Ending suffering is ending life?

The Watercooler
102

Thanks for sharing.

You’re quoting from DN 11.
Here is the translation on SC:

Buddha - "This is how the question should be asked:

“Where do water and earth, fire and air find no footing; where do long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly; where do name and form cease with nothing left over?”

And the answer to that is:

“Consciousness that’s invisible, infinite, ‘*Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ,*  entirely given up: that’s where water and earth, fire and air find no footing.

And that’s where long and short, fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly—that’s where name and form cease with nothing left over.

With the cessation of consciousness, that’s where they cease.”’”

That is what the Buddha said. "

Note, there is nothing here about a timeless, deathless, consciousness. Rather, the cessation of consciousness is taught.

You may also be interested in:

and

May you be happy and well. :pray: :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes
103

Let’s look at the second noble truths in SN56.11.

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination.

This means that we crave for the existence of something that will bring us delight and lust or sensual pleasures, and we crave for the non-existence of something that does not do so.

Now let’s look at the first noble truth:

Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering.

We can see that aging, illness, death, union with what is displeasing, separation from what is pleasing, not to get what one wants definitely do not bring delight and lust or sensual pleasure to us; therefore, we crave for the non-existence of them. Since we do not want them, but we must get them, we will be displeased. Grief, lamentation, sorrow will arise in our mind. This negative state of mind is what we call dukkha.

Now look at birth. What’s wrong with it? We can see that with birth, we will be subjected to all of those above. If we are born, we will get aging, illness, death, union with what is displeasing, separation from what is pleasing, etc. Therefore, if we have craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, then we will be reborn, and we will get all of those above. However, since we will not like them but must get them, we will be displeased. Grief, lamentation, sorrow will arise in our mind and that is dukkha.

1 Like
104

Dukkha is anicca. So, dukkha is not mine, I am not dukkha, dukkha is not my self.

105

Its not that my friend. Its litterly where there is obviosly conciousness without the bondage etc. No Arahant is without conciousness. Its just a transformed to awakened conciousness. Its not a big deal. Its just the last conciousness before death of an arahant. Common sense

106

The Uddesavibha"nga Sutta explains the nature of consciousness and the general cognitive attitude of an arahant:[41]

The consciousness of an arahant is not scattered and diffused in the external world (bahiddhaa vi~n~naa.na.m avikkhitta.m avisa.ta.m) ; this becomes possible because he does not indulge in the enjoyment of sense objects.
His consciousness is not established within (ajjhatta.m asa.n.thi.ta.m): this is possible because he does not become attached to the enjoyment of the jhaanas.
He remains unagitated without grasping (anupaadaaya na paritassati): this means that he does not identify himself with any of the five aggregates or personality factors

107

Agree with that.
That’s why I inquired whether you were speaking of a “timeless, deathless” consciousness which some believe to “exist” after parinibbāna.
Your last post clarified what you meant.

All best :pray:

1 Like
108

Well see the paradox. Its because Samsara will always exist. So is Nirvana. Without nirvana there is no samsara. And without samsara there is no nirvana. Buddha had some ralitives of his ancestors bloodline which probably didnt become Arahant. Their blood is still in us. Influencing Conciousness

109

It seems samsara is nirvana; nirvana is samsara.

110

You have to take this that conditionality into account. Namely:

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

In this quartet, there are things that arise due to composition and things that arise due to consequence.

Composition:
when this is, that is; when this isn’t, that isn’t.

Something that arises due to composition is a simultaneous kind of arising. E.g.

If you paint a solid red circle on a blank piece of paper, the shape appears simultaneously with the colour red. Without the colour red, there would be no circle. But because there is the colour red, one can perceive the circle. I.e.

when red is, the circle is
when red isn’t, the circle isn’t

The suffering of birth, aging, pain etc. is a result of this simultaneous arising due to composition. I.e.

When birth and craving is, suffering is.
when birth and craving isn’t, suffering isn’t

When ageing and craving is, suffering is.
When ageing and craving isn’t, suffering isn’t

When pain and craving is, suffering is.
When pain and craving isn’t, suffering isn’t

Because craving is assumed to be present in all cases, you can use the shorthand of birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, pain is suffering etc.

Consequence:
From the arising of this comes the arising of that; From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

Something that arises due to consequence is a sequential kind of arising. E.g.

If you fertilise a chicken egg, a chick will be born. I.e.

from the arising of a fertilised chicken egg comes the arising of a chick

The suffering of lamentation is a result of this sequential arising due to consequence. I.e.

from the arising of craving comes the arising of lamentation
from the arising of craving comes the arising of suffering

Given that craving is the singular point of origin for both lamentation and suffering, one can then say:

when lamentation is, suffering is
when suffering is, lamentation is
when lamentation isn’t, suffering isn’t
when suffering isn’t, lamentation isn’t

Because both appear and disappear with each other, you can use a shorthand to say lamentation is suffering.

