Not returning to any existence is non existence and Tathagata is supposely something but undeclared

[asahi]

The meaning of , no returning to any state of existence appear to be the same with not exists .

If cannot pin down Tathagata as an reality ,
Why Gotama declared Himself as Tathagata ? That is contradictory .




SN 44.2
Anuradha Sutta

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
.........

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

“No, sir.”

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'?"

[cappuccino]

appear to be the same with not exists .

the end of existence as you know it

[DiamondNgXZ]

The meaning of , no returning to any state of existence appear to be the same with not exists .

If cannot pin down Tathagata as an reality ,
Why Gotama declared Himself as Tathagata ? That is contradictory .




SN 44.2
Anuradha Sutta

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
.........

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

“No, sir.”

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'?"

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/qu ... h/21404/68?

There's a long discussion here.

[SarathW]

It is a good OP question.
However it seems Arahants do not ask questions like that.

[asahi]

The meaning of , no returning to any state of existence appear to be the same with not exists .

If cannot pin down Tathagata as an reality ,
Why Gotama declared Himself as Tathagata ? That is contradictory .




SN 44.2
Anuradha Sutta

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’
.........

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

“No, sir.”

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'?"

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/qu ... h/21404/68?

There's a long discussion here.

I read bhante brahmali explanation . But that is not quite convincing . Actually , Cessation is about the same meaning as no more existing of previous five aggregates . An ordinary person or an arahant are not just a Stream of mental phenomena as brahmali said . Ordinary person has fluxes of defilements while still alive and it doesnt ends after death . Whereas an arahant has five qualities or virtues ie sila samadhi panna liberation & liberation knowledge , so when arahant body disperse , physical substances dissolves into the nature , his 5 virtues are suppose to remain according to sutta .

[DiamondNgXZ]

his 5 virtues are suppose to remain according to sutta .

Which sutta? What 5 virtues? Do you mean aggregates? Or just the 4 mind aggregate?

Which bias are you prone to now? Eternalism?

The trick to questions like this is: you still think there's a person there to be able to describe after the passing away of an arahant. There's no self. So the assumption of a person there is inherently at fault. As long as that delusion of self is there, any thinking about Nibbana can easily fall into annihilationism or eternalism, both of which are rejected by the Buddha. Only dependent origination, and dependent cessation.

[cappuccino]

There's no self.

"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Ananda Sutta

[DiamondNgXZ]

There's no self.

"Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.

Ananda Sutta

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... gies/11836

Not interested to repeat what's been said in the discussion linked. This I think is not the first time I get such a response, so also, not really interested in continuing such lines of inquiry.

[cappuccino]

This I think is not the first time I get such a response, so

not surprised


somewhat surprised you will not adapt

[DiamondNgXZ]

This I think is not the first time I get such a response, so

not surprised


somewhat surprised you will not adapt

Adapt to what? I think not using no self can lead to misunderstanding that there's a self somewhere which makes the question of what happens to arahants after their death a valid question. Of course, for some, thinking of no self can lead to other kinds of misunderstanding such as 5 aggregates doesn't exist, or the self exist now but not after enlightenment or death. So it's a deep issue.

[cappuccino]

Adapt to what?

middle position between extremes of self and no self

[DiamondNgXZ]

Adapt to what?

middle position between extremes of self and no self

I think it's a wrong view to simply use self vs no self as replacement for eternalism vs annihilationism respectively. They don't map one to one.

Both eternalism and annihilationism requires, are based on the concept, delusion of self, whereas dependent origination shows no self is to be found in all phenomenon.

[cappuccino]

no self is to be found in all phenomenon.

all phenomena are not-self

[DiamondNgXZ]

no self is to be found in all phenomenon.

all phenomena are not-self

One who has samadhi see things as they really are. If all phenomenon are not self, then there's no self anywhere to be found at all. Thus there's no self is a valid statement. Only care needs to be taken to tell people that it doesn't mean the annihilation position.

[cappuccino]

Thus there's no self is a valid statement.

no self is a belief


not-self is not


rather it's a way of thinking