(DN II 310)"Yo tassa yeva tanhaya asesa-viraga-nirodho cago patinissaggo mutti analayo"
there are the concepts of patinissaggo (rejecting) and analayo (aversion), which, 'applied' to craving, would mean the cessation of suffering. So the cessation of suffering would be, amongst others: the rejection of craving, the aversion towards craving.
Now I find this highly incompatible with the description of suffering in the 1st noble truth, where I would understand that rejection and aversion are themselves suffering (namely association with the unpleasant). And with the 2nd noble truth where "craving for non-existence" is stated as being, and rightly so, a cause of suffering. Rejection and above all aversion are cravings for non-existence, or go together with these, in my opinion and experience.
So finally a cause of suffering would be put forward as entailing the cessation of suffering, which seems to me incoherent and, in real life, impossible.
I know the Buddha was not incoherent. It is not my intention, at all, to bring down buddhism, on the contrary, it is a rare and extremely precious jewel in the history of humanity.
But I do find we have a problem here in the words, the transmission and/or the translation of this phrase.
What do you think?
Thank you very much for any and every thought, reaction or criticism.
(I also had a brief discussion about this subject, concerning the translation and grammar, here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=17164. I don't think this is double posting because here I would really like to discuss interpretation and meaning).