Are the aggregates dukkha?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
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 8:27 pm
Correct, pancakhanda is what applies to the arahant (feeling is still present), but not pancupadanakhanda (no more attachment) and you said yourself contact depends on attachment (unless you want to assert that there is no meaningful distinction between pancakhanda and pancupadanakhanda, at which case I'd be ready to just agree to disagree because my whole argument is that there is a distinction of the utmost critical importance).

With the higher fetters destroyed, without a "subject" in the individuals reflexive experience (someone for whom there is pain), contacts would make contact with what? Feeling would land where? You can refer to "does not land" in https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN12_64.html which addresses this point explicitly.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
bpallister wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 10:42 pm Are the aggregates dukkha?

What are your thoughts on this?
Yes, so do not aggregate*

Lay down that burden.

(* - verb, not noun)

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

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... the pernicious view that dukkha isn't escapable in the here and now... It's not an event (i.e. it has nothing to do with "cause and effect"), it's akalika (timeless, temporal).

...

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 Buddha walking and talking as "an existing person subject to feelings and contact and suffering and so forth", which is full blown sakkayaditthi.
nmjojola wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:26 pm ... 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);... 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...
nmjojola wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:21 pm ... 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)).
nmjojola wrote: Thu Oct 14, 2021 8:53 pm Correct, pancakhanda is what applies to the arahant (feeling is still present), but not pancupadanakhanda (no more attachment)...
Good series of postings :goodpost:
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
TheSynergist
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:25 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by TheSynergist »

Ajahn Punnadhammo:
One of the things that is important to understand in thinking about this is that Dukkha is inherent in the objects. It's not something that we impose on reality with our mind. This is one of the ways I think in which it has been misunderstood. Some people have presented Buddhist teachings in a way that implies that the problem is entirely subjective, that the world is perfect as it is, we are just seeing it wrongly somehow. This is not the teaching of the Buddha. The Buddha taught that the conditioned realm is inherently imperfect, impermanent, breaking up, unsatisfying. These are inherent fundamentally to the object. It's not something we impose on reality with our perception. In fact not seeing this, not seeing the inherent imperfection of things is classed as a hallucination (wipalasa - meaning a perversion of view). We are seeing things wrong if we don't see them this way is flawed. This is part of the very fabric of reality. It's not a value judgment, it's not a moral judgment, it's just a statement of the way things are. The very fact of objects whether external or internal, whether sentient objects or insentient objects, the very fact that they exist, that they are manifest, that they are functional in the universe is an inherent flaw. The only way they can manifest is through partiality. It's part of the fact of being in existence. The fact of motion of change, of life, of existence, of reality, is this constant rubbing.
Suttas like SN 22.13 make it pretty clear to me that the aggregates are dukkha. [EDITED to read SN 12.13, not SN 12.12]
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

TheSynergist wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:04 pm
Wonderful explanation by Bhante

:anjali:
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

TheSynergist wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:04 pm ...
Suttas like SN 22.13 make it pretty clear to me that the aggregates are dukkha. [EDITED to read SN 12.13, not SN 12.12]
This unsatisfying nature of things is inherent to them. This is dukkha. Inherent to everything. Now dukkha also means suffering but some people mistake suffering (dukkha) originated by the clinging to the aggregates subject to clinging with the unsatisfactory nature of everything conditioned (also dukkha) and cannot accept this subjection to clinging can end here and now while there's life and they believe that "suffering" is inherent to everything.

Our own ignorance creates the suffering, there's no suffering inherent to the world. There's no mistake about this imperfect world. This flawed world is correct as it is and we can go full dispassionate about it here and now.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nirodh27 »

TheSynergist wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:04 pm Ajahn Punnadhammo:
...
Hi TheSynergist,

thanks for the quote, it made me reflect on my approach to this.

