Why is it wrong to say that an Arahant does not exist after death?

Discussion
26

In response to the OP, I don’t think option a) is even a runner in the context of the suttas.

I have doubts regarding option b) also. It does have a limited amount of direct sutta support, i.e., the adjoining suttas SN22.85 and SN22.86.

From SN22.85:

“Is it really true, Reverend Yamaka, that you have such a 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’?”

“Yes, reverend, that’s how I understand the Buddha’s teaching.”

“What do you think, Yamaka? Is form permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, reverend.”

“Is feeling … perception … choices … consciousness permanent or impermanent?”

“Impermanent, reverend.”

“So you should truly see … Seeing this … They understand: ‘… there is no return to any state of existence.’

What do you think, Reverend Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as form?”

“No, reverend.”

“Do you regard the Realized One as feeling … perception … choices … consciousness?”

“No, reverend.”

“What do you think, Reverend Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as in form?”

“No, reverend.”

“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from form?”

“No, reverend.”

“Do you regard the Realized One as in feeling … or distinct from feeling … as in perception … or distinct from perception … as in choices … or distinct from choices … as in consciousness?”

“No, reverend.”

“Or do you regard the Realized One as distinct from consciousness?”

“No, reverend.”

“What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as possessing form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”

“No, reverend.”

“What do you think, Yamaka? Do you regard the Realized One as one who is without form, feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness?”

“No, reverend.”

“In that case, Reverend Yamaka, since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life, is it appropriate to declare: ‘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.’?”

That does support the option b) fictitiousness of identity explanation for all this. I cannot recall any other suttas that support this explanation so directly (but perhaps there are others :man_shrugging: ). Bhikkhu Bodhi translates some of the key terms there a little differently but with essentially the same sense, i.e., he has “when the Tathagata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life” rather than “since you don’t acknowledge the Realized One as a genuine fact in the present life”.

So I think it is a viable theory with respect to the suttas. However, one issue is that the “genuine fact” part doesn’t seem to be present in the parallels to these two suttas (we have Bhikkhu Analayo translations of their parallels SA104 and SA106 here). I neither understand Pali nor sutta Chinese so am depending completely on the translations here.

@josephzizys gathered many of the suttas that involve this particular fourfold negation (existence/non-existence of an arahant after death) in this thread:

IMO most of the other examples in that thread point in a different direction to the fictitiousness of identity explanation. I personally don’t find option b) in the OP really satisfactory as an explanation of the inapplicability of existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence to an arahant. If that was the explanation, I cannot see why it would not be all over the place in the canon (I don’t buy the argument of it not being said because it would be misunderstood; maybe that might hold in some cases, but the mentioned thread does list suttas with other explanations).

However, I also have no satisfactory alternative explanation myself for the inapplicability of those 4 states if option b) is ruled out.

4 Likes
27

The Yamaka and related suttas appear to make an argument for fictionalism or eliminative reductionism about the personal identity of the arahant.

There are several issues with the argument as given, which as @suaimhneas mentions is an argument rarely made in the EBT’s.

I wont go over the problems, i think ive discussed them elsewhere, but basically the suttas repeatedly say that an arahant would never hold any of the views;

I am real
I am not real
I am both
I am neither

Or any of the views

“I” is real
“I” is not real
“I” is both
“I” is neither

The Yamaka can be read as adopting a stealth version of the second option in either list.

Suffice it to say that there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that this is not a satisfactory stratagy for understanding the buddhist tetralemma in all its contexts.

1 Like
28

Sry to barge in like this but I would like to share what I think…

What I think =>, yes there is ‘sense of self’ which kickstarts the process of becoming…in ultimate reality this sense of self is unreal/not real. For sentient beings(us who suffer beautifullly) it is real but for those who are arhats they know perfectly that this sense of self or ‘I’ is unreal, it cannot be created & cannot be destroyed it arises because of seeing unreal as real. In other words this ‘I’ or ‘sense of self’ cannot be created nor can be destroyed because IT IS NOT EVEN THERE IN REALITY. Birth and death happen only because this ‘I’ is seen as real and process kickstarts. That’s why it is said that it is wrong to say that ‘arhat does not exist after death’.

Now what is difference between death of normal sentient being and death of arhat? For sentient being there is end during death and then for a moment he sees truth of cessation but he cannot stay with it(or be one with it and stay there)[in other words sentient being is attached with ‘I’ so much that he believes he is ‘I’] as he hasn’t lived holy life taught by buddha(hasn’t destroyed fetters)…so he takes birth again to fulfill his craving of existence.
But when arhat dies he is not attached(or he does not identify with) to this ‘I’ who dies during death hence arhat cannot die hence it is called parinibbana (and not death in reality!). But does that mean arhat has self which does not die? Answer is not exactly. Because self has characteristic of birth and death(as we all have) but arhat has broken his attachment to(& identification with) ‘sense of self’ or ‘I’ and lived holy life taught by buddha(destroyed fetters and all bonds) hence he/she can perfectly become one with cessation(of I and aggregates)…in other words arhat has attained control over process of birth and death in reverse sense of control…and because he has destroyed ignorance and craving he is free from birth and death and all kinds of sufferings. That’s why it is said that arhat’s consciousness cannot be seen by mara. If we look for him from the our perspective of existence(to check if he becomes non-existent after parinibbana ) we will see ‘nothing’ and if we look from the sense of non-existence/cessation(only arhats can look from this perspective when they see buddha because only arhats can stay with cessation perfectly and still stay alive)we(arhats) will see ‘everything’(when they look at buddha)(hence we see that somewhere in suttas, one arhat nun when looking at buddha says that he is unfathomable like ocean!) . Hence it is improper to say that arhat after death, ‘exists’ or ‘doesn’t exist’ or ‘both exists & doesn’t exist’ or ‘neither exist nor doesn’t exist’.

Yes exactly. Problem arises when sentient people like us who are not arhats are practicing to be arhat believe that there is sense of self which cannot die! That’s why teaching of anatta helps here. Its like analogy of going to other shore of nibbana from this shore of suffering. In reality we are not on any shore we are actually floating in the ocean of suffering. Shore is nibbana. But to give us direction and for us to travel we need to know that where we are is this shore and nibbana is that shore. Just as this analogy it is said that we have belief in self and we have to break it. In ultimate reality it is more correct to say that identification with self(birth & death) is problem rather than ‘self’ itself which is unreal. Belief in self needs to be destroyed.

PS. - I can be wrong also, I am always open to that possibility because I identify with ‘I’ which is prone to error!:sweat_smile:

1 Like
29

Are there any suttas saying that the liberated mind (vimuttaṁ citta) ceases to exist after parinibbāna? If none, it would probably be theoretically safe to say that the liberated mind still ‘exists’ and is not perceiveable and therefore untraceable even to Mara.

30

I don’t know if suttas say such thing or not(need someone to point this out). But IMO I think chitta=mind also ceases in parinibbana. Because if that’s not the case then person will continue to jump in cyclic existence. Mind is like painter which paints human existence then existence in heavenly realms then again in hell realms again in heavenly realms. I mean to say is that, mind is the cause of going from here n there in cyclic existence. So nibbana must be beyond even mind. When arhat is alive and living and walking, mind must be there…but after parinibbana it must be ceasing definitely. Because even mind is subject to change…hence it also comes in the realm of impermanence and arhat goes out of realm of impermanence when parinibbana is attained so mind must be ceasing in parinibbana. But this may give impression of non-existence of mind after parinibbana. So my logic is, as it takes ignorance for samsara to be, but it takes dhamma to attain nibbana and not to be in samsara, so non-existence of mind would be wrong conclusion so it can be safe to say that arhat becomes free from this mind after attaining parinibbana. (Seems Less room for error this way to me)

I wonder what others more reliable people have to say. Plz someone point out sutta related to this!

31

The teachings only shows one to reach and see the 4NT and not beyond.

On existence and non-existence, perhaps the following SN12.15: it’s transcendent.

'By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence.
.
But when one sees the origination of the world with right discernment as it has come to be, “non-existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world with right discernment as it has come to be, “existence” with reference to the world does not occur to one.
.
‘By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases.
.
But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on “my self.”
He has no uncertainty or doubt that mere stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It’s to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.’

Also considering the unborn as an escape, Ud 8.3:

There is, monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned.

Furthermore on unconditioned, this needs to be comprehended:

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconditioned. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconditioned.”

32

I haven’t had a chance to read the entire thread, so this might already have been mentioned.

Maybe the third and fourth dassanasamāpattidesanā - viññāṇasota (stream of consciousness) established and unestablished as in dn28 helps?

33

I think this is the video mentioned in the very beginning of the opening post:

34

It’s the simple fact that is a question part of duality. Part of manifested. Part of imagination. Part of the born

It’s in Upanishads also.

The ideas, ‘it is’ and ‘it is not’, as regards Reality, are only ideas in the intellect. They do not pertain to the eternal Reality.

Atma Upanishad

35

Hi, skkhadhamma

The liberated mind is referred to within satipatthana as an elevated form of chitta. Another sutta explains the origin and disappearance of each of the foundations of mindfulness: for the body, it is nourishment; for filings - contact; for the mind - name and form; for the dhammas - attention. Thus, this type of citta is just as conditioned (it is a sankkhara), based on the name-form. With the cessation of name and form, this mind ceases. All formed things are impermanent, all formed things are unsatisfactory; only nibbana (their cessation and fading) is peace.

36

Hi and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

CMIIW, but what I understood from this quote, vimuttam-citta is a sankhara. Could you please elaborate more on this?

37

The liberated citta is mentioned as one of the paired states of mind (under the third pillar of mindfulness). It is also said that the citta itself (that is, any of its states listed in more detail in the mahasatipatthana sutta), arises under the condition of the form-name, disappears when the form-name disappears. Everything that has a beginning, change and decay is called sankhara. Sankhkara is also something that requires certain causes and conditions to arise and maintain. All sankharas are impermanent and unsatisfactory. therefore they have no place in the final liberation, in nibbana, which is not sankhara by definition and is free (empty) of all sankhara.

38

Are you thinking of SN4.23 // SN22.87 ? It simply says that after death, the consciousness of the Arahant does not re-establish.

The Blessed One then addressed the bhikkhus thus: “Do you see, bhikkhus, that cloud of smoke, that swirl of darkness, moving to the east, then to the west, to the north, to the south, upwards, downwards, and to the intermediate quarters?”

“Yes, venerable sir.”

“That, bhikkhus, is Mara the Evil One searching for the consciousness of the clansman Godhika, wondering: ‘Where now has the consciousness of the clansman Godhika been established?’ However, bhikkhus, with consciousness unestablished, the clansman Godhika has attained final Nibbāna.”

2 Likes
39

SN 4.23 - I read about it from a book long ago and now there it is the sutta itself. Thank you for this.

Based on that same sutta, I just found out that Mara was actually a yakkha.

Those suttas you mentioned are implying that vinnana will no longer exist after parinibbana. I was wondering about vimuttaṁ-citta instead of vinnana.

Accordance with SN 16.12, in the end I don’t think we’ll find the exact answer for this thread.

Nevertheless, it is still an interesting topic to discuss.

40

The very similar Channasutta has an additional bit which I don’t see in those first two suttas:

…you should regularly apply your mind[1] well to this instruction of the Buddha:

‘For the dependent there is agitation. For the independent there’s no agitation. When there’s no agitation there is tranquility. When there’s tranquility there’s no inclination. When there’s no inclination, there’s no coming and going. When there’s no coming and going, there’s no passing away and reappearing. When there’s no passing away and reappearing, there’s no this world or world beyond or between the two[2]. Just this is the end of suffering.’

Notes:
[1] reminds me of AN5.57, the Pali name of which is literally unpronounceable
[2] added italics as it seems relevant to the OP, at least in my thinking

1 Like
41

I feel that the key here is our misapprehension of the nature of conditioned processes. Conditioned processes such as Vinnana, Citta or Fire for that matter arise and cease. They cannot be said to be truly existing or non existing as that would imply ‘substance’ or ‘essence’ or some ‘thing’ which can be pinned down. A conditioned process arises on the basis of certain underlying conditions, changes every moment as the underlying conditions change, and ceases when those underlying conditions exhaust themselves. It is an emergent phenomena - if we think of it as ‘existing’ or ‘not existing’ we are faced with the conundrum of ‘where did it come from?’ and ‘where does it go to?’. Since a Conditioned process can restart spontaneously if the appropriate conditions reappear, perhaps a better word to use for an inactive process is ‘dormant’… or ‘unestablished’!

1 Like
42

Bhante, I am happy to agree with what you have very clearly stated. I would also like to add the following:
If we say the Tathagata exist after death which Kandha are we refereeing to? As the craving has been completely eradicated, (unlike in other sentient beings), there is no base for the five Kandhas to continue to manifest. Even though the Kandhas are present, (in the present life), they are not subject to the power of seamstress, the Craving.

In MN 22 Alagaddūpama Sutta, Lord Buddha discoursed that Tathagata cannot be found even in the present life. Here is that section:

“…………….When a mendicant’s mind was freed like this, the gods together with Indra, Brahmā, and the Progenitor, search as they may, will not discover: 36.2 ‘This is what the Realized One’s consciousness depends on.’ 36.3 Why is that? 36.4 Because even in the present life the Realized One is not found, I say……… .”

When the Tathagata cannot be found even in the present life, what more of after HIS death?

In another Sutta SN 44:11 Sabhiya Kaccāna Sutta, Venerable Sabhiya Kaccāna discoursed to the wanderer Vacchagotta:

“ 3.14 “In order to describe him as ‘possessing form’ or ‘formless’ or ‘percipient’ or ‘non-percipient’ or ‘neither percipient nor non-percipient’, there must be some cause or reason for doing so. But if that cause and reason were to totally and utterly cease without anything left over, 3.15 how could you describe him in any such terms?””

1 Like
43

Exactly. I’m happy you see this. In Pali “to not find” also means “to not exist”, by the way. What you can’t find, doesn’t exist. For a similar construction see AN 5.167: “If I know that there is no such quality in me, I tell him: ‘It doesn’t exist. This quality isn’t found in me.’” So the Tathagata is “not found” exactly because “they” don’t exist.

See also the Digital Pali Dictionary under vijjati (in MN22 we have anuvijjati, basically means the same):

vijjati: pr. (+dat or +loc) exists (in); is found (in); is present (in)

:+1:

2 Likes
45

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.

2 Likes
46

Hey,

Please see my earlier reply in this topic. A better translation is “A Realized One no longer exists after death” which implies something outside of the aggregates existed before death. This is a perfectly valid translation, and it is how it is explained in the Yamaka Sutta quite clearly.

I don’t see the problem with the other statements either, since they talk about other things. The ten aren’t “a thicket of views” all for the exact same reason.

And on “no longer exists”, it’s quite similar with “nothing else exists”. There is no Pali word for ‘nothing’ actually, so it more literally says “something else no longer exists”, implying that something exists beyond the six senses (like a self) which now ceases to be. This is exactly why it is “proliferating”, because it goes beyond the six senses into something which doesn’t exist. It is just the same tetralemma worded differently.

The commentary agrees that this “something else no longer exists” is a statement on annihilation. It’s clearer in the Pali than English if translated as “nothing else exists”. Anatta isn’t an easy concept to understand, but unfortunately it’s focusing on translations which is in part responsible for some misconceptions.

2 Likes