>>17446106
Yeah dude like where the fuck is my freaking cheatcode????

>>17446106
yea but when they die........

>>17446205
Nibbana is supposed to happen still while in life. It's parinibbana that comes after death.

>>17446106
To 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.

>>17446269
But 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.

>>17446318
The 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.

>>17446335
This thread is not about Daoism, anon.

>>17446318
It'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.

>>17446348
Sometimes it applies all the same

>>17446335
>Get there, and shit will make sense.
/thread

>>17446352
If the dukkha ended, then how is it still there?

>>17446358
This anti-language tendency of you is not very meaningful: you're using language and learned what you learned through language.

>>17446372
Dukkhas 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.

>>17446400
Nirodha happens while in life, though. Are you denying that anyhow?

>>17446435
Do 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?

>>17446443
No 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.

>>17446492
I 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 pain
Do you see the contradiction? Something which ceased to exist cannot be felt.

>>17446607
The 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.

>>17446634
It 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?

>>17446660
Dukkha can be cease/extinguish - just not in the way you imagine it to be. I would suggests you to dive deeper into subcategories of dukkhas, samudaya, nirodhas to get better understanding. Still, without practicing it, what other anon said still remains true.

>Get there, and shit will make sense. Until then, it's useless chatter, it can't make sense.

I agree that certain words in translated Buddhist texts can be quite confusing—speaking as a native Thai studying Pali. As for pain asymbolia, I have no clue.

>>17446681
>Dukkha can be cease/extinguish - just not in the way you imagine it to be.
So maybe the concept was lost in translation to the English language?
>I would suggests you to dive deeper into subcategories of dukkhas
I know the three types of dukkha, yes.
>samudaya; nirodha
I understand these concept as well, at least as they were presented to me when I read about them.
>Still, without practicing it, what other anon said still remains true.
I see no point in engaging in something that I don't know if it's gonna bring the promised results such as some type of pain asymbolia. It's not of my knowledge any comprovation that that happens after nibbana. Also, Buddhism seems incoherent when it comes to rebirth. Buddhism denies reincarnation, but affirms that there is (kammic) relation between the existences (lives), which makes no sense.

>>17446695
>3 types of dukkhas
There are much more than that. Now I get why you have hard time grasping its concept. I tried the English buddhist texts, majority are not comprehensive to provide profound understanding, but not to the point of being unreliable. Let alone gain deeper insights.
> it's gonna bring the promised results such as some type of pain asymbolia.
That’s just your own miccha dhitti now, anon
> Buddhism denies reincarnation
Buddism is different from Brahmism/Hinduism

>>17446607
>While living, an Arhat may still feel physical pain
The body of the thus gone Arhat will display symptoms of physical pain. But there are no Arhat the owner, no Arhat the feeler, no Arhat the see-er, no Arhat the do-er, no Arhat the remains that which binds to the body and does not bind to the body. There is no remain.

>>17446348
I'm pretty sure it's a Chinese Buddhist or Daoist saying.
The chinese have an odd relaionship with Buddhism.
Probably the only culture besides maybe India to ever bother to try to pen a refutation.
Obviously they are just talking past eachother but whatever.
>>17446695
Buddhists do believe in reincarantion of a sort though.

>>17446867
>>17446348
Daoism is Buddhism that entered China before being recognized as Buddhism + mix of Chinese culture. Then later on adopting Buddhist proper philosophy to augment Daoism as well. Its not a coincidence that the founder is a long eared sage from the west and its not a coincidence that the at certain level, it feels similar.

>>17446906
No it isn't. Also, Laozi is traditionally said to have been born in a village in Chu and journeyed West at the end of his life. And by traditional chinese accounts, he actually predates Gautama by a hundred years.

>>17446923
Its buddhism that entered China before Buddhism was recognized. The guy scholar/monk/merchant who spread the pre-Buddhism in China was teaching them about Bu-Dao as a sage that taught Buddhism in his life and later travelled west. Nepal -> Gandhara (west). So what you're hearing about is Bu-dao's life as told by silk road travellers and entered. Thats why the dating of the long eared sage's is roughly same as Buddha of India.

The philosophy the silk road travellers got from Bu-Dao was to "be aligned with nature" which is same talk about Buddha teaching people to embrace the natural truth of reality of impermanence (flow/change)

>>17446715
>There are much more than that.
What are they? Maybe they're subcategories that are inside the three ones that I mentioned (dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha).
>That’s just your own miccha dhitti now, anon
Why? Could you elaborate? Feeling pain but not bothering over it is indeed something like pain asymbolia. Moreover, I talked to a Buddhist recently here on /his/ and it was him (or her) that brought "pain asymbolia" to the discussion, claiming it was reasonable to consider that arhats get something like it.
>Buddism is different from Brahmism/Hinduism
I know, and the denial of reincarnation is not coherent with kammic information being transferred between existences/lives.
>>17446810
Are you talking about parinibbana? Because I'm talking about nibbana (while in life).
>>17446867
>Buddhists do believe in reincarantion of a sort though.
Elaborate?

