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.
The confusing thing about the simile is that you instinctively want to take what it’s a simile for and apply it to the simile. But that’s not how similes work.
Simile about similes
It’s like if I said, “Finding a good man is like finding a needle in a haystack” and you said, “but it’s very easy to find adult men in a haystack!”
Don’t ask, “does the flame exist” no matter how tempting it is, just really focus on the question “where is the flame?” The answer to “where is an extinguished flame” is the same as the “existence of the Arahant”. But the existence of an extinguished flame is different (because an extinguished flame just clearly no longer exists)
I have read it again, and still it has the same meaning. Or do you think there is a difference between “existing” or “being”?
Because when I use them interchangebly then the sentence would say:" To say “something doesn’t exist” there “something” needs to exist in the first place. or otherwise: "To say “something is not” there needs to be “something” in the first place.
UpasakaMalavaro, we all have wonderful ideas, and the Pali Suttas are fully correct. For those who turn to the Lotus Sutra, which is applicable to Theravada Monks who would like to learn from it, you can read here:
Persons of meager virtue and small merit,
they are troubled and beset by manifold sufferings. They stray into the dense forest of mistaken views, debating as to what exists and what does not, and in the end cling to such views, embracing all sixty-two of them2 .
They are profoundly committed to false and empty doctrines,
holding firmly to them, unable to set them aside.
Arrogant and puffed up with self-importance,
fawning and envious, insincere in mind,
for a thousand, ten thousand, a million kalpas
they will not hear the Buddha’s name,
nor will they hear the correct Law–
such people are difficult to save.
For these reasons, Shariputra,
I have for their sake established expedient means,
preaching the way that ends all suffering.
And showing them nirvana.
But although I preach nirvana,
this is not a true extinction.
All phenomena from the very first
have of themselves constantly borne the marks of
tranquil extinction.
The Buddha has a lot to say. Go and read some Pali Suttas on this subject, and think about this passage in the Lotus Sutra if you wish. All the best. You are succeeding in Buddhism because you are inquiring, and on this subject, you are almost there.
It doesn’t matter if you use “existing” or “being”.
You need a subject in order to make a sentence. In this case the subject is “something”. Without “something” the phrase “exists” doesn’t apply on its own.
The same for the Tathagata. If you don’t consider the Tathagata as any of the 5 khandas then you cannot make a sentence with “it”!
That’s why it is said that the Tathagata is:
deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. (SN 44.1)
You cannot pin “him” down to anything, so saying he exists or doesn’t or both or neither, whether before or after death does not apply, becuase you cannot even define the subject of the sentence.
I don’t agree with your logic here, because the fact that we are even talking about an Arahant here is enough to justify making sentences with this word. By your logic the sutta you quoted is wrong, because the Buddha used that subject as well. And why somehow saying the Tathagata is deep and immeasurable is OK, but saying he doesn’t exist is wrong is simply puzzling to me, because being “deep and immeasurable” implies there is something there which “does not exist” does not.
Ok as far as I know he did use the terms “this is not my view”. (MN72)
and “has not been declared by the buddha”. (SN16.12)
So it seems he has not said it is wrong but that he doesn’t view it like that and doesn’t declare it?
So it doesn’t have to be wrong, it is just not helpful to think that way?
I always thought the buddha didn’t declare things because they are incorrect. So it seems the Buddha also doesn’t declare things that are correct but unhelpful?
You are correct, I meant not grasping as much as the other person. I think when one is OK with not existing, then that is less grasping then having a problem with it, that’s what I meant.
Buddha talks of his past lives but he teach that the present body is a new body. It’s just connected to the past. So what if that’s the true realization of Nibbāna? Realizing that the next won’t be you. Because really realizing it. They say no more rebirth. But since actually all life is connected how can there be no rebirth. Buddha blood is some where in India for example.
I can not agree with you here. I believe that for an Arahant rebirth stops and not that there is rebirth but he realizes it is not him who is reborn. As I remember Ajahn Brahm once saying in a dhammatalk, something along the lines of. “the next life is like a next morning when you wake up. Even though there is no self you still want to be happy and free of suffering.” This is how I remember that quote, it is not accurate.
Do you equate rebirth with having children? Or what do you mean with the Buddha Blood statement?
To point and communicate the Dhamma to ordinary people we cannot avoid using these words.
But when making definite statements about the nature of the Tathagata like “exists, doesn’t exist after death etc…” in order to avoid any misinterpretations (like for Yamaka) we need to be more precise and try to define the subject of our sentence.
If you don’t regard the Tathagata as form, feeling, perception, choices or consciousness,
and you don’t regard the Tathagata as in form, feeling, perception, choices or consciousness,
and you don’t regard the Tathagata as distinct from form, feeling, perception, choices or consciousness,
and you don’t regard the Tathagata as possessing form, feeling, perception, choices or consciousness,
and you don’t regard the Tathagata as one who is without form, feeling, perception, choices or consciousness
then what is the subject of your sentence? You cannot say anything about it.
I understand where you are coming from, but still: when you cannot say anything about it saying it doesn’t exist still applies in my view, because why cannot you say anything about it? Because it simply isn’t there. Saying you cannot say something about it, is also saying something about it. So either you don’t talk about it entirely or you do and then you can still say it isn’t there when it isn’t there.
Where do we draw the line?
See where the problem is?
You keep saying “it”, what is “it”? You just agreed that you cannot define “it” or “the Tathagata” and yet you say it’s ok to say “IT doesn’t exist after death”?
And then you are a Paccheka Buddha
But the Tathagata is “there” in a way, isn’t he? He’s just deep, immeasurable, and hard to fathom, like the ocean. Difficult to talk about in ordinary words.
That’s why you put all this stuff about existence and non-existence aside and you only talk about suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering and the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.
Yes, I actually agree, to me it would make perfectly sense to use the fourfold negation when speaking about a living Arahant. But after death no one is there, hence he doesn’t exist. (Maybe after death there is still something ineffable, I don’t know, then the fourfold negation would also make sense to me), but when after death everything ceases and there is literally nothing then also an Arahant is not.
I meant that the stream of conciousness is actually one. We just see the waves of sea as separate each time. Which is illusion. But it’s still the same ocean. But getting Enlightenment is not getting rebirth of the craving of becoming a body either form or formless. Which was the wave. But not the ocean. Life is still happening.
I am sorry, I don’t really understand your post, I really tried.
Do you mean I am somehow a person who doesn’t get dhamma and I have to go to another realm? Is that what you mean?
The Buddha said, “Be aware that though the four physical elements all have their own names, even they do not exist. The self is only conventionally exis- tent, and such existence is not permanent. All things are like a mirage.”
From THE SUTRA OF THE FORTY-TWO SECTIONS.
Is traditionally the first Buddhist text translated before 1 CE in China.
In the cultural context these views mean that the self is annihilated at death, etc. The Buddha does not agree that a self is annihilated at death, and so he says it is not his view and also not declared by him.
The view is wrong in the sense that it is based on a false assumption. If the Buddha affirmed it, the listener would draw the wrong conclusion.
