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.
That's untrue, we can aspire to be a Pratyekabuddha, Arahant, and Śrāvakabuddha. They are equals, but teaching the Dharma when there is no Dharma is actually what makes a Samyaksambuddha a Samyaksambuddha.
My opinion is that your better off walking the bodhisattva path instead of being entangled in most of these Hinayana vehicles.
It is good to aspire to the goal of full enlightenment and to become a Buddha for the wellfair of all sentient life. This is the path of the Boddhisattva, and it is the greatest of all aspirations.
No you will not attain fully awoken, unsurpassed, complete enlightenment in this life in this world. The Buddha was boddhisattva for time immeasurable, traversing an infinite number of lives and buddha-realms, learning the dharma and perfecting his state of karma before being born into this world and achieving Buddhahood thus turning the wheel of dharma for countless suffering hearts.
His teachings resonate like a great echo accross thousands of earth years, effecting the hearts of people to this very day.
Perfect yourself, and strive for Buddhahood for the sake of all living things. Fear not for the suffering of this life or the next. Thou art Boddhisattva and destined for Buddhahood.
I find this passage even stranger and more out of place, making it more suspect in my opinion.
Oh there were also passages about Buddhist Nuns who ministered to Bhikkus and they acheived awakening while the Buddha was still alive, which is strange because the "8 heavy precepts" put on the Bhikkunis would have made that impossible if they were truly the Buddha's words, but I do not think they are. :rolleyes:
The Vinaya was written after the Buddha was already dead.
My opinion is that your better off walking the bodhisattva path instead of being entangled in most of these Hinayana vehicles.
I'm continually surprised by how many people still use this extremely derogatory and misused term. Usually I don't say anything about it because I don't really care all that much, but maybe I should since people don't seem to understand just how derogatory this word actually is.
The Pali/Sankrit term hina basically means 'low' or 'inferior,' but those translations doesn't really do it justice. The entry for hina in the Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary give a fuller range of its meaning: inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable. Whatever the definition, it should be clear that the connotation is extremely negative; and while one translation for hinayana is 'lower vehicle,' an equally valid translation is 'garbage vehicle.'
Yes, one of the reasons I think that particular teaching is such a bummer is that it destroys completely one's aim to become a Buddha, regardless of whether you are male or female.
:facepalm: An Arahant is a Buddha.
For this lifetime, we're just left with arhatship at best. Maybe the aim to become a Buddha was a naive one, but still...it's kinda what was advertised when we got into this Buddhism thing.
I repeat, an Arahant is a Buddha. You're thinking in terms of immaterial greed. A Buddha is someone who has achieved Nirvana. An Arahant is a Buddha.
Buddha said follow my path and be free like me. But it's not quite like him, is it?
He was the person who taught the Dharma when no path to freedom existed. No enlightenment, no salvation at all. Of course you're not quite like him, because you're standing on the shoulders of giants.:crazy:
Sure, this is a egoistic notion -- the desire to be the Buddha -- but I think it is like being Columbus too. You make this long (accidental) journey to a new land, only to find that someone's got there before you. And even if you are perfectly fine with visiting a place already discovered, the people there are telling you that you can't get off the boat, that there is only room for them, room for one.
Well no, because this is just mere greed for immaterial power, and even Shakyamuni Buddha was not the first Samyaksambuddha. He just discovered the path to suffering by himself, not unlike a Pratyekabuddha except he can teach the Dharma to others leaving the path to Śrāvakabuddha Buddhahood open.
It seems strange. Like it was an unadvertised race in this universe and Gotama got there first, before you even figured out that there was a race.
This isn't a race, it's freedom. Whether you want to be "higher" is a deluded way of thinking. We all achieve the same Buddhahood, but some have more adversity to find the path, and most can't express how to achieve it.
Or can we become enlightened while in this universe and then receive a universe of our own? 'Cause that's cool with me.
I agree that referring to the disciple and pratyekabuddha paths (specifically those advocated by the theravada tradition) as "Hinayana" is extremely offensive.
Keep in mind as well, however, that both Theravada and Mahayana adherants agree that the boddhisattva path to Buddhahood is the highest of aspirations.
I'm continually surprised by how many people still use this extremely derogatory and misused term.
Yes I am not surprised because I am a Theravada Buddhist.
Usually I don't say anything about it because I don't really care all that much, but maybe I should since people don't seem to understand how derogatory this word actually is.
It is very derogatory. In fact ignorant people try and say Theravada Buddhism isn't what they're talking about when they say "Hinayana" as well to save face. I'm not going to say this doesn't offend me, because it does. Not only are people here confused by the words Arahant, Samyaksambuddha, Pratyekabuddhas, and Śrāvakabuddha but they don't understand that the goal is to liberate themselves. You can't help anyone else if you yourself are deluded.
I feel that you have much to learn. You should not be so impatient with yourself or with the path. Continue to study the dharma and seek instruction from a mentor or guru. Many of the concerns that you are expressing are tell-tale signs of delusion and attachment and will lead to your suffering.
I agree that referring to the disciple and pratyekabuddha paths (specifically those advocated by the theravada tradition) as "Hinayana" is extremely offensive.
Keep in mind as well, however, that both Theravada and Mahayana adherants agree that the boddhisattva path to Buddhahood is the highest of aspirations.
There's is no "Highest" in liberation. You are either free or you are not free. Samyaksambuddhas gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dharma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew.
NO ONE IN THIS TIME CAN EVER BECOME A SAMYAKASAMBUDDHA WITHOUT SAYING THEY DON'T WANT TO BE FREE FROM SAMSARA! :crazy:
That's just taking what Shakyamuni Buddha struggled for and throwing it aside which is unnecessary and foolish.
The belief that everyone must strive to become a Boddhisattva in order to attain salvation cannot be found in the original Teachings of the Buddha. This belief is just like asking every sick person to become a doctor in order to cure other people and themself of disease.This advice is most impractical. If people want to cure themselves of their sicknesses they can get medical advice from a qualified doctor. This they can do without waiting until they are all doctors before curing themselves. Nor is there any need for each and every person to be a doctor. If everyone becomes a doctor, who are going to be their patients? In the same way if everyone is going to become Buddhas, who is going to save whom?
Of course, those who wish to become doctors can do so. But they must have intelligence, courage and the means to study medicine. Likewise, it is not compulsory for everyone to become a Buddha to find their salvation. Those who wish to become Buddhas can do so. However, they need the courage and knowledge to sacrifice their comforts and practice all kinds of renunciations in order to attain Buddhahood. Others can be content to be healthy.
To attain Arahantahood, one has to eradicate all greed and selfishness. This implies that while relating with others, an Arahant will act with compassion and try to inspire others to go on the Path leading to Liberation. They are the living proof of the good results that accrue to a person who follows the method taught by the Buddha. The attainment of Nirvana is not possible if one acts with a selfish motive. Therefore, it is baseless to say that striving to become an Arahant is a selfish act.
Buddhahood is indisputably the best and the noblest of all the three ideals (Supreme Buddha, Silent Buddha and Arahant) but only because they are able to teach the path to freedom when no path exists. Not everyone is capable of achieving this highest ideal, not because they are inferior, but because they're lucky enough to have a Buddha there to teach the path, and lucky enough to be able to articulate the message before there is no more path at all. Surely all scientists cannot be Einsteins and Newtons. There must be room for the other scientists who nevertheless help the world according to their capabilities.
There's is no "Highest" in liberation. You are either free or you are not free. Samyaksambuddhas gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dharma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew.
NO ONE IN THIS TIME CAN EVER BECOME A SAMYAKASAMBUDDHA WITHOUT SAYING THEY DON'T WANT TO BE FREE FROM SAMSARA! :crazy:
That's just taking what Shakyamuni Buddha struggled for and throwing it aside which is unnecessary and foolish.
Indeed my wording was incorrect. There is no higher or lower. And as I stated in a previous post, I know that there is no way for a person or any other form of sentience to attain Samyakasambuddha status in this world, at this time.
In reference to "highest," I am speaking in regards to boddhicitta and the intention of withholding arhatship in order to attain nirvana in a distant life, at a time, and in a world, when the dharma is currently unknown and in doing so allowing countless suffering lives to be liberated by the perfection of one's full enlightenment. This does not in any way diminish the arhat path, or the striving of one's nirvana and the end of suffering.
The difference in these paths is where the philosophies of the Mahayana differ from the Theravada tradition. Both are bound by the same core philosophies, however, of the 4 nobles truths, the 8-fold path, and 12 Niddanas.
I'm certainly glad that, having found this site, I am able to discuss such things with you. I have, to be perfectly honest, limited knowledge of Theravada Buddhism, and focus much of my studies on the Mahayana sutras and the Boddhisattva path.
The belief that everyone must strive to become a Boddhisattva in order to attain salvation cannot be found in the original Teachings of the Buddha. This belief is just like asking every sick person to become a doctor in order to cure other people and themself of disease.This advice is most impractical. If people want to cure themselves of their sicknesses they can get medical advice from a qualified doctor. This they can do without waiting until they are all doctors before curing themselves. Nor is there any need for each and every person to be a doctor. If everyone becomes a doctor, who are going to be their patients? In the same way if everyone is going to become Buddhas, who is going to save whom?
