"I declare ONLY suffering and its cessation." — The Buddha, indeed

[Green]

@Meggers

You have to keep phenomenology in mind when you think about Buddhist practice as the cultivation of wisdom and the cultivation of what in some types of Buddhism is called power (i.e. the meditative side). Just on this one side that we are talking about, it is the practice of wisdom that matters. What is your image of that?

Thanks for all the info about phenomenology. I did not know this.

My concern is: if i learn to see things this or that way, and that helps me to relax, open myself, become more burdenfree, does this mean that it must be truthful, or is it possible that i only deceive myself but still reap good fruits? Do you think this is possible?

I do not want to be involved in something that is mere trickery. For example, contemplating disgust i feel is trickery. Oke, it might work. But i will not do such things. And if i contemplate on endless samsara with so much suffering but i really have no clue about all this, for me, this also feels like trickery. It is like brainwashing myself, i feel. Unnatural.

I also do not see anicca, anatta, dukkha as wisdom, or seeing things as they are. I tend to see this as solely perceptions that contribute to becoming more dispassionate, more open-minded.

I also feel that if practice leads to being more and more in the head that is wrong practice. There is no liberation in the mental domain. This mental vinnana is a huge problem. A magician. So, i also feel that one must not make this mental domain so strong and makes ones abiding or home.

I tend to believe that such things as love, wisdom and compassion flow naturally in a totally open mind, in a pure unlimited mind but are not possessions of that mind. If one is interested in goodness, in wisdom, i feel, ones only task is to empty oneself completely and become just a an empty vessel.

I do not reject cultivation but i also do not believe that wisdom, love and compassion can really be cultivated. At best an idea/image of it. But i feel one cultivates wisdom, compassion, love naturally when one opens up gradually and removes what hinders one to open up (asava, tanha, kilesa, anusaya, samjoyana, hindrances). We do not have to worry that we lack wisdom, love, goodness. We only have to become empty vessels. For me that is also what a detached mind means.

Many people, i feel, develop the idea that they possess wisdom or insight etc. I feel that is only conceit.
Such things one cannot possess. Thats what it really means for me, to be without self and any possessions of self.

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@yeshe.tenley

The Teacher taught so often for the complete letting go of those polluted aggregates as anything suitable to be called “I” or for anything at all to be suitable to be called “mine.”

Agree.

@yeshe.tenley

“fundamentally forms of dukkha.” I cannot agree with this because it isn’t stated and it is an ontological argument that I thought we agreed the Teacher wasn’t making? If you believe that the aggregates are fundamentally and ontologically dukkha incarnate then it is

Yes, in this sutta, not in others.
What you haven’t addressed yet are the suttas in which the Buddha directly teaches that the aggregates are dukkha, as in the prior posts. I mean, it’s clearly stated that whatever is anicca is dukkha, so right there it applies to the senses and aggregates. Yes?

And in many suttas the Buddha clearly leads his listeners to insight via the questions about whether the aggregates are anicca, and so are dukkha. In these suttas the aspect of desire does not come up.

What about Dhp278: "All conditions are suffering— “Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”

How do you address the teachings in these suttas?

We may just have to agree to disagree.

All best

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@Green

Yes, it is about us. It is about how we experience things.

Of course it’s about our experiences. But it’s how we understand them and let go of ignorance and clinging that leads to liberation, yes?
The Buddha said in MN16 to refer to the suttas and vinaya when there is doubt about his teachings. That’s what I meant.

[Meggers]

I think what you are saying is right, within the context of what I am trying to say about how dramatically things change from vedic belief in the idea that wisdom comes from somewhere that is a source (like there is content in the universe and the seers have access to it in inspired thought and then write poetry).

Buddha is like you, he recognizes that wisdom is learning that comes through experience and practice, and he does say it can also come through listening to and engaging with another’s word (his, but he has no reason to say otherwise). The kind of wisdom he ended up with is very different, because it is salvic. And it is salvic for people in a time of disenchantment. Things aren’t going great.

That is the kind of stuff available in Buddhism that is available in other religions, which is why Buddhism is regarded as a religion, instead of simply a philosophy for life and way of life.

Myself, I’m not a Buddhist, but there’s the old expression “the proof’s in the pudding.”

What you are supposed to get is permanent change, because you learn to see things differently, and with practicing you develop the foundation of certitude.

