Self continues after death. Is incorrect.
Self ends after death. Is incorrect.
Both statements are incorrect.
Why are both incorrect?
Firstly, the Buddha said they are both incorrect:
"Then King Pasenadi Kosala went to the bhikkhuni Khema and, on
arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. As he was sitting
there he said to her, "Now then, lady, does the Tathagata exist after
death?"
"That, great king, has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The
Tathagata exists after death.'"
"Well then, lady, does the Tathagata not exist after death?"
"Great king, that too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The
Tathagata does not exist after death.'"
"Then does the Tathagata both exist and not exist after death?"
"That has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata both
exists and does not exist after death.'"
"Well then, does the Tathagata neither exist nor not exist after
death?"
"That too has not been declared by the Blessed One: 'The Tathagata
neither exists nor does not exist after death.'""
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.001.than.html
Secondly, even Buddhadasa, a venerable teacher who didn't use faith in his Dhamma teachings, never denied nor accepted rebirth, but said that both statements are incorrect:
"Listen to the Buddhist teaching: there isn’t a person; there isn’t
anyone to die, to be born, or be reborn; there is only the stream of
concocting, the concocting of the khandhas(aggregates),
thedhātus(elements), and the āyatanas(sense media) in accordance with
the law of nature."
"To sum up, since olden times there have been two schools: one
teaching that there is death and then birth, and one that there is
death but no subsequent birth. Now, which should we choose?"
"Both beliefs, however, are really incorrect, because the fact is that
there isn’t anyone to be born or to not be born."
Source: http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/014/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Concerning_Birth.pdf?1462866820
Thus, to claim that there is self after death, would be in contradiction to Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teachings, because Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teaching teach us "there isn't anyone to die".
On the other hand, to claim there is no self after death, would be again in contradiction to Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teachings, because Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teaching teach us "there isn't anyone to be born".
Thus, both statements "There is self after death" and "There is no self after death" are incorrect.
Now, this was claimed by Buddhadasa, a venerable teacher, an arahat. We should listen to him and study his teachings carefully. He doesn't teach by using faith. He concentrates on this life. He doesn't do that because he believes there is no self after death, quite the opposite, he knows that to claim "there is no self after death" is in contradiction to the Buddhist teachings, thus he doesn't claim it, but rejects it as being incorrect! Furthermore, he also knows that to claim "there is self after death" is again in contradiction to the Buddhist teachings, thus he doesn't claim it, but rejects it as being incorrect!
"however, the true Buddhist message is that there isn’t a
being or a person, only ever-changing processes of concocting, of
compounding, with nobody involved in them."
Source: http://www.suanmokkh.org/system/books/files/000/000/014/original/Buddhadasa_Bhikkhu_Concerning_Birth.pdf?1462866820
The above statement is key.
The above is exactly the purpose of Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teaching. It is to realize anatta. To see. To penetrate deeply into it.
If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding, with nobody involved in them" would stop or continue after the annihilation of the physical body, Buddhadasa and other venerable Dhamma teachers would surely teach us so. But we can see that they don't teach us so. They teach us the opposite: to claim that this process stops or continues after the annihilation of the physical body is incorrect. They teach us that both of these views (stops or continues) are incorrect.
To expound the truth why both views are incorrect, we should investigate it further:
- To claim that this process stops after the complete annihilation of the physical body is incorrect. This process doesn't magically stop after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Why it doesn't just stop?
Because there isn't anyone to die. Since there isn't anyone to die, nobody is involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding". If there really was someone involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", when that person would be annihiliated, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would stop after that person's annihilation. Since that person would be involved in the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", with the annihilation of that person, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would stop. But since there isn't anyone to be annihilated nor there is anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", this process can't just magically stop with the annihilation of the physical body. Just think about it: if there isn't anyone involved in this process, then why does this process run?? Nobody is involved in it, so why does it run?? Who/what runs it?!
If there isn't anyone involved in it, then neither the physical body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all is involved in it! If neither the physicall body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all, that would mean, that if the physical body and everything in the universe is annihilated, this process wouldn't stop!! This "total annihilation" would not affect this process a single bit!
