As long as there are aggregates as a product of past clinging, as long as there are contacts of the senses with painful and pleasant objects and there is a mixture of pleasure and pain, which in its essence, in its nature, is suppressive (Even in the Arahant and Tathagata). But the Arahant really does not experience the sadness of grief and despondency in relation to this pain of the six spheres of contact, since there is no longer clinging in him (He does not have such mental dukkha-vedana, although it remains connected with the 6 spheres). Moreover, due to the fact that clinging has ceased in him - a new birth, and therefore a new aging, illness and death, a new mixture of pleasure and pain from the six spheres of contact will not arise. Thus he put an end to suffering. I don’t understand why you think that suffering will not end in this case. It is well described that it will cease, since the reason for its production will cease - that is, clinging and attachment to the five aggregates and six spheres of contact and the desire to acquire and recreate consciousness, body and sense objects
I don’t understand why you think I think that suffering will not end 
If the arahant makes an end of grasping and craving, then just that is making an end of suffering. The arahant does not make an end of the world’s pretty things. How can she? Neither with the awakening mind nor with the paranibbana of an arahant do the world’s pretty things cease. The world’s pretty things are not suffering.
As was stated above tables and chairs and rocks and so on are not suffering. After paranibbana the form aggregate of the body is now a corpse and does not disappear. It disintegrates and goes on to become dirt and other matter or is digested by an animal and the atoms that made up the corpse and were formally a part of the form aggregate of the arahant is now part of another body of a sentient being. The arahant did not make an end of the atoms of his body.
The arahant did make an end of suffering, but she did that when grasping and craving were utterly abandoned. Atoms cannot be suffering. The world’s pretty things cannot be suffering. To believe otherwise is to believe suffering cannot cease. 
Therefore, the rupa aggregate does not mean atoms, but this material complex that serves as the basis for the emergence of contact now and in the future. They deal with phenomena. The phenomena do not cease to serve as the basis for painful and suffering contact until this entire complex disintegrates.
The physical body is made of atoms. So says modern science at least. Whether those atoms are ultimately mind made or not, the atoms survive the paranibbana of the arahant. If you say the rupa aggregate does not mean atoms, then you seem to be saying that the physical body is not one of the aggregates. Is that what you’re saying? I’m pretty sure that others disagree and that there are suttas that seem to indicate the physical body is included in the five aggregates.
Hi,
While anarahant is alive, there indeed has been and end to greed, anger, and ignorance and all the dukkha that goes with that. But the mere presence of the senses and aggregates themselves are still dukkha. It doesn’t "capture’ the awakened mind of an arahant, but painful sensations are experienced = dukkha.
After death, all this ceases completely, so that is the final and irrevocable ending of all dukkha.
See Iti44.
So it’s not the “things” in themselves that suffer and we can’t directly know what the external world is or is like. Rather all those things are experienced through the senses and as they are impermanent and beyond control these experiences remain variable and often painful, even for an arahant. In the subtlest sense even simple experience is dukkha. Only the cessation of all that at parinibbāna is the final cessation of all dukkha.
You may wish to recall the suttas cited earlier:
SN12.15
SN22.85
Dhp278
SN12.32: "what’s impermanent is suffering. Yadaniccaṁ taṁ dukkhanti.
‘Suffering includes whatever is felt.’ ‘yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ taṁ dukkhasmin’”ti.
MN141
Sorow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish are dissatisfaction; not getting what one wants is dissatisfaction…
…“And, Venerables, what is pain? Venerables, whatever is felt as physical pain, physically unpleasant, pain and unpleasantness that arises from physical contact – Venerables, this is called ‘pain.’
And so we see that physical pain is completely suffering, regardless of whether it is with clinging or not.
SN 36.6
“Bhikkhus, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling, he does not sorrow, grieve, or lament; he does not weep beating his breast and become distraught. He feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one. Suppose they were to strike a man with a dart, but they would not strike him immediately afterwards with a second dart, so that the man would feel a feeling caused by one dart only. So too, when the instructed noble disciple is contacted by a painful feeling … he feels one feeling—a bodily one, not a mental one.
As we see - the first dart, the suffering of pain still strikes the noble disciple, but the mental suffering associated with clinging does not strike.
SN 22.122
“But, Venerable Sāriputta, what phenomena are to be paid wise attention to by a monk who is an Arahant?”
