SuttaCentral
Here is the “common sense” unfortunately:
So we’re left with an inherent characteristic that serves to identify or differentiate. I don’t think this is what the Teacher intended, but I don’t know that I have a better english word. Maybe it doesn’t exist and we should invent one 
Hello @Vaddha, how does the moon (a conditioned thing) originate with desire as a cause and cease with the cessation of desire as a cause? In what sense is this the case? In what sense is it not the case? With the Teacher’s attainment of Nibbana and/or Parinibbana and the eradication of desire in what sense did the moon cease? Did it cease?
Before discussing this, I think it would be helpful if you considered my prior post on the form aggregate, particularly the story about Divine Devin visiting Dead Devin’s dream funeral in the sequel with Yeshe Tenley. Also my question on if you think the Buddha’s six senses vanished under the Bodhi Tree, and importantly—if not, how do you interpret the many discourses which define the six senses as caused by desire?
I apologize I’ve yet to respond to your comment above that answered around half of the comment. If you’d like to discuss that first, we can. I may just need some time.
All the best.
Okay, I will revisit and reread and try and come up with a response and we can table the question about the moon until then
I suggest that the same ignorance on part of humans is also there on the cosmic level, in that the cosmos continues.
Allegorically speaking, Samsara could be endeded if Yama the demon of impermanence could be made to hear the Dhamma.
On the cosmic level: Cessation of desire = cessation of dependent origination = moon ceases
On the human level: Cessation of desire = cessation of procreation = cessation of birth = cessation of conscious perception = moon ceases
Just so you know, there’s no such thing. Each person has to work for their own salvation. No shortcut.
King Yama is not a demon but a deva and the leader of the third heaven.
Samsara includes all planes of existence and there are 23 planes above King Yama.
King Yama will take rebirth as a human and hear, study and practice the Dhamma as soon as the future Buddha Metteyya shows up:
Once upon a time, King Yama thought: ‘Those who do such bad deeds in the world receive these many different punishments. Oh, I hope I may be reborn as a human being! And that a Realized One—a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha—arises in the world! And that I may pay homage to the Buddha! Then the Buddha can teach me Dhamma, so that I may understand his teaching.’
Hello @Vaddha,
About Devin… 
In the first scenario, Dream Devin, the form is of dream form. It arises in dependence upon the mind of the dreamer. In the second scenario, Devin, the form is not dream form. It arises in dependence upon matter, vision, light, and so on. I would not say an ‘independent space-time’. Matter, vision, light and so on are just conventions that we use because they are skillful - using them combined with math and so on seems to allow us to make pretty accurate predictions and inferences - in the same way an instrumentalist might employ them. The arising of form in the non-dream scenario is also dependent and conditioned.
I would not. This is the preoccupation of the scientific realist or reductionist and I think it assumes something that need not be assumed. Still, we can use the convention of ‘real world’ as opposed to ‘dream world’ to talk with people who understand such terms. We are not obligated to share all assumptions and predilections of those who use such terms. They may believe in an independent space-time and a real inherent world full of essences, but we’re not required to believe in them.
I do not understand the question. When I identified the body of a corpse not going poof this is a description of a manifest experience. It has nothing to do with ‘independent’ or ‘dependent’ to my mind. I have not experienced a corpse that goes poof. I suppose in dreams corpses do go poof when the dreamer wakes up as the mind that dreamed them up awakens. However, I’m not talking about dreams when I say that I have not experienced a corpse that goes poof. I’m talking about the regular everyday waking world. I can talk about the everyday waking world without believing it has essence can’t I? Didn’t the Teacher do this as well?
Eh? I’m very confused at what you mean here.
Again, I know through experience that talking about matter and using the conventions of physics is skillful, but that does not commit me to a scientific realist or metaphysical interpretation. If by ‘substantial’ you mean having essence, then NO I do not agree that matter is substantial nor that spacetime is substantial. If by ‘substantial’ you mean that it provides obstructive contact, then yeah, I guess I’d say that rocks are substantial especially when getting hit in the head by one
Again, if by ‘substantial’ you mean having essence then I’d say that the dream body and the non-dream body both are insubstantial! If you mean providing obstructive contact, then I’d say the dream body would be obstructive dependent upon the mind that dreamed it and the non-dream body would be substantial depending upon matter and energy. Again, ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ I take as useful conventions that are informed by the conventions of physics and so on, but not that they speak of some truly existing reality “out there” because I’m not obligated to view the results of science in a scientific realist or reductionist manner.
No, I don’t think I’d utter this or at least I don’t know why you think I would.
I’d say that what Devin is and what Divine Devin is are conventions that share no essence. You’re again and again suggesting that I’m betraying what I hypothesize: that beings lack essence. But I don’t see why you think I’m betraying that by noting that corpses don’t go poof.
Do you believe corpses (non dream ones) go poof? Have you seen them go poof? If not, then why is it okay for you to answer this, but not I? Why do you think that noting this obligates me to believe in essence??
No! We only know that it does not go poof dependent upon perceivers! The only way I’m able to know this is from having the manifest experience myself of a corpse not going poof when someone I knew died.
It is dependent upon perceivers to note that corpses do not go poof. It is dependent upon perceivers to note that the moon exists and similarly does not go poof.
If you’re asking me if I believe the moon exists when I’m not looking at it (or no one is looking at it) that is a very different question. Are you asking me that question? Do I believe in object permanence due to essence? If so, I’d say NO! I believe object permanence is a hell of a decent heuristic or skillful convention though that most children learn at a very young age. I am not obligated to believe in scientific realism to note that this skillful convention is skillful.
If the Teacher ended the form aggregate, and the form aggregate includes the physical body of the Teacher, and the physical body of the Teacher went poof, then the suttas are wrong about this and what happened sounds like something I’ve never witnessed any other corpse do. Are you saying this is what happened? If not, then are you then committing the error of believing in a substance filled external reality?
You seemed to suggest that either:
Or some combination thereof plus maybe more that I don’t think has been fully explained.
No. Again, I think you need to define what you mean ‘substantial’ to convey here. Do you mean essence or obstructive contact? I deny the former and admit the latter is in keeping with my own experience of corpses. Again, just because I view matter, space, spacetime, light special relativity obstructive contact, and object permanence as useful conventions does not obligate me to a scientific realist perspective believing in the true existence (read: having essence) of an independent spacetime somewhere “out there”.
Those proposing that the aggregates end should explain how they end and what they mean by the aggregates ending. What do you mean when you say the Teacher ended the form aggregate? I still don’t understand what you think this means.
I do not believe they can “truly cease” because that sounds like language implicitly assuming they “truly existed” prior to ceasing. If you did not intend that implicit meaning, then define “truly ceasing” please.
Hope that clarifies my thoughts on Devin
My best hypothesis is that the Teacher had a direct and non-conceptual perception of lack of essence in things of a most profound and deep manner. That all desires ceased utterly. That all obscurations were overcome. Can you cite one or more of the suttas you’re talking about here so I may try to address them directly if you think this hypothesis is in tension with them?
Now, to the moon!
I will have a go at anicca, dukkha & anatta.
I don’t know if anyone will agree but this is my way of dealing with it by sticking to the middle way and avoiding extreme views. 
There is no pain or sorrow whatsoever in the rupa/arupa loka planes beyond kama loka, but these will eventually come to an end.
And it is this impermanence that makes them dukkha.
But the actual experience while it lasts has no dukkha whatsoever, they are exclusively pleasant.
That is why disciples of The Buddha can remain the entire lifespan of such a plane of existence (millions of years) and then extinguish, unlike others in these planes who die and take rebirth:
”The lifespan of the gods of Brahma’s Host is one eon. An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.”
”The lifespan of the gods replete with glory is four eons. An ordinary person stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they go to hell or the animal realm or the ghost realm. But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth.”
It is the end (impermanence) of a such experience that makes it dukkha, not the actual experience itself.
