Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

I've read here and elsewhere that the realization of Buddha and Arahant are the same. But are their bodies different in power, qualities, etc.? (According to Abhidamma)

I think majority of Theravada will have a view that Buddha is equivalent to Arahant due to their realization of what is called boddhi.

The difference other than that realization, such as their skills, cannot be used to differentiate Buddha and Arahant.

DarwidHalim wrote:I think majority of Theravada will have a view that Buddha is equivalent to Arahant due to their realization of what is called boddhi.

The difference other than that realization, such as their skills, cannot be used to differentiate Buddha and Arahant.

I see. Do others agree with this?

Greetings Brahmabull,

I do not recall seeing any cittas and cetasikas mentioned in the Abhidhamma that apply to a Buddha which would not apply similarly to an Arahant.... but then, I am not an Abhidhamma expert so don't take that as definitive.

their bodies different in power, qualities

Similarly the focus in Abhidhamma literature tends to be on mind and mindstates, rather than physical and bodily attributes.

Metta,
Retro.

I think the view of Bhikku Boddhi can enhance our view about it.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha335.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This does not address the Abhidhamma, but it does address the issue of Buddha and the arahants from the stand point of the suttas:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p149864" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p149866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brahmabull wrote:I've read here and elsewhere that the realization of Buddha and Arahant are the same. But are their bodies different in power, qualities, etc.? (According to Abhidamma)

It's standard canonical Theravāda that a buddha has knowledge and abilities not shared by arahant disciples. The Paṭisambhidāmagga (a text contained in the Khuddakanikāya) lists the following:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge
  
  *i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

tiltbillings wrote:This does not address the Abhidhamma, but it does address the issue of Buddha and the arahants from the stand point of the suttas:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p149864" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p149866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on Bhikku Bodhi the only qualitative difference I can see is prowess with regard to instruction. But if I read your quotes correctly, there is nothing to stop an Arahant from developing this?

Ñāṇa wrote:

brahmabull wrote:I've read here and elsewhere that the realization of Buddha and Arahant are the same. But are their bodies different in power, qualities, etc.? (According to Abhidamma)

It's standard canonical Theravāda that a buddha has knowledge and abilities not shared by arahant disciples. The Paṭisambhidāmagga (a text contained in the Khuddakanikāya) lists the following:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge
  
  *i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

But it should be kept in mind, this is not fully sutta stuff.

brahmabull wrote:

tiltbillings wrote:This does not address the Abhidhamma, but it does address the issue of Buddha and the arahants from the stand point of the suttas:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p149864" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p149866" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Based on Bhikku Bodhi the only qualitative difference I can see is prowess with regard to instruction. But if I read your quotes correctly, there is nothing to stop an Arahant from developing this?

Theoretically, probably not. Practically, probably not so easy, depending upon any number of conditions. The point is that the suttas preserves a very radical take on the Buddha vis a vis the arahants that we can see starts to change with the Buddha becoming valorized (even in the suttas), having more and distinct powers and whatnot. That seems to be a natural human tendency to want our guy to be mightier than their guy. Though not completely, the Theravadins did seem to resist that tendency.

Hi Tilt,

I'm not following exactly the fluffy sutta and our guy their guy comment. Please clarify.

Ñāṇa wrote:

brahmabull wrote:I've read here and elsewhere that the realization of Buddha and Arahant are the same. But are their bodies different in power, qualities, etc.? (According to Abhidamma)

It's standard canonical Theravāda that a buddha has knowledge and abilities not shared by arahant disciples. The Paṭisambhidāmagga (a text contained in the Khuddakanikāya) lists the following:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge
  
  *i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

Thank you

brahmabull wrote:Hi Tilt,

I'm not following exactly the fluffy sutta and our guy their guy comment. Please clarify.

No fluffy sutta; rather, what I said: "But it should be kept in mind, this is not fully sutta stuff." The Paṭisambhidāmagga is in-between the suttas and the Abhidhamma, which is assuming the historical understanding that the Abhidhamma came after the Buddha's death, and it is also reasonable to argue that the Paṭisambhidāmagga came after the Buddha's death.

As for the "other guy" comment, it is pretty much what it says. My dad can beat up your dad. To put it in very broad and crude terms, if the Jains posited that their guy was this way and that, the Buddhists responded by saying our guy is even more so. We probably would like to think that the early Buddhists would not do stuff like that, but they did. They even argued over how the Buddha's poop smelled.

tiltbillings wrote:

brahmabull wrote:Hi Tilt,

I'm not following exactly the fluffy sutta and our guy their guy comment. Please clarify.

No fluffy sutta; rather, what I said: "But it should be kept in mind, this is not fully sutta stuff." The Paṭisambhidāmagga is in-between the suttas and the Abhidhamma, which is assuming the historical understanding that the Abhidhamma came after the Buddha's death, and it is also reasonable to argue that the Paṭisambhidāmagga came after the Buddha's death.

As for the "other guy" comment, it is pretty much what it says. My dad can beat up your dad. To put it in very broad and crude terms, if the Jains posited that their guy was this way and that, the Buddhists responded by saying our guy is even more so. We probably would like to think that the early Buddhists would not do stuff like that, but they did. They even argued over how the Buddha's poop smelled.

I see. I think my eyes didn't work well in the late hours. Can I ask you what is the rationale behind giving primacy to early texts? Then, what are the earliest of the early (pre-Sangha?) texts? Couldn't one argue that his teachings pre-Sangha are the real Buddhism, and then Buddha had to adjust the rhetoric to fit the emergence of a growing organization (whereby doctrines and rules were necessitated to keep order among the devotees)? If even the Buddha accepted an evolution of ideas and doctrines over his life, why wouldn't that continue after his death? I'm not arguing for an evolving Buddhism, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Vasubhandu mentions in the Kosha that the Buddha's body is "Narayana" to house infinite knowledge. I'm wondering where this comes from.