To me the problem seems entirely subjective, more so, our subjectivity is the problem. The aggregates are way to describe subjective experience just like the six senses are and are not beyond them (the sabbe). Dukkha is not inherent in the objects and certainly is not in external objects, since all the external objects can be experienced as disjoined and without passion as the Buddha teached with the parable of the butcher (MN146) and no more Dukkha about them exists. This is also one of the meaning of the example of the Branches and leaves. The problem is not the object, but the passion.
"What do you think, monks: If a person were to gather or burn or do as he likes with the grass, twigs, branches & leaves here in Jeta's Grove, would the thought occur to you, 'It's us that this person is gathering, burning, or doing with as he likes'?"

"No, lord. Why is that? Because those things are not our self, nor do they belong to our self."
MN22

Of course, if you have passion, you will desire them to be different, that is the cause/origination of that Dukkha, not an inherent quality, but a dependently arisen one.
Suppose a deft butcher or their apprentice was to kill a cow and carve it with a sharp meat cleaver. Without damaging the flesh inside or the hide outside, they’d cut, carve, sever, and slice through the connecting tendons, sinews, and ligaments, and then peel off the outer hide. Then they’d wrap that cow up in that very same hide and say: ‘This cow is joined to its hide just like before.’ Would they be speaking rightly?”

“No, sir. Why is that? Because even if they wrap that cow up in that very same hide and say: ‘This cow is joined to its hide just like before,’ still that cow is not joined to that hide.”

“I’ve made up this simile to make a point. And this is the point. ‘The inner flesh’ is a term for the six interior sense fields. ‘The outer hide’ is a term for the six exterior sense fields. ‘The connecting tendons, sinews, and ligaments’ is a term for greed and relishing. ‘A sharp meat cleaver’ is a term for noble wisdom. And it is that noble wisdom which cuts, carves, severs, and slices the connecting corruption, fetter, and bond.
MN146

So this is why the Buddha says to Ananda:
“Ānanda, I do not envision even a single form whose change & alteration would not give rise to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair in one who is passionate for it and takes delight in it.
It means that the aggregates can be experienced with or without Dukkha so they are not Dukkha and this distinction between simple Khandas and Upadana Khandas is found in the suttas. Dukkha, as everything in the Buddha's teachings, is dependantly arised, so it is not inherent. Inherent means that it is essential, a necessary quality of the object. What about the branches and leaves that burns which the Buddha points out to the monks? There's no suffering, there's only disinterest in them as objects because they are not ourselves or belong to ourself. In the experience of those branches, no suffering, not even unsatisfactoriness can be found in experience even if they are anicca. We should really use the word inherent (since it indicates the essential character of something) wisely in referring to objects given that we have a master that teaches that Dukkha (or everything bar Nibbana) is dependantly arisen.

The only remaining Dukkha, even for a Buddha, is the fact that you have a body that can experience physical pain, strong hunger and a mind that can experience headaches. For the Buddha this modicum of Dukkha, when it is present since it is not always present, is resolved only at death. If there's rebirth it will not be born again, if there's no rebirth he has lived his life happily, without trouble and without harming anyone. Birth in both cases will not be experienced twice. While the idea of being born (which is our real problem, since it entails the idea of death while it is only the body that stops without an acquisition of self) ends with the ending of attachment to self.
They understand: ‘Here there is no stress due to the defilements of sensuality, desire to be reborn, or ignorance. There is only this modicum of stress, namely that associated with the six sense fields dependent on this body and conditioned by life.’
Reality is not a problem for rocks, it is a problem for beings. There is anicca for rocks, but no Dukkha. Our experience is Dukkha, in the Analayo sense, that is badly made for us, for our desire of finding happiness. Again, a subjective issue. It is a mix of Sukha and Dukkha, but Sukha has attachment as drawbacks. Luckily there's sukha without drawbacks says the Buddha and that makes that life the best possible life (the Buddha never contemplated to end his life earlier, even when he was skeptical to teach before the arrival of Brahma to convince him to teach. Why? Because there's a Sukha that doesn't get you enarmoured or afflicted and beings can be enamoured, and he is no more a being from his definition being = desire and view. He didn't want to abandon it earlier than needed).
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:34 am ... Dukkha is not inherent in the objects and certainly is not in external objects, since all the external objects can be experienced as disjoined and without passion as the Buddha teached with the parable of the butcher (MN146) and no more Dukkha about them exists. This is also one of the meaning of the example of the Branches and leaves. The problem is not the object, but the passion.
...
Of course, if you have passion, you will desire them to be different, that is the cause/origination of that Dukkha, not an inherent quality, but a dependently arisen one.
...
It means that the aggregates can be experienced with or without Dukkha so they are not Dukkha and this distinction between simple Khandas and Upadana Khandas is found in the suttas. Dukkha, as everything in the Buddha's teachings, is dependantly arised, so it is not inherent. Inherent means that it is essential, a necessary quality of the object. ...
The quality of dukkha that means
pegembara wrote: Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:06 am Unsatisfactory, unreliable, undependable, uncertain, not guaranteed.
is indeed inherent to everything conditioned. When something arises, it arises with this quality of dukkha inherent to it.

