Survival of the Arhat: mixing ultimate and conventional.

[Sacha G]

Hi
The question "Does the arhat survive after death" seems at first a legitimate question. The Buddha, as many may know, didn't anwer simply yes or no but pointed to the fact that the arhat is not even found in the present, so how could he survived or be annihilated. Ultimately that is true.
BUT
If now I say: "will you come to my dinner tomorrow?" and you would answer "since I'm not found even in the present, how could I come to your dinner", you would understand that I'm not very satisfied.
In the same way, the arhat is annihilated after death, when one speaks according to the convention of the world seems a good way of saying. In the same way that you say "he left the room", meaning "the five aggregates of X left the room", you might say "the arhat got annihilated at death" meaning "the 5 aggregates were annihilated" (apart from form, which stays some time, I agree).
I kind of feel there's a mixing of plans (ultimate and conventional) which troubles me.
Of course the Buddha had specific reasons to answer as he did, but to me, it is less clear than generally agreed.
Hope this was not too confused.
So what do you think?

[nathan]

So what do you think?

If your simply soliciting opinion then I would reply that this type of question and all similar questions such as, 'could a Buddha be Swedish', etc. are properly viewed in light of the Buddha's arrow metaphor wherein someone struck by an arrow refuses to have it pulled out before first ascertaining what sort of arrow it is, where it was made, what it was made from, who sent it and so on. To be honest, any truly satisfactory potential answers to such questions, even this one specifically, can only be had by realizing the fruit of arahatta for oneself, in the interim the best practice is to set these kinds of concerns aside.

[rowyourboat]

Imagine you have moved to a country where a certain drink is highly valued, but you know it to be a deadly poison. If you denounce it outright, you will only get rejection for your efforts. It will only work if you approach the matter softly.. The Buddha cared only to end your suffering.. despite your best efforts to evade him

[clw_uk]

So what do you think?

If your simply soliciting opinion then I would reply that this type of question and all similar questions such as, 'could a Buddha be Swedish', etc. are properly viewed in light of the Buddha's arrow metaphor wherein someone struck by an arrow refuses to have it pulled out before first ascertaining what sort of arrow it is, where it was made, what it was made from, who sent it and so on. To be honest, any truly satisfactory potential answers to such questions, even this one specifically, can only be had by realizing the fruit of arahatta for oneself, in the interim the best practice is to set these kinds of concerns aside.

What he said

[Uilium]

Hi
The question "Does the arhat survive after death" seems at first a legitimate question. The Buddha, as many may know, didn't anwer simply yes or no but pointed to the fact that the arhat is not even found in the present, so how could he survived or be annihilated. Ultimately that is true.
BUT
If now I say: "will you come to my dinner tomorrow?" and you would answer "since I'm not found even in the present, how could I come to your dinner", you would understand that I'm not very satisfied.
In the same way, the arhat is annihilated after death, when one speaks according to the convention of the world seems a good way of saying. In the same way that you say "he left the room", meaning "the five aggregates of X left the room", you might say "the arhat got annihilated at death" meaning "the 5 aggregates were annihilated" (apart from form, which stays some time, I agree).
I kind of feel there's a mixing of plans (ultimate and conventional) which troubles me.
Of course the Buddha had specific reasons to answer as he did, but to me, it is less clear than generally agreed.
Hope this was not too confused.
So what do you think?

The Buddha is trying to get students to think as a mediator would experience ultimate reality... I think. It seems lots of meditation teachers will say something that is a mix of ultimate and conventional truth like, "it is what it is". Beginners will say what do you mean it is what it is? of course it is what it is! Hopefully if the teacher is good s/he would explain what they mean so as not to drive students away. I cant come over tommorow cuz I have no self so how can I come over? I never thought that people would ever speak to each other with the perspective of ultimate reality, I always thought of ultimate reality as more of a utility to see the truth that way I can accept anything

[DAWN]

An Arahant will survive after his death, if his ego will survive before his death
But if his ego still here when he die, why he's called an Arahant?

[reflection]

From a 'conventional' point of view, the arahant is annihilated, but in reality the five aggregates are cessated. Cessation isn't the same as annihilation, because, just like 'the arahant', the five aggregates are not solid things, they are processes.

At Savatthi. Then the Venerable Ananda approached the Blessed One,
paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said to him: "Venerable sir,
it is said, 'cessation, cessation.' Through the cessation of what things is
cessation spoken of?" "Form, etc, consciousness, Ananda, is impermanent,
conditioned, dependently arisen, subject to destruction, to vanishing, to
fading away, to cessation. Through its cessation, cessation is spoken of.

I think this is actually a very good question, because we should know what we are practicing for. And we should know where the arrow is located before we can pull it out.

[DAWN]

Completely ! Just some anatta processes

[pegembara]

Is the one born the same as that which dies?


Mara:

By whom was this living being created?
Where is the living being's maker?
Where has the living being originated?
Where does the living being
cease?

Sister Vajira:

What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.


Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.

For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress.