It’s a very step-by-step process, and a bit different for everyone.
4 Likes
The Buddha in His time went on what many people believed to be an unconventional Path, but He succeeded in His goal, and has created a very true and reasonable Path to Enlightenment. Concerning yourself with Nirvana shows you are taking the Dhamma very seriously, and if you set your goal as Enlightenment, you will be a Sage among men. I am very thankful for what the Buddha did, and to those Monks who bow lower than the other, to show how ordinary they want to seem among us to Teach the Dhamma, I am forever grateful. May you follow this magnanimous Path to the end.
1 Like
No sir …we can actually find answer by meditating. But there are actually more than 1000 kinds of meditation and this word meditation is itself misleading… problem is that it’s not as easy as choosing matching clothes for ourself and that’s why I believe Sangha the third jewel is there…to guide us. And It will take merit for that to happen. Maybe you could change your method to find asnwers which you are looking for.
And about self I think it maybe ultimately true that there is no self…but we can’t experience that. Inside we are there…and for me for ex there is self existing in me. So I take that doctrine of non-self by faith. And this self won’t realize non-self till we create causes for that to happen …that is by following precepts and generousity and being kind to others and thereby ultimately disciplining mind.
2 Likes
No Self can very clearly be experienced because it is a foundational doctrine of Buddhism. But it cannot be experienced by mental speculation, you also have to practice 
.
SN 22.85 and DN 9 might help you to resolve your problem.
With Metta
(This thread was linked elsewhere. I didn’t read most it. Apologies! I’m just going to be arrogant and assume my line of reasoning hasn’t been shared yet! 
)
I think Malavaro’s arguments are very astute and valid. “The Tathagata does not exist after death” is true, so why would the Buddha reject it? We could assume all sorts of reasons, but if you ask me, the confusion is simply based on an over-literal translation.
This is how I translate it in SN44.1:
‘After death a Truthfinder (Tathagata) still exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a Truthfinder no longer exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a Truthfinder both still exists and no longer exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a Truthfinder neither still exists nor no longer exists’ does not apply.
Instead of “the Truthfinder does not exist” I have “the Truthfinder no longer exists”, though somewhat more literal would have been “the Truthfinder will not exist” (meaning “will no longer exist”). This is valid, because the Pali present tense can carry a future tense meaning, like it quite obviously does in this case, as we’re talking about “after death”.
I think this resolves all the confusion. If not, @UpasakaMalavaro, let me know and I’ll happily explain in more detail. But I assume you get the subtle but important difference straight away.
Thanks for raising this. Until I was able to read it in Pali, it confused the heck out of me too!
If not yet convinced about my future tense reading, compare also to the Yamaka sutta (SN22.85):
“So, Venerable Yamaka, since you cannot even find a Truthfinder to actually exist in the present life, was it proper for you to say: ‘As I understand the Buddha’s teaching, a mendicant without defilements is destroyed and eradicated when his body breaks down, and after death he is no more’?”
Here “eradicated when his body breaks down” clearly means “After death a Truthfinder will not [i.e. no longer] exist”, instead of “does not exist”.
By the way, noticed how the English also uses the present tense “is” in “after death he is no more”?! While the meaning is clearly the future? You probably didn’t until I pointed it out. Now, that’s how the Pali present tense works too. But if it’s literally translated into English this gets lost.
A couple years ago I suggested this line of translation to Ajahn @Sujato when proofreading his translations, but he hasn’t picked up on it. (He said he’ll reconsider, though. So let’s hope!)
…
Spending too much time here! Well, can’t meet lay people now because of Covid, so I hope to teach at least a little bit like this… Let me know if it is helpful at all or not. 
5 Likes
Ven. Sunyo, could you explain a bit more about the difference between,
“After death a Truthfinder no longer exists”
and
“After death a Truthfinder does not exist.”
And perhaps if you have time how you have derived ‘Truthfinder’ from Tathāgata?
Thank you.
2 Likes
I hope this isn’t too off topic, but why do you use Truthfinder in place of Tathagata? I can’t see how it has any etymological basis.
Bhante @sujato breaks tathagatakova down really well here but his last paragraph shows a relation to Truthfinder:
"Oh, and to forestall the obvious, no this doesn’t have anything to do with tathāgata as an epithet of the Buddha. The terms in this compound are extremely common and occur in a wide variety of senses. As an epithet of the Buddha, the primary sense is “one who has realized the truth”.
I think the idea is that the former translation makes it clearer why the statement doesn’t apply. We could, perhaps, make it even more explicit as:
"There is currently an existing Truthfinder, but after death that existence ceases.
1 Like
Thank you, is the “no longer” also found in the pali?
I believe that the fundamental point the Buddha was making goes even a bit further - it is that there is no Tathataga or truthfinder that ever existed (it is just a fabrication), and therefore can not, no longer exist. The question goes to the foundation of what exists v/s not exists. This is the question that is being rejected. The aggregates were/are there, a body to identify as a person was/is there, but it is not a SELF. Therefore no self existed, exists or will cease to exist upon pari-nibbana. There is what appears to the unenlightened to be a self - but that is a delusion - this is the cause of suffering. This doesn’t mean that there is nothing there - we are definitely here 
But this is just form, feeling, perception, sankharas and the stream of consciousness, the thing propelled by craving and subject to re-birth, and just the process of dependent arising - no SELF. To call this bundle a person or a Tathagata etc is just language and is deceptive as it strengthens the illusion of a self - that bundle becomes identified as a person, as I and me .
It is like mistaking a puppet or a robot for a self. It is hardly surprising - this natural process that the Buddha describes shows how this ‘awareness of self’ comes to be. The elements and aggregates work together through natural processes (including all the consciousnesses, the mind, and the knower), through the process explained by the Buddha in paticcasamupāda, and give the illusion of an existing self. We call that a ‘being’ or a ‘person’, but on full analysis… it is misleading to make any speculations about something that is labelled a Self (or could be identified as a self by the questioner) - this is the fundamental delusion (ignorance) that awakening dispells. This is how I understand the message of the Yamaka sutta, where Yamaka finally makes the break through at the end of that discourse.
So here’s a fun thought - there are no Arahants There are simply things that people (themselves or others) identify as arahants. So to ask what happens to an Arahant after death, is really asking what happens to my constructed idea of what an Arahant is - after (what’s) death??? it doesn’t make sense… and is not to be entertained or answered, for fear of strengthening rather than dispelling the delusion.
Of course in our process of daily life and interacting with others, we are constrained by language and use conventions… to speak like this is too cumbersome and would be silly - but this is all just use of conventions and language, and the Buddha was addressing these teachings at a completely different (supramundane) level.
Exerpt from the Yamaka sutta SN 22.85
“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.”
“Good, good, Reverend Yamaka!
SuttaCentral!
6 Likes
Thanks Viveka,
That’s how I understood it, but perhaps I was not being clear enough…
2 Likes
I think language definitely gets in the way here 
since it is all constructed around the concept of ‘I am’… so it is a real challenge to use language to unwind the concepts underpinning it 
1 Like
Yes -thanks!
As Ajahn Brahmali said nicely earlier in this thread,
" All ordinary people sense that they exist in a way that is not true from a Dhamma perspective. It is this underlying sense that gives rise to the articulated views that an arahant does not exist after death."
And this is why I don’t really understand the linguistic wrangling mentioned.
Actually, the translation choice, “After death a Truthfinder no longer exists” would seem to imply he once did but no longer does now?
Maybe I am getting this wrong.
1 Like
I think that this is why that statement is always part of the Tetralema, and each statement needs to be read as part of all 4 options given. And also it is usually as a response to the ‘inappropriate’ conceptualisation of the question by the questioner. The Yamaka sutta is really instructive in this sense I feel, as it takes the wrong conception and turns it into a beautiful teaching on non-self 
Though I agree, I have found it challenging that it is presented in this way. Basically I find it a very round-about way of saying that there is only a ‘bundle’ of aggregates subject to DO, nothing more… However, I gather that this is an artifact from the way of debate and prevalent thought/beliefs at the time of the Buddha, which both Bhante Sujato and Ajahn Brahmali have spoken about. But this is venturing away from what I know and into speculation, so I leave it to the teachers to clarify @Brahmali @Sujato 
But maybe I’m misunderstanding your point? Are you saying that it should be read as something existed but now no longer exists?
Gotta love dhamma in the morning
(it’s morning ‘here’)
3 Likes
Thank you, Viveka, for your great comments.
I agree that the tetralemma is best taken in its entirety.
No, you are not misunderstanding my point, I think we are agreeing!
Since SN 44.1 was mentioned above, here is the relevant Pali for reference.
“kiṁ nu kho, ayye, hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā”ti?
“Abyākataṁ kho etaṁ, mahārāja, bhagavatā: ‘hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’”ti.
“Kiṁ panayye, na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā”ti?
“Etampi kho, mahārāja, abyākataṁ bhagavatā: ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’”ti.
A very literal translation would be something a bit like:
What then, Lady, is the Tathāgata after death? [i.e. ‘exists’]
This, great King, is undeclared by the Tathāgata, “the Tathāgata is after death.”
Then, Lady, the Tathāgata is not after death?
This too, great King, is undeclared by the Tathāgata, “the Tathāgata is not after death.”
2 Likes
It does tend to read that way.
Kind of, but I wouldn’t say it’s roundabout.
The problem is, teachings like not-self or DO are actually terrifying and revolutionary. They turn everything upside down and shake out its pockets. But they are heard and explained so often, they just become tropes, ideas to be bandied about.
So the point of teachings like this is that they challenge, they are surprising, they make you confront the emptiness. Which is why they are so cool!
5 Likes
Exactly as mikenz66 wrote:
But let me clarify, in case it isn’t clear yet. It’s a subtle difference in the end, as I said.
“After death the Tathagata doesn’t exist” is a true statement. There is no Tathagata after death, because, as the Buddha says in MN22 “even before death there is no ‘Tathagata’”. So why then, did the Buddha reject the statement “after death the Tathagata doesn’t exist”? Why did he say “it doesn’t apply”?
Because the actual meaning implied in by the Pali is “After death the Tathagata will not exist”, or in other words, they won’t exist anymore, or they no longer exist. The difference is with the previous statement is that it also implies something about before death, not just about after death. With this rephrasing there is an assumed Tathagata before death, who after death will be gone. (The idea of annihilation.)
Technically you could also read the original statement in this sense. You could read it like this: “The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death” [but before death, they do]. This emphasizes the future “after” as opposed to the present. But most people won’t read it like this, with this kind of emphasis, so the translation needs a bit of work to clarify what is going on. Using “no longer” is one way to do that.
It’s there implicitly.
Look, translations of languages are never to be done word by word. You have to translate sentence by sentence, or even paragraph by paragraph.
Dutch, my native language, is probably the closest living language to English. Yet even there you can’t translate word for word. Especially, actually, when it comes to verbal tenses. Those are very fluent in meaning from language to language.
This is a good case of when a literal translations is worse than a non-literal translation. Bhante Sujato has talked about that quite often, and he can do these things better than I, so I won’t try to repeat him. I’m sure he elucidates it on this forum somewhere. (Maybe somebody can provide a link.)
You’ll have to study Pali yourself to be totally convinced of this. I don’t trust you to take my word. However, if for a moment you assume my altered translation to be valid, does it resolve your confusion? 
Yup, that’s exactly the point. All four ideas assume there is a Self (called ‘Tathagata’) before death, regardless of what happens to it after (whether it keeps existing or stops existing, or both, or neither). The way out of the four ideas is to assume there is no Self or essence of ‘Tathagata’ in the first place, as you explain.
It does, and that’s exactly what I tried to get across. But remember: This is a wrong view.
Ah, sorry. I wasn’t trying to be etymologically accurate for this word. I just copied some draft translations of mine that had “Truthfinder” in there. I wasn’t trying to make a point about that term. Truthfinder, Realized One, or leaving it untranslated as Tathagata, it’s all kinda equal to me. So let’s not focus on that here. I’ll just leave it untranslated from now on in this thread. However, I concur with Ven. Sujato’s explanation linked by Adutiya. I think Venerable once mentioned Truthfinder as an option, and I took it from him.
2 Likes
Another thought, while we’re on the topic.
I just realized the statement “after death a Tathagata neither still exists nor no longer exists” seems to be exactly what is assumed by those who say that after death an arahant (i.e. Tathagata) is indescribable, and cannot be thought of in terms of existence and non-existence. 