Is every Buddha and Arahant omnibenevolent?

[smokey]

In Dhammapada (Brahmans) verse 412 it says: "He has gone beyond attachment here for both merit & evil — sorrowless, dustless, & pure: he's what I call a brahman."
So my question is: Is every Buddha and Arahant omnibenevolent?

[David N. Snyder]

So my question is: Is every Buddha and Arahant omnibenevolent?

Yes. Even a sotapanna cannot purposely or intentionally violate a precept. The arahant all the more so only acts with metta, karuna, upekkha, and mudita.

[rowyourboat]

I hesitate to answer 'yes' to that question. The point of the dhamma is not sila- it is vimutti/liberation (see the ratahavinita sutta). So if you ask me did the Buddha never say a harsh word- the answer is no- he did so, sometimes to get errant monks on to the right path. It was very pragmatic- with one aim in mind- the cessation of suffering. (not to say the end justified the means either) ..but catch-all phrases can be misleading..

[retrofuturist]

Greetings smokey,

"He has gone beyond attachment here for both merit & evil — sorrowless, dustless, & pure: he's what I call a brahman."
So my question is: Is every Buddha and Arahant omnibenevolent?

Towards what... people or actions or something/everything else etc.?

Metta,
Retro.

[smokey]

Greetings smokey,

"He has gone beyond attachment here for both merit & evil — sorrowless, dustless, & pure: he's what I call a brahman."
So my question is: Is every Buddha and Arahant omnibenevolent?

Towards what... people or actions or something/everything else etc.?

Metta,
Retro.

Well, are Buddhas and Arahants perfectly good in both actions, towards people and in morality? That would be my question.

[smokey]

I think I may have found an answer to my question in Dhammapada, Chapter IX, verse 122.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"Don't underestimate merit ('It won't amount to much'). A water jar fills, even with water falling in drops. With merit — even if bit by bit, habitually — the enlightened one fills himself full. "

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Smokey,

I ask because the Buddha was often critical of wrong views and wrong actions because they were harmful, but not because they caused him any personal suffering.

Is that "omnibenevolent" in your book?

Metta,
Retro.

[Individual]

In Dhammapada (Brahmans) verse 412 it says: "He has gone beyond attachment here for both merit & evil — sorrowless, dustless, & pure: he's what I call a brahman."
So my question is: Is every Buddha and Arahant omnibenevolent?

A better quote in the suttas, somewhere, it says that Buddhists cultivate boundless compassion. But compassion isn't always what we'd call "nice". For example, sometimes a compassionate parent needs to scream at or punish their child.

Boundless compassion might not be the same as what you mean by "omnibenevolence".

[smokey]

Greetings Smokey,

I ask because the Buddha was often critical of wrong views and wrong actions because they were harmful, but not because they caused him any personal suffering.

Is that "omnibenevolent" in your book?

Metta,
Retro.

Yes, I suppose it is.

[smokey]

I am not enlightened so I have opinions, Buddhas have no opinions, so my opinion is that Buddhas and Arahants are omnibenevolent. They cannot purposely violate any of the precepts nor commit any wrong doing. If Buddha was often critical of wrong views that was of benevolent and good intention, so no harm was done.