text:
What is the most accurate translation of the word 'dukkha'?
This question is a sequel to my previous question about First Noble Truth.
It seems that there is discord about the exact rendering of the word 'dukkha'. Sorry if I sound like a pedantic dou*h. I am just trying to understand it clearly.
So the answer I received in this link and this link translates it as 'stress'. (I personally think it's wrong, but I am not any authority or scholar).
The Wikipedia page for dukkha gives the following translations: "suffering", "unhappiness", "pain", "unsatisfactoriness" or "stress".
So what's the exact meaning?
I am asking because the exact rendering changes the meaning and its effectiveness as teaching a lot.

As i understand it Dukkha can be derived from the Sanskrit kha, one meaning of which is some sort of opening, ie 'the axle-hole of a wheel', and the antithetic prefix Duk. Meaning that if you were given a wheel to try for a fit and having tried putting it on your chariot axle you would see that the wheel's 'kha' is a bad fit. Someone would then ask you if the wheel is sukha and you would reply; no it's dukkha. So here it's close to unfitting, bad, wrong, incompatible, unsuitable, disagreeable and ill-fitting or of the wrong kind.
Sukha would be the opppsite kind of fit. Well-fitting.
I think the ill or the illness are also good translations for dukkha .
From wikipedia

According to Monier-Williams (1964), the etymology of sukha is "said to be su ['good'] + kha ['aperture'] and to mean originally 'having a good axle-hole'...." Thus, for instance, in the Rig Veda sukha denotes "running swiftly or easily" (applied, e.g., to chariots). Sukha is juxtaposed with duḥkha (Sanskrit; Pali: dukkha; often translated as "suffering"), which was established as the major motivating life principles in early Vedic religion.

In the pali we can see this applied to feelings [vedana] denoting pain as 'dukkha vedana' but it's use is broad.
There is a sutta called Dukkha which illustrates this;

"Monks, there are these three kinds of suffering.[1] What three? Suffering caused by pain,[2] suffering caused by the formations (or conditioned existence),[3] suffering due to change.[4] It is for the full comprehension, clear understanding, ending and abandonment of these three forms of suffering that the Noble Eightfold Path is to be cultivated..."

Translator's Notes (Thanissaro)

Dukkhataa, an abstract noun denoting "suffering" in the most general sense.

Dukkha-dukkhataa, the actual feeling of physical or mental pain or anguish.

Sankhaara-dukkhataa, the suffering produced by all "conditioned phenomena" (i.e., sankhaaras, in the most general sense: see BD [Buddhist Dictionary (2nd ed.), by Ven. Nyaa.natiloka, Ven. Nyaa.naponika (ed.), Colombo 1972] s.v. sankhaara I, 4). This includes also experiences associated with hedonically neutral feeling. The suffering inherent in the formations has its roots in the imperfectability of all conditioned existence, and in the fact that there cannot be any final satisfaction within the incessant turning of the Wheel of Life. The neutral feeling associated with this type of suffering is especially the indifference of those who do not understand the fact of suffering and are not moved by it.

Viparinaama-dukkhataa, the suffering associated with pleasant bodily and mental feelings: "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change" (VM XIV, 35).

I think that in regards to #3 It's noteworthy that it's said; 'sabbe sankhara dukkha' [all formations are dukkha] in the texts. So i think the translator made a slip there writing 'suffering produced by sankhara' and that it should be suffering associated with or suffering denoting all formations [sankhara-dukkha].
All formations are inconstant and to that extent they are flawed in as far as happiness goes, what is flawed that is classed categorically as dukkha.

I like this answer because dukkha is analogous to dirt or other defilement on the shaft of a jet turbine. Such defilements would lead to friction, stress, unhappiness, suffering and pain as well as all the other translations of dukkha I have read. In this analogy, jhana stages correspond to progressively faster turbine speeds: faster speeds help reveal any imperfections remaining.

Thankyou for the answer.

I'm not sure who wrote the short introduction at the top of the Dukkha page of AccessToInsight.org but it is a very appropriate comment to your question:

No single English word adequately captures the full depth, range, and
subtlety of the crucial Pali term dukkha. Over the years, many
translations of the word have been used ("stress,"
"unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). Each has its own merits in a
given context. There is value in not letting oneself get too
comfortable with any one particular translation of the word, since the
entire thrust of Buddhist practice is the broadening and deepening of
one's understanding of dukkha until its roots are finally exposed
and eradicated once and for all. One helpful rule of thumb: as soon as
you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think
again: for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper,
subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that.

You must remember that this is a technical term that goes beyond the ordinary meaning of the word in Pali.
The canonical definition is:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow,
lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the
unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha;
not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short,
the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."
— SN 56.11

That's quite self-explanatory. But if you want a further explanation, just look at the Dukkha page for Ven. Sariputta's elaboration.
Ven. Bodhi's comments from the forum on Understanding Dukkha:

In the Pali suttas, the discourses of the Buddha, the word dukkha is
used in at least three senses. One, which is probably the original
sense of the word dukkha and was used in conventional discourse
during the Buddha’s time, is pain, particularly painful bodily
feelings. The Buddha also uses the word dukkha for the emotional
aspect of human existence. There are a number of synonyms that
comprise this aspect of
dukkha: soka, which means sorrow; aryadeva, which is lamentation;
dolmenasa, which is sadness, grief, or displeasure; and upayasa,
which is misery, even despair. The deepest, most comprehensive aspect
of
dukkha is signified by the term samkara-dukkha, which means the dukkha that is inherent in all conditioned phenomena simply by virtue of the fact that they are conditioned.

This means that the technical term dukkha has a superficial meaning which is pain, suffering, stress, lamentation, sorrow, grief, despair, anguish, dissatisfaction, encountering that which is disliked, being separated from that which is liked, and not getting something you want.
However, the technical term dukkha also has a deeper meaning in sankhara-dukkha - which is that all conditioned phenomena are impermanent, and therefore is a cause of suffering, because "they cannot provide stable happiness and security" (see below). It is for this reason that some people say "unsatisfactoriness" is a better term to use than "suffering" to explain the deeper meaning.
The superficial meaning covers only the negative experiences, while the deeper meaning covers the fact that positive and neutral experiences cannot be sustained forever, and negative experiences cannot be avoided forever.
In "Anicca Vata Sankhara", Ven. Bodhi comments:

The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as
conditioned formations, is that they are all impermanent:
"Impermanent, alas, are formations." They are impermanent not only in
the sense that in their gross manifestations they will eventually come
to an end, but even more pointedly because at the subtle, subliminal
level they are constantly undergoing rise and fall, forever coming
into being and then, in a split second, breaking up and perishing:
"Their very nature is to arise and vanish." 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.
To win complete release from suffering — not only from experiencing
suffering, but from the unsatisfactoriness intrinsic to all
conditioned existence — we must gain release from sankharas. And
what lies beyond the sankharas is that which is not constructed, not
put together, not compounded. This is Nibbana, accordingly called the
Unconditioned — asankhata — the opposite of what is sankhata, a
word which is the passive participle corresponding to sankhara.
Nibbana is called the Unconditioned precisely because it's a state that is neither itself a sankhara nor constructed by sankharas; a
state described as visankhara, "devoid of formations," and as
sabbasankhara-samatha, "the stilling of all formations."

Thankyou for such a detailed answer. This explains a lot.

sankhara-dukkha cannot mean all conditioned phenomena are impermanent because it is included in SN 38.14 with vipariṇāmadukkhatā, which means dukkha due to change.

I think the closest fit to dukkha in English is the word 'discontent'. The essential idea behind dukkha is a mismatch between what is and what ought to be. To use the classic examples, we think we should have been born into a better condition; we think we should always be healthy; we think we should always be young and vital; we think we should live forever... The fact that we are born into our state, that we get ill, and age, and die, are dukkha because they don't fit with what we expect. We become discontent with what we've been given; we feel we should have been given something else (something better), and struggle with frustration because it isn't so.
I bow to the scholarly answers given by MAGA2020 and ruben2020 above, but I thought something more philosophical might be in order.

'Dukkha' = du + kha = 'hard/difficult to endure' or 'unbearable'
In its most basic ordinary unenlightened sense, 'dukkha' refers to physical pain and painful feelings, such as grief & sorrow, which in the Pali is called 'dukkha vedana' or 'painful feelings'. For most people, such feelings are 'difficult to endure' or 'unbearable'.
In its enlightened sense, 'dukkha' has two aspects, namely:

The mental turmoil or torment of attachment, self-obsession or selfishness, called 'upadana dukkha', where in the 1st noble truth, the Buddha summarised all dukkha as attachment (upadana) to the five aggregates. This is mostly simply explained in the sutta SN 22.1. Many others sutta, such as the well-known SN 36.6, similarly make it clear real dukkha is attachment, which includes attachment to physical pain. Therefore, the revelation of the Buddha was dukkha was attachment rather than physical pain, sorrow, sickness, death, etc. In other words, sorrow, sickness and death are forms of attachment, namely, the ideas "I am sick; I am getting old; I will die; my friend died". In Buddhism, 'death' occurs to a 'self', which is why death does not happen to a Buddha because a Buddha does not believe they are a 'self'.

Dukkha as the 'lack of pleasantness' or 'non-pleasurableness' or 'unsatisfactoriness' in conditioned impermanent phenomena, as taught in SN 22.59. In lucid meditation when impermanence is experienced very clearly, the constant impermanence of phenomena has an unpleasant, ugly &/or disillusioning appearance. This is also called 'dukkha' however this type of dukkha is not suffering but, instead, is the vehicle for enlightenment and ending suffering, as described in Dhp 278 below:

278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory (dukkha)" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering (dukkha). This is the path to
purification.

In other words, a Buddha or enlightened being is always experiencing the dukkha of impermanent phenomena but never experiences the 'upadana dukkha' of attachment. Buddhas also experience physical pain but this is merely painful feelings for a Buddha rather than suffering. Note: From an enlightened perspective, the unpleasant feelings of sorrow & grief, although being feelings, are caused by attachment and are thus types of attachment.
In conclusion, there is no precise meaning of the word "dukkha". Instead:

Dukkha means 'unpleasant' or 'painful' when describing a type of feeling (vedana).

Dukkha means 'suffering' when referring to the neurosis and torment of selfish attachment.

Dukkha means 'lacking happiness' or 'unsatisfactoriness' when referring to the inherent nature of impermanent phenomena. For example, a rock is 'dukkha' here because a rock has no quality in it that can sustain permanent happiness.


text:
Form in the formless realms
Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there also have a form of some kind.
Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama were most probably born in formless Brahma realms after their death.
But Buddha didn't visit Alara-Kalama and Uddakka-Ramaputta which means that they couldn't understand the Dhamma which must have been a problem with the senses or something similar (My first question) because they already had superior mental ability to understand the Dhamma (MN 21),

Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had little
dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first? He
will quickly understand this Dhamma.

Dust here implies the 5 hindrances.

This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent, intelligent. He has long had
little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the Dhamma first?
He will quickly understand this Dhamma.

I would like to get an answer to either or both (if possible) of the below questions,
Question 1: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama.
Question 2: What is the difference in form between the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

His original teachers were already dead by the time Gotama became the Buddha.

OP: Question 1: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and
Alara Kalama.

The reason for this is that they had already passed away at the time of the Buddha's enlightenment.
From MN 26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
occurred to me, 'This Alara Kalama is wise, competent, intelligent. He
has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were to teach him the
Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this Dhamma.' Then devas came
to me and said, 'Lord, Alara Kalama died seven days ago.' And
knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Alara Kalama died seven days
ago.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Alara Kalama
suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly
understood it.'
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'To whom should I teach the Dhamma
first? Who will quickly understand this Dhamma?' Then the thought
occurred to me, 'This Uddaka Ramaputta is wise, competent,
intelligent. He has long had little dust in his eyes. What if I were
to teach him the Dhamma first? He will quickly understand this
Dhamma.' Then devas came to me and said, 'Lord, Uddaka Ramaputta died
last night.' And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka
Ramaputta died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great
loss has Uddaka Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he
would have quickly understood it.

The sutta proceeds with the Buddha selecting the five monks at the Deer Park at Isipatana, to be his first disciples. They are the ones who attended to him when he practiced extreme asceticism.

OP: Question 2: What is the difference in form between
the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

If you mean the traditional Buddhist cosmology of the 31 planes of existence, please see the AccessToInsight page on The Thirty-One Planes of Existence:

The Immaterial World (arupa-loka). Consists of four realms that are accessible to those who pass away while meditating in the formless
jhanas.
The Fine-Material World (rupa-loka). Consists of sixteen realms whose inhabitants (the devas) experience extremely refined degrees
of mental pleasure. These realms are accessible to those who have
attained at least some level of jhana and who have thereby managed
to (temporarily) suppress hatred and ill-will. They are said to
possess extremely refined bodies of pure light. The highest of these
realms, the Pure Abodes, are accessible only to those who have
attained to "non-returning," the third stage of Awakening. The
Fine-Material World and the Immaterial World together constitute the
"heavens" (sagga).
The Sensuous World (kama-loka). Consists of eleven realms in which experience — both pleasurable and not — is dominated by the five
senses. Seven of these realms are favorable destinations, and include
our own human realm as well as several realms occupied by devas. The
lowest realms are the four "bad" destinations, which include the
animal and hell realms.

The details of all 31 planes are on that page.

OP: Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is
implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there
also have a form of some kind.

If you look at that page, it says that unconscious beings (asaññasatta) who are on plane #22 have body but no mind. On the other hand, the top four types of beings in the arupa-loka have mind, but no body.
Doesn't that conflict with the definition of name-and-form in Dependent Origination?
My take on it is that the Dependent Origination taught in the Pali suttas applies to humans, and any beings with both body and mind. The Buddha, being a pragmatic teacher, targeted this teaching only at those who are able to listen to it and understand it. This does not include the unconscious beings (asaññasatta), those beings in the arupa-loka, and also the beings who are in the state of deprivation (apaya).
There may be more to Dependent Origination as in how it may apply to those beings with mind and no body, or with body and no mind, but this is one of those things which the Buddha did not teach us because it is not useful to us.
As we see in SN 56.31:

Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest.
Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the
monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few
simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord.
Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct
knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have
taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected
with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do
not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to
direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have
not taught them.

There is an alternative view to this.
The alternative view is that the 31 planes of existence are just different states of mind, that is to say not a literal physical rebirth into those planes, but rather the momentary rebirth of one's personhood into those planes i.e. entering different states of mind. This is usually supported by the association of the 4 rupa jhanas and 4 arupa jhanas, as well as brahmaviharas with different planes.
This is like a more subtle perspective into the teachings, compared to the one previously mentioned, which is gross.

declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa

It declares that both name & form arise with consciousness as requisite condition. Name and Form are not one and same thing;

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form. [Sn12.2]
(https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html)

When form comes into play then 'feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention' can be delineated.
Form is delineated in as far as perception that arises in dependence on form is delineated, ie what is see by the eye.
Perception can be not dependent on form ie 'space' is a mental conception and in & by itself does not depend on "things", it is not known by it's density, fluidity, aerial nor by a thermal property and it is without shape, color, taste, sound, smell nor a tactile or tangible expression.
Therefore when perception of form fades from the mind, there is then the underlying perception of infinite space.
You need to conceive space to conceive form but you don't need form to conceive of space, therefore underlying. When you have a material thing it has a spatial property [occupies space, is in a space] but space in & by itself doesn't have a material property.
Therefore it is said;

"Friend, what can be known with the purified intellect-consciousness divorced from the five [sense] faculties?"
"Friend, with the purified intellect-consciousness divorced from the five faculties the dimension of the infinitude of space can be known [as] 'infinite space.' The dimension of the infinitude of consciousness can be known [as] 'infinite consciousness.' The dimension of nothingness can be known [as] 'There is nothing.' Mn43

"Further, Ananda, the monk — not attending to the perception of wilderness, not attending to the perception of earth — attends to the singleness based on the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space. His mind takes pleasure, finds satisfaction, settles, & indulges in its perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space.
MN121

Perception of infinite space is different to thinking about space, thinking about space is classed as 'perception of thinking'.

Dependant Origination declares that from Consciousness (Viññana) arises Nāma-Rūpa, not just Nāma. Therefore it is implied that even in formless realms the entities that exist there also have a form of some kind.

No, there's no implication there. While it's true that the suttas stated that Vinnana is the condition for the arising of Nama-Rupa, nowhere in the entire Canon did it say both Nama and Rupa must always arise together throughout the 31 planes of existence!

Question 1: Why couldn't Buddha teach the Dhamma to Uddakka Ramaputta and Alara Kalama.

Couple reasons: 1. Those teachers already passed away 2. Those beings born into the ARupa realms do not have Rupa (ie. no physical eyes, ears, etc) hence would not be able to receive the Buddha's Teaching.

Question 2: What is the difference in form between the Rūpa Lōka and Arūpa Loka.

In Rupa realms, there's still some sort of fine/subtle materiality, while in ARupaLoka, there is no Rupa at all. Refer to 31 Planes of Existence for further infos.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can Buddhist accept prayers from other religions?
Subject refers, can a Buddhist accepts prayer from other religion say Muslim or Christian? I understand the answer is yes.

What does it mean to "accept".  Simply refraining from saying "I do not accept your prayers"? If so, yes. Just saying "Thanks" or being silent is not  in conflict with Dharma practice.

We do not pray for religion. We pray for people. People of all kinds. No discrimination. If Christian or Hindu or Muslim prays for us then we should accept it gratefully...

Prayer is nothing more than well wishing with some external mythical locus as a framework. That framework only has meaning to the adherents of that same framework.
To everyone else it's just well wishing.
The intention of the prayer is what's important, not the framework within which it was uttered.
If a person means well with their intentions it matters not how they vocalise that intention.
We can certainly "accept" someone's intentions without any reference to their personal belief framework.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Shambhawi mudra and Buddhism
Do Buddhists use the Shambhawi mudra ?
What kind of tradition use it and for which purpose?
(if possible with some references)

This answer is only from the Theravada viewpoint. It's likely that you can find more diverse meditation techniques in Vajrayana.
Shambhavi Mudra is apparently an eyebrow center gazing gesture.
This source states:

Shambhavi Mudra is an eye-crossing technique which is used as a hack
to activate the parasympathetic nervous system—which is cognate with
the medulla oblongata and the ajna chakra (or the so-called third
eye). A sign that the mudra is being practiced properly is the result
of having pressure build in the sinus cavities.

