Maha-Sunnata Sutta - Did the Original Buddha teach here that arahants still have a modicum of suffering?

Discussion
1

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.122.than.html

In this sutta, the Buddha makes the common refrain, “He recognizes birth is ended…” but then after that, the Buddha tells Ananda that one still retains the modicum (or tiny amount) of suffering based on, “six senses.” However, the Buddha also said I think that one doesn’t have craving, ignorance, or aversion to these six senses which cause the modicum of suffering. That for the Buddha was emptiness meditation.

Is he saying though that even an arahant hangs on to the tiniest piece of suffering? Perhaps this is before final parinibbana, where the six senses also release?

2

There’s no controversy that the 5 aggregates we label as living arahant still has all these 3 types of suffering, just no mental suffering.

2 Likes
3

Hello. Possibly you meant to refer to MN 121.

He discerns that ‘Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

"He discerns that ‘Whatever disturbances (darathā) that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality… the effluent of becoming… the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum (small quantity) of disturbance (darathamattā) : that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.’ He discerns that ‘This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality… becoming… ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.’ Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: ‘There is this.’ And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed.

Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness

The word used is ‘darathā’ rather than ‘dukkha’ (suffering). This can only be the same as described in Iti 44:

What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left

Iti 44

Those three types of suffering read to be all mental suffering. The first suffering is called ‘dukkha dukkha’, which reads to mean ‘mentally suffering about physical pain’. This reads the same as the two arrows in SN 36.6. The second suffering reads to mean ‘mental suffering about change’, the same as in SN 22.1. :slightly_smiling_face:

4

How about unpleasant feeling suffering? The first one include unpleasant feelings from both mental and physical for non-arahants, and only physical for arahants.

Suffering of change.

As suffering doesn’t limit itself to mental, suffering of change includes physical. healthy change to sick.

It’s an ongoing battle to disconnect suffering from being always mental suffering.

The way you read it then doesn’t make the 3 types of suffering exhaustive to cover all suffering, as it excludes physical suffering.

1 Like
5

It is called ‘dukkha dukkha’, which is 2 x dukkha, as in SN 36.6. If it was 1 x dukkha, it would be ‘dukkha’ instead of ‘dukkha dukkha’.

It is best to read SN 22.1 rather than to keep posting unconvincing opinions. :slightly_smiling_face:

6

Hi,

SN22.1 deals with the absence of mental stress, given the absence of the defilements, including sakkāyadiṭṭhi.
It does not deny the sheer presence and experience of painful vedana – otherwise how could the sutta teach that one is not attached to it?

That sheer experience of pain, as reported by the Buddha in DN16, as a painful experience, is a form of dukkha for awakened ones – even without attachment, aversion, or identification with it.
Hence, the utter cooling off after the final death as in Iti44.

1 Like
7

Sorry, I put the wrong sutta link. I meant the culasunnatasutta, not the mahasunnatasutta.

8

Hi @BetterThanMostBogdan

Welcome to the D&D forum! We hope you enjoy the various resources, FAQs, and previous threads. You can use the search function for topics and keywords you are interested in. Forum guidelines are here: Forum Guidelines. May some of these resources be of assistance along the path.

If you have any questions or need further clarification regarding anything, feel free to contact the moderators by including @moderators in your post or a PM.

Regards,
trusolo (on behalf of the moderators)

1 Like
9

SN 22.1 describes suffering towards change :sob: and, alternately, non-suffering towards change :smiley:. This is how SN 22.1 is related to my comment. :upside_down_face:

DN 16 describes the Buddha was “unperturbed/unbothered” by the pain. :smiley:

After the Buddha had commenced the rainy season residence, he fell severely ill, struck by dreadful pains, close to death. But he endured unbothered, with mindfulness and situational awareness.

DN 16

The Path is obviously not about an end of suffering that cannot be experienced. :smiley: That is not Dhamma. :smiley:

The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—apparent in the present life immediately effective inviting inspection relevant so that sensible people can know it for themselves.

1 Like
10

This indicates a subtle identification of self with experience or consciousness for wanting to experience pure nibbāna without any slightest suffering by the self.

It’s good enough for arahants to have no mental suffering experienced while alive, and still acknowledging that whatever physical suffering experienced is also suffering. Just you have to decouple the term suffering from only mental suffering.

Nibbāna with remainder, is experienced by the remainder, and the remainder is still suffering, experience is inherently suffering. Nibbāna without remainder has no consciousness aggregates to experience that.

DN22

And what is the noble truth of suffering?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ?

Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.
Jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ, sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsāpi dukkhā, appiyehi sampayogopi dukkho, piyehi vippayogopi dukkho, yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ, saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.

And what is pain?
Katamañca, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ?
Physical pain, physical unpleasantness, the painful, unpleasant feeling that’s born from physical contact.
Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, kāyikaṁ dukkhaṁ kāyikaṁ asātaṁ kāyasamphassajaṁ dukkhaṁ asātaṁ vedayitaṁ,
This is called pain.
idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ.

As it very clearly lists down, dukkha can be suffering or pain. And the physical pain is a subset of the whole suffering.

2 Likes
11

Hi,

That’s your interpretation. Ok.

The sutta identifies attachment in the form of “I, me, mine” to the aggregates as dukkha.

The Buddha repeatedly taught that all conditional experiences are dukkha – including the sheer experience of vedana and pain:

SN22.45: "What’s impermanent is suffering.
Yad aniccaṁ taṁ dukkhaṁ;
Vedana is impermanent so…

SN12.15: "…what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Your knowledge about this is independent of others.
‘Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatī’ti na kaṅkhati na vicikicchati aparapaccayā ñāṇamevassa ettha hoti.
This is how right view is defined.
Ettāvatā kho, kaccāna, sammādiṭṭhi hoti.

SN22.19: "Feeling is suffering …[and same for the other aggregates]
Vedanā dukkhā …

And AN6.99: "It’s quite possible for a mendicant who regards all conditions as suffering to accept views that agree with the teaching. …”
sabbasaṅkhāre dukkhato samanupassanto …pe…
ṭhānametaṁ vijjati”.

These are a few of many examples.
Since vedana and the other aggregates and senses are still present before the final death, their very presence remains a form of dukkha, even in the absence of “mental” stress.

Agree. We both agree that there is no loss of equanimity and there is no identification with anything.
That doesn’t mean pain itself isn’t experienced as long as the aggregates and senses are present.
Example: the body has reflexes in response to painful stimuli which cannot be controlled, such as the hand reflexively moving away from a hot flame. For the body, this movement doesn’t even reach the brain, so there’s no volition involved. The circuit is from afferent nerves in the hand–> spinal cord → efferent nerves that signal to move the hand away.
No thought, reflection or volition is involved. Just pain ->reflex.

But the pain is experienced and how is that not a kind of dukkha, especially compared to the cessation of the aggregates and senses with the final death?
This is what ending rebirth is about – no perpetuation of senses or aggregates, hence no possibility of any dukkha.

A significant reduction of dukkha is realized with awakening, but it’s the ending of rebirth that is the final goal, as above.
SN12.10:
"‘When rebirth doesn’t exist there’s no old age and death. When rebirth ceases, old age and death cease.’
‘jātiyā kho asati jarāmaraṇaṁ na hoti, jātinirodhā jarāmaraṇanirodho’ti."

MN22: "They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti."

1 Like
12

Do you think you will escape suffering unless you work for it? Surely if you work for it and that is your goal, you may not suffer, even at all eventually. But is that the goal of all Arhats? Are there more important goals containing other provisions, where one will have to still suffer to achieve them? There are Devas who do not suffer, because they have attained Nibbana, and they are Arhats…

But what do you think: must one be Enlightened not to suffer? Achieve Nibbana? Be an Arhat or a Buddha? Is the Kingdom of Heaven a place where there is suffering? Who and who’s is and isn’t allowed in?

Perhaps the question of suffering is a basic choice we’re all crazy about, swaying between desire and mercy. Can we find the Middle-Way to End Suffering? That’s what Buddha taught. And really, what is the Middle-Way here? I think it must be a need to do the Right Thing.

13

This is a very interesting discussion. One feels inclined to point out that it may be a good idea to distinguish whether one’s answer is referring to the First Noble Truth or the Second Noble Truth because there is a very subtle difference. Dukkha can be interpreted to either mean what suffering is, (First Noble Truth) or what causes suffering (Second Noble Truth). I think this is a very important linguistic distinction as well as a practical one.

14

Since all conditioned things are dukkha, it includes the causes of suffering. Although craving is technically the cause of suffering, it by itself is also suffering. And it can be known by direct experience.

Needs work for sure.

Arahants have reached the goal.

Arahants do not aim for death, they bide their time, like workers waiting for wages. In the meantime, while alive, they do suffer physical suffering, and such things like having to eat, drink, go to toilet, shower etc.

As repeated many times above, any conditioned things are dukkha, including devas who are arahants. No mental suffering, but physically and mentally still bounded by conditionality.

The very point of enlightenment is to end suffering. Mental suffering while alive, and all other suffering after parinibbāna.

I assume this means heaven. Yes, it’s a very clear application of all conditioned things are dukkha. Please apply this principle, and no need to keep on asking case by case.

Noble 8fold path.

Can you ask questions which you really dunno instead of rhetorical questions? My (highly suspected) Asperger’s mind finds it hard to distinguish a bit which ones you’re serious about and which you’re not.

1 Like
15

Hi. The term dukkhavedana is never translated as “suffering feelings”. In the same way, when dukkha is used together with impermanence, it does not read to mean “suffering”. It’ is better to read alternate translations rather than cling unreflectively to one single translator. As for the SN 12.15, dukkha here means suffering, i.e., the suffering of attachment as self. Also the word Jati does not read as meaning rebirth. Can you show me where the “re” prefix is found in the Pali? Also what was quoted reads to contradict your interpretation because the Pali says “birth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, there is nothing further to be done”. Your interpretation reads as suggesting the Buddha did not complete the journey on the night of his Awakening. This sounds at odds with Buddhism. SN 56.11 describes craving as the source of suffering. Arahants end craving. If there is another source of suffering arahants cannot end this would mean what you are interpreting to mean “rebirth” cannot end. I recommend to start with the basics in SN 56.11 before getting lost in mistranslations of SN 22.59 :grin:

16

As at DN 15.4.3, jāti is invariably defined as the rebirth of beings, not as simple arising. The same applies to old age and death.

The birth, inception, conception, reincarnation, manifestation of the sets of phenomena, and acquisition of the sense fields of the various sentient beings in the various orders of sentient beings.
Yā tesaṁ tesaṁ sattānaṁ tamhi tamhi sattanikāye jāti sañjāti okkanti abhinibbatti khandhānaṁ pātubhāvo āyatanānaṁ paṭilābho,

Let’s change it back to birth, and see the definition from DN22, and the notes above by Bhante Sujato. Given the definition, how can it be possible to interpret jāti as moment to moment arising? When it is clearly only once per lifetime?

Even if jāti is moment to moment arising, then by your logic, the arahants should go poof right when they attain enlightenment as all their moment to moment arising has stopped. Only cessation left is happened for the last time when they attain enlightenment.

Now you’re forced to attribute supernormal properties to the special categories of 5 aggregates of arahants to be beyond the laws of nature. How is this more logical than the simple conclusion that birth is ended means future rebirth is ended?

17

Without getting into details, you may wish to clarify these points for yourself. They’re available via courses in Pāli and by other commentators, (which BTW I’ve used, contrary to your assertion that I’ve only used one translation).

Be well.

18

There reads to be no “re” in jati. In DN 1, I read the wrong view of an “existent being” is the same as the wrong view of a “self”. I remember other suttas that read to describe “a being” to be a view rather than something biological.

19

impermanent things don’t bring happiness. This is different to saying impermanent things are suffering. In mn 44 the Path is said to be conditioned . Obviously the Path is not suffering :blush:

20

Then we can go on to death as well. According to your logic, arahants ended death. Then what is the breakup of their 5 aggregates called?

Oh right, see the definition in DN22 of death: break up of the aggregates.

If your notion of birth is becoming or self view or whatever that’s not physical, then your notion of death should be the same, but as shown above, death is very much defined as breakup of the aggregates, which can be physically seen. Thus your notion cannot hold. The logically consistent view is to hold that death and birth are literal and happens for everyone once per lifetime. Well, except for those who undergone near death experiences, then maybe many deaths in that lifetime.

Where do you get the notion that the path is not suffering?

It obviously is suffering. Again, divorce suffering from mental suffering only.

But let’s say for mental suffering, on morality side, it is suffering to maintain morality when people are bullying oneself and one tries not to retaliate.

On meditation side, it is suffering to sit for years and not yet get Jhānas.

On wisdom side, it is suffering to have to keep on reminding oneself of the impermanence, suffering and not self nature of things.

For beyond mental suffering, the very notion of having to follow the vinaya to the dot or else have to confess is also a suffering of conditionality like having to eat.

To have to have time to be able to get into the Jhānas or else cannot get happiness in there here and now is suffering, as the Buddha said even fame is disadvantagous (or something similar) for arahants, for it takes away time from meditation.

For knowledge from wisdom, even knowledge is impermanent, so how can it not be dukkha of change?

Only liberation is irreversible.

If the path is not suffering, then the path can be cling to. Whereas the point of the whole thing is that nothing is worth clinging to as they are dukkha. Even the dhamma is to be left aside after crossing over.

1 Like