The end of suffering and its causes '“ NOT the end of feeling

Responses to this page are welcome.

-Jackson

How do you know you are suffering?

Mu, I'm pretty sure you have an answer in mind. Why not just share it?

www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html
---
The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, are the five aggregates?
...
"Whatever feeling is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: That is called the feeling aggregate.
...
"And what are the five clinging-aggregates?
...
"Whatever feeling '” past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near '” is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: That is called the feeling clinging-aggregate.
---

My take is that D-O refers to the clinging-aggregates. Those disappear entirely - or more accurate to say, clinging to the aggregates disappears entirely. What is the difference between vedana and vedana subject to clinging? Try feeling pain in a PCE. 'tis an entirely different experience.

Is emotion equivalent to vedana? I don't think so. I think emotional pain is of an entirely different nature than physical pain. Assuming emotions to be elemental, instead of complex, will definitely hinder one's practice. Just look at it closely. Why do emotions fade more quickly with equanimity? Why not be so equanimous they don't arise in the first place?

Actually I don't. I recently discovered I was a bit muddled up on what I was even calling feeling.

I'm wondering - if one is working toward the end of suffering, what exactly are we calling suffering? Where should one look to know if the job is done?

"I'm wondering - if one is working toward the end of suffering, what exactly are we calling suffering? Where should one look to know if the job is done?"

Beautiful question, Mu. Look into it!

Beoman: "My take is that D-O refers to the clinging-aggregates."

By "D-O" are you referring to dependent origination? (Just a guess.)

"Those disappear entirely - or more accurate to say, clinging to the aggregates disappears entirely."

Yes, the latter seems more accurate to me as well.

My take on it? Ignorance conditions the process leading to craving and clinging, which gives rise to suffering. Craving, clinging, and suffering are particular kinds of sankharas (fabrications). Not all fabrications are equal to the experience of suffering. Fabrications continue post-awakening, and vedana is a type of fabrication. Vedana and sankhara may continue as categories of experiential arisings without being conditioned into suffering. At least that's what seems most plausible to me.

Right if I am on the lookout for the arising of tension in my experience and use it as feedback, I can seemingly get a handle on what is triggering it and what underlies that. My goal would be to end a certain form of tension in my experience which seems possible from what I've experienced in a PCE (I wish there was another term for this experience).

It seems to me that a direct, unmediated experience is the direction to head in. This doesn't seem at all outside the realm of Buddhism.

So I agree with the title of this thread wholeheartedly. I am trying to see suffering in real-time, and end it's causes. I get now that it is clinging to, craving for and aversion to feelings is the problem (not feelings). And again, perhaps problem is the wrong word. Perhaps symptom of the route problem would be a better way to put it.

Yep, I meant dependent origination.

"Vedana and sankhara may continue as categories of experiential arisings without being conditioned into suffering. At least that's what seems most plausible to me."

That is probably true.

The only possible danger lies is in assuming something to not be suffering, that is suffering. If you assume something to not be suffering, you will perhaps not look at it as closely. If it is indeed, suffering, that ignorance will bite you, and the lack of investigation into it means it will not be resolved quickly.

So, if you assume everything is suffering... then you will pay attention (since it is less sucky if you do)... you pay attention to everything equally... and that seems to be your best bet to continue paying attention regardless of what happens... and as paying attention is what will set you free... perhaps it's not such a bad assumption?

And if everything is suffering anyway... might as well be in a good mood (joy, equanimity) since that seems to help with paying attention (mindfulness)... might as well pay real close attention (concentration), in a calm way (tranquility), with lots of vigor (energy)... might as well see things as they really are (insight). Might as well just... keep doing that?

Luang Pu said,

"Being strictly restrained in line with the Vinaya and observing the ascetic practices is an admirable form of conduct that's extremely inspiring. But if you haven't developed the mind to the level of heightened mind and heightened discernment, it can always regress, for it hasn't yet reached the transcendent. Actually, arahants don't need to know much. They simply have to develop their minds to be clear about the five aggregates and to penetrate dependent co-arising (paticca samuppada). That's when they can stop fabricating, stop searching, stop all motions of the mind. Right there is where everything ends. All that remains is pure, clean, bright '” great emptiness, enormously empty."

