before discussing the other points and in order to clarify the conversation, please first answer to this question if this is Yes or No. And later you can add more explanations if you wish.
note this is necessary in order to understand better your explanations in the rest of points.
If you understand the thing you quoted from my reply, you would know the answer is no.
In the seven factors of enlightenment chant, Buddha and 2 arahant disciples got physically sick and got healed from rejoicing in the chanting. Physical suffering is part of dukkha.
Ending of mental suffering is not to be looked down upon. It’s awesome. And since it’s all we can do as physical suffering is there as long as there’s a physical body, it’s commonly just having a shortcut saying that the enlightened ones ended all sufferings, is it a nice shortcut but technically sloopy.
All suffering would to include all future sufferings from future rebirth, both physical and mental. In that sense all arahants ended all suffering, as in all future sufferings, but since they still have a body, they are subject to physical suffering.
I don’t think you will find the classical Theravada has anything to say which contradicts what I say here.
ok, if you don’t believe the eradication of dukkha inside 4 noble truths also include the body, then the rest of arguments are more clear.
What reason do you think is not possible for arhants the non-clinging to the body-suffering as they can do with mental-suffering?
According the Suttas, the eradication of clinging causes the end of a basis to sustain pain feeling and then body-dukkha:
"I have said, Ananda, that pleasure & pain are dependently co-arisen. Dependent on what? Dependent on contact. One speaking in this way would be speaking in line with what I have said, would not be misrepresenting me with what is unfactual, and would be answering in line with the Dhamma so that no one whose thinking is in line with the Dhamma would have grounds for criticism.
"Whatever brahmans & contemplatives, teachers of kamma, who declare that pleasure & pain are self-made, even that is dependent on contact. Whatever brahmans & contemplatives, teachers of kamma, who declare that pleasure & pain are other-made… self-made & other-made… neither self-made nor other-made, but arise spontaneously, even that is dependent on contact.
[…]"From ignorance as a requisite condition, then either of one’s own accord one fabricates bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally, or because of others one fabricates bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally. Either alert one fabricates bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally, or unalert one fabricates bodily fabrication on account of which that pleasure & pain arise internally. (Similarly with verbal & intellectual fabrications.)
“Now, ignorance is bound up in these things. From the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance, there no longer exists [the sense of] the body on account of which that pleasure & pain internally arise. There no longer exists the speech… the intellect on account of which that pleasure & pain internally arise. There no longer exists the field, the site, the dimension, or the issue on account of which that pleasure & pain internally arise.”
SN 12.25
"Sensing a feeling of pleasure, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of pain, he senses it disjoined from it. Sensing a feeling of neither-pleasure-nor-pain, he senses it disjoined from it. 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.
“This is the difference, this the distinction, this the distinguishing factor between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person.”
SN 36.6
and quite probably these advices of training for detachment of body could reach the highest point not only in arhants but also in other ariyas. In the Vietnam war, some monks and nuns burned themselves with total detachment from body pain. The case of the Ven.Thích Quang Duc is the more famous:
these historical cases are a good proof about the total detachment from body pain is not just theory or speculation.
I believe in the Theravada world there is acceptance about the Buddha eradicated dukkha completely.
“Although these sense-impressions may be sukha, dukkha, or upekkhà the javana thought-processes conditioned thereby may not necessarily be associated with a similar feeling. For instance, the Buddha experienced a body-consciousness associated with pain when a rock splinter struck His foot, but His javana thought-process conditioned thereby would not necessarily be associated with displeasure. Unaffected by the pain, He would have experienced perfect equanimity.”
- A Manual of Abhidhamma - Narada Maha Thera
Do you know about some work from a respected bhikkhu or Buddhist teacher, denying the complete eradication of dukkha by the Buddha?.
I have never found it. If you know some case it would be interesting to know.
This is exactly the same thing I say. No mental suffering, even with physical suffering. You may have mentally associated the word suffering to be always involving mental suffering that you misunderstand what I wrote.
total detachment from body pain is not just theory or speculation
You also agree here that there’s physical suffering/pain. No mental suffering is because there’s no clinging. Although there’s still body. Just take this as an abstract case, not linked to any historical case.
I understand you. However, the problem is in a wrong use of dukkha (suffering) when this is no more present.
You writes: “No mental suffering, even with physical suffering” but this wouldn’t be right because the pain is not the same thing than suffering:
*"Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.What three? *
*- suffering caused by pain, *
*- suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence), *
- suffering due to change.
It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated…"SN 45.165
as we can read, the pain is defined like a cause of dukkha because are not the same thing. The body-pain cause dukkha when there is ignorance of mind-body and clinging to body . And this is eradicated in the arhanthood.
