the great rebirth debate

[mikenz66]

Such wallowing would be mental illness. .

A person with right view simply cannot take any formation as sukha. So are you saying that Buddha and aryans have a mental illness? Are you saying that advanced insight stages is mental illness?

No, Tilt said that "wallowing" is mental illness. Different thing.

As Aloka points out:

I am fully aware of what the Buddha said in various suttas and I have experienced different kinds of suffering and been aware of other beings suffering too.However that doesn't mean that I can't be cheerful and need to be wallowing in fear and misery every day instead of making the best of my life. Strange that when I've had feeback and instruction from offline teachers that they've appeared to be relaxed, happy and smiling too !

That's certainly my experience with teachers, and why it's so important to have some contact with them...

As Ajahn Brahm says here:

Joy At Last To Know There Is No Happiness In The World

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha201.htm


Mike

[Cloud]

Dukkha is mental pain; we can't call it anything else unless we simply call it "change", in which case it loses the flavor of suffering. An enlightened mind does not suffer dukkha. If there is pain, there is pain. It is recognized as a sensation... for what it is. With no mental component of aversion to that pain, there is no dukkha.

[mikenz66]

Here are some references to the all-pervasiveness of dukkha:

http://what-buddha-said.net/library/Bud ... htm#dukkha

Dukkha: 1 'pain', painful feeling, which may be bodily and mental see: vedanā

2 'Suffering', 'ill'. As the first of the Four Noble Truths see: sacca and the second of the three characteristics of existence see: ti-lakkhana the term dukkha is not limited to painful experience as under 1, but refers to the unsatisfactory nature and the general insecurity of all conditioned phenomena which, on account of their impermanence, are all liable to suffering, and this includes also pleasurable experience. Hence 'unsatisfactoriness' or 'liability to suffering' would be more adequate renderings, if not for stylistic reasons. Hence the first truth does not deny the existence of pleasurable experience, as is sometimes wrongly assumed. This is illustrated by the following texts:

;Seeking satisfaction in the world, Bhikkhus, I had pursued my way. That satisfaction in the world I found. In so far as satisfaction existed in the world, I have well perceived it by understanding. Seeking for misery in the world, Bhikkhus, I had pursued my way. That misery in the world I found. In so far as misery existed in the world, I have well perceived it by understanding. Seeking for the escape from the world, Bhikkhus, I had pursued my way. That escape from the world I found. In so far as an escape from the world existed, I have well perceived it by understanding; A. 111, 101.

;If there were no satisfaction to be found in the world, beings would not be attached to the world. If there were no misery to be found in the world, beings would not be repelled by the world. If there were no escape from the world, beings could not escape therefrom; A. 111, 102.

See dukkhatā For texts on the Truth of Suffering, see W. of B. and 'path'.

See The Three Basic Facts of Existence, II. Suffering WHEEL 191/193.

Mike

[Alex123]

Dukkha is mental pain; we can't call it anything else unless we simply call it "change", in which case it loses the flavor of suffering. An enlightened mind does not suffer dukkha. If there is pain, there is pain. It is recognized as a sensation... for what it is. With no mental component of aversion to that pain, there is no dukkha.

So did the Buddha experience emotional pain when he experienced dukkha?

Also did you read the simile of being shot by an arrow? An Aryan still feels physical dukkha, but he doesn't feel emotional dukkha. An unawakened person feels both.

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain (dukkhāya vedanāya phuṭṭho), does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Cloud, please explain

It’s only suffering (dukkha) that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, Nothing but suffering ceases.”- SN 5.10 Vajirå Ven BB Trans.

Are you saying that nothing arises to an "Arahant"?

[Cloud]

I'm saying that pain felt by an Arahant is not pain. It's just a sensation like any other, recognized as temporary and not-self. It doesn't disturb the mind, hence it is not dukkha in the sense you would think.

[Sanghamitta]

I'm saying that pain felt by an Arahant is not pain. It's just a sensation like any other, recognized as temporary and not-self. It doesn't disturb the mind, hence it is not dukkha in the sense you would think.

You know this how ?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Well of course, unless Cloud is an arahant, Cloud doesn't "know"... but what is said seems in accord with the suttas to me.

Metta,
Retro.

[kirk5a]

I'm saying that pain felt by an Arahant is not pain. It's just a sensation like any other, recognized as temporary and not-self. It doesn't disturb the mind, hence it is not dukkha in the sense you would think.

Hm. So an arahant sees sensations as anicca and anatta, but not dukkha?

[Cloud]

I'm saying the Arahant doesn't experience such things as dukkha. The state of enlightenment is having gone beyond this dukkha; being free from this dukkha. It is only when there is wrong view and thus clinging that this dukkha is experienced.

[Sanghamitta]

I'm saying the Arahant doesn't experience such things as dukkha. The state of enlightenment is having gone beyond this dukkha; being free from this dukkha. It is only when there is wrong view and thus clinging that this dukkha is experienced.

And YOU know this how? You are not quoting sources. You are not saying that this is your understanding of the sources....so I repeat ..you know this how ?

[Cloud]

Basic Buddhism or Buddhism 101 teaches this; it's the very foundation of the Buddha's teachings and why we seek liberation.

The first noble truth teaches that we suffer; this is dukkha.
The second noble truth teaches that the cause is tanha (thirst/craving).
The third noble truth teaches that the cessation of tanha is the cessation of dukkha. This is Nirvana.
The fourth noble truth is the way.

The Arahant has followed the Noble Eightfold Path (the way) to its conclusion, the complete cessation of tanha and thus dukkha.

