Rephrasing words of the Buddha is not an argument, since I've talked about an evolution of the Buddhist message in time with different understandings and evolution of terms and ideas. Still, I think that you've responded my underlying question.
When he does though he always defines them.
Well, not always it seems, for example Vitakka&Vicara in Jhana
. And doubts about the meaning of the words are there also for Sankharas and other terms even if they are defined in the Nikayas, a sign that evolution of concepts in time happened (or the Buddha forgot to fully define, which seems unlikely, the problem is that we are not sure that we have the earliest definition/usage of him). You speak as the Nikaya being the word of the Buddha himself. Seems highly unlikely given what we know about history of religions. Definitions might come from earlier or later strata, early to the source or later additions. We can see how some differences are striking in the parallels, but the problems and big divergences are usually found at the beginning of the religion. If we read the sage at peace strata with the earlier strata that presents the sage at peace ideal is one thing, if we use later strata of course everything can be rephrased even if one can question the results of that.
Birth and death are an "acquisition problem", in that grasping is a condition for being born and dying. I'm not sure what you mean about illness. It's part of the definition of the 1st Truth, amongst the things that are abandoned forever when someone awakens. How does one psychologically abandon rabies when awakened?
The four noble truths can be early or later strata. There's plenty of discussion about it in academy. I don't think that in the octads or the way beyond the problem of illness is a problem that the Buddha even try to resolve, I haven't even found the word and btw is not even there in DO. The problem of old-age is presented usually like a problem of craving, of not wanting to lose acquisitions (and that brings Dukkha) and trying ways that have Dukkha (uncertainty) ingraned (like sacrifices or, alternatively said, any view of self that is the thing that the Buddha bringed to the table as new and not teached at the time).
Because he knows that birth doesn't make sense, can't come to be, without craving and clinging. They stand in a conditional relation with each other.
existence (that is one of the problem of the earlier strata, but actually also) is in conditional relation (a direct cause) to Dukkha, because it brings fear, uncertainty, hopes that might get deluded, it is in the opposite direction of peace, equanimity, indifference. With the cessation of that craving, you can see the cessation of Dukkha here-and-now, visible.
When you desire a steak, when you end that desire you will end that dukkha (from the uncertainty of the world and the stress you have to bear to have it) that is inevitably linked to it, you will not end the object of that desire, you will not encounter it in your mind as a desire, but that doesn't guarantee you that you will not eat the steak. Maybe someone will force you to eat the steak nonethless.
When you desire a promotion, when you end that desire you will end that dukkha from anicca that is inevitably linked to it, you will not end the possibility of being promoted in the future, you will not think about it or thought about it without Dukkha, but that changes nothing for the fact that you can get a promotion. Even if now you work only for duty and money now, maybe you will get promoted nonethless.
When you desire to not get-reborn, what you can end is the dukkha linked to the prospect of not obtaining end of rebirth/experience, but that doesn't leave out the fact that you could get the six senses nonethless just in the same way that you have now
and you will lose the memories (just like it happened in you current birth now) and so for the Arahant also the knowledge of the Dhamma and the ability to get Nibbana at will could be lost as well.
You say that with the ending of craving you will actually end the possibility not (only) to stop the arising of the Dukkha that craving for existence brings (the thoughts and grief related to the prospect of Jarāmaraṇa), but actual future existence and birth (a thing that is not even demostrated as factual and true, but let's even suppose it is). I can't see how the two things correlates (the problem is even harder because there's no data to begin with).
the Arahants do not replace faith/confidence/trust (saddhā) with knowledge but rather have saddhā and knowledge. Perhaps then ultimate knowledge regarding birth and death being totally done away with is for Buddha's only, something the Arahants still trust in the Buddha for.
Well, actually this is revealing, even if you have not married this view. Because this view is surely not the ending of the second dart
Dukkha here-and-now, since you have an acquisition of a view from another and you hope that it will work. This is something that mjaviem correcty noted.
You have to KNOW that you will not get reborn in the future to end the second dart now, it is just like Coëmgenu says. Else you will have not crossed over doubt and, since you know that life is a tumor, a dart, an affliction, the fact that the Buddha might be right or wrong could cross your mind and that would be stress, because you have a view about the world being Dukkha and you might encounter it again in the next life. "This is my last birth! Or at least I hope so
". Other religious leaders would have simply mocked and scoffed the Buddha and the Dhamma, that is a teaching not a revelation.
Also, that seems to mean that the Dhamma is not fully visible here-and-now for the Arahant, which seems contrary to the teaching of every strata one can imagine, is practically everywhere.
Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 3:46 pm
Traditional Śrāvaka Buddhism is not full of empty promises. It is full of the conviction and experiential knowledge of attaining release, the same knowledge that allowed Ven Śāriputra to knowingly and truthfully proclaim "The cessation of bhava is Nibbāna." He was not full of expectations that only lead to the arising of more subsequent suffering. Having just known, having dwelt in bhavanirodha just moments before, he had the courage of his convictions in a way that a worldling cannot imagine. He knew
that future birth, aging, and death was ended; that further acquisition of aggregates, and associated pain and suffering, was ended; and it was blissful for him.
This is the only possible approach without mantaining an uncertainty that will bring doubt and Dukkha in this life. You (the Arahant) need to see for yourself with all certainty, especially since you boldy declare it to the world
. But if it is a view, a logic like "he knows that birth doesn't make sense, can't come to be, without craving and clinging" that is simply a view, a deduction
and the logic behind that view should be intelligible, especially if we take the sabba as the framework of this view as SN prompts us to do that to utter meaningful sentences.
If it is a vision or a gut-feeling, is is the same like the one of a Christian that believes with all certainty that will go to paradise. A vision + a view presents the same problems, both if it is the vision that informs the view (that seems what is implied in MN19, first the vision, then the correlating view. I have to check if there's a parallel in MA102 btw) or the view that informs the vision (which is something that happens all the time in religions, vision are in the framework of the peculiar religion tenets and figures).
If it is a different way of knowing (and it must be something that is without faith, else there is uncertainty here-and-now and that is dukkha) I would like to know what type of knowing could it be, I can think only of a method unknown to humanity, a sort of miracle.