Note that whether phenomena arises simultaneously or sequentially, craving plays an integral role. Once craving is uprooted, suffering ceases:

  • In the case of simultaneous kinds of arising: when pain and craving is, suffering is. Due to the requirement for both pain AND craving to be present, simply removing craving is enough to cause suffering to cease.

  • In the case of sequential kinds of arising: from the arising of craving comes the arising of lamentation. Due to the requirement of craving to be present for lamentation to ensue, simply removing craving is enough to cause lamentation to not ensue. Because craving is what also causes suffering to ensue, simply removing craving is enough to cause suffering to not ensue. In such a circumstance, neither lamentation nor suffering arise.

111

Dukkha sacca refers to the whole mass of suffering of the five aggregates which is the outcome of ignorance . Cessation is about cessation of dukkhakhandas . Maybe It has no impact on healthy arahant which has a limited lifespan say of 50 or 70 years left . But say if an arahant that have lifespan of 100 millions years living in this world , what would he do ? This immense scale in time would be a kind of dukkha .

112

The khandas in SN 22.95 are seen as void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka).

113

Funnily here is a coincidence of what is about “unreal” found in :

The Vajracchedika-prajna-paramita Sutra

金剛般若波羅密經

Subhuti, what do you think?

須菩提！於意雲何？

“Can the Tathagata be seen by means of His bodily form?”

可以身相見如來不？

“No, World Honoured One, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of His bodily form.

不也，世尊！不可以身相得見如來。

“Why?

何以故？

“Because when the Tathagata speaks of bodily form, it is not (real) form.”

如來所說身相，即非身相。

The Buddha said to Subhuti:

佛告須菩提：

“Everything with form is unreal;

凡所有相，皆是虛妄。

114

The khandas in SN/SA suttas are also seen as emptiness/empty, e.g. (p. 54):
Pages 52-4 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000-3.pdf (226.0 KB)

115

My friend to those that didnt read Upanishads and Indian texts you wont understand Buddha point.

There is waking state, dream state, deep sleep state

Form is usually meaning waking state.
Formless is usually meaning dream state

Im not sure of deep sleep state.

Those are the 3 world ancient used.
Suttas I think use a different language for them.
Although one place Buddha talks of gross body etc. He is probably talking of these 3 states.

The jhanas itself. Im doubting when writing if formless attainment are supposed be mastered while awake.

Being an Arahant. I think in all 3 states you supposed to be mastered that they are present in all. When Buddha talks about seeing the world as a dream. Isnt he maybe saying seeing as in reality formless?

116

In SN35.85 (= SA 232) the Buddha teaches the world is empty (suñño loko).

The world is said to be empty, because of being empty of self or of anything belonging to self (suññam attena vā attaniyena vā).

The world refers to the sense spheres, which are empty of self or of anything belonging to self.

1 Like
117

You have to take this that conditionality into account. Namely:

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

In this quartet, there are things that arise due to composition and things that arise due to consequence.

Well, I did since idappaccayatā is simply a shorthand for dependent origination. I would read it in the following manner

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn’t, that isn’t.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

i.e.

When ignorance is, formations
From the arising of ignorance comes the arising of formations.
When ignorance is not, formations do not exist.
From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of formations.

Or

When birth is, ageing-sickness and death
From the arising of birth comes the arising of ageing-sickness and death.
When birth is not, ageing-sickness and death do not exist.
From the cessation of birth comes the cessation of ageing-sickness and death.

When the Arahant awakens ignorance ceases. With the cessation of ignorance, all of the other links do not arise again. Before they awakened however there was ignorance and so, following the links of dependent origination down, they have a body which experiences contact and physical pain in the present. When there is ignorance, dukkha comes to be. This is summed up in the 1st Noble Truth. Birth, ageing, sickness, death, pain, lamentation etc all come to be when there is clinging. They do so because when there is clinging, one suffers much mental pain here and now and, in the future, there will another birth. With birth comes a body and mind, and a whole another round of dukkha (physical and mental) again.

Physical pain is dukkha itself, and a basis for mental dukkha too. Physical pain arises with past ignorance and clinging as condition.

1 Like
118

I think we are speaking past each other now. I was looking to highlight how identities (e.g. pain is dukkha or lamentation is dukkha) are not absolute. Identities require context. In the current case, the context for both pain and lamentation being dukkha is craving. Take craving away and the identities no longer apply because the context is gone.

E.g.

The statement free as a bird, equates the bird’s movement to freedom. However it only makes sense if the bird has wings. Without wings, it cannot fly and therefore doesn’t conform to our image of freedom. In this context, a bird is free only so long as it has the wings to fly. Similarly, pain and lamentation is dukkha only so long as craving persists concurrently.

119

It’s more of you two are associating different personal meaning to dukkha. Those who say dukkha ends with the ending of craving are only thinking of dukkha as in the mental suffering. The ones which ended with nibbana with remainder, the second arrow, the one which the arahants ended.

Those who say that physical pain, life, rebirth is also dukkha is talking about the dukkha which ends with parinibbana. This is beyond mental suffering, and it’s a fundamental characteristic of samsara, ok for physical pain, it’s fundamental to having a body.

Don’t mix up these different personal meaning of dukkha. The sutta has evidences for dukkha being a flexible enough term to mean different things in different contexts as all the sutta citation you guys put up above shows.

When we say that the arahants still experiences physical pain, no one suggests that they are also experiencing mental suffering along with that. However indeed, all things being equal, even without cravings, one would prefer to not sit on a red hot metal chair and prefer to sit on a room temperature normal chair. Just like Buddha avoided the touch of a yakkha in SN10.3

So Shaggy said to Spiky, “That’s an ascetic.”

“That’s no ascetic, he’s a faker! I’ll soon find out whether he’s an ascetic or a faker.”

Then Spiky went up to the Buddha and leaned up against his body, but the Buddha pulled away.

Then Spiky said to the Buddha, “Are you afraid, ascetic?”

“No, sir, I’m not afraid. But your touch is nasty.”

Same thing with the meaning of the term “life”.

It’s a bit ambiguous depending on the common usage of life for the majority of humans on earth who doesn’t believe in rebirth, vs the Buddhist usage which takes into account rebirth.

  1. Life is moment to moment living experiences + dukkha to be taken to be mental suffering.

Of course life is not dukkha in this usage. There’s moments in life where one is happy. To think that life is dukkha for those holding onto the above meaning for life and dukkha is dangerous for it cultivates suicidal and depressive thinking. That’s why the OP title is contentious.

  1. Life is moment to moment living experiences + dukkha is a fundamental characteristic of samsara.

Since even neutral and happy feelings are also dukkha for being liable to change, then yes, even happy people are experiencing dukkha. All who has feelings are suffering. Since the cessation of perception and feelings absorption by an arahant or a non-returner is also temporary, one has to emerge from it sooner or later, it’s sort of dukkha for not being able to be in it until death. The impermanence is dukkha thing applies. Again, please don’t read dukkha as mental suffering in this context, of course no mental suffering in that absorption. In this context, it’s just goes to show that parinibbana is superior to cessation of perception and feeling for not being impermanent.

  1. Life is rebirth + dukkha is mental suffering.

Then with the ending of defilements at the arahant stage, finally, life is no longer dukkha (mental suffering) for the arahant. The Mahayana uses this to justify that the arahants can choose to be reborn without dukkha and since life is no longer mental suffering to them, they shouldn’t mind training to become a Buddha out of compassion.

  1. Life is rebirth + dukkha is a fundamental characteristic of samsara.

Since rebirth is dukkha in the sense of fundamental characteristic of samsara, life is dukkha. Because to live means must had been reborn. This is the correct way to read why ending suffering is ending life (rebirth).

Hopefully, the above is clear enough not to generate further misunderstanding or talking past each other.

1 Like
120

Thank you. I can understand attributing different definitions to dukkha based on perspective. Still, there is an inherent contradiction in seeing pain, aging etc. as dukkha because they are not absolutely tied to the undesirable.

For example, some people enjoy the pain of a workout because they perceive pain to be an indication that the workout is fruitful; a person who doesn’t experience pain may worry on account of thinking that their workout isn’t intense enough. Other people take joy in aging because being older affords them more respect. So these things are not dukkha absolutely.

Contrast this with craving. Craving always causes dukkha the moment it arises. An absence of dukkha is only felt either when:

  • The object of craving is received, allowing for temporary gratification or
  • The craving ceases

While this is true, a preference for one thing over another doesn’t necessarily mean that what is not preferred is dukkha. For example, Kassapa preferred to live in the forest even though the Buddha invited him to live outside the forest. That doesn’t mean that living outside the forest is dukkha in absolute terms.

From SN36.6:

In the same way, when an educated noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings they don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. They experience one feeling: physical, not mental.

When they’re touched by painful feeling, they don’t resist it. There’s no underlying tendency for repulsion towards painful feeling underlying that…

If they feel a pleasant feeling, they feel it detached. If they feel a painful feeling, they feel it detached. If they feel a neutral feeling, they feel it detached.

They’re called an educated noble disciple who is detached from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, I say.

Both favoring and opposing are cleared and ended, they are no more. Knowing the stainless, sorrowless state, they who have gone beyond rebirth understand rightly.

The dart analogy only seems to paint a picture that for one who craves, two feelings arise in the body; one of a physical source (e.g. physical pain), and one of a mental source (e.g. the sorrow that manifests as unpleasant feeling in the body). It doesn’t explicitly say that each dart causes suffering in and of itself, just that each is equivalent to a feeling. It actually goes out of its way to say that an arahant experiences no sorrow, lamentation or distress.

Given this, it is difficult to understand how someone could experience dukkha when the signs of dukkha (sorrow, lamentation and distress) are absent. Especially when pain, ageing etc. are not universally reviled all the time.

1 Like
121

Life is rebirth/dukkha, this is one extreme; life is not rebirth/dukkha, this is the other extreme. Life/dukkha/rebirth, being not real, arises and ceases by causal condition (nidaana). It is a result of previous action (karma), but there is no doer (anatta ‘not-self’).