Buckwheat wrote: Where does it say that an arahant is unable to perceive "I am hungry"?
Because Arahant doesn't have "I, me, mine
An arahant can still "self" but he does it with wisdom and compassion, seeing that there is actually no real and substantial self.
Doesn't this contradict anatta? Can self be unreal and non-substantial (if there is no self, then it cannot have any properties
This is the weakness with the "No-Self" translation, and why many (incl Ven Thanissaro) translate it as "not-self". To play off Cittasanto's excellent explanation, I might add that seeing the collection of parts is a form of selfing, but without clinging to this as something more than an assembly of parts (ie: not falling for the magician's illusion) it does not lead to dukkha. She is not motivated by the illusion. She is motivated by wisdom and compassion.
Another approach: When a magician performs his trick, cutting a lady in half, a person full of delusion believes that the lady is cut in two. That is the situation for you and I. The arahant has figured out the magicians trick, and knows the lady is not being cut in half. He is still able to see the illusion, but he also knows the reality of what is really going on.
Hope that helps. If not, ignore my words, as I am not an authority on the topic.
Disciples, this I declare to you: All conditioned things are subject to disintegration – strive on untiringly for your liberation.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.