If Arahant has no self view, no perception of self, no greed, anger or delusion, then why does Arahant eat or do anything?
Arahant has no craving to prolong or protect the existence of his body. When Arahant walks somewhere, why does s/he avoid walking off the cliff? Arahant isn't supposed to have fear or concern for his own body, and no self perception either. It seems that certain amount of perception of self is required to respond to situation and to avoid starving to death, walking into a wall rather than door, getting ran over by a car, eaten by tiger, etc. If person had absolutely no perception of self, clinging, aversion or delusion, then what would motivate him to move or change anything?
Here, things get a bit delicate, but one thing can be pointed out: the aggregates are not all there is. If they would be, then the kind of nihilism that you're pointing at would ensue. But to the best of my knowledge, the suttas never state that the aggregates are all there is. Although there is probably some dispute on this among Buddhist schools.
Alex123 wrote:The issue is that in the absence of identifying with one's body: "This is I, me, mine" why would one prefer to do with it one thing or another? One isn't supposed to feel that "my body needs this or that". Likes and dislikes motivate one to do this or that. For example if one feels cold and one doesn't like it, then one will be motivated to put on more clothing to feel warm. Without like/dislike, nothing would move one to do anything.
You are projecting.
What to you or to someone else may look like an action based on preference, or on greed or on concern over oneself, to another person, it may not.
Alex123 wrote:If Arahant has no self view, no perception of self, no greed, anger or delusion, then why does Arahant eat or do anything?
But they do not cling to their body, so why eat? They don't cling to existence, and they don't cling to helping (to whatever extent that is possible) others either. Without clinging to the body (in order to...), one would die and be unable to help others.
As I understand it, certain perception of self is required to respond to stimuli such as hunger, heat, cold, danger, etc. One protects oneself and one responds accordingly because one knows that "I am in danger or discomfort therefor I, not someone else, need to do something". IMHO.
The simplest explanation would be that they do not eat or appear to protect their bodies for the same reasons that run-of-the-mill people do. Which is why run-of-the-mill people can't easily understand them or relate to them.
For comparison, here's an example from a different religion, from a branch of Hindusim: according to them, an advanced devotee of God does everything for the sake of pleasing God. He eats, he sleeps, he goes to work, he has a family etc. etc. but he does all this for the sake of pleasing God, not for the sake of pleasing himself. So externally, such a devotee may pretty much appear like everyone else, but as far as his intentions go, be completely different than other people who are not devotees.
The question "What motivates an arahant?" may not even apply.
It may be a kind of question like "Why do potatoes not fly?"