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/dune/giftsheleft.html

Jackson, I agree with what you've written.

You may want to check out the recent discussion in "Compassion isn't an affective feeling: Discuss".

I think the fundamental problem (which Adam West has mentioned a number of times) is that the AFT does not have as sophisticated of an understanding of the problem of suffering as other traditions do (whether or not the method of actualism is useful). So when their language gets mixed in with the suttas, it makes a lot of confusion.

As there are many drawbacks to using the language of the AFT, and many advantages to using the language of the Pali canon, and many advantages to interpreting the Pali canon in the way that has been done here, I hope we at KFD will be able to start moving in that direction insofar as we talk about these issues.

Having said that...do you discern vedana-->craving-->clinging-->becoming as a lawlike progression of four different types of experiences in your own experience?

"The remainderless cessation of Ignorance '“ and thus, craving and clinging '“ does not equate to the remainderless cessation of the aggregates (Pali: khandhas - form, feeling, perception, intentional fabrication, and consciousness). They continue to arise and pass together according to their nature until the awakened human being dies and arrives at parinibbana; at which time the khandhas disband completely according to their nature. The awakened human being continues to experience the aggregates, but ignorance, craving, and clinging no longer condition them into clinging-aggregates."

I agree with this for the most part.

However, I have never found a sutta which explicitly claims that arahants experience aggregates instead of clinging-aggregates. (I know the suttas distinguish between the two but have never seen such a claim.) Do you have a reference?

"So, if you assume everything is suffering... "

Insofar as ignorance remains, everything is suffering or a direct cause of suffering, no? All those glorious sense-experiences and their vedana lead inexorably to craving, clinging, and becoming, no?

In my experience, to the extent that one has no interest in them, that is the extent to which craving-clinging-becoming are tempered.

EndInSight: "I have never found a sutta which explicitly claims that arahants experience aggregates instead of clinging-aggregates. (I know the suttas distinguish between the two but have never seen such a claim.) Do you have a reference?"

One comes to mind, though it's kind of strange...

'Just as if a skilled butcher or butcher's apprentice, having killed a cow,
were to carve it up with a sharp carving knife so that'”without damaging the
substance of the inner flesh, without damaging the substance of the outer hide'”
he would cut, sever, & detach only the skin muscles, connective tissues, &
attachments in between. Having cut, severed, & detached the outer skin, and
then covering the cow again with that very skin, if he were to say that the cow
was joined to the skin just as it had been: Would he be speaking rightly?'

'No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because if the skilled butcher or butcher's
apprentice, having killed a cow, were to'¦ cut, sever, & detach only the skin
muscles, connective tissues, & attachments in between; and'¦ having covered the
cow again with that very skin, then no matter how much he might say that the
cow was joined to the skin just as it had been, the cow would still be disjoined
from the skin.'

'This simile, sisters, I have given to convey a message. The message is this:
The substance of the inner flesh stands for the six internal media; the substance
of the outer hide, for the six external media. The skin muscles, connective tissues,
& attachments in between stand for passion & delight. And the sharp knife
stands for noble discernment'”the noble discernment that cuts, severs, &
detaches the defilements, fetters, & bonds in between.' '” MN 146

(continued below)

"My goal would be to end a certain form of tension in my experience which seems possible from what I've experienced in a PCE (I wish there was another term for this experience)."

The suttas may call it 'awareness-release' (unsure).

That passage is not about khandhas, per se. But the six sense media are basically the same thing.

Thanissaro: "The question is: Is the skin still attached to the cow as it was before? And the answer is No. Even though it's right next to the cow, it's no longer attached. In the same way, the practice of discernment is like a knife. It cuts through all of the attachments between the senses and their objects. Once the attachments are gone, then even if you put the knife away, you cannot connect things in the way they were before. The eye still sees forms, the ear hears sounds, but there's a sense that these things are no longer joined." (From "Selves & Not-self")

As clinging-aggregates are "clingable", it is not necessarily true in the suttic worldview that an experience that is not clung to is not "clingable", so I'm not sure that your reference goes far enough (even if we consider internal / external sense media analogous to aggregates / clinging-aggregates or whatever).