We cannot say that there is dukkha in the arhant when there is no more clinging to body.
When dukkha has been eradicated there is only body-pain without dukkha. And if then we claim that the body is experiencing dukkha by its own way, it would lack of sense because rupa is not consciousness.
hope these comments can help to rethink the relation between body-pain and dukkha.
but wait, there is more🙂…
as becoming known when bhanga is experienced, that which is usually pain, dissolves and Pain as it has been known, becomes what it really is, a stream of sensations.
Because the tendency to cling is abandoned, that which was pain causing dukkha, is now just a flow of phenomena, a process that isn’t frozen into pain anymore.
I suggest that a very rapid impingement of something like a fast travelling stone splinter will send a burst of sensory impressions like pain but immediately the enlightened tendencies assert themselves and no mental suffering occurs.
All that samsara is, is dukkha, that is what the five khandhas are.
As Venerable Paññādhammika explained the arahat has no more dukkha-dukkhata of mental feeling but he still has bodily painful feeling.
More than that sankhara-dukkha, the nature of conditioned phenomena, is present every moment for all beings - arahanta or not- and is not finally ended until anupādisesa-nibbāna, the khandha parinibanna. Then no more arising of the khandhas. Of course the arahat is without aversion , clinging and moha and patiently waits for this …
https://suttacentral.net/thag17.2/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=pts¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
I don’t long for death;
Nābhinandāmi maraṇaṁ,
I don’t long for life;
nābhinandāmi jīvitaṁ;
I await my time,
Kālañca paṭikaṅkhāmi,
like a worker waiting for their wages.”
nibbisaṁ bhatako yathā”.
The Nettippakaraṇa :
Herein, the world is, at one time or another, somewhat free from to the unsatisfactoriness of pain (dukkhadukkhatā) as well as the unsatisfactoriness of change (vipariṇāmadukkhatā). Why is that? Because there are those in the world who have little sickness and are long-lived. But only the nibbāna component with no fuel remaining (anupādisesa nibbānadhātu) liberates from the unsatisfactoriness of fabrications (saṅkhāradukkhatā)
that’s strange because I have a different translation of that paragraph in Nettippakaraṇa:
"Herein, the world is, at one time or another, limitedly free from painfulness as [bodily] pain, and likewise from painfulness in change. Why is that? Because there are those in the world who have little sickness and are long-lived. But only the element of extinction without trace left liberates from the painfulness in determinations. "
pp.24, Pali Text Society 1977. Nanamoli
note in my translation there is “painfulness” instead “unsatisfactoriness”. This is really important because it changes completely the sense in this issue.
What’s exactly your edition of the Nettippakaraṇa?
the use of “dukkha” instead “pain” changes completely the sense. Because the arhat is a witness of the decay of the established kamma in the body and the arising of pain, although without any clinging there is no possibility of arising of dukkha; only there is arising of pain in the body without dukkha.
As also in the mental side there arising of what is evil and ugly in the world although there is no clinging, no akusala, and no dukkha.
I believe this is consequent also with the Suttas, in where the eradication of clinging causes the end of a basis to sustain pain feeling in the body, and therefore there is no dukkha despite there is pain:
"Conditioned by ignorance, Ananda, either one by oneself concocts a bodily formation, owing to which there arises for him that internal pleasure and pain; or others concoct for him that bodily formation owing to which there arises for him that internal pleasure and pain. And, Ananda, either he deliberately concocts that bodily formation or he does it unwittingly.
"Either, one by oneself, Ananda, concocts that verbal-formation, owing to which there arises for him that internal pleasure and pain; or others concoct it for him. And, Aananda, either he deliberately concocts it or he does it unwittingly.
"Either one by oneself, Ananda, concocts that mental-formation, owing to which there arises for him that internal pleasure and pain; or others concoct it for him. And, Aananda, either he deliberately concocts that bodily formation or he does it unwittingly.
“These items, Ananda, are affected with ignorance. But from the utter fading away and cessation of ignorance, Ananda, that body is not, whence arises for him that internal pleasure and pain. That speech is not, whence arises for him that internal pleasure and pain. That speech is not, whence arises for him that internal pleasure and pain. That mind is not, whence arises for him that internal pleasure and pain. That field is not, that ground is not, that sphere is not, that occasion is not, conditioned by which there arises for him internal pleasure and pain.”
— SN 12.25 (i-ii)
"Where consciousness takes a hold and grows, there is occurrence of mind-and-body. Where there is occurrence of mind-and-body, there is growth of kamma-formations. Where there is growth of kamma-formations, there is a future arising of renewed existence. Where there is a future arising of renewed existence, there is future birth, decay and death. This, I say, O monks, is laden with sorrow, burdened with anguish and despair.
But if, O monks, there is no lust for the nutriments edible food, sense-impression, volitional thought and consciousness, if there is no pleasure in them and no craving for them, then consciousness does not take a hold therein and does not grow. Where consciousness does not take a hold nor grow, there will be no occurrence of mind-and-body. Where there is no occurrence of mind-and-body, there is no growth of kamma-formations. Where there is no growth of kamma-formations, there is no future arising of renewed existence. Where there is no future arising of renewed existence, there is no future birth, decay and death. This, I say, O monks, is free of sorrow, of anguish and despair."
SN 12.64
yes, what you writes could be related with the inoperative cittas in the arhant according the Abhidhamma:
The 3 types of dukkha are discarded in the arhant as there are no more kusala and akusala, there is no more clinging to body and therefore no more conditions for the arising of dukkha. Instead he has inoperative cittas in the relation with the body:
- "The arahat, when he experiences an unpleasant object or a pleasant object through the bodysense, has painful bodily feeling or pleasant bodily feeling arising with the ahetuka vipākacitta which is body-consciousness, but he has no akusala cittas or kusala cittas after the vipākacitta; instead he has kiriyacittas (“inoperative cittas” (28)).
"There are eight mahā-kiriyacittas of the arahat (kiriyacittas, “inoperative cittas”, which are not ahetuka, but accompanied by sobhana hetus) performing the function of javana. The arahat has mahā-kiriyacittas instead of mahā-kusala cittas since he does not accumulate any more kamma. Mahā-kiriyacittas are of the sensuous plane of consciousness; they are not jhānacittas or lokuttara cittas.
Arahats also have kāmāvacara cittas; they see, hear or think of objects experienced through the senses. However, there are no kusala cittas or akusala cittas arising on account of what is experienced."
I leave these things here to continue the discussion.
IMHO I believe very important the difference between “pain” and “dukkha” because these are not interchangeable in the case of the end of clinging (arhants)
Pain IS dukkha in the same way grief IS dukkha. It’s dukkha because it’s unpleasant, like grief.
anyway, this bhanga thing can be experienced by any virtuous one who practices correctly and for a moment is completely equanimous, letting go of a self. It’s a complete dissolution of the body. Everything that was painful, causing mental anguish, instantly dissolves and the fundamental nature of anicca becomes known ( as opposed to imagined ). It’s a momentary taste of what the arhat knows all the time.
In that state, that which otherwise would be painful is now truly known, directly experienced, for what it really is: a flux of phenomena. Constantly changing processes that do not cause misery.
physical pain arise in the body, this is rupa. Grief is a mind experience and this is already clinging. Are very different.
In the arhant there is no more clinging to mind-body, and logically neither to the physical pain. And it means that dukkha arising because body-pain it cannot be present
Why is grief dukkha? Because it’s unpleasant. Why else would it be dukkha, apart from its impermanence? The same with pain. The pain the Buddhas and Arahants experience was due to craving and clinging, in a different life. Awakening doesn’t abolish the past. Pain is in the 1st NT. It arises because of the 2nd, due to craving, as all dukkha does. Natural law.
Yes I used a slightly adapted version based on the Pali.
Here is the full passage from page 23-24 translation by Nanamoli:
- [And lastly] “Suffering is its greatest fear” is the answer to “And what will be its greatest fear”? Suffering is of two kinds: bodily and mental. The bodily kind is pain, while the mental kind is grief. All creatures are sensitive to suffering. Since there is no fear equal to [that of] suffering, how could there be any greater? There are three kinds of painfulness: painfulness as [bodily] pain, painfulness in change, and painfulness in determinations. Herein, the world is, at one time or another, limitedly free from painfulness as [bodily] pain, and likewise from painfulness in change. Why is that? Because there are those in the world who have little sickness and are long-lived. But only the element of extinction without trace left liberates from the painfulness in determinations. That is why “Suffering is its greatest fear”, taking it that painfulness in determinations is the world’s [inherent liability to] suffering. By this the answer to the fourth term is appropriately construed.
That is why the Blessed One said 'By ignorance is the world shut in . . .
Kiṁ su tassa mahabbhayan”ti pañhe “dukkhamassa mahabbhayan”ti visajjanā.
Duvidhaṁ dukkhaṁ—
kāyikañca cetasikañca.
Yaṁ kāyikaṁ idaṁ dukkhaṁ, yaṁ cetasikaṁ idaṁ domanassaṁ.
