Are the aggregates dukkha?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:50 pm
asahi wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:41 pm To be specific or the wider view would be , without self view , arahants still have bodily dukkha ie pain which is an old kamma even though the mental suffering already ended .
That's one of two positions in this great debate:
1.- Arahants do have bodily pain due to old kamma. Without self view, they ended mental suffering.
2.- Bodily pain does not belong to arahants. Without self view, they ended all suffering.
Those aren’t mutually exclusive positions.
“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.”
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by asahi »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:50 pm
asahi wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:41 pm To be specific or the wider view would be , without self view , arahants still have bodily dukkha ie pain which is an old kamma even though the mental suffering already ended .
That's one of two positions in this great debate:
1.- Arahants do have bodily pain due to old kamma. Without self view, they ended mental suffering.
2.- Bodily pain does not belong to arahants. Without self view, they ended all suffering.
Number 2 argument is not compelling since the body related to earlier continuation when the person attached with self view where the old kamma took place .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

asahi wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:26 pm ...
Number 2 argument is not compelling since the body related to earlier continuation when the person attached with self view where the old kamma took place .
Number 1 argument compels to physical "re"-birth believers (but not all of them).
Ceisiwr wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:15 pm Those aren’t mutually exclusive positions.
Oh, you mean your delay for liberation, right. You would be the only one I know of that would choose #1, wait and then choose #2 too. :P
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 »

mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:46 pm
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.
:goodpost:
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by asahi »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:43 pm
asahi wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:26 pm ...
Number 2 argument is not compelling since the body related to earlier continuation when the person attached with self view where the old kamma took place .
Number 1 argument compels to physical "re"-birth believers (but not all of them).
You have to explain how old kamma or ancient kamma originated from .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:43 pm
Oh, you mean your delay for liberation, right. You would be the only one I know of that would choose #1, wait and then choose #2 too. :P
I haven’t taken Bodhisatta vows, and I agree with both options. The Buddha was liberated from dukkha, and he still experienced the dukkha of pain. Liberation from all future dukkha at death, since it could no longer occur, and liberation from emotional dukkha whilst alive as per the 2nd dart. What you propose was popular with Mahāsāṃghikas who deified the Buddha, and is popular today amongst rebirth denialists, but it’s not something the Buddha taught. He never said he never again felt pain, and he said he had to experience the result of past kamma. He said himself that he felt, and that all feeling is dukkha.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:43 pm [Number 1 argument compels to physical "re"-birth believers (but not all of them).
What kind of birth comes again to those who are ignorant? When the Buddha said that those who do bad kamma are born ugly or into unfortunate circumstances, what did he mean if it’s not literal (as in what everyone understands by) birth? What is this non-physical birth that you have in mind?
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“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
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by nirodh27 »

DISCLAIMER: For those who wants their five-ten minutes back, this is the post that, not read, can give those minutes back so don't miss this opportunity or you might regret it later.

Hi Mjaviem,

I have truly streched my english abilities here, sorry for the mistakes. Hoping you find something of value. You've made me question my view a lot.
mjaviem wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:46 pm...I think we both agree on this.
Agreed.
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.
The sabbe of the Buddha is defined as the six senses as in the Sabbe sutta. This is the limit of the world. Outside is a place where the Buddha tells you not to go (or at least not to try to describe). Given this framework and given that the Buddha never once used the word "characteristics [of existent things, of reality]" (tilakkhana) for anicca, dukkha, anatta, but he impelled us to develop perceptions of anicca, dukkha, anatta my point is clear: when the Buddha is speaking about Dukkha, the limit of his description is inside the six senses and the aggregates, so being the aggregates apperances (forms), sensations, perceptions, intentions, consciousness, he is not speaking about "inherent natures of things" (which btw for us are always visual/sound forms and perceptions, labels) and it is not Buddha intent to describe the nature of the world, but to indicate you how to get what you want: perfect happiness in whatever way is found.

To speak about inherent natures it means that you are speaking not about phenomena (how the world appears to you), but of noumena (how the world is). The Buddha in the canon speaks about phenomena, avoiding any (impossible) discussion about how the noumena is and avoiding all kinds of problems and foolish statements like some made by his contemporaries. So this is the milieu in which the Buddha operates and is a milieu in which no disagreement can be born. Just like we said, how could we not agree about that Dukkha?
This is so even when there's no clinging.
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.
But the thing that I want to point out is that there is no unsatisfactoriness at all indipendently form perception and cognition and a wish for the world to be otherwise. You can try it yourself. Dukkha is a problem that beings want to solve, not a quality in things. In fact the etimology for Analayo is something that doesn't fit well into something, a friction. For that, you need to have two entities, not one.

