What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by cappuccino »

confusedlayman wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:08 pm All experience ceases
You can’t seek annihilation
alicem
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:33 pm

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by alicem »

Ontheway wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:06 amBut it is the act of killing (brought by intention aka cetana) associated with greed, hatred, and delusion that was deemed immoral and unwholesome. So regardless of what we are talking (be it conventional "person" or ultimate expression "Pancakhandha"), committing a murder or an act of killing is unwholesome and it is a bad Kamma. And bad Vipaka (such as facing misfortunes, death sentence, violent death, deadly disease, even reborn in Hell, etc.) is expected.
Killing is bad because one is killing a person, not because it is unwholesome, there are plenty of actions which are unwholesome that aren't considered as heinous as murder, and three of the five worst crimes are murdering one's father, mother, and an arhat, specific persons. None of these crimes require a more unwholesome state of mind than any other murder, but they're distinguished because of the person that they're murdering, which contradicts the hard-anatta reading.
Ontheway
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:35 pm

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by Ontheway »

alicem wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:50 pm
Ontheway wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 4:06 amBut it is the act of killing (brought by intention aka cetana) associated with greed, hatred, and delusion that was deemed immoral and unwholesome. So regardless of what we are talking (be it conventional "person" or ultimate expression "Pancakhandha"), committing a murder or an act of killing is unwholesome and it is a bad Kamma. And bad Vipaka (such as facing misfortunes, death sentence, violent death, deadly disease, even reborn in Hell, etc.) is expected.
Killing is bad because one is killing a person, not because it is unwholesome, there are plenty of actions which are unwholesome that aren't considered as heinous as murder, and three of the five worst crimes are murdering one's father, mother, and an arhat, specific persons. None of these crimes require a more unwholesome state of mind than any other murder, but they're distinguished because of the person that they're murdering, which contradicts the hard-anatta reading.
This is the problem when people trapped in Sakkāyadiṭṭhi.

"Akusala" carries the meaning as bad, unwholesome and unskilful. However you may want to argue, it is the Kamma (brought forth by Cetana into physical action) that matters. Many times the Buddha taught in Suttanta texts that "Killing is unwholesome". There is no distinction between unwholesome and bad in this context.

The "person" is merely conventional expression. The Suttanta says:
“Kiṁ nu sattoti paccesi,
māra diṭṭhigataṁ nu te;
Suddhasaṅkhārapuñjoyaṁ,
nayidha sattupalabbhati.

Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,
hoti saddo ratho iti;
Evaṁ khandhesu santesu,
hoti sattoti sammuti.

Dukkhameva hi sambhoti,
dukkhaṁ tiṭṭhati veti ca;
Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti,
nāññaṁ dukkhā nirujjhatī”ti.

Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

“It’s only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.
- Vajira Sutta
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.

https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by confusedlayman »

cappuccino wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:38 pm w
confusedlayman wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 5:08 pm All experience ceases
You can’t seek annihilation
When u can go unconconciius even when alive, why not after parinibbana ?
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by cappuccino »

confusedlayman wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:43 am
“There is that sphere where there is no earth, no water, no fire nor wind; no sphere of infinity of space, of infinity of consciousness, of nothingness or even of neither-perception-nor non-perception; there, there is neither this world nor the other world, neither moon nor sun; this sphere I call neither a coming nor a going nor a staying still, neither a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution and no support: this, just this, is the end of dukkha.”
~ Ud 8.1

Consciousness without feature,
without end,
luminous all around
Kevatta Sutta
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by auto »

Ontheway wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 2:40 am
Now this fact — that after the death of the Holy One, the Arahant, this physico-mental life-process no longer continues — is erroneously believed by many to be identical with annihilation of self, annihilation of a real being, and it is therefore maintained that the goal of Buddhism is simply annihilation. Against such a misleading statement one must enter an emphatic protest. How is it ever possible to speak of the annihilation of a self, or soul, or ego, where no such thing is to be found? We have seen that in reality there does not exist any ego-entity, or soul, and therefore also no "transmigration" of such a thing into a new mother's womb.