Sabbe sattā hi dukkhassa ubbijjanti, natthi bhayaṁ dukkhena samasamaṁ, kuto vā pana tassa uttaritaraṁ?
Tisso dukkhatā—
dukkhadukkhatā saṅkhāradukkhatā vipariṇāmadukkhatā.
Tattha loko odhaso kadāci karahaci dukkhadukkhatāya muccati.
Tathā vipariṇāmadukkhatāya.
Taṁ kissa hetu?
Honti loke appābādhāpi dīghāyukāpi.
Saṅkhāradukkhatāya pana loko anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā muccati, tasmā saṅkhāradukkhatā dukkhaṁ lokassāti katvā dukkhamassa mahabbhayanti.
Tena ca catutthassa padassa visajjanā yuttā.
Tenāha bhagavā “avijjāya nivuto loko”ti.
Saṅkhāradukkhatā, painfulness in determinations, is dukkha .
Right?
yes, sankhāradukkhatā of course is dukkha. All the reality is marked by dukkha, this is one of the 3 characteristics of the existence.
However, it does not apply to Buddha and arhants. The discussion is about if Buddha and Arhants still have dukkha like that new EBT reinterpration claims.
This is well explained in SN 12.17:
“How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, is suffering created by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is suffering created both by oneself and by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“Then, Master Gotama, has suffering arisen fortuitously, being created neither by oneself nor by another?”
“Not so, Kassapa,” the Blessed One said.
“How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?”
“It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.”
“Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?”
“It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.”
*“Whether you are asked: ‘How is it, Master Gotama: is suffering created by oneself?’ or ‘Is it created by another?’ or ‘Is it created by both?’ or ‘Is it created by neither?’ in each case you say: ‘Not so, Kassapa.’ When you are asked: ‘How is it then, Master Gotama: is there no suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that there is no suffering, Kassapa; there is suffering.’ When asked: ‘Then is it that Master Gotama does not know and see suffering?’ you say: ‘It is not that I do not know and see suffering, Kassapa. I know suffering, I see suffering.’ Venerable sir, let the Blessed One explain suffering to me. Let the Blessed One teach me about suffering.” *
“Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is the same as the one who experiences the result,’ then one asserts with reference to one existing from the beginning: ‘Suffering is created by oneself.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to eternalism. But, Kassapa, if one thinks, ‘The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another,’ then one asserts with reference to one stricken by feeling: ‘Suffering is created by another.’ When one asserts thus, this amounts to annihilationism. Without veering towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. But with the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance comes cessation of volitional formations; with the cessation of volitional formations, cessation of consciousness…. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering.’”
How an arhant can experience dukkha in front whatever conditioned phenomena?. That’s impossible. We are reading clearly how the same building of whatever phenomena has been dismounted including himself, his mind and body. There is no more atta, no more arising individuality to cling to, and no individual-being to cling something.
I believe is quite clear that new EBT reinterpretation is wrong.
Although still more important: What’s happens really with this issue?
The Buddha discovered the possibility of the end of dukkha while somebody is alive, the path until arhanthood. It was the reason for the Siddharta unsatisfaction with the rest of Sramana teachings and systems. Because in the rest of systems, as soon their meditative ambits were leaved, the dukkha from the conditional world arose again.
I believe that we should understand the reach of the Buddha discovery which was the eradication of dukkha in the conditional world.
This claim about the end of dukkha in the conditional world appears in endless places inside the Suttas. And there is no place in the whole Canon denying this truth or claiming that “only after death” there is the end of dukkha.
And well, just we can look the procedure of these new western interprets, all pursuing a possible presence of some isolated phrase, some few words inside the whole Canon. Something which could be able to cause the illusion about there is necessity of death.
Is this not even comical checking that procedure?. Is this not enough obvious?.
At least I think so.
It would mean the Buddha was wrong, or maybe he was deceiving the people, or he was silent about just a little inconvenient not mentioned and without excessive importance: everybody should be dead to put an end to dukkha!!. Surprise!! 
The Pali that is here translated as “suffering caused by pain” is dukkhadukkhatā. So if I follow the understanding of the translator, it is “dukkha caused by dukkha.” Not sure that is the best translation, but for sure it is not the only translation. For example Bhikkhu Sujato has “suffering inherent in painful feeling” and the German translator Hellmuth Hecker has “Leidhaftigkeit des Leidens (dukkha of dukkha)”.
Therefore the causal nature here seems to be a translator’s choice but not necessitated by the Pali itself. What do the Pali experts say?
Because anything dependently arisen is dukkha. Pain is in the 1st Noble Truth. It arises because of craving.
anyway, “painfulness in determinations” is not the body-pain discussed in this thread. We check at the beguinning the paragraph it says:
"There are three kinds of painfulness: painfulness as [bodily] pain, painfulness in change, and painfulness in determinations. "
“painfulness in determinations” is not related with “painfulness as [bodily] pain” which is the first type of the three. Which is what we are talking about.
sankhara dukkha is explained in many different ways depending authors. Although in a general way, this is referred to the mechanics of the conditional production of Reality and the clinging to it.
For a better understanding, we can go up, until the beguinning [12] of that section in where we read:
[12] By this the answer to the second term is appropriately construed.
68. ‘And hankering smears it, I say’ is the answer to ‘And what is it besmeared with ? Say’. ‘Hankering’ so named is what craving is called. How does that besmear ? In the way stated by the Blessed One:Who lusts no meaning ever knows,
Who lusts sees never an idea,
The murk of darkness laps a man
When he will suffer lust tobe> (cf. A. iv, 96).This craving, in a person greatly clutching [at existence] taken thus as great hankering, is that wherein the world comes to be ‘besmeared’. By this the answer to the third term is appropriately construed.
69. [And lastly] ‘Suffering is its greatest fear’ is the answer to 'And what will be its greatest fear is the answer to 'And what will be its greatest fear?"
this section is talking about an specific type of person who still is not an arhant. And because this reason it says “This craving, in a person greatly clutching [at existence]…” and also “Suffering is its greatest fear…” and etc. And later it remembers the worldly position regarding sickness and so on.
Therefore, this section is not talking about arhants. I believe we would agree about the arhant lacks of “clutching at existence” as a also “fear equal to [that of] suffering”.
Note inside the Nettipakarana there are different classifications of persons. In example we read:
*"The type of Thread dealing with keeping in being can be demonstrated by twelve types of persons, namely by him who is on the way to verification of the fruit of Once-Return, by the Once-Returner, by him who is on the way to verification of the fruit of Non-Return, by the Non-Returner, *
[190] by One Who Attains Extinction Early On [In His Next Existence], by One Who Attains Extinction Late [In His Next Existence], by One Who Attains Extinction Without Prompting-determinations, by One Who Attains Extinction With Prompting-determinations, by The Up-Streamer Bound For The Not-Junior Gods, by One Liberated By Faith, by One Attained To Right View, and by a Bodily Witness. The type of Thread dealing with keeping in being can be demonstrated by these twelve types of persons (see Pe 42)." *
p.246 Nanamoli
here there is “Prompting-determinations” as a different term than “determinations” appearing in the previous paragraph. I believe the translator uses “Prompting-determinations” to refer to the situation of the arhant in where sankhara-dukkha exists only like a potentiality, like an incitement to join conditionality although this cannot be fulfilled by the arhant. I suppose because this reason the translator is adding the “prompting-”. At least it sounds like an attempt to be more precise regarding the position of sankhara-dukkha for the arhant.
At least I understand the discussed paragraph about the bodily pain:
it doesn’t have relation with the discussed body-pain (dukkha-dukkhataa) but with the conditionality (sankhaara-dukkhataa)
it doesn’t have relation with the arhant but with somebody who still feels fear and attachment to the existence, who still experience the clinging to the conditionality. And the final phrase “But only the element of extinction without trace left liberates from the painfulness in determinations” appears like a comparative recourse regarding the worldly person.
The Nettippakarana is a quite cryptic reading in the English translation. And also I believe there are classical commentaries and subcomentaries to this work. Probably it could be more clarified with the reading of all that added stuff.
I have checked you translation comes from a footnote in a work with different issues, grouped by an author named Geoff Shatz,who it seems he had a website (now it seems it doesn’t work). I mean that it doesn’t belong to some alternative translation of the Nettippakarana, which would be good to know. I don’t know who was this author, although I have checked in internet that he is frequently quoted in that new EBT reinterpretation movement.
I mean that just with a footnote translated by somebody and isolated from the rest, it doesn’t seem enough justification to put in doubt the many places inside the Suttas with clear statements about the end of dukkha with the 3 types of dukkha eradicated. Including the Enlightenment of the Buddha, of course.
Also there are the previous explanations from the Abhidhamma, about the processes in the arhant without any akusala or dukkha.
I believe that to rectify the clear statement of the Buddha about his realization of the complete end of dukkha it would request much more things.
Just my view
no dukkha in the case of the arhant. See the previous quoted SN 12.17:
I’m afraid they do experience dukkha. They experience pain. Pain is in the 1st Noble Truth. What you are essentially saying is that the aggregates can be made to be not-dukkha. Doesn’t sound like something the Buddha would teach, since the aggregates arise dependently. They are dukkha.