This is a thesis that can't be proven (and also an aspect of the "world view" that I referred to previously). It's based on an historical approach to text-critical analysis, which is speculative. If we are to take the suttas seriously, as you would like, the Buddha is said to occupy a historical position between earlier and later buddhas.tiltbillings wrote:The suttas clearly do not teach a path to sammasambuddha-hood. Where that sort of thing starts to take place is in the post-death of Buddha literature among the various schools of Buddhism that were popping up, where we start getting biographies (hagiographies) of the Buddha, a valorization of the Buddha that starts separating him from the arahant in terms of status in ways not found in the suttas. It is out of that that the idea of a bodhisatta path emerges, not out the direct teachings of the Buddha.
Not for a Buddha it isn't. It's important to not conflate knowledges with nibbāna. Knowledge is the cause of realization (abhisamaya). Nibbāna is an object of knowledge.tiltbillings wrote:One can gain more powers, but being awake, buddha, is the only perfection that really matters.
A buddha teaches the sāvaka path. A buddha is an example for how to develop the mahābodhiyāna if one so chooses. Different vehicles, different levels of practice, different realization of knowledges.tiltbillings wrote:Did the Buddha teach earning the "epithet of Samma-Sambuddha" as a goal?