AlexBrains92 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:46 pm"Manifestation" is exactly what I mean for literal.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:38 pm
It’s not a straw man as I’m asking you a question. I’m asking what you have in mind when you say “literal being”, “literal birth” and “literal death”?
To me, clinging leading to the birth of “I am” is quite literal. There being a “being” and the manifestation and taking up of the aggregates, sickness and death coming to be is quite literal.
Just in case you misunderstand, I’m not applying this to a 3 life model either.
The whole question is not about manifestation, that is what we call "birth", "death"... but about the calling itself.
The end of birth is the end of self-view (for the sotapanna) plus the end of self-conceit (for the arahant), nothing else.
I imagine that for you, right now, the aggregates have quite literally manifested. The matrix has been produced, which you are living your life in.
An interesting comment from Ven. Nanananda:
“How can one say that the question of an arahant's after death state is totally irrelevant? So that is not the reason.
The reason is that the questions are misleading. Those who posed these questions had the presumption that the word Tathāgata implied a truly existing being or a person. But the Buddha pointed out that the concept of a being or a person is fallacious.
Though it is fallacious, for the worldling living in an illusory unreal world, it has its place as a relative reality. Due to the very fact that it is grasped, it is binding on him. Therefore, when a worldling uses such terms as 'I' and 'mine', or a 'being' and a 'person', it is not a mere way of expression. It is a level of reality proper to the worldling's scale of values.”
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/wp-conte ... d_HTML.htm
For the everyday person, the world is a real thing. Part of that “real world” is death, ageing, sickness and suffering.
For the Arahant, that all ceases.