Do you believe Arahants have dukkha as defined in the first noble truth?

[asahi]

Do you believe Arahants have dukkha that is defined in the first noble truth, i.e. suffering?

Would your above question be sort of contradicting itself ?
First define what is arahant ?
Is it belongs to any one or whole of the five aggregates ?
If not any of the five aggregates then what ? Then what is dukkha ?
Is it the mental stress and physical pains which including birth , aging , sickness and death phenomena as a whole ?
If not , then what is dukkha ?

[Ceisiwr]

dukkha (pain)

stress is a better word for dukkha

Yes, and this is a basic concept people usually read in an introduction to Buddhism book or article or talk, that the Buddha taught the ending of suffering, i.e. mental anguish. It's the most basic thing people learn, that's why I relate ceisiwr to flat-earthers, who also deny the most basic fundamental thing, and then they double down on it really hard, which is what he's known for doing.

Or, rather than me being a flat-earther the authors you have read have presented a very non-Theravādin idea which you took to be Theravāda. As I said, everything I’ve said here is standard orthodox Theravāda. Many popular modern authors on Buddhism however are anything but. This isn’t a quirk of mine. It’s not a new idea, or a fringe idea. It’s a old as the hills. Yours is too in a way (the Mahāsāṃghika connection), but obviously I think mine and Theravāda is correct here (Sarvāstivāda too). It should be noted though that neither Theravāda and I ignore that mental dukkha is overcome. It is, along with the dukkha of dukkha (pain).

[Mr. Seek]

IMO unhappiness is also a good translation of dukkha.

Unsatisfactoriness too

[un8-]

stress is a better word for dukkha

Yes, and this is a basic concept people usually read in an introduction to Buddhism book or article or talk, that the Buddha taught the ending of suffering, i.e. mental anguish. It's the most basic thing people learn, that's why I relate ceisiwr to flat-earthers, who also deny the most basic fundamental thing, and then they double down on it really hard, which is what he's known for doing.

Or, rather than me being a flat-earther the authors you have read have presented a very non-Theravādin idea which you took to be Theravāda. As I said, everything I’ve said here is standard orthodox Theravāda. Many popular modern authors on Buddhism however are anything but. This isn’t a quirk of mine. It’s not a new idea, or a fringe idea. It’s a old as the hills. Yours is too in a way (the Mahāsāṃghika connection), but obviously I think mine and Theravāda is correct here (Sarvāstivāda too). It should be noted though that neither Theravāda and I ignore that mental dukkha is overcome. It is, along with the dukkha of dukkha (pain).

I think your tendency to slot people into categories is a weird intellectual fetish. I never once said I was Mahasamghika, I don't even know what that exactly means, so stop slapping identities onto people, it's quite disrespectful. You should treat people as individuals rather than sorting them into arbitrary groups to attack, which I've seen you do to others as well. Anyway, this thread isn't about me, nor you, so please stop bringing up people and your perceived groupings of them all together, and stick to the texts, ideas and facts. This is a place of dhamma study, not a place to form parasocial relationships, if you're lonely you can DM members or something like I suggested earlier, or get some real life friends if you're craving attention.

[mjaviem]

... The Arahant only has to face the suffering of the remaining life-span in the current existence: suffering such as hunger and thirst, physical pain, disease, and so on. He or she sufferings physically, but not mentally because of liberation from all craving and aversion.
...

Bhante, I address you in this thread to not be off-topic where you originally posted this. This is a general question I bring but you don't have to answer.

What kind of relationship is "to face suffering of life (such as hunger, etc.)"? What does it mean "to suffer physically". How can there be suffering from hunger, thirst, (physical) pain, (physical) disease and so on? You may agree perhaps that the relationship we worldlings have with everything is very different from the one arahants have. I think they don't have any, they are totally quenched to the point that they stopped seeing "I face suffer", "I suffer physically", "I experience the agreeable and disagreeable and I feel pleasure and pain". How can there be an experience of dukkha, even the dukkha of the very existence, for someone for whom birth is ended, for whom there I no more existence. What kind of relationship there is with back pain and annoying sounds for someone liberated from all cravings and aversion who has extinguished the I and mine making?

Thank you Bhante, you don't have to answer and anyone can answer.

[un8-]

... The Arahant only has to face the suffering of the remaining life-span in the current existence: suffering such as hunger and thirst, physical pain, disease, and so on. He or she sufferings physically, but not mentally because of liberation from all craving and aversion.
...

Bhante, I address you in this thread to not be off-topic where you originally posted this. This is a general question I bring but you don't have to answer.

What kind of relationship is "to face suffering of life (such as hunger, etc.)"? What does it mean "to suffer physically". How can there be suffering from hunger, thirst, (physical) pain, (physical) disease and so on? You may agree perhaps that the relationship we worldlings have with everything is very different from the one arahants have. I think they don't have any, they are totally quenched to the point that they stopped seeing "I face suffer", "I suffer physically", "I experience the agreeable and disagreeable and I feel pleasure and pain". How can there be an experience of dukkha, even the dukkha of the very existence, for someone for whom birth is ended, for whom there I no more existence. What kind of relationship there is with back pain and annoying sounds for someone liberated from all cravings and aversion who has extinguished the I and mine making?

Thank you Bhante, you don't have to answer and anyone can answer.

Very good questions. I'm listening to a talk related to feelings and sunnata by Ven Buddhadasa that seems to touch on this, I can DM the link if you're interested.

In my opinion, the physical feelings the Buddha faces, only affect his body, they make his body tired, but they do not touch his mind. Annoying sounds are not conducive to practice, which is required for attaining pleasant abiding. The Buddha does not need pleasant abiding, but like food, a certain amount silences/calms the body. Perhaps this is why the four jhanas are sufficient, and the formless ones aren't required.

[mjaviem]

... Ven Buddhadasa...

[asahi]

How can an arahant be pin point as a group of five aggregates ? If arahant is the heaps of aggregates , then there is an identification of it , right ? If arahant is not identify as the five aggregates , what then is arahant ?

[mjaviem]

How can an arahant be pin point as a group of five aggregates ? If arahant is the heaps of aggregates , then there is an identification of it , right ? If arahant is not identify as the five aggregates , what then is arahant ?

There is no arahant there. I agree. Like ajahn Cha said. "No ajahn Chah".

[Ceisiwr]

I think your tendency to slot people into categories is a weird intellectual fetish. I never once said I was Mahasamghika, I don't even know what that exactly means, so stop slapping identities onto people, it's quite disrespectful.

It’s not disrespectful to say someone’s ideas are similar to what is or was found in x school of Buddhism. It can only be offensive if the person doesn’t like the tradition with which they share y in common. Since you don’t really know what Mahāsāṃghika means (thus showing some further lack of Buddhist knowledge on your part) I find it strange that you are so disgruntled. If it helps I currently share some views in common with the Mahāsāṃghika, although not on this.

You should treat people as individuals rather than sorting them into arbitrary groups to attack, which I've seen you do to others as well.

I’m attacking your idea itself. I’m not attacking it because of the Mahāsāṃghika connection. That is to say, I’m not saying it’s wrong because it’s similar to what they taught. I’m arguing that it’s wrong based on the textual evidence. I’ve also discussed how your views can lead to the cosmic Buddha theory that they upheld. It’s a necessary but not sufficient cause for it.

Anyway, this thread isn't about me, nor you, so please stop bringing up people and your perceived groupings of them all together, and stick to the texts, ideas and facts.

That is what I’ve been doing. You thought I was being a conspiracy theorist or held fringe beliefs, due to your lack of knowledge regarding Buddhism. I have pointed out the similarity of your argument with what was taught by an ancient Buddhist school. Why is it one rule for you and another for me here? Personally I don’t see how any of this is us discussing each other personally, so since you made the claim I’ll leave it to you to explain? I might add that you seem to react negatively to ideas that you don’t like. There really isn’t any need to make the forum so unpleasant.

This is a place of dhamma study, not a place to form parasocial relationships, if you're lonely you can DM members or something like I suggested earlier, or get some real life friends if you're craving attention.

There isn’t any reason why friendships can’t be struck up. I’ve made some friends on here. Others have even met up IRL. It need not be so dry as you paint it here. I’m also not craving attention or lonely. I’m discussing an important aspect of the Dhamma. What better thing is there to do, bar meditation or reading scripture (or just the texts if you prefer)?

Now that’s all cleared up, perhaps you would like to offer some textual support to your claim that the Buddha was totally free of dukkha upon awakening?

[Ceisiwr]

In my opinion, the physical feelings the Buddha faces, only affect his body, they make his body tired, but they do not touch his mind. Annoying sounds are not conducive to practice, which is required for attaining pleasant abiding. The Buddha does not need pleasant abiding, but like food, a certain amount silences/calms the body. Perhaps this is why the four jhanas are sufficient, and the formless ones aren't required.

How do you square this with suttas that state that pain can occur at the mind base dependent upon unpleasant mental contact? Did the Buddha and Arahants have no purely mental contact at all in your view?

[cappuccino]

support to your claim that the Buddha was totally free of dukkha upon awakening?

upon awakening he would not have another birth


nor would have another death

[cappuccino]

who also deny the most basic fundamental thing, and then they double down on it really hard, which is what he's known for doing.

view.png

[BVira]

Tisso imā bhikkhu vedanā vuttā mayā, sukhā vedanā dukkhā vedanā adukkhamasukhā vedanā, imā tisso vedanā vuttā mayā. Vuttam kho pan' etam bhikkhu mayā, Yam kiñci vedayitam tam dukkhasmin ti. Tam kho pan'etam bhikkhu mayā sankhārānam yeva aniccatam sandhāya bhāsitam

There are, monk, these three feelings stated by me: pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling, neither-unpleasant-nor-pleasant feeling—these three feelings have been stated by me. But this, monk, has been stated by me: 'Whatever is felt counts as unpleasure (suffering)'. That, however, monk, was said by me concerning the impermanence of determinations
- Vedanā Samy. ii,1 <S.iv,216>


What the sutta above here means (in regards to this topic) is that if one has yet to discern sankhata from asankhata (which also correlates to the experience of making the distinction between pancupadanakhanda and pancakhanda) then one can easily fall into confusion when it comes to relating vedana with dukkha. Furthermore...

Āyasmā Sāriputto etad avoca. Sukham idam āvuso nibbānam, sukham idam āvuso nibbānan ti. Evam vutte āyasmā Udāyi āyasmantam Sāriputtam etad avoca. Kim pan'ettha āvuso Sāriputta sukham, yad ettha n'atthi vedayitan ti. Etad eva khv ettha āvuso sukham, yad ettha n'atthi vedayitam.

The venerable Sāriputta said this:—It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! It is extinction, friends, that is pleasant! When this was said, the venerable Udāyi said to the venerable Sāriputta,—But what herein is pleasant, friend Sāriputta, since herein there is nothing felt?—Just this is pleasant, friend, that herein there is nothing felt.
- Anguttara IX,iv,3 <A.iv,414>

What the sutta above here shows is vedananirodha as a reality in the present in the case of the arahant, and not solely a future one realized only after the dissolution of the body


So, I voted No.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

Yes.



Summing up:

• Yes, Arahants definitely have dukkha as defined in the first noble truth, and it's a fact.

If they have the first noble truth, then that means they also have the second noble truth which is craving. Since the Buddha explicitly stated that dukkha in the first noble truth is caused by craving in the second noble truth. So you're saying Arahants have craving?

umm...

Proper familiarization with the First Sermon would solve the problem, at least in part, hopefully.

There is definition as demanded by OP, there is answer demanded by OP.

However, I think the confusion bugging the OP is contributed more from superhero-ish idolization of Arahants (including the lord Buddha Himself) rather than from lack of familarity to the first sermon, resulting in selective reasoning, leading "possibly" to sutta-doctoring gang, ending up miserably in commentary-blindly-rejecting lot. imo, some of them (if not all) also tend to say arahants are no longer concerned with five aggregates (the wrong point which is clearly rejected by the saying of the Buddha himself in Silavant Sutta), & that idea also comes from the said superhero-ish idolization, and also from confusion of cause & effect, meddling of present and future, & biasing towards fabrications rather than the facts in plain sight.

Here are the facts in plain sight, from the first sermon; it contains all the info OP needs:

• Now this is the noble truth of suffering. Rebirth is suffering; old age is suffering; illness is suffering; death is suffering; association with the disliked is suffering; separation from the liked is suffering; not getting what you wish for is suffering. In brief, the five grasping aggregates are suffering.

So you're saying Arahants NOT have old-age, illness, & death?