That bodily process starting anew in the mother's womb is in no way a continuation of a former bodily process, but merely a result, or effect, caused by selfish craving and clinging to life of the so-called dying individual. Thus one who says that the non-producing of any new life-process is identical with annihilation of a self, should also say that abstention from sexual intercourse is identical with annihilation of a child — which, of course, is absurd.

Here, once more, we may expressly emphasize that without a clear perception of the phenomenality or egolessness (anatta) of all existence, it will be impossible to obtain a real understanding of the Buddha's teaching, especially that of rebirth and Nibbana. This teaching of anatta is in fact the only characteristic Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire teaching stands or falls.
- Fundamentals of Buddhism (Four Lectures)
by Venerable Nyanatiloka Mahathera
body
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “Mendicants, for a fool hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has been produced.
“Avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, bālassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṁ kāyo samudāgato.
..
For an astute person hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving, this body has been produced.
Avijjānīvaraṇassa, bhikkhave, paṇḍitassa taṇhāya sampayuttassa evamayaṁ kāyo samudāgato.
intension
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.25/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: Ānanda, as long as there’s a body, the intention that gives rise to bodily action causes pleasure and pain to arise in oneself.
Kāye vā hānanda, sati kāyasañcetanāhetu uppajjati ajjhattaṁ sukhadukkhaṁ.
body is first, then intension, then bodily process, then the feeling
if that feeling too big then it takes over the mind. That, i believe, is the physico-mental life process what the Mahathera talks about. It ceases to exist or doesn't even exist when there are no defilements(asavas) present. The defilement is the lust in the heart.

Fellows, it is not about if the self exist or not or if it is casual, this view doesn't include kamaraga and such things. Its useless and not what the Thera is talking about in this quote.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by auto »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 10:23 pm It’s only annihilation if you think there is a self to be annihilated to begin with.
self is before the body is produced.
https://suttacentral.net/dn2/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: The Doctrine of Ajita Kesakambala
Both the foolish and the astute are annihilated and destroyed when their body breaks up, and don’t exist after death.’
Bāle ca paṇḍite ca kāyassa bhedā ucchijjanti vinassanti, na honti paraṁ maraṇā’ti.
hmm
https://suttacentral.net/sn12.19/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: The fool has not completed the spiritual journey for the complete ending of suffering.
Na, bhikkhave, bālo acari brahmacariyaṁ sammā dukkhakkhayāya.
Therefore, when their body breaks up, the fool is reborn in another body.
Tasmā bālo kāyassa bhedā kāyūpago hoti,
Ceiswir what you say is illogical if to read what Sutta's say.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by auto »

Ontheway wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 4:39 pm One may try to argue that "Self" is the teaching of Buddha since the Arahants still use "I", "My", "We", etc. But it is not.
You assume people won't make difference between conventional usage and actual sense of self?
It truly sound like you are not doing the difference and then stating it as a fact that there only is the conventional usage.
User avatar
bkmudita
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:50 pm

Re: What happenes to an Arahant after death?

Post by bkmudita »

piotr wrote: Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:24 pm Hi,

What Happenes to an Arahant After Death?
A Dialogue between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace

The relationship between nibbāna and consciousness was a topic of heated discussion among us Western monks in Sri Lanka, and our position in relation to this problem divided us into opposing camps. Though I have pondered the issue for long years, I have to admit I don’t have a clear solution to the problem. Perhaps the source of perplexity lies in Western modes of thinking. But maybe not. My teacher, Ven. Balangoda Ananda Maitreya, used to tell me how his own interpretation of nibbāna came close to the Advaita Vedantin understanding of brahman (with some differences), and in this respect, he said, he disagreed with those Sri Lankan scholar-monks who considered nibbāna to be mere cessation.

– Bhikkhu Bodhi
The divide persists both in history and nowadays. Both parties have values to humanity. It's okay.
Post Reply