While there is no Shambhavi Mudra in Theravada Buddhism, the closest thing to it is parimukham. Please read this answer for a detailed analysis on the term parimukham, with respect to the mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati) meditation, in the Pali suttas.
This is often translated as concentrating on the sensation of the breath at the tip  of the nose in the mindfulness of breathing (anapanasati) meditation. That does not refer to the tip of the nose at the eyebrow center, but rather, it refers to the nostrils and area around the nose and mouth where the sensation of the breath can be felt.
But the sensation of the breath can also be felt at the diaphragm and abdomen. Please also see this answer.
The concept of chakras, and stimulating the nervous and endocrinal system is also not found in Theravada Buddhism.
On another note, there is however, something similar to Kechari Mudra in Buddhism, in this question. But again, the purpose is different. It's not to stimulate the nervous and endocrinal system.
The purpose of Buddhist meditation is to still the mind and use it to observe the processes of the mind and the mind-body connection, to understand the nature of the mind-body, and how it relates to the four noble truths, dependent origination and the three marks of existence. It's not meant for obtaining psychic abilities or supernatural powers - though that may be possible.

Very interesting, I had experience with Nichiren buddhism in Japan (not SGI) and i noticed that they do everything with open eyes instead on focusing on any meditation.

i mean of course there is meditation but is object oriented towards the external instead of the internal meditation.

@DoubtfulMonk I think their (Nichiren Buddhism) main practice is chanting "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo".

Essentially is divided in two parts, one called the Gonghyo which consist in reciting part of the lotus sutra , while being defined mahayana school they took the mantrayana tradition while chanting the Daimoku which is the Nam Myoho Renge Kyo famous mantra.

but the Gohonzon , or the object of worship , is external and is teached to be practiced looking directly at it.

@DoubtfulMonk Thanks. I'm not very familiar with Nichiren Buddhism.

Thanks to you for the detailed answer

also in the first chapter of the Lotus sutra is written  :  Manjushri ,  why from the white tuft between the eyebrows of our leader and teacher does this great light shines all around?


text:
Why is 'dukkha' included in one of the three marks of existence?
In this link and this link the Buddha says that "there is stress" (or suffering or whatever your preferred translation of dukkha is). The Buddha does not say that suffering (dukkha) is inherent or an innate characteristic of existence.
According to the Second Noble Truth, this dukkha is caused by desire or craving.
So dukkha has a cause. That cause can be removed. It's not that existence is made up of dukkha.
I understand Annicca (impermanence) and Annatta (not-self) can be said to be 'marks of existence' i.e. existence is characterized by them. But I don't understand how dukkha is a mark of existence.
It is true that under certain circumstances humans feel dukkha but there is also joy, happiness, love etc. Dukkha is not a permanent building block of human existence. Annicca and Annata are permanent or basic building blocks.
So my question is, why is dukkha said to be a 'mark' of samsaric realm or material existence?

The teachings of the Buddha are not metaphysics. They do not describe the ontology or nature of things.
The teachings of the Buddha serve one purpose only - freedom from suffering. It's purpose is soteriological, not ontological.
In "Anicca Vata Sankhara", Ven. Bodhi comments:

The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as
conditioned formations, is that they are all impermanent:
"Impermanent, alas, are formations." They are impermanent not only in
the sense that in their gross manifestations they will eventually come
to an end, but even more pointedly because at the subtle, subliminal
level they are constantly undergoing rise and fall, forever coming
into being and then, in a split second, breaking up and perishing:
"Their very nature is to arise and vanish." 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.

First we have the first noble truth that tells us that there is suffering or dukkha. This is explained in this answer.
Next, we see - sabbe sankhara anicca.
This mark of existence states that all conditioned and compounded things (both mental and physical) are impermanent.
So what? What is the connection to you?
Next, we see - sabbe sankhara dukkha.
This mark of existence states that because all conditioned and compounded things (both mental and physical) are impermanent, therefore they are a source of suffering or unsatisfactoriness, because "they cannot provide stable happiness and security." They are connected in this way.
These two marks of existence are there to show the connection from all conditioned and compounded things to the first noble truth of dukkha. In particular, they show the connection of the impermanence of the five aggregates (which are conditioned and compounded) to dukkha.
It's not there to explain the nature of reality. It's there as part of the narrative to explain the four noble truths.
The three marks of existence are mainly about YOUR existence. The marks of existence of a chair or table is unimportant.

Ok great. Thanks. Didn't saw it that ways.

@TheWhiteCloud The three marks of existence are mainly about YOUR existence. The marks of existence of a chair or table is unimportant.

All feelings, perceptions & existence are dukkha because they are an expression of the conditioned element.
There are two elements to be known; conditioned and the unconditioned.
Not knowing the unconditioned which comes to be known through it's realization as the 'nibbananirodhadhatu' [extinguishment-cessation-principle] of the conditioned [dukkha].
The target referent of "cessation of suffering" is the principle by which suffering ends.
It is just that and it is a truth to be attained and seen as it actually is.
It does not belong to anyone nor is it an inherent property of suffering. Suffering is one thing, it's end is another.
Extinguishment of a fire is not an eternal fire, the principle of it's extinguishment is not an inherent property of a flame or it's fuel, analogically the extinguishment of perceived existence isn't an eternal perception of bliss because it's an release from perception itself. It is the end of dukkha, a release & a freedom from dukkha.
I will give an analogy; "If very cruel people conceived a child and raised him as a cruel joke to only know abuse, they would treat him wrong, train him wrong all whilst teaching we are treating you good, you are lucky and we are training you correctly.
Then the child not knowing better might think;'I am so fortunate, my masters are kind to me, they treat me good and are showing me kindness'.
If he were to escape however and learn the truth, he would be horrified by his former existence."
Likewise when one sees the truth of cessation it becomes known as the primary bliss.
Therefore as there are two elements; the conditioned and the unconditioned. There are are two elements to be known; dukkha and happiness.
Here sutta excerpts;

There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the conditioned. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the conditioned.

The born, come-to-be, produced,
The made, the conditioned, the transient,
Conjoined with decay and death,
A nest of disease, perishable,
Sprung from nutriment and craving's cord — That is not fit to take delight in.

There are, Ānanda, these two elements: the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”

"There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned."
The escape from that [from the conditioned],
the peaceful, beyond reasoning [beyond objectification],
Constant, The not-born, the unproduced, The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states associated with suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.

There is, bhikkhus, that base where there is no earth, no water, no fire, no air; no base consisting of the infinity of space, no base consisting of the infinity of consciousness, no base consisting of nothingness, no base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another world nor both; neither sun nor moon. Here, bhikkhus, I say there is no coming, no going, no staying, no deceasing, no uprising. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering.

'Three feelings have been taught by the Blessed One: pleasant, painful and neutral feelings. But the Blessed One has also said that whatever is felt is within suffering.' Now, with reference to what was it stated by the Blessed One that whatever is felt is within suffering?"
"Well spoken, monk, well spoken! While three feelings have been taught by me, the pleasant, the painful and the neutral, yet I have also said that whatever is felt is within suffering. This, however, was stated by me with reference to the impermanence of (all) conditioned phenomena.[1] I have said it because conditioned phenomena are liable to destruction, to evanescence, to fading away, to cessation and to change. It is with reference to this that I have stated: 'Whatever is felt is within suffering.'

There is no fire like lust, no crime like hate. There is no ill like the body, no bliss higher than Peace (Nibbāna)
Hunger is the greatest disease. Aggregates  are the greatest ill. Knowing this as it really is, (the wise realize) Nibbāna, bliss supreme.
Health is the highest gain. Contentment is the greatest wealth. The trusty are the best kinsmen. Nibbāna is the highest bliss.
(Dhammapada verses)

Conditioned existence arises as one thing and ceases as another. Past is one end, future is another end and present in the middle. The cessation of the conditioned is an escape from this everchanging existence.
The pleasant feelings we encounter they are merely bait, there is a snake in the grass and they are compared to borrowed goods.
They are Mara's bait, even a little craving will incline the mind to becoming.
Want a pleasant experience? Well here good sir, take this birth of a body, subject to disease, old age and death. Go on to experience that love, or sensual pleasure and be parted with it, what a cruelty(!). What on earth have we done to deserve being thus crushed again and again?!
Spending most of our lives looking for a footing just to have it pulled out from underneath and falling.
Seeing these flaws, some might say 'Well that's just how it is, deal with it'. So speak the victims of abuse not knowing better.
It's a horrible deal, a trap. Wanting what is pleasant we go along as if we have no choice, tied to old age, sickness and death. As a dumb starving mouse would go for the cheese in a mousetrap perceiving pleasantness in suffering.
We are truly all being abused and we should not compromise our happiness. We should battle Mara with sword of insight and win the unconditional joy because we deserve it and because we can.

Nice answer. Teaches a lot. Thankyou.

It is the usual dialogues between the buddha and the monks

“Monks, is bodily form permanent or impermanent?”
The monks said to the Buddha: “It is impermanent, Blessed One.”
The Buddha said: “Monks, what is impermanent, is it dukkha?”
The monks said to the Buddha: “It is dukkha, Blessed One.”
The Buddha said: “Monks, what is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature to
change, would a learned noble disciple herein regard it as the self,
as distinct from the self in the sense of being owned by it, as
existing within the self, or the self as existing within it?“
The monks said to the Buddha: “No, Blessed One.”
The Buddha said: “Feeling … perception … formations … consciousness
are also like this. Therefore, monks, whatever bodily form, whether
past, future or present, internal or external, gross or subtle,
sublime or repugnant, far or near, all of it is entirely not self, not
distinct from the self in the sense of being owned by it, does not
exist within the self, nor does a self exist within it. Examine it as
it really is. Feeling … perception … formations … consciousness are
also like this.
“A learned noble disciple attains liberation from bodily form, attains
liberation from feeling … perception … formations … consciousness. I
say, he is liberated from birth, old age, disease, death, worry,
sorrow, vexation, and pain, from this entire great mass of dukkha.’”

https://suttacentral.net/sa87/en/analayo
The general statement is this

Profound indeed is this, namely conditioned genesis; even more
profound, more difficult to see (perceive) is this, namely the
extinction of all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading
away of desire, cessation: nirvāṇa.
“These two dharmas are namely the compounded and the uncompounded. The
compounded is arising, persisting, changing, passing away. The
uncompounded is not arising, not persisting, not changing, not passing
away.
“Monks, this is to say: All activities, compounded things are
suffering, and their cessation is nirvāṇa. When the causes are there,
suffering arises; when the causes cease, the suffering ceases.
“All routes are cut off, the continuum ceases. The cessation of the
continuum is called the ending of suffering.
“O monks! What is it that ceases? It is any remaining suffering. If
this ceases, that is coolness, tranquillity, namely the extinction of
all attachment, the destruction of craving, the fading away of desire,
cessation: nirvāṇa.”
https://suttacentral.net/sa293/en/choong

First, I'd be a bit careful about ascribing a causal relationship between dukkha and tanhā ('discontentment' and 'craving'). If I remember correctly there is a long-running debate among scholars about which causes the other, and in any case it strikes me the two represent different dimensions of analysis: a passive state and an active attitude. "I am discontent" is a different mode of thought and behavior from "I feel a craving".
To the question, dukkha is a result of the relationship between the thinking mind and the world. Literally, we have dukkha because we can imagine things otherwise. If I have a hamburger, I am only discontent if I start thinking about how I could have had a nice juicy steak; if I have no food at all I might be hungry, but I can't be discontent unless I imagine what it feels like to be full. As humans we have powerful capacities to imagine otherwise — it's natural for us to do so — and so we have dukkha.
Tanhā is more of an obstinate desire to remove that discontentment (dukkha) by force of will, a desire that (in part through its sheer pigheadedness) creates further discontentment in ourselves and others. It's a cycle: we feel discontent, so we try to force the universe into a pattern that pleases us, and end up producing more discontentment.
So now we get to the meat of the matter (the hamburger, as it were).

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā: everything is impermanent. Things we like come and go; things we don't like come and go; things we don't care about either way come and go.
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā: therefore, everything makes us discontent. We want what we like to come and stay; we want what we dislike to go and stay away; we want what we don't care about to stop bothering us or to become better. That doesn't happen, not in any permanent sense, and we find that frustrating.
sabbe dhammā anattā: all right teaching (dhammā) leads us away from this imagining/imagined self. When we think about eating a nice juicy steak and feeling deliciously full, we are imagining ourselves (as though we were another person) eating that juicy steak and feeling deliciously full. We get jealous of that other self; we want to be him/her, and we worry that we never will. But if we remove that imagined other self, whom do we have to be jealous of? What do we have to be discontent about?

So the real issue boils down to insight and perspective. Is our discontent due to something we can address and resolve? Or is it a hamster wheel where we are always trying to get to some happier self, never realizing that the wheel is turning away under our feet? Is our joy a natural, organic upwelling in the moment? Or is it a cruel joy we feel because we've beaten out some imagined 'loser' self that would have done worse than we did? The second of each of these will always produce dukkha, because we are seeing ourselves in relation to that imagined self.

It might be worth mentioning that in English they're called "the three marks of existence" -- but in Pali the word tilakkhaṇa literally means the "three marks" or "three characteristics" (not "of existence"), or signata -- and the "things" which have (or which are ascribed) the dukkha characteristic are specifically saṅkhāras.

The three marks are:

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā — "all saṅkhāras (conditioned things) are impermanent"
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — "all saṅkhāras are unsatisfactory"
sabbe dhammā anattā — "all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned things) are not self"

"saṅkhāra" (and dhamma) is a complicated word, see Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?
See also Did the Buddha really say that "life is suffering"? -- and, this answer.
I guess this agrees with what you were saying in the question, i.e. that suffering is not an essential characteristic of "existence" (i.e. life) -- what it is, is a characteristic of conditioned/compound things.
See also this -- after knowledge (ñāṇa) of "unsatisfactoriness" there's knowledge of "disenchantment" (nibbida) ...

Adinava ñana - Knowledge of mental and physical states as dukkha. "So he sees, at that time, only suffering, only unsatisfactoriness, only misery." [7]
Nibbida ñana - Knowledge of disenchantment/disgust with conditioned states.

... which I think is an important aspect of the soteriology of the Pali canon, and of post-canonical Theravada.
Perhaps there's similar/related doctrine in Zen, e.g. "no attachment to dust" and so on (or perhaps not exactly or not only "dust", referring to physical object, but especially the eight worldly winds, which I think are a doctrine known to all schools).
And beginning to read about nibbida, it's about conditioned mental states at least as much or more than it is about conditioned things (which I think parallels ruben2020's and MAGA2020's answers).

I’d start with what the Buddha said was the goal of life: it is, simply, “dwelling, here and now, beyond appetites, consummate, unfevered, in bliss, in (wholesomeness).” (Further Dialogues of the Buddha, Vol. I, p. 247, Tr. Lord Chalmers, Oxford University, London 1926) So that: “... to whatever place you go, you shall go in comfort; wherever you stand, you shall stand in comfort; wherever you sit, you shall sit in comfort; and wherever you make your bed, you shall lie down in comfort.” (The Book of the Gradual Sayings, Vol IV, p. 200, Tr. E.M. Hare, Luzac and Co., Ltd., London, 1955.
Note that the goal of life is neither more favorable rebirth, nor extinction of self or of desire, as some maintain. For life without desire is not living, living only for some future benefit is to ignore the compassionate love and beauty that is everywhere around us, and extinction of self is not possible.
The Buddha’s great insight, which he rarely stated as the “four noble truths,” but rather more succinctly as the insight that: Desire for what will not be attained ends in frustration (which is suffering); therefore, to avoid frustration, avoid desiring what will not be attained. This then gets expanded into the four noble truths, which is a more explicit version of the Buddha’s insight for those that cannot work out the significance of the simpler version.
Certainly, desiring food when hungry, water when thirsty, and shelter from inclement weather, companionship when lonely, etc., do not cause suffering when they are fulfilled. But what if you desire a five-course meal at a Michelin-starred restaurant, but can only afford a salad at home? If you cannot accept what you have, you will be frustrated and therefore suffer. And, of course, today we live in sociopathic cultures that barrage us all day long with things beyond our reach, to desire, so certainly in this sense alone, dukkha is a quality of our lives.
But even the desire to not desire more than you will obtain, or have, in your life, is a subtle desire that may not be obtained—-at least until you have sufficiently trained your mind to no longer be swayed by all the tantalizing carrots that are held just beyond your grasp. So, before that stage, you must be compassionate towards yourself and others, seeing that we are all initially frail and subject to dropping the ball at times, and desiring more than we can deliver—-in this case the subtle desire to be free from frustrated desires.
So the intermediate goal is to give up trying to solve the problem of frustration, by becoming willing to accept what you have—-accepting what is and not wishing it was different.
Remembering that we cannot know what we will get, leaves us room to motivate ourselves by desiring to achieve something, such as having a trained mind, or getting a certain job; but always accepting what comes with a glad heart.
Like trying to extinguish the self, which is just illusory, and thus, nothing that can be extinguished, but rather the illusory self just dissolves when we see through that illusion—-frustration that leads to suffering is not something we can extinguish by trying to suppress desire. Instead, frustration leading to suffering will just dissolve once we can gladly accept what we have in each and every moment.
And because going against the natural impulses is difficult to impossible to accomplish without proper intent and training, frustration and thus suffering are qualities of our everyday lives.


text:
What happens in the state/non-state of Nibbāna?
When a ‘person’ walks the path and reaches the goal of Nibbāna, ‘who’ actually reaches it?
‘Who’ walked the path and where did 'he' go when Nibbāna was reached, to be more exact?
We as unenlightened beings see an arahant from the ‘outside’, as it were. Maybe we find him to be a holy, compassionate and wise being, but what is it like to be an arahant from ‘inside’? What is the nature of his personal being?

The mind (citta) reaches Nibbana rather than any 'person', which is why liberation is called 'ceto-vimutti'( liberation of mind). Therefore, the 1st words spoken by the new Buddha included:

Visaṅkhāragataṃ cittaṃ;
taṇhānaṃ khayamajjhagā
The unconditioned reached by the mind; craving's destruction attained
Dhammapada 154

Conventionally, we say that the Buddha was this person who lived in this place and this time, and this is the story of his life. Similarly for arahats. We see this below.
From the Bhara Sutta:

"And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be
said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is
called the carrier of the burden.

