What happens to an Arhat after death?

[Hanzze]

It seems that we actually have an Arahant participating or is it a Bodhisattva. Without some balls he would not react. But I guess even asking an Arahant he would not answer different that the Buddha did. Not experienced death as an Arahant before it would be not honestly and just a thought or idea. *smile*

For sure it is different for a Bodhisattva as he could tell what will happen after the death of a Bodhisattva with deep and repeated experiences if he is able to recollect his memories (of the bubbles). *smile*

But heedless such sages might be not aware just dancing around and reminds us what happens when loosing the head even in deep meditation, reminding on the countless funerals and birth's.

[ground]

I am looking forward to meeting you, Hanzze  

[Spiny le Norman]

I am looking forward to meeting you, Hanzze  

I have set up a special thread in the tea room for the two of you - have fun!

Spiny

[lankaman]

As far as I understand "standard" Theravadin interpretation of Nibbana is an existence after death. In the Abidhamma theory nibbana is one of the four ultimate dammas. As someone had pointed out this becomes the Buddhist equivalent to heaven.

[Hanzze]

The hyper heaven for "frighten to lose existence practitioner". *smile* That is why some recommend to do not call it Buddha Dhamma when teaching the modern men, on the other hand its the best bait for missionary activity to get bigger and sustain even when it is not really proper time and proper place.

Aside with cynicism. Can you give us some references of how you came to your understanding? *smile*

[santamonicacj]

I found a quote from HHDL. On an undated recording titled "Buddha Nature" HHDL says in a Q&A session that according to the Vaibashika school at the Mahaparanirvana Sakyamuni ceased to exist, but in the "higher schools" (HHDL's term, not mine) he is thought to still remain.

I take HHDL as a knowledgeable authority on the subject.

[Hanzze]

I take HHDL as a knowledgeable authority on the subject.

Why? Do you think he has experiences regarding the death of an Arahant? Just a thought, one wanders endless and even willingly around in the circle of birth and death, thinking reached is the goal, don't you think that some confusion of what is and what is missed are natural? *smile*

For sure we can call rebirth also manifestation, and then we also can believe that we are no more subject to birth, aging, sickness and death.

[santamonicacj]

I take HHDL as a knowledgeable authority on the subject.

Why? Do you think he has experiences regarding the death of an Arahant?

You mean His Holiness the XIVth incarnation of the Dalai Lama? Uh, well, I guess I kinda do...

Actually in all fairness HHDL is simply stating the historical position/perspective of a given school. I'm sure his studies have included rigorous examination of that school. He is a geshe after all!

[Hanzze]

Watch out the livelihood, activity level and the topics of operation. For sure he is a great Bodhisattva and a very needed chairman as well as a good teacher for a broad audience. *smile*

But maybe you can quote the source where he revered "in a Q&A session that according to the Vaibashika school at the Mahaparanirvana Sakyamuni ceased to exist, but in the "higher schools" (HHDL's term, not mine) he is thought to still remain."

[santamonicacj]

But maybe you can quote the source where he revered;

in a Q&A session that according to the Vaibashika school at the Mahaparanirvana Sakyamuni ceased to exist, but in the "higher schools" (HHDL's term, not mine) he is thought to still remain."

In the recording I listened to HHDL did not cite any references to support his answer.

[lankaman]

Here is an Abidhammik explanation of the related stuff. It also talks about the question of this discussion (four fold question).http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html#nibbaana

[Hanzze]

But maybe you can quote the source where he revered;

in a Q&A session that according to the Vaibashika school at the Mahaparanirvana Sakyamuni ceased to exist, but in the "higher schools" (HHDL's term, not mine) he is thought to still remain."

In the recording I listened to HHDL did not cite any references to support his answer.

Maybe you know his sentences, what he actually said which had lead you to quote so. Maybe it's also wrong understood or wrong translated. *smile* Sorry if I am too doggedly, but I think such requesting would protect us for misunderstandings as well as form misinterpreted teachings.

[santamonicacj]

Maybe you know his sentences, what he actually said which had lead you to quote so. Maybe it's also wrong understood or wrong translated. *smile* Sorry if I am too doggedly, but I think such requesting would protect us for misunderstandings as well as form misinterpreted teachings.

I went back and listened to the introduction and found out that the recording is from a 1981 talk at the Theosophical Society. The subject of the talk by HHDL was “Buddha Nature”.

The translator was Jeffrey Hopkins, however HHDL spoke in English and only used JH when he was at a loss for words. Sometimes HHDL would speak in Tibetan, and then he would continue in English. I assume that way JH would know what HHDL was trying to say and could check his English so that there would be no mistakes. However I do not speak Tibetan so I can't say that with certainty.

The following is a word-for-word transcription. I put quotation marks around the one phrase JH translated for HHDL. The rest is in HHDL’s own words, including his stumbles in English:

*****

Q:
Is there any relation between self, atman, and Nirvana?

A:
That much depend on interpretation of self. The self which experiencing things and committing merits or virtues, “that self is the person who attains Nirvana.”(JH) Now you see about the, how to say, what window(?/sic) happen, about self, after reaching Nirvana, now here different explanation. According to Vaibashik school of thought, when person reach Mahaparinirvana then there is no more person, completely disappear. But according to the higher school of thought, the person still remain, the being itself still remain. Now you see according Vaibashik theory, now you see Sakyamuni Buddha as a being, no more, since he got Mahaparinirvana. But other, you see, according other school of thought, then Sakyamuni Buddha still, how to say, the Buddha’s mind or Sakyamuni Buddha a being itself, still remain, not only, how to say, will always remain. Like that.

*****

I have the recording on my Mac in my I-tunes folder. If I was more tech savvy I could e-mail it to you.

[Hanzze]

Thanks for your effort! I really do not know where we got all this ideas from, neither about the "thoughts of Vaibashik school" (which are simple nihilistic here) nor the thoughts of the "higher school" (which are also clearly eternal here is this sentences).
To begin an "buddhist" explaining with "That much depend on interpretation of self." is very strange, as the teachings are nothing but about to understand the cause of suffering which arises throughout the misunderstanding of self. *smile*

How ever, both explanations do not lead to an release of suffering and an detachment from "I".

[ground]

I guess when an arhat is dead then it does not apply to say that the arhat is still living. This is the insight that happens. But I can't say to whom this happens