If you say it is inherent in itself, you go out of your domain. What you can rightly say staying in the domain is that you see everything as unable to satisfy you with the ambition that you have to find constant happiness, that is at the same time: a value judgement, a wish, a perception and a view. All those things can be there or not.

The external objects are just "such" (that is the way Sumedho normally uses the expression "the way things are" for example, to indicate their lack of Dukkha if you don't have passion), it is for us that they are a problem because they are not totally dominated by our intentions which again is a wish (a desire!) that we (righly) have.

There's no need to put in an inherent nature in things (which is a quality that it there indipendently of how you observe the world), a perception based on a judgement is more humble, it works in the same vein (no, it works better because it is actually the judgements - nibbida is that judgement - that does the trick), it avoids to use metaphysics, it avoids the problem that if every conditioned thing is inherently unsatisfying, our consciousness will never be able to experience satisfaction (because Inherent = necessary = always there, but in the suttas, maybe is debatable, but seems that there's a vinnana that is without Dukkha) while the Buddha did experience completed satisfaction since he said there was nothing more to do.

Take a young and loyal wife that you marry when you are old.

Is the wife an inherent unsatisfactory thing? To me, no. The Dukkha is not in the thing, but it is found in how aggregates function with clinging inside. There's the fact that you cannot stick to a perception of how beautiful your wife is until your death so it cannot be constant, that many intentions and work will be needed to mantain a wife, the fact that if you love her you will sometimes think that it will be dead or in danger when you will be not there, those are all forms of pure Dukkha, inherent unsatisfactoriness by itself is not needed here and it is not even useful to get dispassion, while seeing all the pure Dukkha of all this mess vs the better alternatives of seclusion is certainly able to do the work. What is imperfect, unsatisfactory here is not the wife per se, but how the aggregates automatically work when there's clinging and desire to delight.

The branches and leaves burned, but that it is not a problem and it is not inherently unsatisfactory even if you see that because you simply don't care. The only way it that experience can be called unsatisfactory (as a perception, not as an inherent quality) is only because you could have a view and a thought that there's a better alternative out there to see or to pursue, being it Nibbana or a beautiful girl. The same thing is for such a wife to be called unsatisfactory, is that you are longing for something better. The activities of the Buddha to find Nibbana by his own words were motivated by his costant unsatisfaction with his mind states, for a longing for something better (that he found).

The Buddha was metaphysically humble in MN and SN for the intent of crafting a teaching that was indisputable (since no-one can do pindaric flights about the six senses, it is an experience we all have). What the later tradition did is for everyone to judge by himself, but is a fact that by discussing natures and characteristics (while he never used that mode of speaking) of things, inherent qualities and realities we had schisms and the Dhamma, that was one and indisputable became manyfold and object of endless philosophy. But dispassion when you stay in the sabbe is not complicated, it is to be done and we will do it only if we think is valuable.

