Question for Ajahn Brahmali about arahant after death

Discussion
42

The following Suttas I have found helpful for meditation-contemplation on that issue:
SN 44.1
SN 44.1
SN 22.86
DN 9
:pray:

1 Like
43

Thank you. In these suttas it seems the reason why the buddha used the fourfold negation is because Nibbana after death is more than just the end. He said deep, hard to fathom like the ocean, which seems to me to contradict the opinion of Venerable @Brahmali and also my opinion that death for an Arahant is the end of everything.

Maybe Venerable @Brahmali , when you read this, and have time and feel inclined to comment, I would be happy about it. I have read your book “What the Nikāyas Say and Do not Say about Nibbāna” and liked it very much, but it made me ask some question on things I do not understand yet.

44

My rationale is already explained. And why you ask the question again is puzzling to me. Please read my answers and compare it with the Suttas although I am not able to pin point which Sutta/s exactly because the overall message of the teaching as I understand is what I have said.

But SN 1.25 and MN.72 may help though.
With Metta

With Metta

45

As I understand your logic it is like this: The Arahant does not exist in life, so it is wrong to say he does not exist after death, because saying he does not exist after death, that somehow would affirm his existence in life.

I understand that but I don’t follow that logic because it is easy to say he both does not exist before and after death.

MN.72 is very weird to me and not easy to reconcile with Venerable @Brahmali s views. Even though it is common knowledge that an Arahant is not reborn, here the buddha says that that is wrong. He also does not say the realized one doesn’t exist in this life, instead he says the realized one is freed and deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, which seems to me to speak about some subtle form of existence. I don’t get it.

1 Like
46

I suggest that you read MN.37 too. There you find a conversation between the Buddha and Sakka wherein the focus is on " ‘Nothing is worth insisting on’. “sabbe dhammā nālaṁ abhinivesāyā.”

Nothing is worth insisting on because there is nothing substantial in anything.

BTW, this is my opinion too.
With Metta

1 Like
47

Thanks, I am going to sleep now. Have a good rest aswell, depending on how late it is where you live.

48

I suspect that the best way to get it is to put one’s worldly affairs to one side and meditate one’s little heart out … for as long as it takes to reach the other side and understand things without stretching the poor old intellect.

Sleep well! :sleeping_bed:

4 Likes
49

don’t worry one day you will experience it for yourself :wink:

1 Like
50

If I may give my 2 cents, from my understanding, this is how I see this issue.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from misinterpreting the Buddha’s silence on the matter.
A lot of us in my opinion take for granted that the Buddha’s silence means a negative answer, and therefore we come to the conclusion that it is wrong to affirm that the Tathagata exists, doesn’t exist, both exists and doesn’t exists, neither exists nor doesn’t exist after death.

But, from my understanding, that is not what’s happening. The Buddha to me seems to remain silent when he feels that any kind of answer he gives to his questioner is going to be misinterpreted. We find this for example in SN 44.10:

Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused

So, even if the Buddha might have had an answer to those questions, he preferred to remain silent out of wisdom and compassion.

So, in my opinion, you are correct in saying that it is not absolutely totally wrong to say that “The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death”, after all if it were wrong the Buddha would have said so.
It’s just that people who ask this question do not know anything about Dependent Origination, Nibbana etc… and would probably misinterpret any yes/no answer that was given to them.

Remember:

“Kaccāna, this world mostly relies on the dual notions of existence and non-existence.
(SN 12.15)

And that’s exactly what we see happening in SN 22.85 and I think this is what Ajahn Brahmali was pointing to with his comment.
Here Yamaka does not just have the view that “The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death”, but he held the misconception that comes with the incorrect interpretation that comes with the view “The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death”:

Now at that time a mendicant called Yamaka had the following harmful misconception: “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.”

So I agree with you that, assuming one knows about Dependent Origination, Nibbana, The Four Noble Truths etc., it is probably not totally wrong to say that “The Tathagata doesn’t exist after death”, but it would have been a very dangerous move for the Buddha to declare so, considering the people of India at the time would have interpreted this to mean that the Buddha taught annihilation (people still misinterpret the Buddha’s teaching as either eternalism or annihilationism to this very day!)

So in his supreme wisdom he preferred not to declare this and remain silent instead.

5 Likes
51

If there is no Self to exist or not exist, I think a conventional move past the views on it can bring one to understand that there is nowhere to dwell for the practitioner–He may as well Realize that He must extinguish the Skandhas!