- On the other hand, to claim that this process restarts after the complete annihilation of the physical body is again incorrect. This process doesn't magically restart after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Why it doesn't restart?
Because there isn't anyone to be born. Since there isn't anyone to be born, nobody can become involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding". If there really would be someone involved with this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", when that person would be created, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would start after that person's creation. Since that person would become involved in the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", with the creation of that person, the "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" would start. But since there isn't anyone to be created nor there is anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", this process can't just magically restart after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Just think about it: if there isn't anyone involved in this process, then how can this process restart?? Nobody is involved in it, so why did it start?? Who/what started it?
If there isn't anyone involved in it, then neither the physical body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all is involved in it! If neither the physicall body is involved in it nor anything in the entire universe at all, that would mean, that if the physicall body and everything in the universe is annihilated and then recreated, this process wouldn't restart!! This "total annihilation and recreation" would not affect this process a single bit!
- On the other hand, to claim that this process continues after the complete annihilation of the physical body is again incorrect. This process doesn't magically continue after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Why it doesn't continue?
Because there isn't anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding". Since there isn't anyone involved in these "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding", this process can't just magically continue after the complete annihilation of the physical body. Just think about it: if there isn't anyone involved in this process, then why is this process running RIGHT NOW?? Nobody is involved in it, so why is it running?? Who/what is running it? How can it be even running if nobody is involved in it?
Thus, again we come to the conclusion that both statements "There is self after death" and "There is no self after death" are incorrect.
If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" can't restart (remember, there is nobody involved in these processes), then why these processes started in the first place? If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" have nobody involved in them (remember, there is nobody involved in these processes), then why these processes keep running?
These processes started because of craving. An example would be craving for views: "self continues after death" or "self ends after death". Whenever there is craving for views, the wheel of this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" starts turning, which creates potential for suffering. (Please note that "craving for views" is no different than having a belief. A belief is nothing else but "craving for a view")
These processes keep running because of grasping (upadana) as "I", "me" and "mine" to one or more of the five aggregates (physicality, feeling, perception, mental formations and sense consciousness). Example is grasping on a mental formation of views: "self continues after death" or "self ends after death". Whenever grasping arises, the wheel of this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" spins faster, which creates even more potential for suffering. (Please note that "grasping for views" is no different than having a belief. A belief is nothing else but "grasping on a view")
If this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" can't stop (remember, there is nobody involved in these processes), then how can these processes be stopped?
By realizing anatta. Once anatta is realized, you let go of all beliefs. Whenever all beliefs cease, the wheel of this "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" stops turning, which creates no potential for suffering:
"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'...
does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm,
direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away
with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its
origination, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its
origination, such its disappearance; such is perception...such are
fabrications...such is consciousness, such its origination, such its
disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending,
fading away, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all
construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making &
obsessions with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance,
released."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
In order for us to let go of all beliefs, we need wisdom. Buddhadasa's and Buddhist teachings lead us on the path towards wisdom. They cannot magically transfer their wisdom into our minds, but can show us the path how to acquire it by ourselves.
Their teachings are not to teach us "there is no experience of life after death" nor to teach us "there is experience of life after death" ... because all of these beliefs are incorrect as they are coming from craving ... grasping to "Me", "Mine", "I" (both beliefs are self views). Nor to teach us "there is nothing after death" or to teach us "there is something after death" ... because all of these beliefs are incorrect as they are coming from craving ... grasping to "Me", "Mine", "I" (all beliefs are self views). It's to teach us that all these beliefs should be left behind, laid to the ground until turned into dust and vanished:
"Because of the cessation of views, monk, uncertainty doesn't arise in
an instructed disciple of the noble ones over the undeclared issues.
