Is the result of Parinibbana Annihilation?

[Alex123]

regarding: suttas' rejection of positive, negative, positive-and-negative and neither-positive-nor-negative terms

It is similar to some advanced conceptions of Atta that I've read about. Some people claim that Atta exists, and it is just indefinable and cannot be expressed.

I prefer clear and definite statements that do not have loaded ambiguity in them. "Arahant such and such" is just a convention for 5 aggregates. There is no "Arahant" as an existing Being in/out of the aggregates. The tetralemma is false because it implies that "Arahant" exists in the first place for whom the 4 questions are applied after death. Since in ultimate sense, there is no Arahant, no Atta, it cannot be predicated in the 4 ways after death.

"Arahant" can be said to be indescribable only in the sense that there is no Being to be described.



Regarding cessation:
“The body disintegrated, perception ceased, pain & rapture were entirely consumed, fabrications were stilled: consciousness (Viññāṇaṃ) has come to its end.” – Ud 8.9

Pretty clear description, and without any mystification.


[Sariputta] how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"
[Yamaka] "Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


The metaphors for nibbāna is a flame going out that is simply reckoned as 'out' (nibbuto)

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out (nibbāyeyya), would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out (nibbuto)'?"
"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?'
Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There is no hint of some sort of indescribable state. In fact it is described as "out" nibbuto. The word is similar to nibbāna.

[darvki]

Except that by saying "no Being" you have reified the "Being", saying that there is a "Being" which is not, thereby subscribing to part of the tetralemma.

Subtle, no? This is why practice is superior to logical and philosophical endeavor.

[darvki]

Also, I know the likening of Nibbana to cessation is a clear description. Still, being within the realm of language, it is necessarily subscribing to part of the tetralemma.

Get off the raft.

[Alex123]

Except that by saying "no Being" you have reified the "Being", saying that there is a "Being" which is not, thereby subscribing to part of the tetralemma.

To deny something is not exactly the same as to affirm (atta) what one denies to deny it in the first place.


The tetralemma is asked about the fate AFTER death. The part about after death is crucial.

Also the Buddha did state on a number occasions, in one or the other way that Tathagata can't be "found in truth or reality" even when there are 5 aggregates, just like you can't find flying pink unicorns in "truth or reality".

Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."
"Very good, Anuradha.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[Alex123]

Also, I know the likening of Nibbana to cessation is a clear description. Still, being within the realm of language, it is necessarily subscribing to part of the tetralemma.

Yes, language can be misleading especially when someone has an assumption of an existing Being for whom the question about death is asked.
Language can also be misleading when people take nothing to be something, or ending to be a beginning of something.

Language can positively describe 5 aggregates. But when 5 aggregates cease, language cannot properly describe in positive terms the absence of 5 aggregates.


Parinibbāna is simply the complete and irreversible cessation. To posit anything other than cessation is to try to salvage something in any way (even in indescribable way) to remain in parinibbāna. It is just subtle bhavataṇhā to posit something beyond description and 4 alternatives to remain in parinibbāna.

Nothing "personal" is lost when Parinibbāna occurs as the world is "empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self" SN 35.85 .

The word cessation is used because it means the ending of a process, rather than the death of being that is conceived to exist and for whom the aggregates, etc are said to "belong".

Since the world is "empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self" SN 35.85 - there isn't any self that exists, doesn't exists, both, neither exist nor non-exist after death.

[tiltbillings]

I think tilt and alex would make a great vaudeville act. It reminds me of "whose" on first(base) - no whats on first(base) etc. etc. etc.

Actually, you would be a worthy foil for Alex. Please.

[darvki]

To deny something is not exactly the same as to affirm (atta) what one denies to deny it in the first place.

I disagree.

The tetralemma is asked about the fate AFTER death. The part about after death is crucial.

Also the Buddha did state on a number occasions, in one or the other way that Tathagata can't be "found in truth or reality" even when there are 5 aggregates, just like you can't find flying pink unicorns in "truth or reality".

That second statement contradicts the first.

Parinibbāna is simply the complete and irreversible cessation. To posit anything other than cessation is to try to salvage something in any way (even in indescribable way) to remain in parinibbāna. It is just subtle bhavataṇhā to posit something beyond description and 4 alternatives to remain in parinibbāna.

No one, not Tilt and not I, has posited anything remaining.