Given the framework of the Sabbe/world that are the six senses, in the six senses if you don't cling to forms, perceptions, feelings, intentions and consciousness, also the perceptions and judgements about the world being a tumor, a dart, an affliction are no more necessary. They are the raft that you abandon too. When you have Nibbana, you will never come back to the world no matter what and that perception is not useful. This is already true for non-returners I think.
Things will never be able to give lasting satisfaction.
This is an inference that the Buddha do all the time, but not as a deduction and it cannot be a deduction for you since you don't know future (maybe the Buddha knows, but not me or you). Metaphysically you can't demonstrate that there isn't a god that it is permanent and everlasting. Not even the Buddha negates this, he simply say that he cannot see that and so it is a foolish teaching because you can't even explain your method of gaining that knowlodge which is the usual problem of theology. Inference cannot be used to demonstrate or negate metaphysical truths, but it can and should be used to make optimal value judgements. This woman betrayed me twice, I infer that she is prone to do it so it is better to stop this relationship for my future welfare. This is the same reasoning of the Buddha. The five Khandas betrayed me in all the occasions I gave them, they will do it again, let's search a way out.
The perception of this inherent quality of unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) allows dispassion.
Yes, since you have used perception I could agree, even if unsatisfactoriness is a little part of Buddha's teaching, being grief, pain of union or separation, distress, stress the real problems. Of course, a better alternative must be here as well, else it would be pointless to develop that perception since, if no liberation exists, the only sane thing to do is to follow the most nicca perceptions and feelings that you get get in the world and not develop unsatisfactoriness, but develop things like perception of appreciation of what good there is in an uncertain world (which is btw what in Italy people thinks that the Buddha actually teaches) and work with probabilties. You develop perception of unsatisfaction and uncertainty and you get nothing in return, apart maybe being more ready when someone dies at the expense of not savouring them fully while they are there. Probably is best to follow christianity hoping that there's a world beyond in which you develop a perception and a view in which you will see your daughter and wife again after death, even if it is foolish. That is why those religions are very popular btw.
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".
If he intends to, yes. In fact you correctly say still "sees" so you're speaking about a perception and perceptions can be there or not and arises because of views that can be there or not as well, that can be skillful in a moment and unskillful in another moment. Generosity is not skillful while you're trying to enter second jhana because you're working on renunciation and to stop vitakka. Any perception and any view is dependently arisen. The perception of unsatisfactoryness, in the same vein of the other Dukkha about which we agree, is arisen thanks to two things, not one: the fact of change and the desire to control that change for our scopes and wishes. Without the second support, our scopes and wishes, that thought and that mental unpleasant sensation cannot arise. Which is btw what happens normally, if everything has inherent nature of unsatisfaction, you will perceive that everywhere no matter your view. Instead you have to willingly see that as unsatisfactory and develop that view. Change is the only perception that stands on his own (being the starting point of the Dhamma it makes sense to start with samething uncontestable), but unsatisfactoriness needs a being that wants some changes for being there and to value that as unsatisfactory. Without that being, the sabbe is "just like that" without inherent Dukkha.
It's always there and we can get dispassionate towards things thanks to this inherent quality of things of being unreliable and not satisfactory which leads to freedom from suffering.
A perception is dependently arisen, so it is not always there. Even if you have no view about the metaphysical, the value judgement inside the Sabbe about them being not worthy and with Nibbana present as a better alternative should suffice to dispassion. The usual logic used by the Buddha is "not worthy", "not fit", "does not regard [for your welfare]". All value judgements. When he goes with very succint explanations (like sabbe sankhara anicca), there's no reason to think that he changed his usual way of reasoning when expressed at lenght (that is to see drawbacks and how it works for your happiness) to bluntly say methaphysical truths out of nowhere without arguments to explain why now teaches something that is (at the minimum) outside of the domain of the listeners. Sabbe Sankhara Anicca is simply a restatement of the usual formula: aggregates are anicca (so) better for you to perceive them as Dukkha (worldings don't) (so) better for you to consider them Anatta (so) you will get revulsion and dispassion (so) you will be free from Dukkha.

I've learned the hard way (I had the same opinion about reality that you have now just 2 years ago or less) that understanding Methaphysics of things never helps dispassion and all was left was to develop absorption (and all the times I've asked how understanding metaphysics helps dispassion, I've never got a satisfying answer), because what I've missed is that what was needed was a value judgement, meditating on the drawbacks and the pleasures of renunciation for dispassion to happen in small things and that is indipendent of any metaphysics and the inherent nature of things.

You prove it, you are perfecly convinced of this inherent nature and still you're not a Buddha: why? I think It's not because you have to understand unsatisfactoriness even more deeply, your perception of it is solid like a rock, but because you have still a need for sensual pleasures to escape Dukkha and you still value those pleasures as worthy of attachment because the alternatives (jhanas and Nibbana) are not there yet (I think at least, maybe you live your life in third jhana and you are working for the fourth!) for various reasons.

THE PAIN OF THE BUDDHA
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?
I take the parable of the two darts as the most important sutta on this issue of physical pain. The noble one (which is an Arahant I think) have only one dart, the sensory experience of the physical pain, while worldlings have two darts because they add sorrow, grief, despair, self-worry, etc.