But if we look closer, who was the Buddha really? Who are the arahats?
Can you pin down an exact person? No.
It's more like a reified concept. It's not an absolute standalone identity. In this answer, this is explained as an emergent phenomena:

What is an emergent phenomena? If you arrange pebbles on a beach to
look like a human face, then from the sky you can see the emergent
phenomena, which is the form of a human face. But if you look closely,
it's just an arrangement of pebbles.

This is supported by the sutta quote below.
From the Yamaka Sutta:

"How do you construe this, my friend Yamaka: Do you regard form as the
Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?...
Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In
perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?...
Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as
form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without
feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without
consciousness?"
"No, my friend."
"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a
truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to
declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a
monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is
annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
Dhamma."

The reification is from our side, the unenlightened ones and as you have pointed out rightly, it is a wrong assessment about the Buddha. As the Yamaka Sutta hints, we can actually say nothing about the 'person' of the Buddha. What I understand is that it transcends logic. The frequent use of Chatushkoti for such questions seems to point towards such transcendence. Thanks dear friend!

The Arahants completely abandon the obsessive tendency for abstraction in terms of the doctrine of self.
Therefore it does not occur to them; 'I am' as in 'I am a woman' or 'I am a man' or 'I am anything at all', nor do they think in terms of 'I am good' or 'I am bad' or 'May i be' or 'May i not be' and etc.
They can still comprehend that doctrine of a self but that only as a doctrine to which beings cling due to wrong views, they have no clinging to the doctrine, there is no tendency to think in those terms and they experience no craving, conceit or aversion because of it.
For them knowledge is fully purified and steadied by non-distractedness.

To 'whom' does it not occur: 'I am' as in 'I am a woman' or 'I am a man'...? For 'whom' is knowledge fully purified and steadied by non-distractedness...? Can we even talk about 'that' which is beyond experience as we know it? Can the Tathagata be ever known because any such knowledge will be steeped in the duality of the experient and the experience?

To whom is a question posed in the context of the doctrine of self. As for that which is beyond experience as we know it, that is something other than the absence of delusion in the mind of an Arahant, which is strictly speaking called "Nibbana element with residue left";

"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.

Iti38

As for that which is beyond experience as we know it, technical term for that is the realization of the nibbananirodhadhatu [extinguishment-cessation-principle/element] or nirodhasamapatti [meditative attainment dependent on nirodha cessation principle] or asoka [sorrowless state] it is also the same as the referent of Unborn, unconditioned, signless and other terms depending on the context

Thanks MAGA2020. So, there is a residue left till the arahant is alive and when he attains parinibbana, even that residue is gone and it is that state/ non-state which is beyond knowledge as we know it. Do I understand it rightly sir?

Loosely speaking, yes you are close.

That residue are the remaining results coming into play, that which was acquired and willed must run it's course. So they keep experiencing perception and the conditioned phenomena arising as one thing and ceasing as another, past on one end future on the other end and present in the middle. When they realize final cessation, all that which can be grasped with wrong view to be an Arahant is no longer existing. There remains only the physical body but it's broken up and no consciousness arises in dependence on it.Arahant's consciousness at that point is unestablished and does not come into play

When a ‘person’ walks the path and reaches the goal of Nibbāna, ‘who’ actually reaches it? ‘Who’ walked the path and where did 'he' go when Nibbāna was reached, to be more exact?

The person who walks the path is much like a mirage. When you see a mirage, walk towards it, and it disappears, where did it go? The mirage was never really there as an existant, it was just an illusion that we believed to be tangible for the moments it appeared within our experience. The human being we believe ourselves to be has never existed in the way we think it does. All that happens to the person is it is seen for what it truly is, a mirage. And much like you wouldn’t continue pursuing a mirage as a source of water, so does your investment in the person lessen, for it is seen that nothing tangible can be acquired through it.

We as unenlightened beings see an arahant from the ‘outside’, as it were. Maybe we find him to be a holy, compassionate and wise being, but what is it like to be an arahant from ‘inside’? What is the nature of his personal being?

The most encompassing word I would use to describe what it is like to be an arahant “on the inside” is balanced. When you become enlightened, you discover a new perspective to observe the world from. This perspective is what the Buddha describes when he calls the world empty. Nirvana is the name that we give this perspective. It is a perspective that I can only describe as “the unification of everything.” When you switch from observing the world through the human perspective to Nirvana, it seems as if everything in the world, including yourself, merged into a single, non-physical, infinite and eternal presence. But this state is the opposite end of the spectrum of experience. And again, an arahant’s experience is that of balance. Here is a drawing to explain.
Perspectives:
Human <————————————————————> Nirvana
      ^          ^         ^
Unenlightend  Arahant  The moment of completing the path.

When we experience life from the human perspective, it is an experiential extreme. In it, we believe ourselves to be a very small and mortal being. It takes a ton of effort to sustain this state, but we do it unconsciously. We hold thousands of beliefs that reinforce the belief we are human, and that effort is what generates suffering.
In the moment of reaching enlightenment, you immediately swing to the opposite end of the spectrum. Instantaneously you drop all the effort you have been exerting your entire life, and momentum throws you into the other extreme. At this end of the spectrum, you feel you are infinite and eternal. You experience being the entire universe. You become “one with everything.”
Now finally to answer your question, an arahants experience is neither of these. Like I said before, to sustain either of these perspectives for any length of time requires continual exerted effort. And once you release the effort of being human for the first time, you never want to go back and it seems illogical to do so. So what is left over to experience is a balance of the two perspectives. Both are experienced simultaneously, and without any paradoxical feelings. It is a state of both existing and not existing. Being finite and infinite. Being mortal and immortal. Being a human and the universe. This state of balance is reached naturally, once it has been seen that exerting effort to any extreme generates suffering. There is no desire for resolutions in the mind of an arahant. There is just experiencing what is, and accepting all aspects of the vastness of it all.
I hope my explanation was helpful to you and I look forward to hearing your explanation of the state when you arrive! I pray for nothing more than your liberation this lifetime! ❤

Such a wonderful explanation of the ineffable Truth dear w33t! You have revealed what my heart always felt and your compassionate last lines for me have filled me with immense joy and hope. Love and Metta dear friend.

When a ‘person’ walks the path and reaches the goal of Nibbāna, ‘who’
actually reaches it? ‘Who’ walked the path and where did 'he' go when
Nibbāna was reached, to be more exact?

You have not understood. Sabbe Dhamma Anatta. Is the form me , mine or myself ? No. Are the emotions me,mine or myself? No. Are the perceptions me,mine or myself ? No. Are the choices me , mine or myself ? No. Is the consciousness me, mine or myself ? No.
With cessation of ignorance came nibbana...

We as unenlightened beings see an arahant from the ‘outside’, as it
were. Maybe we find him to be a holy, compassionate and wise being,
but what is it like to be an arahant from ‘inside’? What is the nature
of his personal being?

It is impossible to pinpoint where the enlightened beings are...


text:
The meaning/concept of maññassavā / Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta (MN 140)
travellers -
I was struck by the term maññassavā in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta.

They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of
identification don’t flow. And when the streams of identification
don’t flow, they’re called a sage at peace. yattha ṭhitaṃ maññassavā
nappavattanti, maññassave kho pana nappavattamāne muni santoti
vuccati.

It is translated as "the currents of construing," by Ven. Thanissaro and as "the streams of identification," on suttacentral.net (Ven. Sujato?). There is an elaboration of maññassavā later in the sutta as, "These are all forms of identifying: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’" etc.

‘Asmī’ti, bhikkhu, maññitametaṃ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti maññitametaṃ,
‘bhavissan’ti maññitametaṃ...

a) First - I assume the term is made up of "(a form of) maññ/maññati + assavā"?
[PTS PED] Maññita (nt.) [pp. of maññati] illusion, imagination M i.486. Nine maññitāni (the same list is applied to the phanditāni, the papañcitāni & sankhatāni) at Vbh 390: asmi, ayam aham asmi, bhavissaŋ, na bhavissaŋ, rūpī bhavissaŋ, arūpī bh., saññī bh., asaññī bh., nevasaññī -- nâsaññī -- bh.
Assava (adj.) [ā + sunāti, śru] loyal D i.137; Sn 22, 23, 32; J iv.98; vi.49; Miln 254; an˚ inattentive, not docile DhA i.7.
I only sort-of get how the compound is then understood as "streams of identification" (does the 'streams' derive from 'asava'[ā + sru]? Flow?)...
b) Where is this term "coming from," doctrinally, that is? Is it commonly used in the texts, esp. in the suttas, as a form of "I-consciouness/construction?" Are there any commentarial and/or scholarly discussions on this process of "flow of construing/identification?"
Thanks much in advance! ~ananda

This is explained by Piya Tan in his commentary on Dhatuvibhanga Sutta:

Maññassavāna-p,pavattanti, maññassave kho pana na-p,pavattamane. Here
maññassavā is resolved as mañña (“conceiving”) + assava (Skt āsrava),(a)
“purulent matter, discharge” (A 1:124); (b) tt for obstacle to
arhathood, “canker, influx, inflow, taint” (V 3:21 = 5:143 = A 5:70, V
5:225, D 3:216, M 1:55, S 5:410, Sn 535, Thī 76); also related to
āsava (spirituous liquor) because both are kept for a long time, MA
1:61 = AA 2:183 = ItA 1:114). The word assava is also related to
assavati,“it flows (on)”). In this context, pavattanti should be
rendered as “they flow” (S 2:31,J 2:104; PvA 143, 154, 198): M:ÑB
reading maññ‟ussavā (wr for maññ‟ussāvā): “the tides of
conceiving...sweep.”
Mental conceiving (mañña), closely related to “mental proliferation”
(papañca), here refers to thoughts and ideas arising from the three
roots of conceiving or mental proliferation: craving (taṇhā), view
(diṭṭhi) and conceit (māna) (Nm 280; Vbh 393; Nett 37 f). For an
interesting n on maññati, see M:ÑB 1162:n6. The “sage at peace” is the
arhat.

The term asava is usually translated as effluents or taints or defilements. You can read the question "What is effluent?"
When reading the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta (translated by Ven. Sujato), we find some details for this:

‘They have four foundations, standing on which the streams of
identification don’t flow. And when the streams of identification
don’t flow, they’re called a sage at peace.’ That’s what I said, but
why did I say it?
These are all forms of identifying: ‘I am’, ‘I am this’, ‘I will be’,
‘I will not be’, ‘I will have form’, ‘I will be formless’, ‘I will be
percipient’, ‘I will be non-percipient’, ‘I will be neither percipient
nor non-percipient.’ Identification is a disease, a boil, a dart.
Having gone beyond all identification, one is called a sage at peace.
The sage at peace is not reborn, does not grow old, and does not die.
They are not shaken, and do not yearn. For they have nothing which
would cause them to be reborn. Not being reborn, how could they grow
old? Not growing old, how could they die? Not dying, how could they be
shaken? Not shaking, for what could they yearn?

It sounds to me like maññassava is more or less the same as bhavāsava, the effluent or taint or defilement of becoming or being.
This can be found in MN 9 (translated by Ven. Bodhi):

“And what are the taints, what is the origin of the taints, what is
the cessation of the taints, what is the way leading to the cessation
of the taints? There are these three taints: the taint of sensual
desire, the taint of being, and the taint of ignorance. With the
arising of ignorance there is the arising of the taints. With the
cessation of ignorance there is the cessation of the taints. The way
leading to the cessation of the taints is just this Noble Eightfold
Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right
action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right
concentration.

And also AN 6.63 (translated by Ven. Thanissaro):

“There are these three kinds of defilements: the defilement of
sensuality, the defilement of becoming, the defilement of ignorance.
“And what is the cause of defilements? Ignorance is the cause of
defilements.
“And what is the diversity in defilements? There are defilements that
lead to hell, those that lead to the animal womb, those that lead to
the realm of the hungry shades, those that lead to the human world,
those that lead to the world of the devas. This is called the
diversity in defilements.
“And what is the result of defilements? One who is immersed in
ignorance produces a corresponding state of existence, on the side of
merit or demerit. This is called the result of defilements.
“And what is the cessation of defilements? From the cessation of
ignorance is the cessation of defilements; and just this noble
eightfold path—right view, right resolve, right speech, right action,
right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right samādhi—is
the way leading to the cessation of defilements.

Good answer. Well written.

I guess:

maññassavā = mañña/maññe + asavā

Then later in the explanation:

maññitametaṃ = maññita + me + taṃ = imagination/conception/construction of me

Concise Pali English Dictionary
me
dat. and gen. sing. of amha to me;
my; mine.
PTS Pali English Dictionary
me is enclitic form of ahaṃ in var. cases
of the sg. See under ahaṃ.

Another similar common word in the suttas is maññamāna.


text:
How important is patience in buddhism?
I've heard that patience has a big place in Buddhism. It is especially very important for monks. I can think two ways of patience.

When we get angry, we have to have patience to avoid bad consequences.
Most of practises in buddhism don't give us a result immediately. So we have to have patience to see a result. (Delayed gratification)

What are the teachings of the Buddha about patience ? I can think of case 1. But I want to know about case 2.
If a person is unable to delay gratification (not only in Buddhist practises), does it means that the person has excessive clinging? (Is it a characteristic of that kind of person ?)

This sutta might help https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html

Restraint
I think that another way to frame patience is in terms of restraint. Why is this? If we see a mental defilement arise, we exercise restraint to not immediately give into it. We look at the situation and see it for what it is. In this way, we are exercising patience, but also restraint.
Now what does the Buddha think of restraint? Well, Buddhist monks (Bhikkus) follows the Dhamma-Vinaya, which is a set of 227 rules that they follow. This give us some hint of what the Buddha thought of discipline (read restraint and patience) on the path.

1 And what are the effluents to be abandoned by restraining? There is the case where a monk, reflecting appropriately, dwells restrained with the restraint of the eye-faculty. The effluents, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were to dwell unrestrained with the restraint of the eye-faculty do not arise for him when he dwells restrained with the restraint of the eye-faculty.
“Reflecting appropriately, he dwells restrained with the restraint of the ear-faculty .…
“Reflecting appropriately, he dwells restrained with the restraint of the nose-faculty .…
“Reflecting appropriately, he dwells restrained with the restraint of the tongue-faculty .…
“Reflecting appropriately, he dwells restrained with the restraint of the body-faculty .…
“Reflecting appropriately, he dwells restrained with the restraint of the intellect-faculty. The effluents, vexation, or fever that would arise if he were to dwell unrestrained with the restraint of the intellect-faculty do not arise for him when he dwells restrained with the restraint of the intellect-faculty. These are called the effluents to be abandoned by restraining.

MN 2

There are many a talks on Restraint, namely I think of this one by Thanissaro bhikku. There is a lot to say, but I will leave this talk for you to read. If you wish for more, I can further my discussion.
__
Patience
On second thought, I have decied it is wise to discuss Patience in more detail. There is a relation between restraint and patience, but they are not the same.

“Endowed with these six qualities, a person is incapable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful qualities even when listening to the true Dhamma. Which six?
“When the Dhamma & Vinaya declared by the Tathāgata is being taught, he does not listen well, does not give ear, does not apply his mind to gnosis, grabs hold of what is worthless, rejects what is worthwhile, and is not endowed with the patience [or: preference] to comply with the teaching.
...
“When the Dhamma & Vinaya declared by the Tathāgata is being taught, he listens well, gives ear, applies his mind to gnosis, rejects what is worthless, grabs hold of what is worthwhile, and is endowed with the patience [or: preference] to comply with the teaching.
“Endowed with these six qualities, a person is capable of alighting on the lawfulness, the rightness of skillful qualities even while listening to the true Dhamma.”

AN 6:88

So, we can see that the Buddha put patience high on the list of what one must cultivate with respect to the Dhamma. Now what may we do with this? How may we practice with patience? In my practice, this primarily arises when looking at foundations of concentration -- ardency, mindfulness, and alertness.
We must be ardent in coming back to present phenomenon. That is that we must have patience in watching the mind. If we do not keep coming back to present phenomenon because we are not patient, then we have no hope of seeing phenomenon as they are.

“And what is the faculty of sati? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. (And here begins the satipatthana formula:) He remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves... the mind in & of itself... mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.” - SN48:10

Here is a talk on patience by Thanissaro Bhikku. Another talk by Gil Fronsdal.
I hope that you are able to be ardent and patient in your daily practice. Watch the phenomenon and see how it affects the mind and body. Patience is a must on this path.
Khanti-Parami

Patience is the unimpeded weapon of the good in the development of noble qualities, for it dispels, without residue, anger, the opposite of all such qualities. It is the adornment of those capable of vanquishing the foe; the strength of recluses and Brahmins; a stream of water extinguishing the fire of anger; a mantra for quelling the poisonous speech of evil people; the supreme source of constancy in those established in restraint. Patience is an ocean on account of its depth; a shore on account of bounding the great ocean of hatred.
Patience should be fortified by reflection:  “All beings are like my own children; who becomes angry over the misdeeds of his or her own children?” Or, “I am wronged by others because of some residue of anger in myself; this residue I should remove.” Or, “A wrong-doer is a benefactor, for he or she is the basis for developing patience.” Or, “If there were no wrong-doers, how could I accomplish theperfection of patience?”
“When there is patience, the mind becomes concentrated, free from external distraction. With the mind concentrated, all formations appear as impermanent, stressful, and not-self. In addition,Nirvanaappears as unconditioned, deathless, peaceful, and sublime.The groundlessness of “I-making” and “mine-making” becomes evident to reflection thus: ‘Mere phenomena alone exist, devoid of self or of anything pertaining to a self; they arise and pass away in accordance to their conditions. They do not come from anywhere, they do not go anywhere, they are not established anywhere. There is no agency in anything whatsoever.’

Dhammapala's Treatise on the Paramis

Edit: I forgot to add that patience is one of the ten paramis. This is another discussion and avenue to look into this concept. Here are some quotes from suttas regarding Khanti-parami (The perfection of patience). Here is a book on the paramis
__
With regards to your last question, I think it's important not to frame questions in this way. "Does the person have excessive clinging?" Clinging is present in the mind, but a person does not have excess clinging. Clinging is an ongoing process. Regardless of where someone is on the path, clinging will arise and cease. Sometimes there will be more or less, but it is not an absolute indicator of where one is along the path. See clinging as the arising and ceasing of phenomenon -- in terms of anattā. See it in terms dependent origination (paṭiccasamuppāda) -- clinging arises as a consequence of something and passes away as a consequence of something.
Something that has helped me is to frame a clinging not as a negative (e.g. I'm not far on the path), but a positive. It gives one a chance to see it in terms of the Dhamma. Everytime you notice a clinging, you are making progress (if dealt with correctly). See it arise, notice your bodily interactions and release them. See the defilements like to sneak in.
Please let me know if you have further questions or would like additional references.
Metta

And what’s the impatient practice? It’s when someone abuses, annoys, or argues with you, and you abuse, annoy, or argue right back at them. This is called the impatient practice.
And what’s the patient practice? It’s when someone abuses, annoys, or argues with you, and you don’t abuse, annoy, or argue back at them. This is called the patient practice.
An4.164

And what’s the impatient practice? It’s when a mendicant cannot endure cold, heat, hunger, and thirst. They cannot endure the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles. They cannot endure rude and unwelcome criticism. And they cannot put up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and life-threatening. This is called the impatient practice.
And what’s the patient practice? It’s when a mendicant endures cold, heat, hunger, and thirst. They endure the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles. They endure rude and unwelcome criticism. And they put up with physical pain—sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, disagreeable, and life-threatening. This is called the patient practice.an4.165

What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring.mn2

One who bears, without resentment;
verbal abuse, assault & captivity;
with forbearance as his strength and mighty army, I call the Foremost[brāhmaṇaṃ]
(It's my amateur translation)dhammapada, verse 399

I think these are self-explanatory

Khanti/patience is indeed a very important virtue to cultivate. It's listed in Sn 2.4 as among one of the greatest protection for a practitioner. Also refer to many other related suttas.

Patience, compliance,
seeing contemplatives,
discussing the Dhamma on timely occasions:
This is the highest protection. ~~ Snp 2.4 ~~

Something Eckhart Tolle once said... Patience is itself an expectation. When we are being patient, it effectively means that we are experiencing something we dislike, but have decided to wait calmly in the expectation the experience will eventually dissipate. Being patient in this sense is effortful, and like all efforts it will eventually run out of steam. If the disliked experience doesn't dissipate quickly enough, we will lose patience, with all the unfortunate consequences that has.
This isn't to say that patience is bad. Patience is right effort. But we don't want to root our practice in patience, because that will ultimately lead us around in circles.

Could you expand by incorporating quotations from suttas? OP asked what the teachings of the Buddha were. I'm interested to see where you go with it and how you expand on it

@user279311: I'm not a particularly scholarly Buddhist (at least, not in comparison to others on this site). Quoting the suttas isn't really my forte. I generally just say what comes up, in the hopes someone finds it useful. If I get the sense the answer has gone astray, I'll delete it. That's the best I can offer.

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your answer and look forward to reading more of your posts

From Dhammapada 184:

The best moral practice is patience and forbearance;
"Nibbana is Supreme", said the Buddhas.
A bhikkhu does not harm others;
one who harms others is not a bhikkhu.

Alternative translation from here:

Enduring patience is the highest austerity.
"Nibbana is supreme," say the Buddhas.
He is not a true monk who harms another,
nor a true renunciate who oppresses others.

The Pali verse for the first line is "khanti paramam tapo titikkha".
So, the word for patience here is khanti.
The PTS dictionary entry for khanti states:

Khanti & Khantī (p. 232) Khanti & Khantī Khanti & Khantī
f. [Sk. kṣānti] patience, forbearance, forgiveness. Def. at Dhs
1341: khantī khamanatā adhivāsanatā acaṇḍikkaŋ anasuropo attamanatā
cittassa. Most frequent combinations: with mettā (love) (see
below); -- titikkhā (forbearance): khantī paramaŋ tapo titikkhā
nibbānaŋ paramaŋ vadanti Buddhā Dh 184

One of the three basics to get useful answers: Respect, Confidence and Patient and hardly the enviroment here.
[Note that this isn't given for exchange, trade, stacks, entertaining bonds, but to escape from this world]


text:
Momentariness, but birth and death?
If everything exists for an instant only, as with Sautrāntika Buddhism, then doesn't that mean everything dies at the exact same time it is born? Isn't that impossible?
I am not asking for an analysis of the sutta pitaka, but to understand how anyone could hold those two positions. Did it ever come up in historical debate?

They are supposedly sutta based school so idk why you don't want sutta analysis because certainly their positions were supposedly derived from those texts. I don't think i can for sure say what their exact doctrine was as i only read the wiki but i think i get their problem with momentariness could be.

yeah i don't get what you're not knowing here @MAGA2020 i do not want sutta analysis cos it will only be a poor substitute for scholarship.

So you are asking explicitly about the views of those who follow the sutta and how their understanding developed but you don't want to know the analysis of sutta that are basis for their understanding. Im not understanding how this can be answered without analyzing the sutta. The school you referenced are Suttavadins, it's in their name.

The breath dies as it is born

@MAGA2020 I think the Sautrāntika school derived their own abhidharma and that this question is asking about some element from that -- the OP's comment, "a poor substitute for scholarship", implies to me that to answer this question you need to be a scholar who knows that the Sautrāntika doctrine/abhidharma was, and not simply give your own opinion of the question based only on your own understanding of the suttas.

I would say there were two ways of looking at this.

You can't exist "for" an instant but you can exist "at" this instant.
You are not living five minutes ago, or two hours in the future.
You are living at this precise moment.
"You" are living in this instant and this "you"
is different to the "you" of last week or last year or five mins ago.  As you experience things, you change and become a different person.  You don't die or become a different being.

“Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.” ✦
[Note that this isn't dedicated for stacks, exchange and what ever world-binding trade but for release from this wheel]

What an assemblies of people with no Nissaya, down-voting the peak of the Buddhas Dhamma... not capable of proper attention but after exchange, stacks and trade...


text:
How to practise without having aversion towards life?
Before I started studying Buddhism I had desire for life and desires for more in life. That eventually led me to inevitable and immense suffering and eventually to Buddhism.
Now as I practise Buddhism and as I study sutta and all I understand that rebirth is something we need to avoid by practising dhamma. We have to end this cycle of Life and Death and eventually suffering. Buddhism is a  soteriological practise and philosophy which guides us out of samsara. Also lot of Buddhist suttas mention suffering as inherent and innate.
Now this has led me to other end of thought spectrum of aversion towards life. As I learnt and understood 'craving for non existance' is also a craving and should be avoided. But how can one think otherwise. Its either I want life or I dont want life and undertake an arduous journey towards Nirvana. How can one not feel aversion towards life if one desires and practises towards Nirvana.
My question is how do I think or train mind to not have either desire or aversion towards life?

Case 57 of the Blue Rock Collection I alone am holy
Case A monastic said to Zhaozhou, "It is said, 'The Great Way is not difficult. It only abhors choice and attachment.' Now, what are
nonchoice and nonattachment?" Zhaozhou said, "I alone am holy
throughout heaven and earth." The monastic said, "It is still choice
and attachment." Zhaozhou said, "You country bumpkin! Where are choice
and attachment?" The monastic was speechless.

How much better off we'd all be if we discarded love and hate.  As it says in the Hsin Hsin Ming, "to set up what you like against what you dislike is," indeed, "the disease of the mind."  There is a road the runs the valley between the cliffs of this and that, of right and wrong.  It alone is holy throughout heaven and earth.  What is the mind that knows no discrimination?  Where is it found?
Craving and aversion set the world at arm's length.  We can never be fully intimate with the way things really are when we are pushing and pulling on existence.  When we do that, we only know our pushing and pulling.  Instead, let yourself be pulled, allow yourself to be pushed.  Meet both existence and non-existence, samsara and Buddha, enlightenment and non-enlightenment with the same open heart.  That alone is true holiness.

Quiet deep. Thankyou.

If you have come to Buddhism out of a desire to no longer suffer, that desire itself may lead to more suffering for you, if you do not succeed, for whatever reason.
Buddhism provides ways to end your own suffering, but not by developing an aversion to life, but rather,  by training your mind so that you do not crave things you do not have, nor desire things you will not get.
But there is much more to the Buddha’s teachings. His focus was on showing the way to end suffering for all people, thus one does not desire to end one’s own suffering, but rather desires to end the suffering of all sentient beings. It’s still a desire, but one that can be satisfied by working to end the suffering of others.
The Buddha is the epitome of this. He dedicated his life to teaching others how to end suffering, not some philosophy that was distant from our visceral daily lives in this world. His compassion for the suffering of others was total, and unconditional. Think about that.
The Buddha is the perfected manifestation of Buddha nature and is unconditionally compassionate towards all sentient beings. Much as it is said by many religions that God’s love for creation is unconditional. How awesome then, is this life we have gained, that we might work not for our own needs, but for the needs of all those in need of our compassion? Every moment of this life we have presents a precious opportunity to help others, and through that, we end our own suffering.
Lifting water from the well
A liminal vision always comes:
Life, hot and hard,
Fought counter to the ground.
Is this samsara,
Like the Orientals like to say?
Or is it the Word,
God's Logos on display?
Occidentals beseech God:
"Send a postcard our way!"
"Answer our cries for deliverance!"
"Ease the burdens of our days!"
But why would God answer
The secret yearnings in our heart?
God gave us a life!
What more should we want?
Samsara is suffering
Wrought by ignorance
So the Buddhists say :
All of This is as it is, yet
We can break free of its sway.
And I in my acceptance
Find a dance within the sway
Dancing a dance of fullness
Each and every day!
Pulling water from the well
A welcome vision now comes
Life, hot and hard
A blessing in every way!
God speaks to us in Lives
Buddha-nature manifests us all
And I in my happy acceptance
Pull water from the well.

