Why are the Arahant aggregates suffering due to impermanence?

Q & A
41

As Bhante has already said, inference is a very real path to insight. And in some Vipassana approaches, where there is no direct vision of dependent arising in many lives, it is used.
But there are also more direct ways.

  1. A vision of how and what conditions determine the emergence and existence of the process of consciousness. You will directly see how ignorance, craving, clinging, formation and karma of the past create the five aggregates of the present. And how the five causes of the present create the aggregates of the future. You also see directly how the cessation of causes in the present or future will lead to the complete cessation of aggregates in the future.

  2. Seeing directly the quality of cessation of the five aggregates, nibbana. This is not an ordinary vision, but a direct insight into the state of cessation. And there arose an intuitive awareness of the fate of these aggregates, which will achieve nibbana: the holy life has been lived, what should have been done has been done, there will be no more new existence. That is, when we see nibbana dhamma and then review the achievement, we directly know precisely the cessation of aggregates and the achievement of this cessation. Nibbana is not seen by one who has not achieved the cessation of defilements and aggregates.

2 Likes
42

But the meaning of nibbana with remainder is the ending of greed, hatred, and delusion. It’s not the complete ending of suffering, whether mental or total.

The arahant is not hit with the dart of mental pain, mental dukkha-dukkha. But in a deeper sense there is still suffering, although it does not hit them as a dart. Notice how the mental dart is described in the sutta in question. It’s not described as all mental feelings but as follows:

Bhikkhus, when the uninstructed worldling is being contacted by a painful feeling, he sorrows, grieves, and laments; he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. (SN36.6)

This sorrowing, grieving, and weeping is the dart arahants no longer experience. But there is still mental suffering in a deeper sense, suffering of conditioned phenomena. That isn’t what the dart represents, though. It represents depression, aversion, and despondence and such.

The suttas often say that all feelings are suffering, and this also applies to the enlightened one:

These three feelings have been spoken of by me: pleasant feeling, painful feeling, neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling. These three feelings have been spoken of by me. And I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in suffering.’ That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of formations. (sankhārānaṁyeva aniccataṁ) (SN36.11)

The painful feelings (dukkha vedanā) mentioned here are the dukkha-dukkha. Arhants don’t experience these feelings anymore in the mental realm. However, there are still neutral and pleasant mental feelings, and these are still suffering, namely the suffering of impermanence and of formations (or ‘conditions’).

The suffering of impermanence and suffering of formations are two different ways of looking at the same thing. Formations are by their nature impermanent, and what is impermanent is by its nature a formation.

1 Like
43

I am not saying that is an unreasonable conclusion nor is not a conclusion not supported by evidence. But the conclusion is not logically necessary. And the reason why is basically Hume’s problem of induction.

If you think that it is a logically necessary conclusion, then present the syllogism or argument showing so.

44

I was speaking of natthi kiñcī’ti ākiñcaññāyatanaṁ.

45

Even the Buddha experienced vihesa.
MN26: "And if I were to teach the Dhamma, others might not understand me, which would be wearying and troublesome for me.’
Ahañceva kho pana dhammaṁ deseyyaṁ, pare ca me na ājāneyyuṁ, so mamassa kilamatho, sā mamassa vihesā’ti." as well as in DN16.

As did Sariputta in AN5.166: "….theram bhikkhum vihesiyamanam and Buddha Vipassī in DN14.

Not that it is identified with or that it takes over the mind. But its mere conditional presence is a form of dukkha.

46

Ah, alright. :slight_smile: In that case I don’t disagree. I didn’t intend to present a logical theoretical position—in a sense that was exactly my point, that it isn’t a theory.

47

This special kind of mental experience may be the missing link that defines impermanence and conditioning as suffering for the mind of the enlightened. Perhaps we are really talking about fatigue, restlessness of the senses as a subtle dukkha arising in connection with the very fact of impermanence, the work of contact and the three types of feelings.

But then we must assume that in the arupa-ayatanas there is dukkha-vedana, because it should appear there in this subtle form in response not to the disturbance of the senses. Which is a bit counter-systematic.

48

To claim categorally that teachers are wrong, is not oke Nikolas.

49

No, @Nikolas, you make a standard mistake. You think about the unborn citta from a perspective of the normal mind.

Maha Boowa teaches the cessation of existence.

I do not think so. They are very close to vibhava tanha. In looking forward not to feel anything anymore after death, like the wordling in pains who is also looking forward to die and just cease to feel, sense, know, experience anything.

Also, they just do not accept the asankhata element in the teachings and in life. They do no accept anything that cannot be seen arising, ceasing and changing. All just ends at the death of an arhants. In fact they teach there is not such a thing as a noble search, because there is nothing that is not subject to illness, death, decay etc. For them only samsara is real, and the only way to end the inherent suffering of samsara is to make and end to it. There is no escape, only this cessation.

51

Hmm… I’m not sure you understood what I tried to say.

Let me rephrase. In the arupa ayatanas there is only neutral (aka neither-pleasant-nor-painful) feeling. This feeling is still dukkha—but a different sense of the word dukkha. Not as painful feeling, but as suffering in a more general sense.

In AN9.34 the arupas are said to be suffering, not because they are painful feelings, but because they are suffering when compared to cessation (or to higher arupa states). In other words, to understand that kind of suffering, we first have to go beyond it.

The Magandiya sutta is illuminating as well. It talks about sensual pleasures, but the same idea applies to higher pleasures such as the arupas:

Sensual pleasures many people will be unable to regard as suffering. But the Buddha does, because he doesn’t have a distorted perception. He sees them as suffering. It’s the same with the arupas.

I hope that explains my take on it. If not, I’m not sure how I can further clarify it. :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes
52

I’ll say it again. If this citta is permanent, then it must be present constantly, in full acute awareness and not subject to defilement.

No, his teaching is in no way different from the teaching of those who teach the continuation of existence. There is no inherent difference. Or do you think that teachers who believe in the transcendental atman dream of existing in samsara? no, their concept in the same way goes beyond the scope of worldly existence.

The cessation of vibhava tanha leads to the cessation of… bhava. Paradoxical, isn’t it? that is, having ceased to crave non-existence, you must ultimately come to the cessation of being. This is exactly what your opponents are striving for.

53

So given your expressed views here (I agree with you about cessation) why are you uncertain about how any form of existence is dukkha?

54

@Jasudho

I trust the Buddha and when he says that all formations are painful, I agree with him. Intuitively I feel this. But when we try to express this conceptually, problems arise that are not even present with the characterization of anatta, let alone anicca. I know that the experience of suffering is dukkha vedana. There is no other way to experience dukkha, this is the function of this dhamma, its characteristic is to experience dukkha. How is the dukkha of impermanence experienced? Either we feel it as a kind of mental suffering, or we extrapolate the future dukkha from this phenomenon. We connect the phenomenon and dukkha. If a phenomenon is inextricably linked with dukkha - at the beginning, in the middle or at the end of its existence, then it is dukkha. The Arupa-sphere suffers either during achievement, then there must be subtle dukkha-vedana, or after.

55

So relying less on the conceptual and more on direct experience is the solution to the uncertainty.

As more subtle dukkha is experienced, even in the arupa attainments as the Buddha saw, the more direct understanding of it as dukkha.

Also,

I believe we agree they are impermanent and so cannot provide lasting relief from dukkha and because, in and of themselves, do not necessarily lead to the cessation of lobha, dosa, and avijjā. So, dukkha. Including the knowing that full liberation has not yet been realized.

Also, they are conditional and the noble ones directly know " Suffering includes whatever is felt.’ ‘yaṁ kiñci vedayitaṁ, taṁ dukkhasmin’ti." – SN36.11
Vedayitaṁ can point not just to feelings but to experience of any kind.

And
" …you’ll have no doubt or uncertainty that what arises is just suffering arising, and what ceases is just suffering ceasing. Dukkhameva uppajjamānaṁ uppajjati, dukkhaṁ nirujjhamānaṁ nirujjhatīti na kaṅkhati na vicikicchati.
Your knowledge about this is independent of others. - SN22.90
Includes the arupa attainments, of course.

57

Maha Boowa really taught the cessation of rebirth. He does not at all teach the continuation of existence.

In Arahattamagga and arahattaphala Maha Boowa says about rebirth (page 63)

“…for the avijjã-citta is the essence of the world of rebirth, the essence of birth, ageing, sickness and death. Sensual craving, with avijjã acting as the prime mover, is the root cause of birth, ageing, sickness and death—and it exists only within the citta. When avijjã finally disintegrates, being severed from the citta forever, total cessation is achieved. The citta is then free, vast and supremely empty, without limits, without bounds—totally expansive. Nothing encloses or obstructs it. All contradictions have been eliminated. When the citta knows, it knows only the truth; when it sees, it sees only the truth. This is true emptiness”.

Oke, he does not teach a mere cessation at death, but that does not mean that he teaches a continuation of existence or rebirth.

You believe this is the same. But it is not like that.
Not teaching a mere cessation is not the same as believing that existence continues. It is still a total cessation of the khandha’s he teaches. But not a mere cessation.

In the Glossary of this book Nibbana is said to be:

“Nibbãna (skt. Nirvana): Literally meaning “extinguished”, Nibbãna is compared to a lamp or a fire going out. That is to say, the threefold fire of greed, hatred and delusion goes out in the heart due to lack of fuel. The extinguishing of this fire frees the mind from everything that binds it to the cycle of rebirth and the suffering experienced therein. Nibbãna is Absolute Freedom, the Supreme Happiness. As such, it is the ultimate goal of the Buddhist training. It is said to be Unborn, Deathless, and Unconditioned, but being totally detached from all traces of conventional reality, a description of what Nibbãna is, or is not, lies wholly beyond the range of conventional figures of speech.”

58

Sorry to jump in sir. Also I have read arguments only till the above argument which I quoted above. I chose to reply to this before reading next arguments is because I wanted to share a strange but surprising point with you sir @Nikolas .

I don’t exactly remember where, but I have read that in pure abodes, it’s not the case that anagami born there is meditating to attain arahatship and then if he attains arahatship, he will wait till his death to finally attain parinibbana. Nope!

I actually read that, all the beings are anagami there and it’s not like they will become arhat or not. Thats not how it is there. They can only attain parinibbana at the time of their death, if they become one with cessation and if they don’t/fail to (don’t know exactly if it is out of choice or out of no choice), then they die and are reborn in upper pure abode! Thats why beings in pure abodes are called as those whose stream goes upwards!

So If what I read is true then it should mean that, a being from pure abodes does not suffer but is still not completely free or has not attained complete cessation. They can only attain parinibbana at the time of their death. While they are alive they are continuously engaged in dhamma practice because they cannot do any evil.

“A being from pure abodes became arhat and is still there in that pure abode” - this is simply impossible I believe.

(Offcourse it is based on what I read. It may not be truth.)

1 Like
59

Don’t you understand the meaning of the word “existence”? If bhava refers only to rebirth in a bodily form, why do you classify followers of complete cessation as those who have vibhava-tanha?

1 Like
60

What i like you to do is correct your opinion that Maha Boowa teaches a continuation of existence.
This opinion of your:

Maha Boowa teaches the end of rebirth and bhava. Rebirth in whatever realm.
How many fragments do you need of him to admit?
Maybe others can join in too because i can know you never believe me.

For me, the buddhist without true knowledge , the materialist without true knowledge, the atheist without, the religious person without, Me without…are all the same , in this aspect that they can only invent or believe what is true, real, how things work, go, happen. Including what happens after death of the arahant.

I do not see any reason to conclude that a religious person who believes he/she lives eternally with God in heaven after death, is fundamentally different from those buddhist who believe death for the arahant leads to a mere cessation. It is all based upon views, opinions, likes and dislikes, belief, desires, reasoning, reading holy scriptues, a lot of thinking. It is not based upon true knowledge that one has attained personally.

This way i also do not believe there is a real difference between a materialist or atheist who suffers and sees death as the end of it, and a Buddhist without true knowledge who delight in the idea of ceasing at death. They find delight in ideas.

I think it is very well possible that for someone with true knowledge there is no doctrine of a mere cessation. I do not know this for myself but i know almost all buddhist teachers do not teach a mere cessation. And from reading the sutta’s this is also not obvious at all.

61

If he teaches the preservation of citta, then being in the form of that citta is being born in the form of that citta. The essence of birth is the acquisition of a new form of being.

62

But the topic of this discussion does not relate to the nibbana of the arahant after death. The fact that you begin to discuss this topic in all possible discussions indicates your obsession with this view and clinging to aggregates

1 Like