Yes absolutely they are, and in ways that are even unimaginable to one who is not himself arahat! The physical pain experienced by an arahat is lacking any reactionary emotional stress or the slightest sense of regret or grief, or wish or desire that the painful event, however much great, did not occur. And it is also said that the intensity of the painful sensation is itself qualitatively reduced for an arahat (more like discomfort), because of the absence of emotional attachment and spontaneity in the mind, the very thing which magnifies painful sensations for the unenlightened in the first place, and the evidence of which is found in how, in certain exceptional situations, even normal people, such as a soldier or a sportsperson for example, are able to miraculously transcend their extreme physical injury and pursue with battle or game with perfect attention and self-application. This is the very normal and continual state of an arahat. Immeasurable bliss! Freedom Incomparable! Adoration!
When you manage to find the way to the end of that end of distress, please let me know, because dealing with the various bodily tortures I experience in my neck, head, shoulders, jaw and face are my chief meditation hindrance, and has been for years.
I asked Venerable Dhammajiva about meditating with a chronic condition and he said I could take it as an advantage or disadvantage. I could either see it as a hinderance or as a teacher. So I have been paying much more attention to my mind states around the condition and I learned so much. It has been such a great tool for sharpening mindfulness as well as looking at and letting go of unwholesome mind states. For me there was a lot of fear attached to the physical condition in my body. I didn’t even see that before. Since receiving this advice and practicing in this way I have seen many positive physical and mental changes.
I have found my health challenges incredibly instructive.
You have opened with a line that pretty much sums up my dilemma, because to begin by unequivocally stating that nibbana, and dukkha are absolutely mutually exclusive, and then in the same breath effectively juxtapose them as you have at the end there, seems as I have previously said, quite paradoxical to me. Although you have balanced the situation with the phrase unimaginable, and perhaps all said and done, that will prove to be the crux of the matter.
I do very much appreciate your subsequent elaboration, and examples, and to put it in my lay terms, it sounds like you’re saying something along the lines that pain isn’t necessarily suffering, and only really tends to become so, in the event that the raw sensation itself is overlaid with some form of attachment, (presumably such an escalation being founded upon a base of prevailing aviija). That the experience of the arhat is a state of such presence, that even the sensation itself could be envisaged as somehow being mitigated. Again, all of which again I can relate to.
Yet still that first seeming contradiction confuses me greatly. At this stage perhaps I need to consider the possibility that ultimately that particular situation is irreconcilable to mind, and the truth of the matter can only be directly realised, under the right conditions. I think maybe you have said as much.
For what it’s worth, I do have a reason for trying to understand this as best I can, over and above idle curiosity.
I think you may have gotten caught in language! What I here call “pain” an arahat does not experience as pain, but only as “tatha”! Just “this”, an experience with no experiencer! I’m afraid I can’t explain it any further! 
Satto saņsāramāpādi
dukkhamassa mahabbhayan.
One should check the emotional dimension of his experience and concern over this matter! This is how we make use of such dukkha that we can neither control nor avoid! 
By understanding that the sensations you experience is not you, not yours and not who you are. “Pain” is just a word. Dukkha for me, is the stirring up of a still mind, never mind if the following mood or experience is judged good or bad, it’s all Dukkha.
As long as the body and the sense bases persist the arahanth experiences pain, but in a very ‘modulated’ manner- apart from what was said above, some arahanths can even play with the pleasantness-unpleasantness and switch from one to the others. Others can enter nirodha-samapatti, just like the Buddha, where no experiences are present at all or immaterial attainments where the body is not felt.
Nibbana with residue remaining is where the causes for rebirth have been completely removed. Yet they still have the body which arose from the causes, including karma, from the past life (the body is called ‘old kamma’ in EBTs). The body dies at death and then there is full release, or parinibbana. The gap between nibbana with and without residue is only some years and compared to the enternity of dukkha being have undergone, it is hardly anything.
I believe this just shows that the path has practical elements in it, and is not magical- thinking.
with metta
The 4 Noble Truths tell you all you need to know about Dukkha. 
-the best
Have you tried Ayurvedic Massage ? 
Do you think the OP author doesn’t know what the Four Noble Truths consist of? 
With metta
i don’t know why don’t you ask him.
I think the Datuvibhanga Sutta MN.140 would be a very good place for you to start. I quote below the section which I think is relevant to your situation. But I encourage you to read the entire discourse.
“If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached. When he feels a feeling terminating with the body, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with the body.’ When he feels a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here.’ Bhikkhu, just as an oil-lamp burns in dependence on oil and a wick, and when the oil and wick are used up, if it does not get any more fuel, it is extinguished from lack of fuel; so too when he feels a feeling terminating with the body…a feeling terminating with life, he understands: ‘I feel a feeling terminating with life.’ He understands: ‘On the dissolution of the body, with the ending of life, all that is felt, not being delighted in, will become cool right here."
With Metta
This is a really informative discussion. I suppose I have always used the idea that pain is inevitable but suffering is optional. Beneath that, pain is a construct generated by nature, and is impersonal, inconstant, etc. Suffering on the other hand is extra layers added on. Pain is just the bare experience, which my be unpleasant, but what is far worse and causes more unpleasant experiences is our suffering added onto it. I am considering while reading this thread that there may be better ways of looking at it or my approach isn’t necessarily the best. And I deal with chronic pain, so, it is worth investigating. Thanks all!
Pain and it’s psychological component are well recognised in health care:
With metta
Of course it’s possible, but for my part I don’t believe it is a simple case of my getting caught up in the language. Obviously in this format we must use the words to point to our insights, and on that score I’m quite capable of looking toward the moon, rather than becoming fixated on the finger, and missing all the heavenly glory.
It appears you’re using “tatha” in the sense of “thusness” or “suchness”, and if so, I do understand, and can relate to what you say.
The impression I’m getting from the general consensus of answers here now, is that it might be said that, whilst pain is dukkha, pain itself to even be understood to be as such, is already somewhat accretive in nature. And I suppose it’s that last part that I’m particularly interesting in getting to the bottom of, ideally as succinctly as possible.
I don’t believe the emotional dimension to be the overriding factor for me in this issue. However it is the case that I find myself in a form of Dhamma combat elsewhere with those who in my opinion falsely professes to be liberated, and as a result unconsciously subvert, and no doubt there is a modicum of frustration. Time and again the issue comes down the very one that I have previously described as paradoxical, and to that end I’m moved to seek guidance, and consensus from the community in order to better come to understand the issue, (at least as best I can under the circumstances). And to develop my own insight of course.
Thank you kindly for your contribution.
It is interesting to consider nirodha-samapatti, and (what I’m guessing you are referring to), the formless jhanas, in relation to the topic. My understanding of Nirodha-samapatti specifically, is it’s all but equivalent to paranibbana, albeit temporary in nature, as subtle anusaya prevail. I’ve no doubt the arhat has the ability to become so present as to at least temporarily transcend the experience.
If I’m not mistaken, this sounds quite similar to what I was saying in the last paragraph here;
Thank you kindly for your input, although I am familiar with the sutta.
Referring to the first line, my question is basically, is “feeling a painful feeling” classed as dukkha, if detachment is the case, i.e. in the absence of attachment. I’m not sure the sutta offers any insight into that particular question.
Okay, but where dukkha is usually translated (albeit imperfectly) as suffering, does that mean pain is not dukkha, where the “extra layers” you refer to aren’t added on. Or is it even really pain without some basic form of those layers, I’m beginning to wonder.
It’s great to hear you can take something from the discussion too btw.
I apprecite the link, which I will return to later when I have some more free time, and have a good read through.
Thank you again to all.