I think you’re still stuck in dukkha is always mental suffering paradigm and cannot see the point. Doesn’t matter, sometimes some programming is just too deep to be able to leap and see it from the other side without the lens of dukkha means mental suffering.
Also, just because someone doesn’t mind old age, pain etc doesn’t mean it’s not suffering.
The leper doesn’t mind burning his body, doesn’t mean he is freed from suffering.
The ordinary people likes video games, and sensual pleasures, doesn’t mean they are not dukkha.
I was simply making the point that the unpleasant nature of such things is relative, which begs the question - if craving is gone and a person doesn’t find ageing inherently unpleasant, what is dukkha about it?
Also, just because someone doesn’t mind old age, pain etc doesn’t mean it’s not suffering.
If there is an absence of craving and they don’t mind ageing or pain, in what sense would they be suffering?
The leper doesn’t mind burning his body, doesn’t mean he is freed from suffering.
The ordinary people likes video games, and sensual pleasures, doesn’t mean they are not dukkha.
Of course, but again this is because he is conditioned by craving. Absent of craving, does the taste of a sweet drink cause suffering?
Perhaps. But consider the following scenarios:
Someone hits you repeatedly so you get angry. But suppose you did not get angry. If craving (i.e. craving for it to stop) was not present to give rise to anger in the mind, would you say that getting hit repeatedly is the ‘physical’ anger in the body?
You lose a limb and grieve. But suppose you did not grieve. if the mental component of craving (i.e. craving for a limb) was not present, would you say that the absence of the limb is the ‘physical’ grief in the body?
When pain, ageing etc. are physically experienced in the absence of craving, you say that it is dukkha. But you wouldn’t do this for other emotions such as anger, grief etc. There is no physical component to these without a mental component.
We don’t ascribe a physical corollary to any other mental state, so why should dukkha be an exception to this?
Well yes, the condition for the arising of physical pain is craving and clinging. It is the condition because when there is clinging then there is existence > literally being born again into a world full of pain, ageing, sickness and death. This is why I said awakening isn’t retroactive. Upon awakening dependent origination ceases, and no more mental dukkha such as lamentation etc is experienced, but that awakening can’t erase the past. Before they were awakened, there was ignorance. Because of that ignorance, kamma leading to this life and body through which pain is felt. Because of craving, physical pain now. Pain is dukkha itself because it is a dart, a disturbance, an unpleasant feeling due to contact. Pleasant feeling is dukkha because it changes, followed by pain. Equanimity is dukkha because it is not sustainable. Pain is dukkha because it is a dart, whilst pleasant feeling and equanimity are dukkha because they are unsatisfactory (the other definition of dukkha). Or, another way the Buddha said to look at it is pain is a dart, pleasant feeling is pain and equanimity is impermanent and so unsatisfactory.
They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ They understand: ‘This field of perception is empty of the perception of the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, and ignorance. There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’ And so they regard it as empty of what is not there, but as to what remains they understand that it is present. That’s how emptiness is born in them—genuine, undistorted, and pure.
This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.
“There are, mendicants, these two elements of extinguishment. What two? The element of extinguishment with something left over, and the element of extinguishment with nothing left over.
And what is the element of extinguishment with something left over? It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. Their five sense faculties still remain. So long as their senses have not gone they continue to experience the agreeable and disagreeable, to feel pleasure and pain. The ending of greed, hate, and delusion in them is called the element of extinguishment with something left over.
And what is the element of extinguishment with nothing left over? It’s when a mendicant is a perfected one, with defilements ended, who has completed the spiritual journey, done what had to be done, laid down the burden, achieved their own true goal, utterly ended the fetters of rebirth, and is rightly freed through enlightenment. For them, everything that’s felt, being no longer relished, will become cool right here. This is called the element of extinguishment with nothing left over. These are the two elements of extinguishment.”
The Buddha spoke this matter. On this it is said:
“These two elements of extinguishment have been made clearby the seer, the unattached, the poised.One element pertains to the present life—what is left over when the conduit to rebirth has ended.What has nothing left over pertains to what follows this life,where all states of existence cease.
Those who have fully understood the unconditioned state—their minds freed, the conduit to rebirth ended—attained to the heart of the Dhamma, they delight in ending,the poised ones have given up all states of existence.”
