Sentient = capable of self-view, capable of thinking “me” and “mine”? And therefore liable to experience suffering? 
1 Like
Martin seems to me sentient 
Arahants are not capable of self-view, capable of thinking “me” and “mine” but still experience suffering. Indeed, that’s all that is experienced by Arahants.
SN12.15:
But if—when it comes to this attraction, grasping, mental fixation, insistence, and underlying tendency—you don’t get attracted, grasp, and commit to the notion ‘my self’, you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.This is how right view is defined.
1 Like
…but still, when the Buddha thought about going to teach Dhamma he thought: "If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and that would be wearying and troublesome for me.’ (MN26)
If suffering is all arahants experience, why do we even talk about the cessation of suffering? It seems the goal of the Dhamma is not to end suffering but to suffer all the time??
2 Likes
I think suffering has ceased for the Arahant. Second and third Noble Truths.
That is exactly my point!
For more complex animals such as cats and dogs, it seems to be easily observable. They remember things, they are attached to ‘their’ toys, places, people, they have moods and seem to definitely experience dukkha.
But it doesn’t seem as easy to observe in lower animals. The further down the food chain one goes the more difficult it becomes.
And we meet an added complexity - the difficulty of ascertaining if what seems to be vinnana is actually that and not an artefact. For example can an ant differentiate its nest from another or is it just a chemotactic response?
And then there are the endless possibilities of AI… could a self driving car which seems to remember, plan and respond develop a sense of Self? Even a sense of Self it seems, can be programmed.
So I guess, I sympathize with our early buddhists who decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the apparently less developed creatures, out of compassion. BUT, I feel that going to the other extreme like the Jains do would be a bit over the top too. 
Sure, post parinibbana it has ceased, but there is a lag between cause and effect, just like (say) the lag between birth and death in DO. The first dart is still there for the Arahant pre parinibbana, but the second dart has ceased. The first dart ceases at parinibbana because there is no more rebirth. At least that is my understanding.
According to MN121, the Arahant experiences only a modicum of stress associated with the sense-bases.
In a way I agree. But was it “the benefit of the doubt … out of compassion” or was it through the recognition that all samsara-ing generates suffering and so the only compassionate thing to do for the sake of all existence is to stop the rebirth process, and bring as much of existence with them as they could? And of course the best way of doing that would be the 8 fold path.
Ah well indeed… But we might just as well ask … can a human differentiate it’s home from another or is it just a conditioned response?
1 Like
Yes. That sounds right and in line with how I understand it.
Edit. Oh sorry. I see. There was a mistake in my previous post. Corrected now.
Wow!
So powerful! 
2 Likes
It’s delusion to think that you are not creating suffering all the time. The cessation of suffering is the cessation of experience which comes at parinibbana. This is a nice sutta. Snp3.12
Nibbana is cessation of the taints, which means that tanha (craving) has ceased, which means that dukkha (suffering) has ceased. That’s what the Second and Third Noble Truths say.
So your understanding is that dukkha ceases immediately that tanha ceases? There is no old kamma (vipaka) being played out post nibbana, but pre parinibbana? I’ve always understood there to be a time lag, but maybe you’re right? I don’t suppose you know a sutta that makes your understanding clear? I wonder why the suttas differentiate these two terms nibbana and parinibbana?
So, my obvious question now is: is it that Arahants don’t feel physical pain? Or is it that physical pain is not dukkha by definition? Or is there another explanation?
The Arrow Sutta is relevant here. I assume that the first arrow (bodily pain) is not dukkha for the Arahant, since there is no resistance to it - it is felt “detached”. And the second arrow (mental anguish) has ceased for the Arahant.
Also, I imagine that bodily pain is felt quite differently when self-view has ceased. It’s no longer experienced as “my pain”, it’s just an impersonal sensation. It’s no longer something unpleasant happening to “my body”.
Anyway, the Second and Third Noble Truths do say that dukkha ceases when tanha ceases, and craving has ceased for the Arahant. This appears to be a straightforward and unqualified statement of what Nibbana entails.
Maybe that is true, but i feel this is not a good motivation, drive. Searching for the cessation of all experiences in stead of all bondages. Not wanting to feel and perceive anything anymore is also common to a dark and depressed mind.
In MN26 i see the Buddha searched for something stable, unborn, not coming and going, not anicca, not dukkha and not anatta, not dependend, not unsafe, reliable, undefiled, an island. He found it in the total absence of any need and search for grip in the world. In the total lack of any inner and outer bondage he found his island, safety, protection, Nibbana.
It is hard to imagine the world of a Buddha and arahant, right? What do we know about this? I think sutta’s can also not be decisive.
Maha Boowa says about his real time investigation into intense pains he had: “I saw clearly that it was the citta that defined feeling as being painful and unpleasant. Otherwise, pain was merely a natural phenomenon that occurred.” (arhattamagga/phala, page 20).
The problem seems to be that mind cannot totally relax in pain, let go of all resistance, like a burning coal in the hand. And there is constant the perception:I am in pains, or I have pain.
But what if this is gone?
Yes, the Arrow Sutta describes how resistance to pain is the problem.
There is aversion to unpleasant sensation, and craving for pleasant sensation as an “escape”.
This cycle is broken with the cessation of craving and aversion, with cessation of the taints.
One analogy that I have heard is that it’s like taking your foot off the accelerator. You’re no longer supplying any fuel (tanha has ceased), and then the car eventually grinds to a halt (dukkha ceases). I guess different teachers with different interpretations.
I feel the crux of that sutta is: “Knowing the stainless, sorrowless state…”
Knowing the escape.