And since death leads to rebirth one has to apply not-self to the experience since one is now in a different body and probably will not even remember these past experiences, unless one meditates.
To claim ”there is no self at all” is an extreme view that does not take into account that each and every past life experience is distinct to each other with their own characteristics and experiences, that all had a certain duration.
Yet at the same time all these past, current and future lives are all connected.
There is an actual being right now in the Tusita heaven that will take rebirth later on and become the new Buddha.
So the ”there is only the selfless khandhas”-view is too extreme for me.
It is only a shallow attempt for explaining why
”everything is dukkha”, but it has no depth to it and is not the middle way.
Surely distinctions between beings still has to be made?
”There is mother and father” = right view.
”My parents are actually only selfless khandhas, just like everyone else in existence” 
= extreme view.
The Buddha says we can hardly repay our parents for all they’ve done for us.
This extreme view also downplays the reality of good and evil:
Seeing all as ”selfless khandhas” still doesn’t say if it is a fool or wise person.
So even if one says there is ”only the selfless khandhas” distinctions between ”good and evil”, ”mother and father” ”the future Buddha” and so on, still has to be made.
Can someone please explain?
One would think and hope it is the self-doer, as found in
”Attakārī Sutta: The Self-Doer (AN 6.38), that makes these distinctions. 
How is this even painful, stressful or unsatisfactory?
Is there a self-doer spreading metta to other self-doers or is it the ”selfless khandhas” spreading metta to other ”selfless khandhas”?
Or maybe self-doers to selfless khandhas or vice versa?
I’m really curious to know.
Maybe better to also study ”Reverse Dependent Origination” and more importantly to stick to the middle way:
“Mister Gotama, does all exist?”
“‘All exists’: this is one extreme, brahmin.”
“Then does all not exist?”
“‘All does not exist’: this is the second extreme.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way
Is the ”there is only selfless khandhas” really the middle way?
Isn’t it better say:
There is mother and father, there is good and evil and most importantly there is a self-doer.
There are distinct previous existences, all different to each other, that one can say belong to this ”very same self-doer”.
So no wonder Sāti the fisherman had the view he had about future lives, if it wasn’t for Dependent Origination everyone would come to the same conclusion just as Sāti did.
I get it, the reason there even is a ”only selfless khandhas”-view is because ’all feelings etc. are dukkha”.
but please keep the following in mind then:
Even if the wanderer Potaliputta and Venerable Samiddhi disagreed with eachother regarding actions (MN 136).
They both agreed on the following as something The Buddha actually taught:
“Reverend Samiddhi, I have heard and learned this in the presence of the ascetic Gotama: ‘Deeds by way of body and speech are done in vain. Only mental deeds are real.’ And: ‘There is such an attainment where the one who enters it does not feel anything at all.’”
“Don’t say that, Reverend Potaliputta, don’t say that! Don’t misrepresent the Buddha, for misrepresentation of the Buddha is not good. And the Buddha would not say this. But, reverend, there is such an attainment where the one who enters it does not feel anything at all.”
And this attainment where the one who enters it does not feel anything at all is of course Nibbāna:
“Reverends, extinguishment is bliss! Extinguishment is bliss!”
When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?”
“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it.
And to top it off so it makes even more sense:
”It’s possible that wanderers of other religions might say, ‘The ascetic Gotama spoke of the cessation of perception and feeling, and he includes it in happiness. What’s up with that?’
When wanderers of other religions say this, you should say to them, ‘Reverends, when the Buddha describes what’s included in happiness, he’s not just referring to pleasant feeling. <——————
The Realized One describes pleasure as included in happiness wherever it is found, and in whatever context.’”
That is why ”Extinguishment is bliss”.
Compared to the goal of the practice (that attainment where nothing is felt) all the planes of existence and the khandhas engagement in these planes are regarded as dukkha, even the 100% blissful ones.
Otherwise one would be content with any of these and not strive further.
And only in that very context can one say ”all is dukkha”.
But ”all is dukkha” is not being said in this context at all by those who take the extreme view of ”there is no self at all”, ”the selfless khandhas”.
Rather this view is only projected on everything and everyone in existence as it was somehow very evident and obvious.
When it is in fact not very evident at all.
It is really quite natural that some meditators come to such conclusions as found in DN 1 and as even Sāti did in MN 38.
Remember that these various views from non-buddhists in DN 1 are not from some kind of speculation on their part, but from actual experiences they have had via meditation of recollecting their past lives in different planes of existence.
And Dependent Origination is also a very deep teaching and not so simple as some might have it:
”Then Venerable Ānanda went up to the Buddha, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing, in that this dependent origination is deep and appears deep, yet to me it seems as plain as can be.”
“Don’t say that, Ānanda, don’t say that! This dependent origination is deep and appears deep. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating this teaching that this population has become tangled like string, knotted like a ball of thread, and matted like rushes and reeds, and it doesn’t escape the places of loss, the bad places, the underworld, transmigration.”
So that is why I choose to view anicca, dukkha & anatta from this middle way perspective and avoid all extremes.
You’re not buying the conventional self conception? Ultimately no self, conventionally, we label the 5 aggregates as self.
Self doesn’t need to exist for electrons for there to be separate electrons in 2 places.
No self doesn’t deny individuality.
5 aggregates have feelings, therefore morality works. Kamma “doer” is the volitional formations, kamma “bearer/sufferer” is the other 4 aggregates.
Kamma being impersonal law still works for past kamma results happening to arahants, but arahants having eradicated all sense of self cannot create new kamma, but since they are also freed from all roots of evil, we need not worry about arahants having no justification to do good, avoid evil (because cannot create bad kamma), because arahants are incapable of doing any evil deeds, on purpose.
I don’t get your link between your view of self and the attainment of cessation of perception and feeling.
For spreading metta, since you already accepted that impermanence means dukkha, so too the metta spreading is dukkha due to it being impermanent. And compared to Nibbāna as you pointed out at the end.
You are keeping 8 precepts, aren’t you?
Why not just say the suffering is in the clinging. It is that which makes impermanence and non-self suffering.
Certainly everyone knows the Dhammacakkappavattanasutta SN 56.11
Now this is the noble truth of suffering. Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ— Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is 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, byādhipi dukkho, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ—saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.
Now this is the noble truth of the origin of suffering. Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṁ ariyasaccaṁ— It’s the craving that leads to future lives, mixed up with relishing and greed, taking pleasure wherever it lands. That is, yāyaṁ taṇhā ponobbhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṁ— craving for sensual pleasures, craving to continue existence, and craving to end existence. kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.
Now this is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering. Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṁ ariyasaccaṁ— It’s the fading away and cessation of that very same craving with nothing left over; giving it away, letting it go, releasing it, and not clinging to it. yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesavirāganirodho cāgo paṭinissaggo mutti anālayo.
It seems pointless to me to recognize that cessation follows upon non-attachment but not recognize that with the cessation, for all practical purposes, the five aggregates don’t exist, since they are no longer part of the workings of mind (manasikara). Really, yeshe, it should be familiar to you that there is no distinction between the two truths.
You’re saying that underneath the Bodhi tree the Teacher realized the complete cessation of the five aggregates and that they subsequently didn’t exist from the perspective of the Teacher? Further, you’re saying the manner in which they ceased is that they were not fixed or attended to subsequently by the mind of the Teacher when in meditative equipoise? How about after he arose from the Bodhi tree? Did the aggregates exist again or do you think the Teacher still did not fix or attend to them with manasikara so they could not be said to exist to the Teacher?
If I have fairly summarized what you are after then it sounds a lot like the interpretation where ‘Nibbana without remainder’ describes what the Teacher attained underneath the Bodhi tree and ‘Nibbana with Remainder’ describes the subsequent attainment as he arose from the Bodhi tree and walked away.
As I stated previously, I don’t concern myself with nibbana.
Every headache is Dukkha. Some pain is Dukkha.
a) Every headache is a pain.
b) Some pain is not a headache.
c) No pain is a headache.
d) None of the above.
Sallasutta SN 36.6
Monks, an unlearned ordinary person feels pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings. Assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano sukhampi vedanaṁ vedayati, dukkhampi vedanaṁ vedayati, adukkhamasukhampi vedanaṁ vedayati.
A learned noble disciple also feels pleasant, painful, and neutral feelings. Sutavā, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sukhampi vedanaṁ vedayati, dukkhampi vedanaṁ vedayati, adukkhamasukhampi vedanaṁ vedayati.
What, then, is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an ordinary unlearned person? Tatra, bhikkhave, ko viseso ko adhippayāso kiṁ nānākaraṇaṁ sutavato ariyasāvakassa assutavatā puthujjanenā”ti?
Our teachings are rooted in the Buddha. …” Bhagavaṁmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā …pe…
When an unlearned ordinary person experiences painful physical feelings they sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. assutavā, bhikkhave, puthujjano dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṁ kandati sammohaṁ āpajjati.
They experience two feelings: So dve vedanā vedayati— physical and mental. kāyikañca, cetasikañca.
It’s like a person who is struck with an arrow, Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, purisaṁ sallena vijjheyya. only to be struck with a second arrow. Tamenaṁ dutiyena sallena anuvedhaṁ vijjheyya.
That person experiences the feeling of two arrows. Evañhi so, bhikkhave, puriso dvisallena vedanaṁ vedayati.
In the same way, when an unlearned ordinary person experiences painful physical feelings they sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. Evameva kho, bhikkhave, assutavā puthujjano dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno socati kilamati paridevati urattāḷiṁ kandati sammohaṁ āpajjati.
They experience two feelings: So dve vedanā vedayati— physical and mental. kāyikañca, cetasikañca.
When they’re touched by painful feeling, they resist it. Tassāyeva kho pana dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno paṭighavā hoti. The underlying tendency for repulsion towards painful feeling underlies that. Tamenaṁ dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighavantaṁ, yo dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighānusayo, so anuseti.
When touched by painful feeling they look forward to enjoying sensual pleasures. So dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno kāmasukhaṁ abhinandati.
Why is that? Taṁ kissa hetu?
Because an unlearned ordinary person doesn’t understand any escape from painful feeling apart from sensual pleasures. Na hi so, bhikkhave, pajānāti assutavā puthujjano aññatra kāmasukhā dukkhāya vedanāya nissaraṇaṁ,
Since they look forward to enjoying sensual pleasures, the underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling underlies that. tassa kāmasukhañca abhinandato, yo sukhāya vedanāya rāgānusayo, so anuseti.
They don’t truly understand feelings’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape. So tāsaṁ vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ nappajānāti.
The underlying tendency to ignorance about neutral feeling underlies that. Tassa tāsaṁ vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ appajānato, yo adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayo, so anuseti.
If they feel a pleasant feeling, they feel it attached. So sukhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, saññutto naṁ vedayati.
If they feel a painful feeling, they feel it attached. Dukkhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, saññutto naṁ vedayati.
If they feel a neutral feeling, they feel it attached. Adukkhamasukhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, saññutto naṁ vedayati.
They’re called an unlearned ordinary person who is attached to rebirth, old age, and death, to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress; who is attached to suffering, I say. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ‘assutavā puthujjano saññutto jātiyā jarāya maraṇena sokehi paridevehi dukkhehi domanassehi upāyāsehi, saññutto dukkhasmā’ti vadāmi.
When a learned noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings they don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. Sutavā ca kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno na socati, na kilamati, na paridevati, na urattāḷiṁ kandati, na sammohaṁ āpajjati.
They experience one feeling: So ekaṁ vedanaṁ vedayati— physical, not mental. kāyikaṁ, na cetasikaṁ.
