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.
after nirvana
what happens when you reach nirvana and die is it true you cease to exist
0
Comments
Do you exist now?
If so, how do you exist?
Which part of you is it that does the existing?
Which part of "you" would do the ceasing?
What part of you experiences before and after?
Pizza?
I can't speak to what I think of as speculative, and my answer of no answer was apparently confusing.
I don't know about you, but I think it's a little too soon for me to be worrying about this.
But there is no "you" to stop existing.
The mind realises all there is is nature (rather than "me", "you", "mine", "ours", "yours", etc).
Body, breathing, consciousness, feeling, mental function, love, intelligence simply function naturally.
Breathe and be happy.
Now pick the bones out of that!
</sup>
at the age of 80+ he entered para-nirvana , where is enlightened physical body no more , but his enlightened spirtual / wisdom aspect and the enlightened principle continue to endure till today - so that you could ask this question , and if you follow his teaching / wisdom you will certain to testify the fruits yourself .
Those who speak do not know
Since I have spoken I do not know
When nirvana is attained, there is no more future births. Why? Because there is no more conditions, no more ignorance to fuel samsaric births. There is a difference between no more births, and no more 'you'. (Mahayana Buddhism however, in contrast to Theravada Buddhism, suggests that the mindstreams of Bodhisattvas and Bodhisattvas continuously appear in samsara for the benefit of sentient beings, to guide them to awakening)
Please read:
Does the Buddha Exist After His Death?
'O Anuradha, what do you think, is the form (Rupa) permanent or impermanent?' 'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is that which is impermanent, painful or pleasant?'
'Painful, Sir.'
'Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as: 'This is mine; this is I, this is my soul or permanent substance?' 'It is not proper, Sir.' 'Is feeling permanent or impermanent?' 'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is that which is impermanent, painful or pleasant?'
'Painful, Sir.' 'Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as 'This is mine, this is I, this is my soul'?' 'It is not proper, Sir.' 'Are perfection, formative tendencies and consciousness, permanent or impermanent?'
'Impermanent, Sir.' 'Is that which is impermanent, painful or pleasant?'
'Painful, Sir.' 'Is it proper to regard that which is impermanent, painful and subject to change as: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my soul?'?'
'It is not proper, Sir.' 'Therefore whatever form, feeling, perception, formative tendencies, consciousness which have been, will be and is now connected with oneself, or with others, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near; all forms, feelings, perceptions, formative tendencies and consciousness should be considered by right knowledge in this way: 'This is not mine; this not I; this is not my soul.' Having seen thus, a noble, learned disciple becomes disenchanted with the form, feeling, perception, formative tendencies and consciousness. Becoming disenchanted, he controls his passion and subsequently discards them.' 'Being free from passion he becomes emancipated and insight arises in him: 'I am emancipated.' He realizes: 'Birth is destroyed, I have lived the holy life and done what had to be done. There is no more birth for me.' 'What do you think, Anuradha, do you regard the form as a Tathagata?' 'No, Sir.'
'O Anuradha, what is your view, do you see a Tathagata in the form?' 'No, Sir.' 'Do you see a Tathagata apart from form?' 'No, Sir.' 'Do you see a Tathagata in feeling, perception, formative tendencies, consciousness?'
'No, Sir.' 'O Anuradha, what do you think, do you regard that which is without form, feeling, perception, formative tendencies and consciousness as a Tathagata?' 'No, Sir.' 'Now, Anuradha, since a Tathagata is not to be found in this very life, is it proper for you to say: 'This noble and supreme one has pointed out and explained these four propositions:
'Well and good, Anuradha. Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of Suffering and cessation of Suffering.' (Anuradha Sutta - Samyutta Nikaya.) The above dialogue between the Buddha and Anuradha may not be satisfactory to many, since it does not satisfy the inquiring mind of the people. Truth is such that it does not give satisfaction to the emotion and intellect. Truth happens to be the most difficult thing for man to comprehend. It can only be fully comprehended by Insight. Buddhahood is nothing but the embodiment of all the great virtues and supreme enlightenment. That is why Buddhas who could enlighten others are very rare in this world.
