<p>In case one, there is re-birth - hence he continues with grasping.
In the second case (for an Arahant), there is no rebirth.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-03T20:43:43.847Z
2017-10-03T23:19:01.373Z
2017-10-03T23:19:01.373Z
SarathW
<p>The question is whether (in each case) grasping will stop or re-arise.</p>

<p>So far as I understand it:</p>

<ul>
<li>Aggregates arise and cease</li>
<li>Aggregates may cease here (death) and re-arise there (birth)</li>
<li>Generally clinging-aggregates are dukkha (says the first noble truth)</li>
<li>View of 'self' (identity views) are dukkha (says the doctrine of anatta)</li>
</ul>

<p>The above are (and remain) universal truths regardless of X and Z.</p>

<p>X and Z inherit their own kamma. One is and the other isn't ignorant of these truths, one does and the other doesn't suffer.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T09:02:53.520Z
Please let me know if I understood your answer correctly. In the case 1a aggregates would re-arise and grasping to the aggregates as 'self' would continue? And in the case of 2a you're saying that aggregates would re-arise, but there will be no grasping to these aggregates as 'self', thus grasping will stop? If I didn't understand it correctly, then please just add a simple answer so that I can understand.
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T09:39:58.553Z
In the second case and the first, aggregates continue to be born; but when person Z stops grasping she is liberated.
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T10:22:37.637Z
So, 1a: grasping continues for X. 2a: grasping stops for Z. Further explanation: 1a: when grasping continues for X, aggregates (people) continue to arise, but X is not liberated from these aggregates. 2a: even though grasping stops for Z, aggregates (people) continue to arise, but Z is liberated from these aggregates. If what I wrote corresponds to your answer, you can, if you think it would be helpful for other readers, add it in your answer, because right now your answer can be interpreted also in some other way.
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T10:29:43.200Z
I'll leave your comment in case it helps, but the answer was as clear as I could make it. IMHO your question belongs to the category of "will I exist in future?" ([Sabbasava Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html)).
ChrisW
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T11:58:11.620Z
Ok. If my comment is in conformation with your answer, then it's ok to stay and I understand your answer. Thanks for answering.
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T07:19:03.507Z
2017-10-04T07:19:03.507Z
ChrisW
<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in
  the ground?</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>I sense this 1st question falls outside of the sphere of Buddhism because in the suttas I am not aware of any teachings about "grasping" &amp; "rebirth". The teachings about "rebirth" are about good &amp; bad kamma, which are mundane/worldly (refer to MN 117). Where as "grasping" falls into the supramundane/transcendent teachings. For example, in MN 144, it is said the monk that has "grasping" prior to the termination of life is "blameworthy" rather than is subject to kammic inheritance. The common idea in the suttas intepretated &amp; translated as "rebirth" or "reappearance" is about kammic inheritance. These teachings assume there is grasping because these teachings refer to "a being" ("satta") that inherits kamma. The word "satta" literally means "grasping" because the word "satta" itself means "<a href="https://suttacentral.net/define/satta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">to cling</a>" (refer to <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SN 23.2</a>). </p>

<p>In summary, a person or mind that has <strong>comprehendeded</strong> "grasping", per the instructions on the 1st sermon, should abandoned the cause of that grasping (i.e, craving) to reach Nibbana. Where as the teachings about "kammic inheritance" (aka "rebirth") are for puthujjana who have not comprehended grasping. </p>

<p>Any mind that has truly comprehended the nature of grasping (the 1st noble truth) must truly comprehend the other noble truths. This shows the question here is merely intellectual.   </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping.</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The suttas list many types of liberation of mind (ceto-vimutti) that occurs to a living mind, such as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The immeasurable (loving-kindness) mind-release, the (perception of) nothingness mind-release, the emptiness (sunnata) mind-release, the
  theme-less-mind-release... MN 43</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Z mind (not the 'Z person') was liberated before the termination of life. At the termination of life, there is no liberation because there is no mind, as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>'... after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being
  relished, will grow cold right here.' MN 140</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The term 'liberation' in Buddhism is liberation <strong>of</strong> mind (rather than liberation <strong>from</strong> mind). At the termination of life, there can be no liberation of mind because there is no mind anymore. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong><em>My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried
  in the ground?</em></strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The mind free from grasping views the termination of life as merely the ending of the aggregates. Please refer to SN 22.85 here, which answers the question conclusively. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
  supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
  have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
  Dhamma.</p>
  
  <p>Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: "A
  monk, a worthy one, with <strong>no more mental effluents</strong>: what is he on the
  break-up of the body, after death?"</p>
  
  <p>Thus asked, I would answer, '<strong>Form</strong> is inconstant... <strong>Feeling</strong>...
  <strong>Perception</strong>... <strong>Fabrications</strong>... <strong>Consciousness</strong> is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is
  unsatisfactory <strong>has ceased and gone to its end</strong>.</p>
  
  <p>Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.</p>
  
  <p>SN 22.85</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-03T20:23:44.197Z
You didn't answer the two questions 1a and 2a. The questions were: 1a "Will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?" and 2a "Will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?"
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-03T20:30:42.560Z
I will try to answer it later. I have important things to do now. In the mean time, try to realise what the absence of grasping is. If this occurs, the questions you have written may become irrelevant. I will return in a few hours within which "you" might attain stream-entry.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-03T22:55:52.077Z
I didn't downvoted your answer. I think it's useful. At least to me because I want to understand. Also I'm very thankful for taking the time to answer. Thank you. Please let's just put the suttas aside for a moment and do baby steps so that even me can understand. If I understand your answer to question 1a correctly, your answer is "grasping stops"?
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T11:54:28.443Z
Can you please answer my last question in the comments?
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T11:57:29.890Z
I can't factually answer your question, because it is speculation, however there are suttas (MN 38; SN 22.53) that seem to say mind cannot exist without sense organs & without a physical body (rupa). Regards
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T12:05:57.873Z
Yes, I completely understand where you're coming from. I understand it can't be factually answered. To answer such question great wisdom is needed. But I feel you have such wisdom. To me it seems like you had your own enlightenments. From your own personal enlightenments and all the other studies you have done on this subject, would your answer to the question 1a be "grasping stops"?
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T13:58:41.323Z
Or would your answer to 1a be "I don't know"? I'm asking because I'd like you to clarify what's your answer. Is it "grasping stops" or is it "I don't know"?
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T19:43:15.403Z
Please answer what is your position on your answer regarding 1a: Is it a) grasping stops b) I don't know c) I don't know, but it seems like it stops ??
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T05:26:48.817Z
Ok I got it. Since you said "I can't factually answer your question, because it is speculation" I see your answer to the question 1a is b) "You don't know". In addition, since you said "however there are suttas that seem to say mind cannot exist without sense organs & without a physical body" and since all your interpretations of the suttas and your own writings about reincarnation are about non-existence of reincarnation, your answer to 1a is "I don't know, but I believe in no reincarnation or post-mortem rebirth". Thus your answer to 1a is "I don't know, but I believe grasping stops".
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T08:13:44.757Z
There is no life after death because consciousness cannot transit mental defilements to another physical body. Any genuine insight will confirm this. The Pali suttas also say there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body. Reincarnation obviously does not exist because, if it did, the human world would get wiser & wiser (which it is not). Life after death is a superstition.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T08:22:37.370Z
Thank you for clarifying the matter. So from your last comment I see your answer to question 1a is "grasping stops". And by looking at your original answer, your answer to question 2a is "grasping stops". Further explanation: 2a. grasping stops in the here & now, before dead physical body is put in the coffin. If what I wrote corresponds to your answer, you can, if you think it would be helpful for other readers, add it in your answer, because right now your answer can be interpreted also in some other way.
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T08:24:07.150Z
These views will never reach enlightenment; it is impossible. Just wasting time.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T08:35:22.560Z
I see something is not right here. If these views that I mentioned in my previous comment above, regarding questions 1a and 2a, are not helpful for reaching enlightenment and are just a waste of time, then why did you say to me in your answers and comments below your answer that you have such views??
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T08:51:29.703Z
Your questions are about things that cannot be proven. Best to stop. Bye.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-05T08:51:39.927Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/66643/discussion-between-dhammadhatu-and-beginner).
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-03T20:12:57.240Z
2017-10-03T22:11:18.547Z
2017-10-03T22:11:18.547Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>1a. will grasping stop?</p>

<p>Grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.</p>

<p>2a. will grasping re-arise?</p>

<p>Grasping will not re-arise, grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.</p>

<p>There is no enlightened person, there is no ignorant person, there is just grasping, aka neurosis. This neurosis is what's passed from life to life. Once you learn to be free from neurosis, you learn to be free from termination of life, from "person" etc.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T11:56:15.477Z
Andrei, is your answer regarding 2a same as the answer of ChrisW? (read in the comments section of his answer for further clarifications).
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-04T13:08:30.660Z
Yes, I think they are very similar.
Andriy Volkov
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-03T23:09:34.653Z
2017-10-03T23:09:34.653Z
Andriy Volkov
<p>Please answer these two questions:</p>

<p>1a. Suppose there is an <strong>ignorant</strong> person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X's material body is being destroyed by cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X the incoming termination of life is hell in the here &amp; now because of grasping. For X termination of life is reality in the here &amp; now because of grasping. Suppose X life will be terminated while X is grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?</p>

<p>2a. Suppose there is an <strong>enlightened</strong> person named Z who is not grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose Z's material body is being destroyed by cancer. Z is not suffering because of freedom from grasping. For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping. For Z termination of life does not exist in the here &amp; now because of freedom from grasping. Suppose Z life will be terminated while Z is free from grasping. My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?</p>

<rebirth><self><reincarnation>
What happens to grasping at 'self' after termination of life?
# What happens to grasping at 'self' after termination of life?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-10-03)

Please answer these two questions:

1a. Suppose there is an **ignorant** person named X who is grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose X's material body is being destroyed by cancer. X is suffering very much because of grasping. For X the incoming termination of life is hell in the here & now because of grasping. For X termination of life is reality in the here & now because of grasping. Suppose X life will be terminated while X is grasping. My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

2a. Suppose there is an **enlightened** person named Z who is not grasping to the aggregates as 'self' (let's call this just 'grasping'). Suppose Z's material body is being destroyed by cancer. Z is not suffering because of freedom from grasping. For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping. For Z termination of life does not exist in the here & now because of freedom from grasping. Suppose Z life will be terminated while Z is free from grasping. My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?

**Tags:** rebirth, self, reincarnation


---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-10-03. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

1a. will grasping stop?

Grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.

2a. will grasping re-arise?

Grasping will not re-arise, grasping will not stop, grasping occurs.

There is no enlightened person, there is no ignorant person, there is just grasping, aka neurosis. This neurosis is what's passed from life to life. Once you learn to be free from neurosis, you learn to be free from termination of life, from "person" etc.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Andrei, is your answer regarding 2a same as the answer of username_2? (read in the comments section of his answer for further clarifications).  
> **username_4**: Yes, I think they are very similar.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-10-03. Score: 3

In case one, there is re-birth - hence he continues with grasping.
In the second case (for an Arahant), there is no rebirth.


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-10-04. Score: 2

The question is whether (in each case) grasping will stop or re-arise.

So far as I understand it:

* Aggregates arise and cease
* Aggregates may cease here (death) and re-arise there (birth)
* Generally clinging-aggregates are dukkha (says the first noble truth)
* View of 'self' (identity views) are dukkha (says the doctrine of anatta)

The above are (and remain) universal truths regardless of X and Z.

X and Z inherit their own kamma. One is and the other isn't ignorant of these truths, one does and the other doesn't suffer.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Please let me know if I understood your answer correctly. In the case 1a aggregates would re-arise and grasping to the aggregates as 'self' would continue? And in the case of 2a you're saying that aggregates would re-arise, but there will be no grasping to these aggregates as 'self', thus grasping will stop? If I didn't understand it correctly, then please just add a simple answer so that I can understand.  
> **username_2**: In the second case and the first, aggregates continue to be born; but when person Z stops grasping she is liberated.  
> **username_0**: So, 1a: grasping continues for X. 2a: grasping stops for Z. Further explanation: 1a: when grasping continues for X, aggregates (people) continue to arise, but X is not liberated from these aggregates. 2a: even though grasping stops for Z, aggregates (people) continue to arise, but Z is liberated from these aggregates. If what I wrote corresponds to your answer, you can, if you think it would be helpful for other readers, add it in your answer, because right now your answer can be interpreted also in some other way.  
> **username_2**: I'll leave your comment in case it helps, but the answer was as clear as I could make it. IMHO your question belongs to the category of "will I exist in future?" ([Sabbasava Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html)).  
> **username_0**: Ok. If my comment is in conformation with your answer, then it's ok to stay and I understand your answer. Thanks for answering.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-10-03. Score: -1

> ***My question is: in the described case of person X, will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in
> the ground?***

I sense this 1st question falls outside of the sphere of Buddhism because in the suttas I am not aware of any teachings about "grasping" & "rebirth". The teachings about "rebirth" are about good & bad kamma, which are mundane/worldly (refer to MN 117). Where as "grasping" falls into the supramundane/transcendent teachings. For example, in MN 144, it is said the monk that has "grasping" prior to the termination of life is "blameworthy" rather than is subject to kammic inheritance. The common idea in the suttas intepretated & translated as "rebirth" or "reappearance" is about kammic inheritance. These teachings assume there is grasping because these teachings refer to "a being" ("satta") that inherits kamma. The word "satta" literally means "grasping" because the word "satta" itself means "[to cling](https://suttacentral.net/define/satta)" (refer to [SN 23.2](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html)).

In summary, a person or mind that has **comprehendeded** "grasping", per the instructions on the 1st sermon, should abandoned the cause of that grasping (i.e, craving) to reach Nibbana. Where as the teachings about "kammic inheritance" (aka "rebirth") are for puthujjana who have not comprehended grasping.

Any mind that has truly comprehended the nature of grasping (the 1st noble truth) must truly comprehend the other noble truths. This shows the question here is merely intellectual.

> ***For Z the incoming termination of life is liberating because of freedom from grasping.***

The suttas list many types of liberation of mind (ceto-vimutti) that occurs to a living mind, such as:

> The immeasurable (loving-kindness) mind-release, the (perception of) nothingness mind-release, the emptiness (sunnata) mind-release, the
> theme-less-mind-release... MN 43

The Z mind (not the 'Z person') was liberated before the termination of life. At the termination of life, there is no liberation because there is no mind, as follows:

> '... after the termination of life, all that is sensed, not being
> relished, will grow cold right here.' MN 140

The term 'liberation' in Buddhism is liberation **of** mind (rather than liberation **from** mind). At the termination of life, there can be no liberation of mind because there is no mind anymore.

> ***My question is: in the described case of person Z, will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried
> in the ground?***

The mind free from grasping views the termination of life as merely the ending of the aggregates. Please refer to SN 22.85 here, which answers the question conclusively.

> Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil
> supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I
> have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the
> Dhamma.
>
> Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: "A
> monk, a worthy one, with **no more mental effluents**: what is he on the
> break-up of the body, after death?"
>
> Thus asked, I would answer, '**Form** is inconstant... **Feeling**...
> **Perception**... **Fabrications**... **Consciousness** is inconstant. That which is inconstant is unsatisfactory. That which is
> unsatisfactory **has ceased and gone to its end**.
>
> Very good, my friend Yamaka. Very good.
>
> SN 22.85

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: You didn't answer the two questions 1a and 2a. The questions were: 1a "Will grasping stop after X's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?" and 2a "Will grasping re-arise after Z's dead material body is put in the coffin and buried in the ground?"  
> **username_3**: I will try to answer it later. I have important things to do now. In the mean time, try to realise what the absence of grasping is. If this occurs, the questions you have written may become irrelevant. I will return in a few hours within which "you" might attain stream-entry.  
> **username_0**: I didn't downvoted your answer. I think it's useful. At least to me because I want to understand. Also I'm very thankful for taking the time to answer. Thank you. Please let's just put the suttas aside for a moment and do baby steps so that even me can understand. If I understand your answer to question 1a correctly, your answer is "grasping stops"?  
> **username_0**: Can you please answer my last question in the comments?  
> **username_3**: I can't factually answer your question, because it is speculation, however there are suttas (MN 38; SN 22.53) that seem to say mind cannot exist without sense organs & without a physical body (rupa). Regards  
> **username_0**: Yes, I completely understand where you're coming from. I understand it can't be factually answered. To answer such question great wisdom is needed. But I feel you have such wisdom. To me it seems like you had your own enlightenments. From your own personal enlightenments and all the other studies you have done on this subject, would your answer to the question 1a be "grasping stops"?  
> **username_0**: Or would your answer to 1a be "I don't know"? I'm asking because I'd like you to clarify what's your answer. Is it "grasping stops" or is it "I don't know"?  
> **username_0**: Please answer what is your position on your answer regarding 1a: Is it a) grasping stops b) I don't know c) I don't know, but it seems like it stops ??  
> **username_0**: Ok I got it. Since you said "I can't factually answer your question, because it is speculation" I see your answer to the question 1a is b) "You don't know". In addition, since you said "however there are suttas that seem to say mind cannot exist without sense organs & without a physical body" and since all your interpretations of the suttas and your own writings about reincarnation are about non-existence of reincarnation, your answer to 1a is "I don't know, but I believe in no reincarnation or post-mortem rebirth". Thus your answer to 1a is "I don't know, but I believe grasping stops".  
> **username_3**: There is no life after death because consciousness cannot transit mental defilements to another physical body. Any genuine insight will confirm this. The Pali suttas also say there can be no arising of consciousness without a physical body. Reincarnation obviously does not exist because, if it did, the human world would get wiser & wiser (which it is not). Life after death is a superstition.  
> **username_0**: Thank you for clarifying the matter. So from your last comment I see your answer to question 1a is "grasping stops". And by looking at your original answer, your answer to question 2a is "grasping stops". Further explanation: 2a. grasping stops in the here & now, before dead physical body is put in the coffin. If what I wrote corresponds to your answer, you can, if you think it would be helpful for other readers, add it in your answer, because right now your answer can be interpreted also in some other way.  
> **username_3**: These views will never reach enlightenment; it is impossible. Just wasting time.  
> **username_0**: I see something is not right here. If these views that I mentioned in my previous comment above, regarding questions 1a and 2a, are not helpful for reaching enlightenment and are just a waste of time, then why did you say to me in your answers and comments below your answer that you have such views??  
> **username_3**: Your questions are about things that cannot be proven. Best to stop. Bye.  
> **username_3**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/66643/discussion-between-dhammadhatu-and-username_0).  

---

