To be very clear, I acknowledge SN 22.19 and other places where the Teacher utters such statements. I do not question or in any way wish to disparage such suttas. They are authentic dhamma to my mind.
However, it is still possible - and skillful I contend - to read such suttas as figurative speech acts that the Teacher did not intend to be taken literally or as fixed ontological committments anymore than Jean-Paul Sarte intended “Hell is other people” to be taken literally or as a fixed ontological committment. Interpreting such statements literally as trying to inspire fixed views I believe is to miss the forest for the trees.
The death of an unawakened being is not the end of dukkha because it’s not the end of rebirth or of the stream of consciousness that combines with nāma-rũpa in the mother and the re-formation of the senses and aggregates as a new being, as in DN15.
So the processes that combined to manifest a particular body cease, but since ignorance and craving have not ceased for an unawakened being, there is rebirth into another life, as in SN12.32:
"‘Grasping is the source of continued existence.’ "
I’d say that a body without the consciousness aggregate is like a rock.
It can help to recall that in the Sabba Sutta, SN 35.23, and others the Buddha speaks of the world (loka) as that which is experienced through and as the six senses, including the aggregates.
It’s what we can directly experience that we can understand so as to let go of ignorance and craving.
The Buddha was not concerned with philosophizing and speculating about the nature of the outside world or reality.
So when consciousness is no longer associated with a body after death, there is no longer any apprehension of that body. Hence, speculations about the suffering of that body that is no longer within the six senses is not applicable to Dhamma practice.
The suttas I’ve cited are clearly directed to living beings and how the senses and aggregates apply to them.
How about a consciousness without a body aggregate? Is that also like a rock and not worthy of concern? FWIW, the suttas you cite say:
“Mendicants, form is suffering. “Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ.
SN 22.19
They don’t say, “form is suffering when a consciousness is connected to that form”, right? Someone who thought otherwise could cite the sutta as saying literally that all form is suffering and not just when a consciousness is connected.
Good question.
This gets into the teachings about other realms, such as the formless realms where there is consciousness without bodies.
Also, with respect to viññānasota, the stream of consciousness described in DN15, it carries the other aspects of mind with it, including rūpa which in the suttas is more than just material form as we understand it; it includes colors and other aspects that we would take as purely mental.
But the physical body devoid of consciousness and the aggregates of perception and feelings after death is like a rock.
The consciousness after death is more than just the aggregate and “carries” ignorance, craving, and other factors with it.
I had a similar question and was offered clarification by a Venerable who contributes to this site.
See my amended question though. The “form is suffering” sutta doesn’t say that it is only in the presence of a consciousness. If taken very literally as a fixed view one could cite the sutta and say that the Teacher intended that ‘rocks are suffering’ as a plain and straightforward reading.
There’s no such thing. Consciousness occurs at the level of contact.
There are some ascetics and brahmins who advocate ultimate extinguishment in this very life. Santi, bhikkhave, eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññāpenti.
This is the best of those who advocate extinguishment in this very life, that is, liberation by not grasping after truly understanding the origin, ending, gratification, wretchedness, and escape of the six fields of contact. Etadaggaṁ, bhikkhave, paramadiṭṭhadhammanibbānaṁ paññapentānaṁ yadidaṁ channaṁ phassāyatanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ viditvā anupādā vimokkho.
Though I state and assert this, certain ascetics and brahmins misrepresent me with the false, hollow, lying, untruthful claim: Evaṁvādiṁ kho maṁ, bhikkhave, evamakkhāyiṁ eke samaṇabrāhmaṇā asatā tucchā musā abhūtena abbhācikkhanti: ‘
The ascetic Gotama doesn’t advocate the complete understanding of sensual pleasures, forms, or feelings.’ ‘samaṇo gotamo na kāmānaṁ pariññaṁ paññāpeti, na rūpānaṁ pariññaṁ paññāpeti, na vedanānaṁ pariññaṁ paññāpetī’ti.
But I do advocate the complete understanding of sensual pleasures, forms, and feelings. And I advocate complete extinguishment by not grasping in this very life, wishless, extinguished, and cooled.” Kāmānañcāhaṁ, bhikkhave, pariññaṁ paññāpemi, rūpānañca pariññaṁ paññāpemi, vedanānañca pariññaṁ paññāpemi, diṭṭheva dhamme nicchāto nibbuto sītibhūto anupādā parinibbānaṁ paññāpemī”ti. AN 10.29
But it’s the context that matters.
The Buddha is teaching humans about how the aggregates (and six senses) as they are as a being in the sensual realm are dukkha.
That’s all. He’s not getting into ontological issues.
In the suttas, the six sense fields – both the organs themselves and the sensed mental aspects – and the aggregates are the impermanent, hence dukkha, conditions that come together as a being. In this sense, a human being is the combination of all these processes, and the Buddha is teaching that conditional existence, meaning the six senses and aggregates as humans, is/are dukkha.
That’s the context.
He’s not speaking about form after death or anything else after death in these teachings.
I think we agree that only nibbāna is completely free of dukkha, (I’d say only final nbbāna). But in either case, since only nibbāna is unconditional and since everything else is conditional, including the senses and aggregates, and since "Whatever is impermanent (conditional) is dukkha (SN22.15), then…
After death, the processes of ignorance and craving persist and lead into another life, (rebirth). The body of the prior life is no longer known and or a basis of concern, speculation; but dukkha persists in the viññānasota and into the next birth.
Speculating if a body after death is still dukkha is like asking if a body in last year’s dream is still dukkha or not.
Agreed! But it sounds like now you’re coming around to the dark side a bit
Before you took “Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ as literal, but now you say context matters and the Teacher didn’t intend it to be taken literally, but rather as figurative speech. That it isn’t the case that ‘rocks’ and so on - conditioned things though they are - are fundamentally dukkha, but rather only when conjoined with consciousness. Rather, ‘rocks’ and so on - the world’s pretty things - stay just as they are and are not fundamentally dukkha.
Agreed!
I can’t agree here. The Teacher taught time and again that it is not appropriate to regard the aggregates - whether in parts or as a combination - as a self or as a being. Another difference between us that remains seems to be that you view the aggregates as substantial and it is on this basis that I object to the combination of them being considered a human being.
Other than the above, disagreement re: that the combination of the aggregates being appropriate to consider a self or a being… I think the only other thing we disagree on is whether or not the context includes craving or grasping. I think you cannot remove the craving or the grasping from the context and if you do I fear the forest is lost for the trees.
Actually, I wasn’t saying that. This was a “literal” teaching. By context, I meant that it wasn’t about speculating and philosophizing, such as what a body or a world “out there” are really like, since we don’t have access to that.
All we know of rocks, whatever they may be, is known through the six senses – and that is our world, as the Buddha taught. I mean, sure, maybe “out there” rocks and bodies of dead beings are sentient – but we can’t know the external world. We can only know what we experience through the six sense fields.
Do we agree on this? If so, the rest is just speculation.
And whatever is experienced through the six senses, including the aggregates, are impermanent and dukkha according to the Buddha. That;'s what we can work with on the Path.
Rather than getting into discussions about the definition of a being, it’;s clear in the suttas that the senses and aggregates form after the combination of consciousness and nāma-rūpa into what’s called a being. Just as in DO. So it’s not about getting caught up in definitions.
And in the Sabba Sutra, the Buddha teaches that the All are the six sense fields, including the sense organs and sense experiences. And these are conditional and impermanent. Yes?
And he teaches that this is our “world” and all we can work with on the Path to liberation.
Also, how can the aggregates be substantial when I’ve described them as selfless processes?
(Although I’m not clear about exactly what you mean by substantial).
Again, what being expressed is what is experienced. I’m leaving “substantial” and “insubstantial” out of it.
Ok, we’re back to the same point.
The sutta(s) cited are quite direct, but as we’ve said a few times, we can respectfully agree to disagree!
Literal usage confers meaning to words, in the sense of the meaning they have by themselves, outside any figure of speech. It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context with the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning of the individual words.
Thus, your appeal to the unstated context underlying that statement “Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ” means you do not understand the statement to be a literal one (in the sense defined above) or at least that is how I took it.
By context I simply mean a direct teaching about the aggregates with respect to the Dhamma and the practice for liberation. That’s all.
In that context, the words in the suttas that have been cited mean exactly what they say: each aggregate is dukkha.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, if the aggregates are seen as dukkha-free then it’s not clear how one can deeply develop nibbidā and virāga regarding all conditional experiences and “things”, as the Buddha taught.
I mean, if the senses and the aggregates are just fine without active desire, then why not hang out with/as them forever?