The Buddha said :
MN 63 : Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta
More of the sutta here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
.
No, it has the underlying thought that there is a self which lives and dies. The Buddha taught not-self thus the question "where will I go after I die" does not apply because the question itself has self identification in it.
If one were carefully forming a disc, perhaps a plate, more perfectly round each day, each day it would become closer to perfection and the greatness thereof, yet the day it attained perfection, it could no longer exist.
Such is the way of the perfect spirit, the "Wholy Spirit". The most perfect spirit cannot physically exist and yet determines what is more perfect from less. The perfect spirit is always perfecting itself and thus each day coming closer to greatness and the non-existable state of absolute perfection.
To ascend to absolute perfection is to die in physical form and be born as the standard of perfect life, Tat-ha-gata.
:eek2:
.
You guys are so amazingly explicative. :rolleyes:
Regardless of your definition my next question will similarly apply. Does this ‘you’ (which henceforth I will define as P) actually exist prior to death and on death? According to basic laws of logic (non contradiction), P cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. I am a bit confused with the Santa example. In the law of identity (P is identical to P), P does not share the same identity as Santa. Whether Santa exist is irrelevant to P’s existence or P’s view of its own existence i.e. there is no causal linkage.
Conversely, Santa’s existence – a fictional object, is not dependent on P’s belief. Can you please clarify what were you attempting to distinguish. Is ‘you’ and ‘self’ that you have referred to the same entity? Seems to me you are referring to ’self’ as an abstract object like proposition. Abstract objects have unique properties that are distinct from say a human being. According to Plato, they are immaterial, timeless and spaceless and therefore senseless to ask where or when they exist. I have a lot more questions but I can’t shape them until I have a clearer view of what you are discussing.
Logic and reality allow for 3 states of being;
1) What is [white]
2) What is not [black]
3) What neither is nor isn't, but a boundary between; a combination [gray]
All material reality is merely gray. White and Black are only in the realm of the Divine, the perfections.
Once the "self" becomes understood and defined as the perfected spiritual process, Tathagata, it can no longer be of the gray physical and thus can no longer have material existence, yet still affects the material world by its divine existence. So it exists yet does not exist. It is in that third category of what both is and also is not depending on the perspective of your understanding.
They are not 'you', however. They are not 'me' or 'mine'. The word 'me' is only a label imposed on the everchanging stream of five skandhas arising dependent on conditions, in the same way the word 'weather' is imputed on an everchanging stream of clouds forming, dissipating, wind, rain, and all other weather conditions. No self-existing permanent and locatable entity or thing called 'weather' can be found in any of the particular patterns, or apart from the patterns. There is just the process. The word 'weather' is just a label but does not point to something inherent, locatable, independent, permanent, etc.
In the same way we use the word 'me' simply as a label and convention for convenience, but in actuality it does not refer to an inherently existing identity. There is no such self in Buddhism. Therefore the teaching of Anatta.
I highly recommend reading this article carefully as it is written from deep experiential insight: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-is-me.html The Santa analogy is simply an analogy.
In my case, I am refering the notion of a permanent, separate, self-existing Self as what is false, as false as Santa. That is a fictional object/subject. Yet most of us believe in such a self, and that is why we remain deluded. However when we realised there is no such self, it doesn't mean that the self (e.g. the santa) suddenly disappeared or is annihilated: rather it just means we realise it never was there to begin with.
Realising deeply that there never was such self is liberation.
<O:p</O:p
However in a state of nirvana, I understand that in Buddhism the individual is in a permanent non-self existing but locatable state. Please correct if I am wrong. Putting this is context you were answering a poster on “what happens when you reach nirvana and die is it true you cease to exist” I think before answering there is a need to distinguish between exist and existence. When we come into being, we exist and have existence. When we come out of being we existed and have no existence. In contrast, Spiderman as a fictional character, exist but have no existence. In the case of an enlightened being, what can transcend death when there is no self?
<O:p</O:p
These are feelings and perceptions.
no because it never stays the same, it is in a constant state of change, alteration, flux and modification. there is no permanent human face behind 'me' or 'you'. There is no permanent face in front of 'me' and 'you', either. Your face changes, does it not? So this 'behind' human face changes also. It's not a constant.
No, this is exactly what he means. Nothing is missing.
No. This has already been explained elsewhere. Nirvana is not in any locatable state.
Existence is a verb. Exist is a noun. do we? That's a moot point....
No. Spiderman as a fictional character, is present, but does not exist.
This is semantics again.
Who says anything needs to be transcended?
The Buddha did not transcend death, although he was enlightened.
He experienced the ceasing of the function of his body. The vessel was no longer required or able to function.....
Why do people seek to complicate matters so much?
And why does it matter so much anyway?
More ruddy unconjecturables going through the mill...:rolleyes: :-/
Sensations are vividly and undeniably present and must be experienced as such and yet a separate experiencer cannot be found - the vividness and non-substantially must be experienced directly otherwise the understanding is merely theoretical.
Just like the weather patterns are vividly and undeniably occuring, yet a solid 'weather entity' cannot be located.
To deny vivid experience and call it non-existent is to become a nihilist, to reify experience into enduring graspable objects/existence is to become an eternalist, Buddha transcended both in his Middle Way teaching which is the teaching of Anatta and Emptiness. There is no such thing as an 'ego'! Looking at our direct experience, we cannot find anything called 'ego', what we can experience however are thoughts, feelings, sensations, which we then identify as 'me'. However there are really just thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc.
There may be a particular pattern of thought that repeats due to habit and conditioning, commonly then labeled as 'personality', but then again 'personality' is just like the word 'weather' - sometimes sunshine, sometimes rain, sometimes wind, etc, there is no 'personality' apart from those ever-changing stream of sensations, thoughts, feelings, even though there may be a particular habitual pattern there (just as the so called 'weather' has a pattern). But they are all arising according to conditions, there is no inherent entity there. These conditions are also subject to change. No! There is no self-existing permanent and locatable 'me' to disappear! Just like Santa Claus hadn't disappeared, because it never had existence to begin with.
Yet feelings, sensations, thoughts, etc continue to occur, just that there is no real self-center to which these are occuring to.
To realise that this has always already been the case (in contrast to 'reaching a state of no self' as that would be delusional, in the same way that 'making santa claus disappear' is still functioning under the delusion that there was one to begin with) is liberation. Not exactly.
Firstly, our experience right now already has no permanent self, even while we are deluded about that fact. However the waking up to that leads to the end of self-clinging, and hence Nirvana, the cessation of ignorance and suffering.
Secondly, Nirvana is not locatable.
The Buddha gave the following analogy:
http://mettarefuge.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/the-aggi-vacchagotta-sutta-the-buddha-on-the-nature-of-existence-and-nirvana/
“And suppose someone were to ask you, ‘This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?’ Thus asked, how would you reply?”
“That doesn’t apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as ‘out’ (unbound).”
“Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. ‘Reappears’ doesn’t apply. ‘Does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Both does & does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. ‘Neither reappears nor does not reappear’ doesn’t apply. Existence, non-existence, both existence and non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence, these are the four extremes that Buddha negated.
Why?
These extremes presumes that there is a solid, locatable 'entity' that can exist, then become non-existent, etc.
However if we investigate words like 'self', 'weather', etc, we find that they are just labels, conventions, but no independent, inherent 'self' or 'weather' entity can be found to have inherent existence or become non-existent.
There is no "me" entity to begin with that can come into existence and later become non-existence.
"The rest is silence." May be true but I notice that we are all trying, over and over again, to define, delineate, pin down and generally "master" the ineffable. Trying to catch smoke with a butterfly net.
There is, I believe, real value in bringing our different names, stories, myths and maths together, gaining a more vivid picture of the unpicturable - if we allow that we do not hold the whole of Truth but glimpse "as in a glass, darkly".
I will not address your individual comments because I think there is a macro picture we need to address (the forest and not the trees).
<O:p</O:p
Firstly, the discussion is not just concerning grammatical usage and meaning but Metaphysical concepts concerning the nature of being – the nature of person, its essence, substance and identity. What it is to exist or not exist? What it is that accounts for our existence? In the theory of existence there are a number of traits to consider. The simplest that we can relate to is having a physical presence i.e. being spatiotemporally located. If you are going to apply Buddhism concepts to existence and person, it will be useful to explain meaning. For example, how does feelings and physical changes alter existence and identity of an individual?
<O:p</O:p
Secondly, when a human being comes into being that individual has the property of being human. When the person comes out of being, that individual no longer has the property of being human. It is a univocal notion that applies in the same way to all person that are human. This also means that whatever existence itself is, everyone that exists will have existence in the same sense. This is important to ensure consistency and grounding in meaning when we compare across entities e.g. human being to a fictional character. You and I exist and have existence but Spiderman which exist in our mind is a mental projection and do not have a spatiotemporal location.
<O:p</O:p
Thirdly, concerning changes to an individual is a reality of life. A person at 10 years old and the same person at 50 years old will have different experiences and physical attributes. In Philosophy, this is known as alteration in a human being which is the subject of change. There are two conditions that must be true : (1) the person that is changing must exist and (2) the person that changes must exist at the beginning, during the process and at the end of the change. There is no change in existence or identity. How and what has changed in Buddhism to the individual I think it will be helpful to elaborate. Comments like the person is not the same self because of changes doesn’t advance the discussions.
<O:p</O:p
Finally, the point on the weather is to point out that it is a propositional object expressed in a declarative sentence that convey meaning in the mind of the reader or recipient. The expression ‘weather’ has no spatiotemporal location just like other abstract objects unlike a human being. The comparison in my view to explain a concept is not useful.
<O:p</O:p
The basic baseline is what happens when one is enlightened while still living. How does the person continue to interact with the world and its surrounding environment? I will attempt to postulate a number of possibilities :
- An enlightened being is in a permanent state of non self. There is no reversion to the self state. I think there is a total disconnect to the world. This is probably not a practical state to be in.
- An enlightened being can easily switch between self and non-self. Maybe this is similar to the Tokra in Stargate where they can switch at will between their human hosts in a symbiotic relationship.
- It is a hybrid between (1) and (2) except that the enlightened state is similar to an out of body experience. While in this state, the physical body does not function.
<O:p</O:p(1) and (2) assumes the need to have a physical body. (3) is probably the scenario that can survive death as it may not depend on a bodily host. This seems to be in line with Federica’s comments.
If you were to ask the Buddha whether the Tathagata [a synonym for arahant and an epithet for the Buddha] exists after death, doesn't exist after death, both exists and doesn't exist after death or neither exists nor doesn't exist after death, the Buddha would answer, "That has not been declared by me."
When pressed further, the Buddha would counter by asking you whether form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications and consciousness are constant or inconstant. If you were to answer constant to any of these, he'd probably proceed to give you a discourse on the aggregates and dependent co-arising. If you were to answer inconstant, then he'd ask you whether it's proper to regard what's inconstant, stressful and subject to change as: "This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am."
If you were to answer yes, he'd probably proceed to give you a discourse on the not-self characteristic. If you were to answer no, then he would ask whether you regard form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications or consciousness as the Tathagata.
If you were to answer yes to any of these, he'd remind you that all these phenomena are inconstant and not fit to be called "me" or "mine." If you were to answer no, then he'd ask whether you regard the Tathagata as being in form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications and consciousness, or elsewhere than form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications or consciousness.
If you were to answer yes to any of these, he'd remind you that all these phenomena are inconstant and not fit to be called "me" or "mine." If you were to answer no, then he'd ask whether you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness [i.e., taken together], or as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness [i.e., without any relation to the aggregates, and by consequence, the sense bases].
