So, it is being said here death will occur in the last life when one is an arahant but, in the unknown future, there will be no death because there is no birth? This idea has two problems for me:
-
It is speculative. There is no evidence for it. It cannnot be known what happens in the future.
-
More importantly, the suttas state in many places that “death” (“marana”) does not occur to an arahant.
Therefore, for example, Gotama was born as Gotama from his mother’s womb but the Buddha did not experience death (marana). Therefore, with Gotama there was a birth without death.
If we don’t know the scholars also don’t know.
How do you expect the jhanas to help us? I hope you are not saying here that psychic powers are required? Sariputta & many other arahants did not have any psychic powers. So how is jhana going to help us?
This question was not answered. [quote=“Deeele, post:21, topic:5703”]
How do you account for the following different definitions in SN 12.2 vs DN 15?
[/quote]
This question was not answered.
Nama-rupa is defined as feeling, perception, intention, contact, attention, earth,wind, fire & water.
Are you saying here an arahant does not have ‘nama-rupa’?
SN 12.2 first mentions “self” at the 9th link of attachment. To quote:
And what, bhikkhus, is clinging? There are these four kinds of clinging: clinging to sensual pleasures, clinging to views, clinging to rules and vows, clinging to a doctrine of self. This is called clinging. SN 12.2
SN 12.12 seems to be more clear, which states a ‘self’ does not experience sense contact, feeling, craving & attachment but attachment is the cause of a ‘self’. To quote:
“Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?”
“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One.
“I do not say that ‘he has a sense-impression.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who has a sense-impression?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of sense-impression?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.’”
“Who, O Lord, feels?”
“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he feels.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who feels?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of feeling?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.’”
“Who, O Lord, craves?”
“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One. “I do not say that ‘he craves.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who craves?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of craving?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.’”
“Who, O Lord, clings?”
“The question is not correct,” said the Exalted One, "I do not say that ‘he clings.’ Had I said so, then the question ‘Who clings?’ would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be ‘What is the condition of clinging?’ And to that the correct reply is: ‘Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.’ Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.
SN 12.12
SN 22.81 also seems to say the idea of ‘self’ arises after craving rather than at nama-rupa. To quote:
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. SN 22.81
SN 22.22 seems to say the “carrier of the burden” is the “person”, which has a “name & clan”.
SN 22.22 does not seem to say nama-rupa is “the person”. To quote:
And which is the carrier of the burden? ‘The person,’ it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. SN 12.22