Do you mean that one becomes a ‘witness’ to samsara and all that it entails, rather than a participant ? Sort of like watching a movie or a puppet theatre… perceiving ones construct experiencing things, but being detached from it - like Ajahn Sumedho would say ‘abiding in the awareness’?
2 Likes
I agree. We ‘experience’ memories and thoughts, for example, and these need to include any feeling, whether than be emotional or not. No-one claims that conceptual thought is vedana, do they?
1 Like
Was it not so that the Buddha specifically experienced pain when he was severely ill, shortly before dying?
Could you please given an example of a neutral emotion referred to as vedana in the suttas? I am not sure if there even is any emotion which is neither pleasant nor unpleasant.
Yes indeed, I have learnt a lot from Venerable Sumedho on this particular point.
But, I have already addressed that point in my previous post:
Again, friend, I have already mentioned that vedana can be used to refer to both emotion and sensation. And yes, there are numerous examples of its use as a reference to emotion in the suttas, particularly in the context of the upadanakhandha. But this is my understanding, it is not a truth!
You are asking me to provide an example from the suttas of an interpretation of the suttas; a clear case of self-reference paradox!
1 Like
Your analysis makes absolutely no sense to me. He said he experienced pain. And you seem to be assuming that in fact what he was saying was untrue, based on your assumption that the Buddha never felt pain. Your argument appears to be circular.
You specifically said:
So you are saying that in the context of pañcupadanakhanda, vedana only refers to emotion, and not to any sensation which is not emotion. That is what you are saying, right?
So I ask you, do the suttas ever mention any type of neutral vedana in the context of pañcupadanakhanda? If they do, then I again ask you, could you please given an example of a neutral emotion referred to as vedana in the suttas? If on the other hand there is never any mention of neutral vedana in this context, then I will think about this some more…
He never said any such thing. It was the narrator that reported his experience. And even if he did say, it doesn’t mean that what he refers to as pain in conventional language feels so in his experience, just as he would use the expression “my back is aching” while in experience he no longer identifies with the body as “me” and “mine”. I think my argument makes absolutely no sense to you not because it is nonsensical, but rather because you are obviously misinformed about what the suttas are factually saying, let alone what they mean and what they intend to mean. Of course I can do such effort as to demonstrate the validity of my argument to you with sutta references (many they are), but I’m not going to do that unless I’m asked in a more friendly way. In your case, I think it’s better for you to search on your own, as this might make you more informed at least about what the suttas are saying.
Ok sorry if it wasn’t him after all, but the sutta - although we do take the early suttas as authoritative usually, so Early Buddhism is at least saying he experienced pain. Not sure if we can get closer than that to the Buddha.
But, you are saying that even if the Buddha himself said he experienced pain, you still would not believe him! This seems quite bizarre, clinging onto a view that has no evidence (or do you have evidence that he did say he or any arahant never experiences pain?) so hard that you will not even believe the Buddha if he tells you otherwise!
‘Me’ and ‘mine’ are words, the primary function of which is communication. While he may have overcome a false sense of separateness (which we could describe in language potentially as a 'sense of false identification with ‘me’ and ‘mine’), he knew perfectly well that in another sense, he is not those other people. There is him, and there are other people who are not him. And so he was still able to communicate, still able to refer to ‘me’ and ‘mine’. It does not mean that he no longer had a back!
He could say “my back” because he did have a back. His back did not vanish when he became enlightened! And I see no indication that his pain vanished either! Quite the contrary.
What is your basis for disbelieving the suttas, and even disbelieving the Buddha were he to tell you he experienced pain? Do you have any references in the early material to establish this claim on?
I did not mean to be unfriendly. Sorry if you took my words that way. I am merely asking for evidence. I will happily change my view if there is evidence to show your view is correct. I would be very happy to do that, because I am very interested in precisely this topic. If I have appeared stubborn, it is only because I am interested, and searching for the truth. But I can’t accept a view on blind faith - hence I ask for evidence.
People come to participate in this forum at their pleasure and as they please. No one owes it to another to provide evidence and references; it’s something that is only optional. If there are any obligations toward each other here, it is to speak in a friendly and respectful manner. Your “interest in truth” has nothing to do with me, it is your interest not mine, and therefore it is your own responsibility. The Buddha did not say anything to us directly, all we have is text, and we have to rely on “interpretation” in order to understand this text. No learned or even reasonable person would disagree with this, and people accept and make room for disagreement in views amongst them without accusing each other with “grasping to views”. You have attacked me personally by saying that i’m grasping to views, which I believe is a violation of the forum’s guidelines. In all cases I have no interest in pursuing this discussion with you. I will speak no further. Please leave me alone!
2 Likes
Woops!!! And look what I just found here in my notes:
Na vedanaṃ vedayati sapañño,
Sukhampi dukkhampi bahussutopi;
Ayañca dhīrassa puthujjanena,
Mahā viseso kusalassa hoti.
The wise and learned does not experience
Feelings of pleasure and pain.
This is the great good difference
Between a worldling and one firm in practice.
_my translation!
On the lexical level however ven. Ajahn Brahm’s rendering is supported, as we have “vedeti” in Pāli denoting “sensing, experiencing, & knowing”. I just translated vedeti as “to experience”, but only because the context warrants and even requires it.
Yes, of course! I never meant to imply that you owed me references! I merely meant to ask for them, as I thought you might be happt to share them. I believed we were all after the same thing - to deepen our understanding and share our knowledge.
I did appologise and again now appologise if anything I said offended you. When I engage in this kind of discussion I do realise that I come across as being very analytical and sometimes even cold. I do not mean any offense in that. And in person I apparently come across quite differently. Sorry if my writing style offends you in any way, that is not the intention.
When I said
This seems quite bizarre, clinging onto a view that has no evidence so hard that you will not even believe the Buddha if he tells you otherwise.
I meant that is it my subjective experience that this is bizarre. I personally find it to be so. I am sorry if I was premature to conclude that your view had no evidence. I was basing that assumption on the absense of evidence provided. But I had repeatedly asked for any evidence, and showed total openness to receiving any. Perhaps I should have said ‘apparent lack of evidence’ to be more accurate in that statement. But please understand that the part saying “you will not even believe the Buddha if he tells you otherwise.” was not meant as an attack on you. It was merely a summary of what you yourself had stated.
So please understand that while I may be unskilled at writing, the intention behind my words is not aggression, but rather friendliness and a wish to learn and share in dhamma discussion.
Sorry if my interpretation offended you. But can you see that it can look like grasping if you will hold onto your view even if the Buddha directly refutes it himself?
Remember we have the Buddha saying things like this in the Sekha-patipada Sutta:
“My back aches. I will rest it.”
Nandaka Sutta:
“My back was aching while I stood outside the door waiting for the talk to end.”
And in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta we have him experiencing:
sharp pains as if he were about to die
Interesting passage, thank you @anon61506839.
However, sukha is a factor of the first 3 jhānas. If we are to take this to mean that ‘one firm in practice’ does not experience dukkha, then they also can’t experience sukha, so they can’t experience any of the first 3 jhānas. And we know that the Buddha was famous for practicing jhāna. If you can find a way to resolve this conundrum I would be happy to hear it!
In fact since we know jhāna includes sukha, and anyway sukha is the opposite of dukkha, I cannot see how this verse makes any sense at all. I would appreciate someone explaining it!
And we also have things like the ‘sukhā paṭipadā’, as explained here in AN 4.162, in reference to people we might assume may qualify as being “wise and learned” (the categoy of people your quote referred to), regarding what appears to be the best of 4 modes of practice - sorry for copy and paste errors:
" A nd w hat is p ractice that is pleasant with quick direct knowledge? H ere, som eone by nature is not strongly prone to lu st… hatred . . . delusion and does not often experience pain and dejection born of delusion. These five faculties arise in him prom inently: the faculty of faith . . . the faculty of w isdom . Because these five faculties are prominent in him, he quickly attains the im m ed iacy condition for the destruction of the taints. This is called practice that is pleasant with quick direct knowledge.
Could it be because of the term vedana? I honestly don’t know much about vedana. Could it mean that advanced practitioners experience sukha but not sukha vedana - and therefore also that the sukha in jhāna is not vedana? (And how about the other types of sukha that arahants experience?)
Any help appreciated with this…
Also in SN 36.19 we have the Buddha discussing “three kinds of feelings” (vedana), also here classed as “two kinds of feelings” - sukhā vedanā, and dukkhā vedanā. He proceeds with a discussion about sukha, which in this context implies that he is talking about types of sukhā vedanā:
there is another kind of happiness more excellent and sublime than that happiness. And what is that other kind of happiness? Here, Ānanda, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, a bhikkhu enters and dwells in the first jhana, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture and happiness born of seclusion. This is that other kind of happiness more excellent and sublime than the previous kind of happiness.
He carries on up through the eight attainments, all of which we know the Buddha to have practiced as a buddha.
Now, the 9th attainment, the base of neither-perception-nor-nonperception, does not have vedana, am I right? So if he refers to sukha here, it can’t be about vedana. But the sutta takes account of that:
“Now it is possible, Ānanda, that wanderers of other sects might speak thus: ‘The ascetic Gotama speaks of the cessation of perception and feeling, and he maintains that it is included in happiness. What is that? How is that?’ When wanderers of other sects speak thus, Ānanda, they should be told: ‘The Blessed One, friends, does not describe a state as included in happiness only with reference to pleasant feeling. But rather, friends, wherever happiness is found and in whatever way, the Tathagata describes that as included in happiness.’”
This appears to imply that the sukha in the preceeding 8 attainments is indeed sukha vedana. In that case, I cannot see how the statement in the verse you quoted (you did not seem to give a source) can be universally applicable:
We also have the Buddha teaching things like this, in MN 70:
But because it is known by me, seen, found, realised, contacted by wisdom thus: ‘Here, when someone feels another kind of pleasant feeling, unwholesome states diminish in him and wholesome states increase,’ that I therefore say: ‘Enter upon and abide in such a kind of pleasant feeling.’
Dear @Senryu. Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate your goodwill.
Now regarding the matter under discussion, I usually refrain from posting here on the forum things I wrote elsewhere. I will make exception this time and in fact, this article I just wrote is based on discussions I had here including in another thread (https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/is-pain-dukkha)
You’ll find in this article the conclusions I have reached regarding this matter, which represent my present state of understanding, noting and admitting that I don’t know anyone else who presently supports these my views. However this article is the best I can do in attempt of explaining why and how I reached those conclusions. So I’m afraid I can’t do better than that.
Most appreciatively and wishing you all the best for your practice toward nibbana.
Is this from the Dart Sutta? The translation I looked at recently specified mental feelings of pleasure and pain ( ie the second dart ).
Yes the addition of “mental” between brackets in ven. Bodhi and ven. Thanissaro translations is explanatory and has no existence in the Pāli. But that same sutta does includ a distinction between bodily and mental feelings, which I believe made within a conventional usage of language and expression. This important sutta can be used to advance both arguments!
@anon61506839, thanks for the article.
You say in it
I myself used to repeat that widespread view but I no longer believe it is sound or compatible with “the end of emotion” or “vedananirodha”, a significant teaching of Buddha.
However I do not see anywhere in your article any explanation of this term or any references to it in any suttas. I am not familiar with the term, so for readers like me, that would be helpful and would enable us to evaluate your argument, but lacking that, it is very hard to follow whether your argument makes sense or not.
Is vedananirodha about ‘the cessation of perception and feeling’ (saññavedayitanirodha)? Do you agree that there is vedana in the 4 jhānas and 4 immaterial states? If so, we know that the Buddha experienced vedana, right? Could you please clarify what your point is about vedananirodha?
Also you said:
One of the reasons it is problematic for “vedana” to consistently mean “sensation” is that this makes “vedananirodha”, or the end of vedana, impossible even for an arahat, or possible only upon parinibbana.
Not so, since they can attain ‘the cessation of perception and feeling’ (saññavedayitanirodha).
You left this untranslated - maybe for your readers who can’t read Pāli fluently you migt include a translation:
Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno na socati, na kilamati, na paridevati, na urattāḷiṃ kandati, na sammohaṃ āpajjati. So ekaṃ vedanaṃ vedayati—kāyikaṃ, na cetasikaṃ. (SN 36.6)
You wrote:
recognising a sensation is a bodily/sensorial experience, but experiencing it as pleasure or pain is a mental event.
You don’t think recognising is mental? I can’t say I agree with that.
If something represents itself to the consciousness as pleasure or pain, it does so only because the mind has already imposed such attributes on the stimulus, but not because pleasure or pain is inherent in the object of experience.
Are you now saying that all pleasure and pain is emotional, and that is why you classify vedana as emotional? Because if so, I’m afraid that you are in contradiction to modern science. You might like to look up the difference between homeostatic affect, sensory affect, and emotional affect, for example.
You said:
Strangely, the same sutta mentioned above, which is used as a reference to the view that arahats experience pain still, concludes with the following verse:
[…]
The wise and learned does not experience
Feelings of pleasure and pain.
I wrote a refutation of that in a previous comment - what did you think about that?
But also you seem to have refuted it in your own article, no?
ariyasāvako dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho
And this is the most important point perhaps:
Likewise an arahat is lacking any reactionary emotional stress or the slightest sense of regret or grief, or wish or desire that the painful event, however much great, did not occur; and it seem rather illogical that this could be possible if “pain” was experienced and felt (vedeti), as pain.
Not illogical in my view at all. I think perhaps it is because you believe it to be illogical that you have had to create this view of your where they don’t experience pain, and you won’t believe the Buddha even when he says he does. I think the problem likely lies in the fact that you find it illogical in the first place. I assure you that it is possible to directly experience pain in your own body, and for that to not give rise to any emotional suffering. I learned this myself on my first meditation retreat in Thailand. I think I was lucky that there were no dhamma teachings at all (except in Thai), just meditation instructions, and I was able to see this directly in my own experience. So I have never had a problem when I have later read about it in the suttas.
The suttas are full of explanations, and in the mouth of Buddha, better than me! As I mentioned earlier, I can give no further explanation than that which I have already presented. And I’m content, I am satisfied, with the explanation I have already presented. Good luck.
It would appear from SN 48.37 that the faculties of both pain and displeasure/grief (ie the kaayika and cetasika dichotomy of SN 36.6) are counted as painful feeling. This does explain BB’s translation.
1 Like