I don’t think if you didn’t want to be selfless as an outcome to your practice, that you would become selfless. And, I think that along the way you will be asking yourself questions, is it right, is it not … many things. But if you develop some understanding of why you’re doing what you’re doing - and having an aim that you can achieve (non-self, which is both more and less than selflessness) is a good thing - and you can understand that it’s disciplined work, and you can manage yourself in a way that allows the practice (being mindful) to unfold … then … I think most people whose Buddhist practice offers them something, do so because, over time, they’ve made the connection between practice and outcomes.

That’s purely subjective. That’s what they tell me. They’re good people, I have no reason to not believe them. So, reporting what other people tell me, the guidance that they took is not trickery.

I don’t think Buddhism is going to “unburden” your life. You’re not going to grab hold of the power of the universe and start shaping things to your will, that’s not going to happen. But you should be able to find something that you need.

And since you are your own open air laboratory of experience, it is for you in your foundation to answer the questions for yourself. You just don’t want to have to ask yourself too much. You don’t need a 30-year mistake, for instance, and people definitely do stuff like that.

You might reach a point where you need to contemplate something like disgust. There’ve been a couple of times where I was disgusted with my daughter and angry with her. I don’t usually get angry, but when I do it’s very deep, because it’s been provoked by something that crosses a great line , and then I stay angry for a long time. That’s not a good thing to be, and it’s not a good way to be. And especially at my daughter’s age, when I was disgusted with her, she needed me. (She still needs me, just not as much as she used to). Children aren’t something you can mess up. There’s no “woops, I made a mistake it can be fixed.” So I struggled, with real, genuine, just feelings of disgust (and disappointment and other things), because I have a higher priority that involves human relationships, and one that I can never get off the hook from.

And, I’m pretty sure my daughter would tell you I’m deluded and a hag, regardless, so. The question of truth is … well, in this post, post, post- modern world, I mean, seriously, “get the lead out,” I say.

It really is for you. There are guide rails in place that you should follow. Really don’t lie. If your parents never taught you that, take it to heart now. There are other things that are common sense as well, and nothing special to Buddhism. It’s old. Buddha was clearly a sharp guy with a strong personality and good administrative skill, but yes, I am of the opinion that keeping things in perspective is healthy.

[Green]

@Jasudho

Of course it’s about our experiences. But it’s how we understand them and let go of ignorance and clinging that leads to liberation, yes?
The Buddha said in MN16 to refer to the suttas and vinaya when there is doubt about his teachings. That’s what I meant.

You also know that according legend Buddha adviced the Kalama’s not to rely on scripture.

I feel you just define or agree or make some dogmatic statement that any experience is suffering. Point. But you have no reason to do so because it is not what you experience, right?
Why not agree this is so?

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

Yes, in this sutta, not in others.

In many other suttas as well. SN 22.155 comes to mind as another example. I think it is an interesting exercise to read SN 22.155 first and then to visit all the linked suttas before and after.

@Jasudho

What you haven’t addressed yet are the suttas in which the Buddha directly teaches that the aggregates are dukkha, as in the prior posts. I mean, it’s clearly stated that whatever is anicca is dukkha, so right there it applies to the senses and aggregates. Yes?

I think I have addressed them. If one takes a non-substantialist view about those suttas and understands that the Buddha did not intend a substantialist view, then they can be understood. Unfortunately, we beings have a nasty habit cultivated since who knows when of jumping from substantialist view to substantialist view. Grasping onto yet another substantialist view for fear of being tossed into an abyss.

@Jasudho

And in many suttas the Buddha clearly leads his listeners to insight via the questions about whether the aggregates are anicca, and so are dukkha. In these suttas the aspect of desire does not come up.

The Teacher again and again taught not to identify the aggregates as the self. Neither in parts nor as a whole. Again and again the Teacher taught about cultivating dispassion for the aggregates. The Teacher taught to regard them as insubstantial, hollow things that are not worthy of obsession. The aggregates are not worthy of being “mine” and they are not worthy of basing any sense of “I” atop. The Teacher taught the letting go of substantialist view towards the aggregates. The Teacher simply did not intend a substantialist understanding with any of his statements.

@Jasudho

What about Dhp278: "All conditions are suffering— “Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā”

In the same manner as above. I do not believe the Teacher meant us to take “All conditions are suffering” as a substantialist view or worthy of ontological sentiment. Understanding the completely insubstantial nature of conditions one “grows disillusioned with suffering.”

