Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Arhats Still Conscious After Parinirvana?
Are there any sutras that indicate that arhats are still conscious after parinirvana? Can they communicate with other beings such as Buddhas, bodhisattvas, devas, etc?
0
Comments
According to this particular sutra, it's said that buddhas are able to awaken these individuals from their temporary cessation in order for them to continue towards complete buddhahood, which is characterized by omniscience. This is said to be due to buddhahood being the result of wisdom and merit accumulation and not just the eradication of afflictions (which isn't too different from Theravada sans the ability to awaken arhats bit).
It should be noted that there aren't any suttas in the Pali Canon that explicitly acknowledge this, although there's some debate over the meaning of the term 'vinnanam anidassanam' found in places like DN 11. The commentarial traditional of Theravada takes the position that there's no consciousness component in parinibbana after the death of an arahant, pointing to this passage from DN 11, "There 'name-and-form' are wholly destroyed. With the cessation of consciousness this is all destroyed" (Walshe trans.). Thanissaro Bhikkhu has another take on it, however.
Logically people have different opinions on what parinirvana is like, so I will share only my view. For clarity, parinirvana is after the death of an arahant. From Theravada perspective Buddha was also an arahant, he was simply the first. So there is no difference between buddha and arahant from that point of view.
So that aside, to know what ends at parinirvana is to look at the four noble truths. This is basically what everything in Buddhism always comes back to. Then in the suttas you will find things like the quote below many times. I numbered the four noble truths, which are (1) suffering, (2) the origin of suffering, (3) the cessation of suffering and (4) the path towards the cessation of suffering. So what it says here is that we have to understand suffering, we have to understand how consciousness is suffering and how the escape from consciousness is not suffering.
But if you see consciousness as empty of a self being, there is no need to keep it alive and there is no need for attachment. Because there is no attachment, consciousness is not grasped at death, and so it goes out. Just like the rest of an enlightened being does. In fact, it's kind of silly to try and describe a being after parinirvana as we also see in quotes like this: With metta,
Sabre
Less of a call for reconstruction, apart from that the same rot.
Generating the positive qualities in the knowable existence is a far more constructive use of time for Arhats and the hatless. :ninja:
In annihilationism the self correlates directly with the physical body, and happiness is then to be found in fulfilling one's sensual desires. It rejects continuity after death, so one's present existence is seen entirely due to fortuitous circumstances, and this encourages living a life lacking moral responsibility because there is no accountability beyond this temporary life.
The Buddha, in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, refers to the annihilationist extreme as base and vulgar, which he does not when referring to eternalism, and in the Yamaka Sutta annihilationism is described as an evil supposition.
Since the Buddha taught an ethical way of life as the foundation for a happy life he was more sympathetic to eternalism, because it does not lead to a collapse of the moral life and in emphasizing continuity after death actually encourages accountability for one's actions.
I'm not saying these embellishments are correct or incorrect, but the introduction of things that have become over emphasized, like a nature or ground of existence, for instance, seems to inadvertently suggest a notion of an over-self as a replacement to a self, which is probably not the intention, but if one has a strong inclination for a belief in a self then perhaps mistaking this nature or ground as an over-self is understandable, as this is a very subtle shift in self-identification and therefore difficult to discern. However, any identification, even with this over-self, would be another form of atta and therefore could be considered another variation of eternalism.
On pages 20-21 in Volume one of Handful of Leaves, Thanissaro Bhikku offers the following counsel:
"Finally, although the Deathless is sometimes called consciousness without feature, without end, it is not to be confused with the formless stage of concentration called the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness. One of the main differences between the two is that the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness is fabricated and willed (see MN 140). The element of will, though, can be very attenuated while one is in that dimension, and only discernment at an extremely subtle level can ferret it out.
One way of testing for it is to see if there is any sense of identification with the knowing. If there is, then there is still the conceit of I-making and my-making applied to that state. Another test is to see if there is any sense that the knowing contains all things or is their source. If there is, then there is still fabrication in that state of mind, for when the Deathless is fully comprehended the sense of unrestricted awareness as containing or acting as the source of other things is seen to be an ignorant conceit."
"There is the case, monks, where an uninstructed run-of the- mill person ... perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you....
"A monk who is a Worthy One, devoid of mental fermentations-who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetters of becoming, and is released through right knowledge ... directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has comprehended it, I tell you."
MN 1
And in other cases, as pegembara said, he praises annihilism as the 'foremost outsiders view' because it is easier to become detached from things you know will end, and attachment/craving is less likely to occur. In other words, somebody who thinks it all ends at death will be less scared of an idea of cessation. So I think it's to easy to say he was more critical of one view than the other. Both may have good and bad side effects, but in the end both are still wrong.
Consciouness is caused by ignorance. - 12 links of interdependant origination.
Consciousness is nothing but a stream of mind moments conected together by awareness. Consciousness ceases at enlightenment because their are no past or future moments to be conscious of anymore. The gross/mundane conscousness is what we are speaking of here.
The enlightenend mind is entirely diffrent from the gross/dualizing consicousness. It is a unified, pure, all embracing, receptive whole. It has no begining (it never started). It has no end (how could it? it never started). Just because the samsaric mind stops working doesent mean the world ends. It doesent mean that once you die all goes dark and it its over. It just means you stop tricking yourself. You stop calling life good and death bad, or good good and bad bad. You dont die, because you know you've never been alive, theres no you to speak of. You dont live either because their is, again, no you.
Imagine a man whose house is robed. He was wealthy before this and the burgler stole all his wealth and burned his house to the ground. A sentient being thinks he knows how he got his wealth, and all of these possessions contain meaning and his self identity. So, naturaly the burning of the house is like a part of him has been ripped away from his body.
The arhat, on the other hand, in the same situation looks upon the house as such: sticks, bricks, dirt, plastic, metal, and thought. If he were the same as the sentient man, the arhat would weep upon the burning of a campfire, or seeing a trash heap. None of us do that. Why? Because the purpose of fire wood is heat and and comfort, the trash heap is refuse and nothing more. Yet, all that we have owned in the past is now garbage, all houses are made of wood and brick. All of that garbage was someones possessions, what changed between the store and the trash heap except decay and our own perceptions.
When one we love dies we weep, when we see a body in a grave we are disgusted. If that body were our own body and we did not know it, our disgust would not change. The fact is, that the arhat knows that one day his body will be swolen and festering with decay, the ones we love will vomit at the very sight of us. It is the same with the ones we love. The arhat knows that though our loved ones vomit upon our sight, they still love us. Just as though our loved ones turn rotten at death, we still love them. What they love is not the body, what they love is not the mind. They love us as we are, though body and mind change, grow old, sick and die. Thus upon death the arhat has peace. He is thus come, thus gone, neither arising nor ceasing, neither defiled nor pure.
Gate Gate Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi, Svha!
Thank you for the opportunity to practice. Forgive me my offenses, if i made them, they are not intentional.
Blessings and Peace
Alex