The dukkha that arises due to clinging leading to becoming is not inherent to things as you said and is dependently arisen due to ignorance, craving and attachment.
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:34 am ... not even unsatisfactoriness can be found in experience even if they are anicca...
How so?
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:34 am ... The only remaining Dukkha, even for a Buddha, is the fact that you have a body that can experience physical pain, strong hunger and a mind that can experience headaches. For the Buddha this modicum of Dukkha, when it is present since it is not always present, is resolved only at death...
How so? The Buddha didn't "have" a body or mind considered to be "his". How is this experience of physical pain, strong hunger and headaches only "resolved" at death? What's not been "solved" yet? How is this suffering related to the Buddha?
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by samseva »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 10:34 am [...]
The problem isn't either objective or subjective. Either doesn't exist in a vacuum. Yes, suffering is mostly due to the defilements of an individual, however it is much rather the object and the defilement together that gives rise to suffering. Without an object, the defilement can't arise. Saying an object is entirely responsible for someone's suffering is false, but saying someone's suffering is entirely due to them is the other extreme, and equally false.

The Buddha taught the three characteristics of existence (tilakkhaṇa), that all phenomena are impermanent, all phenomena are dukkha, and all things are not-self: sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā sabbe dhammā anattā’ti.

According to one of the Buddha's most important teachings, all conditioned phenomena of existence has the characteristic of dukkha.
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nirodh27 »

Hi Mjaviem, thanks for your remarks that are very welcomed.
mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 11:40 am The quality of dukkha that means Unsatisfactory, unreliable, undependable, uncertain, not guaranteed. is indeed inherent to everything conditioned. When something arises, it arises with this quality of dukkha inherent to it.
Here for example we have two things (in SN 42:11) that looks like the same, but are different for only one thing in particular, the presence of desire or not.
“Those people in Uruvelakappa whose murder, imprisonment, fining, or censure would cause me sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair are those for whom I feel desire-passion.

Those people in Uruvelakappa whose murder, imprisonment, fining, or censure would cause me no sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair are those for whom I feel no desire-passion.

“Now, headman, from what you have realized, fathomed, attained right now in the present, without regard to time, you may draw an inference with regard to the past and future: ‘Whatever stress, in arising, arose for me in the past, all of it had desire as its root, had desire as its cause—for desire is the cause of stress. And whatever stress, in arising, will arise for me in the future, all of it will have desire as the root, will have desire as its cause—for desire is the cause of stress.’”
In this sense, it is dangerous to say that Dukkha is inherent in all things since there clearly is a mode of perception with Dukkha and one without Dukkha. The same things perceived can be with Dukkha and without Dukkha (The same can be said for acquisitions, there's a mode of perception with acquisition or without acquisition for anatta that is the appropriation of an aggregate as self). So this is the phrase that actually I've found dangerous:
These are inherent fundamentally to the object. It's not something we impose on reality with our perception.
This is part of the very fabric of reality. It's not a value judgment, it's not a moral judgment, it's just a statement of the way things are.
But Dukkha is not inherent in reality, it is a dependantly arisen experience and a value judgement for us, for the being that have craving and sensual pleasures that is called "the carrier of the burden" in the Samyutta Nikaya. At the same time the sabbe of the Arahant is without suffering (apart from the modicum of stress of the body/mind I would add) so there's a reality without suffering that is so empty of suffering that is worth to be called "Nibbana right here in this very life", the reality of disjoinment/dispassion but with the six senses and the aggregates (without clinging and to be without clinging chandaraga/tanha are gone) working. Desire is the root of suffering, being the root, it can be uprooted, being uprooted, the suffering is not there anymore in the sabbe and it is certainly not there as a quality of the external objects like mountains or any form and you don't even need that perception when you are dispassionate. There's no single form with attachment that will not bring Dukkha, but forms that will not bring Dukkha? Yes, forms without attachment with no desire for them.

After all, this is simply Thanissaro approach (hoping not to misinterpret and disrespect):
So remember: We’re not here to arrive at the true nature of things in and of themselves, aside from seeing how their behavior makes them inadequate as sources for true happiness. The emphasis always points back to using the perceptions to counteract unskillful tendencies in the mind, because the issues of the mind are paramount.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Wri ... ptions.pdf
That is the difference between the phrase "the way the things are" and "the way the things as they have come to be" (what supports that coming into being?). Dukkha is not inherent in things since it is a feeling+perception+intention based on our strategy to find happiness and our wishes and willingness to delight in what is not perfectly made for us. There's a point of the practice in which everything, compared to Nibbana, needs to be perceived as pain, as unbearable, a tumor, a dart and that is the moment in which hopefully we see the full value of dispassion and Sankharas can cease because no intention can bring that result. Those perceptions are here to guide us to that dispassion, but when we come back the experience of the aggregates reality is not a tumor anymore, because if desire is the root, we have uprooted it and the reason of that Dukkha was the intention of delight and the ignorance of the happiness of dispassion.

It works even on small doses, if you uproot your desire or identification for something, pejorative change doesn't make any difference for you (hence the example of the branches and leaves that burns, it points to an experience of absence as Sucitto would say). But for a thing to be inherent/necessary this Dukkha have always to be there no matter how you perceive. Which is not the case since there are clearly examples of the same perception with or without Dukkha and we can move in the world fabricating/intending that Dukkha or not.
How so? The Buddha didn't "have" a body or mind considered to be "his". How is this experience of physical pain, strong hunger and headaches only "resolved" at death? What's not been "solved" yet? How is this suffering related to the Buddha?
The Buddha doesn't acquire a body and it doesn't consider the body/mind of the sabbe to be himself (apart from convention to indicate the location of that particular body or mind which is useful), there's no attachment to it and so there's total dispassion for the fate of that body, for aging, death, but the body in the experience of the Buddha it is still there right? It doesn't disappear. It needs to be carefully mantained so that he can perform at his best. So being still in experience and being the body prone to injury and illness there have to be the possibility to experience physical pain somewhere, this is reported in the canon I think, the Buddha said that he had backache. But the acquisition, the selfing, the attachment, the desire to delight in the body and the desire for the unavoidable pain to not be there is gone. This is the experience of being disjoined. This is the disparity between a worlding and a noble one. The only possible dart is the physical pain dart, all the rest is an inaccessible island. With the body cold and gone, physical pain or hunger as we know it is impossible.

Do you think that that there's no contact with pain for that peculiar body/mind that conventionally is called "Buddha" at all? Do you think that without desire even the dukkha-dukkha disappears here and know? I can't see how it will be possibile and how it would not contradict the backache of the Buddha.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:26 pm ...
Thanks for the time spent to reply.

