IMO that’s a reasonable enough perspective. However, I don’t think it is an inevitable one. Saying that an arahant doesn’t exist after death, because he really doesn’t actually exist now, is nonetheless still saying that the arahant doesn’t exist after death. And that’s the kind of statement that the Buddha in some suttas directly refused to make, e.g “the Tathagatha does not exist after death” in SN44.6 (plus the three other logical combinations of the catuṣkoṭi). Of course, one could argue that he really meant this and simply didn’t want to directly state this because of the unskillful views it would engender in the listener. However, I’d interpret it to mean he was pointing at something other than those four logical alternatives (of course, this interpretation is also not inevitable).
Did we mentin MN63 here for this discussion?
So it turns out this question is 2600 years old.
“If, friend Yamaka, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Yamaka, when a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, what happens to him with the breakup of the body, after death?’—being asked thus, what would you answer?”
“If they were to ask me this, friend, I would answer thus: ‘Friends, form is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away. Feeling … Perception … Volitional formations … Consciousness is impermanent; what is impermanent is suffering; what is suffering has ceased and passed away.’ Being asked thus, friend, I would answer in such a way.”
Here’s Venerable Sariputta’s answer…
https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.85
Nibbana doesn’t seem to be something thing where ‘annihilation’ can apply:
(5) "Just as, although the rivers of the world flow into the great ocean and showers of rain fall from the sky, no lessening or filling up of the great ocean is evident, so also, although many bhikkhus attain final Nibbana in the Nibbana-element with no residue left, no lessening or filling up of the Nibbana-element is evident. This is the fifth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline… Ud5.5
This would be one of the Buddha’s special abilities when he was able to see monks ‘entering’ Nibbana, beyond the scope of the normal person.
Some of this is also about how much you understand and trust the Buddha, in that he has only taught that which is beneficial rather than what would lead to a loss or harm. Faith saddha may be required in situations like this where full knowledge of Nibbana is not knowable.
With metta
Isn’t this similar to the idea of union with Brahma or God in other religions?
Is this Buddha’s word?
I think it would definitely be mistaken to assert that the Buddha taught that Nirvana is personal annihilation in the Pali scriptures. Nirvana is beyond the duality of existence and non-existence:
"But for one who doesn’t love craving, who isn’t fond of craving, who doesn’t cherish craving, who knows & sees, as it actually is present, the cessation of craving, the thought, ‘The Tathagata exists after death’ or ‘The Tathagata does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death’ or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death’ doesn’t occur.
Sariputta-Kotthita Sutta: Sariputta and Kotthita (4)
“Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply.”
Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: To Vacchagotta on Fire
No, that is a personal union with a (personal) Brahma. It would be the same as being reborn in a Brahma world.
In this case the Self is ’ lost’ (actually never existed prior either) in this very life. After that, words like river, merging etc are problematic and should be seen as only metaphors to denote what happens. The Buddha used many words in the negative to say what it wasn’t but nevertheless he asserted that it ‘existed’.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery. And on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.
.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:
.
There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished,[1] unevolving, without support [mental object].[2] This, just this, is the end of stress. Ud8.1 Nibbana sutta.
With metta
Since our fabric of reality and experience is conditioned/sankhata through avijja, tanha and all the stuff in the khandhas - this fabric of reality would be annihilated with nibbana. In this sense there is a radical annihilation in Buddhism. Actually it’s more radical than the annihilists in the suttas, because they cling (without knowing) to a primitive desire.
The promise of an undying, unchanging nibbana - well, what else is it than a radical eternalism beyond eternity and time? It’s just more logically consistent than primitive eternalism since it takes the enjoying subject and the enjoyed object out of the equation.
This dance around eternity and annihilation is no special feature of Buddhism. Most religions promise to annihilate the crap and eternalize the highest good. We followers appropriate the holy words and say “MY Jesus is better than YOUR Ganesha”, “MY Buddha was the perfect teacher, YOUR Mahavira was an ignorant fool” etc.
I think we need to accept that within the particular religious discourses they all makes sense. Some are devotional or esoteric and dismiss the ‘dry’ philosophical religions - and the philosophical ones say that the devotional ones are romanticizing and a conceptional mess.
What I’m not saying is that all religions lead to the same goal. Rather that we have no other way than to see in the end how it went and in the meantime to follow our particular inspirations. A different matter though is to work out how the EBT frame things, and for that quoting single suttas won’t cut it. We need to see the sutta-landscape with the main roads, side ways, contradictions and dead ends.
I think many scholars have tried to do this, with language imperfect for the job of describing the task, with readers with less than perfect capacities/biases to understand.
The only way now is to see it for yourself, through practice.
with metta
Sure, for ourselves only practice counts. But when we start saying “The Buddha said this” “The Buddha meant that”… then this should be done in a solid scholarly approximation. If not then what do we have? The creation of the Buddha in our image…
Are you saying all discussion on Buddhist forums (or for that matter in any religion) is not conducive to gaining understanding and is futile?
with metta
Well, the discussions in the format of “I think this” with the reply “You’re wrong, because I think that”, each quoting a single sutta or sending Ajahn Brahm and Bhikkhu Bodhi into a celebrity box fight, yes these discussions as such are not interesting to me at all.
Often great questions come up though, and then to research it and reading knowledgeable replies brings new insights. Clearly not all discussions are futile, I directly and indirectly benefited from them an enormous amount.
I was just reminded today about the book ‘The Island’ by Ajahn’s Pasanno and Amaro, where they take a look at the sutta-scape on the topic of Nibanna. It’s constructed through a Theravada/Thai Forest lens but is an interesting investigation into this topic. It’s available free as a PDF on the amaravati website. They’ve also just uploaded a series of talks and readings from the book.
I think with the range of sutta people have referenced here I think we’ve opened up some different ideas.
However, whatever Nibanna/parinibanna is or isn’t we should be aware of the ‘me’ seeking it, and the ‘me’ wanting it to be this or that. When has anything we’ve wanted worked out how we expected it? We are so limited by our conditioned experience that there’s no wonder the conversation has gone the way it has!
I suspect Right view is acquired incrementally and discussing helps in this. There’s something about a live discussion which isn’t quite captured when reading ‘dry’ academic works.
With metta
I would like to ask a question here .
There is a Nibbāna for you to attain !
And Nibbana is the ending of dads !
So, both will give you a different understanding !
Now , it seems this doesn’t help at all !
What a scientist want is a solid concrete answer , not vague similes !
I really don’t like the term attainment! It seems so counter to the path.
Realise might be a better word, or ‘stages of letting go’ (relinquishment’?).
Just tossing this in as my conditioned experiential perspective 
Hm? “the ending of dads?”, do you mean deeds? actions? dukkha?
Desire, aversion, delusion
I agree, but eh what to do…
In the discussions with Niganthas/Jains the Buddha was arguing about their claim that with practicing austerities old kamma could be deleted and happiness ensured. The Buddha’s question goes like “Do you see it now already? Or is it just a promise for the afterlife?” The Niganthas have to admit that they don’t see it yet, that it’s just faith.
On that the Buddha can claim a more satisfying answer. Even if I get rid of a little bit of ‘dads’ I will feel an improvement of life. From that I can conclude that if got rid of all of it (let’s assume it’s possible) that all suffering would disappear.
The same logic convinces us with the Jhanas - we apply beliefs, views and techniques and get bliss as a result and could conclude “This is great, and it’s according to the dhamma-plan. If the path was right so far maybe it is until the very end”.
So this is not a scientific proof, but it’s more than vague similes. There is a path of delicious crumbs with the promise of a cake in the end.
A practical problem is still: If I practice, say, for ten years, and not much happened, no reliable bliss, no sustainable insights - what to do?
I got some ‘vague’ similes: letting go of the five lower and higher fetters, consciousness is free to experience Nibbana. Until such time consciousness will only seek to experience phenomena through the six sense bases as it is attached to those things. However when it is released it will experience Nibbana.
Ten fetters- higher and lower:
Breaking the fetters:
Consciousness experiences Nibbana (not a Self like in the picture), when it is able to fully let’s go of the DADs binding it to samsara (the six sense bases).
With metta