Given that you're relating to dukkha as one of the three characteristics of existence (even though not using the actual term), your definition of existence as "presence of mind and/or body" remains the crux of the apparent disagreement... and why, by your logic, dukkha cannot be transcended, short of the death of an arahant.Alex123 wrote:I understand that for those who don't realize that all and any awareness/consciousness/experience is ultimately dukkha, the Buddha's teaching on Nibbāna can sound bleak. Even in His time he was criticized (by those who didn't understand) for teaching "anihhilationism".
I concur with Gabe when he said, "You are doing a serious disservice to the Dhamma in my opinion." by positing that the highest goal in the Dhamma is the ability to be permanently dead.
Metta,
Retro.