52

Then MN72 is a wonderful sutta to study.
:heart:

In MN72, the Buddha gently guides Vacchagotta into seeing the traps created by the word “exist”. The word “exist” has wildly many interpretations that can clash with each other and lead to argument and confusion. In studying MN72, we see all those interpretations clash can clang in utter chaos. But the Buddha sails clear of that mess and Vacchagotta lets go of his attachment to that word.

Because of this problem with the word “exist”, the Buddha avoids it entirely to describe the death of a Realized One. Instead of “exist”, the Buddha uses a perception:

DN1:3.73.5: In the same way, the Realized One’s body remains, but his attachment to rebirth has been cut off.
DN1:3.73.6: As long as his body remains he will be seen by gods and humans.
DN1:3.73.7: But when his body breaks up, after life has ended, gods and humans will see him no more.”

Vacchagotta insisted on the “truth” of the word “exist”. The Buddha simply pointed out that that Vacchagotta was standing on murky ground in that insistence. It’s like arguing about whether 0 divided by 0 exists. We talk about 0/0 all the time. It “exists” in all math literature. And it’s also a trap that we meticulously avoid. It is a trap because 0/0 cannot be computed or measured. We avoid the issue entirely as non-productive. Trying to calculate 0/0 has no use to us. In the same way, MN72 points at the futility of making inferences about existence. If an arahant has zero defilements and death is zero living, the what happens when we divide zero by zero? :scream_cat:

MN72 gently guides us away from perilous abstractions such as “exist”. MN72 guides us back into the concrete, measurable and useful path of practice towards the end of suffering. We experience suffering repeatedly and wish it gone. So we say, “suffering exists.” But the path to the end of suffering requires letting go of the impermanent. What is the impermanent? Perceptions are impermanent. They come and go. And since they come and go, they are nothing to rely upon. Attachment to impermanence leads to suffering. We miss things. And because we miss things we grasp at continued existence. And that’s how the word “exist” takes a hold upon us. It has a stranglehold on our sense of security. We demand the end of suffering have some form of “existence” that can be continued. We argue stubbornly about the meaning of existence.

But that is like trying to calculate with zero divided by zero. It leads to no useful outcome other than telling others to not try calculating with zero divided by zero. In MN72, the Buddha gently points out the problem with the word “exist” and avoids it. In particular, the Buddha steps away from convictions about existence and talks about things that should be contemplated instead to end suffering:

MN72:15.2: “The Realized One has done away with convictions.
MN72:15.3: For the Realized One has seen:
MN72:15.4: ‘Such is form, such is the origin of form, such is the ending of form.
MN72:15.5: Such is feeling, such is the origin of feeling, such is the ending of feeling.
MN72:15.6: Such is perception, such is the origin of perception, such is the ending of perception.
MN72:15.7: Such are choices, such is the origin of choices, such is the ending of choices.
MN72:15.8: Such is consciousness, such is the origin of consciousness, such is the ending of consciousness.’

0/0 = :scream_cat:
0x0 = :heart:

9 Likes
53

Dear brother in the Dhamma
I think you use the word “existing” without telling us what you mean by it. What do you mean? Can you specify what do you add as part of the label existence? Thanks.

1 Like
54

It’s not easy to define existence, and I mean it in the way most people tend to understand it. Simply being there.

My question is about the opposite “not existing”

When there is nothing there then anything that can be spoken about does not exist, because there is nothing.

That’s why I don’t understand why saying the Arahant does not exist after death is wrong.

55

Sorry, I’ve read your post a few times now but I don’t quite get what you want to say. How is the term existence the same as dividing zero by zero? I cannot follow the logic. I don’t see a problem with the wording “does not exist” it simply means something “is not” and I think everyone understands what that means.

Why would you divide defilements by living? To me the whole post doesn’t make any sense, sorry, I don’t want to offend you.

And why does this sutta say “not reborn” is incorrect when in many other suttas the buddha clearly states that an Arahant is not reborn, that’s a simple contradiction.

56

Dear Brother in the Dhamma
There is a discipline which we teach at university called logic. What you cannot define you cannot understand (even if a definition is a convention) cannot explain what you ask. You continue to say the “existence” or not “existence” are just what they mean, so there is no need to define it. But I can guarantee that “to exist” is not a simple definition as “to breath”. Moreover, the negative of something is always more complicated than the original.

If you cannot define what existing means or you see “existing” as a simple, straightforward concept, I wish to help you by asking you some questions myself that will show how such a term is all but not self-explanatory
Does a tree exist as an animal exist? If so, how?
Does air exist as your thoughts exist? If so, how?
Do dreams exist? If so, how?

If you wish to engage in religious theory and philosophy of religion, the first step it’s to consider seriously the answer and questions people give you instead of repeating the question. You probably see this in the Suttas themselves (which are sometimes philosophical debates). The person asks a question, the Buddha or another person answers another question that the interlocutor ought to respond to.
If you want to understand, you have to “let go” of your question and engage in the process.

This is particularly true for negative definitions. For instance, if I ask you what is “cheese” I am sure you can tell me relatively straightforward. Yet if I ask you, “what is not cheese,” I am sure you will struggle quite a lot: give a go at it.

I hope these points show why your answer cannot be answered if you do not tell your interlocutor what you mean for existence.

If you want to know what the Blessed one wanted to mean with it, you have only one choice: to study and fully completely understand Dependent causation (or some called Dependent Origination) paᚭiccasamuppāda.

Without understanding how the Buddha understood and taught “existence”, you will continue to ask your exact question, not just this life but each future one, until hopefully one day you will understand fully.
Thanks :pray:

5 Likes
57

Thanks, I do consider all the answers people give me, but I feel that none of them really adress my question instead they talk around my question or make it more complicated than it actually is, which is why I repeat my question so often. In your post you are basically saying existence is very hard to define properly. It seems you almost make the point that it is impossible and therefore my question is wrong, but I don’t think that is the case. I mean existence in the widest possible way, even though I cannot define existence directly I can give an example that explains what I mean with existing or not existing, which I already posted: “When there is nothing there, then anything that can be spoken about does not exist, because there is nothing.” So I mean existence in the most basic way possible, simply being there in any way shape or form, it doesn’t matter if it is material or mental or whatever, I mean it to include every possible way something can be said to exist. Is that definition enough to understand my point? If not, what more do you expect? And if yes, than do you want to answer my question (sorry, I will repeat it, so you don’t have to search it) ? “If there is nothing, than why is it wrong to say Arahant does not exist?”

Sorry I forgot to answer your questions:
Does a tree exist as an animal exist? If so, how? Yes.
Does air exist as your thoughts exist? If so, how? Yes.
Do dreams exist? If so, how? Yes.
But you ask: how? I don’t quite get what you want me to explain here.

And the answer to the cheese question is simple: First you define what cheese is: for example cheese is made of this and that, has that shape, that form, that smell, and so on. That is cheese. What is not cheese? Anything that doesn’t have these attributes that make cheese cheese. For example: Trees, Houses, Air, Water, etc. All of these are not cheese.

58

How do you perceive the concept of “existence” and the thought of a mendicant meditating in Anatta tie in together? Do you sense that the perception of non-Self, in the person, signifies that the person does not exist? What person? If you ask the Buddha, He may respond that you are asking the wrong question. But it signifies your deep need to break out of the mental shackles of how you are currently perceiving the Saha world. All the best.

59

Yes, exactly the Arahant does not exist. That’s my whole point here. The Arahant also does not exist after death as before. So why is that expression wrong then?

60

There are multiple ways to perceive the Dharma. Consider reading the New Heart Sutra Translation by Thich Nhat Hanh, here Thich Nhat Hanh after preaching many years the concept of no Self, expresses that a deep Buddhist truth is that the Self exists, but it is in fact Empty. As a balloon that is full of Empty air still exists, even though it is full of perceivably Empty space. So, can you achieve Enlightenment with multiple viewpoints, no Self, or an Empty Self? This is not indecision by the mind of the Teacher, but an agitation of the perception of the mind to ask you to view things as a Muni, to have multiple viewpoints. And that is okay. However, fully rejecting Teaching means you are rejecting who it came from, and that may be the Buddha. So be careful, for the sake of your Enlightenment. Consider this perspective.

61

Thanks, but this does not have anything to do with my question.
I also do not reject the teaching even though it may seem that way, but if I was rejecting the teaching I would not ask my question. I just want to know where I am wrong to fully understand that topic, but so far no one has given me a good explanation, why my expression is wrong.