Are the aggregates dukkha?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:35 pm To say there was an “I” that disappeared, or ceased, is annihilationism.
To say there is no self is annihilationism

Ananda Sutta wrote:If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nmjojola »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:35 pm
It is, but what does akāliko mean?...That...doesn’t then mean all the links in dependent origination immediately cease.
I'm saying that if the dhamma (thus DO) is akalika, as the suttas state, then "ceases" doesn't apply in the first place in the way that you are using the term. This is the crucial area where you are misunderstanding my point in defending the suttas against the pernicious view that dukkha isn't escapable in the here and now (to the contradiction of countless declarations made by the Buddha and Arahants). It's not an event (i.e. it has nothing to do with "cause and effect"), it's akalika (timeless, atemporal).
Yet the Buddha still experienced sense objects...vedana...contact.
The presence of objects, feelings, etc.. (pancakhanda) in experience is one thing, the presence of a subject for whom there is feeling (pancupadanakhanda, where dukkha is present) is another entirely.

And as for the khandas, what he knew and taught was the escape therefrom (nirodha, nibbana, the ending of dukkha) via irrevocable realization of the four noble truths. Again, this is where knowledge of DO comes in. Understanding (the arising and passing away of things) is synonymous with exemption from subjection (to same). Hence avijja being the root of the problem as constantly pointed out in sutta, the issue is not yet having woken up (enlightening to) the nature of things, it's the essential reason there is dukkha, doing away with avijja completely is synonymous with doing away with dukkha completely. To say that the Buddha still had to dukkha is to say that he still had ignorance - this is wholly inadmissible upon any plain familiarity with sutta.
It would also help if you provided a reference for your Udana quote.
Fair enough, here's Thanisarro's translation, stylized a bit differently, but the meaning is obviously the same: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Ud/ud2_4.html
I’m not thinking of it in terms of an atta thingy.
Yeah, I get that, but why not when it's bound with the root of the problem of dukkha, which is what the suttas are out to free us from in the first place? It's paramount that they should be read with such contextual framework of approach accordingly. Otherwise you think of the Buddha walking and talking as "an existing person subject to feelings and contact and suffering and so forth", which is full blown sakkayaditthi.
Your claim is that all of the links immediately cease
Nope (and here again we come full circle), because it's not an event in the first place to which "stops" (let alone "starts") applies to begin with. It's akalika.
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nmjojola »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:48 pm I am not saying you deny rebirth, as I don't know, but your position is mostly found among those who do.
I can't comment as to that last bit, but personally I have no doubts whatsoever about rebirth, I wouldn't dare. But it's simply a fact of language that jati means birth, rebirth is a different pali word entirely, that's just the way it is. DO is in reference to a present truth regarding a present problem to be solved in the present (in the here and now); this doesn't mean I deny rebirth as taught by the Buddha, in fact I take it quite seriously, but DO isn't an explanation for how it happens (although it may be linked to why it does), that's a matter he simply left undeclared, for it's not the immediate problem, my suffering is, which is not synonymous with the khandas, but upadana. The distinction between pancakhanda and pancupadanakhanda is critical. Thus I am defending Bhante G's response to OP, however I would've been a lot more careful when trying to explain how present painful feeling doesn't necessarily mean present dukkha, for that requires a sufficient understanding of DO.
But if rebirth is denied, one has to argue that back pain doesn't count as dukkha somehow.
I don't agree with the overall statement, but as to the perceived contradiction of allegedly being freed from dukkha yet still experiencing back pain, I can only refer to what I've already posted above.
Last edited by nmjojola on Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mikenz66 »

josaphatbarlaam wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:48 pm
nmjojola wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 8:08 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:30 am The Buddha still experienced dukkha.
What an unfortunate view to hold.
If I had a nickel for every instance in the suttas that the Buddha and the Arahants declared freedom from dukkha, birth, aging, illness, and death - I would have a lot of nickels.
The hoops those who deny rebirth have to jump through...if one believs in rebirth its obvious the meaning of "freedom from dukkha, birth, aging, illness, and death", i.e. certainty that one will attain parinibbana at the end of that life and thus all those things end. But if rebirth is denied, one has to argue that back pain doesn't count as dukkha somehow. I am not saying you deny rebirth, as I don't know, but your position is mostly found among those who do. You might have merely been deceived by them without realizing their position is all based on a denial of rebirth.
Here's one of the several suttas that involves time...
“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. When he feels a feeling terminating with the body, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with the body.’ When he feels a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’
https://suttacentral.net/mn140/en/bodhi#sc31
There are a number of passages like this:
But this one with right view does not become engaged and cling through that engagement and clinging, mental standpoint, adherence, underlying tendency; he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing.
though one could argue that this is talking about a sotappana, not an arahant.

:heart:
Mike
josaphatbarlaam
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2021 9:03 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by josaphatbarlaam »

nmjojola wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:26 pmBut it's simply a fact of language that jati means birth, rebirth is a different pali word entirely, that's just the way it is. DO is in reference to a present truth regarding a present problem to be solved in the present (in the here and now); this doesn't mean I deny rebirth as taught by the Buddha, in fact I take it quite seriously, but DO isn't an explanation for how it happens (although it may be linked to why it does), that's a matter he simply left undeclared, for it's not the immediate problem, my suffering is, which is not synonymous with the khandas, but upadana. The distinction between pancakhanda and pancupadanakhanda is critical.
DO has been turned into nothing but a magical nonsense word that when one cannot logically support their position they shoehorn into a topic it has no relevance to. 99.9% of the time it is brought up it is used precisely in this way.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

nmjojola wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:04 pm
I'm saying that if the dhamma (thus DO) is akalika, as the suttas state, then "ceases" doesn't apply in the first place in the way that you are using the term. This is the crucial area where you are misunderstanding my point in defending the suttas against the pernicious view that dukkha isn't escapable in the here and now (to the contradiction of countless declarations made by the Buddha and Arahants). It's not an event (i.e. it has nothing to do with "cause and effect"), it's akalika (timeless, atemporal).
I know you are, but I don't think akāliko carries the abstract philosophy that you think it does. Rather, I read it as the following

"When a person is overcome and overwhelmed by greed/hatred/delusion, he intends to hurt themselves, hurt others, and hurt both. They experience mental pain and sadness. When greed/hatred/delusion has been given up, they don’t intend to hurt themselves, hurt others, and hurt both. They don’t experience mental pain and sadness. This is how the teaching is realizable in this very life (sanditthiko), immediately effective (akaliko), inviting inspection (ehipassiko), relevant(opaneyikko) , so that sensible people can know it for themselves (paccattaṃ veditabbo)."

- AN 3.53

Whilst awakening does free one from dukkha, not all dukkha immediately ceases. What is gone in the present is the 2nd dart, but the result of past kamma still has to be felt (the 1st dart) until the end of life. Only then are they totally free.
The presence of objects, feelings, etc.. (pancakhanda) in experience is one thing, the presence of a subject for whom there is feeling (pancupadanakhanda, where dukkha is present) is another entirely.
The absence of a subject doesn't mean an absence of feeling.
And as for the khandas, what he knew and taught was the escape therefrom (nirodha, nibbana, the ending of dukkha) via irrevocable realization of the four noble truths. Again, this is where knowledge of DO comes in. Understanding (the arising and passing away of things) is synonymous with exemption from subjection (to same). Hence avijja being the root of the problem as constantly pointed out in sutta, the issue is not yet having woken up (enlightening to) the nature of things, it's the essential reason there is dukkha, doing away with avijja completely is synonymous with doing away with dukkha completely. To say that the Buddha still had to dukkha is to say that he still had ignorance - this is wholly inadmissible upon any plain familiarity with sutta.
It doesn't mean he has ignorance. It means he still experienced the result of past ignorance.
Fair enough, here's Thanisarro's translation, stylized a bit differently, but the meaning is obviously the same:
Thank you. I looked up Ven. Dhammapāla's commentary to this sutta. The interpretation there has to do with contact's end being final nibbāna.

"Phusanti phassā upadhiṁ paṭicca,"

Touch contacts attachment because of

Contacts touch because of attachment


So, the reason there is contact is because of grasping. Contact depends upon the 6 senses. The 6 senses depend upon nāmarūpa. Nāmarūpa depends upon rebirth-linking consciousness (see DN 15). Rebirth-linking consciousness depends upon existence. Existence depends upon grasping.

Past life grasping > existence > rebirth-linking consciousness > nāmarūpa > 6 senses > contact.

There is contact because of attachment.
Yeah, I get that, but why not when it's bound with the root of the problem of dukkha, which is what the suttas are out to free us from in the first place? It's paramount that they should be read with such contextual framework of approach accordingly. Otherwise you think of the Buddha walking and talking as "an existing person subject to feelings and contact and suffering and so forth", which is full blown sakkayaditthi.
I think until we are awakened fully there will always be a tendency to view things in that way. Regardless however, it is clear from the textual evidence that the Buddha did indeed experience vedanā which, based on his own teaching, meant that he still experienced contact, sense consciousness and so the aggregates. He therefore experienced dukkha. This seems to be the reason why there is a distinction between the 2 darts. If the Buddha didn't experience contact, feeling, sense consciousness etc etc at all then why then make the distinction? There wouldn't be a distinction if your interpretation is true because there wouldn't be either dart for him or the Arahants.
Nope (and here again we come full circle), because it's not an event in the first place to which "stops" (let alone "starts") applies to begin with. It's akalika.
Ultimately I don't think there is such a thing as Buddha, dukkha nor nibbāna. Conventionally however dhammas are structurally ordered and so their cessation too also follows a sequence, even without causality.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:37 pm Ultimately I don't think there is such a thing as Buddha, dukkha nor nibbāna.
that's why faith is important (crucial)
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nmjojola »

Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:37 pm There is contact because of attachment.
Right. And as the Culavedalla Sutta (MN 44) states, upadana is not pancakhanda, nor apart from, but any passion, joy, or delight that arises in dependence on them, that is the upadana. Neither upadana nor dukkha are equivalent to the aggregates.

In order to argue that the Buddha still experienced dukkha you would have to assert that the Buddha delighted in the five aggregates, there is no way around that.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

nmjojola wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:16 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:37 pm There is contact because of attachment.
Right. And as the Culavedalla Sutta (MN 44) states, upadana is not pancakhanda, nor apart from, but any passion, joy, or delight that arises in dependence on them, that is the upadana. Neither upadana nor dukkha are equivalent to the aggregates.

In order to argue that the Buddha still experienced dukkha you would have to assert that the Buddha delighted in the five aggregates, there is no way around that.
No, I merely have to argue that he formerly did.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nmjojola »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:50 pm No, I merely have to argue that he formerly did.
Former upadana accounts only for present aggregates, whereas present dukkha is accounted for only by present upadana.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

nmjojola wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:00 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:50 pm No, I merely have to argue that he formerly did.
Former upadana accounts only for present aggregates, whereas present dukkha is accounted for only by present upadana.
Because of past clinging there are the aggregates now. The aggregates are dukkha due to their unsatisfactoriness. Pain itself is also dukkha, because it’s pain. The present dukkha that is given up immediately is that of the 2nd dart. The 1st dart is due to past clinging, and must be experienced until the end of life. What doesn’t make sense is why the Buddha would teach the 2 darts at all, if your view was correct.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nmjojola »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:26 pm What doesn’t make sense is why the Buddha would teach the 2 darts at all, if your view was correct.
Here is how that very sutta concludes (two translations offered):

"Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare." - Nyanaponika

This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress." - Thanisarro
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

nmjojola wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:53 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:26 pm What doesn’t make sense is why the Buddha would teach the 2 darts at all, if your view was correct.
Here is how that very sutta concludes (two translations offered):

"Such a one, O monks, is called a well-taught noble disciple who is not fettered by birth, by old age, by death, by sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair. He is not fettered to suffering, this I declare." - Nyanaponika

This is called a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones disjoined from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is disjoined, I tell you, from suffering & stress." - Thanisarro
Notice birth comes first. Also notice that pain itself is defined as dukkha there, as well as the 2nd darts of lamentation etc. You also didn't answer the question. If the Buddha didn't experience contact, why then did he teach about the 2 darts?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
nmjojola
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:29 am

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nmjojola »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 7:58 pm Notice birth comes first. Also notice that pain itself is defined as dukkha there, as well as the 2nd darts of lamentation etc. You also didn't answer the question. If the Buddha didn't experience contact, why then did he teach about the 2 darts?
I do notice, I also notice that it doesn't say rebirth. He taught the two darts to explain the difference between the putthujjana (ordinary uninstructed worlding) and the sekha (noble disciple in training (who is no less than a sotapanna but no more than a non-returner), phassanirodha applies only to the asekha (the one who is no longer in training, i.e .the arahant) who has gone beyond both ranges delineated in that sutta.

The putthujjana is afflicted by two darts (who thinks "this [pain] is mine")
The sekha is afflicted by one (who thinks not "this [pain] is mine or thinks "this [pain] is not mine)
And the asekha is afflicted by neither (who thinks neither this [pain] is mine nor this [pain] is not mine , for conceit (asmimana, i.e."I am") is utterly abandoned, along with the rest of the higher fetters (hence phassanirodha)).
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22391
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

nmjojola wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:21 pm

I do notice, I also notice that it doesn't say rebirth.
No, it says "birth". The "birth" into a human existence would be through pregnancy. When there is birth, then the condition for pain and death has been met.
He taught the two darts to explain the difference between the putthujjana (ordinary uninstructed worlding) and the sekha (noble disciple in training (who is no less than a sotapanna but no more than a non-returner), phassanirodha applies only to the asekha (the one who is no longer in training, i.e .the arahant) who has gone beyond both ranges delineated in that sutta.
The sutta says that the noble disciple is detached from birth. That only applies to an Arahant. From a different sutta

“What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbāna-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbāna-element with residue left." - Iti 44
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Post Reply