Of course, those who wish to become doctors can do so. But they must have intelligence, courage and the means to study medicine. Likewise, it is not compulsory for everyone to become a Buddha to find their salvation. Those who wish to become Buddhas can do so. However, they need the courage and knowledge to sacrifice their comforts and practice all kinds of renunciations in order to attain Buddhahood. Others can be content to be healthy.
To attain Arahantahood, one has to eradicate all greed and selfishness. This implies that while relating with others, an Arahant will act with compassion and try to inspire others to go on the Path leading to Liberation. They are the living proof of the good results that accrue to a person who follows the method taught by the Buddha. The attainment of Nirvana is not possible if one acts with a selfish motive. Therefore, it is baseless to say that striving to become an Arahant is a selfish act.
Buddhahood is indisputably the best and the noblest of all the three ideals (Supreme Buddha, Silent Buddha and Arahant) but only because they are able to teach the path to freedom when no path exists. Not everyone is capable of achieving this highest ideal, ot because they are inferior, but because they're lucky enough to have a Buddha there to teach the path, and lucky enough to be able to articulate the message before there is no more path at all. Surely all scientists cannot be Einsteins and Newtons. There must be room for the other scientists who nevertheless help the world according to their capabilities.
This is true, and it is stated VERY frequently in the sutras that the boddhisatva path is most certainly NOT an easy one. I suppose, using your metaphor, I seek the skills of the physician, particularly out of compassion for all sentient life.
This is true, and it is stated VERY frequently in the sutras that the boddhisatva path is most certainly NOT an easy one. I suppose, using your metaphor, I seek the skills of the physician, particularly out of compassion for all sentient life.
That's the spirit, but consider the following. Shakyamuni had to leave a life of luxury, leave his family, endure starvation, endure mocking, had to sacrifice everything he had in order to become a Boddhisattva. He had to battle Mara's harshest traps and essentially throw away his humanity. Are you up for the task in this lifetime?
Indeed my wording was incorrect. There is no higher or lower. And as I stated in a previous post, I know that there is no way for a person or any other form of sentience to attain Samyakasambuddha status in this world, at this time.
In reference to "highest," I am speaking in regards to boddhicitta and the intention of withholding arhatship in order to attain nirvana in a distant life, at a time, and in a world, when the dharma is currently unknown and in doing so allowing countless suffering lives to be liberated by the perfection of one's full enlightenment. This does not in any way diminish the arhat path, or the striving of one's nirvana and the end of suffering.
The difference in these paths is where the philosophies of the Mahayana differ from the Theravada tradition. Both are bound by the same core philosophies, however, of the 4 nobles truths, the 8-fold path, and 12 Niddanas.
I'm certainly glad that, having found this site, I am able to discuss such things with you. I have, to be perfectly honest, limited knowledge of Theravada Buddhism, and focus much of my studies on the Mahayana sutras and the Boddhisattva path.
Personally, I don't mind if people say that the aspiration for buddhahood is higher, because relatively speaking, I think it's a valid statement. Either way, my philosophy is fairly simply: I don't care what your path is, it's cool with me; just don't call mine garbage.
In reference to "highest," I am speaking in regards to boddhicitta and the intention of withholding arhatship in order to attain nirvana in a distant life, at a time, and in a world, when the dharma is currently unknown and in doing so allowing countless suffering lives to be liberated by the perfection of one's full enlightenment.
The problem with this idea is it is very risky and undermines what Shakyamuni has already given to us. It's like the sick patient refusing the medicine that the well doctor has given them because they want to become a doctor first. It's ego masturbation, not really a willingness to be free from the sickness.
This does not in any way diminish the arhat path, or the striving of one's nirvana and the end of suffering.
An Arahant can teach Dharma, and show the way to the path, but they cannot influence another person to liberate them. The Buddha could do that. He has done that. He's given it to us.
The difference in these paths is where the philosophies of the Mahayana differ from the Theravada tradition. Both are bound by the same core philosophies, however, of the 4 nobles truths, the 8-fold path, and 12 Niddanas.
Ah, indeed they differ. The problem is I think there's an inherent idea that the Theravada tradition is somehow flawed. I don't understand that.
I'm certainly glad that, having found this site, I am able to discuss such things with you. I have, to be perfectly honest, limited knowledge of Theravada Buddhism, and focus much of my studies on the Mahayana sutras and the Boddhisattva path.
