Alex123 wrote:The tetralemma was used in reference to state AFTER death of an Arahant mispercieved as a self-existing Being. The tetralemma was rejected because it implied that an Arahant existed as self-existing Being.
As long as you refer to an Arahant as an existing being, or a non-existing being
, you're still trapped within these two viewpoints. This idea do not apply at all. Any mention of this so-called "being," from either sides, is null and void according to a Tathagata.
Why? Because it is:
"[ ... ] a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."
And also this:
"A 'position' [ ... ] is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling [ ... ] such is perception [ ... ] such are mental fabrications [ ... ] such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
Even though you say this:
But the 5 aggregates did exist that were called "The Buddha", and they were conditioned by certain causes such as:
Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect.
You still refer to these five aggregates back from a "being" or the non-existence thereof. You're still trapped in referring from that position of a "being." I think that this idea of a "being" (or a strawman, if I may call it that) is irrelevant in these type of discussion. Any attempt in using this "strawman" as an argument is what causes the entanglement of views... and thus continues the samsara.
When there is existence, view it as existing. And when it ceases, view it as a cessation. When there's a fire, view it as a fire. When it goes out, then see it as extinguished... and go no further. It's as simple as that.