Hi Johnny_Lim, thanks.
So the view is not right that apart from the khandha’s there is not such a thing as ‘a being’? You belief there is? So, when the khandha’s end, that being does not end?
I mostly read the sutta’s, but i feel this is not the message of the sutta’s. What can be designated ‘a being’ if this being is without body, without experiences, without feelings, without volitional activity, without anything which consitutes ‘a being’? How can something like that be called ‘a being’?
I also do not understand, when parinibbana is not the end of a being, why is the Buddha not clear about this in the sutta’s? I have not read this until now. Do you know these?
I know sutta’s in which the Buddha does NOT affirm, for example, that the Tathagata exist after death, nor does he denie. He does not affirm he does not exists etc. If it would be true that a being survives parinibbana i do not understand that this is not often mentioned in the sutta-pitaka.
In the end, would buddhism not be some kind of eternalism when a being survives parinibbana? In what sense does that ‘being’ differ from an eternal soul?
kind regards,
Siebe