The Buddha taught in the Silavantana Sutta that even an Arahant should contemplate the suffering of the five aggregates from time to time. In another sutta it is said that having reached the 3rd arupa-sphere, a monk contemplates the nama-khandha and vinnana, whatever he finds there, as suffering, like a dart, like a disaster. And in another place it is said, regarding the aggregates of an Arahant (Yamaka Sutta): what is impermanent is suffering, that suffering has ceased and died out (has reached complete extinction, that is, the aggregate of an Arahant).
In the case of an Arahant there is no clinging, so the dukkha characteristic is derived not only from clinging and the loss of what is desired. In the case of the 3rd arupa there is no physical pain or fatigue or restlessness of the five material senses.
However, these aggregates are considered dukkha due to their nature of decay, destruction, change, and impermanence.
There are strong arguments in the suttas that whatever is impermanent, dukkha, is by definition independent of subjective attitude or even clinging and appropriation.
But the principle of this connection is not entirely clear to me. What is wrong with that which changes, to which there is no clinging, and in which there is no obvious pain. Even anxiety, in theory, should not affect one who sees the emptiness of the Self and what belongs to the Self.
Great question Nikolay.
The arahat is completely at ease with sankhara dukkha. Nevertheless it is still dukkha.
Sariputta gave the simile of the workman patiently waiting for his wages, the fruits of his labours.
In the same way the arahat waits for the complete cessation of dukkha at khandha parinibbana, the final death.
Theragāthā
Thag 17.2
I don’t desire death, nor do I desire life, with clear mindfulness and awareness I will discard this body.
I don’t desire death nor do I desire life. Like a person who is waiting for his monthly salary, I am awaiting my time to attain final extinguishing at passing away.
I agree that an Arahant does not suffer from the dukkha of formations, but still why are they considered dukkha? I mean the special case of subtle formations, where there is no physical fatigue or pain, where there are no lower upekkha-vedanas from unpleasant contacts of the material senses. Is there any logical explanation?
Formations no matter how subtle are impermanent. Because they are impermanent, they are dukkha. Rupa and Nama arise and perish very quickly in a blink of an eye. Because of this nature, they are dukkha or suffering because they are insubstantial and doesn’t last.
Dukkha has shades of meaning. If pleasant feeling was permanent then it wouldn’t be dukkha - but pleasant feeling cannot last. Even the Brahma gods have to die and pass away.
And in fact, as @HappinessSeeker mentioned even every moment as a god is impermanent.
Sutta-pitaka: Mahāniddesa 42
Life, person, pleasure, pain — just these alone
Join in one conscious moment that flicks by.
Devas, though they live for eighty-four thousand kalpas,
Are not the same for two such moments…
Breakup of dhammas is foredoomed at their birth;
Those present decay, unmingled with those past.
They come from nowhere, break up, nowhere go; Flash in and out, as lightning in the sky
So there is nothing at all of that can last. All sankhara dhammas fall away as soon as they arise.
Samyutta nikaya, 95 (3) A Lump of Foam
“Form is like a lump of foam,
Feeling like a water bubble;
Perception is like a mirage,
Volitions like a plantain trunk,
And consciousness like an illusion,
So explained the Kinsman of the Sun. “However one may ponder it
And carefully investigate it,
It appears but hollow and void
When one views it carefully. [143]
That is, we are not talking about active suffering, but about the transience of successive moments of happiness? I will give an example. There is a person who receives 10 thousand dollars a day and spends it all in one day, receives another 10 thousand the next day and spends it again, and so on throughout his life. The fact that he spends this money by the end of the day, but receives a new amount the next day, can we, by this logic, consider it poverty due to the fact that it was spent in the moment? It seems to me that this is not a very reasonable statement. Likewise, moments of a happy mind, although they end and other moments of a happy mind arise, cannot be suffering only for this reason. Of course, if the person from our example stops receiving anything at all and ends up on the street, then we can say that his wealth has ended and has been replaced by poverty, and thus his wealth is suffering. But in this case we are not considering instantaneous impermanence (sankhara-dukkha), but a radical change in a series (viparinama-dukkha). Arahants living in the world of Brahma do not have a radical change of series, they are, so to speak, in eternal contentment up to parinibbana. How does their suffering of formations manifest itself?
Remember that in reality there are only the khandhas- no arahat in ultimate reality. And these khandhas, these elements, just arise, perform a function and fall away.
So in truest sense there is not dukkha that is happening to an arahat. Rather there is only dukkha.
I want to note, I am sure that all formations are dukkha by nature, I do not need to be convinced of this too much, I believe in the Buddha and I understand that this is largely a mystical-intuitive experience. But I want to understand logically how it works. As for variability in the sense of a radical change, it is clear that the disintegration of happiness and the causes of happiness replaces happiness with dukkha and this colors sukha with dukkha, like a particle of dirt that gets into honey, or poison into a sweet drink. But it is not clear how this happens at the momentary level in the case of the purest aggregates from the example.
What is more important is that in the arahant’s brahma aggregates many causes for suffering have already been eliminated and cannot arise, so impermanence cannot do anything to give rise to greater dukkha. The necessary causes for this are lacking.
There are several thoughts. Where the suttas mention viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha, sankhara-dukkha is always listed in the 2nd place, and viparinama in the 3rd. That is, the suttas indicate that in its subtlety and all-pervasiveness, viparinama-dukkha is the deepest form of dukkha. Perhaps momentariness serves the feeling that all formations are unreliable and bear the stamp of decay, and although they are not destroyed at this particular moment, they “potentially can and will certainly disintegrate one day in the future.” There is also the question of the fatigue of a pleasant and neutral feeling, subtle suffering in the very fact of awareness. But I cannot yet understand how this suffering is encompassed, if the function of encompassing it is “vedana”, for example, domanasa, which the arahant no longer has. So this is done by wisdom, it comprehends suffering, but does not feel it as suffering itself.
I don’t think so. See below where sankhara-dukkha is listed last and also it is said that at times there is freedom from viparinama-dukkha - but not sankhara-dukkha Netti pakarana 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 . . .
10 Vajirā
555 “It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.”361
Bodhi note to sutta
361 In v. 555 suffering signifies the inherent unsatisfactoriness of the five aggregates (pañcakkhandhadukkha), which is identical with the heap of sheer formations (suddhasaṅkhārapuñja ) in v. 553c. See too 12:15: “What arises is only suffering arising, what ceases is only suffering ceasing.”
vism.xvi 34 For there are many kinds of suffering, that is to say, intrinsic suffering (dukkha- dukkha), suffering in change (viparinama-dukkha), and suffering due to
formations (sankhára-dukkha); and then concealed suffering, exposed suffering, indirect suffering, and direct suffering.
35. Herein, bodily and mental, painful feeling are called intrinsic suffering because of their individual essence, their name, and their painfulness. [Bodily and mental] pleasant feeling are called suffering in change because they are a cause for the arising of pain when they change (M I 303). Equanimous feeling and the remaining formations of the three planes are called suffering due to formations because they are oppressed by rise and fall.
Even if you were wearing a coat of impenetrable armour - protecting you infallibly against actual physical injury - it would nevertheless be somewhat tiresome to have someone constantly beating and hammering the coat of armour. Only when you get totally off the battlefield would you be free from both forms of stress.
