Arahat by definition is free from ignorance. So I am not sure what you are talking about.
In The Short Discourse of Emptiness (MN121) it is implied that, in an arahant, the body and its vitality are conditions (paccaya) for the six-sense bases and the “modicum of stress” related to them.
There is only this that is not emptiness, namely that related to the six sense fields dependent on this body [kāyaṁ paṭicca saḷāyatanikaṁ] and conditioned by life [jīvitapaccayā’ti]
The term paccaya may be understood as referring primarily to conditionality in terms of arising, rather than persistence. In the context of dependent origination, each link functions as a condition for the arising of the next, not necessarily for its continued presence once arisen. Accordingly, ignorance and craving condition the arising and renewal of the aggregates, but not their ongoing functioning. Even in their absence, an arahant may still experience the six sense bases, contact, and feeling as long as the body and vitality remain.
Multicausality is also implied here, since causes other than the twelve links are mentioned. Moreover, in an arahant, the elements that remain present do not condition the subsequent links that normally follow feeling, indicating that feeling is necessary but not sufficient for their arising.
In summary, some conditions operate in the arising and renewal of the aggregates, while others support their mere continuation once arisen. Arahantship brings an end to the former type of conditions, but not to the latter.
I reread your previous comment, it seems that you are saying that arahants don’t have phassa, vedana, birth etc. in the sense that they just don’t appropriate these things. But if it is true, then it seems that the DO doesn’t give any reason why arahants would stop reincarnating, since the existence of actual vedana, phassa, etc. is independent from there being avijja.
I am very happy that you re-read my post. Now, if you re-read MN 22 and Yakama Sutta you will see that precisely because Tathagata by realisation the cessation of being (bhava), is not to be found even here and now is the reason why arahat cannot be born again. Only one who was born, can die and be reborn. Again please do notice the most important thing, arahat is totally free from upādanā, and as you surely know, Buddha declares rebirth only for one with upādanā. So being able to distinguish between pañc’upādānakkhandhā or puthujjana and pañcakkhandhā or arahst is rather necessary condition for understanding of dependent arising.
“Bhikkhus, when the gods with Indra, with Brahmā and with Pajāpati seek a bhikkhu who is thus liberated in mind, they do not find [anything of which they could say]: ‘The consciousness of one thus gone is supported by this.’ Why is that? One thus gone, I say, is untraceable here and now.
MN 22
“But, friend, when the Tathāgata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here and now, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, a bhikkhu whose taints are destroyed is annihilated and perishes with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death’?”
“Formerly, friend Sāriputta, when I was ignorant, I did hold that pernicious view, but now that I have heard this Dhamma teaching of the Venerable Sāriputta I have abandoned that pernicious view and have made the breakthrough to the Dhamma.”
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Determinations… Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
“Good, good, friend Yamaka!
SN 22:85
Arahant was born, therefore, he can die and be reborn. Do you deny that he was born?
Sorry, @knigarian . I didn’t understand. Do you deny that Shakyamuni’s birth was a historical event?
Dear friend,
An arahat does not die. Nibbāna is unconditioned.
Hi @Cristy ,
Thanks for your response. Then, for you, is Arahat identical to Nibbāna?
First thing, at time of birth, this particular puggala, wasn’t yet known as arahat. Anyway I refer the right view: that actually and in truth arahat is not to be found here and now. Or to that arahat and nibbana, asankhata dhatu are synonyms and so NM 140 says:
“Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?
MN 140
You said in response to “Do you deny that he was born?”:
Most certainly I do
‘Arahat is not to be found here and now’ implies that ‘Arahat’ is just a label for the five aggregates, no?
Based on that quote, isn’t ‘an Arahat doesn’t die’ the same as ‘an Arahat will continue to be’?"
No, since nibbana is the cessation of being here and now. In order to continue to be, you must first be. And since arahat -in the right view is not to be found even here and now, being or the state of bhava doesn’t apply to “him”. Being is the state of puthujjana, not arahat:
The reason why the Tathāgata is not to be found (even here and now) is that he is rūpa-, vedanā-, saññā-, sankhāra-, and viññāna-sankhāya vimutto (ibid. 1 <S.iv,378-9>), i.e. free from reckoning as matter, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness. This is precisely not the case with the puthujjana, who, in this sense, actually and in truth is to be found.
Yes, unlike puthujjana who is described as five aggregates subjected to upādanā. There is no upādanā in the case of arahat
1 Like
I agree with you about the cessation part. This is the right view.
Well, these sound contradictory to certain suttas. 
Sakkaya is defined as five aggregates; however, they do not make an arahat, even conventionally.
In Sn 44.2:
“What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?.. Elsewhere than form?.. In feeling?.. Elsewhere than feeling?.. In perception?.. Elsewhere than perception?.. In fabrications?.. Elsewhere than fabrications?.. In consciousness?.. Elsewhere than consciousness?”
“No, lord.”
Other than a poem ascribed to a discipline of Buddha which says that “a satta” is a convention for when there’s aggregates present (which still doesn’t mean that aggregates are satta, even conventionally); I don’t think there’s any suttas that sya a self or an arahant or a tathagata is aggregates, even conventionally.
There’s a few ways to resolve this issue. It seems a tathagata or an arahant is undefinable, either through the virtue of being real or false categories, depending on how you read into them
This also sounds like annihilationism, as per MN 102:
But some assert the annihilation, eradication, and nonexistence of an existing being, while others propose extinguishment in this life.
I am unaware of it. Please provide relevant quote from the Suttas. To make your job easier, I know Sutta MN 44 but if you refere to it, it defines sakkaya as five aggregstes subjeted to upādanā. It may suggest that upādanā or not, is no big deal for you, while this is precisely difference between puthujjana and arahat, so rather important one.
1 Like
So bhava nirodho sounds for you as annihilationism. Than you can happily claim that Sutta M 22 discusses your ideas😊
‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing being.’267 As I am not, as I do not proclaim, so have I been baselessly, vainly, falsely, and wrongly misrepres ented by some recluses and brahmins thus: ‘The recluse Gotama is one who leads astray; he teaches the annihilation, the destruction, the extermination of an existing creature.’
“Bhikkhus, both formerly and now what I teach is suffering and the cessation of suffering.
I know that’s what the Ven Nanavira claims, but Sn 22.122 seems to contradict that view:
Reverend Koṭṭhita, a perfected one should also rationally apply the mind to the five grasping aggregates as impermanent, as suffering, as diseased, as a boil, as a dart, as gloom, as an affliction, as alien, as breaking apart, as empty, as not-self. A perfected one has nothing more to do, and nothing that needs improvement. Still, these things, when developed and cultivated, lead to blissful meditation in this life, and also to mindfulness and situational awareness.
It seems, there’s no appropitation of fuel for aggregates, yet they’re still present somehow, so reflecting on their dukkha is a peaceful abode it seems.
1 Like
Maybe rather, it seems Buddha is saying precisely that bhavanirodha doesn’t mean “you being here” that you defined in your post, of whose cessation we’re to talk about?
That was my objection, the assumption that “you must first be”.
Let leave Ven Ñánavīra alone. Your quote doesn’t contradict the fact that definition of sakkāya as provided by you, isn’t found in Suttas, neither it contradicts idea that being with or without upādanā in the case of aggregates is thing of the first importance. Since arahat behaving unskilfully can loss access to jhānas such practice is good. But loss of jhānas does not infect liberation of mind from upādanā.
Now, what about puthujjana who as a victim of upādanā is precisely the victim of the assumption: “I am”. That’s his being, and as long as upādanā is present such individual will be reborn or continue, if you wish.
What I say, when there is no assumption of being - “I am” how can one continue to be? Anihilitionist view sees self which is latter annihilated. Cessation of being, since being depends on ignorance, is merely cessation of delusion. I denote the attitude “I am” as the state of suffering and claim that this is precisely what Buddha teaches.
2 Likes
Hi, @Dogen . I did not understand how this quote is contradictory with what I said.
I’d just note that if something is considered indefinable, any debate about it becomes meaningless.