They are the same.
bodhi, as the Buddha uses it, does not include the powers. The powers are what the Buddha uses to break through the ignorance but they are not bodhi, awakening, but what is realized is no different from that which the sambodhi, the complete perfect awakening, nibbana, the arahant realizes. I have quoted the suttas above. Look at the language the Buddha uses. samma-sambodhi points to the fact that the Buddha, by himself, awoke to the Four Noble Truth, but what he realized and how he did it is what what the Buddha taught for us to do. The suttas are quite straightforward about that.santa100 wrote:Tiltbillings wrote:
"Do explain again, please"
Below is the very first post I wrote for this thread:
"If I may interject, I think both Tilt and Nana are referring to aspects that aren't really at odds with each other. The Buddha definitely shares the same "sambodhi" as His disciples arahants. This bodhi's scope includes the total elimination of all outflows and defilements, which enable one to put an end to suffering and samsara. However, the Buddha went much further than His disciples arahants and attained what is called "samma-sambodhi", the Perfect/Complete Enlightenment, which, beside the total elimination of outflows/defilements, the scope expands to includes the supernormal abilities only unique to Buddhas (knowing the limits of other people's faculties, direct knowledge of all that's heard and seen, etc..). So, at the end of the day, it's really up to the practitioner's aspiration to choose a path for themselves. S/He can choose the path of "sambodhi", or s/he can choose the path of "samma-sambodhi", they are not completely different since they share the same base scope, just like they are not completely the same since the later would require A LOT more effort and time.."
Let me respond:santa100 wrote:THe suttas are quite clear in mentioning the 10 epithets of the Buddha, 2 of which are: arahant And samma-sambodhi. The power, if you will, is part of the samma-sambodhi package, not the bodhi package. Also, your used the word "complete perfect awakening" is meant for samma-sambodhi ( samma: full/complete/perfect And sambodhi: self-awakening); while sambodhi without the "samma" is tranlasted as "self-awakening"..
Tilt said: it is best that you que up you aquatic fowl in an orderly manner.
Fixed. At least we don't have dropbears to worry about.cooran wrote:Tilt said: it is best that you que up you aquatic fowl in an orderly manner.
Heheh - I presume you mean ''your'' not 'you'? So this would mean 'Line up your ducks?' .... I'm never sure with Americanisms.
with metta
Chris
Dmytro wrote:IMHO, the Buddha just explained the Path in its fullest, with all that can be done, and all knowledges that can be attained. Obviously very few of his pupils attained any significant part of it.
Omniscience, doctrinally, would be denied for the arahant, but if you look here http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 4&#p149864 there is a discussion of Kassapa, which I will repeat:whynotme wrote:Hi everyone,
First of all, some of you may disagree with others but by keeping the polite disscussion, you open many things for the readers, so, thank you all.Dmytro wrote:IMHO, the Buddha just explained the Path in its fullest, with all that can be done, and all knowledges that can be attained. Obviously very few of his pupils attained any significant part of it.
Dear Dmytro,
I have two questions:
First, so in your opinion, theoretically, his disciples can achieve everything the Buddha achieve including omniscience.. if they work hard enough?
Probably not lack of hard word, but likely, to give a classical answer, not having merit accumulated over life-times of effort. While the awakening, the liberation, attained by the arahant is the same as that of the Buddha's, to be the one who first breaks through the bounds of ignorance requires a tremendous amount of power, thereby making it easier for those who come after to follow in those footsteps.They lacked hard work, will, intention, interest or merit?
tiltbillings wrote:Omniscience, doctrinally, would be denied for the arahant, but if you look here http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 4&#p149864 there is a discussion of Kassapa, which I will repeat ...
whynotme wrote:First, so in your opinion, theoretically, his disciples can achieve everything the Buddha achieve including omiscience.. if they work hard enough?
Second, no matter what the answer of the first question, why did very few of his pupils attain any significant part of it. They lacked hard work, will, intention, interest or merit?

tiltbillings wrote:Ñāṇa wrote:tiltbillings wrote:It is mind reading, not omniscience.
And how do you know this?
It is what the text clearly describes.
tiltbillings wrote:I know, and I am not contesting that.Ñāṇa wrote:The Theravāda tradition maintains that it's referring to omniscience.
tiltbillings wrote:I am not talking about Theravada tradition.
tiltbillings wrote:Also, now for the fifth time, I ask you: Can we assume here that for you, one can never look to the suttas without filtering them through the commentaries?
Of course not, which is why I did a careful exegetical survey of the texts that addressed the issue at which I was looking.Ñāṇa wrote:The ability to read is not a sufficient qualification for understanding the suttas.
Not that you have shown. And certainly based upon what you said earlier, you should be able to disprove my point using the suttas alone.Your interpretive method is insufficient.
Re-inventing the Buddha? Hardly. Simply looking at the Buddha and the arahant in terms of what the very earlest -- and non-sectarian -- texts have to say.tiltbillings wrote:I know, and I am not contesting that.Ñāṇa wrote:The Theravāda tradition maintains that it's referring to omniscience.
You are contesting the commentarial understanding of AN 4.24, etc. When you say:tiltbillings wrote:I am not talking about Theravada tradition.
It's quite evident that you are talking about re-inventing the Buddha. I consider such revisionism to be unnecessary and to lack lineage and authority.
Thank you for your clarification.tiltbillings wrote:Also, now for the fifth time, I ask you: Can we assume here that for you, one can never look to the suttas without filtering them through the commentaries?
I've already answered this question: The suttas were never intended to provide a systematic analysis of every aspect of the dhamma. That is what the Paṭisambhidāmagga, the Peṭakopadesa, and the Nettippakaraṇa are for. Trying to analyze and comment on the suttas without recourse to these texts is like groping around in the dark. This type of interpretive approach is probably the single biggest problem occurring within the context of Theravāda Buddhism today.
I probably do not share it so much as I acknowledge it. The points I have made are rather simple. Bodhi, which is another way of speaking of nibbana, is not omniscience and all those other powers, and the bodhi attained by the Buddha is what he taught could be attained by becoming arahant. You do not not have to agree with that, but it is what the texts show.santa100 wrote:Tiltbillings wrote:
"Essentially outside of the question of omniscience, there is not a power the Buddha acheived that technically is not possible for others to attain, but to achieve them all, is really only for the Buddha, which gives him his special place"
Thank you Tilt. I'm glad that you also share this view, which is pretty much all I've wanted to emphasize throughout the thread. From now 'til a great many eaons into the future, there'll be many noble disciples following our great Buddha's footsteps and become arahants. And out of those great number of Worthy Ones, there'll be a man who will be able to match the Buddha's capabilities in every single aspect, His name is Metteyya, our great Future Buddha..
Putting an end to suffering is what the Buddha was all about, becoming no less than what he became, awake, buddha.santa100 wrote:Tiltbillings wrote:
"I probably do not share it so much as I acknowledge it. The points I have made are rather simple. Bodhi, which is another way of speaking of nibbana, is not omniscience and all those other powers, and the bodhi attained by the Buddha is what he taught could be attained by becoming arahant. You do not not have to agree with that, but it is what the texts show."
Thank you for the clarification. I agree that you do not have to agree with me. My point is just as simple, for also from what the texts show, becoming arahant sure is sufficient to put an end to suffering but not to attain every single aspect of capabilities like those of the Buddha..
Registered users: Bing [Bot], cooran, Crazy cloud, Goofaholix, Google [Bot], jonno, Kusala, Majestic-12 [Bot], mikenz66, Modus.Ponens, purple planet, rahul3bds, retrofuturist, Vern Stevens