What goes on after death?

[sundara]

i dont understand why they say that self is not permanant but yet what we are goes on forever i dont get that?

[Individual]

i dont understand why they say that self is not permanant but yet what we are goes on forever i dont get that?

No, self is not simply impermanent. Everything is not self. There is nothing actuall identified by "self" that could even be called permanent or impermanent. But what is called self is impermanent, and even death too is impermanent, as consciousness re-arises in accordance with kamma. It's tough to say what exactly this is like or how it works. I'm really not sure if we could even wrap our minds around it even if there was an attempt to explain by somehow who knew.

[Ontheway]

I know this is a very old topic but it is quite interesting...

According to Orthodox Theravada teachings as preserved in Pāli Tipitaka, there is nothing from five aggregates "going on" and nothing to be annihilated during or after the event of death.

If one admits that there is "something" move on from this life to another (Eg: The case of Sati the son of fisherman in Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta), then he/she admitted Eternalism.

On the contrary, if one admits that the death is simply the end, annihilation of life, vanished: we just live once, and everything will be annihilated once we are dead; then he/she admitted Annihilationism. Eg: Ajita Kesakambalī's teachings.

Both these views rooted in wrong view aka Sakkaya-Ditthi (the belief of Self aka Atta).

- The first tenet admitted this belief directly, hence the expression of "atthattā".
- The second tenet also admitted this belief through active denial of it, hence the expression of "natthattā".

This wrong view of Sakkaya-Ditthi, gives rise to two main branches of wrong views: Eternalism and Annihilationism. These two wrong views, in turn give rise to 62 types of wrong views as taught in Brahmajala Sutta.

- The Buddha taught that there is rebirth. Since there is rebirth, the second tenet is rejected.

- The Buddha also taught there is nothing from the Five Aggregates to be regarded as "Atta" and nothing to be transmigrated into next life, hence the first tenet also rejected.

The Buddha taught that a so-called "being" is merely a combination of five aggregates, namely Materiality, Feeling, Perception, Mental formations, Consciousness. Or it can be categorised into two main categories: Nāma (mental aspects: Feeling, Perception, Mental formations, and Consciousness) & Rupa (materiality: Four Major Elements together with the derived materialities). And this "being" (be it a human, an animal, a spirit, a god, a Brahma, etc.) is just a label for conventional use. For in reality, the "being" is nothing but just a combination of Five Aggregates affected by Clinging.

Penetrated this knowledge, Arahant Vajirā Theri uttered this concise Dhamma verse to banish Mara Devaputta as recorded in Vajirā Sutta:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

And further, as showed in Kathavathu:

Theravādin: Is “the person” known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact?

Puggalavādin: Yes.

Theravādin: Is the "person" known in the same way as a real and ultimate fact is known?

Puggalavādin: Nay, that cannot truly be said.

Theravādin: Acknowledge your refutation:

If the "person" be known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, then indeed, good sir, you should also say, the "person" is known in the same way as any other real and ultimate fact is known.

That which you say here is wrong, namely, (1) that we ought to say, “the "person" is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact”, but (2) we ought not to say, the "person" is known in the same way as any other real and ultimate fact is known.

If the latter statement (2) cannot be admitted, then indeed the former statement (1) should not be admitted.
In affirming the former statement (1), while
denying the latter (2), you are wrong.

The answer for how rebirth occurs should be given thus: "By means of Paṭiccasamuppāda, the Samsara can be understood."

It is precisely by the understanding of the Paṭiccasamuppāda (at least at the level of Pariyatti) that rebirth phenomenon can be discerned. The crucial link regarding rebirth phenomenon is "Viññāṇa paccaya Nāmarupa".

From Sutta Pitaka,

In Paṭhamabhavasutta, from the simile of seed, we understand that Viññāṇa is the crucial factor that bring forth life development in mother's womb (in case of earth realm).

“Iti kho, ānanda, kammaṁ khettaṁ, viññāṇaṁ bījaṁ, taṇhā sneho.

Avijjānīvaraṇānaṁ sattānaṁ taṇhāsaṁyojanānaṁ hīnāya dhātuyā viññāṇaṁ patiṭṭhitaṁ evaṁ āyatiṁ punabbhavābhinibbatti hoti.

In Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta, it was taught by the Buddha that three factors will need to be present for rebirth to happen:

"Monks, the descent of the embryo occurs with the union of three things. There is the case where there is no union of the mother & father, the mother is not in her season, and a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. There is the case where there is a union of the mother & father, and the mother is in her season, but a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. But when there is a union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present, then with this union of three things the descent of the embryo occurs.

Again, in Mahānidāna Sutta, the Buddha taught:

Mentality-Materiality
“It was said: ‘With consciousness as condition there is mentality-materiality.’

How that is so, Ānanda, should be understood in this way: If consciousness were not to descend into the mother’s womb, would mentality-materiality take shape in the womb?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If, after descending into the womb, consciousness were to depart, would mentality-materiality be generated into this present state of being?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“If the consciousness of a young boy or girl were to be cut off, would mentality-materiality grow up, develop, and reach maturity?”

“Certainly not, venerable sir.”

“Therefore, Ānanda, this is the cause, source, origin, and condition for mentality-materiality, namely, consciousness.

From these Suttas, we know that it is presence of consciousness that bring forth birth. Hence the term "rebirth consciousness" in English.

But is this "consciousness" came from the past life (bring over here from the past life)? No. That would be siding with Eternalism.

But could this "consciousness" arises out of nowhere, in the present life?
No. That would be siding with "Annihilationism".

It should be understood that such phenomenon occurs by means of "Conditionality" as explained in Paṭṭhāna Mahāpakarana of Abhidhamma Pitaka, which rejected both extreme views.

From Abhidhamma Pitaka,

Now in Abhidhamma bhajaniya method, "Patisandhi citta" is known as "rebirth linking consciousness". And this "rebirth linking consciousness" is a resultant consciousness produced by either wholesome or unwholesome consciousness (dependent on which faculty) that generated by the bodily actions, verbal actions, and mental actions through the sense doors (eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind), and it is conditioned by the ceasing of "Cuti citta" (death consciousness) in immediate previous life. The brief explanation is this:

In Abhidhamma or in the teachings of the Buddha there is no transferring of anything from one life to the other life.
Now the Patisandhi Citta arises and it arises as a result of Kamma in the past. It is not something carried over to the next life. That is what Abhidhamma teaches. So there are similes to explain this — the simile of an echo, the simile of a lamp, the simile of a seal. That means Patisandhi Citta arises not without a cause. Patisandhi Citta is not the cause; it is the result of the cause. When you shout into a cave, then the echo comes back. The echo is not your voice, but without your voice there can be no echo. In the same way, Patisandhi does not belong to the past lives, but it comes into being because of something in the past.

It is like an oil lamp. You light your lamp from another oil lamp. Your flame is not the same as the other one. That flame does not come into being, however, without the flame of the old lamp.

There is also the simile of the seal. When you put the seal on the paper, the impression of the seal is there. That impression transfers to the paper. Without that seal there can be no impression. So in the same way, what arises in the new life is not totally disconnected from something in the past life.

Not anything of the past lives is carried over to the next life.

That is how we explain this. Whatever arises at the moment of Patisandhi according to this teaching is the result of Kamma in the past — not something taken over to a new life. But there is a kind of continuity going on. So in conventional terms we say a person is reborn. For example, we say a Bodhisatta is reborn as a king. The Bodhisatta may be reborn as a human being, as a Deva or as an animal. Nothing in the past life is taken over to the next life. Something in the past life causes something to arise in the new life. Since it is the result of the cause, it may possess some of the qualities of the cause — not that the qualities are taken over to or transferred to the next life. They are themselves the results.

It is like when you grow a mango tree, you get mango fruit. In the same way, the result in the next life is similar to the causes in the past lives. This is how we should understand this life and the next life.

- Venerable Sayādaw U Sīlānanda, Handbook of Abhidhamma Studies

However, the full exposition should be sought in Abhidhamma Pitaka and brief explanation in Visuddhimagga. The text above is merely short introduction.

Now, the "Viññāṇa" term in Paṭiccasamuppāda, the "Bija" in Paṭhamabhavasutta, the "Gandhabba" in Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta, and the 'Patisandhi Citta' in Abhidhamma bhajaniya method, should be regarded as the same, not distinct. Why they are different in terminology? For the sake of teaching, conveying meaning, the convenience of verbal expression. Consciousness rises and ceases, one by one, one ceases then another arises, moment by moment, without interspace, without the notion of "permanent Self" or "Essence" whatsoever.

Hence it was said by Arahant Sariputta Thera in Sampasadaniya Sutta:

...And going further, he reviews bones covered with skin, flesh and blood, and he knows the unbroken stream of consciousness as established in this world and established in the next.
This is the third attainment of vision.

By this knowledge, neither siding with Eternalism nor Annihilationism, the Buddha taught Anattā. Materiality, Feeling, Perception, Mental formations and Consciousness were all dependent arisen and will cease accordingly by means of conditionality. None of these aggregates can be regarded as "Self", since none of them standalone, and nothing to be transmigrated or be annihilated.

As the question posed: What goes on after death?"

None of the aggregates goes on after death, yet the death is not the end. As long as we don't abandon "Avijja" and "Tanha", we cannot break free from Paṭiccasamuppāda. This so-called "we" will be subjected to birth (arising of Five Aggregates) and death (ceasing of Five Aggregates), and then repeat the cycle, nonstop, again and again, within the 31 planes of existence, as conditioned by Kamma.

Milk gives rise to cheese.
But cheese is not milk.
Yet, it is from milk comes cheese.

Similarly,

Mrs A reborn to become a Deva.
But the Deva is not Mrs A.
Yet, it is from Mrs A there comes the Deva now.

Hence, Arahant Nagasena Thera said:

Na ca so na ca añño.

Neither siding with Eternalism nor Annihilationism, rebirth is to be understood in this way. Knowing this phenomenon, there is a way to practice as we see in scriptures, to abandon "Avijja" and "Tanha". And this is where we will go for N8FPs.

[cappuccino]

why they say that self is not permanent but yet

staying the same would be an identity

[SarathW]

i dont understand why they say that self is not permanant but yet what we are goes on forever i dont get that?

This is a good question and I don't know the answer.

I don't think many do not know except they come up with various views.
Having said the best I can think is the fire simile,
"Campfire becomes a grass fire, grass fire becomes a bush fire, bush fire becomes a house fire" so on. So the consciousness appears to be continuing with depending on different fuels.
"It is like lighting a candle with another lited candle"
"it is like remembering a poem"
"It is like copying CD to another CD"
"if the fire is based on wood we call it wood fire, if the fire is based on petrol we will call it petro fire etc' so depend on what consciousness sustained we name it as such.
See the Newton cradle. See how the kinetic energy moves via balls and pushes a completely new ball. Perhaps the consciousness travels like that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... e%20upward.

It is not you but the fire you created continues as far as some on extinguish. You are a result of the fire someone created as your own. Only you can extinguish it or let it continue by adding more fuel into it.

[SteRo]

i dont understand why they say that self is not permanant but yet what we are goes on forever i dont get that?

This qualifies to be an intellectual issue for a whole life because all explanations "they" provide are inconsistent considering "their" doctrine as a whole.

[pegembara]

The question is not valid and cannot be addressed directly. It presumes that there is a "what" or "who".

"Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second; intellectual intention the third; and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.

When this was said, Ven.-Moliya-Phagguna said to the Blessed One, "Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feeds.' If I were to say 'feeds,' then 'Who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'Consciousness-nutriment for what?' And the valid answer is, 'Consciousness-nutriment for the production of future coming-into-being. When that has come into being and exists, then the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.'"

"Lord, who clings?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'clings.' If I were to say 'clings,' then 'Who clings?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging 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.[1]

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

[Ontheway]

https://youtube.com/shorts/a9sJ8pRunUc?feature=share

Death is something we should spend some time to think and understand ...

[auto]

The Buddha taught that a so-called "being" is merely a combination of five aggregates, namely Materiality, Feeling, Perception, Mental formations, Consciousness. Or it can be categorised into two main categories: Nāma (mental aspects: Feeling, Perception, Mental formations, and Consciousness) & Rupa (materiality: Four Major Elements together with the derived materialities). And this "being" (be it a human, an animal, a spirit, a god, a Brahma, etc.) is just a label for conventional use. For in reality, the "being" is nothing but just a combination of Five Aggregates affected by Clinging.

sammuti, conventional agreement based on what deeds one does. It's how worldly things get their names, formed over time, it is also how you get to know if someone's good or not.
It is used to reject the idea of being a brahmins by birth.

For name and clan are formulated
Samaññā hesā lokasmiṁ,
as mere convention in the world.
nāmagottaṁ pakappitaṁ;
Produced by mutual agreement,
Sammuccā samudāgataṁ,
they’re formulated for each individual.
tattha tattha pakappitaṁ.

You are the heir to your deeds.

You’re a farmer by your deeds,
Kassako kammunā hoti,
by deeds you’re a professional;
sippiko hoti kammunā;
you’re a trader by your deeds,
Vāṇijo kammunā hoti,
by deeds are you an employee;
pessako hoti kammunā.

Based on the above, you actually need to do something in order to have the aggregates present or produced, so that there would be a being to be found and could be spoken off.
In this case the Vaijra were meditating(concentration) and thus no aggregates were present(besides old aggregates).

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

i think assuming a being is synonymous to arousing fear, trepidation and terror.

Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."

[auto]

I know this is a very old topic but it is quite interesting...

According to Orthodox Theravada teachings as preserved in Pāli Tipitaka, there is nothing from five aggregates "going on" and nothing to be annihilated during or after the event of death.

If one admits that there is "something" move on from this life to another (Eg: The case of Sati the son of fisherman in Mahātaṇhāsaṅkhaya Sutta), then he/she admitted Eternalism.

what Sati says is this,

‘As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, it is this very same consciousness that roams and transmigrates, not another’?”
‘tathāhaṁ bhagavatā dhammaṁ desitaṁ ājānāmi yathā tadevidaṁ viññāṇaṁ sandhāvati saṁsarati, anaññan’”ti?

abhidhamma says clearly that consciousness ceases and adds that death is not complete annihilation of a being.

..
By death is meant the extinction of psychic
life (jãvitindriya), heat (usma = tejodhàtu), and consciousness
(vi¤¤àõa) of one individual in a particular existence.
Death is not the complete annihilation of a being. Death in
one place means the birth in another place, just as, in conventional
terms, the rising of the sun in one place means
the setting of the sun in another place.

you claim that the being is 5 aggregates and the "being" there is just a convention.

[SteRo]

i dont understand why they say that self is not permanant but yet what we are goes on forever i dont get that?

This qualifies to be an intellectual issue for a whole life because all explanations "they" provide are inconsistent considering "their" doctrine as a whole.

Having said that there is scientific evidence for "what we are" (see biology/physiology, psychology, neuroscience) and there is scientific evidence that the material basis of "what we are" "goes on after death" after desintegration into its atomic and molecular components and might even become the material basis of new organisms.