“Venerable Koṭṭhita, a monk who is an Arahant is also to wisely pay attention to the five components of attachment as impermanent, unsatisfactory, disease, cancer, stabbing, misfortune, affliction, alien, disintegrating, empty, and impersonal. Venerable, it is not there is anything more for an Arahant to do or to accumulate; however, when these are developed and cultivated, they are conducive to a pleasant life here and now, and to mindfulness and clear awareness.”
The Arahant contemplates the aggregates as suffering
SN 22.85
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
In the case of the arahant, the aggregate, there is also suffering, and what suffering is, has ceased and faded away.
I understand that this literal reading is what many believe, but this does not make logical sense to me. The aggregates include the physical body and the atoms of the physical body. They continue after the paranibbana of the Arahant. So to take your literal reading this implies that dukkha has not been eliminated even with the paranibbana of the Arahant. In particular, those same atoms that made up the former body of the Arahant go on to become - in some cases - part of the physical body of other sentient beings.
I do acknowledge SN12.15, SN22.85, Dhp278, SN12.32 and the three characteristics of all conditioned things. However, I take a different reading of these that is not literal in interpretation and thus does not bring up the logical problems above.
It seems to me those on this forum who advocate a literal reading of these suttas and subscribe to the idea of an ontological view that conditioned things and the aggregates are literally - in an ontological sense - suffering, have many logical implications they need to work through and this thread is reflective of that. Searching for various metaphysical frameworks in which to resolve these logical implications that are problematic.
Thank you for the sutta references, but I don’t see how those solve the logical problems your reading implicates.
The atoms constitute the aggregate of rūpa as long as they are grasped by the body, collected by past clinging and the guiding life force and become the “inner rūpa.” As soon as the atoms leave the body or the life, karma and consciousness leave the body, these atoms become the external rupa. The outer rupa can be suffering only through contact with the senses. Even if the senses and contacts are stopped, then the atoms cease to be the external rupa and cease to be considered as suffering. That is, matter is rupa only in interaction through contact and clinging.
Not quite.
As I mentioned, the “things” in themselves are not dukkha. We agree on this.
But there is dukkha in the presence of the aggregates and senses, which of course includes consciousness.
When these end, dukkha ends for that being/mind because the being/mind ends. It’s not about what happens in the outside world in the EBTs.
Hope the difference is clear.
The Buddha was not concerned with what happens in the world after final nibbāna:
AN10.95: " “Uttiya, I teach my disciples from my own insight in order to purify sentient beings, to get past sorrow and crying, to make an end of pain and sadness, to end the cycle of suffering, and to realize extinguishment.”
“But when Master Gotama teaches in this way, is the whole world saved, or half, or a third?” But when he said this, the Buddha kept silent."
"…it’s not the Realized One’s concern whether the whole world is saved by this, or half, or a third. But the Realized One knows that whoever is saved from the world—whether in the past, the future, or the present—all have given up the five hindrances, corruptions of the heart that weaken wisdom. They have firmly established their mind in the four kinds of mindfulness meditation. And they have truly developed the seven awakening factors. That’s how they’re saved from the world, in the past, future, or present. Uttiya, you were just asking the Buddha the same question as before in a different way. That’s why he didn’t answer.”
Again, any ideas, concepts, and thoughts about the outside world have to remain speculative. What the Buddha taught can be directly known and understood with respect to causation, conditionality, and liberation are experiences of, and through, the senses, SN35.23:
" And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and ideas. This is called the all.
Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”
What do you disagree with?
With the words of the Blessed One that pain is suffering? or that arahants have painful bodily contact? Or that impermanence and conditioning serve as the basis for the emergence of painful contact?
What exactly do you disagree with?
Let’s be clear and orderly. Value judgments that are not supported by anything have no weight in this kind of discussion.
Right. So we disagree on this. It is possible to experience without suffering.
I don’t disagree with any of those suttas. I just don’t think the suttas solve the problem with your reading. You’re citing those suttas to support your reading, but they don’t answer the logical problem with taking the aggregates and atoms as literal suffering.
MN 28
“What, friends, is the water element? The water element may be either internal or external. What is the internal water element? Whatever internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to; that is, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, grease, spittle, snot, oil-of-the-joints, urine, or whatever else internally, belonging to oneself, is water, watery, and clung-to: this is called the internal water element. Now both the internal water element and the external water element are simply water element. And that should be seen as it actually is with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees it thus as it actually is with proper wisdom, one becomes disenchanted with the water element and makes the mind dispassionate toward the water element.
