they be self repairing robes? Seriously have to be with the robes every time at dawn, unless got kathina privileges? Why can’t they be like Iron man’s suit and fly to me? We have to wash and dye them and make sure not to spill food on them or else they get dirty…
I know these are mostly fault finding, but basically the most important reflection is impermanence, therefore upkeep to maintain them, therefore whatever happiness they can bring is temporary, thus they are ultimately unsatisfactory. Nothing which is unsatisfactory is worth clinging to. That’s why we have to see all conditioned things as dukkha.
Of course, for those who really cannot separate out dukkha from mental suffering, to see all conditioned phenomena as dukkha would be to ask them to go into depression. So if you’re in this category, you’re just not ready for this dhamma yet, practise to get joy from meditation first, so that when one see dukkha, one doesn’t get into depression.
Existence is dukkha, even permanent heaven is dukkha. As well illustrated by The Good Place, season 4, last few episodes, where our protagonists went to the good place at last, and then found the dukkha in the good place. With infinity to do all good things, eventually one gets bored.
It really does matter that it is one single being that feels dissatisfied and get agitated when alone in Rupa Loka (after the destruction of Kama Loka) in the very beginning! 
How could you make it seem that now, countless of eons later, when Rupa Loka is very populated by beings that beings can even have such dukkha based on being alone?
That would be like me saying humans actually live for a very really long time.
You would then say: 100 years is not a long time!
And then I would say, but humans used to live for a long time, therefore humans of course live for a very long time even to this day.
It says so in the suttas!
And for the sentient beings among whom killing was widespread, their lifespan and beauty declined. Those people lived for 80,000 years, but their children lived for 40,000 years.
- What you try to prove is taken out of context and not relevant anymore, just like humans living 80,000 years is not relevant anymore, right?
Frustration and boredom are forms of defilement. Aversion, generally.
If you mean ‘discontentment,’ then ‘discontent’ is one of the defilements the Buddha claimed to have conquered for himself.
And having a limited patience is generally restlessness or irritation.
So it sounds like you are accusing the Buddha of not actually being a Buddha.
1 Like
What all conditioned phenomena is dukkha is a categorical statement. Not a current statement. So if there’s a counter example to your statement of there’s no dukkha in Brahma realm, the categorical statement of there’s no dukkha in the Brahma realm is proven wrong. Doesn’t matter the time of the counter example.
To go back to the human example, the categorical statement would be that humans live for such a short time, referring to now as an example to generalize to all times. But the counter example, is that humans used to live longer, so the blanket statement that humans live for such a long time is false for not being general.
mn26
And if I were to teach the Dhamma, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.’
Ahañceva kho pana dhammaṁ deseyyaṁ, pare ca me na ājāneyyuṁ, so mamassa kilamatho, sā mamassa vihesā’ti.
To answer the post, I think vihesā is purely physical for the arahants.
“The first case is when the Teacher teaches the Dhamma out of kindness[!] and compassion[!]: ‘This is for your welfare. This is for your happiness.’ But their disciples don’t want to listen. They don’t actively listen or try to understand. They proceed having turned away from the Teacher’s instruction. In this case the Realized One is not unhappy,[!] he does not feel unhappiness.[!] He remains unaffected,[!] mindful and aware. This is the first case in which the Noble One cultivates the establishment of mindfulness.”
-The Buddha, MN 137
1 Like
Yes, this is one of the issues of stating ‘every thing is dukkha’. I can imagine if someone where to believe that it might be quite troublesome for them.
The second is, you even admit that such is fault finding - or lack of contentment. Then you rely on impermanence, mentioning that they can bring at most temporary happiness (which is reasonable) and finally make the conclusion that due to this they are ultimately unsatisfactory (but is that true?). If I were to receive a piece of clothing and were content with it for the duration it lasted and would not desire it not attach myself to it and it would perish - for all its duration I’ve been content with the piece of clothing - it is no longer existing now but it brought me no suffering.
The third issue I see with such statement is that the noble truth of suffering does not state that everything is dukkha, rather is simply states:
“And what, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering? Birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish are suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. This is called the noble truth of suffering.
So why not simply repeat of what dukkha is according to the above definition?
I think I’ve read in the suttas that there is ‘the perception of unsatifacton of all conditions’ - which the monks used when they were being praised by people. However, this was a perception, not a view, and it was done to counter specific temptations. On other occasion when they were being criticized the Buddha advised them to practice Brahma viharas.
A third time, the Blessed One said to the monks, “Enough, monks. Don’t quarrel. Don’t argue. Don’t make strife. Don’t dispute.”
A third time, the non-Dhamma-declaring monk said to the Blessed One, “Wait, lord Blessed One. May the Master of the Dhamma dwell at ease, devoted to a pleasant abiding in the here-&-now, lord Blessed One. We will be the ones who deal with this argument, quarrel, strife, and dispute.”
“Then the Blessed One, (thinking,) “These worthless men are hopeless—they’re not easy to convince,” got up from his seat and left.” 271. kosambakavivādakathā (Mv.X.1.1)
Discernment*
Perhaps bored and frustrated are too strong. But his body had real energy levels and related dukkha. There’s no mental suffering to be found with these, perhaps, but there’s a physical aspect to it. He even says he has a preference for meditation and rains retreats because he prefers the seclusion. This implies that even for him, meditation and seclusion is preferable to teaching.
“Now, brahmin, it might be that you think: ‘Perhaps the recluse Gotama is not free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still resorts to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.’ But you should not think thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to remote jungle-thicket resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations.” DN4
What’s this compassion he even mentions? He wants to set an example of it being okay to withdraw and meditate rather than always being of service to others.
You were there, measuring the “energy levels”’in his body?
This is simply not associating with fools and knowing when it’s a waste of time. It’s a matter of his wisdom, not frustration or anger. It’s also a way of teaching. If the Buddha leaves, something must be wrong.
If the Buddha being in seclusion is a manifestation of compassion, why do you think being alone is not a service to others?? Why do you think meditation is not of service to others??
1 Like
I’m not sure you’re arguing in good faith at this point. Buddha’s physical body still had physical requirements that is good to be met and dukkha when it’s not.
“Please, Cundaka, fold my outer robe in four and spread it out for me. I am tired and will lie down.” DN16
Venerable, 
My point is simple, all I am pointing out is:
- to say Rupa Loka is dukkha, or that beings there are prone to dukkha based on the feelings one being had in the very beginning in Rupa Loka when alone, does not mean all beings have this form of dukkha, since they are obviously not alone there anymore.
Likewise:
- Just like we only live 100 years currently, I can’t take a thing from the past in the suttas and say that in reality we humans live 80.000 years and claim that this hold true today.
This is what I pointed out.
So in no way can anyone claim that the Rupa Loka inhabitants ”get irritated and annoyed or even have instinctive aversion” (and therefore experience dukkha based on such feelings).
Saying such things is clearly taken out of context.
Just like me claiming that people, still to this day, actually live for 80.000 years based on a sutta about the past.
I just didn’t know what you meant by energy levels. I thought you meant some kind of mind-body qi idea.
I agree the texts say the Buddha got tired and felt pain.
1 Like