Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Arhats and Buddha
Talisman
Veteran
According to the pali tradition, have Arhats acheived the same level and degree of insight, liberation, and enlightenment as that of the Buddha?
If there is a difference in their attainments, to what degree and in what way do they differ?
If there is a difference in their attainments, to what degree and in what way do they differ?
0
Comments
However, the enlightenment experience seems to be exactly the same. I read the Buddha said to his arahants before he died: "We know the same, you can take over the teachings."
bodhisattva is the active role of the buddha.
they are both two faces of the buddha.
-just my opinion.
:scratch:
Dunno
in Thervada, the word "bodhisatta" refers to when Siddharta was searching for enlightenment
in Theravada, the arahants were very active. They wandered around India teaching
the Buddha also called himself an "arahant"
an arahant is one who has broken all "ten fetters"
generally, in the Pali tradition, the Buddha differs from the arahants in that he is "Sammasambuddha", meaning, "self-enlightened buddha", that is, without a teacher who starts the Buddhist religion. There is only one sammasambuddha
all of the arahants had the same insight, which makes them all arahants
all of the arahants fully penetrated the four noble truths, three characteristics and emptiness
some had more lucid insight than others, notably Sariputta
some had special powers, like the Buddha, but special powers are not really the domain of arahants. even Brahma gods and Mara have some of these special powers
some arahants, again, notably Sariputta, had no special powers
so the arahants & the buddha are no different in their liberation but they may differ in certain worldly abilities, such as special powers or the ability to teach
the Buddha had the ability to teach and start Buddhism
Sariputta was regarded by the Buddha as the foremost in teaching & wisdom
regards
the buddha called himself an arahant, as follows: the same sutta, answers the question of this thread as follows:
I'm really just asking.
What you're saying is that an arahant is not an inactive (non-teaching) Buddha. The Buddha, being an arahant, was active, (he taught) so it might well follow that Vincenzi's personal definition falls short of the actual facts of the matter.
Congratulate me, I got there in the end.....
"Arahaṃ sammā-sambuddho"
means, "the completely awakened (samyak sambuddha) arhat"; so it doesn't count as an example of an arhat that can teach (because it is also completely awakened).
Arhats are saints and sages regardless.
where did you come to that understanding? I am just curious. What do you mean by differentiation in this context?
the buddha thinks from his being. thus he knows intuitively what to say at the right time.
there really is no fundamental difference between an arhat and a buddha. they are just labels.
Buddhas are special beings that emerge when the dharma
is lost.
Arahats are not Buddhas.
Buddha said that the dharma will only last for a limited period
(1000 years?)
before it is corrupted or lost.
No offense to women. But Buddha said that the dharma will
not last as long because he ordained women.
If, Ananda, women had not entered from household life into the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata religion, Ananda, would long endure; a thousand years would the Good Doctrine abide. But since, Ananda, women have now retired from household life to the houseless one, under the Doctrine and the Discipline announced by the Tathagata, not long, Ananda, will religion endure; but fivehundred years, Ananda, will the Good Doctrine abide.
Quote from the Sutta Pitaka (no exact source), The Oxford Handbook of Eschatology By Jerry L. Walls
Also (but this is a more Mahayana opinion), it is said that arhats have comprehended the lack of self-nature of an atman or being in the five aggregates (aka firstfold emptiness, emptiness of self), whereas bodhisattvas have in addition also comprehended the lack of self-nature in each of the dharmas, phenomena (aka secondfold emptiness, emptiness of dharmas/objects). The secondfold emptiness is actually taught in pali canon such as phena sutta, however it is not really emphasized as far as I can see.
Of course Arhats and Bodhisattvas are titles only. But just like going to school, you reach different levels of understanding.
As for Arhats vs Buddhas, starting on page 329 of this book theres a scholorly analysis of the issue here:
http://www.interactivebuddha.com/Mastering Adobe Version.pdf
The last paragraph here sums the debate up nicely.
However, this again falls prey to the interconnectedness vs.
complete transcendence debates just as the arahat vs. Buddha debates
do, so from a certain point of view the question of what is full
enlightenment cannot be answered without all beings getting enlightened
and then dying. This is obviously unlikely to occur any time soon.
However, from another point of view all beings are already enlightened
but have yet to realize it, and thus the debate is meaningless. Thus, you
now have some understanding of why these ridiculous debates have
been around for so long and why I obviously am not going to resolve
them here. As with all logical systems that involve false assumptions of
duality (which they all do), any argument taken far enough either goes in
circles, contradicts itself or both. Put your time into clear practice and
not into thinking about these things too much.