The Buddha vs Arahants

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.

The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby Coyote » Wed Sep 21, 2011 7:26 pm

Am I right in thinking that according to the Theravada there is no difference between the Buddha and an Arahant, only that one came first and taught all others?
Nevertheless, I read things like the fact that the Buddha was omniscient and that he has epithets suggesting he was the perfect human being. Is this only because of his status as the first to reveal the path to Nibbana to other sentient beings or was he foreordained or some kind of superhuman being? Are qualities applicable to the Buddha also not applicable to all those who have attained Nibbana?

Thanks and regards,

Coyote
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby tiltbillings » Wed Sep 21, 2011 8:36 pm

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19373
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby Coyote » Thu Sep 22, 2011 2:24 pm

Thanks, Tiltbillings. That is a really interesting thread.
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:42 pm
Location: Wales - UK

Re: The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby Oh.Wow » Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:31 am

That's actually quite interesting. As it's recorded in the Pali Canon, the Buddha never claimed omniscience. He did however declare possession of "ten powers." A Sutta that describes these is in Sutta #12 of the Majjhima Nikaya, called "The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar." There is a section called "The Ten Powers" in which the Buddha describes them. Here is the link to the Sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html
-Wow
Oh.Wow
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:18 am

Re: The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby sinhalesebuddhist » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:55 am

* Gauthama Buddha is the one who awakened and enlighten extra ordinary human.
* But Buddha is Arahat cause one who attained NIRVANA.
* But the difference between BUDDHA and ARAHAT is Buddha was teaching his all dhamma to people and for 3 world ( human world , heaven (where the god lives), and inhuman world (where the ghosts and devils live ).
* both of them (Buddha and Arahath Bihkkus ) has attained NIRVANA.

MAY ALL YOU BE ABLE TO REALIZE THE NOBEL TRUTH AND ATTAIN 'NIRVANA' :buddha1:
SADHU SADHU SADHU
NAMO GAUTHAMA BUDDHA _/\_ :buddha1:
sinhalesebuddhist
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby magicflute » Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:26 am

wow, interesting... :shock:
magicflute
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:19 am

Re: The Buddha vs Arahants

Postby cooran » Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:39 pm

Hello all,

Regarding the Omniscience of the Buddha mentioned above:

Majjhima Nikaya 71 Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta 'To Vacchagotta on the
Threefold True Knowledge'

"Venerable sir, I have heard this: "The recluse Gotaka claims to be
omniscient and all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and visiion
thus: "Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake,
knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to
me." Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said
by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to
fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way
that nothing which provides a ground for censure can be legitimatelly
deduced fromtheir assertion?"

"Vaccha, those who say thus do not say what has been said by me, but
misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact."

note 714 says: MA explains that even though part of the statement is
valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statementbecause of the portion
that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the
assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that
is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are
continuously present to him. According to the Theravada tradition
the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are
potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything
simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN
90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though
not simultaneously, and at AN 4.24/ii.24 he claims to know all that
can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognised, which is understood by the
Theravada tradition as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified
sense. See too in this connection Miln 102-7.

--------------------------

Majjhima Nikaya 90 Kannakatthala Sutta 'At Kannakatthala'

5. "Then King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One: 'Venerable
sir, I have heard this: 'The recluse Gotama says "There is no recluse
or brahmin who is omniscient and all-seeing, who can claim to have
complete knowledge and vision; that is not possible." 'Venerable
sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed
One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they
explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing that
provides a ground for censure can be legitimately deduced from their
assertions?"

"Great King, those who speak thus do not say what has been said by
me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to
fact." <<<<<snip>>>>>>

"I recall having actually made the utterance in this way, great
king. 'There is no recluse or brahmin who knows all, who sees all,
simultaneously; that is not possible'.

note 846 says: MA: There is no one who can know and see all - past,
present and future - withone act of mental adverting, with one act of
consciousness; thus this problem is discussed in terms of a single
act of consciousness (ekacitta). On the question of the kind of
omniscience the Theravada tradition attributes to the Buddha, see n.
714 above.

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7512
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia


Return to Discovering Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests