SDC wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm
This is not his position at all.
10. Upādānapaccayā bhavo; bhavapaccayā jāti; jātipaccayā jarāmaranam... ('With holding as condition, being; with being as condition, birth; with birth as condition, ageing-&-death...') The fundamental upādāna or 'holding' is attavāda (see Majjhima ii,1 <M.i,67>), which is holding a belief in 'self'. The puthujjana takes what appears to be his 'self' at its face value; and so long as this goes on he continues to be a 'self', at least in his own eyes (and in those of others like him). This is bhava or 'being'. The puthujjana knows that people are born and die; and since he thinks 'my self exists' so he also thinks 'my self was born' and 'my self will die'. The puthujjana sees a 'self' to whom the words birth and death apply.[d] In contrast to the puthujjana, the arahat has altogether got rid of asmimāna (not to speak of attavāda—see MAMA), and does not even think 'I am'. This is bhavanirodha, cessation of being. And since he does not think 'I am' he also does not think 'I was born' or 'I shall die'. In other words, he sees no 'self' or even 'I' for the words birth and death to apply to. This is jātinirodha and jarāmarananirodha. (See, in Kosala Samy. i,3 <S.i,71>, how the words birth and death are avoided when the arahat is spoken of. Atthi nu kho bhante jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā ti. N'atthi kho mahārāja jātassa aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja khattiyamahāsālā... brāhmanamahāsālā... gahapatimahāsālā..., tesam pi jātānam n'atthi aññatra jarāmaranā. Ye pi te mahārāja bhikkhu arahanto khīnāsavā..., tesam pāyam kāyo bhedanadhammo nikkhepanadhammo ti. ('—For one who is born, lord, is there anything other than ageing-&-death?—For one who is born, great king, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those, great king, who are wealthy warriors... wealthy divines... wealthy householders...,—for them, too, being born, there is nothing other than ageing-&-death. Those monks, great king, who are worthy ones, destroyers of the cankers...,—for them, too, it is the nature of this body to break up, to be laid down.')) The puthujjana, taking his apparent 'self' at face value, does not see that he is a victim of upādāna; he does not see that 'being a self' depends upon 'holding a belief in self' (upādānapaccayā bhavo); and he does not see that birth and death depend upon his 'being a self' (bhavapaccayā jāti, and so on). The ariyasāvaka, on the other hand, does see these things, and he sees also their cessation (even though he may not yet have fully realized it); and his seeing of these things is direct. Quite clearly, the idea of re-birth is totally irrelevant here.
Paragraph nr 10 from here http://nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma/paticcasamuppada
Of course there will not be another, but that is not what the structural model of PS describes. It is talking about the current birth being part of this whole mass of suffering.
Of course the current birth is part of this whole mass of suffering, same as all other past or future births. PS claims the reason for birth are volitional formations. It's also very clear that it is reffering to physical birth and physical death and not what Nanavira is claiming. To quote B.Bodhi:
"The above definitions, with their strings of synonyms and concrete imagery, clearly indicate that 'birth' refers to biological birth and 'aging-and-death' to biological aging and biological death -- not to the puthujjana's notions "I was born; I will age and die," or "My self was born; my self ages and dies." The textual definitions are perfectly staightforward and unambiguous in meaning, and give no hint that the Buddha had some other idea to convey about the significance of these terms."
Yes, bodily pains do arise. Whether it be an itchy nose or a spear through the eye, there can be discomfort for the arahat, but that does not imply that there is suffering in that grand sense of the first noble truth. That dukkha is no more for the arahat.
If you understand suffering as only consisting of unpleasant feelings born out of mental causes, then indeed there is no unpleasant feeling arising due to mental causes. But when we say "suffering", we include here unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes. Such unpleasant feelings will continue to arise. It is only the reaction that will follow them that will be different. Instead of further unpleasant feelings arising due to a wrong reaction, there will only be the original unpleasant feeling born out of physical causes. http://dhammatalks.net/suttacentral/sc/en/sn36.6.html
The arahant that commited sucide due to unpleasant feelings born out of physical causes also speaks miles about weather arahants suffer or not.