Different buddhahoods
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:43 pm
Different buddhahoods
I cant remember all webu sayadaw said in the book the ultimate colmn, but, two of them is buddhahood without teaching and the other teach and not teaching buddhahood. what is the best to reach by one?
one suffer because one hasnt existed long : )
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17192
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Different buddhahoods
Sama-sam-buddha = One who rediscovers the teachings and teaches the masses as the historical Buddha did (Siddhattha Gotama).
Paccekabuddha = A silent buddha. One who attains full enlightenment, but does not teach others. He attains enlightenment during a time when there is no Dhamma dispensation.
Arahant = Fully enlightened person, who might teach others, but not as the one who rediscovered the teachings, just as one who learned it from a current dispensation.
All are fully enlightened, hard to attain. But simply using statistics, the Arahant would be the "easiest" to attain of the three above. Samma-sam-buddhas and Pacceka-buddhas are very rare, but there were several thousand monks and nuns (and a few lay people) who attained full enlightenment during the Buddha's lifetime, as recorded in the Pali Canon.
Paccekabuddha = A silent buddha. One who attains full enlightenment, but does not teach others. He attains enlightenment during a time when there is no Dhamma dispensation.
Arahant = Fully enlightened person, who might teach others, but not as the one who rediscovered the teachings, just as one who learned it from a current dispensation.
All are fully enlightened, hard to attain. But simply using statistics, the Arahant would be the "easiest" to attain of the three above. Samma-sam-buddhas and Pacceka-buddhas are very rare, but there were several thousand monks and nuns (and a few lay people) who attained full enlightenment during the Buddha's lifetime, as recorded in the Pali Canon.
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Different buddhahoods
How do I know If I am is going to be a silent buddha or an arahant?
Very kind of you to teach me.
Very kind of you to teach me.
one suffer because one hasnt existed long : )
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Different buddhahoods
i googled it.. the word prateccabuddha
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh305-p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh305-p.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
one suffer because one hasnt existed long : )
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Different buddhahoods
Read this
Higher than the Paccekabuddhas are the Sammasambuddhas because of the greatness of their virtue: “For even (a group of) Paccekabuddhas seated on the whole of the (continent of) Jambudipa so close together that sitting cross-legged (their knees) would touch each other, do not attain a portion, or a sixteenth part or a small fraction (of that) of the virtues of one perfectly enlightened one” (I 177–178).
Higher than the Paccekabuddhas are the Sammasambuddhas because of the greatness of their virtue: “For even (a group of) Paccekabuddhas seated on the whole of the (continent of) Jambudipa so close together that sitting cross-legged (their knees) would touch each other, do not attain a portion, or a sixteenth part or a small fraction (of that) of the virtues of one perfectly enlightened one” (I 177–178).
one suffer because one hasnt existed long : )
-
- Posts: 506
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Different buddhahoods
this was better: A distinction between the knowledge (ñana) of disciple, Paccekabuddha and Buddha is made in the Saratthappakasini, where the Buddha is shown admonishing Ananda thus: “Why did you not penetrate the knowledge of the perfections of a disciple like Sariputta and Moggallana, who fulfilled the perfections in the course of one hundred thousand kalpas plus one incalculable period, and (why) did you not penetrate the knowledge of self-enlightenment like the Paccekabuddhas who fulfilled the perfections in the course of one hundred thousand kalpas plus two incalculable periods?” (S-a II 93).
one suffer because one hasnt existed long : )
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Different buddhahoods
I would of agreed fully with each of these a couple of months ago, but there has been a fairly recent paper on the Paccekabuddha that shows they do teach.David N. Snyder wrote:Sama-sam-buddha = One who rediscovers the teachings and teaches the masses as the historical Buddha did (Siddhattha Gotama).
Paccekabuddha = A silent buddha. One who attains full enlightenment, but does not teach others. He attains enlightenment during a time when there is no Dhamma dispensation.
Arahant = Fully enlightened person, who might teach others, but not as the one who rediscovered the teachings, just as one who learned it from a current dispensation.
All are fully enlightened, hard to attain. But simply using statistics, the Arahant would be the "easiest" to attain of the three above. Samma-sam-buddhas and Pacceka-buddhas are very rare, but there were several thousand monks and nuns (and a few lay people) who attained full enlightenment during the Buddha's lifetime, as recorded in the Pali Canon.
I heard a while ago (3+years) that there is a sambuddha also (yes minus the samma) that teaches but it doesn't last a long time (in a Ajahn Vajiro talk on the perfections). they taught only what was needed through supernormal powers so didn't need to give detailed instructions on a techneque, they only needed to say do this & that and the job was done teaching wise.
I will find the paper (short pointing out) and link it soon.
Edit -
OK Really glad I didn't say this was by Analayo, as I suspected
It is by Venerable Anandajoti
http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/T ... akatha.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
short but very sweet!
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill