<p>Nope. Karma and rebirth are essential parts of Buddhism - one could have a long debate on it. </p>

<p>To put it (deceptively) simply: if nothing else does, ignorance surely does survive. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-12T14:22:30.293Z
2017-10-12T14:22:30.293Z
Katinka Hesselink
<p>This question appears to believe there is a lasting &quot;person&quot; or &quot;self&quot;. It is not Buddhist but, instead, 'Eternalism', as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being,
delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back. Iti 49</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Buddhism, this question is considered the question of the Evil One Mara (Satan), as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and
terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from
concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:</p>
<p>By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?</p>
<p>SN 5.10</p>
</blockquote>
<p>MN 2 says this question is inappropriate increasing suffering, as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not
attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations
arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.</p>
<p>This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not
in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? <strong>Shall I be in the future? Shall I
not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?</strong>' Or else
he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
bound?'</p>
<p>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 &amp;
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 &amp; established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of
mine — the knower that is sensitive here &amp; there to the ripening of
good &amp; 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, &amp; death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, &amp; despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &amp;
stress.</p>
<p>MN 2</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Buddhism, &quot;the person&quot; (&quot;puggalo&quot;) is merely a &quot;name&quot; (nāmo) that attaches itself conventionally to five aggregates. The Buddhist view is it is five aggregates that end in a fatal car accident rather than &quot;a person&quot;.</p>
<p>&quot;Death&quot; (&quot;marana&quot;) occurs not to those perished five aggregates but to the surviving loved ones (the &quot;clan&quot;; &quot;gotto&quot;) of those perished five aggregates deceased in the accident because the survivors grieve over their loss to the idea of &quot;a being&quot; or &quot;self&quot; or &quot;person&quot; their minds have manufactured though ignorance.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>At Savatthi…. There the Blessed One said this:</p>
<p>Bhikkhus, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the
taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden. Listen to
that….</p>
<p>And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five
aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject
to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception
aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate
subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.
This is called the burden.</p>
<p>And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said:
<strong>the person (puggalo), this venerable one of such a name (nāmo) and clan (gotto)</strong>. This is called the carrier of the burden.</p>
<p>And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this craving
that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust,
seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual
pleasures, craving the be, craving not to be. This is called the
taking up of the burden.</p>
<p>And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the
remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the
giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on
it. This is called the laying down of the burden.</p>
<p>SN 22.22</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-10T19:34:34.647Z
2017-10-10T22:14:29.860Z
2020-06-17T09:56:10.877Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>Suppose an ignorant person dies in a car accident. Has ignorance come to an end for that person?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-10T17:07:33.587Z
If that's the case, committing suicide would be the 4th noble truth. :) From where you get these ideas? xD
Sankha Kulathantille
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-10T19:55:14.637Z
@SankhaKulathantille Here http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/ .
beginner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-10-11T01:36:22.437Z
@beginner "secular-buddhism" is materialism sprinkled with cherry picked Buddhist elements
Sankha Kulathantille
<ignorance>
Is ignorance eradicated after breakup of the physical body?
# Is ignorance eradicated after breakup of the physical body?

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

Suppose an ignorant person dies in a car accident. Has ignorance come to an end for that person?

**Tags:** ignorance

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: If that's the case, committing suicide would be the 4th noble truth. :) From where you get these ideas? xD  
> **username_0**: @SankhaKulathantille Here http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/ .  
> **username_1**: @username_0 "secular-buddhism" is materialism sprinkled with cherry picked Buddhist elements  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-10-12. Score: 0

Nope. Karma and rebirth are essential parts of Buddhism - one could have a long debate on it.

To put it (deceptively) simply: if nothing else does, ignorance surely does survive.


---

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

This question appears to believe there is a lasting "person" or "self". It is not Buddhist but, instead, 'Eternalism', as follows:

> And how, bhikkhus, do some hold back? Devas and humans enjoy being,
> delight in being, are satisfied with being. When Dhamma is taught to
> them for the cessation of being, their minds do not enter into it or
> acquire confidence in it or settle upon it or become resolved upon it.
> Thus, bhikkhus, do some hold back. Iti 49

In Buddhism, this question is considered the question of the Evil One Mara (Satan), as follows:

> Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and
> terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from
> concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:
>
> By whom has this being been created? Where is the maker of the being?
> Where has the being arisen? Where does the being cease?
>
> SN 5.10

MN 2 says this question is inappropriate increasing suffering, as follows:

> Through his attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his not
> attending to ideas fit for attention, both unarisen fermentations
> arise in him, and arisen fermentations increase.
>
> This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not
> in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
> been what, what was I in the past? **Shall I be in the future? Shall I
> not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
> the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?**' Or else
> he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
> What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
> bound?'
>
> 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.
>
> MN 2

In Buddhism, "the person" ("puggalo") is merely a "name" (nāmo) that attaches itself conventionally to five aggregates. The Buddhist view is it is five aggregates that end in a fatal car accident rather than "a person".

"Death" ("marana") occurs not to those perished five aggregates but to the surviving loved ones (the "clan"; "gotto") of those perished five aggregates deceased in the accident because the survivors grieve over their loss to the idea of "a being" or "self" or "person" their minds have manufactured though ignorance.

> At Savatthi…. There the Blessed One said this:
>
> Bhikkhus, I will teach you the burden, the carrier of the burden, the
> taking up of the burden, and the laying down of the burden. Listen to
> that….
>
> And what, bhikkhus, is the burden? It should be said: the five
> aggregates subject to clinging. What five? The form aggregate subject
> to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception
> aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate
> subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging.
> This is called the burden.
>
> And what, bhikkhus, is the carrier of the burden? It should be said:
> **the person (puggalo), this venerable one of such a name (nāmo) and clan (gotto)**. This is called the carrier of the burden.
>
> And what, bhikkhus, is the taking up of the burden? It is this craving
> that leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust,
> seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual
> pleasures, craving the be, craving not to be. This is called the
> taking up of the burden.
>
> And what, bhikkhus, is the laying down of the burden? It is the
> remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the
> giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on
> it. This is called the laying down of the burden.
>
> SN 22.22


---