>>17447534
>Are you talking about parinibbana?
No, this is still while in life. Buddha traveled the country for 30-40 years teaching his lessons to people. The parinirvana is when there is no physical remainder either. But before that, the body of the arhat/buddha will continue to exhibit normal functions but the mind will be completely different. It is an unimaginable difference of the mind. The theravada Buddhists say even the notion of consciousness itself is dissolved at nirvana (during life). One of the fetters/blockage before nirvana is the ability to create artificial distinctions of the mind, this is sometimes called the deceitful mind/mana. That which grasps for conceptualization, that which grasps for permanence, that which grasps mental objects, etc. That is the mind that which attaches/associates/categorizes/reifies those mental objects, etc. When this is destroyed at nirvana, the notions of "a person that controls the body" is completely gone. A mind that "conceptualizes" is completely gone. A mind that is "wholistic" is completely gone.

>>17447934
>But before that, the body of the arhat/buddha will continue to exhibit normal functions but the mind will be completely different.
So how is nirodha true? There is still dukkha-dukkha.

>>17448090
Suffering has a cause and condition. That is the "desire"/"grasping". Particularly grasping of mental objects that we take to have permanence, that we consider as sacred, that we take as real, etc. Once that faculty is no more, suffering ceases to be. Physical body pain may still be a thing. Just like a rock getting wet from rain, doesnt mean the rock is suffering. The mind of the buddha/arhat is without the root cause of suffering

https://youtu.be/QC1lMHbbNhg?si=PNUE8qdylLh8S8XS

>>17448257
>Once that faculty is no more, suffering ceases to be.
>Physical body pain may still be a thing.
Do you see the contradiction? It's saying that pain isn't suffering. But the concept of dukkha includes bodily pain. See >>17446660.

>>17448556
Pain is just a physical sensation. Suffering is cognitive inclination. Its not a contradiction. Suffering has an owner. It has a depth. When there is no owner, there is no sufferer.

>>17447534
>What are they? Maybe they're subcategories that are inside the three ones that I mentioned (dukkha-dukkha, viparinama-dukkha and sankhara-dukkha).
That's not my duty to spoonfeed anon. Still, it's obvious what kind of dukkha you having right now, precisely, dukkha-upadana - causing by dhitti-upadana.
>Why? Could you elaborate? Feeling pain but not bothering over it is indeed something like pain asymbolia. Moreover, I talked to a Buddhist recently here on /his/ and it was him (or her) that brought "pain asymbolia" to the discussion, claiming it was reasonable to consider that arhats get something like it.
Have you ever meditate longer than 3 hours anon? Or ever comtemplating while in pain/discomfort? That's simplest way to understand and acknowledge of dukkha. For pain asymbolia, I did not see any such case from arhat.
>the denial of reincarnation is not coherent with kammic information being transferred between existences/lives.
Information such as memories, sense of self wouldn't transfer in buddhism, only the deeds (karma) of invididual soul had done in past lives, which will dictate what kind of next life they will be. It's completely different from hinduism, whereas the concept of self (atman) is more prevalent, thus, one can "reincarnate" with past lives memories, sense of self.

Bump.

>>17450253
This is mindless gibberish from some western soiboi pretending to understand Buddhism. Your suffering comes from the fact you are limited, the path to deal with suffering is through it with joy not pretending it’s illusion

>>17448572
>Pain is just a physical sensation. Suffering is cognitive inclination. Its not a contradiction.
If that is the case, then what does the expression "physical suffering" mean? Notice that it's not "cognitive/mental suffering" or something like that, otherwise it wouldn't be dukkha-dukkha.
>>17449020
>That's not my duty to spoonfeed anon. Still, it's obvious what kind of dukkha you having right now, precisely, dukkha-upadana - causing by dhitti-upadana.
You may be confused. You're citing types of clinging, not of suffering. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upādāna.
>>17449020
>Have you ever meditate longer than 3 hours anon? Or ever comtemplating while in pain/discomfort? That's simplest way to understand and acknowledge of dukkha.
No, and I do not think that is quite necessarily to understand suffering. My point is that I (and probably other people as well) have no evidence that the cessation of bothering of physical suffering happens in "enlightenment".
>For pain asymbolia, I did not see any such case from arhat.
What you described is very near and analogous to pain asymbolia.
>Information such as memories, sense of self wouldn't transfer in buddhism, only the deeds (karma) of invididual soul had done in past lives, which will dictate what kind of next life they will be. It's completely different from hinduism, whereas the concept of self (atman) is more prevalent, thus, one can "reincarnate" with past lives memories, sense of self.
I see. It has to do with the definitions of reincarnation and rebirth. And I was wrong in call it reincarnation. But another doubt arises: what happens to the kamma of an arhat upon their death? Is this kamma annihilated?

>>17450402
I think you're conflating two different ideas to make a point. Everyone knows pain and suffering are different. One is a direct sensation where the body responds autonomously. It doesn't need a conscious effort. You can instill pain upon plants, upon single cells, upon a recently dead body, etc. The suffering is mental anguish that which has a bearer of the mind.

Buddhism is annihilationist.

>>17450425
>Everyone knows pain and suffering are different.
I'm not talking about general suffering. I'm talking about dukkha-dukkha, that is, physical suffering. If physical suffering is not bodily pain, then why the "physical" in it? Why not call it "mental suffering"? You're saying that dukkha-dukkha is mental, but I read the opposite of that everywhere I could find.