(This is a rhetorical “fun” point. The senses and aggregates are perpetuated by ignorance and craving and of course there’s no way to actually go on hanging out like this without desire).
Again, we don’t agree about this and that’s ok.
Thanks for the convo.
No single word has meaning without a wider context. The word ‘form’ has various uses in the texts, and one sense is ‘form’ as it is experienced. That is I think exactly why in such contexts it is never (or rarely) said that the body (kāya/sārira) is suffering, but always ‘form’: the way the body is experienced, as heat, movement, etc. (‘Form’ has a wider meaning than just the body, but let’s leave that aside.) Once we have this meaning of ‘form’ in mind, statements like “form is suffering” can be taken literally. That is a very different use of context from reading such statements in the sense of “form, when attached to, is suffering”.
The latter also creates difficulties. For example, is form then also only impermanent and non-self when attached to? If we don’t think so (as we shouldn’t) then it’s contextually inconsistent to say form is only suffering when attached to. Because the statements on impermanence, suffering, and non-self occur right next to one another in the suttas, in that case we would not be relying on the direct meaning of words anymore, but are using a certain interpretive lens (whether rightly or wrongly, but a certain lens regardless). For example:
They truly understand form—which is impermanent—as impermanent. They truly understand feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is impermanent—as impermanent.
They truly understand form—which is suffering—as suffering. They truly understand feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is suffering—as suffering.
They truly understand form—which is not-self—as not-self. They truly understand feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is not-self—as not-self.
They truly understand form—which is conditioned—as conditioned. They truly understand feeling … perception … choices … consciousness—which is conditioned—as conditioned. (SN22.85)
What I meant is that the origin and cessation of “the world”, since in my view this refers to rebirth and its ending, not to perceptions of the world, is not a part of phenomenology as it is usually understood.
The very first sutta in the Nidāna Saṁyutta SN 12.1 says:
When rebirth ceases, old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress cease. That is how this entire mass of suffering ceases.
Since an Arahant only ceases to grow old and die when they are no longer born, then ‘this entire mass of suffering’ can only cease after the Arahant passes away. To me, this idea seems to be sprinkled in a lot of places in the suttas.
There is also the sutta on the three types of suffering SN 45.165
The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in perishing. These are the three forms of suffering.
From this again, it appears that while the Arahant is alive and experiencing the world, they are subject to all three types of suffering.
Yes, external rupa such as rocks, the sun, the Earth we live on, although impermanent, conditioned, liable to change and vanish, we do not assume to suffer, right? So one cannot take the teaching: all that is impermanent is suffering, literally, right? It must be seen in a certain light, it represents a certain perspective. We cannot treat it as absolute truth.
Also, when we are unconscious, there is a lot of change going on in our body and mind. But we do not suffer from those changes and conditions at that moment, right? So in this perspective/light it makes no sense to teach that change and impermanence means suffering, even while we still are not mindless in deep sleep or unconscious.
I believe it is also important to accept that cognition is different from being conscious and from experiencing things consciously. There is processing of sense info that does not lead to vinnana but this sense info is still detected by the mind and has still consequences in body and mind. This also means, i feel, one cannot really say that mind is the same as vinnana or consciousness. One cannot accept that processing of sense-info always leads to vinnana. So one can also not accept as true that sense-contact always leads to vinnana, but, indeed, when vinnana arises sense contact is there.
The sutta’s are just wrong, or oversimplifying things, when they would suggest that mind or Me or a person, or our lifes is the same as consciousness (vinnana) or a stream of vinnana’s.It is just not accurate. Also huge amounts of unconscious moments are part of our lifes or who or what we are. So also this idea of a stream of vinnana is only a perspective on ourselves.
So it is also makes little sense to reduce our lifes or a person or a being or Me to 5 khandha’s or to what is being experienced. That is never really me. Or do you really think that you do not exist when you are unconscious? If this is the case, we can conclude that we are vinnana right?
Anyway, i feel it is all perspective. Reducing ourselves to 5 khandha’s is also taking a perspective.
It does not really describe a person, a mind, a lifestream, me. It is oversimplifying things.
It does not tell the whole truth and does certainly not sees things as they really are. It is is merely a perspective. I do not exclude this is the reason why the Buddha said that he only declared (the perspective of) suffering and its cessation.