If you were to answer yes to the former, he'd remind you that these phenomena are inconstant and not fit to be called "me" or "mine." If you were to answer yes to the latter, he'd probably ask you on what basis you'd make such an assertion since the description of such a self lies beyond the range of explanation. If you were to answer no, then he'd say, "So, my friend — 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, 'The Tathagata exists after death', 'The Tathagata does not exist after death', 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death'," and proceed to give a discourse such as this:
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
"He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant feeling.' He does not discern inconstant perception... He does not discern inconstant fabrications... He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'
"He does not discern stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He does not discern stressful feeling... He does not discern stressful perception... He does not discern stressful fabrications... He does not discern stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'
"He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He does not discern not-self feeling... He does not discern not-self perception... He does not discern not-self fabrications... He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'
"He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He does not discern fabricated feeling... He does not discern fabricated perception... He does not discern fabricated fabrications... He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'
"He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He does not discern murderous feeling... He does not discern murderous perception... He does not discern murderous fabrications... He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'
"He gets attached to form, clings to form, & determines it to be 'my self.' He gets attached to feeling... He gets attached to perception... He gets attached to fabrications... He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, & determines it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss & suffering.
"Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He does not assume feeling to be the self...
"He does not assume perception to be the self...
"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...
"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.
"He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He discerns inconstant feeling... He discerns inconstant perception... He discerns inconstant fabrications... He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'
"He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He discerns stressful feeling... He discerns stressful perception... He discerns stressful fabrications... He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'
"He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He discerns not-self feeling... He discerns not-self perception... He discerns not-self fabrications... He discerns not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'
"He discerns fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He discerns fabricated feeling... He discerns fabricated perception... He discerns fabricated fabrications... He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'
"He discerns murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He discerns murderous feeling... He discerns murderous perception... He discerns murderous fabrications... He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'
"He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."
Well Buddha's god so we might not go to hell but only Mormons go to heaven so I think we'll hang around somewhere in the middle...
The you that you look for is pretty much imaginary anyway. Once Buddha attained Nivarna he became liberated from the cycle of Samsaric Death and rebirth, Once Buddha passed into parinivarna ( as a fully enlightened being ) the final ceasing of the Samsaric form aggregates in which the enlightened mind arose they then dwell in the state of Emptiness. Their wisdom truth body or Dharmakara is their Omniscient mind that is completely mixed with Emptiness, Buddha's also possess another body known as the Enjoyment body or Samboghakaya which is as seen as in images of the various deities with these bodies they enjoy pure enjoyments of their purelands, The next body of a Buddha is the Nirmanakaya which is known as the emination body these bodies are countless emination forms of Buddha in which serve the purpose to help sentient beings in Samsara.
So when a Buddha passes away their form aggregates of body become nothing but the enlightened aggregates of mind remain unchanging...a mind that is completely mixed with emptiness is not subject to transmigration through Samsara.
Chandrakirti has an analysis about this chariot ( i don't want to state all the ways, but there are seven points )
He says in masterful precision that if the parts of the chariot are all taken off the chariot and brokendown to the base components , this would not be a chariot at all. There would be wheels, metal, wood , etc. But they only become "chariot" when put together from all those parts.
He says that there is not an inherent chariotness in the parts that a wheel is not a chariot but when fastened to a chairot that wheel looks like it is chariot
He then says ( which i can't even imagine how he was able to come up with this , its really amazing.) just as the chariot does not exist inherently apart from its components. so the aggregates can't exist without the self.
I really love that . Anger,pride ,envy,hatred,attachment,aversion,all the mental factors, suffering etc. cannot exist without the self. As we use the masters teachings to deconstruct the idea of reified existence and pay careful attention to the danger of nihlism, we can analyze this "mere I" and see that it doesn't exist when investigated, Just like the chariot and its parts.
Thank you chandrakirti.
Discourses of the Ancient Nuns
Bhikkhuni-samyutta
(Samyutta Nikaya, Book V)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bl143.html
I love that too. I love how he describes the chariot and how it works and is comparable to the self. Really cool :thumbsup:
In the days when I was trying to believe in rebirth, I heard a talk where a monk said there is nothing at the heart of the lotus. This meant that, when the phenomena we mistakenly think of as "I" are peeled back one by one, we find nothing at the core. If that is true, then when we die an arahant, nothing is left. We are gone, like a ripple back into the ocean.
And the question we ask, over and over, with no answer, is: "When this ripple returns to the ocean, does it still have my name on it?"
No.
No need to know such things.
You are correct, seeker. It is only as a courtesy to the original poster that one responds at all.