Which is quite true. An arahant is a buddha. The Buddha is the suttas was far more radical than the later reworkings one finds in the Mahayana or later commentarial traditions.Kenshou wrote:If we're talking about the Theravada, they're two words for the same thing.
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata, free from the conditioned." SN IV 359 and SN IV 362
That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. SN IV 251 and IV 321
The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion is arahantship. SN IV 252.
"Whoever frees himself from the passions of greed, hatred, and ignorance, they call him, one who is self developed, made divine, thus-gone (tathagata), awake (buddha), one who has left fear and hatred, and one who has let go of all." Itivuttaka 57
Since a tathagata, even when actually present, is incomprehensible, it is inept to say of him – of the Uttermost Person, the Supernal Person, the Attainer of the Supernal – that after death the tathagata is, or is not, or both is and is not, or neither is nor is not SN III 118
For the full text, see:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/su ... 2-086.html
(SN III 118: a tathagata is describing a tathagata.}
Of this Bhikkhu Bodhi states: “This should establish that “the Tathagata” here is not just “a being” [as the commentary states], but a Buddha or an arahant…” pg 1080 n163.
There is the case where a monk's conceit 'I am' is abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. This is how a monk is a noble one with banner lowered, burden placed down, unfettered.
"And when the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, search for the monk whose mind is thus released, they cannot find that 'The consciousness of the one truly gone (tathagata) 11/226 is dependent on this.' Why is that? The one truly gone (tathagata) is untraceable even in the here & now. – MN I 139
Ven Thanissaro’s FN: 11. The term "tathagata" is often, but not always, reserved for the Buddha. Sometimes, as in the case here, it is used to refer to the arahant.
Bhikkhu Bodhi’s fn 226, p 1210: “Thus Gone” is, in Pali, Tathagata, the usual epithet of the Buddha, but here applied more broadly to the arahant [following the commentary].”
Not at all. The problem is you are jumping to a conclusion way too early. You need to do far more research.starter wrote:Hello Teachers/Friends,
Many thanks for your kind comments. As to "The bodhi - awakening - of an arahant is no different from that of a Buddha", MN1 seems to indicate otherwise:
And he also used tathagata to refer arahants, as the texts I quoted show. More research for you..starter wrote:...
As I understand now, the Buddha used The Tathagata to refer to himself, which is a "fully self-awakened" buddha who knows both "the all" (conditioned phenomena) and nibbana "to the end". Such descriptions are not used for an aranhant. Metta to all,
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests