Dear Zerotime,
thank you for continuing the discussion.
What is new EBT? The points I put forward I try to ensure are ancient orthodox Theravada, given of course that Dhamma is deep and I may make errors at times.
Just trying to understand this. Are you saying that while alive the Buddha and arahats had no consciousness, vinnana? (Did they also have no salayatana, the sense bases?)
You are basing this on Paṭiccasamuppāda I think.
Avijjāpaccayā, bhikkhave, saṅkhārā;
saṅkhārapaccayā viññāṇaṁ;
Consciousness is a condition for name and form.
viññāṇapaccayā nāmarūpaṁ;
Name and form are conditions for the six sense fields.
nāmarūpapaccayā saḷāyatanaṁ;
The six sense fields are conditions for contact.
saḷāyatanapaccayā phasso;
Contact is a condition for feeling.
But the orthodox view is that while the arahats have indeed eliminated igorance and craving there is still the remnant of the fire of samsara, the cooling embers, until khandha parinibbana.
That is why there is sopadisesa nibbana-dhatu and anupadisesa nibbana-dhatu (final extinguishment).
If the Buddha and arahats had no consciousness, vinnana, they could not see or hear or think .
Or perhaps you think they had a special type of seening, hearing, tasting , touching, thinking that is not viññāṇa khanda? Please explain.
On the other hand you cite Nina Van Gorkom’s book on Abhidhamma.
This is all true. However, kiriya cittas and vipaka cittas are just as much sankhara dukkha as any other citta.
So certainly there is a difference between the arahat and others in that the javana process is with kiriya cittas rather then the akusala and kusala cittas of the non-arahat. Thus they are not making new kamma, not adding fuel, they are no longer extending samsara. But still they have to wait until final khandha parinibbana until the khandas -which include vinnana, finally cease. Then all that is left is the physical remains.
It is good to remember that Buddha or arahats are just conventional terms,useful designations. In the deepest sense there are only conditioned moments of arising and ceasing - dukkha. Sunnata.
You might like to read this thread about Yamaka -who wrongly thought there was a being who was annihilated
.> Bodhi: Spk: If he had thought, “Formations arise and cease; a simple process of
formations reaches nonoccurrence, this would not be a view (diṭṭhigata) but
> knowledge in accordance with the Teaching .But since he thought, A being is
annihilated and destroyed,” this becomes a view. What follows is paralleled by
MN I 130-31 and I 256-57.
152 Spk: At the end of this teaching on the three characteristics Yamaka became
a stream-enterer. Sāriputta asks the following questions to examine him and to
get him to show that he has given up his wrong view.
Spk glosses tathāgata here as “a being” (satta), which I think does not quite
hit the mark. I take the subject of the discussion to be, not a being in general, but
the arahant conceived as a being, as a substantial self. Thus the catechism will
show that Yamaka has abandoned his identity view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) regarding the
arahant, and therewith his view of the arahant as a self that undergoes
annihilation. We find a similar transition from the arahant (vimuttacitta bhikkhu)
to the Tathāgata at MN I 140,3-7 and I 486-88.