by Tang Huyen

In February 2007, responding on talk.religion.buddhism to a poster who argued that belief in parinirvana as the ultimate Buddhist goal logically permits suicide as a "fast elevator" to liberation, Tang Huyen offered a comprehensive dismantling of that reading — and then went much further.

The core argument is simple: parinirvana is reserved for the awakened (arhat), not for the deluded. But the deeper argument concerns the fourfold quadrilemma (catuskḥṭi). After death, the Tathāgata cannot be said to exist, not to exist, both, or neither. All four possibilities fail. The post marshals extensive parallel citations from the Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas — SN IV, SA, MA, the Dà zhì dù lùn, the Vyākhyā, the Saṅghabheda-vastu, the Prajñāpāramitā in Eight Thousand Lines — to show that the Buddha's two-mode teaching on post-death states is coherent precisely because it refuses to satisfy our demand for a simple answer.

The title's ironic warmth — "It is not so simple, is it, dear?" — is characteristic of Tang Huyen's manner with interlocutors who underestimate the difficulty of the teaching they claim to master.

The Fallacy of the Fast Elevator

The claim that parinirvana is the ultimate Buddhist goal and that suicide therefore provides a shortcut is a fallacy of the most pernicious kind. If somebody "does believe that parinirvana is the ultimate Buddhist goal," then such a person should also know that pari-nirvana occurs only for the awakened (arhat-s), not for the "foolish common persons" (the deluded). The latter only die. If your hypothetical person wants pari-nirvana, he or she should cultivate Buddhism to attain awakening (become an arhat) first. That should be obvious.

It is true that Buddhism has many parts, some of which contradict each other, and to arrive at a coherent whole that makes sense is not easy. But your hypothetical person snips out bits and pieces from Buddhist teachings and grasps them tightly, wholly out of context, and is flavoured with no Buddhist spirit whatsoever. He or she only comes up with a grotesque caricature that scarcely bears any resemblance to any Buddhist original.

The Buddhist spirit is to take everything in levity, as fluff, with much room allowed for ambiguity, uncertainty and contradiction, for what defies categorisation. Your hypothetical person is a fundie who has no sense of exactly that — no sense for ambiguity, uncertainty and contradiction, for what defies categorisation — but instead is a hard-headed, hard-edged realist and literalist who jumps on a few words taken out of context, blows them all out of proportions, and gets carried away in details surgically removed from their context.

The Buddhist spirit is to cultivate detachment and equanimity, to grow balance and perspective, to develop moderation and proportion, to allow for the big picture, which often resists our mental boxes and makes fun of them. It is this spirit which forms and informs Buddhist teachings, and your hypothetical person ignores it completely.

Your hypothetical person believes that suicide will provide a quick solution to suffering by ending life. He or she commits the error called induction from the logical to the real — taking what one believes in for reality. Buddhism starts by rejecting that error, as the Buddha says: "What and what they think it, it is otherwise." What that person believes in is only what that person believes in, and needs not at all be reality.

The Buddha teaches his followers to believe only what they have verified (in the Kalama scripture), and to take what he teaches only as a raft to get to the other shore, and not as anything ultimate. Such an attitude violently contradicts the Buddha's teaching across the board.

In modern philosophy of science it is often said that if you ask a wrong question, you won't even get a wrong answer. Your hypothetical person takes a few words out of context and uses them to frame a possible escape hatch that bears little resemblance to any Buddhist teaching and that instead imperiously contradicts Buddhist teaching both in the letter and spirit.

The Four Truths as Raft

Let us go about it step by step. Somebody who engages with the first truth will test it out in his own life, to check whether the various items as listed by the Buddha are indeed suffering in his life. After verifying them, he then goes on to the second truth, about the arisal of suffering. He checks in his life whether attachment gives rise to suffering. After verifying it, he goes on to the third truth, the cessation of suffering, keeping it as a hypothesis. Then he goes on to the fourth truth, the way to the cessation of suffering. By it he releases attachment and ends his suffering. He personally verifies the four truths in himself, in whole or in part, and drops all four. They have been useful to him, and now he lets them go, for hanging on to them violates the Buddha's teaching about taking his Law (Dharma) only as a raft and not as anything absolute. He also follows the Buddha's teaching about letting go of the truths. By letting go of the truths, he ends his suffering, because in that very letting go he actually practices detachment, which is what ends or at least lessens suffering. The four truths are only means to an end, namely the ending of suffering, and not ends in and of themselves.

In every detail, your hypothetical person has done very much the contrary. He or she fastens on to one of the four truths, blows it all out of proportions, and also fastens on to pari-nirvana, which is reserved for the awakened — not for those who remain deluded.

Consciousness Without a Platform

In Buddhism the five aggregates are the basis on which the deluded build up a false sense of self. The Dà zhì dù lùn (T 25, 1509, 164a18-19): "Now on the basis of the five aggregates there arises the word living being (Candrakīrti, Prasannapadā, 578: pañca skandhān upādāya prajñapyamānaḥ pudgalaḥ). The unwise follow speech to chase realities."

The self is a composition, a part of the fourth aggregate (the compositions), imaginary, fictitious, unreal and untrue, and is falsely built on top of the aggregates.

"There are four stations for consciousness. What are the four? Approaching form, consciousness, standing, stands, takes-as-its-object form, with form as platform, delights in it, waters it and grows it ... Monks! In them consciousness comes, goes, dies, gets born and grows. If one was to declare consciousness coming, going, dying, getting born, and growing apart from them, that would only be speech (Skt. vāg-vastu-mātram) ... When passion with regard to the modality of form is done away with, the contact occasioned by mind getting entangled with form is cut, and when the contact occasioned by mind getting entangled with form is cut, the taking-as-object ends, when the taking-as-object ends, consciousness has no place to stand on, and will no longer grow ... consciousness has no place to stand on, and, unestablished (apratiṣṭhita), will no longer grow. As it no longer grows, it no longer composes (na abhiṁskaroti), when it no longer composes, it is stable (ṭhita), when it is stable, it knows that it has enough (ṭhitattā satuṣito), when it knows that it has enough, it is liberated (satuṣitat tā [vimutto]), when it is liberated, with regard to the world it has nothing to grasp (na kiñci loke upādiyati, Skt. na kiñcil loka upādatte), not grasping he is unperturbed, unperturbed, internally he fully blows out (aparitassaṁ paccattaññeva parinibbāyati). Birth is ended, the chaste life has been lived, what has to be done is done, one knows for oneself that there is no further becoming. I say that that consciousness will not go east, west, south, north, the zenith or nadir, the intermediaries, or any other direction, in the present things it is shadowless, blown-out (parinirvvati or parinirvrṭa), cooled, become pure (brahmī-bhūta)." — SA 39, 9a, 64, 17a; SN III.54-55 (22, 54), 58 (22, 55); Vyākhyā 271-272, 668.

"This monk does not uprise anywhere, he uprises nowhere (ayaṃ bhikkhu na katthaci uppajjati na kuhiñci uppajjatīti)." — MN III.103 (120).

"For a monk who is liberated by the ending of craving, there is no turning onward to be made known (taṇhā-sankhaya-vimuttassa bhikkhuno vattaṃ natthi paññapanāya ti)." — SN IV.391 (44, 6).

"The compositions are suffering (duḥkāḥ saṃskārāḥ), blowing-out is peaceful (śāntaṃ nirvāṇam). When the cause arises suffering arises, and when the cause ceases suffering ceases. The circling is cut off and does not turn onward (chinnaṃ vartma na pravartate). Not linking up [to a re-becoming], the circling ceases (a-pratisandhi nirudhyate). This is the end of suffering (eṣa evānto duḥkasya) ... Peaceful is that state (śāntam idaṃ padaṃ), to wit the giving up of all appositions (upādhi), the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, blowing-out." — Saṅgha-bheda-vastu I.159; Waldschmidt, Bruchstücke, 135; Turfanfunde II.38; MA 62, 498b; SA 293, 83c; Nīdāna-saṃyukta 139-140; Harivarman, Tattva-siddhi, T 32, 1646, 369a10-13.

Two Modes of Teaching on the Post-death State

When the Buddha talks of the awakened after death, he does so in two modes:

1. To those who understand the falsity and illusoriness of the self, he asserts that the consciousness of the awakened does not link on (a-pratisandhi), does not uprise, that there is no turning onward of it to be made known.

2. To those who fail to understand the falsity and illusoriness of the self, he refers back to the five aggregates:

"By whatever cause or condition for making known [the Tathāgata after death] as having form, as without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion, if such cause and condition were to cease absolutely without remainder (sabbena sabbaṃ sabbathā sabbaṃ aparisesaṃ nirujjheyya), by what could one, who would make him known, make him known (kena naṃ paññāpayamāno paññāpeyya) as having form, as without form, as with notion, as without notion, as neither with notion nor without notion?" — SN IV.402 (44, 11); SA 959, 245a.

"That form [and the other aggregates] by which one who makes known the Tathāgata can make him known (tathāgataṃ paññāpayamāno paññāpeyya), that form has been got rid of by the Tathāgata, cut down at the root, made like the stump of a palm tree, made something which has ceased to be, never to grow again in the future. Freed from reckonings by form (rūpa-saṅkhā-vimutto) is the Tathāgata, he is deep (gambhīro), not subject to dimensions (a-ppameyyo), unfathomable like the great ocean. For this last clause SA has: deep (gambhīra), great (vipula), not subject to dimensions (a-prameya), unreckonable (saṃkhyāṃ nopaiti), blown-out (nirvrṭa)." — MN I.487-488 (72); SN IV.376-379 (44, 1); SA 905, 226b; Yogācāra-bhūmi T 30, 1579, 577b25-26.

Mahā-Kāśyapa to Śāriputra: to say that the Tathāgata exists after death, that is "gone-to-form" (Pali rūpa-gataṃ etaṃ; SN IV.385 [44, 3]) [and the other four aggregates]. As to the Tathāgata, his form is ceased (Skt. nirvrṭa), his mind is well liberated (su-vimukta-citta). "He exists after death" does not apply. He is deep, great, not subject to dimensions, unreckonable, blown-out (Skt. variant: a-prameyam a-saṃkhyeyam nirvrṭam). — SA 905, 226b.

The Perfection of Wisdom in Eight Thousand Lines (Aṣṭa, 1935, 554-556; Conze, Eight Thousand, 176): "The Tathāgata exists after death, that is gone-to-form (rūpa-gatam etat) [and the other four aggregates], [and the other three positions], eternal are the self and the world, [and the other undeclared issues, altogether fourteen], that is gone-to-form [and the other four aggregates]."

A Post-mortem Headache Indeed

Your hypothetical person assumes that by killing himself or herself, he or she has ended suffering, but firstly pari-nirvāṇa is reserved for the awakened and excludes the deluded, and secondly, it cannot be said that, after death, the awakened exist, do not exist, both exist and do not exist, neither exist nor do not exist. All four possibilities do not apply.

Now by Buddhist standard your hypothetical person is excluded from pari-nirvāṇa, but assuming the contrary, how would your hypothetical person take the rejection of all four possibilities regarding existence?

The Buddhist spirit is to take everything in levity, as fluff, with much room allowed for ambiguity, uncertainty and contradiction, for what defies categorisation. The state of the awakened after death defies categorisation, at least by the above quadrilemma. Has your hypothetical person cultivated enough detachment and equanimity to take that?

It is not so simple, is it, dear?

Colophon

Originally posted to alt.philosophy.zen, alt.zen, talk.religion.buddhism, and alt.buddha.short.fat.guy by Tang Huyen, February 9, 2007. Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

A masterclass in Buddhist textual argument. Tang Huyen refuses the naive reading of parinirvana as an escape route for the deluded, and proceeds to demonstrate — through extended parallel citation from the Pali Nikāyas, Chinese Āgamas (SA, MA), the Dà zhì dù lùn, the Vyākhyā, the Saṅgha-bheda-vastu, and the Prajñāpāramitā in Eight Thousand Lines — that the post-death state of the awakened is structurally unknowable: not merely beyond language, but beyond all four horns of the catuṣkoṭi. The essay is a model of how to read the quadrilemma as a positive teaching about the nature of liberation rather than as evasion.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: <[email protected]>.

🌲