Referring to this: What do you think of those who say there's nothing after the end of namarupa? - #47 by RobertK
As far as I can see B. Bodhi’s position is very close, yet still falls on the wrong side of the question: is there something or nothing after parinibbāna?
Nothing is the answer I got from basically all the teachers I asked in Na Uyana. It’s the answer I got here. And only in the post above that this shows an inconsistent application of dhamma.
B. Bodhi very clearly says Nibbāna element itself is what is after parinibbāna. He denies that it’s nothing, equating nothing as with the atheist notion of death.
So here I list down several versions of annihilationism. B. @bksubhuti in his blog post mentioned the first:
-
Annihilationism/nihilism doesn’t believe in rebirth. Auto cessation for everyone. This is the atheist materialist most common notion of death. We disagree with this in so far as we believe that rebirth is a fact of life, unless one becomes an arahant.
-
Annihilation is ending of self. In Buddhist point of view, since there’s never a self, what annihilates is not self which annihilates, but just suffering, 5 aggregates, 6 sense bases at parinibbāna. Thus it cannot be labeled as annihilationism.
-
Annihilationism means after ending of rebirth, parinibbāna, there’s nothing after death. Nothing after parinibbāna. Those who believe in this definition of annihilationism would automatically lean on the side of something after parinibbāna. Be it mahayana saying phenomena rolls on, just since concept of rebirth is seen as empty, rebirth ends with the concept seen as empty, to dhammakāya, to consciousness unestablished, to just plain Nibbāna, the deathless, the unconditioned, etc…
I believe that only the first 2 definition of annihilation is valid for Buddhist doctrine, then one can arrive at the right view of nothing after parinibbāna. If one takes up definition 3 as annihilationism, then naturally, one would say it’s something, anything after parinibbāna.
It’s very clear at least from the Na Uyana side that B. Bodhi’s view is incompatible with classical Theravada. I think it’s worth acknowledging this. I don’t wish to see classical Theravada diversing into can fit multiple interpretation of parinibbāna even with the commentaries, subcommentaries helping to clarify matters.
If there is any hero reverence of B. Bodhi, it’s best to lay it aside and just see the view and judge it rather than the person.
I have started on this because some friends of mine in mahayana used B. Bodhi’s talk to support that there’s something after parinibbāna. It’s very clearly not in alignment with right view since people with wrong view can see that it sides with their answer to the question: is there something or nothing after parinibbāna.