“Now there comes a time when the external water element is disturbed. It carries away villages, towns, cities, districts, and countries. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean sink down a hundred leagues, two hundred leagues, three hundred leagues, four hundred leagues, five hundred leagues, six hundred leagues, seven hundred leagues. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand seven palms deep, six palms deep… two palms deep, only a palm deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand seven fathoms deep, six fathoms deep…two fathoms deep, only a fathom deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean stand half a fathom deep, only waist deep, only knee deep, only ankle deep. There comes a time when the waters in the great ocean are not enough to wet even the joint of a finger. When even this external water element, great as it is, is seen to be impermanent, subject to destruction, disappearance, and change, what of this body, which is clung to by craving and lasts but a while? There can be no considering that as ‘I’ or ‘mine’ or ‘I am.’
Matter can be an internal aggregate only through appropriation by the body, life force and karma. As soon as it leaves the body, or remains in the body abandoned by vital force, karma and consciousness (transformation into a corpse), it immediately turns into external matter, which is also impermanent, is the basis of cataclysms, earthquakes, water poisoning (for example, cadaveric poison). And the like. That is, the external rupa can also be suffering, but only if there is contact of the senses with it, that is, the six spheres of contact objectify the four mahabhutas, that is, the totality of matter and energy in space-time and create it as an “external rupa”, “objects of feelings", “dependent arising factor for consciousness”, “nutrition”
Perhaps we don’t disagree at all then? It isn’t the case that the world’s pretty things are dukkha? It isn’t the case that the aggregates - being “things” - are inherently dukkha?
They are for sure connected with dukkha and serve as the basis for the emergence of dukkha (being the basis of the body and contact)
This division of matter sounds like dividing into “mine” and “not mine.” Is the body something appropriate to appropriate? 
No, it is not worth clinging to and it is not worth appropriating, but past clinging due to past ignorance appropriated them through karma and we have what we have as a fait accompli in the case of the Arahant. But this process will not be repeated either now at the psychological level or in the future at the physical level. And a new birth, a new picking up of the body will not happen.
SN 12.19.
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has thereby originated. So there is this body and external name-and-form: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted through which—or through a certain one among them—the fool experiences pleasure and pain.
“Bhikkhus, for the wise man, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has thereby originated. So there is this body and external name-and-form: thus this dyad. Dependent on the dyad there is contact. There are just six sense bases, contacted through which—or through a certain one among them—the wise man experiences pleasure and pain. What, bhikkhus, is the distinction here, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the wise man and the fool?”
“Venerable sir, our teachings are rooted in the Blessed One, guided by the Blessed One, take recourse in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One would clear up the meaning of this statement. Having heard it from him, the bhikkhus will remember it.”
“Then listen and attend closely, bhikkhus, I will speak.”
“Yes, venerable sir,” the bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, for the fool, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has originated. For the fool that ignorance has not been abandoned and that craving has not been utterly destroyed. For what reason? Because the fool has not lived the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering. Therefore, with the breakup of the body, the fool fares on to another body. Faring on to another body, he is not freed from birth, aging, and death; not freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; not freed from suffering, I say.
“Bhikkhus, for the wise man, hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has originated. For the wise man that ignorance has been abandoned and that craving has been utterly destroyed. For what reason? Because the wise man has lived the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering. Therefore, with the breakup of the body, the wise man does not fare on to another body. Not faring on to another body, he is freed from birth, aging, and death; freed from sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair; freed from suffering, I say.
“This, bhikkhus, is the distinction, the disparity, the difference between the wise man and the fool, that is, the living of the holy life.”
Sure, but the arahant has aleady given up “I” making and “mine” making in her very life. She doesn’t regard the body as “mine” and she doesn’t have the conception “I feel pain.” There is no suffering for such a one in her very life. She does not have any basis for such suffering. By giving up “I” and “mine” making; by giving up craving after non-existence; by giving up craving not to feel pain; by giving up craving to feel pleasure; by giving up any conception of “my” body; suffering has no basis to arise. The world’s pretty things stay just as they are. It’s hard to see I know.
Yes, he dropped the mental pain associated with clinging to “I am”, “this is mine”. But the pain associated with the contact remains. Characteristics of pain - soreness, suffering. That is, there is suffering, but there is no one who suffers. The bare fact of the impersonal existence of suffering exists until death and dissolves itself.