Yes, that was a misconception, thank you for elaborating. It has since been made clear, in an attempt to understand, that an Arhat is spawned within "emptiness" . There is no choice of greed or desires, or anything else that needs doing. It is permanent and irreversible perspective, caused by the teaching. Am I right to say there is no full realization of metta or anything thereafter for an Arhat?
I don't see how one could ever realize what nothing is without everything in contrast. Is it right to say that an Arhat assumes nothing equivocates emptiness?
i think that the "spawned within emptiness" formulation is your own, not others' on this thread. the Buddha said again and again that he taught a cessation
, not a spawning, and that's quite important. an arhat is not created by the practitioner, using some raw material of their own - an arhat is simply what happens to a person when certain things cease to function as they have
. this is why the Buddha was so adamant that he taught a cessation
as far as being an arhat goes, according to the teachings it is permanent and irrevocable, yes. but that is only when it is understood correctly as a cessation
. here's why - because it is the cessation
that is permanent and irrevocable, the arhat can go on to become a bodhisattva, or not. ceasing to be turned by greed and desire is not a hindrance to being a bodhisattva, it's an aid.
the question of whether there is a "full realization of Metta" thereafter has no bearing on whether the practitioner is an arhat or not. it turns on whether he practices to achieve that goal. an arhat can
do so, and so can
lastly, i'm not sure that "realizing what nothing is" is a goal of Buddhist practice, and so i don't think you need to worry that you may need "everything in contrast" .