I do and you know what I take it back a little bit what I said before. I hypothesize that I can say blamelessly that I can infer the non arising, non changing and non ceasing lack of substantial existence in a thing. 
True, neither of us has. But according to your conception many have died and yet no substantial difference can be found between them and us.
Yes, yes, yes, Yeshe takes it back, Yeshe takes it back… 
Hmmm, now i am dizzy
Ive been loving this discussion and the example of the stream so will add my 2c (as a non-physicist!):
-a body of water is flowing down a mountain (due to gravity )
-you block a gap between two rocks where much of the water was flowing
-there could be a new flow of water somewhere else completely (e.g, the other side of the mountain entirely many kilometers away) because there is a certain mass of water and it is affected by gravity and “must” fall down wherever it has the opportunity
-no water has travelled across the mountain (potentially faster than light if it was the same water)…its just that the conditions exist so it happens
Whereas, if your block is at the top of the mountain, then the remaining water would continue to flow, obeying the laws of gravity, but once exhausted, the flow would cease, but nothing is created out of thin air and nothing vanishes into thin air. The substantial things (e.g., H20 molecults) are real and observable, and the effects of the insubstantial things (‘flowing’ and gravity) are real and observable but the insubstantial things themselves don’t have actual substance (by definition!), all you can observe is that they exist as you can observe their effects.
The wherever it has the opportunity phrase is how the rebirth happens in this analogy- the ‘life’ of best fit you could call it. Just as water falls down the mountain because it must (gravity), but ‘finds’ the path of least resistance to do that. So if you want the water to flow to the heavenly realms in the north, put in place the gaps in the rocks and trees that way and put the blockages to the hell realms in the south!
1 Like
where do you intent to go with this? No need to end suffering? Also, we cannot strictly speaking refer to anything when the arahant has passed away. Nothing to compare to.
And consider this: sn38.15
It’s a different word for sāra vs sakkāya.
We have different ideas of what suffering is. You regard the aggregates as the literal embodiment of suffering. I do not. It is no wonder that with this understanding you seek to end the existence of the aggregates. But as I’ve tried to point out before, the aggregates are not substantial and do not have a substantial end.
The body of the Teacher did not disappear from existence; thus this literal suffering did not completely cease in the way you might envision. That literal suffering acted as a condition for the arising of other things that very well could be an atom inside your body now which you regard as literal suffering. One could even say that the literal suffering that was the body of the Teacher was reborn and is still literal suffering in your conception.
I do not view the aggregates as literal suffering. Rather, dependent upon grasping the aggregates, suffering arises. With the cessation of grasping the aggregates, suffering ceases. With the cessation of grasping on the night of enlightenment it can truly be said that suffering ceased; death was not involved.
“Reverend, the Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are substantial reality. That is, form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness. The Buddha said that these five grasping aggregates are substantial reality.”
SN38.15
Well, the five aggregates do appear to substantially exist don’t they 
That’s why they are grasped after. 
Isn’t suffering just as insubstantial?
Indeed. Thankfully.
So I don’t see why aggregates can’t be literal suffering, if they’re both of the same voidness.
Viewing the aggregates as literally anything other than the aggregates is to view the aggregates as substantially existing. There is the view that the aggregates have a core an essence and that core is suffering. Rather than knowing the five aggregates as suffering:
- You should know form as form.
- You should know feeling as feeling.
- You should know perception as perception.
- You should know choices as choices.
- You should know consciousness as consciousness.
The five aggregates were also said to BE burning chaff by the Teacher, but the aggregates ARE NOT literally burning chaff. Just so the aggregates are not literally suffering. The aggregates are the aggregates and you should know them as they are. Suffering is suffering and you should know suffering as it is.
It isn’t the case that just because things don’t have essence or core that we can magically make one thing into another by deeming it so. We all know the President of the United States is a conventional existent that has no substantial existence, but we have no power to just make ourselves the President of the United States by just deeming it so.
Not really. They’re just form-addiction manifesting, illusion of different shades of suffering. All mental conditions are just suffering in seemingly different but truly the same function of suffering. I don’t see the dilemma.
This would by implication include seeing the aggregates as empty, because it means the aggregates are not just aggregates but are also empty. Dukkha is a description, and the Buddha unambiguously applies it to the aggregates probably hundreds if not dozens of times in the discourses. To deny that it can be applied to something, even in the sense of a dependent or empty process, would be self-contradictory if it is denied in the name of saying the aggregates are another arbitrary thing other than aggregates and dukkha, namely, “empty” or “insubstantial” or “void” or “hollow” or … oh that’s 4 more things already.
1 Like
At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is suffering, feeling is suffering, perception is suffering, volitional formations are suffering, consciousness is suffering. Seeing thus … He understands: ‘… there is no more for this state of being.’” SN22.13
“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ, vedanā dukkhā, saññā dukkhā, saṅkhārā dukkhā, viññāṇaṁ dukkhaṁ."
Not the grasping, but aggregates are dukkha manifest.
1 Like
This is where it becomes absolutely necessary to understand what a non-affirming negation is. When we say the aggregates are empty we mean no further positive affirmation. It simply means that when we apply reductive analysis to the aggregates we come up empty. Full stop.
Dukkha is a negation of sukha. Read the way it is arrived at.
1 Like
Yes, he also said the aggregates ARE burning chaff, but somehow I don’t think you see the problem with denying they are literally burning chaff. This is a mistake of the view of substantial existence.
Not really, I’m saying the function/process of suffering can appear to take different forms. It’s not the same thing as it having a substantial existence or not.
Ah, then if I say the aggregates ARE empty you think that the aggregates and empty are the same thing? Since form is empty and mind is empty I can say that form is mind? You don’t think that is the case, right? The aggregates are literal emptiness or no? Does this help to see the difference?
We agree that the aggregates are NOT literally burning chaff, yes?
We disagree that the aggregates ARE literally suffering, yes?
What is the difference. What do you mean by the aggregates ARE literally suffering but ARE NOT literally burning chaff?
You say the difference is not one that involves a view of substantial existence. Ok, then what is the difference?
What is it that ties you to the belief in one but not the other? Why does it seem so problematic that the aggregates are not literal suffering, but it is easy to accept that the aggregates are not literal burning chaff?