I am glad to meet you too! I can help you if you would like to learn about Theravada, and I enjoy reading Mahayana literature, but ultimately my opinion is that it's perpetuating a lot of mythology, and metaphor that is misleading.
That's the spirit, but consider the following. Shakyamuni had to leave a life of luxury, leave his family, endure starvation, endure mocking, had to sacrifice everything he had in order to become a Boddhisattva. He had to battle Mara's harshest traps and essentially throw away his humanity. Are you up for the task in this lifetime?
I am willing to work every day toward perfecting myself with patience and loving-kindness. If I feel that the time has come, in this life, for me to forsake my worldly existence and to take up the path of total renunciation, then I must do so for the sake of the salvation of all living things.
Consider as well, however, Vimilakirti, the lay-disciple well-renowned as practitioner of the boddhisattva path, engages in non-attachment and renunciation among worldly affairs in order to teach and attend to those suffering worldly attachment. He praises the buddha, and the paths of the disciple, and perfects himself for the sake of all living beings.
The concept of renunciation means more than walking away from my family and job and education, it is a renunciation in spirit and non-attachment to any aspect of my existence. When time has come, in the distant distant future, my karma with give rebirth to a new sentience, prepared for the trials that the boddhisatva must face before attaining nirvana and turning the wheel of dharma.
You realize some of your statements are offensive to those who follow the mahayana, right? The desire to achieve buddhahood is not "ego masterbation." A buddha is in the best position to help others to achieve liberation. If you aspire to be an arahant you aspire for individual liberation. If you aspire to be a bodhisattva you aspire for universal liberation. And an arahant is not a buddha. A buddha is an arahant, but not the other way around. In regards to stress they're the same, but they're not synonyms. The theravada path leads to great things. My path is the mahayana. No need for trash talking either way, we all have the buddha as our guide. Also the buddha didn't become a bodhisattva this life. He had been one for innumerable lifetimes.
You realize some of your statements are offensive to those who follow the mahayana, right?
Oh, I'm sure.
The desire to achieve buddhahood is not "ego masterbation." A buddha is in the best position to help others to achieve liberation.
And not everyone is qualified to do so. In fact, as I said, in order to do that in our time you have to ignore what the Buddha taught. You'd have to cycle again and again until the Dharma is no longer in this world.
If you aspire to be an arahant you aspire for individual liberation. If you aspire to be a bodhisattva you aspire for universal liberation.
See, and that's the misleading part. You don't aspire for liberation at all. You refuse it until the path is obscured and then think you'll have the faculties to achieve what Shakyamuni could. You can't. The Aggregates that make up you recycle as long as you put off salvation.
And an arahant is not a buddha. A buddha is an arahant, but not the other way around.
They are both liberated Buddhas! And an Arahant is a Śrāvakabuddha .
In regards to stress they're the same, but they're not synonyms. The theravada path leads to great things. My path is the mahayana. No need for trash talking either way, we all have the buddha as our guide.
Indeed, many of the Mahayana sutras (particularly the longer texts) incorperate many fantastical elements. Personally, I take this information figuratively, since the authors are trying to convey a powerful sense of awe while engaging in their study. What is important is the concepts extrapolated upon therein, specifically regarding the Boddhisattva path and the Emptiness of all Dharmas.
Indeed, many of the Mahayana sutras (particularly the longer texts) incorperate many fantastical elements. Personally, I take this information figuratively, since the authors are trying to convey a powerful sense of awe while engaging in their study. What is important is the concepts extrapolated upon therein, specifically regarding the Boddhisattva path and the Emptiness of all Dharmas.
Have you forgotten Anatta? The fact that all aggregates that make up your sense of identity are impermanent? When you die, all things that make up you recycle and make someone new, and this human birth is truly a rare thing. It's a chance to understand the cure to dukkha that the Buddha taught. It's not just an emptiness of Dharmas, but first and foremost that there's no permanent self. You don't endure after this life in any way shape or form the aggregates recycle and come apart. Only way you can retain anything is freedom from Samsara.
As for the figurative language in the Mahayana Sutras, I said before, I take them as parable, metaphorically, or figuratively.
First of all, you have to give respect to get it. I don't think anyone is gonna feel bad about calling theravada hinayana if you're going to disrespect the mahayana. Second of all you're criticizing something you don't understand, and I mean no offense by that. A bodhisattva puts off ARAHANTSHIP for the sake of all sentient beings. He does not put off buddhahood. As soon as we can become a fully enlightened buddha we will, because that is what puts us in the best position to help others. To enter nirvana before achieving full buddhahood is to do what is in your best interest before you do what is best for all, being a full buddha. This is why theravada is called the lesser vehicle. It's not "worse" as in fact for the individual the end is basically the same. But a mahayana practitioner doesn't want to become an arahant at the cost of helping others. Think about it. Will you help more people as an arahant in one lifetime, or as a bodhisattva in innumerable lifetimes and then a buddha as one lifetime?
