Yes this would be quite mad.
Here we disagree. I say it is not only suffering, it is the foremost bad thing to occur. It’s like a disease or an affliction.
Existence is thus reckoned in light of discerning the unmade as the cessation of feeling states.
If there was no unmade then painful feelings would be reckoned as pain; the pleasant feelings would be reckoned as pleasure; and the foremost pleasant feeling, namely the equanimity of neither perception nor non-perception, would be the foremost definitive pleasure.
However there is an unmade, discerned by attaining the cessation of perception & feeling.
One who attains it comes to regard only this as happiness and all feeling states as suffering.
All this is very explicit in the texts.
Even the foremost pleasant feeling ought to be contemplated as dukkha by focusing on it’s unttractiveness such as it’s nature to change.
This is not the best example but it will do
“There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) ‘It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon’ — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound.”
“Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?”
“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
“Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance.”
“Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — ‘It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon’ — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound.” Aneñja-sappaya Sutta: Conducive to the Imperturbable
Even that pinnacle of feeling is not worth relishing because it’s dukkha whereas the extinguishment is bliss
“Whatever exists therein of material form, feeling, perception, formations, and consciousness, he sees those states as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumour, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as void, as not self. He turns his mind away from those states and directs it towards the deathless element thus: ‘This is the peaceful, this is the sublime, that is, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbāna.’ SuttaCentral
If one doesn’t see the constructed as a suffering, a disease and a murderer then it’s really impossible to turn away as one will not be able to overcome the relishment & clinging.
