Question for Ajahn Brahmali about arahant after death

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.

2 Likes

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. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Thank you very much for your time and patience Venerable. And let me know about 44.8 which I mentioned above when you can.

1 Like

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].”

1 Like

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. :pray: :pray: :pray:

1 Like

13 posts were split to a new topic: Translation [fill in here]

We went on a little tangent in split-off thread, but I wanted to highlight my reply to the above:

1 Like

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. :blush: 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… :joy: But I thought it important to say, so we don’t get too much stuck on language.

2 Likes

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! :smiley:

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.

1 Like

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?

1 Like

He doesn’t get reborn” can imply there was a “he” (which can be taken as a Self) in the first place. That’s sort of implicit in the word “reborn”.

1 Like

But then one would have to reject every statement about every person by that logic or not?

1 Like

By that logic, yes, I suppose. :smiley: But luckily we don’t have to speak 100% according to that logic. It would be very clumsy to always speak in terms of aggregates, or six senses, or what have you. (Though in retreat settings of some traditions you are not allowed to use the words “I” or “me”… :confused: )

Which is why I wanted to emphasize even the Buddha wasn’t always using this kind of very precise language. Even when it comes to rebirth, sometimes he just said “he won’t be reborn anywhere”. It all depends on the assumptions of the listeners. There is no right or wrong here.

But in the four statements on the Tathagata, the assumption of a Self/soul seems to be always there.

1 Like

I’m not sure if this quote has already been given somewhere in this thread but it explains a lot about perception… and that the issue here goes much deeper than the words that are used.
From SN12.15 Kaccanagotta Sutta.

“This world, Kaccana, for the most part depends upon a duality—upon the notion of existence and the notion of nonexistence. But for one who sees the origin of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of nonexistence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence in regard to the world."
SuttaCentral.

It is perception arising from a view and not so much about the exact wording used. After all Yamaka heard the teaching directly from the Buddha (so there were no translation or word choice issues there) but still there was a misunderstanding… and this misunderstanding comes from personality view (sakkayadhitti). Once the View alters, perception itself alters and the words become clear - just like the mist which was obscuring understanding, rising to reveal Right View. :fog: :sun_behind_large_cloud: :partly_sunny: :sun_behind_small_cloud: :sunny:

And the way to dispell the mist - to alter this view - is the 4th Noble Truth… The Noble 8 fold Path… practice (Sila), practice (Samadhi), practice (Panna) - all 3! I know it may not be what people want to hear, but as the Buddha made so clear - Intellectual analysis alone will not solve it.

:smiley: Happy practice to everyone on this wonderful path :pray:

7 Likes

Great discussion so far! Having thus very correctly elucidated why the Buddha rejected the Eternalistic and Annihilationist views, what we now require to round off with is why the Buddha also rejected the nihilist view.

After all, if

and

why is it wrong to say

SN24.6
Nothing bad is done by the doer when they punish, mutilate, torture, aggrieve, oppress, intimidate, or when they encourage others to do the same. Nothing bad is done when they kill, steal, break into houses, plunder wealth, steal from isolated buildings, commit highway robbery, commit adultery, and lie. If you were to reduce all the living creatures of this earth to one heap and mass of flesh with a razor-edged chakram, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the south bank of the Ganges killing, mutilating, and torturing, and encouraging others to do the same, no evil comes of that, and no outcome of evil. If you were to go along the north bank of the Ganges giving and sacrificing and encouraging others to do the same, no merit comes of that, and no outcome of merit. In giving, self-control, restraint, and truthfulness there is no merit or outcome of merit’

SA161
Whether it’s his life or body, the blade passes between the seven bodies and returns, but it doesn’t harm his life. Nothing is killed by that, and there’s no killer. Nothing is bound, and there’s no binder. Nothing is thought, and there’s no thinker. Nothing is taught, and there’s no teacher.

Just trying to take the discussion forward, not trying to poke the (admittedly non-existent) bear … :grin: :slightly_smiling_face:

(Hot Tip - See SA139 for the Buddha’s explanation)

2 Likes

Great question @faujidoc1 :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: What do you think? Which things do you think need clarifying or emphasising or drawing out?

If you like I’m happy to give a preliminary a response to what I think you may be getting at :slightly_smiling_face:

From SN24.6 SuttaCentral
“When form exists, because of grasping form and insisting on form, the view arises: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong … there is no merit or outcome of merit.’ When feeling … perception … choices … consciousness exists, because of grasping consciousness and insisting on consciousness, the view arises: ‘The one who acts does nothing wrong … there is no merit or outcome of merit.’

So the elements exist, and the 5 Khandas exist (form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness) and are subject to causes and conditions. They are subject to dependent arising (all 12 links). Therefore cause and effect applies to this bundle (us), and the views that there are no consequences to actions, or impingement by conditions are false.

It is the grasping, that gives the illusion of a self, that results in suffering. So by letting go of this, one lets go of suffering - the rest all stays until the dissolution of all the component parts. This process goes on within a single life and via re-birth. The more that is relinquished the more peaceful/less suffering, until finally full relinquishement of Self can occur and then the process of DO is broken - cut off at the root- and there is no more arising of the aggregates even consciousness, the very stream of consciousness itself (the final bastion of conceit of self) and no more rebirth.

This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realm, and cessation is more peaceful than the formless.”

Those beings who reach the form realm
And those established in the formless,
If they do not know cessation
Come back to renewal of being.

Those who fully understand forms
Without getting stuck in the formless,
Are released into cessation
And leave Death far behind them.

Having touched with his own person
The deathless element free from clinging,
Having realized the relinquishment of clinging,
His taints all gone,
The Fully Enlightened One proclaims
The sorrowless state that is void of stain.
SuttaCentral.

(enough ‘thinking’ for me for a while :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: enjoy the discussion and catch you later)

1 Like

It is pertinent to understand just why the Buddha rejected nihilistic philosophy because that reason also has bearing on why he chose not to answer the OP question about Self by simply clarifying “There is no ‘Being’ either before or after the dissolution of the 5 aggregates - only the illusion of a ‘Self’ brought about by craving and clinging to impermanent, conditioned natural processes.

Its not difficult - we, the unenlightened have managed it after all! :rofl: So why does the Buddha never come out anywhere in the Suttas and just say that? :thinking:

Though this succinct statement is indeed factual and true, it is IMO not a useful framework to adopt if we seek the end of suffering. It leads towards Nihilism, which is an intellectual morass.

Consider the implications of this view of ‘no Self’. If there is no Self within my aggregates, is it therefore correct to assume that that also necessarily holds true for the (apparently) sentient beings I encounter? Are all ‘Sentient’ beings perhaps products of ‘my’ Mind, generated the same way that ‘I’ generate ‘my’ Self? What is the problem in depriving another being (who might also proclaim ‘no Self’) of life? Is lying/ stealing/ sexual misconduct OK for one who doesn’t grasp at ‘Self’?

IMO, when it comes to practical application - Negation of Self turns out on close examination to be truthful but not skillful, Affirmation of Self turns out to be skillful but not truthful. Indeed, all questions of Self invariably turn out to be traps leading away from the primary goal - the end of Suffering.

This could, IMO be yet another reason why the Buddha refused to answer such questions regarding Self and encouraged us to set them aside.

Indeed, the Master pointed out to Kaccana that the Right View of the noble disciple is that

he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’

So, we must not leave this discussion with the thought

I might not be, and it might not be mine. I will not be, and it will not be mine’?

as that is yet another form of sakayaditthi.

Instead, we must reframe the thought as

It (Form/Feeling/Perception/ Choices/ Conciousness) might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine.’

in which case, our opening statement should be carefully rephrased as

The experience of suffering (re)arises and ceases because the impermanent, conditioned natural processes of the 5 aggregates are clung to consequent to ignorance and craving. With the complete ending of Ignorance comes the final end of craving and clinging - the aggregates are eventually scattered like chaff, never to rearise, thus bringing about the complete end of suffering. The framework to achieve this is the 8 fold path.

Come to think of it, isn’t that what the suttas keep harping on about? That the 5 aggregates are ‘not - Self’? :upside_down_face:



PS I apologize if this view is all much too subtle hair splitting - it could just be papanca for all I know.

ADDENDUM : I came across this Mahayana sutta which says something similar

Now, the tīrthikas‍—those who hold views based on objects and who engage in concepts and analysis‍—went among the followers of the Mahāyāna…"Is there truly a self in the body or not? It would be proper for you to dispel our doubts.”

The followers of the Mahāyāna replied, “Friends, it should not be said that there truly is or is not a self in the body, because to say in this case that there truly is or is not a self is mistaken speech.

2 Likes