The Buddha specify in DN16 (I know, DN is later) that, for avoding that back-pain, he goes into arupas or Nirodha samappati (don't remember) which is a thing that would not be needed if he could not experience pain. Here yes, there you have no sensations, unfortunately not even the Buddha can stay there all the time (he needs to eat, he wants to teach for compassion) and btw it would be detached even from staying in those states. But normally the six senses works, if they work, there's contact too, but this contact, described as disjoined, is transformed by dispassion, is without ignorance, but it is not erased from existence. After all, is not a contact born from a self, it is a contact between the nerves and the mind that is connected to that nerves. It is a Dukkha that is not even born from an intention or a desire, but from a particular mix of the four elements if we follow the Nikayas. No self needs to be born for that to happen. In SN 1.38 it is said that the Buddha "endures" the pain which again in your view it should not be needed.
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.
Yes, nothing left to be done and no waiting for death since it will be craving for non-existence and the experience of being a Buddha is an happy one, the best there is, to that I agree.
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.
I think it is not supported in the suttas, but it is certainly a strong motivational view. I hope it doesn't mess with the right comprehension of how to use the anatta perception which is a thing that we are all working for. I hope the same for my own view btw :lol:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mikenz66 »

I'm not sure if Sister Vajirā was fully awakened, but think there are other suttas where the Buddha says much the same thing.
...
When the parts are assembled
Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,
we use the word ‘chariot’.
hoti saddo ratho iti;
So too, when the aggregates are present
Evaṁ khandhesu santesu,
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
hoti sattoti sammuti.

But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
Dukkhameva hi sambhoti,
lasts a while, then disappears.
dukkhaṁ tiṭṭhati veti ca;
Naught but suffering comes to be,
Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti,
naught but suffering ceases.”
nāññaṁ dukkhā nirujjhatī”ti.
https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/suja ... ript=latin
:heart:
Mike
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by samseva »

nirodh27 wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:59 pm [...]
The subjectivist view that you present is nothing new (iterations of this view have been posited for thousands of years). However, whether it is true or not isn't important in this case. In the context of Buddhist teachings, it doesn't hold up as soon as you add other teachings, such as the Four Noble Truths, or saṃsāra, for example—of which the entirety of the Buddha's teachings are based on. Although you can apply this view to your own understanding of the teachings (although without contradictions), the Buddha, however, taught that objective and material phenomena had intrinsic qualities.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by samseva »

mjaviem wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:50 pm That's one of two positions in this great debate:
1.- Arahants do have bodily pain due to old kamma. Without self view, they ended mental suffering.
2.- Bodily pain does not belong to arahants. Without self view, they ended all suffering.
I don't think that anyone is defending the position that bodily pain "belongs" to an arahant. The arahant, having completely uprooted the fetter of conceit, however, would not think so. And whether it does or doesn't "belong" to the arahant, the bodily pain still actually exists.

"Great debate" ended:
samseva wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:38 pm There is still bodily pain after reaching Nibbāna. What is meant as dukkha by the Buddha in the Four Noble Truths is dukkha as mental pain.

Such as when the Buddha had back aches in his later years:
Ānanda, let there occur to you a learner’s course for the Sakyans of Kapilavatthu; my back is aching, I will stretch it.” “Yes, revered sir,” the venerable Ānanda answered the Lord in assent. Then the Lord, having folded his outer robe into four, lay down on his right side in the lion posture, foot resting on foot, mindful, clearly conscious, reflecting on the thought of getting up again.
—MN 53
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2302
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by mjaviem »

samseva wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:14 am ...
There's still bodily painful feeling, true. As if someone else's back would hurt. If you meet someone with these painful feelings you wouldn't be in pain as you don't consider those as yours. Same for the case of bodily painful feelings when are not consider as yours, the pain is not there, no more ignorant contact. You would stretch due to those feelings but there's no pain, only feelings that you and I would consider painful but not the arahant and a need to stretch that only you and I would consider a burden but not the arahant.

Great debate open again.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22404
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by Ceisiwr »

mjaviem wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:26 am
samseva wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:14 am ...
There's still bodily painful feeling, true. As if someone else's back would hurt. If you meet someone with these painful feelings you wouldn't be in pain as you don't consider those as yours. Same for the case of bodily painful feelings when are not consider as yours, the pain is not there, no more ignorant contact. You would stretch due to those feelings but there's no pain, only feelings that you and I would consider painful but not the arahant and a need to stretch that only you and I would consider a burden but not the arahant.

Great debate open again.
So now the Buddha experienced pain again
“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.”
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by PeterC86 »

bpallister wrote: Sat Oct 02, 2021 10:42 pm What are your thoughts on this? I might ask Bhante G this in the morning.
"Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?"

"What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching."

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"...Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Are the aggregates dukkha?

Post by samseva »

Of course there's still pain. Why else would the Buddha feel his back ache?
mjaviem wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:26 am There's still bodily painful feeling, true.
[...]
but there's no pain
What do you think bodily pain is?
Post Reply