If samsara = nibbana this quoted statement doesn’t make sense.
Let’s have proper definition.
Samsara is usually defined as rounds of rebirth. But also sometimes seems to be referring to the physical universe.
Nibbana is sometimes used to refer to parinibbana, which is total cessation, no arising, no ceasing due to no arising, no coming, no going. Also, there’s nibbana with remainder, which is a living arahant (including Buddha).
Having attained enlightenment, the arahant is freed from samsara in the sense of no more rebirth. Of course we can still see the arahant, thus the arahant is still in the physical universe in the conventional sense. And they are considered as nibbana with remainder. There’s still physical suffering which is possible, but not mental suffering. In the ultimate sense, there’s no one to be referred to, even before enlightenment, there is no self, no one, this applies to all beings.
After parinibbana, there’s nothing to refer to as anything. We cannot point to the corpse and say this is the arahant, it’s not meaningful, the corpse may still in physical universe, but there’s no more arising.
Due to no more arising, nothing to be referred to as self there cannot be any notion of still coming back to samsara. Any notion of that smacks of eternalism. As if there’s an eternal soul somewhere.
On the dhammakaya thing, one might as well stick to non personalized language. The dhamma principle is there even without Buddha arising. It is by the dhamma which we are liberated. See. Totally impersonalized language compared to saying Buddha has dhamma body, which is eternal and continues to liberate beings, this imputes a possible self into the abstract.
One possible way of understanding how there can be no suffering once Craving and Clinging for conditioned phenomena is ended, even though the conditioned phenomena continue to be perceived is described in MN101
“Suppose that a man is in love with a woman, his mind ensnared with fierce desire, fierce passion. He sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, and laughing. What do you think, monks: As he sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, and laughing, would sorrow, lamentation, pain, disuffering, and despair arise in him?”
“Yes, lord. Why is that? Because he is in love with her, his mind ensnared with fierce desire, fierce passion…”
“Now suppose the thought were to occur to him, ‘I am in love with this woman, my mind ensnared with fierce desire, fierce passion. When I see her standing with another man, chatting, joking, and laughing, then sorrow, lamentation, pain, disuffering, and despair arise within me. Why don’t I abandon my desire and passion for that woman?’ So he abandons his desire and passion for that woman, and afterwards sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, and laughing. What do you think, monks: As he sees her standing with another man, chatting, joking, and laughing, would sorrow, lamentation, pain, disuffering, and despair arise in him?”
“No, lord. Why is that? He is dispassionate toward that woman…”
“In the same way, the monk, when not loaded down, does not load himself down with pain, nor does he reject pleasure that accords with the Dhamma, although he is not infatuated with that pleasure.
IMO, Nirvana is simply about growing cool to each and every conditioned phenomenon… Samsara, women, family… even one’s Body and Mind, by seeing them as they truly are.
SN18.10
Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness.
Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.
AFAIK, Awakened Ones experience both Samsara and Nirvana, but having Understood, they no longer grasp … not at conditioned phenomena (MN140)… and not even at Nirvana (MN1).
@NgXinZhao Thank you very much. If I understood correctly, the arhat can suffer physical pain, but not mental pain.
Now, let us imagine that the arhat is captured by criminals preparing to torture him physically. Can the arhat, in order to escape this physical suffering, instantly cease his perception of samsara?
Thank you. Ignorance, malice, lust, etc., are mental, “in the head”; it is not a material place outside of perception. Please, is this what you mean when you say that samsara (and nirvana) is not a place?
Apparently, he attained residual nirvana (i.e. even in nirvana he was connected to samsara through the body), and then upon the death of the body he attained non-residual nirvana (nirvana totally disconnected from samsara). But I am not sure if nirvana with residue is compatible with the experience of suffering in samsara.
Further complicating matters, nirvana can refer to a couple different things: either a dhamma-dhatu or a state of mental purity.
After enlightenment, obviously the Buddha’s mind was pure at all times. From time to time he may have been absorbed in a particular meditative attainment which some people would call “nibbāna.” His passing we call “parinibbana”
It’s important to keep the different meanings distinct
You keep saying “in saṃsāra” which is a category error. Saṃsāra is not a place. If by “saṃsāra” you mean “not nirvana” then you’ll have to specify which nirvana you mean for the question to be well-posed.
