The term Tathagata while usually is used by the Buddha who refers by it to himself, also denotes one perfectly liberated, so any arahat .
If so, let’s repeated, there is a certain thing, specific component of impermanent parts, the body, feeling, perception, intentions, and consciousness puggala. You can replace puggala with let’s say car.
In Dhamma there is really no any kind of problem here. The car exist, in the sense, there is such thing as car.
Than you -from my point of view ask me very strange questions: do I consider the weel as a car? Do I consider the steering wheel as a car?
Than I think: what is wrong with this nice man, why he ask me such questions? I am not sure but my answer is: No, while the steering wheel is not a car, it is a part of car, and together with other components, nicely arranged by mr Ford, these parts constitute the car, certain thing which can be used if you like to go from Savathi to Kosala. There is such thing, and it absolutely has nothing in common with avijja, at least as far as Suttas go.
Then my question is: do you agree with that, do you see that the question: “Do you take a weel as car?” is little bit strange, and in normal situation such question would never come to your mind?
I hope, you agree with this.
But Buddha Teaching isn’t concerned with the fact that things are. Buddha Teaching deals with the problem of suffering and cessation of suffering.
So what can be described as suffering? In fact the state of puthujjana = suffering. Notion of self and conceit “I am” are suffering.
And the point is while puthujjana indeed has no any problems with recognition that car is a thing made from various components, puggala essentialy of being of the same nature isn’t seen by the puthujjana in this way. It is seen as “self”
But subjectivity -self including - is inseparable with notions of permanence.
So while arahat is an individual - puggala- without personality
sotāpanna due to abandoning personality view, understands that there can be an individual which functions totally automatically without any self which is the master over experience,
puthujjana isn’t able to distinguished between individuality and personality since for him individual is always “self”
And this is a distinction which has to be recognised, while both arahat and puthujjana are individuals
arahat is an individual without personality, while puthujjana is an individual, one who carries the burden of personality.
The Burden
At Sāvatthī…. There the Blessed One said this:“Bhikkhus, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, 35 the taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden. Listen to that….“And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the determinations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. This is called the burden.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said: the individual (puggala), this venerable one of such a name and clan. This is called the carrier of the burden.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this craving that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination. This is called the taking up of the burden.
“And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it. This is called the laying down of the burden.”39This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this:
“The five aggregates are truly burdens,
The burden-carrier is the person.
Taking up the burden is suffering in the world,
Laying the burden down is blissful.
Having laid the heavy burden down
Without taking up another burden,
Having drawn out craving with its root,
One is free from hunger, fully quenched.”
SN 22 : 22
And it is the task of certain individual puggala - who by self-identification is taking oneself as a person, to transform his experience to individual without personality.( sakkaya)
And here what was pointless in the case of car, starts to be valid. Since puthujjana doesn’t see himself as a component of impermanent things, but as a extra-temporal changeless ‘self’ which by definition cannot be a component of impermanent parts, question: do you see yourself as a body is directing puthujjana towards conclusion, that since the body is impermanent and so cannot be seen as a self, he is a victim of wrong self-identification.
Also it should be understood that since he himself sees himself as a person (sakkaya) while puthujjana may acknowledge that Tathagata is a perfect one, for the puthujjana Tathagata is still a person, some special one, enlightened, nevertheless person. So it is only too natural for him to wonder, what happens to the Tathagata after death?
But ariya, sekha, unlike puthujjana sees, that the question is wrongly stated, because it is asked about person, and here again arahat is an individual without any personality, just impermanent set of aggregates.
But without understanding that subjectivity is inseparable with notions of permanence and so existence of the person, since derived from self-identification with things which are impermanent, depends on ignorance, it is indeed difficult to grasp.