Вопросы пропаданцам

[
Спасибо. Наоборот, тут как раз то же, о чем я говорю про MN 78. Прекращение намерений достигнуть цель посредством её достижения.

Будда же не грабил корованы после самбодхи. А организовал сангху и 40+ лет учил. Хотя у него уже и не было намерения стать Учителем Мира. В трех соснах заплелись.

В МН 78 неблагая санкапа прекращается в первой джхане, благая (кусала) санкапа прекращается во второй. То есть любая санкапа прекращается. У Вас есть какая то санкапа которую нельзя отнести к неблагой или благой?

Did any early Buddhist ("Hinayana") schools believe that consciousness (vijñāna) survives after the death of an arhat?

🔹 1. Theravāda (still existing today)

   View: No survival of consciousness after the death of an arhat.

   According to Theravāda, at the death of an arhat (parinibbāna), the five aggregates (pañcakkhandha) — including consciousness — completely cease.

   There is no rebirth, no continuing consciousness, no surviving self or essence. This is consistent with the doctrine of anattā (no-self).

   "When an arahant passes away, nothing remains — not even consciousness — because the causes for rebirth have been destroyed."

In sum: Theravāda denies any post-mortem survival of consciousness for an arhat.

🔹 2. Sarvāstivāda (“all exists” school)

   View: More complex. They held that dharmas (phenomena) exist in the past, present, and future.

   Consciousness as a momentary dharma arises and ceases, but they theorized a stream of continuity (santāna).

   After death, for ordinary beings, rebirth occurs via this continuum — but for an arhat, this stream ceases.

   So despite their unique metaphysics, they also denied consciousness survival after parinirvāṇa.

🔹 3. Pudgalavāda (Personalist school)

   View: Most distinctive among early schools.

   They posited a "person" (pudgala) that is neither identical to nor different from the five aggregates.

   This “person” is what undergoes rebirth, even though it’s not a self in the eternalist sense.

   Crucially, Pudgalavādins believed this pudgala completely ceases at the parinirvāṇa of an arhat.

So while they posited a quasi-personal continuity, they did not affirm post-death survival of consciousness for an arhat.

🔹 4. Mahāsāṅghika (proto-Mahāyāna school)

   Some of their sub-schools may have leaned toward eternal Buddha-nature-like ideas, but these ideas later evolved into Mahāyāna proper.

   The original Mahāsāṅghika schools do not clearly teach survival of vijñāna after arhat death.

The Abhidharmakośa by Vasubandhu, written in the 4th–5th century CE, is one of the most authoritative texts on Abhidharma and represents primarily the Sarvāstivāda-Vaibhāṣika view, though Vasubandhu also critiques it from a Sautrāntika perspective.
🧠 Short Answer:

The Abhidharmakośa does not teach that consciousness (vijñāna) survives the death of an arhat.

🧾 What does the Kośa say?

1. Death and the Cessation of Consciousness

   In Kośa Chapter 3 (Lokaprakṛti-nirdeśa), Vasubandhu discusses death and rebirth consciousness (pratisaṃdhi-vijñāna).

   He states that consciousness ceases entirely at the time of parinirvāṇa, i.e., when an arhat dies.

   There is no rebirth-linking consciousness (pratisaṃdhi) after parinirvāṇa.

2. Nirvāṇa of an Arhat

   In Kośa Chapter 8 (Pudgalapratiṣedha, the refutation of the self), Vasubandhu affirms that the stream of aggregates ends at final nirvāṇa.

   He explicitly rejects any surviving "self" or "subtle continuity" at death for arhats.

   “An arhat, having destroyed all kleśas and all causes for rebirth, does not take rebirth, and his skandhas cease without remainder.”

3. Survival of vijñāna?

   The Vaibhāṣikas held that dharmas exist in all three times, so vijñāna exists as a dharma even in the future. But they did not say a specific stream of vijñāna continues for an arhat after death.

   Sautrāntikas, who Vasubandhu often sides with, reject even that eternal existence, viewing consciousness as a momentary stream that ceases when the causes are exhausted.

The pure (nirāsrava) factors are opposed to arising, to existence. Thus the five sensory
consciousnesses, which are always impure, and the mental consciousness, when it is impure, give us
the elementary substance consciousness (Vibhāṣā, 75, 11).

The conditioned factors, with the exception of the (noble) path, are impure; they are
impure because the fluxes adhere to or grow concordantly in them [sam-anuśerate].

The truth of the (noble) path66 [vi. 2a, 25d; vii. 3b] and also the three unconditioned
factors are pure.

Cessation due to deliberation is disconnection [from the impure factors], each
disconnection taken separately.

Cessation due to deliberation or nirvāṇa is disconnection (visaṃyoga; ii. 57d) from the impure
factors.

Five pure groups;404 F 48
There are five pure groups (skandha),405
1. morality (śīla; iv. 13),406
2. concentration (samādhi; vi. 68),407
3. superior knowledge (prajñā; ii. 25),408 [21 a]
4. liberation (vimukti; vi. 76a);409 and
5. cognition–insight of liberation (vimuktijñānadarśana):410
the first is included in the aggregate of material form (rūpaskandha); the others (i.e., 2–5.) are
included in the aggregate of formations (saṃskāraskandha) (Saṃyutta, i. 99; Dīgha, iii. 279;
Dharmasaṃgraha, 23).411
///
iii. the pure [anāsrava] factors:
(a) the unconditioned factors and
(b) the factors that are part of the (noble) path,
cannot be abandoned [apraheya].

два трушных

С тем же успехом вы нагуглите кучу мнений про ВСЁ. Смысл это рассматривать как источник информации? Эти же скомпиллированные статьи вам и выдает ИИ.


На первых же страницах. Там еще несколько страниц цитат можно найти типа этого;



Т.е. люди даже не читают, что там написано.


Вы у ИИ спрашиваете не потому, что книжку открывали. Чисто оперируете инфой с реддита и от ИИ. Океан планктона, не способного в предложение. Ппц.

the first is included in the aggregate of material form (rūpaskandha); the others (i.e., 2–5.) are
included in the aggregate of formations (saṃskāraskandha) (Saṃyutta, i. 99; Dīgha, iii. 279;