Walking around, the Buddha wasn’t in parinibbana nor in the “ninth jhana”… so I guess he was “in saṃsāra” to that extent. But obviously he was still enlightened, and thus still “in nirvana” to that extent. Is that making sense?
I think you’re asking if the arahant can go into Jhanas in those cases to cease bodily painful feelings, I am not sure. The sutta did had more than one case of chronic pain arahant who used the knife.
This question of the OP illustrates various common misunderstandings which IMO, lead to the debates @Jasudho was referring to.
Dukkha vedana (Painful feeling tone) is not the same thing as Dukkha (Suffering). Nor is sukkha vedana (Pleasurable feeling tone) the same thing as Sukkha (Happiness).
Vedana refers to the quality or tone of the sensory input / sensation/ feeling experienced when rupa makes contact with a sense base powered by consciousness. The meaning of the word ‘feeling’ as used here (which has unfortunately gained prominence as the most common english translation) is not the same thing as the meaning of the word ‘Feeling’ used to refer to emotion laden constructs such as Suffering, Sadness, Happiness etc. A better word might be ‘qualia’. Otherwise, even using feeling-tone (a stalwart hybrid Buddhist English word ) might be preferable.
Dukkha (Suffering) as often clarified in the suttas, is not just dukkha vedana. It is a complex construct of Sanna and Sankhara produced by the Mind powered by Consciousness due to being afflicted with Craving which itself is based on being Ignorant of the 4 Noble Truths. Dukkha is a ‘Feeling’ of the mind+heart (emotion laden mental construct) but it is not the same thing as dukkha vedana which is a ‘feeling’ (sensation/ feeling tone/ qualia) of a sense receptor. The Mind is unique amongst the sense receptors in that it is not just an originator of vedana (when it experiences its own thoughts) but also the interpreter of vedana from all the senses by way of Sanna & Sankhara.
Two examples which may illustrate the difference:
A masochist experiences sensations which are painful when they are beaten with a whip. However they do not experience Suffering - they experience Pleasure and Happiness! So much so that they seek out such experiences compulsively and are even willing to pay others to inflict these sensations. There is dukkha vedana from the body, but Sukkha is experienced by the mind.
A naked wire is just a naked wire. Yet, having experienced painful sensations in the past on accidentally touching a live naked wire, a person under certain conditions would experience Suffering if a naked wire were brought near them, even in the absence of actual physical contact. There is neither dukkha vedana nor sukkha vedana, yet Dukkha is experienced.
An Arahant has made an end to Ignorance and Craving. They live in the present moment, knowing vedana just as it actually is right now, without any ‘I, me, mine’ making. They know that the vedana being experienced is dependently originated, liable to arise and cease, impersonal - and they do not construct any sanna/ sankhara based emotional story of a ‘Me that is Suffering’ around the experience of vedana. For them, Sanna (Perception - another bad translation - it does not mean ‘Conscious Experience’… it refers to the meaning/ sign assigned by the Mind and so associated with the experience) is ended. Being unattached, they are freed - both now and in the hereafter. (SN36.6, SN36.7, SN22.8, SN12.51, MN140 etc.)
In the scenario described by you above, the experience consists of various sights, sounds and touch sensations. These are simply conditioned phenomena, they are not Dukkha in and of themselves - the Dukkha is created by the Mind afflicted by craving, which constructs a story around the experience. ‘A Criminal’ is a mental construct of the ordinary afflicted mind, it could be an actor? ‘Preparing to torture’ is again a result of this afflicted mind extrapolating the current experience out into the unknown future while ascribing various intentions and results. It might not turn out that way? The ‘I, me, mine’ Mind is the Superstar of the current experience, making each and every vedana about itself, ignoring the actual dependently originated nature of impersonal experience.
The prime duty of the Arahant in such a situation is to look after their Mind - not allowing malevolent thoughts to arise (MN28). If there is something that they can do to reduce the dukkha vedana being experienced, they do it (such as entering jhana), else they remain Mindful and Aware, bearing up with equanimity (SN47.9). Since their mind is always equanimous and unattached - IMO, Dukkha (Suffering) does not arise, even though Dukkha vedana might be experienced.
) might be preferable.
