When the king received this report he went to her, greeted her with respect, and questioned her about the after-death condition of a Tathāgata, a liberated sage:

“Does a Tathāgata—a Perfect One—exist after death?”

“The Exalted One has not declared that a Tathāgata exists after death.”

“Then a Tathāgata does not exist after death?”

“That, too, the Exalted One has not declared.”

“Then a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist after death?”

“Even that, the Exalted One has not declared.”

“Then does a Tathāgata neither exist nor not exist after death?”

“That, too, the Exalted One has not declared.”

Thereupon the king wanted to know why the Buddha had rejected these four questions. To understand the reason we must first understand what these four views imply. The views concern a Tathāgata, which here means not only a supreme Buddha but any liberated sage. The four views, however, conceive the Tathāgata in terms of the category of selfhood; assuming that the liberated being is a substantial self, they formulate contradictory theses on the fate of that self. The first view, which is conditioned by the craving for existence, maintains that those who have reached the highest goal continue on after death in some metaphysical dimension, either as distinct individuals or as absorbed into some transpersonal spiritual essence. This answer is the one given by most religions, including several later interpretations of Buddhism.

The second answer—that a Tathāgata does not exist after death— reflects the craving for nonexistence, for annihilation. The theorist regards the Perfect One as a truly existent self whose fate at death is complete annihilation. From this perspective deliverance is nothing more than the absolute dissolution of a real self.

The third answer seeks a compromise: everything impermanent in a Tathāgata would be annihilated at death, but the permanent essence, his soul, would remain. The fourth answer tries to escape the predicament by formulating a “neither-nor” solution—a sceptical approach that still implicitly accepts the validity of the Tathāgata as a real self.

All four formulas have been rejected by the Buddha as wrong views. They all presuppose that there is an “I” distinct from the world—an “I” which is either raised to eternal life or annihilated in the abyss of nothingness—while in reality “I” and “world” are mere abstractions posited on the basis of the five aggregates that constitute the process of experience. Only the Enlightened Ones and their wise disciples can actually see this as it is. Those who do not share this insight assume one of the four speculative views. They suppose either that an “I,” an essentially permanent “self,” is wandering through saṃsāra, the round of birth and death, gradually ascending higher and higher until it is liberated into the divine essence; or they conclude that liberation is simply the destruction of a real self; or they attempt to formulate a syncretic position; or they fall into scepticism.

The Buddha, however, teaches that there is no real “I” or “self” to be either projected into eternity or utterly destroyed; such a substantial self has never existed and thus has never wandered through saṃsāra. What we call “I” and what we call “world” are in reality a constantly changing process, always in flux. This process throws up the ‘illusions of “I” and “world,” which then become objects of speculation regarding their past origin and future destiny. The way to liberation requires that we stop speculating about the “I,” abandon our habitual views and formulas, and directly examine the phenomena on the basis of which views of self are formulated: the concrete processes of mind and body.

Liberation is to be won, not by fashioning metaphysical hypotheses, but by observing with mindfulness the arising and passing away of the five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. All these phenomena have arisen due to causes; therefore they are impermanent and subject to dissolution. But whatever is impermanent and subject to decay cannot be a self. Since the five aggregates are subject to destruction—since they become sick, disintegrate, and pass away—they are not “my” self, they are not “mine”; they are merely empty phenomena occurring through conditions.

Because all views of self are only mental constructions, products of speculative thought, any designation of the Enlightened One after death is an illusion born from a compulsive urge for conceptual certainty. Whoever has followed the Buddha’s Teaching, as Khemā did, is greatly relieved to see that the Buddha did not teach the destruction of an existing entity, the annihilation of a self. We live in a world of perpetual destruction and uncontrollable transiency, in the realm of death, and whatever we look upon as “I” and “mine” is constantly vanishing. It is only by renouncing these things that we can reach a refuge of true peace and security. Thus the Blessed One proclaimed: “Open are the doors to the Deathless. Let those with ears send forth faith.”