I don’t think it is that way, because I don’t have the slightest idea whatsoever why it is wrong to say an Arahant does not exist after death, when there is absolutely nothing there after his death.
I really 100% don’t understand that part.
Because the Buddha wants you to stop thinking in terms of what exists and what does not exist, and view the world with Right View in an understanding of dependent origination. I think you understand that perspective, so try to find it within your Metta.
Dear Brother in the Dhamma
Thanks for your kind and patient reply.
When I asked you about the non-cheese, you said “everything that has not the attribute of cheese,” yet you seem to struggle with the idea that an arahant is a person who has not the attributes of those chained in the sequences of Dependent Origination. In other words, as you cannot compare a dream to air (and that would have been the correct logical answer to my question since dream and air are not in the same category of existence) so you cannot compare the existence that ordinary people experience to that of an arahant.
You say people are making things complicated, but then you want to engage in the philosophy of religion, and that needs tools to do so. For instance: are you noticing now that you think that the existence of an arahant is not a different logical class than that of an ordinary person when it is a different class. . If you do hit grasp this surely not easy point nobody will be ever able to satisfy your question. The two experiences are not comparable exactly like trees cannot be compared to dreams.
Do you fully understand Pratītyasamutpāda? If so, your answer would be already there; if not, you cannot answer your question, and honestly, I think nobody will be able to your satisfaction.
I think if you start from the course on Pratītyasamutpāda presented by @Brahmali here https://youtu.be/V3EAiznA88c it may help you to understand how the Buddha deeply saw the idea of existence.
Said that, if you are on the path towards your liberation, I can suggest that at the end of the day, the question if an arahant exists or not during or after their lives on earth is rather useless since, as the Buddha explained more than once, it is only your own experience that will answer your question and not intellectual debates which at the end cannot bring any real benefit to our path.
I hope this may help.
One of the reasons for which I have renounced to continue teaching and researching religious studies and philosophy was precisely that it will slow my effort towards liberation by useless playing with concepts and doing so extending my permanence in dukkha (even just the dukkha of exciting thoughts from those lucubrations that end in hindering meditation).
In the end, I think many of us are so distant from that liberation state that engaging with what it might be can make us even more distant from it.
With metta 
4 Likes
Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi gave a talk last weekend on
AN.4. 173 Mahākoṭṭhikasutta
“ When the senses end, is there anything left? Or is that just proliferation?”
https://suttacentral.net/an4.173/en/sujato
which I think is pertinent to your question.
7 Likes
I think the way all these teachings are phrased, it’s meant to help us discard the notion of eternalism and annihilationism.
Once you’ve discarded these 2 extremes, and see dependent origination, there’s just this arises, that arises, this ceases, that ceases, then your question would be answered. If you want to explain this realization to the next generation, you’ll be stuck with the same old words the Buddha used, cause to go off to any extremes is not conducive towards abandoning eternalism and annihilationism.
So focus on abandoning those 2 extremes, allow the mind to see, whatever has a beginning has a cause, whatever has a cause has an end.
Nowadays, I am learning to see beginning and endings in walking meditation. Seeing beginning, one doesn’t have the view of annihilationism. Seeing ending, one doesn’t have a view of eternalism. So, practise until you can see beginning and ending of other things around you as well. It could trigger that wisdom understanding.
12 Likes
OK, I’ll give it another shot. I am not sure I can add much to what has already been said by all these good people, but here goes anyway.
If you say the arahant does not exist after death, you would be right from a certain narrow point of view. If you understand an arahant as a mere stream of mental phenomena, then it is clearly the case that this stream no longer exists after the arahant dies. The problem arises when you try to communicate this to ordinary people. For an ordinary person the end of the process of life will invariably be seen as the end of a personal self. If you don’t like this personal self, then you will welcome this ending. But if you like it, which is the case for most people, the ending with seem traumatic.
The problem is that the experience of an ordinary person, a puthujjana, does not reflect the underlying reality. The puthujjana is incapable of experiencing without somehow relating it to an “I” and a “mine”. This is what delusion is all about. It is not something you can avoid; it is the default reaction of the mind. If you try to pin it down, it is very slippery, yet the feeling is always there: you have a definite sense of existence.
It follows from this that if you say to a puthujjana that the arahant does not exist after death, you have a monumental failure in communication. There is no way they will understand. The most obvious response for them would be to reject the Dhamma. Why? Because people generally do not want to stop existing.
To be understood, you need to express what happens to an arahant in a different way. The arahant is merely the five khandhas, the five factors of personality. The five factors of personality are suffering. And so when the arahant dies, it is just suffering coming to an end. Nothing of value is lost. You thought there was something of value there, but it turned out to be an illusion. Cessation is the highest happiness, because all suffering comes to an end. Suffering was all there ever was.
For this reason it is far more accurate, and easy to grasp, to say that suffering ends, rather than saying the arahant does not exist. We don’t really understand the arahant, but we all have some idea of suffering.
I suppose we could distinguish between different truth values. Is a statement true merely because it adheres to some narrowly defined logic, yet is liable to be misunderstood by the listener? Or is it true because it helps the interlocutor to a proper understanding the issue at hand? I don’t think saying “an arahant does not exist after death” is helpful to most people; in fact I think it is downright misleading. And so the truth value is limited.
Anyway, I wish you the best of luck. May you get much joy and peace from your Buddhist practice!
24 Likes
So you mean that it is correct to say that, from a narrow point of view and narrow defined logic. What do you mean with narrow in that context?
It seems to me that you are defining truth not as that which is factual, (even though it may not be helpful) but as that which is helpful (even though it may not be 100% factual). Which is a view that I do not share.
The Buddha did not just not use the expression “does not exist after death” instead he fully rejected it and said that it is wrong.
If he simply would not use it I would understand that, but calling it wrong on the ground that it can be misunderstood doesn’t seem truthful to me.
To me personally saying that existing, not existing, both or neither are all wrong is much more confusing than saying that an Arahant does not exist after death, because it seems, that this fourfold negation points to some mystical, ineffable something rather than simply nothing.
I also don’t understand why a statement is more important to make sense to a person who grasps at a self than being more important to make sense to a person that doesn’t grasp at a self. That seems backwards to me.
I am really sorry that I cannot just accept all the answers, but I cannot half heartedly accept something that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Thanks for your kind wishes.
All Sages merge with the worlds energy. Which is One without another. Buddhist is a method to learn there is no individual soul but that everything is connected. We are to awaken to the illusion of separateness. Nirvana is the ocean where all rivers merge and loose their name.
That’s what every other religion teaches.
1 Like
Buddha says Truth is One. Brahman represents the Love Frequency. The one thing that makes the world go round. Is Love. Without love. There is chaos. Buddha had to walk in the Path of Love to be able to transform merge in Love itself.
1 Like
It’s really not mystical. Handling concepts like this is, just as an example, critical to understanding most programming languages.
NA == TRUE
NA == FALSE
(NA == TRUE) & (NA == FALSE)
(NA != TRUE) & (NA != FALSE)
Are all statements that do not evaluate to “TRUE”
Existence and non existence are not categories that apply to the Tathagata either while alive or dead.
If you say, “The Arahant does not exist after death” you are wrongly applying a category to him which simply does not apply. This can lead to a contagion of errors - for example, you might then think that the Arahant exists while alive, and then identify something that is present while alive but not while dead with the Arahant, and then that might promote a view of self within you and be a barrier to stream entry.
3 Likes
Can you explain that in more detail? I have no understanding of programming languages.
When you say
Does that mean that there is “something” after death that cannot be explained or put into words, but is different to there being just “nothing”?
Is “nothing” not equating to “non existence”?
Instead of saying “the Arhat does not exist, after His passing, much like in His life,” the Buddha is capable of saying: “because of great Dhamma practice, cessation has ended the body, the Stream has been fully entered thanks to the final Meditation, and suffering has fully ended for the aggregates.” Without throwing up the question of existence or non-existence based on whether there is a Self or not, the Buddha can describe the final Stream Entry of Mahaparinirvana without pressuring the inquiring student of envisioning a Self that is not there. There is nothing, in fact, from the very beginning to envision. Namaste.
Even though “the Arhat does not exist, after His passing, much like in His life,” may not be the best way to phrase it or the most helpful one for every student, that doesn’t mean it is entirely wrong. But the buddha did teach that it is wrong, did he not?
Do you mean to say that self means existence, and no self means non-existence here?
Do you mean here that saying there is no self does pressure the student to envision a self?
Do you mean to say that there is nothing and there never has been something? I don’t think that is correct because there is dukkha, there are the aggregates and so on, if there was nothing from the beginning then everyone would be enlightened already.
I am not entirely sure what you mean with your post.
My question is not:“Why didn’t the buddha teach that the Arahant does not exist after death?” I understand that it may not be the best way to phrase the teaching, but my question is why did the buddha reject that view altogether and taught it as incorrect.
The programming statements were just an example of the non-applicability of categories being practically used for mundane purposes. The point is just that fourfold negation isn’t mystical.
No. That would be “The Tathagata exists after death” which is not true.
Imagine you have a lit candle on your desk. You extinguish it. The category of location no longer applies to the flame - you cannot say “it is on my desk” and you cannot say “it is located somewhere off my desk”. Nor can you say, “the flame is located both on and off my desk” or “the flame is located in a place that is neither on or off my desk”. You then throw the candle in the trash. Still, you cannot say where the flame is located.
Here, “candle” is a metaphor for the five aggregates, “flame” is a metaphor for the Arahant, extinguishing the flame is a metaphor for enlightenment, and throwing the candle out is a metaphor for death, “located on my desk” is a metaphor for exists and “located off my desk” is a metaphor for doesn’t exist.
2 Likes
The aggregates, or Skandhas, are Empty, just as when they are cessated. There is no Self in them, and never was, so it is good to perceive them without a perception of Self, even a missing Self. I think that is one of the points the Buddha has made in His explanation.
Oh, ok. I did not mean that the fourfold negation is mystical but that which it points to is mystical, or ineffable. Because everything we can imagine is one of these points. If you say he exists, that does mean something is there. If you say he doesn’t exist, that means nothing is there. Saying both means there is and isn’t something there, which is already puzzling and ineffable and neither too. And rejecting all of these viewpoints means that the truth is ineffable and mystical and seemingly paradox.
I know the simile with the flame, but it also confuses me to be honest.
If I would ask does the flame exist after it is extinguished, it would be easy to say “no it doesn’t”. But both “being located on my desk” and “being located not on my desk” assume that the flame does exist in the first place. So the solution to the simile is saying:" the flame does not exist" but the entire point of the simile is that this is wrong, so it confuses me very much.
Are you of the view that after death of an arahant there is absolutely nothing because everything ceases? Or do you think that is wrong to say?
Where? He didn’t say “right” or “wrong” or “yes” or “no”. He simply said “it doesn’t apply”.
The Buddha simply explained that not considering the Tathagata in terms of either form, feeling, perception, choices or consciousness and then saying that after death this exists, doesn’t exist, both exists and doesn’t exist, neither exists or doesn’t exists is nonsensical, it doesn’t apply.
To say “something doesn’t exist” there needs to be “something” in the first place. If there is no something, saying “something doesn’t exist” does not apply.
It’s like saying “nothing doesn’t exist”. It’s a silly statement.
2 Likes
Whats the difference between “doesn’t apply” and “is wrong?”
I think this is simply not true, it is exactly the opposite of true. Please read that sentence again. You are basically saying:“Something has to exist for it not to exist. And when something does not exist it is wrong to say it does not exist”
Read that sentence again. Let me make an example. If there are no unicorns, saying “unicorns don’t exist” does not apply. Does that make sense to you?
“something doesn’t exist” means nothing other than “there is no something”
I’m not saying that. You need to read the sentence again.
You are doing exactly what I’m saying. You are saying: “Unicorns (something) don’t exist”. It doesn’t matter whether unicorns are real or not, what matters is that you are defining them as “something”. If you did not define them as “something” (as in the case of the Arahant) you could not say they don’t exist, because you couldn’t define them in the first place.
Again, you need “something” to make that statement. Without “something” you cannot make it, it doesn’t apply.
1 Like