Thank you for the conversation dhamma friend!

[Jasudho]

Hi,

@Green

I feel you just define or agree or make some dogmatic statement that any experience is suffering. Point. But you have no reason to do so because it is not what you experience, right?

Sorry, I’m not understanding your reasoning here. I’m quoting the suttas.

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

The Teacher again and again taught not to identify the aggregates as the self. Neither in parts nor as a whole. Again and again the Teacher taught about cultivating dispassion for the aggregates. The Teacher taught to regard them as insubstantial, hollow things that are not worthy of obsession. The aggregates are not worthy of being “mine” and they are not worthy of basing any sense of “I” atop. The Teacher taught the letting go of substantialist view towards the aggregates. The Teacher simply did not intend a substantialist understanding with any of his statements.

We agree with all this, except I’m not sure exactly what you mean by a “substantialist view.”
However, none of these points addresses the issue of the aggregates being dukkha.

The aggregates are what are experienced and in the suttas cited, all conditional experiences are anicca and dukkha. That’s my point.

Regarding suttas that deal with desire and craving, of course these are important aspects of the Path.
Teaching about the need to let go, and to be rid of, craving and ignorance, again, doesn’t obviate the point about all conditions being dukkha.

From another vantage point, the Buddha spoke about feeling of significant discomfort later in life and said he obtained temporary relief in deep samadhi.
This is not to say there was any clinging, aversion, self-sense, or identification with any of this. But the sheer presence of pain – i.e. an aggregate-experience – lead to taking action for relief.

Clearly, there was no clinging for the Buddha. But in this example there was saṅkhāradukkhatā, the dukkha of conditions, (SN45.165).

"“Mendicants, there are these three forms of suffering.
“Tisso imā, bhikkhave, dukkhatā.
What three?
Katamā tisso?
The suffering inherent in painful feeling; the suffering inherent in conditions; and the suffering inherent in perishing.
Dukkhadukkhatā, saṅkhāradukkhatā, vipariṇāmadukkhatā—
These are the three forms of suffering.
imā kho, bhikkhave, tisso dukkhatā.
The noble eightfold path should be developed for the direct knowledge, complete understanding, finishing, and giving up of these three forms of suffering.”
Imāsaṁ kho, bhikkhave, tissannaṁ dukkhatānaṁ abhiññāya pariññāya parikkhayāya pahānāya …pe… ayaṁ ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo bhāvetabbo”ti."

imo, this is not just an academic exercise. The more all conditions are understood to be inherently forms of dukkha, the more the mind moves towards dispassion.

Thanks for the civil and mutually respectful conversation!

[Green]

@Meggers

I think what you are saying is right, within the context of what I am trying to say about how dramatically things change from vedic belief in the idea that wisdom comes from somewhere that is a source (like there is content in the universe and the seers have access to it in inspired thought and then write poetry).

Hi Angry Deluded Mother:-)

Don’t you think the above is universal human experience transcending time, place, cultures?

i tend to see it this way that we are probably not really able to understand the depth and deep mysterie life is. I also tend to believe life was a mysterie for the Buddha too. That is why i think he emphasized, ‘I declare only suffering and its cessation’. Like he wanted to say…if you want to know what life is, how it all started, how it all goes, what exist, you must seek another teacher. I only declare suffering and its cessation.

About guidelines i feel the world and beings are never really lost, also not when a Buddha is not in the world. Because there is always the stream. There is always the light of the soul. There is something inside us calling. There is a natural operation towards purification. We have this inner guidance. Do we listen?

A Buddha re-discovers this and calls this inner working the stream. The stream was not his invention. I believe the stream is what christians talk about as a calling. Mystics say this so nicely. They say that the light of the soul or the holy ghost has a natural operation to remove all what is not God-like, not pure goodness, not truthful. Isn’t that nice? The stream leads one to being God-like.

I have no children but a cat. Tthat monster can make me mad:-) I have spoiled her. Probably i would also spoil my children. But now i spoiled my cat she turns easily into a demon. Mara is even afraid of her. He takes flight when my cat becomes demonic.

I conclude…it is really hard to do good, because often one only feeds the demon. This is also my own experience with other persons. When i tried to help, i foften noticed i only fed their demons. It looked like that. Even with best intentions things can turn out bad.

