Ben wrote:Its still painful, but it now lacks the admixture of our own constructs that make this or that experience dukkha.
Agreed. It's one dart, not two.SN 36.6: Sallatha Suttahttp://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nypo.html
Ben wrote:As a result of past kamma, some vipakka continues to manifest within the life of the arahant. One example of that is rupa, which is borne from kamma continues to exist until the life principle is exhausted. If all kamma was made defunct at arahantship it would mean that one would die on acquiring magga and phala citta.
(This may seem pedantic and somewhat technical but please bear with me...)
As defined by Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, vipāka is mental only...http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/bu ... dic3_v.htm
vipāka: 'kamma-result', is any kammically (morally) neutral mental phenomenon (e.g. bodily agreeable or painful feeling, sense-consciousness, etc. ), which is the result of wholesome or unwholesome volitional action (kamma, q.v.) through body, speech or mind, done either in this or some previous life. Totally wrong is the belief that, according to Buddhism, everything is the result of previous action. Never, for example, is any kammically wholesome or unwholesome volitional action the result of former action, being in reality itself kamma. On this subject s. titthāyatana, kamma, Tab. I; Fund II. Cf. A. III, 101; Kath. 162 (Guide, p. 80).
Kamma-produced (kammaja or kamma-samuṭṭhāna) corporeal things are never called kamma-vipāka, as this term may be applied only to mental phenomena.
Hence, you are speaking of "Kamma-produced (kammaja or kamma-samuṭṭhāna) corporeal things" and I agree... kamma is a condition for the arising of form. It is not however the only factor, as indicated by the teaching of the five niyamas, as found for example in...The Manual of Cosmic Order by Mahathera Ledi Sayadawhttp://www.dhammaweb.net/html/view.php?id=5
...where other niyamas (orders) are mentioned and elaborated upon. If form were solely kamma produced (note, not vipāka-produced!) the Buddha would indeed have died upon attaining Buddhahood... but he didn't, so it's not.
As for the quotation you provide on Angulimala, I agree with this, and find it to be possibly the best explanation for Angulimala's injuries that I've seen. The reason being that it demonstrates that past kamma is attributable for the presence of a physical body subject to physical pain and pleasure, but doesn't rely on speculation or attempt to deny that the injuries were deliberately inflicted by others.
I won't elaborate further on this quotation, as Angulimala has been discussed elsewhere in a different context (and I don't want to veer off-topic) but I think it's suffice to say that we both seem to agree that an arahant can feel painful bodily sensations, yet does not feel painful mental sensations (as all painful mental sensations are rooted in greed, aversion &/or ignorance).