How do you deal with the fact that...

[Mr. Seek]

Greetings,

... Buddhism promises the ending of dukkha (suffering or stress), yet its practitioners still encounter it?

Let's put the mind games about perception and identification aside just for a moment.

If you're going to negate and disregard the activity of the mind and the sankharas which arise forthwith, your question is unanswerable in any meaningful way.

Metta,
Paul.

I don't know. I'm just trying to get this figured out. Had some very awful real life experiences these last two months that I didn't want to happen and it all got me thinking.

[Ceisiwr]

I don't know. I'm just trying to get this figured out. Had some very awful real life experiences these last two months that I didn't want to happen and it all got me thinking.

Sorry to hear that.

[cappuccino]

I don't know. I'm just trying to get this figured out.

In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

― Socrates

[mjaviem]

... Buddhism promises the ending of dukkha (suffering or stress), yet its practitioners still encounter it?

Let's put the mind games about perception and identification aside just for a moment.

It's not a promise, it's a teaching. We are learning that all this suffering is due to the attachment to things as I or mine and that this can end.

They encounter it because they are alive.

No, it's because there is ignorance. There's no suffering in life when there's no ignorance.

But the teachings seem to be about here-and-now.

IMHO, it sucks.

Yes, here and now: because of this craving this suffering, when there's no craving there's no suffering. When not craving, are we free to ever crave?

[JohnSo]

We encounter it. But we don't pick it up. The seed is there, in your mind. The choices do we mindful enough to pick it up or just to know and observe it.

[pegembara]

...

I would say "they attain Parinibbana which is not death but many people assume it's death"

If an Arahant wants to attain Parinibbana, he would. So what's the issue?

Bro. The very fact that someone has to take a knife and kill themselves to escape dukkha is in itself proof of the fact that they still haven't escaped dukkha.

There is enough physical pain in life already. There is no need to add mental pain on top of it.
So, there is no escape from physical pain. For that, you need another approach like pain killers and medical treatment even as an arahant.

However there are many who are in good physical condition but still suffer psychologically with the mental arrow stuck in.

"When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, were to shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pains of two arrows; in the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, & laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught. So he feels two pains, physical & mental.

[Mr. Seek]

There is enough physical pain in life already. There is no need to add mental pain on top of it.
So, there is no escape from physical pain. For that, you need another approach like pain killers and medical treatment even as an arahant.

However there are many who are in good physical condition but still suffer psychologically with the mental arrow stuck in.

OK, obviously, but still: fact is, we've got texts that advertise the [full and immediate] cessation of dukkha. So the question is, has that ever been achieved, even to a sufficient degree? Was the Buddha OK with being poisoned? Were his chief disciples OK with being murdered? Are we as serious practicioners OK with living in hardship, experiencing sore backs, having to eat, drink, work, sleep, wear warm clothes, etc.? Doesn't seem like we're free from any of that.

How do I go about convincing myself or others that this practice leads to the cessation of dukkha, when clearly the reality of it is different?

Sure, I can play with perception so that it works in my favour. I can stop identifying with my body or experiences so that I don't feel [most of] the dukkha of them. I can drop concepts such as dukkha and sukha, and rest in equanimity. And I can give up most or all of my expectations, any physical and mental baggage, so that I've got less to worry about, basically becoming a monk, more accurately a tree or a rock. But, does any of that change the facts, does that cease dukkha? I don't know man. Does it make me immortal? Does it make others immortal? Does it make basic needs such as eating and drinking disappear? Doesn't seem like it. Even arahants in the Buddha's time had to wear clothes, beg for food, suffer through hardship, cursing, injury, sickness, death, etc. So on the one hand we have the statement "this is the path that leads to the cessation of dukkha", but on the other hand we have proof of that not really being the case, not fully at least.

And even if it were correct, if the path resulted in ME completely eradicating dukkha: does that make ALL dukkha cease once and for all? Meaning, everyone becomes an immortal omnipotent omniscient arahant immediately? Or the universe just stops? Doesn't seem like it. The round of samsara keeps on spinning, what with all the hells and slaughterhouses, everyone else continues to suffer. And I get to observe it. If there is any ground or reason for me to feel compassion, then dukkha has not ceased, plain and simple.

