Question for Ajahn Brahmali about arahant after death

Does the self of an arahant persist after death, or is it destroyed on death? [exist vs. not-exist]
Neither, because [like all of us] an arahant is just a particular set of five khandas without self. When the arahant dies those khandas simply cease, there’s no being/self inside those khandas that could persist or be destroyed in the first place.

Yes, that would make sense, but only if it would be written like that in the suttas, but it isn’t, as far as I know it simply states: “Does the Arahant exist after death” and not “persist after death or is destroyed”

I think you are still mixing up convention and reality. If you understand that “he” is simply a convention, why would you say “he” does not exist after death? Since what existed before death is saṅkhara what died is just saṅkhara itself. So a real “he” does not exist after death.
With Metta

1 Like

Thanks, maybe that’s the answer, I will take my time to think about that.

It seems my problem here is that I don’t quite understand why the fact that “he” doesn’t exist in life leads to the fact that it is wrong to say “he” doesn’t exist after death. Maybe it is wrong in the sense that saying after death is different than in life is wrong, because he didn’t exist in the first place. But as I see it, even when he never existed in the first place it is still ok to say he does (also) not exist after death.

And if it is the case that the fourfold negation is used on the Arahant in this life, than it would be even more correct to say he doesn’t exist after death, because even everything the arahant was, conventionally speaking, does cease to exist.

So as I see it, even though you cannot pinpoint the Arahant down in this life as a reality, after death he does not exist in any way, shape or form, whatsoever.

Do you understand my problem?

Maybe I can illustrate it with an example:
Let’s imagine Unicorns don’t exist in samsara. Just say it is a fact, there are no unicorns in samsara. Is it then wrong to say there are no unicorns in Parinibbana?
Why would it be better to say it is false to say that unicorns exist in nibbana, it is false to say they don’t exist in Parinibbana, and both is false and neither too. In my view the easiest, true answer is: unicorns don’t exist in Parinibbana.

( I know I am difficult to satisfy with answers, but I don’t mean to be critical with your help, I just want to clarify the situation so I understand it 100%, thanks again for your patience)

I do. I think there is contradiction in what you say here.
You say “even though you cannot pinpoint the Arahant down in this life as a reality”. This means that you understand that “Arahant” is a convention.
Then you say “after death he does not exist in any way, shape or form”.
Although this statement(after death he does not exist in any way, shape or form) is technically correct, it does suggest that the speaker thinks something in truth and fact existed before death because of the words “he” or “arahant” or whatever pronouns used in the statement.

Let us say a fire is burning due to availability of fuel. And we can refer to the fire as say for example a forest fire which is just a convenient medium for communication. When the fire extinguishes, we say the fire is extinguished. But do not say “fire does not exist” somewhere.
“Somewhere” in relation to the fire is similar to Nibbana in relation to the passing way of an Arahant. So if we do not say “fire does not exist” somewhere, why would you say Arahant does not exist in Nibbana?
NIbbana is called extinguishment IMO for this reason. Because the fire of the Arahant that extinguished can only be referred to in terms of what existed conventionally before the extinguishment in the same way one says the forest fire did exist. But one cannot say the forest fire does not exist somewhere after it is extinguished.
With Metta

Thanks, when I said “after death he does not exist in any way, shape or form” I meant that he did not exist even conventionally speaking.

Your example with the fire does not help me, to be honest.
When someone asks does the fire exist after it is extinguished you would answer no it doesn’t because it is extinguished, wouldn’t you?

You said:“But one cannot say the forest fire does not exist somewhere after it is extinguished.” But when someone would ask me does the forest fire exist somewhere after it is extinguished, I would simply answer no it doesn’t, and I believe it would be correct for me to answer that.

Saying something does not exist after death, doesn’t necessarily say something about if it existed in life before, just that it doesn’t exist now.

When someone would ask me, does the arahant exist after death?
I would answer: No, he does not exist after death and you could not even say he truly existed in the life before. Why would I answer with the fourfold negation, when the answer could be so simple?

I think this is the crux of the issue. IMO, saying something does not exist after death, does necessarily say something about whatever that existed. If that is not the case, may I ask you what died?
With Metta

I don’t think it does say something about the life before. When asked is the Arahant in paradise after death? I would say no he isn’t. But that does not imply he was in paradise in the life before in the first place, or does it?

As far as I imagine no one would argue that you cannot say that the arahant after death is not in paradise, because he wasn’t in paradise in his life before…

Sorry, I do not understand your connection to the question what died? Can you explain?

Let me try once more. When you say something does not exist after death, what do you mean by something?

True, it does not imply he was in paradise before death. But does it not imply that he was somewhere else other than paradise?.
With Metta

What do you say to this part of my post?:
“When someone would ask me, does the arahant exist after death?
I would answer: No, he does not exist after death and you could not even say he truly existed in the life before. Why would I answer with the fourfold negation, when the answer could be so simple?”

Let me try once more. When you say something does not exist after death, what do you mean by something?

I mean the Arahant.

Btw, is it 100% correct to say the arahant does not exist in this life?
( I would guess here the fourfold negation would make sense)

IMO yes. It is 100% correct to say so. This is because what is called Arahant in this life is the conventional identification tag for something impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self.
So, since Arahant does not exist even in this life, how can the Arahant exist in Nibbana?
With Metta

Ok, I personally think it is not so simple because there is an appearance of a being called Arahant, so in that sense you can say he does exist even though you cannot pin him down on one thing that he truly is.

But even when you are correct, then you can just answer: Since the Arahant does not exist in this life, he also does not exist after death. would that not be correct?

As I said before this statement is only technically correct. Since what exists is impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self what really exists is unsatisfactoriness dukkha. So what dies is just dukkha.
With Metta

what do you mean with “only technically correct”?
In what other ways can a statement be correct?

I think your post talks beside my question. Because when all that exists is dukkha and all that dies is dukkha then you still can say the arahant does not exist in this life and he does also not exist after death. and that would also be a reasonable answer to the question if an arahant exists after death. I see no reason to teach the fourfold negation.

I mean it is correct in ordinary day to day parlance used by non aryans meaning those who are not disciples of the Buddha. For the true disciples, the reality must be foremost. Hence saying Arahant exists now and does not exist after death is not correct.
With Metta

I see, but saying the arahant does not exist now and does also not exist after death, would that be correct in your view?

No. It is not correct. I just answered this question in my previous post did I not?
With Metta

I mean it is correct in ordinary day to day parlance used by non aryans meaning those who are not disciples of the Buddha. For the true disciples, the reality must be foremost. Hence saying Arahant exists now and does not exist after death is not correct.

here you said exists now is incorrect. Do you mean this post?

By the way, thank you for taking your time to help me, I am not taking it for granted.

Yes. That is it.
Do not worry. I am trying to be as helpful as I can within the limits of my knowledge.
With Metta

1 Like

Ok then I agree, it is not correct to say: exists in life and doesn’t exist after death.

But doesn’t exist in life and also doesn’t exist after death seems reasonable to me. Do you not agree? And if not, why?