Hibana, a physical place, does the Buddha reside there with other arhats?
Clemente?
Martin?
Martin, you're quiet over there.
The answer is no, right away.
He's having a cuckoo hangout.
Owen?
He's having a cuckoo hangout.
Well, there are concepts in the Mahayana of pure lands of Buddhas.
But did Siddhartha go Tama?
I don't think so.
I believe that once Narada becomes a Buddha, that's the end of Earth.
So I don't see them being born into a place that you would call the realm of nirvana.
Well, nirvana is khandavimutti.
It's free from the aggregates.
So there's no physical, first of all.
If it were a physical place, then it wouldn't be nirvana, because there would be the physical.
If there was an experience of the physical, then there would be the mental aggregates, which are...
feeling, perception, thoughts, and consciousness, with any of those or all of those come together, then it's not nibbana as well.
So that's an idea of the sort of criteria you can use to answer such a question.
Does it have any or all of the five aggregates?
Yes, then it's not nibbana.
So then what is it?
We answered that one, though.
Didn't we answer what is nibbana or something?
Nibbana is perfect happiness, perfect peace, freedom from suffering.
That's what nibbana is.
I think what needs to be elucidated here is the distinction which I think the person asking the comment is really trying to imply is that there is a distinction between relative Nirvana-like and Pari-Nirvana.
And I really think that they're asking, does a Buddha exist after Pari-Nirvana?
Right.
Well, the Buddha never existed in the first place.
It's a concept.
That's the answer to that one.
People often ask, well, then does an arahant cease to exist at death?
That's not a proper question.
It's like asking, when did you stop beating your wife?
I never started.
I never beat my wife.
You can't ask me that question.
When did you give up crack cocaine?
That's these trap questions where they ask a question that creates an assumption.