One suffers because one has attachment; not because one exists. The Buddha existed without suffering.LonesomeYogurt wrote: Well considering that one cannot suffer if one does not arise in Samsara, it would be hard to explain how the ultimate expression of freedom from suffering would not be Parinibbana.
A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Thanks. Looks like a good readdaverupa wrote:K. R. Norman, A Philological Approach to Buddhism:
Another important point which philology has been able to clarify is the translation of the noun parinibbāna; which Rhys Davids translated as “decease” in the title of the sutta I have just mentioned [The Mahaparinibbana-sutta]. Because that sutta deals with the nibbāna which the Buddha obtained at death, parinibbāna is often translated as “final nibbāna”, reserving the simple “nibbāna” for the experience which the Buddha had at the time of his wakening. Because of the use of the word parinibbāna in connection with the Buddha’s death, it is assumed by some that it can only be used of nibbāna at death. This interpretation is, however, based upon a misunderstanding of the significance of the prefix pari-. It can be shown very easily that it does not imply “final”, and parinibbāna, at least in its original usage, cannot mean “final nibbāna” because there are many references in the texts to living beings who are described as parinibbuta “having gained parinibbāna”.