A Realized One Both Still Exists and No Longer Exists
Hoticanacahotitathāgatosutta — Sotāpattivagga
Setting
Sāvatthī
Speakers
The Buddha addressing the mendicants
Form
The bare opening question alone, this vagga's final discourse at this level of compression
Length
Under a minute to read
Northern parallel
A rough counterpart may exist in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (T99), though this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — brief here, though the logical structure of affirming both horns of a contradiction rewards careful attention
Why this discourse
The third option in the closing foursome, and logically the strangest: affirming both that a realized one exists after death and that a realized one no longer exists after death, simultaneously. Elsewhere in the Canon (again MN 72) this option is treated as no more coherent than the first two, since it attempts to hold together what looks like a straightforward contradiction rather than escaping the conceptual trap the other three options share.
Reading guide
Affirming both horns at once
"A realized one both still exists and no longer exists after death" — combining SN 24.15's affirmation and SN 24.16's negation into a single claim, rather than choosing between them.
A pattern familiar from Indian logical tradition
This four-way structure — affirm, deny, affirm and deny both, affirm and deny neither — is a recognizable pattern across early Indian philosophical literature (sometimes called a catuṣkoṭi, "four corners"), not unique to Buddhist texts, though the Buddha's own response to it here is diagnostic rather than logical: the view arises from grasping the aggregates regardless of which of the four positions is taken.
Why "both" doesn't resolve the tension
Asserting both existence and non-existence together does not synthesize the two into a coherent middle position; it simply affirms a contradiction. The discourse doesn't pause to point this out explicitly — it applies the same six-ground diagnostic regardless, treating logical incoherence and simple affirmation or denial as equally symptomatic of the same underlying grasping.
This vagga's last compressed page
As with SN 24.11–16, bilara-data preserves only this discourse's opening claim. One discourse remains: SN 24.18, the fourth option and this vagga's true closing discourse, which returns to full elaboration and carries the vagga's own confirmed colophon.
Key terms
hoti ca na ca hoti tathāgato paraṁ maraṇā — a realized one both still exists and no longer exists after death — this discourse's claim, combining SN 24.15's affirmation and SN 24.16's negation
catuṣkoṭi — "four corners" — the traditional name for this affirm/deny/both/neither logical pattern, found broadly across early Indian philosophical literature
peyyāla — an elision mark — compressing this discourse to its bare opening line, the last such compressed page in this vagga
upādāya... abhinivissa — grasping... and insisting on — the formula this discourse's compression trusts the reader to supply
tathāgata — a realized one — here a general category, the subject of this closing foursome's third option
The text
The complete discourse as bilara-data preserves it: the opening question alone. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).
§1At Sāvatthī. “Mendicants, when what exists, because of grasping what and insisting on what, does the view arise: ‘A realized one both still exists and no longer exists after death’?” …
· · ·
Self-check quiz
Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.
Question 1 of 10
What claim does this discourse examine?
Correct: A. The third option in this vagga's closing foursome, combining affirmation and negation.
Question 2 of 10
What traditional name is given to this four-way logical structure (affirm, deny, both, neither)?
Correct: A. A recognizable pattern across early Indian philosophical literature generally, not unique to Buddhist texts.
Question 3 of 10
Does asserting both existence and non-existence together resolve the tension between them?
Correct: A. The discourse applies the same diagnostic regardless, without pausing to resolve the logical tension.
Question 4 of 10
How does the Buddha's response here compare to a purely logical refutation?
Correct: A. The same six-ground diagnostic applied to logical incoherence as to simple affirmation or denial.
Question 5 of 10
What does bilara-data preserve for this discourse beyond its opening question?
Correct: A. This vagga's last discourse at this level of compression.
Question 6 of 10
What discourse immediately follows, and how does it differ from this one?
Correct: A. This vagga's true closing discourse, the fourth and final option.
Question 7 of 10
Where is this discourse set?
Correct: A. Matching the setting of most of this book's discourses.
Question 8 of 10
What two earlier discourses does this claim combine?
Correct: A. Existence and non-existence asserted together, rather than choosing between them.
Question 9 of 10
What remains for the fourth and final option in this closing foursome?
Correct: A. SN 24.18's own claim, closing both the foursome and the entire vagga.
Question 10 of 10
Which discourse's fuller treatment does this compression still rely on?
Correct: A. This vagga's own fullest treatment of the undetermined-questions template.
