I don’t think the early texts support that view, because I don’t know of any sutta where an arahant decides to be reborn, but there are many suttas where it is said, that: “Rebirth is ended.”
Yes rebirth is actually ended. I also believe what early texts say. As rebirth is only because we want to satisfy something…and for arhat he/she does not need to satisfy anything as he reached the source of happiness.
Just as we dig this earth to find valuable jewels and that’s the only reason we dig in first place. We are trying to find satisfaction by taking birth again and again. By digging I mean getting reborn again and again. Arhat is some one who has reached the source of jewels…now why would he dig as there is no need for him/her to dig…unlike us.
The Arhat can become a Buddha before Parinirvana, or after, one does not have to be “born” out of the Stream of Nibbana, to become a Buddha. I am glad you are investigating the subject of rebirth and Arhats, and I hope you find the correct answer.
Maybe Venerable @Brahmali can answer my question of the first post, if he wants?
I heard Ajahn Brahm in a Dhammatalk say that when Nibbana happens, there is no happiness, no suffering and nothing in between not even the slightest bit of something, poof, gone. Does that mean it is the same nothingness that atheists believe in or is it different because there still is ineffable happiness?
I cannot edit the first post.
Here I meant “everything we call happiness except nibbana” is suffering.
I believe your views are mahayana, is that correct?
I don’t think that the Buddha preached multiple Vehicles except as an Expedient Means. The Buddha only used the Ekayana to covert the Bodhisattvas, and that is what I follow.
Yes you are correct…I also believe his views are from bigger reality.
Process of digging has ended for arhat…but what about those who want to help others reach the source? Well they are Bodhisattvas and after stopping digging for jewels themselves (even though they reach source)…they do not stop there but they help others reach source.
Sir teaching of one vehicle is to help those who are feeling incomplete about sravaka vehicle and to support those who are falling away from greater vehicle to lower vehicle.
I believe even teaching of one vehicle is actually expedient means… because obviously even if you may be able to cut your organs to give away…not everyone would be able to do that!? It is logical to say that…I believe.
OK, I have a different view, I follow the early buddhist texts and believe that later texts are an invention by ordinary people, but that’s just my view.
3 Likes
You are following the early texts very nicely and I hope you continue to do so, and not to digress this thread on the specific topic of Ekayana being this or that, I will just say the Buddha is of one mind, so just Meditate on that. 
Yes sir… sorry I started to disgres away from thread. I will stop now.
Pleasure of recognition of true nature can bring down the pleasant feeling into neutral towards an object but remain very pleasant inwardly.
i.e
if you are thirsty and there is a cup of water, you feel pleasant towards the water. Then somebody offers you an insight ‘that water might be poisoned.’ Your feeling regarding the water is neutral but the insight brings you feel happy.
You can have two feeling overlapping - one feeling in regarding to an object, another one is outside of khandas, originated from wisdom.
The article Stu posted is of great value. I recommend the read, and if you have any questions on this subject, this article is inspirational.
The following passage by venerable Payutto from his book Buddhadhamma (pp 191) describes what I was going to say in a more cogent manner.
“Happiness, or a pleasurable feeling (sukha-vedanā), is not an end of dukkha. We call an increase or reduction of pressure ‘happiness’ because it creates a feeling of pleasure. But an alteration of this pleasurable tension results in a condition that requires endurance or is intolerable, a condition we call ‘suffering’, i.e. we feel pain (dukkha-vedanā). In truth only dukkha – pressure and stress – exists, which either increases or decreases.
A similar subject is that of heat and cold. Cold does not really exist; there exists only a feeling of cold. The basic condition is heat, which increases, decreases, or is absent. When one says that one is pleasantly cool, one is referring only to a feeling; actually, one is experiencing a degree of heat. If more or less warm than that degree, then one is not at ease. In this sense, pleasure, or to speak in full ‘a feeling of pleasure’, is one level of dukkha. Pleasure is dependent on pressure and tension, and necessarily changes and vanishes. In other words, dukkha, which is the basic condition, prevents pleasure from being sustainable. {76}”
There is a spectrum of feelings. Arbitrary sections of which are assigned different labels by different people. What is always present are the three marks.
1 Like
that implies that with increasing bodily pain, an aranhat is suffering and unable to stay neutral or joyful.
Which “that” are you referring to in “that implies….”?
i could not recall now, some sentence i glanced in the thread. maybe i can remember later.
Yes maybe but that would definitely not be case. As for arhats there’s not change of perception towards pain or pleasure or whatever but actually absence of pleasure and pain!(most probably). Also I think trying to conceptualize how arhats would feel is a little bit confusing actually. Why should we categorise them I think maybe we should consider arhats as superior beings beyond what we can imagine with our conceptual and logical mind…and we should first of all believe one thing that we cannot comprehend them by ourselves in our present state of mind. There are higher chances of mistake happening when we try to conceptualize them…like this or that. It’s like if fire vanishes we are asking and discussing which direction would it go…up, down, left, right. Just as teaching of non-self even if it’s true…can we feel it?? No … otherwise we would be stream enterers atleast if we could feel it…that means we have very much to learn, cultivate, let go… because if we think over it using our present logical mind teaching of nonhself would feel most stupid…unless we accept it on faith as many of us do. So in a same way trying to know how would arhat feel will just be wrong.
I am not criticising anyone, but I feel we should accept or be always mindful of our inadequacy and limits(of language and being itself). Metta 
Just a few general comments… You are right that the suttas are inconsistent. Yet, the distribution (I think) clearly suggests that upekkha doesn’t include sukkha, and opposite examples are rare.
We have to keep in mind that the ‘genre’ of suttas is not a compendium of ontological / dogmatic statements. Philosophy might be dogmatic - teaching is necessarily pragmatic. You want the disciple to progress.
It’s possible to imagine situations where the Buddha/an early teacher laid out his without-sukkha-teaching and then a student said/thought “well that is unattractive to me, why would I seek that?” to which the teacher replied in a non-literal way: “because it’s an even higher happiness”.
I know this is conceptually not satisfying, but I suggest to allow this as a possibility due to teaching situations that focus on motivation and encouragement, and less on conceptual rigour.
3 Likes
Thanks @Gabriel.
I think that your explanation was also confirmed in MN59
“In one explanation I’ve spoken of two feelings. In another explanation I’ve spoken of three feelings, or five, six, eighteen, thirty-six, or a hundred and eight feelings. I’ve explained the teaching in all these different ways. This being so, you can expect that those who don’t concede, approve, or agree with what has been well spoken will argue, quarrel, and fight, continually wounding each other with barbed words. I’ve explained the teaching in all these different ways. This being so, you can expect that those who do concede, approve, or agree with what has been well spoken will live in harmony, appreciating each other, without quarreling, blending like milk and water, and regarding each other with kindly eyes”.
1 Like