In any case, if you ever find a direct reference, please send it to me, as I have thought about the issue many times (with no real resolution).

EDIT: Or, perhaps I misread what you were saying in some way.

" www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.048.than.html "

Maybe this is the reference I was asking Jackson for. Nice!

I could have sworn there was another sutta almost identical to this that distinguishes the clinging-aggregates solely by their being "clingable" rather than by their being accompanied by defilement.

Beoman, thanks for posting this, and sorry for having passed it by without noticing how it was different from the sutta I thought I remembered.

I know a monk in a theistic tradition who claims that the material senses are replaced by "spiritual" senses upon God-realization; perhaps this is what he meant in different words (clinging-aggregates replaced by aggregates).

"Insofar as ignorance remains, everything is suffering or a direct cause of suffering, no? All those glorious sense-experiences and their vedana lead inexorably to craving, clinging, and becoming, no?"

Indeed, which is why I find an in-this-lifetime interpretation of D-O (starting with ignorance, leading through sense contact to vedana, etc...) more practically useful than a multiple-lifetime one.

"Maybe this is the reference I was asking Jackson for. Nice!

I could have sworn there was another sutta almost identical to this that distinguishes the clinging-aggregates solely by their being "clingable" rather than by their being accompanied by defilement."

Well, the first qualifier that differs the clinging-aggregate from the aggregate is "is clingable." You sure you aren't thinking of this one?

Regarding "clinging-aggregates"...

Track down a PDF copy of "Wings to Awakening" by Thanissaro and check out chapter 19.3 (page 355 on the version I have). He goes into detail on this topic, and provides lots of source references. It's too much to post here, but it's good stuff.

Or, you could just visit this page...

www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/than...part3.html#part3-h-2

He starts talking about the clinging-aggregates in the fourth paragraph from the heading.

"Indeed, which is why I find an in-this-lifetime interpretation of D-O (starting with ignorance, leading through sense contact to vedana, etc...) more practically useful than a multiple-lifetime one."

This is my current understanding. It makes examining the movement of D-O so much easier when the mythology is dispensed with.

My 2 cents, if stress is viewed as compounded phenomena then it must be supported by causes and conditions. Before we can really talk about the end of stress, we must define stress or we are just going to have an endlessly looping conversation. I would posit that if we can be aware of stress, then we must experience it via the six sense doors. If we could not experience stress via one of the six sense doors, then we could not experience it. In terms of experienced phenomena, what can we all agree is stress?

Jackson, please add your byline at the end of the essay! These things get obscured over time and no one knows who wrote what.

There has been a great deal of confusion around here recently about the function of vedana. Some folks have suggested that we ought to get rid of it. This is a right quirky interpretation of Buddhism, IMHO. In all my years of studying under Buddhist masters, I have never heard any of them suggest such a thing.

The wedge of wisdom that breaks the chain of dependent origination is always placed between vedana (feeling) and tanha (clinging). This means, simply put, that enlightened folks still have feeling, but do not cling to it. While it may be possible to de-condition vedana, it is not necessary or advisable. And frankly, it's weird. Why on Earth would anyone want to stop feeling in order to stop suffering when they could end suffering while continuing to experience the whole spectrum of human sensations? Getting rid of suffering by getting rid of feeling is like using a hydrogen bomb to kill a gopher. And it isn't the Buddhism my Buddhist masters taught me.

Education is good, folks. If you want to understand Dependent Origination, get with a teacher you trust and learn about it. All kinds of confusion can result when you don't understand the basics of what is being said. Misconceptions stack up and magnify one another. Pretty soon, you have people who don't know what they are talking about being quoted as authorities. Yikes!

Right - I will promptly add my byline

Also, I'm with you 100% on this.

-Jackson