Life is Easier Without Karma - a Discussion

Luckysingh · #55 (**permalink**) 09-Aug-2012, 08:22 AM

Embersji,

You have a very clear and methodical approach which I find very appealing.
The topics on hand have always had great difficulty in implementing into words and understandable text. You only have to look at some other past posts.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/controversies/38889-life-is-easier-without-karma-discussion.html

Although, I have claimed for some time that I do accept karma, I have not clarified that it is my own interpretation miles away from vedic undertsanding.
In my opinion, this is where confusion arises with some members as they associate it hand in hand with reincarnation.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889

I believe that the bani did deny hand in hand combination of the two, but doesn't reject them solely on different avenues.
-This is my understanding.

Embers · #56 (**permalink**) 09-Aug-2012, 15:24 PM

Thank you LuckySingh Ji, I am grateful for your kind words.

I think it is worth noting in general that the Buddha explained Karma, but there was no Varna or Caste, it was free of the varna of Brahminism (Vedic). Likewise the Karma of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji does not need to be compared to the Karma of Buddhism or Brahminism in my opinion it too is unique.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889

Karma does not imply Varna because Varna does not seem to be a part of Waheguru's will according to the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, in my humble opinion.

I am going to have to post less to finish an assignment... not sure if it is karma or Divine will, but I have to get cracking and come back to this topic in the future. I just wanted to thank you for clarifying your view on karma!

harry haller · #57 (**permalink**) 09-Aug-2012, 15:30 PM

Quote:

not sure if it is karma or Divine will

could be neither, could be your own will

Embers · #58 (**permalink**) 09-Aug-2012, 15:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harry haller

could be neither, could be your own will

So now I have three things to juggle with! Ufff.

You might be right, well at least I have japa when the juggling gets tough..
japposatnamwaheguru:

Archived_member14 · #59 (**permalink**) 09-Aug-2012, 21:19 PM

Embers ji,

While waiting for you to come back so that we can start our discussion regarding the reality / concept distinction, I would like to respond to this part of your message. My questions are C and your response E.

Quote:

C: 1) And this means that you are convinced about the truth of Atman?

E: 1) I seem convinced that consciousness does not change. I consider consciousness to be synonymous with the Atman in this respect and hence I am inclined to confirm that I am convinced of the Atman. (God is a slightly different topic).

I wonder if the belief in Atman came before or after consideration regarding the nature of consciousness. If it is before, then it looks like you are trying to make your theory regarding consciousness to fit with the belief. If it is after then I'd like you to consider the following.
If consciousness does not change, then it is *not conditioned*. I wonder then how you explain the experience of the different objects through the five senses and the mind?

As I understand it, seeing is conditioned amongst other phenomena, by the eye-base, visible object and contact, so with the other sense experiences with their corresponding bases and object. This means that eye-base is different from ear-base etc., visible object is different from sound etc. and seeing is different from hearing etc. And this is what it means to be “conditioned”.

Surely you are not suggesting that seeing has the same characteristic as hearing and touching. But you are positing a consciousness / Atman which at different moments experience different objects and therefore somehow move around different bases, namely one moment it is at the eye, another at the toe and another at the nose, right?

If this is what you picture, I don't see why it is easier to believe this, than that each sense door experience and the mind are completely different and that they rise and fall away by differing conditions?

Quote:

C: 2) We cannot detect but we can understand. Why do you think that the development of the Path requires coming to be aware of a single unit of consciousness?

E: 2) Agreed. We can understand, we can see with an inner eye, so to speak. I do not believe Buddhism needs to start with consciousness, be it single unit or as the Buddha explains as subject to anicca. My earlier observation came from my brief study of Theravada and is one reason I felt I felt was an area of concern for me and raised it with you.

We begin and end with our moment to moment experience. No need to refer abstractly to consciousness, mental factors or physical phenomena and no need to think about Nibbana beyond the fact that it is the unconditioned which is the object of the path and fruition consciousness. Now, from moment to moment, there is seeing, touching, feeling, perception, visible object, sound, hardness, pressure, attachment, ignorance and so many other realities. All these, like consciousness, rise and fall away by conditions and can be known as such. So no need to start particularly with consciousness, but whatever appears “now”.

Indeed, that so many number of people who were the Buddha's audiences became enlightened there and then while listening to him teach, this is not because they all experienced insight into the particular reality that the Buddha was referring to at the time, but any of the possible realities each one of them were experiencing at at that very moment. So no need to talk about consciousness, but neither is there a need not to do so. ;-)

Quote:

C: 3) The fourth of the Four Noble Truths is the Noble Eightfold Path. This is a Path of understanding and not of coming to see individual consciousness which is impossible anyway, due to the very nature of the consciousness process. Besides, what you are saying has the implication that the development of wisdom begins only after seeing individual consciousness rise and fall, and this does not make sense, does it?

E: 3) I agree it doesn't make sense to believe that wisdom begins with Consciousness. One can study the four noble truths and the eightfold noble path and it will lead to its own end (nirvana) and wisdom.

No, you are misreading what I suggested. I wasn't saying that we need not start with consciousness, but was addressing your idea that because it is not possible to experience one instance of consciousness since it rises and falls away so fast, that one could then assume that consciousness is constant / permanent. What I was trying to tell you is that impermanence, insubstantiality and non-self are known not as a result of seeing “one” consciousness rise and fall away, but as a result of wisdom experiencing what appears in the moment. It does not need to experience one infinitesimal reality in order to understand / know. Characteristics both particular and general appear all day. What wisdom sees is not as though looking down a microscope, indeed it would come away with the impression of how ordinary and “like now” it all is.

Consciousness is not separate from the Noble Truths. It is Dukkha, the first Noble Truth. The second Noble Truth, craving, this cannot arise without consciousness. The fourth, the Path, these refer to mental factors that must arise with consciousness. You're thinking and considering all this is not without consciousness. There is consciousness now and at all times, so why not begin with this?

Quote:

C: 4) Also with all levels of understanding is the mental factor of saddha or confidence / faith, are you saying that this cannot arise for one who does not see individual consciousness rise and fall away?

E: 4) I am sure faith plays a role in Buddhism and other religions. It only matters to the view of the teaching as to how the being/aspirant sees consciousness.

It doesn't look like you understood what I was referring to.
Saddha is a mental factor which arises with all wholesome consciousness. It is there already when the wholesome state arises and is not about a particular line of thought / attitude towards a set of teachings. There are two kinds of faith, one which reflects confidence in all good deeds. The other is associated only with the Buddha's teachings; it arises with all instances of Right Understanding and reflects confidence in the Path. When the level of understanding is weak as in intellectual understanding, the confidence is of the corresponding strength. This means that as understanding develops, the confidence also grows. This is why with enlightenment; the confidence becomes perfect / unshakeable.

I think this is in contrast to how most people and probably you as well, picture faith, which is more about a belief in something one has yet to experience or understand. But from where I stand, this looks to be more about attachment, and should therefore be discouraged. Studying the Buddha's teachings requires understanding all the way through from the first step to the last, and with each step not only does confidence grow, but also there is a corresponding level of detachment.

Quote:

C: 5) This is not right is it, given that you approach the teachings in order to understand and then suddenly appeal to empirical evidence to judge whether or not the Buddha was right?

E: 5) I am not a Buddhist so I am not seeking to prove Buddha right or wrong. I have the utmost respect for his Dhamma. The reason I refer to empirical evidence is that it is 'me' who needs to understand. I do not need another to understand me or persuade me, hence I was seeking for empirical evidence in my being.

The only way that respect is shown towards the Buddha is through the development of Right understanding. If there is wrong understanding, this can't be respect, can it?

Why do you refer to empirical evidence then if you think that it is about understanding? You either understand or you don't and know it. But you questioned about the impermanence of citta and needed to be proven that indeed the description given reflects the reality. And you even went on to suggest not only that citta is permanent, but identify this as being the same as Atman, which as you know, is what the concept of Anatta directly denies the existence of. Is this the attitude of someone who acknowledges his own ignorance or is it of someone who thinks he knows better?

Quote:

C: 6) And since you refer to the need for evidence, why don’t you show me the evidence for permanence and atman?

E: 6) For clarity, I am not here to convince others of my views. Rather I would like to learn more about Sikhism, which is why I am posting here, using my views as a sounding board to receive criticism, correction and help to my answers. That said, I have no desire to convince anyone of the Atman (if convincing someone were even possible).

You don't have to try and convince anyone, but you can give an explanation in order that the other person knows where you are coming from. If you say that you have no basis to believe in non-self and impermanence, telling me what the basis for the belief in Atman and permanence is would help with the discussion, I would think.

Quote:

E: The reasoning for why I am not a Buddhist might be called ignorance by Buddhists, that is fine too.

I would say no right view has arisen; instead much wrong view has been conditioned to arise. (And this is worse than saying that it is due to ignorance isn't it. ;-)) But you don't know and I don't know about any right view that may have arisen in the past and accumulated, hence why I can't rule out the possibility that you may one day understand.

Quote:

E: When I turned to Buddhism to understand it, it was for a different reason than to end suffering for myself.

You'd have to know what “suffering” is first, before you can think to develop right understanding in order to end it. I hardly understand what suffering as in the First Noble Truth is. My interest is directed towards understanding this First Truth better, that's all.

Quote:

E: What attracted me to Theravada was that it does not require Varna. I learnt that there are over 166 Million Dalit Dalits (untouchables) and I wanted to understand Buddhism further in respect to their position. Varna is something I feel I need to understand better as it overlaps into social and political spheres it seems.

Yes, these are social considerations, which is not the objective of the Buddhadhamma. You won't find statements such as “no varna”, “equal rights for all”, “women should be treated as equal to men”, or even such suggestions as “one should treat everyone with kindness”. The point at all times is to develop right understanding of the present moment. From this it follows automatically that good deeds are seen as skillful and bad deeds as unskillful. No need to tell oneself to be and do good, let alone adopt particular attitudes in relation to society. Indeed it would seem that those who need prompting and who then tend also to prompt others 'to do good', 'to treat everyone equally' and those who think to develop loving kindness and such, are the ones who lack these qualities. And because they also lack understanding, they end up trying to do these things just so as to feel good about themselves. This is reflection of the worst of afflictions, namely “attachment to self”, the Second Noble Truth, which they all end up believing to be good. :-/

Embers · #60 (**permalink**) 10-Aug-2012, 00:09 AM

Dear Confused Ji
I think a better approach, for me, is that we continue to interact here, however I will attempt to control my time online and the number of posts I make a day.

Quote:

We begin and end with our moment to moment experience. No need to refer abstractly to consciousness, mental factors or physical phenomena and no need to think about Nibbana beyond the fact that it is the unconditioned which is the object of the path and fruition consciousness. Now, from moment to moment, there is seeing, touching, feeling, perception, visible object, sound, hardness, pressure, attachment, ignorance and so many other realities. All these, like consciousness, rise and fall away by conditions and can be known as such. So no need to start particularly with consciousness, but whatever appears “now”.

The issue as I see it above is mainly one of vocabulary. When I say soul, Consciousness or Atman, it is because I am on a Sikh forum or I am writing from the perspective of Vedanta. Lets start afresh and I will speak in this thread as a student of Theravada. I will accept anatta, anicca and dukkha for the purpose of our conversation.

Quote:

The only way that respect is shown towards the Buddha is through the development of Right understanding. If there is wrong understanding, this can't be respect, can it?

Correct, as a theravadin it would not be respectful to hold a wrong view. So from now on I will speak with acceptance of anatta, anicca and dukkha as true and expose any misunderstanding or questions I have on Theravada exclusively.

Quote:

Why do you refer to empirical evidence then if you think that it is about understanding? You either understand or you don't and know it. But you questioned about the impermanence of citta and needed to be proven that indeed the description given reflects the reality. And you even went on to suggest not only that citta is permanent, but identify this as being the same as Atman, which as you know, is what the concept of Anatta directly denies the existence of. Is this the attitude of someone who acknowledges his own ignorance or is it of someone who thinks he knows better?

You are right. I see the error from the perspective of anatta. Citta cannot be Atman and hence cannot be the unconditioned or right view from the Buddhist perspective. To assume that continuous citta is equal to atman is incorrect.

Quote:

You'd have to know what “suffering” is first, before you can think to develop right understanding in order to end it. I hardly understand what suffering as in the First Noble Truth is. My interest is directed towards understanding this First Truth better, that's all.

My understanding of suffering is when craving and aversion are taken to be self or as having an innate quality ignorantly assumed to require a volitional response. The ignorance includes 1) view that there is a self, and 2) view that anything arising is permanent. Permanence requires a self in order for time and space to have a relative reference point. By this I mean that we will suffer if an object we want ends, or if something we wish to avoid is happening to us. Both views are based on a self view, which is wrong. Insight into anatta removes the view of self. Anicca removes the concept that any phenomena have permanence of course. This is a crude explanation but my understanding is that insight of anatta and anicca assist in the removal of ignorance, craving and aversion: all of which are dukkha.

Can you assist me to understand the suffering inherent in the formations (saṅkhāra-dukkhatā)? Formations are of course anicca and anatta, however is dukkha inerent in the formations even when the Unconditioned is known?

Thanks

Archived_member14 · #61 (**permalink**) 10-Aug-2012, 10:47 AM

Embers ji,

Quote:

The issue as I see it above is mainly one of vocabulary. When I say soul, Consciousness or Atman, it is because I am on a Sikh forum or I am writing from the perspective of Vedanta. Lets start afresh and I will speak in this thread as a student of Theravada. I will accept anatta, anicca and dukkha for the purpose of our conversation.

I'm not sure how to react to this.
I consider what I hear from the Buddha as being about the Truth, the Four Noble Truths. This is not just one of the many possible viewpoints with regard to reality, it is *the* description of the way things are. Every other teaching comes under the sixty odd wrong views listed in the Buddha's discourse on the All Embracing Net of Views. So I'm here to speak about the Truth and not Theravada.

Why would I come into a Sikh group or any other group, representing the Theravada position? Doing so I'd just be adding to the mess, re: the net of views? As it is we are already caught up in a tangle. My proposing a view amongst other views would only create even more tangle.

I let it be known to this group sometime ago, that I am not here to learn anything from anyone, but share my understandings. This is a more tolerant group than most and as someone proposed, nothing is swept under the carpet, and this is why I'm still able to post here. At first I was more circumspect, but now I don't think that I have to. People have long got the impression that what I say is very different from what they understand. It is time therefore to be direct as possible given that otherwise there is much room for misinterpretation.

So when you come in proposing that you talk as a student of Theravada and accept anatta and anicca only for the purpose of discussion, I don't see that this is going to lead to any good. I'd rather that you do not accept Theravada but are interested in finding out what reality / Truth is. And I don't care to discuss philosophy. So whatever it is that you are thinking please lay it out. Even if this is that you do not believe that there is one single Truth or that you reduce all teachings to being merely different ways of thought meant to make life more tolerable or easier.

Now to your enquiry.

Quote:

Can you assist me to understand the suffering inherent in the formations (saṅkhāra-dukkhatā)? Formations are of course anicca and anatta, however is dukkha inerent in the formations even when the Unconditioned is known?

I have difficulty understanding sankhara dukkha myself. You can search the web for explanations, although I don't think that this would make any difference. The only real way to understand is by studying the reality, and therefore if upon reading any description the attention is not drawn towards the reality now, no real learning would be taking place. I'm only crawling at this point.

But there is also this, the three general characteristics are intimately connected. Therefore in understanding one, there is moving towards understanding the other two as well. Also at the point of enlightenment, insight into one of the three characteristics is the stepping stone to the experience of Nibbana. Which of these three is the object depends on the individual, which means that different people have different propensity to understand one characteristic better than the other two.

Embers · #62 (**permalink**) 10-Aug-2012, 12:26 PM

Hello Confused Ji

I will reply to the quote:

Quote:

I let it be known to this group sometime ago, that I am not here to learn anything from anyone, but share my understandings. This is a more tolerant group than most and as someone proposed, nothing is swept under the carpet, and this is why I'm still able to post here. At first I was more circumspect, but now I don't think that I have to. People have long got the impression that what I say is very different from what they understand. It is time therefore to be direct as possible given that otherwise there is much room for misinterpretation.

So when you come in proposing that you talk as a student of Theravada and accept anatta and anicca only for the purpose of discussion, I don't see that this is going to lead to any good. I'd rather that you do not accept Theravada but are interested in finding out what reality / Truth is. And I don't care to discuss philosophy. So whatever it is that you are thinking please lay it out. Even if this is that you do not believe that there is one single Truth or that you reduce all teachings to being merely different ways of thought meant to make life more tolerable or easier.

I had missed the posts explaining your reason for posting here; it is helpful to know.

The reason I speak of Theravada is because I have no familiarity of other Buddhist schools, it doesn't imply that Theravada is a thing in itself, to me.

You want to teach me the Truth, so I became your student. I left my baggage at the door and entered your class room.

The teaching of the Eightfold noble path leads to the end of suffering. Once there is no longer suffering then who is there to convince, who is there to teach, who is there to learn?

You talk to me as an individual with ignorance and wrong views above. You seem to see a 'me' needing correction but not anatta.

It need not be a question of tolerance or ease, or philosophy or truth. Please try to explain what life is, without using any of these.

Quote:

I have difficulty understanding sankhara dukkha myself. You can search the web for explanations, although I don't think that this would make any difference. The only real way to understand is by studying the reality, and therefore if upon reading any description the attention is not drawn towards the reality now, no real learning would be taking place. I'm only crawling at this point.

But there is also this, the three general characteristics are intimately connected. Therefore in understanding one, there is moving towards understanding the other two as well. Also at the point of enlightenment, insight into one of the three characteristics is the stepping stone to the experience of Nibbana. Which of these three is the object depends on the individual, which means that different people have different propensity to understand one characteristic better than the other two.

My path of inquiry is the question if Dukkha is an inherent quality in objects. Someone else told me that it is always so, I cannot confirm that as true, which is why I asked above. I see no dukkha in objects unless there is ignorance. I will share my thoughts below, but I am prepared to leave this topic to rest and my questions are answered in the quotes (unless you disagree).

Here is a quote on Sankhara Dukkha by Bhikkhu Bodhi (I choose it as it came up quickly in a search):

Quote:

For this reason the Buddha declares that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara dukkha) — suffering, however, not because they are all actually painful and stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of transience. "Having arisen they then cease," and because they all cease they cannot provide stable happiness and security. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...-essay_43.html

Then it is anicca and anatta which when touched by craving and aversion there is the arising of Dukkha. By removing craving and aversion there is only anicca and anatta, but no Dukkha. The way to end craving is the Eightfold noble path.

Do we agree that Dukkha ends with the end of craving (aversion and ignorance)?
Personally I cannot see how Dukkha would remain after they end?

Quote:

SN 56.11:
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....011.than.html

From this quote it seems Dukkha ends and it does not continue. I really do not have much more to talk about on this thread.

Thank you for the reply.
with respect, Embers.

Archived_member14 · #63 (**permalink**) 11-Aug-2012, 22:07 PM

Embers ji,

Quote:

I had missed the posts explaining your reason for posting here; it is helpful to know.

It's not like I announced it, but it was more a response to a particular suggestion, perhaps one regarding Sikhs being learners. Also I had said that there must be many, many motives, alternating, depending on conditions. Also if I remember right, I distinguished between learning about and from Sikh teachings. Although the latter is never the case, the former is implicit each time that I read posts here.

