Does a Tathāgata Remain After Death? A Tetralemma

This is a group of suttas relating to the infamous “tetralemma” which has puzzled Buddhists for centuries. As can be seen from the explanation, the key to understanding the tetralemma is to realise the concept of a Tathāgata (someone who is liberated from the five collections) cannot be associated with the concept of paraṃ maraṇā (after death) since the concept of “existence” and “death” are intrinsically linked with the five collections.

Note that hoti can have multiple meanings including “become/exist/stay/remain”. I have chosen to translate it as “remain” in the tetralemma because that makes the most sense.

13S4/10.1.1 Khemāsutta

1749. At one time the Bhagavā was staying at Sāvatthī, in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s Park. Now, at that time, the bhikkhunī Khemā, while wandering in the Kosalas, had arrived at Toraṇavatthu, between Sāvatthī and Sāketa, for a stay. Then King Pasenadi of Kosala, while travelling from Sāketa to Sāvatthī, stopped for a night at Toraṇavatthu, between Sāketa and Sāvatthī. Then King Pasenadi of Kosala addressed a certain man thus: “Come, good man, find out if there is any renunciant or brahmin of such a nature in Toraṇavatthu whom I might visit today.”

The king was told there were no suitable renunciants or brahmins, but the bhikkhunī Khemā, who was a disciple of the Buddha, had a good reputation. So the king decided to pay homage to her.

1752. Then King Pasenadi of Kosala approached the bhikkhunī Khemā. Having approached the bhikkhunī Khemā and paid homage, he sat down to one side. Seated to one side, King Pasenadi of Kosala said this to the bhikkhunī Khemā:

“Ayye, does a Tathāgata remain after death?”

“Mahārāja, this has been undeclared by the Bhagavā: ‘a Tathāgata remains after death.’”

“But Ayye, does a Tathāgata not remain after death?”

“Mahārāja, this too has been undeclared by the Bhagavā: ‘a Tathāgata does not remain after death.’”

“Ayye, does a Tathāgata both remain and not remain after death?”

“Mahārāja, this too has been undeclared by the Bhagavā: ‘a Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death.’”

“But Ayye, does a Tathāgata neither remain nor not remain after death?”

“Mahārāja, this too has been undeclared by the Bhagavā: ‘a Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death.’”

Naturally puzzled, the king sought an explanation.

1754. “Then, Mahārāja, I shall question you about this in return. You should answer as you see fit. What do you think, Mahārāja, do you have any accountant, auditor, or enumerator who is able to count the sand of the Ganges — saying, ‘There are so many grains of sand,’ or ‘so many hundreds of grains of sand,’ or ‘so many thousands of grains of sand,’ or ‘so many hundreds of thousands of grains of sand’?”

“No, Ayye.”

“But do you have any accountant, auditor, or enumerator who is able to count the water in the great ocean — saying, ‘There are so many measures of water,’ or ‘so many hundreds of measures of water,’ or ‘so many thousands of measures of water,’ or ‘so many hundreds of thousands of measures of water’?”

“No, Ayye.”

“For what reason?”

“Reverend lady, the ocean is deep, immeasurable, and unfathomable.”

“Even so, Mahārāja, that form by which one would define a Tathāgata — that rūpaṃ (form) has been abandoned by the Tathāgata, its root cut off, made like a palm stump, annihilated, and is no longer subject to future arising. The Tathāgata, Mahārāja, is freed from reckoning by form. He is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable — just like the great ocean.

It does not apply to say ‘the Tathāgata remains after death’;

it does not apply to say ‘the Tathāgata does not remain after death’;

it does not apply to say ‘the Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death’;

it does not apply to say ‘the Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death’.”

any vedanā (feelings) by which one would define a Tathāgata …
any saññā (apperceptions) by which one would define a Tathāgata …
any saṅkhārā (mental constructions) by which one would define a Tathāgata …
any viññāṇaṃ (consciousness) by which one would define a Tathāgata …

13S4/10.1.2 Anurādhasutta

1763. At one time the Bhagavā was staying at Vesālī, in the Great Wood, at the Gabled Hall. Now, at that time, āyasmā Anurādha was staying in a forest hut not far from the Bhagavā. Then many wandering renunciants of other sects approached āyasmā Anurādha. Having approached, they exchanged cordial greetings with āyasmā Anurādha. Having concluded their cordial and polite talk, they sat down to one side. Seated to one side, those wandering renunciants of other sects said this to āyasmā Anurādha:

“Friend Anurādha, that Tathāgata, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment, does he declare the Tathāgata in these four ways:

‘a Tathāgata remains after death,’ or

‘a Tathāgata does not remain after death,’ or

‘a Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death,’ or

‘a Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death’?”

“Friend, that Tathāgata, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment, declares the Tathāgata apart from these four ways:

‘a Tathāgata remains after death,’ or

‘a Tathāgata does not remain after death,’ or

‘a Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death,’ or

‘a Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death’?”

When this was said, those wandering renunciants of other sects said this to āyasmā Anurādha:

“This bhikkhu must be new, recently ordained, or else an elder who is foolish and inexperienced.”

Then those wandering renunciants of other sects, having disparaged āyasmā Anurādha with words of being new and words of being foolish, rose from their seats and departed.

Clearly, Anurādha is confused, and believed the solution to the tetralemma is a fifth (unpostulated) state (“apart from these four ways”).

He seeks clarification from the Buddha, who teaches a variation of the Second Discourse (13S3/1.2.1.7 Anattalakkhaṇasutta) to him, and then queries him whether the Tathāgata can be regarded as

any of the five collections, or
within the five collections, or
distinct from the five collections, or
possessing any of the five collections,
without any of the five collections.

Anurādha answers no to all the above questions. The Buddha then continues:

1779. “What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard form, feeling, apperception, mental constructions, consciousness as a Tathāgata?”

“No, Bhante.”

“What do you think, Anurādha, do you regard this as a Tathāgata who is formless, feeling-less, apperception-less, mental-construction-less, consciousness-less?”

“No, Bhante.”

“And since, Anurādha, even in this very life, the Tathāgata is not found by you as true and real, is it fitting for you to make that declaration:

‘That Tathāgata, the supreme person, the ultimate person, who has attained the ultimate attainment, declares the Tathāgata apart from these four ways:

“a Tathāgata remains after death,” or

“a Tathāgata does not remain after death,” or

“a Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death,” or

“a Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death”’?”

“No, Bhante.”

“Good, good, Anurādha. Formerly, Anurādha, and now, I declare only suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

13S4/10.1.3 Paṭhamasāriputtakoṭṭhikasutta

The context is that at one time, āyasmā Sāriputta and āyasmā Mahākoṭṭhiko were staying at Bārāṇasī, in Isipatana, the Deer Park. Then, in the evening, āyasmā Mahākoṭṭhiko, rising from seclusion, approached āyasmā Sāriputta. Having approached, he exchanged cordial greetings with āyasmā Sāriputta. Having concluded their cordial and polite talk, he sat down to one side. Seated to one side, āyasmā Mahākoṭṭhiko asked āyasmā Sāriputta about the tetralemma.

Sāriputta gave a variation of the answer, by pointing out the four statements of the tetralemma are intrinsically linked with the concept of the five collections.

1784. “‘A Tathāgata remains after death’ — this, friend, pertains to form.

‘A Tathāgata does not remain after death’ — this pertains to form.

‘A Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death’ — this pertains to form.

‘A Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death’—this pertains to form.

[the tetralemma also pertains to feelings, apperceptions, mental constructions, consciousness]

This, friend, is the reason, this is the cause, why this has been undeclared by the Bhagavā.”

13S4/10.1.4 Dutiyasāriputtakoṭṭhikasutta

Another variation, linking the answer to truly knowing and seeing the four realisations in the context of the five collections.

1787. And indeed, friend, for one who

knows and sees form as it really is,

knows and sees the origin of form as it really is,

knows and sees the cessation of form as it really is,

knows and sees the path leading to the cessation of form as it really is, for him:

‘a Tathāgata remains after death’ does not apply;

‘a Tathāgata does not remain after death’ does not apply;

‘a Tathāgata both remains and does not remain after death’ does not apply;

‘a Tathāgata neither remains nor does not remain after death’ does not apply.

[similar for feelings, apperceptions, mental constructions, consciousness]

This, friend, is the reason, this is the cause, why this has been undeclared by the Bhagavā.

Other variations

13S4/10.1.5 Tatiyasāriputtakoṭṭhikasutta - associating the tetralemma to one who is not rid of greed, desire, fondness, thirst, passion, and craving for the five collections
13S4/10.1.6 Catutthasāriputtakoṭṭhikasutta - associating the tetralemma to one who likes, loves, and enjoys the five collections, and don’t truly see the cessation of the five collections