I think nowadays parents have a hard time. My parents never cared for the emotional welbeing or needs of their children. That was very normal for this generation and environment. Children just need to be fed and have rules and ritme and do something like sport. But nowadays a parent must be a real psychologist and be very emotional supportive and this and that…pfff…i do not envy them. I hope you can also be not to strict to yourselves. You do your best, i think.

I think i understand that you say that children are not something you can mess up, but there is also the side of the child, right? I do not want to suggest i have knowledge about raising children. But i believe children can derail too when parents are really caring, supporting, loving.

Wish you and your daughter well!

[yeshe.tenley]

Let me ask you this: do you think there is a difference between generating dispassion for the aggregates versus aversion towards the aggregates? If so, do you agree the latter is to be avoided as it generates additional suffering? If so, then how do you distinguish between dispassion and aversion if you think the aggregates ARE literally and inherently dukkha incarnate?

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

Let me ask you this: do you think there is a difference between generating dispassion for the aggregates versus aversion towards the aggregates? If so, do you agree the latter is to be avoided as it generates additional suffering? If so, then how do you distinguish between dispassion and aversion if you think the aggregates ARE literally and inherently dukkha incarnate?

Well that’s an important aspect of the practice.

The Buddha spoke about the need for nibbidā which means weariness (of), disenchantment, and even disgust for what is dukkha – all conditions.
And of course he taught about virāga, dispassion towards all conditions.

Aversion is rooted in ignorance and a self-sense, which is why it’s a defilement.
This is different than nibbidā and virāga which arise with insight and wisdom.

But again, it doesn’t come down to how I see this, just trying to offer aspects of what the Buddha taught in the Nikāyas.

(Also, the Mahayana view is one that understands that all things, while they should not be clung to, are inherently perfect ornaments of Buddha Nature. This is not found in the EBTs).

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

Aversion is rooted in ignorance and a self-sense, which is why it’s a defilement.

I would argue that it is rooted in a substantialist view believing the aggregates as fundamentally and inherently dukkha or believing them to be fundamentally and inherently anything at all. I think this is well explicated in the Pali canon and what you call the EBTs. And this is apparently where we disagree.

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

I would argue that it is rooted in a substantialist view believing the aggregates as fundamentally and inherently dukkha or believing them to be fundamentally and inherently anything at all. I think this is well explicated in the Pali canon

As mentioned earlier, we appear to agree to disagree.

But I don’t understand what you mean by “inherently anything at all.”
In the EBTs conditional “things” are conditional experiences via the six senses and are very real in that sense.
While they have no permanent essence, soul, or self, that doesn’t mean they’re not real as experience. Have you ever poked yourself accidentally with a needle? Are you saying because “things” in experience are empty of a permanent essence and are not “inherently anything at all” that they don’t exist in experience? Then why the pain from a needle stick? Why any dukkha at all?

Not sure what you’re pointing to here, though it again sounds like it’s grounded in a Mahayana view of the Absolute and the doctrine of “all things are no-things.”

[Meggers]

@Green

I have no children but a cat. Tthat monster can make me mad:-) I have spoiled her. Probably i would also spoil my children. But now i spoiled my cat she turns easily into a demon. Mara is even afraid of her. He takes flight when my cat becomes demonic.

@Green

I think nowadays parents have a hard time. My parents never cared for the emotional welbeing or needs of their children. That was very normal for this generation and environment.

Oh I have lots of conversations with my daughter about all sorts of things. I remember saying to her that when I was in school it was “spare the rod, spoil the child,” and even more so when my father was in school in the UK. He told me about how in grammar school discipline was up in front of the rest of the school getting the paddle. My daughter was like, yup, nope, in school now it’s all about “don’t ruin their self-esteem.”

Each child is different. It is an arduous, every day - chore - at some times keeping them close, but then there is this beautiful flourishing. Things break all the time, sometimes what breaks shouldn’t and sometimes what breaks releases all sorts of energy, and stuff gets better, the air is cleared, things on on a better path, etc. etc. This is hard won knowledge.

Life is terribly real. A lot of people don’t realize why when they put the shift into drive, “the car” doesn’t go that way, despite whatever that manual in their head tells them it is supposed to. And that includes recognizing that your child is their own person and they do what they do, because that’s how it is. But we have to protect them, because we know. And we don’t want them to be eaten by lions, so to speak.

@Green

A Buddha re-discovers this and calls this inner working the stream. The stream was not his invention. I believe the stream is what christians talk about as a calling. Mystics say this so nicely. They say that the light of the soul or the holy ghost has a natural operation to remove all what is not God-like, not pure goodness, not truthful. Isn’t that nice? The stream leads one to being God-like.

Theology and medicine were the first vocations, and still have a special status in terms of being true callings. So again, speaking to your own foundations.

I think if you like the more open air that comes with being inquisitive about mysticism and feeling it has merit to purse, even if you just feel like doing some wood-shedding (I play the guitar, so sometimes I get sent there if I want to crank out scads of metal riffs) you might want to look at ideas like Buddha Nature, which are pretty closely connected to Zen.

Typically Mahayana was to have disparaged Sthaviravada, but there’s a lot of flak here about how everything other than the EBTs is “not real Buddhism.” It can be anticipated that orthodox thinkers will say this. They do it in Christianity as well, and there are I guess about 100 million people in the US who believe that the world is 7000 years old, or whatever it says in the bible.

In the end, some of the really unhealthy issues going on here … you may just decide to let it go. However, the advantage is that you have great access to primary sources in Buddhist thought and people who are excited about the suttas, doing work on them and willing to share accurate information on them to the best of their ability.

@Green

I conclude…it is really hard to do good, because often one only feeds the demon. This is also my own experience with other persons. When i tried to help, i foften noticed i only fed their demons. It looked like that. Even with best intentions things can turn out bad.

Another common religious motif, which is why there are “answers” like kamma to this problem. I think it was Paul that asked, how do I do the good that I want to do, without “producing” all the bad. He wasn’t successful at that, so this question is one of those existential ones that many really do stare into a glass ball about.

@Green

Wish you and your daughter well!

She’s doing well, as far as I know. She’s an engineer and has got herself a good job out on “the Island.” She wasn’t going to move to the island from New Westminster (she was living with me at the time to finish her degree without interruptions from things like BOYS) and I said to her that she had an opportunity to go live on Vancouver island, which is everyone’s dream in Canada. And that with all the bucks she would be making, she could live the hippie lifestyle of the “great unwashed” out there if she wanted to, but didn’t have to. She’s not a hippie, but life in the great outdoors in Canada, there is none really better than "out on the island, " if you can afford it, so she’s well positioned, and takes advantage of that.

Myself, I am bugging about leaving for Ethiopia. And getting more and more bugging about that. It’s a dangerous thing. The vaccines alone are thousands and thousands of dollars.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

But I don’t understand what you mean by “inherently anything at all.”
In the EBTs conditional “things” are conditional experiences via the six senses and are very real in that sense.

I mean the aggregates are not substantial. Not worthy of any substantialist view. They are completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. Yes, they can be experienced. This doesn’t mean the aggregates do not exist. Still, they are not worthy of grasping at as some fixed and substantial thing. Suffering too is void, hollow and insubstantial. Suffering can be experienced and does exit, but suffering does not exist in a non-void, substantial fashion. That is not meant to imply that suffering and the aggregates exist in some ontologically fixed way as “void”, “hollow”, and “insubstantial” either.

@Jasudho

While they have no permanent essence, soul, or self, that doesn’t mean they’re not real as experience. Have you ever poked yourself accidentally with a needle? Are you saying because “things” in experience are empty of a permanent essence and are not “inherently anything at all” that they don’t exist in experience? Then why the pain from a needle stick? Why any dukkha at all?

I don’t know what you mean by ‘real’, but if you mean the aggregates exist as something substantial then I disagree. The Teacher taught to regard them as insubstantial, not substantial. The Teacher taught that they were not worthy of believing in or obsessing over or as any kind of basis for views about the self either in parts or as a whole. The Teacher taught they were suffering in order to inspire dispassion for them not to inspire the fixed view that they were substantial or that suffering was substantial. It is my hypothesis that the Teacher did not intend to replace the fixed and substantialist views as described in DN 1 with his own fixed and substantialist view. Regarding them as substantial leads to aversion or craving towards them, not dispassion.

@Jasudho

Not sure what you’re pointing to here, though it again sounds like it’s grounded in a Mahayana view of the Absolute and the doctrine of “all things are no-things.”

No, I don’t intend any Mahayana view or anything like this. What I’m saying I believe is well explicated by the Pali canon and does not rely on any Mahayana sutta nor is it somehow only related to the path of the Bodhisatta.

