Presumably the minimum attendant on (still) possessing the five aggregates.
1 Like
I think he only had bodily feeling regarding suffering, not mental feeling, which is negative emotion (i.e. desire, repulsion, and ignorance in response to the three bodily feelings):
Pages 109-111 from The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism Choong Mun-keat 2000.pdf (231.4 KB)
1 Like
Thank you very much !
Interesting thank you
I think youâre 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.
1 Like
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 âfeelingâ 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 âFeelingâ used to refer to emotion laden constructs such as Suffering, Sadness, Happiness etc. A better word might be âqualiaâ. 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 âFeelingâ of the mind+heart (emotion laden mental construct) but it is not the same thing as dukkha vedana which is a âfeelingâ (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 âI, me, mineâ 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 âMe that is Sufferingâ around the experience of vedana. For them, Sanna (Perception - another bad translation - it does not mean âConscious Experienceâ⌠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. âA Criminalâ is a mental construct of the ordinary afflicted mind, it could be an actor? âPreparing to tortureâ 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 âI, me, mineâ 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.
5 Likes
well, the better you evolve the better you get to discern that âsamsara is nirvana and vice versaâ. And the exercise of âletting goâ is one of the best to understand it and integrate it.
Samsara/dukkha, being not real, arises by causal condition (nidaana); having arisen it ceases completely by causal condition. It is a result of previous action, but there is no doer (not-self).
Very interesting, thank you very much. It is complex.
So if I understand well, the arhat has totally destroyed the sufferings caused by the âmental interpretations that to the mind about the phenomenaâ, but he can still have the âsensible sufferings existing independently of our mental interpretation of the phenomenaâ.
But I wonder: to what point the sensitive suffering of the arhat can be acute? Letâs imagine that the criminal decides to do the most horrible physical tortures to the arhat. Is the arhat going to have an extremely strong sensitive suffering? Or will it just be mild?
Thank you very much
Physical sensation â Suffering.
just as
Physical sensation â Happiness.
Perfected ones have eliminated Suffering. They have not eliminated the experience of physical sensations. The two are not the same thing.
If painful physical sensations (even of the worst possible type) were the same thing as Suffering, the Buddha could not truthfully have claimed to have experienced the end of Suffering while still alive.
It is well documented in the Suttas that the Buddha (SN47.9) had no Suffering despite experiencing the pains of severe illness. Nor did Upasena (SN35.69) despite a severely painful viper bite resulting shortly in his death.
The mildest physical sensation can be a cause of Suffering intense enough to be used as an instrument of torture while the most severely painful physical sensations can result in Happiness.
IMO, some ascetic practices (Dhutanga) such as fasting, rag robe wearing etc. were retained by the Buddha within the Training precisely because they help in understanding the difference between the two.
1 Like
Thank you for your message.
But a sharp physical pain (not caused by the illusion), it remains something unpleasant, even for an arhat, isnât it?
Yes. And the arahant endures mindfully.
SN1.38
Now at that time the Buddhaâs foot had been cut by a splinter.The Buddha was stricken by harrowing pains; physical feelings that were painful, sharp, severe, acute, unpleasant, and disagreeable.
But he endured unbothered, with mindfulness and situational awareness.
Thank you a lot !!!
I have a question please. Can the arhat have a will (for example a will to help others to suffer less)? I ask myself this question because I am not sure to understand what is the nirvana with residue. Is nirvana with residue the end of absolutely ALL desires (including the desire for compassion, or the desire for food), or only the end of attachment desires (like the desire for possession, power, etc.)?
Yes⌠and of course such unborn is not (a) Being, isâŚNibanna.
Agree. And I hope nothing Iâve posted on this forum implies otherwise! 
Actually, âthere is an unbornâŚâ can be easily reified into a âsomethingâ.
KR Norman and a number of other Venerables prefer to translate âunbornâ and the other descriptive words as âfreedom from birthâ, or âwithout birthâ. These expressions can be less prone to reification, as they point to an absence rather than a âthingâ.
Kind of like saying, "There is a
Peace