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

[Upasako]

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?””

[Sunyo]

@Upasako

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

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)

@Upasako

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

[josephzizys]

@Sunyo

So the Tathagata is “not found” exactly because “they” don’t exist.

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:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE, the undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas:

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (or both, or neither) The undeclared points in the 4 principle Nikayas. The undeclared points are a number of questions, typically ten, but sometimes as few as two, as at SN44.10, and sometimes as many as 11, as at AN10.95, and often 4, as at SN12.17. This essay focuses on the standard set of ten, and looks at the differing explanations given for the Buddha’s silence in the different suttas. We first see the undeclared points introduced at DN1 and DN2, where they are used to…

‘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.

[Sunyo]

Hey,

@josephzizys

How can you possibly reconcile this idea with:

‘A Realized One doesn’t exist after death’

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.