Iti 44
SuttaCentral doesn’t list a parallel for this sutta but Venerable Chandrakirti does discuss it in his commentary on Venerable Nāgārjuna’s Yuktiṣāṣṭika, meaning there was a parallel once but it has not survived to this day.
Here I think we reach the heart of the matter. I believe the English rendering of dukkha as stress or suffering is insufficient, as both of those words have a mental component and make no sense without it.
This gets closer, and perhaps allows us to bridge our two views. The rendering of dukkha as disturbance takes away any mental component implied by the translations of suffering or stress.
Given this I’m now thinking that dukkha, in its broadest sense, could be defined as that which arrives whether or not it is invited. Such a rendering would then allow pain, aging etc. be classed as dukkha regardless of the presence or absence of craving. The absence of aversion or delight in the what arrives would mean that no sorrow, lamentation etc. arises on account of making contact with it.
Such a rendering also provides a nice symmetry to the three characteristics:
Dukkha: That which arrives whether or not it is invited
Anicca: That which leaves whether or not it is permitted
Anatta: That which, on a account of the above, is unreliable (i.e. the opposite of a self that is typically taken to be a reliable basis for a pleasant existence)
I’ll be mulling over this broader definition some more, but for the moment it seems to fit. Thank you for the conversation.
Great stuff. My biggest question in Buddhism has always been how Loving-kindness or Metta, is shown as Empty or Emptiness. If you or anyone else has any Wisdom or Light on this question I would be very happy. I know it’s a question that basically asks one to express oneself from step one of their Practice, but I am a firm believer that Awakening, Extinction, and Nibbana are all conductive of Perfect Metta, and that’s why we’re here as Buddhists. There’s no “Me”, “I” or “Self”, and in the End, the Stream shows us that only Karuna and Metta are left, without remainder.
The end of suffering does not come from ending life but from understanding how suffering comes to be and from following the Noble Eight Fold Path.
"I, too, monks, before my Awakening, when I was an unawakened bodhisatta, being subject myself to birth, sought what was likewise subject to birth. Being subject myself to aging… illness… death… sorrow… defilement, I sought [happiness in] what was likewise subject to illness… death… sorrow… defilement. The thought occurred to me, ‘Why do I, being subject myself to birth, seek what is likewise subject to birth? Being subject myself to aging… illness… death… sorrow… defilement, why do I seek what is likewise subject to illness… death… sorrow… defilement? What if I, being subject myself to birth, seeing the drawbacks of birth, were to seek the unborn, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding? What if I, being subject myself to aging… illness… death… sorrow… defilement, seeing the drawbacks of aging… illness… death… sorrow… defilement, were to seek the aging-less, illness-less, deathless, sorrow-less, unexcelled rest from the yoke: Unbinding?’
I can’t edit my previous post, so thought to add a refinement to the three characteristics here:
Dukkha: That which comes uninvited or stays without permission
Anicca: That which does not come when invited or leaves without permission
Anatta: That which, on a account of the above, is unreliable as a source of sustenance (i.e. the opposite of a self that is typically taken to be a reliable basis for a pleasant existence)
Dukkha in its actual meaning is comparable to a spinning broken axle of bullock cart . Anything that which is of a birth , arising or appearance would in itself dukkha inherited . Birth came from root cause ignorance , when ignorance ceased to be , hence that “birth” (of aggregates) does not continue further . The spinning wheels of the cart (dukkha) starting to come to a halt and eventually stops for good . The root cause has been cut off therefore arahant does not take up another burden ie five aggregates thus liberated . Dukkha ceases completely without remaining with the dissolution of the aggregates .
I am going to read into the Dhamma book posted shortly above, as my favorite topic is Compassion. It seems it will answer the question better than I can.
But I want to say that Emptiness is the Highest Form of Compassion in my directive, as in, “Empty of what?” To me the Answer is Simply “Empty of Everything except Maitri”, and in Early Buddhism all of Buddha’s Teachings were based off of His need to Awaken Compassion in others. That is how anyone can confirm His Mission is Genuine, because He Awakened through His Own Compassion for all Sentient Beings, and His decision and Vow to bring them all to His Level.