Good householder,
Without life, a good birth, how could, would one practice the path out.
As the lokuttara-depending co-arising counts: birth/stand/life(jati) is condition for Dukkha, Dukkha reason for Saddha (conviction),... liberation.
So "gati, gati, paragati, parasamgati Bodhisvaha", good housholder. Getting better, better, over-good becoming, even-overgood-becoming, Awakening, there.
Or in Pali:
Gati gati pāragati pārasaṁgati bodhi so ahaṁ
គតិ គតិ បារគតិ បារសាមគតិ ពោធិ សោ អហំ
"(skillful/good) becoming, becoming, higher becoming, higher even becoming, awakening for oneself (Rightly Self-Awakening)"
Good to be clear: Why it important to value Conditions?
[note: not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but to get out of this wheel]

Now this has led me to other end of thought spectrum of aversion towards life. As I learnt and understood 'craving for non existance' is also a craving and should be avoided. But how can one think otherwise.

This is a very common misconception that I see very frequently. Yes it is true that ‘craving for non-existence’ is a form of craving that we wish to be free from. It will generate suffering as well until you reach Nirvana. However, it is very important to remember:
You can not control your desires. I did not choose my preferences. I do not choose what I find enjoyable or uncomfortable. If we could control what we desire, we would all simply desire all experiences, and no one would have any reason to become enlightened, for we would all have decided to be in a state of constant bliss.
The dropping away of craving occurs naturally and automatically after reaching Nirvana. It is not something that can be forced or willed into occurring.
I personally believe that people saw the Buddha desired nothing, and thought it was a good idea to try to emulate his behavior. This paired with his teachings on how desire is the source of suffering brings many to the logical conclusion that they should try to control their desires to end suffering. But remember his teachings on dependent origination do not begin with desire at the head of the chain.
Without a desire to be free from suffering, you will have no motivation to get there! Don’t get rid of your motivation to become enlightened! Billions of people on this earth have no desire for enlightenment. How many of them do you see claiming to now be arahants?

Its either I want life or I dont want life and undertake an arduous journey towards Nirvana. How can one not feel aversion towards life if one desires and practises towards Nirvana.

One can not! You must use your desire to get there! Let that desire motivate you to continue investigating!
Yes, all craving is not satisfying. And yes, if you desire something and don’t get it, suffering is generated. But that is only a small subset of desire! What about the desire to be generous and give to the poor? The desire to take care of your family? The desire to be free of suffering? The desire to eat? Like all things, desire is not inherently good or bad. Do not let suffering ruin the benefits desire provide you on a daily basis! Without desire, you’d be dead and unable to enjoy this miraculous adventure!

My question is how do I think or train mind to not have either desire or aversion towards life?

Do not try. When you reach enlightenment, the process will happen naturally. But remember, true freedom and peace comes from a relinquishing of control, and an acceptance of all experience. Loving your aversion will be more beneficial on your journey than attempting to satisfy it.

OP: My question is how do I think or train mind to not have either desire or aversion towards life?

There are plenty of reasons to not be afflicted by craving, and at the same time maintain happiness in your life.
Here are a few reasons from the Dhammapada:

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the hostile. Amidst hostile men we dwell free from hatred.

Happy indeed we live, friendly amidst the afflicted (by craving). Amidst afflicted men we dwell free from affliction.

Happy indeed we live, free from avarice amidst the avaricious. Amidst the avaricious men we dwell free from avarice.

Happy indeed we live, we who possess nothing. Feeders on joy we shall be, like the Radiant Gods.

Dhammapada 200 refers to piti (rapture) of jhana.

Craving for existence and craving for non existence , both are undesirable. We should see birth, life and death as dependently originated. Dependent Origination is the Dhamma. Dependent on birth comes life. Dependent on attachment comes birth. Dependent on craving comes the attachment. Craving of any kind leads to rebirth.
For example craving for food or no food, both are undesirable...so what should be our mindset ... take that what is necessary to keep yourself mindful and alert of Dhamma...same applies to life ...live life to live Dhamma..

'craving for non existance'

That is a craving based on a notion of an existent being that ceases to exist. The verbalization of this craving is; 'I am', there being 'I am' there comes to be 'I exist', there being 'I exist' there comes to be 'I am bad because i exist', there being 'I am bad because i exist' there comes to be 'May I not be bad', there being 'May I not be bad' there comes to be 'May i not exist'.
When one understands that existence of 'a being' can not be pinned down as a truth or reality then the tendency to think in terms of the doctrine of self becomes abandoned and the notions of 'I am' do not take control of his mind.
One realizes that all that arises is dukkha and that dukkha can be grasped with wrong view to be a self or belonging to a self and thus constitute what is called a being and that the clinging to the doctrine of a self begets this dukkha.
One starts to realize that beings are enchanted by dukkha; are intoxicated with youth, are intoxicated with health, are intoxicated with people and things which are dear to them and they are intoxicated with living.
Being intoxicated they are heedless, being heedless they give into wrong pursuits.
Giving into wrong pursuits they are wasting their youth, wasting their health, wasting their posessions and are wasting their lives.
Having wasted these things they are not free from old age, sickness, parting and death.
They are not prepared for old age, they are not prepared for sickness, they are not prepared for parting with what is dear and they are not prepared for death.
Not being prepared they beat their chests and pull their hair, unable to bear, falling on their heads when the path gets rough, they fall from suffering into a greater suffering.
Therefore the disciple of the Noble one's sees this as it actually is and is not wasting his youth, is not wasting his health, is not wasting his posessions and is not wasting his life.
He appreciates life for what it is and makes a good use of it thus making an effort for the attainment of the yet unattained.
He establishes his mind like a fortress, knowing that the heedful do not die and that the heedless are as if already dead.

Thank you for the answer. What does "life as it is" mean in this paragraph "He appreciates life for what it is and makes a good use of it "....does it mean appreciate life as dukkha? Sorry if it is a silly question :).

This body comes into being through living, yet it is in dependence on living that it is abandoned. There is the case where a person, lives not considering his life thoughtfully, lives playfully, lives heedlessly and gives in to pursuit of manyfold beauty. When such a heedless person dies he takes up another body. There is a another case where a person lives considering life thoroughly, he is serious and heedful, doesn't give in to lowly pursuits and is intent on highest good. Such person does not take up another body because he appreciates life for what it is [means to an end].

One can say that the present dukkha comes into being because of the past dukkha and that in dependence on the present dukkha the future dukkha can be abandoned.

My question is how do I think or train mind to not have either desire or aversion towards life?
The danger of craving for non-existence is that it is a fatal obsession. Some with this wrong view have committed suicide.

SN54.9:4.2: “Ānanda, why does the mendicant Saṅgha seem so diminished?”

Because of this danger, the Buddha taught mindfulness of breathing and more.

SN54.9:6.3: “Mendicants, when this immersion due to mindfulness of breathing is developed and cultivated it’s peaceful and sublime, a deliciously pleasant meditation. And it disperses and settles unskillful qualities on the spot whenever they arise.

Craving for existence is like only inhaling. Craving for non-existence is like only exhaling. They both lead to immediate suffering. However, the immersion that attends to the cycle of breathing leads to a balanced and healthy practice.
We also need a practice that supports us in daily life. And here we can practice ethics, starting with:

MN8:12.2: ‘Others will be cruel, but here we will not be cruel.’

Lastly, the emotional suffering of watching desires die and former pleasures turn to dust also has to be addressed to avoid a crash into depression. Here, the brahamaviharas can help. We practice limitless love, compassion, rejoicing and equanimity. These four limitless practices propel us to the formless dimensions and beyond:

SN46.54:12.8: The apex of the heart’s release by love is the beautiful, I say, for a mendicant who has not penetrated to a higher freedom.

Notably, the heart's release by love leads to the third liberation.

AN8.66:3.1: They’re focused only on beauty. This is the third liberation.

There are five more liberations. Don't despair!

Hi, thankyou for the answer. In this link you provided 》》https://suttacentral.net/an8.66/en/sujato#an8.66:3.1 《《  》》not perceiving form internally, they see visions externally. This is the second liberation.《《 what do this line means? What is the see visions externally mean?

In an unrelated note, I am amazed at your ability to provide exact quotes from the suttas. How do you know so many suttas? Do you practice studying them? You ability to recall them to provide an answer is also amazing. Metta.

I wrote scv-bilara, which is a Linux command line tool that searches the EBTs.
https://github.com/sc-voice/scv-bilara
Scv-bilara is the search engine for voice.suttacentral.net. Answering questions here from the Sangha teaches me about the suttas as I search. Thank you for all your questions. I have learned a lot.  BTW, your question about visions is a great question to post on its own. :D