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

[cappuccino]

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self..

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
translated from the Pali by
Ñanamoli Thera

[cappuccino]

Only care needs to be taken to tell people that it doesn't mean the annihilation position.

well it does imply annihilation


since you think Nirvana is to not exist

[DiamondNgXZ]

Only care needs to be taken to tell people that it doesn't mean the annihilation position.

well it does imply annihilation


since you think Nirvana is to not exist

Annihilation means there's a self, but after death, there's no self.

One who has deep seated delusion of self, taking the 5 aggregates or something else as self, not allowing total going beyond self views may very well see no self as annihilationism as there's no more rebirth for an arahant after death.

See MN2: https://suttacentral.net/mn2/en/bodhi?l ... ript=latin

• self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established;

• or the view ‘no self exists for me’ arises in him as true and established;

• or the view ‘I perceive self with self’ arises in him as true and established;

• or the view ‘I perceive not-self with self’ arises in him as true and established;

• or the view ‘I perceive self with not-self’ arises in him as true and established;

• or else he has some such view as this: ‘It is this self of mine that speaks and feels and experiences here and there the result of good and bad actions; but this self of mine is permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and it will endure as long as eternity.’

Notice there's one thing missing in the listing of the 6 above: perceiving no self with no self or not self with not self. That's basically the way to see it.

The explanation is that since there's no self in the first place, there's nothing to annihilate. Only the 5 aggregates which are not self, they arises via dependent origination, they cease forever via dependent cessation, not subject to arising ever again. It's a very subtle thing which cannot be easily internalized or be used easily. Especially if one has the delusion of self pretty strong lurking behind the scene, trying to escape into the middle position between self and no self.

[cappuccino]

Annihilation means there's a self, but after death, there's no self.

self and no self are extremes


the middle way is both and neither

[cappuccino]

you think you know yourself


then unexpectedly you are different


mind is different, body etc.

[asahi]

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.

What trick , Who is making trick ?
You are making alot of assumption on my part . You are being biased . Nobody says anything about self , eternalism or annihilationism .
It just means arahant left the aggregate of virtue , concentration , wisdom , liberation n knowledge to us .

“Why, Ānanda, when Sāriputta attained final Nibbāna, did he take away your aggregate of virtue, or your aggregate of concentration, or your aggregate of wisdom, or your aggregate of liberation, or your aggregate of the knowledge and vision of liberation?”

“No, he did not, venerable sir. But for me the Venerable Sāriputta was an advisor and counsellor, one who instructed, exhorted, inspired, and gladdened me. He was unwearying in teaching the Dhamma; he was helpful to his brothers in the holy life. We recollect the nourishment of Dhamma, the wealth of Dhamma, the help of Dhamma given by the Venerable Sāriputta.”

Cundasutta
SN 47.13

[josaphatbarlaam]

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'?"

there is equivocation on the term "exist." otherwise it would be crazy to exclude "both exists and doesn't exist" and also "neither exists nor doesn't exist" -- in English this sounds absurd because English eschews equivocation. In something originating in English by a native speaker the word "exist" would have to mean the same thing all through the whole sentence, and thus only exist and not exist could be spoken of, never "both exists and doesn't exist" nor "neither exists nor doesn't exist" -- not without further qualification by adjectives not found here. Like "exists here but doesn't exist there" vs "exists there but doesn't exist here." But in Pali they like equivocation and think it sounds deep, so "both exists and doesn't exist" os an allowable statement, but that must be because the meaning of "exist" changes, and without the need of any adjective. Similar to saying that you can't say "there is a self" nor "there is not a self"; in English you have to say one or the other becauae equivocation is not allowed, but Pali allows equivocation so the meaning of self changes so you can say both or rather deny both and it not be considered a logical fallacy by them in Pali although in English it would be the fallacy of equivocation.

[Assaji]

Hi Josaphatbarlaam,

But in Pali they like equivocation and think it sounds deep, so "both exists and doesn't exist" os an allowable statement, but that must be because the meaning of "exist" changes, and without the need of any adjective.

Well, it doesn't change.

he describes him in terms of these four cases: ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death,’ or ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death.’”

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi explains in the footnote:

163 ... The four theses are all rooted in a conception of the Tathāgata as a self. The commentaries explain the first as eternalism, the second as annihilationism, the third as a syncretic view (partial-eternalism), the fourth as evasive scepticism. ...

[Assaji]

Greetings 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 .

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi gives such explanation in a footnote to his translation:

“But, Anurādha, when the Tathāgata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Good, good, Anurādha! Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

165 This oft-quoted dictum can be interpreted at two levels. At the more superficial level the Buddha can be read as saying that he does not make any declaration about such metaphysical questions as an afterlife but teaches only a practical path for reaching the end of suffering here and now. This interpretation, however, does not connect the dictum with the Buddha’s previous statement that the Tathāgata is not apprehended in this very life. To make this connection we have to bring in the second interpretation, according to which the “Tathāgata” is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are “suffering” because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the Tathāgata lives, and just these that cease with his passing away. The context in which the dictum occurs at MN I 140,14-15 also supports this interpretation.

[asahi]

Greetings 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 .