Your subscription to the suttas' use of the word "cessation" is not problematic in and of itself. What is worrisome part is that you did not accept Tilt's adherence to the suttas' other descriptions. It puts up a red flag that something is off in your view, that however in line with some of the suttas it is, it is one-sided.

[tiltbillings]

When people unknowingly implied existence of a Being, and asked the Buddha "does Arahant exist/not-exist, both, neither exist nor non-exist after death" , the reason the Buddha declined to answer was because the question implied a Being that like the "flying pink unicorn" does not exist for the 4 options to be applied.

Of course, it not a question of being vs not-being (even though you continually try to frame it that way with your consciousness quotes). The Buddha stated:

Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. This is not a question of anything existing or not existing after death. Basically, you are trying to tell us that you, of all people, comprehend the Buddha.

[Alex123]

Hello Tilt,

Thank you for your post.

Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118. This is not a question of anything existing or not existing after death. Basically, you are trying to tell us that you, of all people, comprehend the Buddha.

Whose translation is that?
We need to check various translations.

For example Ven. Thanissaro uses "when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life" , it doesn't mean that Tathagata exists in some indescribable way. That is why the tetralemma applied to AFTER death state is even more incorrect to answer. What doesn't exist cannot be predicated as "is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not" . Just because something is not found, it doesn't mean that it exists somewhere else.
Negative should not be taken as positive affirmation of that which you deny.


"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty." - SN 35.85
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html


So there is no Self that can die or lose anything when parinibbāna occurs.

[Sariputta] how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"
[Yamaka] "Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

And neither is there a description of any state, even indescribable, remaining.

[Alex123]

No one, not Tilt and not I, has posited anything remaining.

Thank you for stating that. If that is what you and Tilt have meant, I am sorry for misinterpreting all the Tilt's sentences such as:

There is no way to measure the nibbaized individual, dead or alive.
There is no measurement possible while alive or dead of the "individuall."
The individual, alive or dead, is beyond measure, trackless.
Others can make up their mind as the nature of the trackless arahant before and after death.

What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless. Remains, does not remain, both remains and does not remain, and neither remains nor does not remain do not apply.


If prefer exact and clear statements without ambiguity. Some believe in Atta, and survival after parinibbana. So I had to check. Hopefully this is not the case here.

[tiltbillings]

For example Ven. Thanissaro uses "when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life" , it doesn't mean that Tathagata exists in some indescribable way.

And you are still locked into a being/non-being mode of thinking about all this.

Do you regard form, . . . feeling, . . . perception, . . . fabrication, . . . consciousness as the Tathagata?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think, Anuradha: Do you regard the Tathagata as being in form?... Elsewhere than form?... In feeling?... Elsewhere than feeling?... In perception?... Elsewhere than perception?... In fabrications?... Elsewhere than fabrications?... In consciousness?... Elsewhere than consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"

"No, lord."

"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." -- SN III 118

The problem is, Alex, you are still trying to define the tathagata in terms of the aggregates, particularly consciousness, and as the text clearly says, the tathagata is incomprehensible in those terms.

[acinteyyo]

For example Ven. Thanissaro uses "when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life" , it doesn't mean that Tathagata exists in some indescribable way. That is why the tetralemma applied to AFTER death state is even more incorrect to answer. What doesn't exist cannot be predicated as "is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not" . Just because something is not found, it doesn't mean that it exists somewhere else.

Hi Alex123,

now this is quite interesting. It seems to me you're acknowledging only one part of the issue while ignoring the other.
You're right that "when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life", it doesn't mean that Tathagata exists in some indescribable way. BUT it ALSO doesn't mean that Tathagata does not exist in some indescribable way! It is just indescribable and every attempt to describe what is indescribable is futile. As well as just because something is not found, it doesn't mean that it exists somewhere else. BUT it ALSO doesn't mean that it doesn't exist somewhere else! Existence or non-existence simply do not apply. To take up any position about it is going for extremes. The Buddha taught the Dhamma via the middle.

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

I guess that's why Tilt answered your questions the way he did. He's not trying to describe what is indescribable.

What is clear is that there is no way to measure what is trackless.

best wishes, acinteyyo

[Alex123]

Hello Acinteyyo,

now this is quite interesting. It seems to me you're acknowledging only one part of the issue while ignoring the other.
You're right that "when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life", it doesn't mean that Tathagata exists in some indescribable way. BUT it ALSO doesn't mean that Tathagata does not exist in some indescribable way!

This is my understanding. Word "Arahant, Buddha, Tathagata, person, etc" is a linguistic label that we put on 5 aggregates which do exist. It is just like the chariot simile. Word "chariot" is used toward a certain set of material objects arranged in such and such a way. Chariot doesn't exist outside of the certain parts, and neither is chariot reducible to any one part. So what happens to "chariot" after its parts are destroyed, is wrongly put question if one believes the "chariot" to ultimately exist somewhere/somehow. When the fire is burning in front of you, you can say that point where fire is burning. But when it is extinguished, you cannot say where fire has gone. It is simply "out" nibbuto. Same with parinibbāna.

With metta,

Alex

[tiltbillings]

. . . 5 aggregates which do exist.

They do?

It is just like the chariot simile. Word "chariot" is used toward a certain set of material objects arranged in such and such a way. Chariot doesn't exist outside of the certain parts, and neither is chariot reducible to any one part. So what happens to "chariot" after its parts are destroyed, is wrongly put question if one believes the "chariot" to ultimately exist somewhere/somehow. When the fire is burning in front of you, you can say that point where fire is burning. But when it is extinguished, you cannot say where fire has gone. It is simply "out" nibbuto. Same with parinibbāna.

And here you make it clear that you are defining the arahant/bodhi in terms of the khandhas, which for you exist.

[Alex123]

. . . 5 aggregates which do exist.

They do?

5 Aggregates do exist.

Ex:

“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling that is impermanent … Perception … Volitional constructions … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I
too say that it exists. “That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.
SN22.94 (2) Flowers BB Translation

And here you make it clear that you are defining the arahant/bodhi in terms of the khandhas, which for you exist.

We need to differentiate between concept and what exists. Arahant, person, etc. is a concept. 5 Khandhas is the reality.

Ultimately speaking, Arahant, Self, Person, Car, doesn't exist. So there is no defining of one existent by means of another existents.


With metta,

Alex

[rowyourboat]

Hopefully the following will shed some light, rather than add to standoffs in view.

This whole thing about not being able to pin point the Thathagatha:

Imagine someone made a cardboard cut-out of you and stuck it on the ground. Then he sets it on fire and burns it until there isn't even the ashes left.. the questions is- 'did he kill you'? (or if you did it, 'did I commit suicide'?). Clearly not.

Now when we assume things exist in a very solid sense (and have not another 'dimensional' shift/method of explaining/view of the universe, like the one which we arrive at after doing vipassana.. properly), we can only think in terms of the real person being set on fire.

Committing suicide, or seeking refuge in the 'unknowable' is the only option.

However if we realize that there is no real, solid person here, just the cardboard cut-out of the aggregates (ie no self, no substance) then destroying THAT is not such a big deal- nothing to defend against.

But now I've seen the Blessed One!
This is my last compounded form. (she sounds quite happy!)
The on-flowing of birth has expired.
There's no more re-becoming now.

See the gathering of followers:
Putting forth effort, self controlled,
Always with strong resolution
—This is how to honor the Buddhas!

Surely for the good of so many
Did Maya give birth to Gotama,
Who bursts asunder the mass of pain
Of those stricken by sickness and death.

with metta

Matheesha

[tiltbillings]

. . .

The five khandhas "exist" as designations, as ways of talking about what is experienced, but in that there is no existant thing. If there were khandhas that truly exist, then sabbe dhamma anatta would be false.

Your attempt at defining the arahant in terms of the khandhas - as in the cessation of consciousness - is fallacious.

[Alex123]

If there were khandhas that truly exist, then sabbe dhamma anatta would be false.

They exist as Anicca, Dukkha, and anatta.
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling that is impermanent … Perception … Volitional constructions … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I
too say that it exists. “That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.
SN22.94 (2) Flowers BB Translation

Your attempt at defining the arahant in terms of the khandhas - as in the cessation of consciousness - is fallacious.

I don't define an Arahant as existing in terms of khandhas.