The points I'm making are based on dukkha meaning two things: On one hand it means suffering and it's present only when there is passion, lust, desire, craving and attachment. The aggregates subject to clinging are owned and this brings suffering. I think we both agree on this. But on the other hand dukkha means unsatisfactory, unreliable, undependable, uncertain, not guaranteed. This is inherent to all conditioned things, this is part of their nature. This is so even when there's no clinging. Even an awakened one who is free from desire and can't cling to the aggregates which can not be subject to clinging anymore still sees correctly things as "unsatisfactory, unreliable, undependable, uncertain and not guaranteed". This is part of their nature and he knows it, he can perfectly see it, better than us who don't have this full insight. We agree that suffering (dukkha) is not in the nature of things but I think you should consider that unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) is indeed in their nature independently of any perception, cognition and conception. Things will never be able to give lasting satisfaction. This is the way things are as well as clinging and becoming leading to suffering is the way the world is. All this is correct and there's no mistake in this. The perception of this inherent quality of unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) allows dispassion. It's always there and we can get dispassionate towards things thanks to this inherent qualityof things of being unreliable and not satisfactory which leads to freedom from suffering.
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:26 pm ... but the body in the experience of the Buddha it is still there right?...
Right, as trees, and rivers and mountains and animals and cities and people are still there.
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:26 pm ... It doesn't disappear. It needs to be carefully mantained so that he can perform at his best. So being still in experience and being the body prone to injury and illness there have to be the possibility to experience physical pain somewhere...
The experience of physical pain, the need of the body to be maintained, are correct seen as not me, mine or myself by the Buddha/arahant. There's no possibility to experience physical pain as there is no experiencer there. The physical pain is there but not the experience of pain. Is a rock in the middle of a creek having the experience of cool water flowing around? Is the cool water flowing around the rock?
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:26 pm ... this is reported in the canon I think, the Buddha said that he had backache. But the acquisition, the selfing, the attachment, the desire to delight in the body and the desire for the unavoidable pain to not be there is gone. This is the experience of being disjoined. This is the disparity between a worlding and a noble one. The only possible dart is the physical pain dart, all the rest is an inaccessible island. With the body cold and gone, physical pain or hunger as we know it is impossible.
...
The backache is not "his" pain so there's no suffering on account of it. The physical pain dart is not "his" pain, it's only pain, only the way things are. The body alive and hot is not his body. The physical pain and hunger is not his pain and hunger.The physical pain and hunger in other bodies are not his either. The job is done for the arahant, nothing's left to be done. There's no waiting for death to arrive. Nothing pending. No modicum of suffering still there. The suttas are quite clear about nothing left to be done.
nirodh27 wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:26 pm ...
Do you think that that there's no contact with pain for that peculiar body/mind that conventionally is called "Buddha" at all? Do you think that without desire even the dukkha-dukkha disappears here and know? I can't see how it will be possibile and how it would not contradict the backache of the Buddha.
I believe so. This is my faith on the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. For the Buddha there's no more ignorant contact, there's no more attachment, there's no more experience considered to be his own, part of him or happening to him. I have faith that this can happen here and now. There's no contradiction because there's no more I and mine making born from contact.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:46 pm There's no possibility to experience physical pain as there is no experiencer there. The physical pain is there but not the experience of pain.
The Buddha experienced pain. He even said so himself.
Is a rock in the middle of a creek having the experience of cool water flowing around? Is the cool water flowing around the rock?
The Buddha was a mindless rock?
The backache is not "his" pain so there's no suffering on account of it. The physical pain dart is not "his" pain, it's only pain, only the way things are.
You just said a few moments ago that he didn’t experience pain.
Now you are saying that he did. You are contradicting yourself.
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:15 pm ...
The Buddha was a mindless rock?
...
No. A simile is when one thing is compared to another thing of a different kind to make a description more empathic and vivid.
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:15 pm ...
You just said a few moments ago that he didn’t experience pain.
Now you are saying that he did. You are contradicting yourself.
No, I haven't.
No, I'm not.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22400
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:53 pm
You said: “The physical pain is there but not the experience of pain.”

The Buddha doesn’t experience pain.

Then you said: “The backache is not "his" pain so there's no suffering on account of it. The physical pain dart is not "his" pain, it's only pain, only the way things are.”

First you said the Buddha didn’t experience pain. Then you said the Buddha experienced back pain. You just contradicted yourself. Seems you are tying yourself up in convoluted knots to avoid saying what the suttas clearly state. The Buddha experienced pain, and that pain is dukkha. No mental gymnastics required.
“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
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:59 pm ...
The gymnast who can't use english to refer to dukkha and resorts to the pali word is you not me.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Post Reply