If arhats can still feel physical pain (which is a type of dukkha, namely dukkha-dukkha), what is the point of nibbana?
>banana
>>17446106Yeah dude like where the fuck is my freaking cheatcode????
>>17446106yea but when they die........
>>17446205Nibbana is supposed to happen still while in life. It's parinibbana that comes after death.
>>17446106To be in pain disturbed by it, and feeling the sensations and not disturbed by it is completely different anon. It's more of the acknowledge the pain, whilst you heed no mind nor focus your concious on it. I'd say similar to when you sit on a bench and watching the passerby or cars passing you, with you not keep your attentions after them when they are gone.
>>17446269But nirodha means end of dukkha. You seem to be talking about being able to just ignore the dukkha, which is not the claim of the Third Noble Truth.
>>17446318The Dao that can be told is not the Dao.Get there, and shit will make sense. Until then, it's useless chatter, it can't make sense, so don't focus on it.
>>17446335This thread is not about Daoism, anon.
>>17446318It's not ignore the dukkha, it is there. Yes nirodha means the end of dukkha. Thing is Arhats do not suffers the pains as we do. It is there they just acknowledge it. To clings or in possess of "self", then you still suffers or experiences the dukkhas, which is not the case for Arhats.
>>17446348Sometimes it applies all the same
>>17446335>Get there, and shit will make sense./thread
>>17446352If the dukkha ended, then how is it still there?
>>17446358This anti-language tendency of you is not very meaningful: you're using language and learned what you learned through language.
>>17446372Dukkhas is more of the state of being, while Samudhaya is the origins of Dukkhas, which through Nirodha, one can ends the Samudaya. As long as you live the dukkhas will remain (as in acknowledge the Dukkhas not living it for Arhats case) be it kayadukkhas or other kind of -dukkhas. The real ends come after parinibbana.
>>17446400Nirodha happens while in life, though. Are you denying that anyhow?
>>17446435Do you understand the relations of Nirodhas and Samudaya/ Dukkhas? Now I'm curious what kind of meaning do you have in minds when you means "end of Dukkhas"? Care to elaborate more anon?
>>17446443No problem. By nirodha I understand the cessation of the cause of suffering, which is craving/tanha (according to Buddhism). So like cutting a root of a tree, removing this cause would mean removing suffering too as a consequence. By end of dukkha I mean something very straightforward: the end or non-presence of suffering of any kind.
>>17446492I see, thank you for clarifying, anon. It seems the answer you're looking for lies in better understanding the relationship between samudaya (the origin of suffering), dukkha (suffering), and nirodha (the cessation of suffering). In the state of being of an Arhat, all dukkha ceases to exist—not because it is entirely absent (physically - as in they are still alive), but because they no longer experience or suffer from it in the same way. While living, an Arhat may still feel physical pain (dukkha-dukkha), but they are not disturbed by it. Their mind remains unperturbed because they have uprooted the causes (samudaya) of suffering (dukkha) through nirodha. Although they cannot stop the sensation of pain, they acknowledge it for what it is, understanding its causes without suffering alongside it. Thus, they are free from dukkha. Additionally, once they die, they are no longer have to feel the dukkha-dukkha anymore, due to the absence of physical form. I hope my 2 digits IQ explanation helps somehow.
>>17446580>nirodha (the cessation of suffering)>In the state of being of an Arhat, all dukkha ceases to exist>not because it is entirely absent (...) but because they no longer experience or suffer from it in the same way>While living, an Arhat may still feel physical painDo you see the contradiction? Something which ceased to exist cannot be felt.
>>17446607The real question should be: does physical pain bother them? In Buddhism, the separation of mind and body is particularly important. Reaching the state of an arhat doesn’t mean you won’t feel physical pain at all. The same applies to pleasant feelings—they will still be there for you to experience. The difference is that the mind does not attach itself to pain or pleasure. You can feel intense physical pain, but it simply doesn’t perturb you. Dukkha is a state of suffering tied to both the body and mind. If you no longer suffer along with your body, what does that make you? If you still suffer from pain, it means you haven’t yet eradicated the samudaya (the origin of suffering) through nirodha (cessation). This indicates an ongoing attachment to the self, particularly to the body (kaya). Once you stop attaching to the kaya, it’s not that physical pain suddenly ceases to exist. Rather, it ceases to exist in your mind, consciousness, or emotions—it no longer causes you to suffer.
>>17446634It seems to me that the word "cessation" is used improperly in Buddhism. Cessation is about the existence of something, not about one's bothering over something. When in the Third Noble Truth it is stated that dukkha can be ceased, it doesn't seem like the case. Moreover, would you say that arahats get something like pain asymbolia in the moment they achieve enlightenment? Has that ever been proven anyhow?
