But does that include discussion about the nature of the goal?SarathW wrote:Hi Aloka
I think Papanka means perplex thinking and discussions which are not relevant to the goal.
What happenes to an Arahant after death?
-
- Posts: 10157
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
Yes if we getting to a never ending discussion.
The goal has to be realised by practice but not by hair splitting arguments and reading millions of books.
By the way I do very little practice and read millions of books.
The goal has to be realised by practice but not by hair splitting arguments and reading millions of books.
By the way I do very little practice and read millions of books.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
-
- Posts: 10157
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
SarathW wrote:Yes if we getting to a never ending discussion.
The goal has to be realised by practice but not by hair splitting arguments and reading millions of books.
By the way I do very little practice and read millions of books.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
1.Objectification = papañca. The tendency of the mind to proliferate issues from the sense of "self." This term can also be translated as self-reflexive thinking, reification, falsification, distortion, elaboration, or exaggeration. In the discourses, it is frequently used in analyses of the psychology of conflict. The categories of objectification stem from the self-reflexive thought, "I am the thinker," (see Sn 4.14), and include the categories of inappropriate attention (see MN 2): being/not-being, me/not-me, mine/not-mine, doer/done-to. The perceptions of objectification include such thoughts as "This is me. This is mine. This is my self." These perceptions and categories turn back on the person who allows them to proliferate, giving rise to internal conflict & strife, which then expand outward. For more on these terms, see MN 18
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
SarathW wrote:1.Objectification = papañca. The tendency of the mind to proliferate issues from the sense of "self." This term can also be translated as self-reflexive thinking, reification, falsification, distortion, elaboration, or exaggeration. In the discourses, it is frequently used in analyses of the psychology of conflict. The categories of objectification stem from the self-reflexive thought, "I am the thinker," (see Sn 4.14), and include the categories of inappropriate attention (see MN 2): being/not-being, me/not-me, mine/not-mine, doer/done-to. The perceptions of objectification include such thoughts as "This is me. This is mine. This is my self." These perceptions and categories turn back on the person who allows them to proliferate, giving rise to internal conflict & strife, which then expand outward. For more on these terms, see MN 18
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Note Ven. Thanissaro's mention of "self-reflexive thought". My contention is that if the perceived is not appropriated -- i.e. not taken as "mine" -- then such thought becomes merely reflexive as opposed to self-reflexive. The arahat is traceless in this very life: to ask what happens to him after death is countersensical.
...ye te bhikkhū arahanto khīṇāsavā vusitavanto katakaraṇīyā ohitabhārā anuppattasadatthā parikkhīṇabhavasaṃyojanā sammadaññāvimuttā, vaṭṭaṃ tesaṃ natthi paññāpanāya.
...there is no describing a round for those arahats with taints exhausted, who have lived the life, done what is to be done, laid down the burden, reached the true goal, destroyed the fetters of being, and through right final knowledge are liberated. MN22
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
Finally found the quote reference
"Bhikkhus, of the specualtive views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely : "I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, it will not be mine". For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed disciple becomes disenchanted with it ..."
AN, Book of Tens, Sutta 29
So The Buddha seemed to hold the annihilationists views in high esteem, to a point.
"Bhikkhus, of the specualtive views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely : "I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, it will not be mine". For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed disciple becomes disenchanted with it ..."
AN, Book of Tens, Sutta 29
So The Buddha seemed to hold the annihilationists views in high esteem, to a point.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
That quote appears in both Ud 7.8, AN 10.29, MN 106 and SN 22.55
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 23#p221765
See:
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=ud+7.8
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=an+10.29
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=mn+106
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=sn+22.55
There is quite a lot of discussion in the above link: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 23#p221765
Mike
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 23#p221765
See:
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=ud+7.8
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=an+10.29
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=mn+106
http://suttacentral.net/search?query=sn+22.55
There is quite a lot of discussion in the above link: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 23#p221765
Mike
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
But this view does not exist without practice now and here, today nihilists have nothing in common with it. This view is in fact the way of practicing the path of nothingness, and require relinquishment of all possessions now and here.clw_uk wrote: ...So The Buddha seemed to hold the annihilationists views in high esteem, to a point.
AN IV 185 (translation: Bhikkhu Bodhi)Again, wanderers, brahmin says thus: "I am not anywhere the belonging of anyone, nor is there anywhere anything in anyplace that is mine". Speaking thus, a brahmin speaks truth, not falsehood. He does not, on that account, misconceive: 'I am better' or 'I am equal' or 'I am worse'. Rather, having directly known the truth in that, he is practicing the path of nothingness".
Today nihilists rather do not expect to reappear in the base of nothingness. Quite rightly, they are not intelligent enough for such achievement."On the Uposatha day, they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
The man who wants to avoid grotesque collapses should not look for anything to fulfill him in space and time.
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
From K.R. Norman's translation of Sn 5.7, lines 1075-1076:
I think Wittgenstein's famous quote sums up how the Buddha is teaching us to regard the question.
Ven. Thanissaro's translation of the same:1075. 'He who has gone out, does he not exist, or does he remain unimpaired for ever? Explain this to me well, sage, for thus is this doctrine known to you.'