The view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata exists after death,' the
view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death,' the
view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata both does and doesn't exist after
death,' the view-standpoint, 'The Tathagata neither does nor doesn't
exist after death': The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't
discern view, doesn't discern the origination of view, doesn't discern
the cessation of view, doesn't discern the path of practice leading to
the cessation of view, and so for him that view grows. He is not freed
from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains,
distresses, and despairs. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering
& stress. But the instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns view,
discerns the origination of view, discerns the cessation of view,
discerns the path of practice leading to the cessation of view, and so
for him that view ceases. He is freed from birth, aging, & death; from
sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, and despairs. He is freed, I
tell you, from suffering & stress."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html
Further suttas that claim that all views should be abandoned:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.093.than.html
Once all beliefs are left behind, the wheel of "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" will stop turning and there will be no more potential for suffering, thus suffering will end.
There's nothing wrong having beliefs. On the contrary, it's normal and healthy. But we should come to the understanding that they don't lead us to the cessation of suffering.
I'll add some reflections that I made on this subject:
For the purpose of this explanation I'll replace the term "ever-changing processes of concocting, of compounding" with the term Dhamma.
Beliefs in self and soul should be abandoned
"...'after death a Tathagata exists'...
"...'after death a Tathagata does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'...
"...'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'...
does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm,
direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding."
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self is in the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma stop after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self is in the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self is involved in the Dhamma. How can his self be involved in the Dhamma, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot be involved in the Dhamma. If everything is not self, his self can't be involved in anything.
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self transcends the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma continue after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self is transcends the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self is involved in the Dhamma. How can his self be involved in the Dhamma, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot be involved in the Dhamma. If everything is not self, his self can't be involved in anything.
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self continues after the annihilation of the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma continue after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self continues after the annihilation of the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self transmigrates from body to body. How can his self transmigrate, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot transmigrate. If everything is not self, his self cannot transmigrate after the annihilation of the physical body.
Beliefs in material existence and material non-existence should be abandoned
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its
object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one
sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right
discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not
occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually
is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world
does not occur to one."
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist':
That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata
teaches the Dhamma via the middle
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes that "something" that exists is involved in the Dhamma. How can "something" be involved in the Dhamma, if nothing exists that can be involved in the Dhamma? If nothing exists that can be involved in the Dhamma, "something" cannot be involved in the Dhamma.
Whoever says "Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes that "nothing" that is involved in the Dhamma exists. How can "nothing" be involved in the Dhamma, if something exists that is involved in the Dhamma? If something exists that is involved in the Dhamma, "something" must be involved in the Dhamma.
Whoever says "Dhamma stops after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes that "nothing" that is involved in the Dhamma exists. How can "nothing" be involved in the Dhamma, if Dhamma is existent? If Dhamma is existent, "nothing" cannot be involved in the Dhamma, but "something" must be involved in it. If Dhamma is existent, something that does not exist must exist, thus it must be involved in the Dhamma.
Beliefs in eternalism should be abandoned
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely
by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is
precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as
true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of
good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
stress.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
Whoever holds the belief that this Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body, holds this belief because he believes that his self continues after the annihilation of the physical body ... because how else could this Dhamma continue after the annihilation of the physical body, if it wasn't because his self continuing after the annihilation of the physical body?
Whoever says "Dhamma continues after the annihilation of the physical body" holds this view because he believes his self exists and transmigrates from Dhamma to Dhamma. How can his self transmigrate, if everything is not self? If everything is not self, his self cannot transmigrate. If everything is not self, there is no self that can transmigrate.
Beliefs in nihilism should be abandoned
"Bhikkhus, held by two kinds of views, some devas and human beings
hold back and some overreach; only those with vision see.
"How, bhikkhus, do some overreach? Now some are troubled, ashamed, and
disgusted by this very same being and they rejoice in (the idea of)
non-being, asserting: 'In as much as this self, good sirs, when the
body perishes at death, is annihilated and destroyed and does not
exist after death — this is peaceful, this is excellent, this is
reality!' Thus, bhikkhus, do some overreach.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-049
"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks,
'There is no next world' is his wrong view. Because there actually is
the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is no next world,'
that is his wrong resolve. Because there actually is the next world,
when he speaks the statement, 'There is no next world,' that is his
wrong speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says
that 'There is no next world,' he makes himself an opponent to those
arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next
world, when he persuades another that 'There is no next world,' that
is persuasion in what is not true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in
what is not true Dhamma, he exalts himself and disparages others.
Whatever good habituation he previously had is abandoned, while bad
habituation is manifested. And this wrong view, wrong resolve, wrong
speech, opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is not true
Dhamma, exaltation of self, & disparagement of others: These many
evil, unskillful activities come into play, in dependence on wrong
view.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
"Herein, bhikkhus, a certain recluse or a brahmin asserts the
following doctrine and view: 'The self, good sir, has material form;
it is composed of the four primary elements and originates from father
and mother. Since this self, good sir, is annihilated and destroyed
with the breakup of the body and does not exist after death, at this
point the self is completely annihilated.' In this way some proclaim
the annihilation, destruction, and extermination of an existent being.
"This, bhikkhus, the Tathāgata understands. And he understands: 'These
standpoints, thus assumed and thus misapprehended, lead to such a
future destination, to such a state in the world beyond.' He
understands as well what transcends this, yet even that understanding
he does not misapprehend.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html
Wisdom
Dhamma neither stops after death nor continues. Life neither exists nor not exists. Death neither exists nor not exists. Birth neither exists nor not exists. Self neither exists nor not exists. Soul neither exists nor not exists.
Dhamma is suffering.
When the conditions are present, Dhamma arises.
When the conditions persist, Dhamma continues.
When the conditions are removed, Dhamma stops.
What are the conditions?
It's the lack of wisdom (mainly lack of anatta) (avijja) giving raise to craving (tanha) giving fuel to 'clinging, attachment' (upadana) giving raise to fabrications (samkhara) giving raise to the aggregates (khandhas) giving raise to atta, soul, eternalism, nihilism, views, beliefs, etc.
All of the above is Dhamma.
All is Dhamma.
All the Dhamma arises simultaneously, like a burning fire.
Whoever fully realized Dhamma will never deny the continuation of self after death:
"Because there actually is the next world, the view of one who thinks,
'There is a next world' is his right view. Because there actually is
the next world, when he is resolved that 'There is a next world,' that
is his right resolve. Because there actually is the next world, when
he speaks the statement, 'There is a next world,' that is his right
speech. Because there actually is the next world, when he says that
'There is a next world,' he doesn't make himself an opponent to those
arahants who know the next world. Because there actually is the next
world, when he persuades another that 'There is a next world,' that is
persuasion in what is true Dhamma. And in that persuasion in what is
true Dhamma, he doesn't exalt himself or disparage others. Whatever
bad habituation he previously had is abandoned, while good habituation
is manifested. And this right view, right resolve, right speech,
non-opposition to the arahants, persuasion in what is true Dhamma,
non-exaltation of self, & non-disparagement of others: These many
skillful activities come into play, in dependence on right view.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
Whoever fully realized Dhamma will never deny the end of self after death:
"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From
fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From
consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From
name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From
the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From
contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a
requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite
condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance 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.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html
A wise person will never accept the end of self after death:
"With regard to this, a wise person considers thus: 'If there is no
other world, then — at the break-up of the body, after death — this
venerable person has made himself safe. But if there is the other
world, then this venerable person — on the break-up of the body, after
death — will reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad
destination, the lower realms, in hell. Even if we didn't speak of the
other world and there weren't the true statement of those venerable
brahmans & contemplatives, this venerable person is still criticized
in the here-&-now by the wise as a person of bad habits & wrong view:
one who holds to a doctrine of non-existence (natthikavādo) . If there
really is an other world, then this venerable person has made a bad
throw twice: in that he is criticized by the wise here-&-now, and in
that — with the break-up of the body, after death — he will reappear
in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in
hell. Thus this safe-bet teaching, when poorly grasped & poorly
adopted by him, covers (only) one side and leaves behind the
possibility of the skillful.
Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.060.than.html
Whoever fully realized Dhamma will never deny nor accept anything. He will always stay in the middle.
When verbally denying something, in reality he would not be denying it nor accepting it. When verbally accepting something, in reality he would not be accepting it nor denying it. He would always stay in the middle.
