Yes of course I see that ending of craving ends mental suffering in the arahanth. I also see that the death of the arahanth as the ending of sankhara dukkha as well, so it is significant.
My question is why leave out such a significant part of the dhamma (what is anicca, is dukkha) out of a talk on suffering. IMHO he did this because he knew what his audience was like- they needed a certain ..'sunshine' shall we call it, in a talk of dukkha. They are laypeople after all, not ordained. However it leaves me dissatisfied because I feel that this puts a spin on dhamma-vinaya which I believe can be avoided if they stick to topics like compassion, morality and generosity. This I think is the problem of a monk being dependant on his lay followers and the message not being truly independent. Who can speak without fear of upsetting one's followers?
I have heard Bhikkhu Bodhi translate anatta as 'self-less' in what I assume to be a talk similar to this in some ways (it was done for a lay audience as well). Now while it is not technically incorrect, it can mislead the listener as they will naturally come to the wrong conclusion, when it is not then described in depth. While it is not an untruth in the speakers mind, it is nevertheless a misrepresentation of the dhamma- which I don't believe in, whatever the cost. Better have your listeners battle through their own cravings and reach the truth, rather than not know where the truth lies at all. One person I admire in this issue is the Dalai Lama who keeps it simple, beneficial and true, rather than mildly untrue, yet beneficial.
The Buddha said that after his dimise the dhamma-vinaya will be the arbitatror, not individuals. I do feel an urge to pop dhamma-lite wherever I see it- it is a weakness, I know.
I'm not against any tradition per-se, just what I think is potentially misleading.
Who appointed me? Yes, well...