SuttaCentral
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!
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.
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. 
Another confusion I have is that when the answers/replies to the questions are declared, “undeclared”, they are said to be neither true or false. The whole premise of the question seems to be rejected.
So by rendering the question as “After death a Truthfinder no longer exists” rather the literal, “after death the Tathagata doesn’t exist”, is the discussion being reframed into right and wrong views?
I think the problem comes from using the ‘label’ truthfinder/Tathagata etc. It is the ‘perceived thing’ represented in the minds of the questioners by this label, that doesn’t exist. Instead of that one could say
“this bundle of aggregates/khandas (that is/can be labelled as truthfinder etc) only exists as a fabrication/perception of the mind - it is arisen in the mind and it ceases in the mind” and is something that people identify with a self. It is simply the sakharas in action. There is no self beyond Nama… I believe this is why the Buddha teaches that it is only suffering arising and ceasing.
But in order to communicate we need to use labels - so this ‘thing/label’ is manufactured by the mind (which is then identified with) to enable communication (language). Unfortunately this leads to the side product of assumption of the labels being real… a case of constructed (dependently arisen) reality being perceived as ‘actual’ reality… ie ‘not seeing things as they truly are’. (ignorance). From a practice perspective, this is where samadhi comes into it’s own… in certain states (with the falling away of progressively more and more senses) it provides access to consciousness without labels, and enables penetration of the processes of mind fabrications and sankharas. But it is not something that language (with all it’s problems) can convey - neither just logic based on even more and more complicated labels and constructs 
- it has to be seen and experienced for oneself. Papanca is not a useful means to untangle the tangle 
I agree that it seems the issue is less about the existence/non-existence of an essential thing… but about what that thing actually is - elements and aggregates subject to a process of DO (non-self) - nothing essential about it… just arising and changing and ceasing, dependent on conditions. Calling/identifying it aTathagata etc makes for a language/conceptual problem.
They are “undeclared” in the sense that the Buddha never declared them as true statements. That doesn’t mean they aren’t false. In fact, it’s because they are based on wrong assumptions (an existent Tathagata-entity before death) that the Buddha never declares them as truth. That’s why he said “they don’t apply” in MN72 and SN44.1.
Other religious figures kept insisting that one of the four must be true. It’s kind of implicit in their logic. One of the four has to be true: “A”, “not A”, “A and not A”, or “neither A nor not A”. You have to declare one of them as truth.
But the Buddha said, well, the whole underlying assumption “A” (i.e. an existent Self) is a mistake. He said ‘Tathagata’ is all without Self, therefore he didn’t declare any of these four as truth. Because all four imply a Self in one way or the other. (SN44.8)
In the suttas they are never said to be “neither true or false”. They are just undeclared. Which is different. So the Buddha didn’t declare them, because with the assumption of Tathagata as a Self, they are in fact all four false.
I hope this clarifies it. 
Thank you, Venerable, for this interesting point.
Certainly Ayya Khemā, or the Buddha is using a certain ‘strategy’ in answering these questions as ‘undeclared’, and not just saying “False!”
As you say, “the whole underlying assumption” is a mistake, and the questions cannot be answered in a true/false or right/wrong way.
Yup. But, well, there is often again a bit of a translation issue.
For example @Sujato’s translation of SN44.8 has "That’s why he [the Buddha] doesn’t answer these questions when asked.”
But in this translation Sujato abbreviates the whole passage in a way that changes its meaning. The point is not that the Buddha doesn’t answer at all, the point is that he doesn’t answer in a specific way, namely to declare one of the alternatives as true. If you read the Pali, you’ll see that’s what’s going on.
Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation also abbreviates the passage in his own way, so it’s also problematic, but at least he is a bit more specific: “Therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers”. “Such answers” meaning to declare one of the four statements as true.
That’s what the other wanderers wanted to hear: one of the statements declared as truth. They didn’t care about, or even think of falsifying them.
(Give me some time and I’ll get back to you with how I would translate this.)
But the point is this: they can be said to be false. But other peeps just insisted, you have to pick one of the four. You have to declare one to be true. However, the Buddha didn’t want to declare one to be true.
That doesn’t mean they can’t be said to be false, or that they aren’t false, and in effect the Buddha implies that they are false. But since others kept saying “declare one to be true”, he just said “no I can’t”.
That’s what it means by “undeclared”. It means undeclared to be true. Which doesn’t mean they can not be false.
Well, if the questioners showed up with the correct view that the Tathagata was without self, the answers could all be “True!” As I think you said above,
“The Tathagata does not exist after death” is true, so why would the Buddha reject it?"
The questions are in a sense, False, because the underling assumptions are false. Which seems more important than the questions themselves.
Tasmā tathāgatassa evaṃ puṭṭhassa na evaṃ veyyākaraṇaṃ hoti…
BB: "Therefore, when the Tathagata is asked such questions, he does not give such answers.”
Maybe a more literal (rough) translation might be,
Therefore, of these questions thus for the Tathagata, there is not an explanation thus:
(maybe ‘in this way’? i.e. the answers that follow are no good.)
No, some of them would still be “NO”, because even then there is no Tathagata after death. Regardless, in these statements ‘Tathagata’ to other wanderers always implied a Self, as explained in SN44.8.
Vaccha, wanderers of other sects regard form as self … or self as in consciousness. Therefore, when the wanderers of other sects are asked such questions, they give such answers as: ‘The world is eternal’ … or ‘The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’
If they wouldn’t have these assumptions, they wouldn’t ask the question in the first place.
And then I explained the English translation is wrong. So the Buddha actually didn’t reject this, he rejected something else, namely the Pali! Which doesn’t really mean what the English standard translation says (or seems to say to most people).
The questions are in a sense, False, because the underling assumptions are false. Which seems more important than the questions themselves.
Yes, thanks for the discussion, and that is what matters most. The fundamental point is that there is no Self. Therefore you can’t assume any of the four statements. But the statements themselves are rather irrelevant for us, or for having right view. For example, the Anattalakkhana Sutta doesn’t mention the four statements, but it is still a complete teaching on anatta. (Versions of which are found much more often than the four statements.)
So I agree with @Viveka:
Suttas such as the Anattalakkhana are much less round-about.
I’m gonna go now, so hope we finish with this agreement.
Thank you very much for your time and patience Venerable. And let me know about 44.8 which I mentioned above when you can.
Well, the passage continues after that.
Tasmā tathāgatassa evaṁ puṭṭhassa na evaṁ veyyākaraṇaṁ hoti: ‘sassato loko’tipi …pe… ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā’tipī”ti.
See the colon, followed by the statements? Which other translations leave out? It’s quite important, though, I would say.
OK, so here is a rough idea of how I would translate it:
“He doesn’t give these answers: A Tathagata still exists after death. A Tathagata no longer exists after death. [Et cetera].”
Yes, I agree.
Tasmā tathāgatassa evaṃ puṭṭhassa na evaṃ veyyākaraṇaṃ hoti – ‘sassato loko’tipi, ‘asassato loko’tipi, ‘antavā loko’tipi, ‘anantavā loko’tipi, ‘taṃ jīvaṃ taṃ sarīran’tipi, ‘aññaṃ jīvaṃ aññaṃ sarīran’tipi, ‘hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’tipi, ‘na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’tipi, ‘hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’tipi, ‘neva hoti na na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā’tipī’’ti. 
We went on a little tangent in split-off thread, but I wanted to highlight my reply to the above:
Hi all,
After rereading my initial response, where I said “I assume you get the subtle but important difference straight away”, I now realize I may have projected my own state of mind on others. 
So since this is a topic which also used to confuse me, I want to clarify my thoughts still more.
But first I’d like to empathize with the following:
Now, see the following two passages:
‘After death a tathāgata still exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a tathāgata no longer exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a tathāgata both still exists and no longer exists’ does not apply.
‘After death a tathāgata neither still exists nor no longer exists’ does not apply. – SN44.1
‘They will be reborn’ does not apply.
‘They will not be reborn’ does not apply.
‘They will be both reborn and not reborn’ does not apply.
‘They will be neither reborn nor not reborn’ does not apply.” – MN72
(Both passages are directly preceded by the same paragraph on Tathagatas not identifying with the aggregates, as “deep as the ocean” and such.)
First of all, ‘does not apply’ to me indicates these are statements of truth. So if we would have the standard translation ‘after death a tathāgata does not exist’, that would create a problem. Because a tathāgata (meaning a Self) does not exist, either before or after death. And so the statement ‘after death a tathāgata does not exist’ would apply.
However, the translation ‘after death a tathāgata no longer exists’, implies a Self that existed before death (which after death is no longer—the annihilationist idea). Since there is no Self before death, now the statement indeed doesn’t apply!
So the translation makes a difference.
But I think there’s a second issue that underlies some of the confusion.
Why couldn’t we just speak conventionally and simply say that enlightened people are not reborn? Will it frighten people away from the Dhamma if we don’t use certain precise language? I don’t think so, myself. And it appears the Buddha also didn’t think so, as in MN120 he simply says: “That mendicant [who is enlightened] will not be reborn anywhere at all.”
So we don’t have to be so careful with these kind of statements. If you’d say, “an arahant won’t be reborn” that (at the right time) is fine. The Buddha essentially did it himself! And given the similarity of the above two passages, I also think we can say “after death an arahant no longer exists” without creating too much problems.
When we have all the four statements together, that’s when being precise seems to matter more. Because then we start with the first one, ‘after death a tathāgata still exists’, which kind of assumes tathāgata as a (eternal) Self. Then people take that assumption into the second statement, and it sounds like that Self is destroyed, “no longer exists after death”.
But just the second statement in isolation, I think can be OK to say at times, because then we don’t start with that assumption.
I hope I haven’t made things more unclear now… 
But I thought it important to say, so we don’t get too much stuck on language.
Thank you, why do you think he said that “will not be reborn” is wrong?
First of all, he didn’t always say it’s wrong, as in MN120 where he does in effect say exactly that “they will not be reborn”.
But generally the Buddha and his students were more selective with their words. MN120 is an exception, perhaps even the only case, which uses this kind of language. Usually the suttas are very insistent on clarifying that it is only suffering that ceases.
So it depends on the listener, probably. In MN72 Vaccha starts by asking “will they be reborn?” first. I supposed the Buddha inferred from that that Vaccha had a view of Self and would be confused if he (the Buddha) affirmed “they will not be reborn”. (Just like Vaccha would have been confused in SN44.10, the Ananda-Vacchagotta Sutta.) Also, Vaccha throughout these suttas asks these kind of questions all the time, so the Buddha knew him and his views very well! 
Also, the four statements about the Tathagata after death are generally made by “wanderers of other sects” (like Vaccha was), those who may have been totally new to the Buddha’s ideas. They already had their own assumptions. It is even likely that the word Tathagata itself came from other religions. The Jains may have used it first, if I remember correctly. The Jains of course have a belief in a soul. So I’m now wondering whether the term Tathagata may have had a cultural baggage which it doesn’t have any longer, that the term Tathagata implied a soul for many other religions. Either way, I don’t think there was some cultural idea on the verb hoti, as I explained at length.
But don’t we have the same problem then? That it is true to say he doesn’t get reborn because it’s a fact?