I think my first post in this thread said it quite clearly:

The suttas clearly state that :

1.Arahant/Tathagata is not found inside or outside of 5 aggregates. SN 22.85-86

2.Self or what belongs to self is not found in truth or reality. MN22
...
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1039&start=40#p121593

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Alex,

They exist as Anicca, Dukkha, and anatta.
“And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling that is impermanent … Perception … Volitional constructions … Consciousness that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I
too say that it exists. “That, bhikkhus, is what the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists.
SN22.94 (2) Flowers BB Translation

Bhikkhu Bodhi is translating there according to his ontological beliefs (as is obvious when you look at his comments on this sutta vis-a-vis SN 12.15).

Therefore it always serves to look up multiple translations. Here's one, for example, that doesn't even once mention the word "exist".

http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pit ... ggo-e.html

If you want to demonstrate that the sutta really says "exist" (since it's this word that is seemingly the thrust of your argument), tell us where, in the Pali....

94.
581Sāvatthinidānaṃ. “Nāhaṃ, bhikkhave, lokena vivadāmi, lokova mayā vivadati. Na, bhikkhave, dhammavādī kenaci lokasmiṃ vivadati. Yaṃ, bhikkhave, natthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, ahampi taṃ ‘natthī’ti vadāmi. Yaṃ, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi.
582Kiñca, bhikkhave, natthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, yamahaṃ ‘natthī’ti vadāmi? Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, niccaṃ dhuvaṃ sassataṃ avipariṇāmadhammaṃ natthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘natthī’ti vadāmi. Vedanā… saññā… saṅkhārā… viññāṇaṃ niccaṃ dhuvaṃ sassataṃ avipariṇāmadhammaṃ natthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘natthī’ti vadāmi. Idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, natthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘natthī’ti vadāmi.
583Kiñca, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ, yamahaṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi? Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, aniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi. Vedanā aniccā…pe… viññāṇaṃ aniccaṃ dukkhaṃ vipariṇāmadhammaṃ atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi. Idaṃ kho, bhikkhave, atthisammataṃ loke paṇḍitānaṃ; ahampi taṃ ‘atthī’ti vadāmi.
584Atthi, bhikkhave, loke lokadhammo, taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti; abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā taṃ ācikkhati deseti paññapeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
585Kiñca, bhikkhave, loke lokadhammo, taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti, abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññapeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti? Rūpaṃ, bhikkhave, loke lokadhammo taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññapeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
586Yo, bhikkhave, tathāgatena evaṃ ācikkhiyamāne desiyamāne paññapiyamāne paṭṭhapiyamāne vivariyamāne vibhajiyamāne uttānīkariyamāne na jānāti na passati tamahaṃ, bhikkhave, bālaṃ puthujjanaṃ andhaṃ acakkhukaṃ ajānantaṃ apassantaṃ kinti karomi. Vedanā, bhikkhave, loke lokadhammo…pe… saññā, bhikkhave… saṅkhārā, bhikkhave… viññāṇaṃ, bhikkhave, loke lokadhammo taṃ tathāgato abhisambujjhati abhisameti. Abhisambujjhitvā abhisametvā ācikkhati deseti paññapeti paṭṭhapeti vivarati vibhajati uttānīkaroti.
587Yo, bhikkhave, tathāgatena evaṃ ācikkhiyamāne desiyamāne paññapiyamāne paṭṭhapiyamāne vivariyamāne vibhajiyamāne uttānīkariyamāne na jānāti na passati tamahaṃ, bhikkhave, bālaṃ puthujjanaṃ andhaṃ acakkhukaṃ ajānantaṃ apassantaṃ kinti karomi.
588Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, uppalaṃ vā padumaṃ vā puṇḍarīkaṃ vā udake jātaṃ udake saṃvaḍḍhaṃ udakā accuggamma ṭhāti anupalittaṃ udakena; evameva kho, bhikkhave, tathāgato loke jāto loke saṃvaḍḍho lokaṃ abhibhuyya viharati anupalitto lokenā”ti.
589Dutiyaṃ.

http://studies.worldtipitaka.org/tipita ... .5/1.2.5.2

It you take "it exists" as an ontological proposition, you're left afterwards with the resultant "it doesn't exist"... and whatever that "it" was, "it" was annihilated. It's not a road I'd want to go down...

Metta,
Retro.

[Kenshou]

Well there is the world "atthi" ("it is" etc.), but I don't think we need to read notions of Existence with a capital E into that.