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

I mean the aggregates are not substantial. Not worthy of any substantialist view. They are completely void, hollow, and insubstantial. Yes, they can be experienced. This doesn’t mean the aggregates do not exist. Still, they are not worthy of grasping at as some fixed and substantial thing. Suffering too is void, hollow and insubstantial. Suffering can be experienced and does exit, but suffering does not exist in a non-void, substantial fashion. That is not meant to imply that suffering and the aggregates exist in some ontologically fixed way as “void”, “hollow”, and “insubstantial” either.

Ok, but this in itself doesn’t mean the aggregates are not forms of dukkha.

@yeshe.tenley

The Teacher taught they were suffering in order to inspire dispassion for them not to inspire the fixed view that they were substantial or that suffering was substantial.

But I’m not arguing they’re “substantial” as you appear to be indicting. From my end, this discussion is not a philosophical debate about “reality” and “non-reality,” but about the six sense fields and the aggregates, which I note you listed here as suffering.
I’m not discussing about taking them as substantial or not. Just that they are forms of dukkha, being conditional.

[yeshe.tenley]

@Jasudho

I’m not discussing about taking them as substantial or not. Just that they are forms of dukkha, being conditional.

Right, and I say it is the grasping at them or ones greedy intention that makes dukkha. Without the grasping or greedy intention they can’t or shouldn’t be regarded as dukkha. You disagree and think that regardless of the grasping or greedy intention they are fundamentally dukkha. I think we’ve come full circle and we probably understand where each other stands at this point. Agreed?

[Jasudho]

Yes, we agree to disagree.

[Green]

@yeshe.tenley

Right, and I say it is the grasping at them or ones greedy intention that makes dukkha. Without the grasping or greedy intention they can’t or shouldn’t be regarded as dukkha. You disagree and think that regardless of the grasping or greedy intention they are fundamentally dukkha. I think we’ve come full circle and we probably understand where each other stands at this point. Agreed?

I feel, it cannot be Dhamma when the claim “khandha’s are an sich suffering” cannot be experientially confirmed. If it is mere a dogmatic statement, i feel, that cannot be Dhamma.

So how can we experientially confirm that any feeling, any perception, is suffering, is unsatisfactory, a burden?

I feel, that is only possible when we have direct knowledge that the cessation of perception and feeling is, indeed, an ultimate peace, an ultimate freedom of any burden. But without that confirmation it is only some dogmatic belief that khandha’s are inherently suffering.

So, i assume Buddha had this experiential confirmation.

An sich, the idea that feeling is a kind of burden, i think is not that strange. Feeling is like an impact on the mind. Vinnana moments, moments of sense contact are like moments of impact. Maybe seen from the impact free one also gets experiential confirmation that feeling, perception, vinnana, is indeed impact, burden. And the cessation of vinnana is the impact free reality, the total openess of mind.

[Jasudho]

@yeshe.tenley

I say it is the grasping at them or ones greedy intention that makes dukkha. Without the grasping or greedy intention they can’t or shouldn’t be regarded as dukkha.

Even as we agree to disagree, here’s one last sutta that is clear and straightforward, SN22.19.
“Mendicants, form is suffering.
“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ.
The cause and reason that gives rise to form is also suffering.
Yopi hetu yopi paccayo rūpassa uppādāya, sopi dukkho.
Since form is produced by what is suffering, how could it be happiness?
Dukkhasambhūtaṁ, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ kuto sukhaṁ bhavissati.
Feeling is suffering …
Vedanā dukkhā …
Perception is suffering …
saññā dukkhā …
Choices are suffering …
saṅkhārā dukkhā …
Consciousness is suffering.
viññāṇaṁ dukkhaṁ.
The cause and reason that gives rise to consciousness is also suffering.
Yopi hetu yopi paccayo viññāṇassa uppādāya, sopi dukkho.
Since consciousness is produced by what is suffering, how could it be happiness?
Dukkhasambhūtaṁ, bhikkhave, viññāṇaṁ kuto sukhaṁ bhavissati.

Even as ignorance and craving are the causes for the aggregates, the Buddha is saying they are dukkha, having been caused by “what is suffering.”

Also same in SN22.16.
And SN22.31:
"And what is misery?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, aghaṁ?
Form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness are misery.
Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, aghaṁ, vedanā aghaṁ, saññā aghaṁ, saṅkhārā aghaṁ, viññāṇaṁ aghaṁ.
This is called misery.
Idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, aghaṁ."