No?

I feel bad talking about this because it's downright heretical and sacrilegious, but nonetheless I think it's important.

Currently I have no idea how this paradox might be resolved. I'm being led to conclude that either (1) all this stuff about cessation of dukkha in the scriptures is mistaken or a forgery, or (2) I have to keep on seeking for the right path and practice that leads to the cessation of dukkha.

Why advertise that this brings the [full and immediate] cessation of dukkha? Why not just limit the advertising to, for example, ending unnecessary craving and perplexity?

[Sam Vara]

Currently I have no idea how this paradox might be resolved. I'm being led to conclude that either (1) all this stuff about cessation of dukkha in the scriptures is mistaken or a forgery, or (2) I have to keep on seeking for the right path and practice that leads to the cessation of dukkha.

Why advertise that this brings the [full and immediate] cessation of dukkha? Why not just limit the advertising to, for example, ending unnecessary craving and perplexity?

Can you say which particular texts you are referring to here? Where is there an account of the full and immediate cessation of dukkha?

[mjaviem]

...

The world is as it is. The Buddha and chief disciples were content with things the way the are. No hardships, poison of murder could shake the piece of mind because they stopped expecting things to be in one way or another. There's only suffering when craving for this back pain to end or this food to be tastier or basic needs to disappear or life to last longer. But we can trust there are those who awaken to the truth that there is no experiencer in reality but only this attachment to things. They see correctly that things can't be satisfactory so there's no more suffering. Becoming a rock or a tree is for those who want to become something. Immortality and omnipotency is for those who want to be something. The suffering arahants experience is only in your eyes and the cessation of craving is not the cessation of all craving in the world.

[Alino]

Desire is a cause of dukkha that should be abandoned.

They continue to experience dukkha because they are not desenchanted with impermanent, conditioned things, and therefore feel desire for them...

[Sam Vara]

Desire is a cause of dukkha that should be abandoned.

They continue to experience dukkha because they are not desenchanted with impermanent, conditioned things, and therefore feel desire for them...

[Pulsar]

Dearest Mr Seek: your take on dukkha is tantalizing.  Even though i didn't mean to join the thread, you forced me to, by writing the following

OK, obviously, but still: fact is, we've got texts that advertise the [full and immediate] cessation of dukkha.

Which text advertises this? These are things written into the texts by monks that misunderstood DO.
Let us be fair to the canon. Have you not read in several suttas that the path is gradual?  So your first claim is debunked. You lean on part of the canon to support your thesis, just like some Buddhist schools did. Sarvastivadins said there is no self. Did Buddha really say this? 

• Did Buddha say cessation of dukkha is immediate even though such a statement is found in the canon?

As sectarianism evolved some of the sectarian ideas entered the canon.

Just as some suttas claim that meditation involves keeping an object in mind, Sandha sutta proves otherwise.

A wise person who understands DO, would subscribe to the latter.
As you begin to understand the path in a more elegant manner, you begin to see what Buddha is trying to do. He is advising us to block entries to dukkha.  It is via the arising of aggregates that dukkha enters. Now that is quite a challenge if you understood SN 46.42 clearly, and tried to put into practice.
Buddha never said it is easy. In fact even at the beginning of the dispensation, he was aware how difficult the path will be for the ordinary person.
My understanding is: one has got to become extraordinary before setting foot on the path. Elsewhere from your comments I gather that you understand that this may mean blocking the rising of rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara. Not everyone on this thread may understand so. But you subscribe to Sn 4.11, this reassures me that you and I are on the same page.

• Did Buddha show us the way to wipe all dukkha? meaning?? back pain?????

• Or did he show us the way to go beyond dukkha?

As long as an Arahant moves about in a body, that body is subject to disasters. Buddha did not deny this.
But an Arahant has gone beyond the sensory world. How do you understand this? Can you really say that the "body" experiencing back pain, is the Arahant's body? Arahant has renounced everything, soteriologically.
The body in this instance is a biochemical contraption, subject to its own vagaries. Most of the misunderstanding regarding the Arahant arises due to the fact that many cannot understand what it is like to live in a non-sensory world.
Ignorance tells us that Arahant is still trapped in the sensory world, but s/he is not. 
You say

Moggallana was murdered.

If you understood nibbana according to Sn 4.11 (which you have claimed on DW) can one who is nibbanized be murdered?  I mean "Can one who is in the deathless meet with death?"
With love 
PS Don't listen to stories of Jesus. There were Jesus-like wanderers in Buddha's time too, who claimed that God/gods can save our souls. While writing this comment I noticed that mjaviem gave you quite a sensible reply.
Good work!

[Pulsar]

Dear OP, you also wrote

The Buddha got poisoned and died in pain; his back hurt; him and his disciples were often the targets of attempted murder;

You make it sound like Buddha was poisoned, it was food poisoning, which the well intentioned donor was unaware of, poison mushroom or bad pork?
Buddha was totally aware of the issue, and warned other monks not to partake of that part of the meal, right???
Why did he himself ingest it? I don't know, maybe he thought his work was done.

Did he die in pain?

He did not. It is reported that he was in Samadhi, during his last breath, besides can the deathless die?
Now that is a paradox.
One must be careful with language, when referring to a SammaSambuddha.
You write

his disciples were often the targets of attempted murder;

You make monasteries seem like slaughter houses of monks, living in fear.
On the contrary

I read that once a king visited a monastery, and witnessed the most pleasing demeanors of the monks he encountered.

Canon can be presented in a variety of ways. What does one believe, which part of the truth? if it is all true?
you wrote

Currently I have no idea how this paradox might be resolved.

Is there a paradox? Can you explain the paradox in greater detail?
With love

[Ceisiwr]

[No, it's because there is ignorance. There's no suffering in life when there's no ignorance.

The Buddha continued to experience dukkha because he was formerly ignorant.

[Mr. Seek]

A lot of questions were raised regarding some of my statements. I can't answer all or with great detail, as I'll be only on my phone for some time. I can say for sure though that the more I ponder on this issue, the more it's becoming clear and obvious. Some of the examples and arguements that I gave in my previous posts were pretty spot on, and I'm having a hard time refuting them myself.

Regarding my claim of how the cessation of dukkha is advertised as immediate and full: I mean, isn't it obvious, what with all the "fully unbound in the here-and-now", "visible in the here-and-now, inviting confirmation", etc., statements scattered throughout the canon? If that weren't the case, Buddhism would never be what it is now. I feel weird having to provide proof for this. It's like someone asking proof on whether the Christian scriptures contain any mention of Christ. Really? Like... Come on.

Do sentences that include words such as dukkhanirodha explicitly mention that it can be experienced, for example, only partially, only mentally, only after death, only after seven deaths, etc.? No. They just say that if you learn and apply the Dhamma, that will be the end of dukkha. The 4NT describe the ending of dukkha; case and point. Might there be exceptions? Sure, but still.

Do we have stories of people who have applied the Dhamma to the fullest extent possible? Yes, plenty. The Buddha, his direct disciples, practicioners in the 20th and 21st centuries, etc. Do those stories include the mention of dukkha? Yes, all of those people encountered it, even after supposedly attaining unbinding. Their experience included dukkha, all the time, from subtle to obvious. So, what more proof is needed? Are there enlightened masters living among us right now? Probably. Are they living in a world full of dukkha? Yes.

Successful Buddhist practicioners at their moment of realization don't typically disintegrate into fairy dust and disappear from reality, taking all the dukkha with them.

I'm not against Buddhism by saying all of this, I'm just against false advertising. I probably wouldn't mind if the practice, goal, fruit, etc., is advertised simply as the end of unnecessary craving [for sensuality], the end of spiritual perplexity, etc. This is in stark contrast to "the end of dukkha", as if dukkha will just magically disappear when one attains unbinding. If you have any reason to feel compassion after your enlightenment, any reason to teach anyone or learn anything, if you have to still drink, eat, sleep, age, get sick, die, meet with misfortune, not meet with fortune, work or beg for requisites, clothe yourself, seek shelter, etc., then clearly there is still dukkha. It hasn't ended. You might perceive it otherwise, you might have incredibly reduced it, you might not identify yourself as the one who goes through it, but it's still there. If not with you, then with others--and you get to be part of that, or at the very least get to observe it. You might choose to ignore it and dwell in equanimity as much as possible, but it's still there.