Unpleasant pain in Jhana?

It makes perfect sense if one understands nibbana for the living arahant as the ending of greed, hatred and delusion of the mind, and final nibbana as the cycle of rebirth ending with the dissolution of the five aggregates, not returning to any state of existence (vedana ended forever).

Given the understanding above, the cessation of perception and feeling (the five khandas) is what happens when the arahant dies.

The cessation of perception and feeling as a meditation attainment (according to my own speculative understanding not backed by experience) is a “pre-taste” of final nibbana, which is why (maybe) this meditation attainment automatically makes people arahants (IIRC).

Anyway, this is one way to make sense of it, I’m sure it won’t satisfy everyone :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Not unless that living arahant experiences no vedanā! Otherwise according to this logic, the arahant has not overcome dukkha. And to say they have not overcome dukkha contradicts teachings like this, in AN 3.33 as I quoted above:

they’re called
ayaᚃ vuccati, sāriputta:

a mendicant who has cut off craving , untied the fetters, and by rightly comprehending conceit has made an end of suffering .
‘bhikkhu acchecchi taṇhaṃ , vivattayi saṃyojanaṃ, sammā mānābhisamayā antamakāsi dukkhassa ’.

Your argument seems to rely on dukkha only ceasing at death, which this quote, and also the whole idea of completing the Third Noble Truth being attainable while alive, directly refute.

Well, it seems you see the ‘end of dukkha’ being proposed to happen at different times, and you see a contradiction in that.

For me, I don’t think the language of the Pali canon (or natural language in general) has that kind of precision. I see the ending of greed, hatred and delusion in the mind and the end of the aggregates as two sides of the same coin, so when I read ‘made an end of suffering’ I understand that as it basically referring to both, you can choose which angle to look at it from.

IMO I don’t see a contradiction because I have a different view of how precise the language of the suttas is meant to be, i.e. technical terms with precise definitions vs a pragmatic teaching giving in natural language :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Different times? I propose that it happens at one specific time - the moment of attaining arahantship.

The contradiction is that if you have to have ended vedanā to end dukkha, then you have to be dead. But my quote above showed that you can end dukkha while living:

Yes, one way to talk about the end of dukkha is the living arahant (nibbana), another way to talk about the end of dukkha is with the dissolution of the arahants five aggregates (final/total nibbana).

You can see these two ways of speaking as a contradiction (either the end of dukkha is with awakening OR it is with death), or you can see these as two different but closely related aspects of nibbana (one implies the other).

My argument is that it’s possible to see it from the latter view, i.e. without contradiction :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Nibbana is what it is and not what we insist.

1 Like

The dukkha inherent in impermanent things is just to say that impermanent things won’t provide ultimate satisfsction. Only the destruction of craving leads to ultimate satisfaction because craving is the root of dissatisfaction. So arahants do not suffer from the impermanence of things but it is still the case that for an arahant impermanent things do not provide ultimate satisfaction.

Edit: In other words, the fact that impermanence prevents things from providing permanent gratification is the objective side of dukkha, I.e. unsatisfactoriness, the subjective side of dukkha is dependent on craving.

:anjal:

2 Likes

Do the EBT support this distinction between subjective and objective dukkha in relation to anicca? This seems to be contradicted by AN 4.49: “Seeing impermanence as impermanence… Taking up right View, they’ve risen above all suffering.”

1 Like

Yes, I think the distinction is clear.

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, form is impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ When one sees this thus as it really is with correct wisdom, the mind becomes dispassionate and is liberated from the taints by nonclinging. - SuttaCentral

Because of the objective fact that an impermanent phenomena can not provide a permanent satisfaction, one must detach from and give up craving for these inherently not permanently satisfactory things in order to be free from suffering.

1 Like

Isnt this just saying that anicca is dukkha while tanha persists? I’m not seeing a distinction between objective and subjective dukkha.

I’d say no. The statement, “what is anicca is dukkha” is an unqualified statement. But I’m too lazy to try to discuss any further right now. I wish you luck in your studies.

Edit: Screw it, I’ll try to explain my position succinctly.

Take an apple. That apple will not make you eternally happy. It is obvious that the apple is going to be eaten and gone or it is going to rot. Either way, whatever possible satisfaction that can be derived from that apple is limited. The apple is imperfect due to its impermanent nature, it isn’t capable of bringing lasting satisfaction. What is Anicca is Dukkha.

But you don’t have to suffer from the ultimately unsatisfactory limited nature of the apple IF you don’t crave for the apple. If you are detached and dispassionate towards the apple you won’t suffer. And the apple still is dukkha even though you aren’t suffering because it is in the nature of impermanent apples that they cannot bring lasting satisfaction. The apple has the nature of not being able to fully satisfy, and the craving mind has the nature of suffering due to attaching to such things as apples that can’t satisfy craving forever.

1 Like

I don’t really understand the idea of an apple being objectively dukkha, being dukkha “from its own side”. What we crave is not “apple” in some abstract sense, what we crave are phenomena derived from “apple”, eg its sweet taste or firm texture or pleasing colour. These are examples of sensual craving, based on arisings at the sense-bases.

My point applies just as well to sweet tastes and pretty colors. My point is that it is a fact that whether one has craving or not a pleasant sensory experience is not going to provide lasting satisfaction. This is because it is impermanent. That is the unsatisfactory dukkha nature of all experiences. Of course, if you don’t have any craving for pleasant sensory experiences, then it doesn’t matter that they aren’t ultimately satisfying, because you weren’t relying on them for well-being anyway.

Looking at the sutta excerpt below:

“And what, bhikkhus, is the way that is suitable for uprooting all conceivings? What do you think, bhikkhus, is the eye permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.” - SuttaCentral

Notice that the answer isn’t, “it depends.”

1 Like

But the second Noble Truth makes it clear that the cause of dukkha is tanha, and not anicca. So anicca is only dukkha while tanha is present. So the statement “what is impermanent is unsatisfactory” describes unenlightened experience, and doesn’t apply to the Arahant.

Tanha arises because there’s ignorance. We can crave for something because it’s satisfactory, and permanent. But it’s impermanence and unsatisfactory nature is misapprehended. If we could see the apple shrivel and rotting away we wouldn’t crave it. Our senses give us an illusion of permanence.

Furthermore when viewing impermanence in a prolonged manner in a vipassana retreat the sheer number of endings becomes a headache. Impermanence is incompatible with tranquility.

Sure, but see my post 147 above, with reference to AN4. 49. “Seeing impermanence as impermanence… Taking up Right View, they’ve risen above all suffering”. So it’s the taints that “cause” dukkha, not anicca.

dukkha is not inherent to anything. dukkha is the result of not accepting things as they are. An arahat having total equanimity about everything does not produce dukkha for herself.

It’s fascinating how those with little insight speak with confidence about what they don’t know. So what is common knowledge become labelled as ‘wisdom’.

Bhante @sujato , Bhante @Dhammanando

I’m hoping you learned bhikkhus would weigh in here on the distinction between the inherently unsatisfactory/dukkha nature of impermanent phenomena versus the dukkha that arises as a result of attachment to said phenomena. I thought it was crystal clear that in the suttas impermanent phenomena are always dukkha even for the awakened in the sense that they don’t provide lasting satisfaction and that this was one of the points of the teaching on the three characteristics.

:anjal:

I’m not sure about that.

And in this context what are the six kinds of renunciate happiness? When you’ve understood the impermanence of sights—their perishing, fading away, and cessation—happiness arises as you truly understand through right understanding that both formerly and now all those sights are impermanent, suffering, and perishable. Such happiness is called renunciate happiness. When you’ve understood the impermanence of sounds … smells … tastes … touches … thoughts—their perishing, fading away, and cessation—happiness arises as you truly understand through right understanding that both formerly and now all those thoughts are impermanent, suffering, and perishable. Such happiness is called renunciate happiness. These are the six kinds of renunciate happiness. - SuttaCentral