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi gives such explanation in a footnote to his translation:

“But, Anurādha, when the Tathāgata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Good, good, Anurādha! Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

165 This oft-quoted dictum can be interpreted at two levels. At the more superficial level the Buddha can be read as saying that he does not make any declaration about such metaphysical questions as an afterlife but teaches only a practical path for reaching the end of suffering here and now. This interpretation, however, does not connect the dictum with the Buddha’s previous statement that the Tathāgata is not apprehended in this very life. To make this connection we have to bring in the second interpretation, according to which the “Tathāgata” is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are “suffering” because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the Tathāgata lives, and just these that cease with his passing away. The context in which the dictum occurs at MN I 140,14-15 also supports this interpretation.

Hi Assaji ,

The question remains , what is reality according to the Buddha . Tathagata is not a reality ? Only Gotama has this title not other disciples or other religions . Why not just called Himself Gotama so not to mystified it ! All the other ascetics addressed Him as Gotama .

[Ontheway]

Thanks Assaji for posting this.

163 ... The four theses are all rooted in a conception of the Tathāgata as a self. The commentaries explain the first as eternalism, the second as annihilationism, the third as a syncretic view (partial-eternalism), the fourth as evasive scepticism. ...

I always a bit of curious why Buddha said so... Now I understand why.

[Assaji]

Hi Asahi,

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.’

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

You quote Sujato's rendering, which incorporates the interpretation of Nibbāṇa as non-existence. I would recommend using other translations, such as one by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.

One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

[asahi]

You quote Sujato's rendering, which incorporates the interpretation of Nibbāṇa as non-existence. I would recommend using other translations, such as one by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.

One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

Hi again ,

What then is meaning of state of being ?

[Assaji]

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi gives such explanation in a footnote to his translation:

“But, Anurādha, when the Tathāgata is not apprehended by you as real and actual here in this very life, is it fitting for you to declare: ‘Friends, when a Tathāgata is describing a Tathāgata—the highest type of person, the supreme person, the attainer of the supreme attainment—he describes him apart from these four cases: ‘The Tathāgata exists after death,’ or … ‘The Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist after death’?”

“No, venerable sir.”

“Good, good, Anurādha! Formerly, Anurādha, and also now, I make known just suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

165 This oft-quoted dictum can be interpreted at two levels. At the more superficial level the Buddha can be read as saying that he does not make any declaration about such metaphysical questions as an afterlife but teaches only a practical path for reaching the end of suffering here and now. This interpretation, however, does not connect the dictum with the Buddha’s previous statement that the Tathāgata is not apprehended in this very life. To make this connection we have to bring in the second interpretation, according to which the “Tathāgata” is a mere term of conventional usage referring to a compound of impermanent formations, which are “suffering” because they contain no permanent essence. It is just these that stand while the Tathāgata lives, and just these that cease with his passing away. The context in which the dictum occurs at MN I 140,14-15 also supports this interpretation.

Hi Assaji ,

The question remains , what is reality according to the Buddha . Tathagata is not a reality ? Only Gotama has this title not other disciples or other religions . Why not just called Himself Gotama so not to mystified it ! All the other ascetics addressed Him as Gotama .

Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi translates this "as real and actual", without the word "reality", which indeed can be confusing.

This Pali expression, "saccato thetato", means something directly observable. In this sense, the self also can't be found "as real and actual", as explained in the Alagaddupama Sutta (MN 22) in the same expressions.

The "Tathāgata" can't be found like a "being" can't be found.

"Suppose there were a king or king's minister who had never heard the sound of a lute before. He might hear the sound of a lute and say, 'What, my good men, is that sound — so delightful, so tantalizing, so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling?' They would say, 'That, sire, is called a lute, whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' Then he would say, 'Go & fetch me that lute.' They would fetch the lute and say, 'Here, sire, is the lute whose sound is so delightful, so tantalizing, so intoxicating, so ravishing, so enthralling.' He would say, 'Enough of your lute. Fetch me just the sound.' Then they would say, 'This lute, sire, is made of numerous components, a great many components. It's through the activity of numerous components that it sounds: that is, in dependence on the body, the skin, the neck, the frame, the strings, the bridge, and the appropriate human effort. Thus it is that this lute — made of numerous components, a great many components — sounds through the activity of numerous components.'

"Then the king would split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces. Having split the lute into ten pieces, a hundred pieces, he would shave it to splinters. Having shaved it to splinters, he would burn it in a fire. Having burned it in a fire, he would reduce it to ashes. Having reduced it to ashes, he would winnow it before a high wind or let it be washed away by a swift-flowing stream. He would then say, 'A sorry thing, this lute — whatever a lute may be — by which people have been so thoroughly tricked & deceived.'

"In the same way, a monk investigates form, however far form may go. He investigates feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, however far consciousness may go. As he is investigating form... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, however far consciousness may go, any thoughts of 'me' or 'mine' or 'I am' do not occur to him."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[Assaji]

I would recommend using other translations, such as one by Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi:

‘Khīṇā jāti, vusitaṁ brahmacariyaṁ, kataṁ karaṇīyaṁ, nāparaṁ itthattāyā’ti pajānāti.

One understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’

Hi again ,

What then is meaning of state of being ?

"Itthatta" means "such a condition, the present condition or hereness, this (earthly) state, this world, this life."

See details at: https://cpd.uni-koeln.de/search?article_id=14648