It is just a side-issue in this discussion but what does it mean that there is no Tathagata before death? Is he non-existent? Who teaches Dhamma, a non -existent Tathagata? Isn’t is clear that when i talk about Sunyo i refer to that specific body and mind that is ones born, that speaks, thinks and acts? Why is this different with Tathagata and is he not even visible before death?
New thread originating from
2 Likes
I like SN 12.61, which maybe has something to say on this I think?
“It would be better, bhikkhus, for the uninstructed worldling to take as self this body composed of the four great elements rather than the mind. For what reason? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for one year, for two years, for three, four, five, or ten years, for twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years, for a hundred years, or even longer. But that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night. Just as a monkey roaming through a forest grabs hold of one branch, lets that go and grabs another, then lets that go and grabs still another, so too that which is called ‘mind’ and ‘mentality’ and ‘consciousness’ arises as one thing and ceases as another by day and by night.
5 Likes
True, in conventional language we use labels to refer to people:
“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’ SN5.10
And when there is an enlightened being, there is the convention ‘a Tathagata,’ or ‘an arahant,’ or whatever.
But in this context it means something deeper than the conventional term. It means there is no such thing or Self which is the Tathagata.
Also helpful is to know that other religions seem to have used the same term to refer to their idea of enlightenment, definitely the Jains, whose text we do have use a nearly identical term. But to them it referred to a liberated soul. If you’d say ‘Tathagata’ it meant a soul to them. To the Buddha it was just a conventional word, nothing real. So it didn’t really exist as a thing itself, whether before or after death.
“Is it really true, Reverend Yamaka, that you have such a harmful misconception: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’” […]
What do you think, Reverend Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One (Tathagata) as form?”
“No, reverend.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling … perception … choices … consciousness?”
“No, reverend.”
“What do you think, Reverend Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as in form?”
“No, reverend.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”
“No, reverend.”
“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling … or distinct from feeling … as in perception … or distinct from perception … as in choices … or distinct from choices … as in consciousness?”
“No, reverend.”
“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from consciousness?”
“No, reverend.”
“What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, reverend.”
“What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as one who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”
“No, reverend.”
“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is it appropriate to declare: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.’?”
“Reverend Sāriputta, in my ignorance, I used to have that misconception. But now that I’ve heard the teaching from Venerable Sāriputta I’ve given up that misconception, and I’ve comprehended the teaching.”
“Reverend Yamaka, suppose they were to ask you: ‘When their body breaks up, after death, what happens to a perfected one, who has ended the defilements?’ How would you answer?”
“Sir, if they were to ask this, I’d answer like this: ‘Reverend, form is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering has ceased and ended.
Feeling … perception … choices … consciousness is impermanent. What’s impermanent is suffering. What’s suffering has ceased and ended.’ That’s how I’d answer such a question.” SN22.85
5 Likes
As I am able to think. Answer to this question depends upon the perspective. I mean for us there is definitely tathagata(before his death/parinibbana). But for tathagata, he is not attached to his self, he doen not identify with his self. In other words he has transcended self, without losing self.
Hence for us tathagata exists before death, it’s just that from our Perspective. Tathagata is neither existing nor non-existing, or both existing and not-existing…all of these depende on viewpoints, hence it is said that ultimately none of them applies. Because if you saybhe exists then rest all assumption will contradict it. Hence none of them applies ultimately. That’s how it seems to me.
1 Like
“To exist” (as in bhava) is to identify with an aggregate.
“There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person—who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma—assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. He is seized with the idea that ‘I am form’ or ‘Form is mine.’ As he is seized with these ideas, that form changes & alters. From the change & alteration in his form, there arise in him sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair
- SN 22.1
If there is no mind and body to identify with, and the 3 poisons have been destroyed, what is left? Nothing, just parts of a mechanism. The car has an engine, tires, and a set of other parts, but the car on its own is just a label of no substance.
5 Likes
Thanks all. I am not satisfied…but you know that 
, nothing new under sun.
People recognise me primary based upon the shape of my unique body, and also upon my mindprocesses, my way of thinking, habits, how i deal with situations, feelings, emotions, plans etc.
The same with a Buddha or Tathagata, i believe.
If a person would not show certain characteristics in body and mindprocesses, we will not call him a Buddha or Tathagata or wise man, right? The designation ’ Buddha’ refers to certain realisations which show in a very concrete way in body and mind. If not, then we will never call him a Buddha or Tathagata, right?
We see no agression, no hate, we see no violence, we so no lust, no sexual activity, no greed, no blindness, etc.
Pali sutta’s are very clear that buddhahood is very concrete, very visible in body and mind, in way of thinking, way of speaking, way of acting. Pali tradition is very alert never to uncouple realisation and behaviour.
So, i believe it is not truthful that the Buddha or Tathagata cannot be found or seen or recognised upon concrete body and mindprocesses, rupa, sanna, vedana, sankhara and vinnana. I believe it is the only way to recognise a Buddha. Like the Buddha often says, it is behaviour that distinguishes the fool and wise. If not, what does?
It is not like Pali buddhahood is something esoteric, something that cannot be seen or recognised in body and mind. Something that does not relate to concrete behaviour.
His friends recognised their former companion in the spiritual life and also saw something had changed in Gautama’s appearance. This means realisation, buddahood, the Tathagata, is not something that cannot be recognised based upon body and mind. It is the only way to recognise a Buddha, i belief.
I do not understand why Yamaka does not say this in SN22.85 
My thoughts-
Yes realisation, buddhahood, the Tathagata, can be recognised based upon body and mind. This is true.
But when you say, that is the only way to recognise buddha, then that would be generalizing it. That’s not the only way, it cannot be the only way.
Just as lord says in some sutta that, only those who conduct themselves according to dhamma, truly worship tathagata, and not those who are paying him obeisance in person. I think it’s there in mahaparinibban sutta(I am not sure though).
I believe if one says that tathagata can be identified only based upon his behaviour, body and mind, then this will lead one to think that, tathagata does not exist after Mahāparinibbana.(same view reached by yamaka in ##SN22.85) Which is wrong view itself. Obviously if one identifies him as body and mind only, then obvious conclusion (after his mahaparinibbana) will be that, tathagata does not exist. Since thinking and believing this is definite wrong view then we can say that, tathagata cannot be recognised/identified based upon body and mind only.
Hence it was misconception when yamaka said/believed thus…“As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant who has ended the defilements is annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.”
Just to avoid reaching this above conclusion like yamaka, tathagata should not be identified based upon behaviour, body and mind only. That’s how I see it.
I wonder what others have to say here.
It says this in MN 22 :
And how is a mendicant a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached? It’s when a mendicant has given up the conceit ‘I am’, cut it off at the root, made it like a palm stump, obliterated it, so it’s unable to arise in the future. That’s how a mendicant is a noble one with banner and burden put down, detached.
When a mendicant’s mind was freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati, search as they may, will not discover: ‘This is what the Realized One’s consciousness depends on.’ Why is that? Because even in the present life the Realized One is not found, I say.
And this is a (commentary) note on the passage by Nyanaponika Thera from this translation:
Ditth’ev’aaha.m bhikkhave dhamme Tathaagata.m ananuve jjo’ti vadaami. Comy: The term tathaagato (lit.: “thus-gone”) may refer either to a being (satto ) or to the greatest man (uttamo puriso ; the Buddha) and a taint-free saint (khiinaasavo ). Ananuve jjo means either “non-existing” (asa.mvijjamaano ) or “not traceable” (avindeyyo ). If tathaagato is taken as “a being” (in the sense of an abiding personality), the meaning “non-existing” applies; if in the sense of a taint-free saint, the meaning “not traceable” is apt. The intention implied in the first case, is: “O bhikkhus, even of a taint-free saint during his lifetime, here and now, I do not declare that he is ‘a being, a personality’ (in the sense of an abiding entity); how, then, should I declare it of a taint-free saint who has finally passed away, without any future rebirth? One thus-gone is untraceable; because in the ultimate sense (paramatthato ), there is no such thing as ‘a being’ (satto ). Searching for the basis of consciousness of such a non-existing (being) how can they find it, how can they obtain it?” In the case of the second explanation, the intention is this: “I say that Indra and other gods cannot trace a taint-free saint by way of consciousness (viññaanavasena ). For the gods who are with Indra and other deities, even if they make a search, cannot know about the consciousness of insight or that of the supramundane path or fruition (of sainthood; arahatta ) that ‘it proceeds based on such or such an object.’ How, then, could they know it in the case of one who has finally passed away (parinibbuto ), and has not been born again?” [Sub-Comy: "The consciousness of insight (vipassanaa-citta ) that aims at the attainment of the highest fruition (i.e., arahatta ) leaps forward to the unconditioned element (Nibbaana ) in the thought: “Non-origination is safety. Non-origination is safety!”]
2 Likes
Green, in what way does this not answer your question? What you’re talking about is the 5 aggregates. When these aggregates come together, we can call it a person conventionally. But as Ven Sunyo explained, this is not what is meant in this context.
Nobody is saying
Please explain in your own words why the Tathagata does not exist before death, if you like.
I do not understand this.
If a Buddha is only a mechanism, a mechanism of body and mind without self and without me and mine making in that mechanism, well even than he exist before death, right, as that mechanism.
By the way, The idea that a car does not exist and is just a label i do no accept. You can also reason that all the parts are just labels, the engine, tires etc.
Yes, that seems reasonable to me. Is Yamaka of another sect? Why does Yamaka believe that a Tathagata becomes non-existent after death… if he even does not believe that the Tathagata while living is the khandha’s? (he shows this in the questioning). How did he develop that view of non-existence of death?
And one also must not see the Tathagata is distinct from the khandha’s, right?
Let me ask it this way: does the word Tathagata refer to anything or nothing at all?
MN72: The Tathagata is liberated from reckoning in terms of material form, Vaccha, he is profound, immeasurable, unfathomable like the ocean.
Where does this refer to, especially the last part?
@Stu refered to MN22 which says:
"When a mendicant’s mind was freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and Pajāpati, search as they may, will not discover: ‘This is what the Realized One’s consciousness depends on.’ Why is that? Because even in the present life the Realized One is not found, I say.
Exactly, hence there is nothing of essence and all is conceptually void of meaning and thus has no value and not worth grasping and craving.
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms… Eye-consciousness… Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.
"The ear is empty…
"The nose is empty…
"The tongue is empty…
"The body is empty…
"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas… Intellect-consciousness… Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty
- SN 35.85
1 Like
I think Yamaka believes that tathagata becomes non-existent after death is a conclusion(drawn by yamaka himself) which results based upon belief that tathagata can be identified with khandas(only)…, because prior to conversation with venerable sariputta, he maybe used to identify tathagata(or arhats) who has ended defilements based on khandas(I am not sure though). But during conversation it became clear to him that, khandas are impermanent, and tathagata is free from impermanence, hence he should not be identified with khandas, hence it is a wrong view that, tathagata or any mendicant who has ended defilements, in whom suffering characterized by impermanence of khandas is ceased, ended, gets annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and doesn’t exist after death.
He developed that view because of identification of Tathagata or mendicant who has ended defilements, with impermanent khandas, which get annihilated after break up of body(it’s their very nature). Obviously because khandas are impermanent, so if we identify someone based on khandas only then, that ‘someone’ will also get annihilated(just as khandas) after break up of body (which is wrong view!)
[I believe there is no annihilation of everything after break up of body(death). Khandas(5 aggregates) get annihilated…but not everything, for me it implies that, part of mind consciousness, which can be called karma consciousnesses and this identity view of ‘I’ which hold this karma consciousness as ‘mine’ or ‘self’, continues (like monkey holding one branch after another)because of tanha, hence it is not appropriate to say there is annihilation after death.]
Yes I think.
Tathagata is not to be identified with khandas because ‘khandas’ means impermanence…while tathagata has transcended all impermanence, ended all that is suffering and impermanence, hence he should not be identified with khandas.
Tathagata is also not distinct from the khandas because, that’s what we see with our eyes…right? If we say he is distinct from khandas then he will be invisible… implying non-existence(to unenlightened us only)…reason for that because…our world and we ourselves are made up of khandas only, and we perceive everything through khandas only, isn’t it? Being that, we can see tathagata (atleast before his parinibbana) talking, seeing, moving…based on khandas only…isn’t it? Hence it is said that one must not see tathagata as distinct from khandas as well. (To me this seems to point to dependent origination…I m not sure though)
Yes…maybe it refers to everything that is empty of inherent nature(of impermanence). Tathagata is one who has transcended everything that is impermanent. So we can say he is ,perfect self, devoid of ‘self’, he does not identify with anything…more precisely there is no identification of any kind in case of tathagata. In other words only we(as those who identify ourselves and others and world around us with impermanent khandas) can see him the way he appears to us only(based on khandas), and not the way he himself sees himself(not based on impermanent khandas).
So conclusion is …Tathagata is that which is everything devoid of ‘transient self’ or devoid of impermanent khandas. Tathagata is that which is not impermanent.
This is the cause of your confusion. 
It is necessary to be able to dissect concept from reality to be able to grasp the meaning of this sutta.
That is exactly the reasoning of this sutta. 
If someone were to keep dissecting further … the engine consists of parts, those parts consist of further sub parts… those then consist of elements… and eventually one arrives at … ### ??? UNDEFINED ??? #### …that is conventionally labelled as ‘Emptiness’.
A similar intellectual exercise on the mechanism conventionally labelled as the Buddha would lead one to consider that that mechanism is made up of parts and processes, which are made up of sub parts and processes… all the way down to … ### ??? UNDEFINED ??? #### that is conventionally labelled as ‘Emptiness’.
The Emptiness of the car is not different from the Emptiness of the Buddha… or the Emptiness of anything else in the Universe… and is the same as the ultimate Emptiness of the Universe.
Emptiness is where the duality of Concept vs Reality breaks down and no further dissection is possible. That is why the Buddha calls his own essential nature ‘bottomless, like the ocean.’
Emptiness is what remains when everything comes to an end. Yet, emptiness cannot be defined as ‘Existing’ or ‘Not existing’ because when everything, including the Universe ceases, all ways and means of description cease too.
But enough of all this high philosophical nonsense 
… would you say though that I’ve earned a drink for my efforts? 
At least a slice of chocolate cake… 
Edit : (Aforesaid drink obviously non alcoholic! And cake non dairy, gluten free!! 
)
4 Likes
Thank you sir for saying this …it is needed here!!!
1 Like
Has MN 140 been suggested?
“Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?
MN 140
2 Likes
Good implicit point, all this stuff is pie in the sky (pun intended) mental fluff until one can see how it practically connects to real life in the here and now directly affects dukkha from arising here and now, which the Buddha says causes one to let go of sensual desires just like one would let go of a pan upon realizing it’s searing hot and painful.
3 Likes
I do not really understand what you mean by conceptually void of meaning but i think it is true that in a way meaning is secundairy, adventitious to awareness. It is sanna which gives meaning to all we sense.
Ofcourse we evolved and survived in a way that things have meaning for us now, and are not meaningless. Pain has meaning for us. The sound of animals, like lion, have meaning for us. Seeing a nice woman has meaning for us. The smell of smoke/fire has alarming meaning for us.
Things have almost all meaning. Most important meanings Buddha taught are: Me and mine.
These kind of things are normal and it is how we evolved i believe. It is normal, once born, that we live in a meaningful world. Still i think it is secundairy and subjective. It is not fixed.
But i am not sure what is wise. Suppose you see a woman and you recognise her as ‘mother’ .That’s the meaning of this woman for you. Is this wrong? Are you now deluded? Has your mind now taken a wrong path and come to a wrong understanding. Are you not her son? Is this all delusion?
Does enlightment makes an end to this? Being someones son?
At this moment i feel that is also not truthful. I feel ‘void of meaning’ is also an extreme and also an perspective.
I can follow your reasoning but don’t you see the Tathagata now as distinct from impermanent khandha’s? And that is also wrong, right?
Oke, but does this imply that a car does not exist and is merely a label?
Can a label crash, drive, cause broken bones?
Is a label or concept material and consisting of four great elements?
Do you agree that things that are empty of self still can exist?
I can see how labels/concepts are constructs. For example, I call something ‘a tree’ when i see something with branches, twigs, stem, leaves, a certain shape, colour, lenght etc. All together taken i speak of seeing a tree.
But, this is not literally seeing. It is more imagening. Eye-vinnana can never ever see a tree, just like ear vinnana can never ever hear meaningful words coming from someone mouth but only sounds.
When we hear meaningful words coming out of someone mouth there is much more going on then only hearing. It is not that we literally hear meaningful word. This is not function of hearing.
In the same way seeing a tree is not really seeing. Objects of eye vinnana can be certain shapes and colours but not concepts like trees, woman, cars etc.
Does this mean that woman, cars, trees are only concepts and do not exist in a material way? Or are we lost in reasoning now?
I believe it is very normal that on different scales you see different things. On the scale of atoms you do not see cars, houses, persons, let alone on the scale of quarks etc. This does not say anything about their existence.