It’s like a person who is struck with an arrow, Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, purisaṁ sallena vijjheyya. but was not struck with a second arrow. Tamenaṁ dutiyena sallena anuvedhaṁ na vijjheyya.
That person would experience the feeling of one arrow. Evañhi so, bhikkhave, puriso ekasallena vedanaṁ vedayati.
In the same way, when a learned noble disciple experiences painful physical feelings they don’t sorrow or wail or lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion. Evameva kho, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno na socati, na kilamati, na paridevati, na urattāḷiṁ kandati, na sammohaṁ āpajjati.
They experience one feeling: So ekaṁ vedanaṁ vedayati— physical, not mental. kāyikaṁ, na cetasikaṁ.
When they’re touched by painful feeling, they don’t resist it. Tassāyeva kho pana dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno paṭighavā na hoti.
There’s no underlying tendency for repulsion towards painful feeling underlying that. Tamenaṁ dukkhāya vedanāya appaṭighavantaṁ, yo dukkhāya vedanāya paṭighānusayo, so nānuseti.
When touched by painful feeling they don’t look forward to enjoying sensual pleasures. So dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho samāno kāmasukhaṁ nābhinandati.
Why is that? Taṁ kissa hetu?
Because a learned noble disciple understands an escape from painful feeling apart from sensual pleasures. Pajānāti hi so, bhikkhave, sutavā ariyasāvako aññatra kāmasukhā dukkhāya vedanāya nissaraṇaṁ.
Since they don’t look forward to enjoying sensual pleasures, there’s no underlying tendency to greed for pleasant feeling underlying that. Tassa kāmasukhaṁ nābhinandato yo sukhāya vedanāya rāgānusayo, so nānuseti.
They truly understand feelings’ origin, ending, gratification, drawback, and escape. So tāsaṁ vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavaṁ ca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti.
There’s no underlying tendency to ignorance about neutral feeling underlying that. Tassa tāsaṁ vedanānaṁ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṁ pajānato, yo adukkhamasukhāya vedanāya avijjānusayo, so nānuseti.
If they feel a pleasant feeling, they feel it detached. So sukhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, visaññutto naṁ vedayati.
If they feel a painful feeling, they feel it detached. Dukkhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, visaññutto naṁ vedayati.
If they feel a neutral feeling, they feel it detached. Adukkhamasukhañce vedanaṁ vedayati, visaññutto naṁ vedayati.
They’re called a learned noble disciple who is detached from rebirth, old age, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress; who is detached from suffering, I say. Ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, ‘sutavā ariyasāvako visaññutto jātiyā jarāya maraṇena sokehi paridevehi dukkhehi domanassehi upāyāsehi, visaññutto dukkhasmā’ti vadāmi.
This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person. Ayaṁ kho, bhikkhave, viseso, ayaṁ adhippayāso, idaṁ nānākaraṇaṁ sutavato ariyasāvakassa assutavatā puthujjanenāti.
A wise and learned person isn’t affected Na vedanaṁ vedayati sapañño, by feelings of pleasure and pain. Sukhampi dukkhampi bahussutopi;
This is the great difference in skill Ayañca dhīrassa puthujjanena, between the wise and the ordinary. Mahā viseso kusalassa hoti.
A learned person who has appraised the teaching Saṅkhātadhammassa bahussutassa, discerns this world and the next. Vipassato lokamimaṁ parañca;
Desirable things don’t disturb their mind, Iṭṭhassa dhammā na mathenti cittaṁ, nor are they repelled by the undesirable. Aniṭṭhato no paṭighātameti.
Both favoring and opposing Tassānurodhā athavā virodhā, are cleared and ended, they are no more. Vidhūpitā atthagatā na santi;
Knowing the stainless, sorrowless state, Padañca ñatvā virajaṁ asokaṁ, they who have gone beyond rebirth understand rightly.” Sammā pajānāti bhavassa pāragū”ti.
Thanks, this sutta answers the question of ‘what is dukkha’ very well.
6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Eternalism: rebirth vs reincarnation & individuality vs Self