1076. 'There is no measuring of one who has gone out, Upasīva,' said the Blessed One. 'That no longer exists for him by which they might speak of him. When all phenomena have been removed, then all ways of speaking are also removed.'
~~~[Upasiva:]
He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you.
[The Buddha:]
One who has reached the end has no criterion [3] by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with,[4] all means of speaking are done away with as well.
3.
For a discussion of the meaning of "criterion" in this passage, see The Mind Like Fire Unbound, Chapter 1.
4.
Although Upasiva refers to the goal as a phenomenon (dhamma), the Buddha describes it as the transcending of all phenomena. For some of the implications of this statement, see AN 3.134.
I think Wittgenstein's famous quote sums up how the Buddha is teaching us to regard the question.
Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote:Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
"Is it true, friend Yamaka, that this evil supposition has arisen to you: 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'
[Explains how the aggregates are not self]
"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."
"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"
"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
cf. http://librarum.org/book/20401/438"Bhikkhus, of the specualtive views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely : "I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, it will not be mine". For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed disciple becomes disenchanted with it ..." -- AN, Book of Tens, Sutta 29
The outsiders have got it the wrong way around: the "mine" comes before the "I". One of Ven. Ñanamoli's early renderings for asmi-māna which I rather like is "the pride that says 'I am'" which implies that such pride is not rational, but affective. The "I" comes about when we reflectively thematize, i.e. "objectify" the feeling.
Ven. Ñanavira explains this in his Notes:
http://www.nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma ... tes/dhammaThe puthujjana does not by any means experience his 'self' as an abstraction, and this because it is not rationally that notions of subjectivity are bound up with nescience (avijjā), but affectively. Reason comes in (when it comes in at all) only in the second place, to make what it can of a fait accompli. Avijjāsamphassajena bhikhave vedayitena phutthassa assutavato puthujjanassa, Asmī ti pi'ssa hoti, Ayam aham asmī ti pi'ssa hoti, Bhavissan ti pi'ssa hoti,... ('To the uninstructed commoner, monks, contacted by feeling born of nescience-contact, it occurs '(I) am', it occurs 'It is this that I am', it occurs 'I shall be',...') Khandha Samy. v,5 <S.iii,46>. And in Dīgha ii,2 <D.ii,66-8> it is in relation to feeling that the possible ways of regarding 'self' are discussed: Vedanā me attā ti; Na h'eva kho me vedanā attā, appatisamvedano me attā ti; Na h'eva kho me vedanā attā, no pi appatisamvedano me attā, attā me vediyati vedanādhammo hi me attā ti. ('My self is feeling; My self is not in fact feeling, my self is devoid of feeling; My self is not in fact feeling, but neither is my self devoid of feeling, my self feels, to feel is the nature of my self.')
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
pulga wrote:cf. http://librarum.org/book/20401/438"Bhikkhus, of the specualtive views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely : "I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, it will not be mine". For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed disciple becomes disenchanted with it ..." -- AN, Book of Tens, Sutta 29
The outsiders have got it the wrong way around: the "mine" comes before the "I". One of Ven. Ñanamoli's early renderings for asmi-māna which I rather like is "the pride that says 'I am'" which implies that such pride is not rational, but affective. The "I" comes about when we reflectively thematize, i.e. "objectify" the feeling.
Ven. Ñanavira explains this in his Notes:
http://www.nanavira.org/notes-on-dhamma ... tes/dhammaThe puthujjana does not by any means experience his 'self' as an abstraction, and this because it is not rationally that notions of subjectivity are bound up with nescience (avijjā), but affectively. Reason comes in (when it comes in at all) only in the second place, to make what it can of a fait accompli. Avijjāsamphassajena bhikhave vedayitena phutthassa assutavato puthujjanassa, Asmī ti pi'ssa hoti, Ayam aham asmī ti pi'ssa hoti, Bhavissan ti pi'ssa hoti,... ('To the uninstructed commoner, monks, contacted by feeling born of nescience-contact, it occurs '(I) am', it occurs 'It is this that I am', it occurs 'I shall be',...') Khandha Samy. v,5 <S.iii,46>. And in Dīgha ii,2 <D.ii,66-8> it is in relation to feeling that the possible ways of regarding 'self' are discussed: Vedanā me attā ti; Na h'eva kho me vedanā attā, appatisamvedano me attā ti; Na h'eva kho me vedanā attā, no pi appatisamvedano me attā, attā me vediyati vedanādhammo hi me attā ti. ('My self is feeling; My self is not in fact feeling, my self is devoid of feeling; My self is not in fact feeling, but neither is my self devoid of feeling, my self feels, to feel is the nature of my self.')
I would say that I and mine arise together
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
I think "I" is internal and "mine" is external.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
SarathW wrote:I think "I" is internal and "mine" is external.
"mine" isnt external, nothing external is "mine"
"I and mine" arise in the mind as impermanent dhammas
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?
Agreed. But "I am" is founded upon "mine", i.e. because things are "mine" "I am" rather than because "I am" things are "mine". When things cease to be "mine" "I am" ceases:clw_uk wrote:I would say that I and mine arise together
If it we not, it would not be mine; it will not be and it will not be mine. What exists, what has come to be, that I am abandoning." MN 106.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book