Quote:

The reason I speak of Theravada is because I have no familiarity of other Buddhist schools, it doesn't imply that Theravada is a thing in itself, to me.

The point is that you appear willing to accept as 'Truth' more than one set of teachings which do not, from my perspective, point to the same thing.

Quote:

You want to teach me the Truth, so I became your student. I left my baggage at the door and entered your class room.

That has not been my impression. But why would I want you to leave your baggage at the door? How could anyone do that anyway? Indeed I want you to be telling me the Truth; I want you to try and correct me and be upfront about it. I am not the least interested in becoming some kind of teacher, which would be dumb. I am here to challenge and be challenged. Life is too short to be dancing around.

Quote:

The teaching of the Eightfold noble path leads to the end of suffering. Once there is no longer suffering then who is there to convince, who is there to teach, who is there to learn?

Who is there to convince now?! No one, but conditions roll on regardless of what one thinks. Insight into non-self does not mean there will be no thinking in terms of people and things and actions in relation to situations.
But see, you just said that you are willing to become a student and immediately you are trying to teach me something.

Quote:

You talk to me as an individual with ignorance and wrong views above. You seem to see a 'me' needing correction but not anatta.

Yes, that is my perception.

Quote:

It need not be a question of tolerance or ease, or philosophy or truth. Please try to explain what life is, without using any of these.

I don't understand your point. And how do you expect me to talk about life while leaving the question of truth out?

Quote:

My path of inquiry is the question if Dukkha is an inherent quality in objects. Someone else told me that it is always so, I cannot confirm that as true, which is why I asked above. I see no dukkha in objects unless there is ignorance. I will share my thoughts below, but I am prepared to leave this topic to rest and my questions are answered in the quotes (unless you disagree).

Here is a quote on Sankhara Dukkha by Bhikkhu Bodhi (I choose it as it came up quickly in a search):

Quote: For this reason the Buddha declares that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara dukkha) — suffering, however, not because they are all actually painful and stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of transience. "Having arisen they then cease," and because they all cease they cannot provide stable happiness and security. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...-essay_43.html

Then it is anicca and anatta which when touched by craving and aversion there is the arising of Dukkha. By removing craving and aversion there is only anicca and anatta, but no Dukkha. The way to end craving is the Eightfold noble path.

No, you have wrongly inferred this. And it appears that you are referring to Dukkha as in unpleasant mental feeling, not the Dukkha which is characteristic of all conditioned realities. The quote is not making a reference to ignorance or aversion and craving as cause for the experience of dukkha. It is describing how dukkha is intimately connected to the other two characteristic of anicca and anatta. It is stating that no reality can ever provide happiness, because of this characteristic of rise and fall. In other words it is Dukkha in and of itself and not because there is craving for objects. This is why the unconditioned Nibbana is said to be the only real happiness. Indeed this comes only after penetrating the Noble Truth of Dukkha. An enlightened person understands that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta and dukkha.

Quote:

Do we agree that Dukkha ends with the end of craving (aversion and ignorance)?
Personally I cannot see how Dukkha would remain after they end?

The Dukkha that ends with the eradication of ignorance and craving refers to the Dukkha in the context of the Four Noble Truths where Craving or Tanha is the cause, i.e. the Second Truth. This is saying that with the eradication of ignorance and craving there will not be rebirth (hence the arising of Dukkha) anymore.

Even a Buddha experiences Dukkha as in unpleasant bodily feeling, being that he would receive the result of past kamma. And he and all the arahats would not perceive any of their experiences and the objects of the senses as anything but Dukkha, re: one of the three marks of existence.

Quote:

Quote: SN 56.11:
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

"And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....011.than.html

From this quote it seems Dukkha ends and it does not continue. I really do not have much more to talk about on this thread.

Yes, as in being reborn again where conditioned phenomena will continue to roll on. However so long as the arahat is still alive, all his experience and object of experience (leaving out Nibbana and concepts), being that they are conditioned realities, would exhibit the characteristic of Dukkha along with the other two general characteristics.