How can you possibly reconcile this idea with:
‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death’
Which is one of the ten views of which it is said:
“Each of these ten convictions is the thicket of views, the desert of views, the trick of views, the evasiveness of views, the fetter of views. They’re beset with anguish, distress, and fever. They don’t lead to disillusionment, dispassion, cessation, peace, insight, awakening, and extinguishment.”
And please dont trot out the unworkable retort that it is because the Buddha didnt exist before death, it doesnt work with the other examples, like the next world, the scope of the cosmos, the relation between action amd comsequence, and a bunch more lited here:
‘They’re reborn’, ‘they’re not reborn’, ‘they’re both reborn and not reborn’, ‘they’re neither reborn nor not reborn’—none of these apply.
The most crucial example.imo is the mind/body problem:
the soul and the body are the same thing, or they are different things;
This falls under the tetralemmic undeclared points as well, and again, is NOT resolved by declarimg that one or both of the terms dont exist.
And just finally:
“If you say that, ‘When the six fields of contact have faded away and ceased with nothing left over, something else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
“‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā atthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.
If you say that ‘nothing else exists’, you’re proliferating the unproliferated.
‘Channaṁ, āvuso, phassāyatanānaṁ asesavirāganirodhā natthaññaṁ kiñcī’ti, iti vadaṁ appapañcaṁ papañceti.