Try http://www.accesstoinsight.org, it's very helpful to have a good grounding on the basics and then to combine that with dedicated practice to know the truth of things for yourself. Dukkha is not pain; pain is only dukkha when seen with wrong view, by the deluded mind.

[Sanghamitta]

I have studies those teachings for nearly forty years Cloud. With a variety of experienced teachers, and nothing I have heard or read causes me to assume that I have any idea what an Arhant experiences....
I am not indicatiing that your understanding is wrong or faulty. I am saying that you need to provide specific sources when speaking of that which you deduce rather than know. Unless you ARE an Arahant of course.

[mikenz66]

Hi Cloud,

I'd study some more. Try http://www.accesstoinsight.org, it's very helpful to have a good grounding on the basics.

It's certainly not the case that there is a consensus on this issue, as you can see from a number of threads on this board, including this one. Personally I think that is a very difficult and subtle question.

There are quotes above from various suttas and teachers above that are relevant to this issue. Of course, It depends on what you include in dukkha, but it seems clear that an arahant, while still alive, still has painful feelings, which the quotes given above seem to define as dukkha.


Mike

[Cloud]

The dukkha that is human suffering, and this path leads away from, is mind-made. If it were to be said that pain is dukkha, outside of wrong view, then there is no escape from this dukkha. The Buddha taught of escape from a mind-made dukkha, and that is what is at the end of the path. At the end of the path, the Arahant who has been released the same as the Buddha, finds no discomfort in life. No unsatisfactoriness. No suffering. They see that others are suffering, and know that it is only this mind-made suffering which is to blame. No longer separating self from other, they apply discernment and perfect compassion toward the alleviation of this suffering. There is nothing in experience except experience.

[Sanghamitta]

That sounds like a docetic Arahant, Cloud...And you still haven't said whether this is your deduction or personal experience.

[Cloud]

Try not to make it about me, but understanding of what is being said instead. The Buddha taught only of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha; indeed the complete and utter cessation of the very thirst that causes dukkha. If dukkha is used in any other way, it is not the meaning that dukkha is given in the First Noble Truth; is not the problem that humanity suffers from, and not the purpose of the Buddha's teachings to end it.

Pain is only dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) when combined with wrong view. The Arahant has no wrong view; has non-dual wisdom of reality, and suffers not. Experiences only, does not suffer. There's a difference, and it's that difference which is being misunderstood or not understood. As this discussion seems to be going in circles, I'll stop posting and hope that one day you might understand when the conditions are right for understanding to arise. Good luck my friend.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Cloud,

In light of the perspective you raise, you may be interested in this earlier discussion...

Do arahants discard vipaka/suffering?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=6382

Metta,
Retro.

[Sanghamitta]

Try not to make it about me, but understanding of what is being said instead. The Buddha taught only of dukkha and the cessation of dukkha; indeed the complete and utter cessation of the very thirst that causes dukkha. If dukkha is used in any other way, it is not the meaning that dukkha is given in the First Noble Truth; is not the problem that humanity suffers from, and not the purpose of the Buddha's teachings to end it.

Pain is only dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) when combined with wrong view. The Arahant has no wrong view; has non-dual wisdom of reality, and suffers not. Experiences only, does not suffer. There's a difference, and it's that difference which is being misunderstood or not understood. As this discussion seems to be going in circles, I'll stop posting and hope that one day you might understand when the conditions are right for understanding to arise. Good luck my friend.

NB " Non dual " is not a currency that the Theravada generally deals in.
I note both the assumption of superiority in understanding ( which may or may not correspond to the actuality but proves conclusively that you are not an Arahant and that you are therefore speculating re the experience state of an Arahant ) and the passive aggression of "friend". Which follows your assertion that one day if I am a good girl I may be able to follow your lofty thoughts...
Its actually quite simple. You are speaking as one who knows what an arahant experiences. This is either the case or it isnt. You either know first hand what an arahant experiences or you dont. If it isnt the case and you dont know first hand what an arahant experiences you are bullshitting.

[kirk5a]

Pain is only dukkha (unsatisfactory or suffering) when combined with wrong view.

I keep noticing this idea, here and other places, among Buddhists. It really doesn't add up for me. Clinging to pain is dukkha, for certain, on that everyone agrees. And not clinging to pain does change the whole experience in a non-dukkha direction. But still, the pain is itself - dukkha. And not just pain. Pleasure too. Even when it is not clung to. I see all sorts of support for that in the suttas. One example:

"And what is the noble truth of dukkha? 'The six internal sense media,' should be the reply. Which six? The medium of the eye... the ear... the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect. This is called the noble truth of dukkha."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... index.html

I just read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "The Weight of Mountains" where he brings out the reasons why dukkha is defined in terms of craving, AND where it is defined in terms of ALL ordinary experience. Makes sense to me. Just looking at half and saying - dukkha is only the craving part - I think that's not accurate. It would seem to lead to the conclusion that looking at sense experience AS dukkha, is wrong practice. But just that practice leads to non-clinging to sense experience, so how can it be wrong?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tains.html

[Spiny O'Norman]

Just looking at half and saying - dukkha is only the craving part - I think that's not accurate. It would seem to lead to the conclusion that looking at sense experience AS dukkha, is wrong practice.

This is something I've been wondering about. Though this passage from AN 6.63 seems to suggest that the cessation of craving is synonymous with the cessation of dukkha - the next question is of course how we define craving ( tanha )....

"And what is the cessation of dukkha? From the cessation of craving is the cessation of dukkha; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of dukkha."

Spiny