Have you forgotten Anatta? The fact that all aggregates that make up your sense of identity are impermanent? When you die, all things that make up you recycle and make someone new, and this human birth is truly a rare thing. It's a chance to understand the cure to dukkha that the Buddha taught. It's not just an emptiness of Dharmas, but first and foremost that there's no permanent self. You don't endure after this life in any way shape or form the aggregates recycle and come apart. Only way you can retain anything is freedom from Samsara.
As for the figurative language in the Mahayana Sutras, I said before, I take them as parable, metaphorically, or figuratively.
The aggregates disolve, and my personality and everything that composes "me," will be no more. What remains are my karmic impressions. These impressions will give rise to the rebirth of consciousness, and based on the karma of this current life, this new sentience, which for semantic reasons may be referred to as my future life, will continue to perfect itself along the boddhisattva path, giving rise after death to another rebirth of consciousness, ad infinitum until the time has come for my full, completely awoken, unsurpassable enlightenment.
The Buddha, Tathagata, our teacher and father, was born into this world due to previous karma, perfected in infinite lives prior, in the pressence and under the tutelage of innumerable Buddha-lords in worlds inconcievable. This is the path of the Boddhisattva.
First of all, you have to give respect to get it. I don't think anyone is gonna feel bad about calling theravada hinayana if you're going to disrespect the mahayana.
I am not disrespecting it. I am saying you aren't making any sense.
Second of all you're criticizing something you don't understand, and I mean no offense by that. A bodhisattva puts off ARAHANTSHIP for the sake of all sentient beings.
Arahants are Shravakabuddhas. You are putting off Buddhahood. That's exactly what a person who puts off Arahantship does. :facepalm:
I don't think you understand what an Arahant is. An Arahant is a Buddha who was an enlightened 'disciple of a Samyaksambuddha'. These disciples are those enlightened individuals who gain Nirvāṇa by hearing the Dharma as initially taught by a Samyaksambuddha (In our case Shakyamuni). They might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the Dharma in a time or world where it has been forgotten, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksambuddha .
He does not put off buddhahood. As soon as we can become a fully enlightened buddha we will, because that is what puts us in the best position to help others.
:facepalm: So you are putting off Buddhahood.
To enter nirvana before achieving full buddhahood
There is no half Buddhahood. There's a Buddha and there's a non-Buddha.
is to do what is in your best interest before you do what is best for all, being a full buddha.
No, no to do what is in your best interest is to actually become an Arahant.
This is why theravada is called the lesser vehicle. It's not "worse" as in fact for the individual the end is basically the same.
Are you kidding me? You're thinking you will somehow remember the Dharma when your perceptions, sensations, emotions, consciousness and form is gone.
But a mahayana practitioner doesn't want to become an arahant at the cost of helping others.
There's no cost to others by becoming an Arahant. That's ridiculous. :nonono:
Think about it. Will you help more people as an arahant in one lifetime, or as a bodhisattva in innumerable lifetimes and then a buddha as one lifetime?
Ok well clearly you're not at a point where you can act compassionately and have a respectful dialogue, in which case there's no point in discussing this with you. Have a good day, and good luck on your journey
find the inner path. That is how you need to know, you don't need to worry about if a phrase or sentence is what you like or don't like. Seek the wisdom within yourself, rather than outside yourself.
The aggregates disolve, and my personality and everything that composes "me," will be no more.
:thumbsup: Yes, indeed.
What remains are my karmic impressions.
:thumbsup: Yes, indeed.
These impressions will give rise to the rebirth of consciousness, and based on the karma of this current life, this new sentience, which for semantic reasons may be referred to as my future life, will continue to perfect itself along the boddhisattva path, giving rise after death to another rebirth of consciousness, ad infinitum until the time has come for my full, completely awoken, unsurpassable enlightenment.
No, no, no, as I said before, there will be no you at that point. :nonono: Let me explain a little so you see the problem.
You are made up of 5 aggregates.
Emotion
Perception
Sensation
Form
Consciousness.
When you die, your body and form might return to the earth and rot, your consciousness may live on in a plant, your sensation may split apart and go into a Deva, your emotions may split up and end up in an animal or hungry ghost or an Ashura, you don't get any wholeness, you split apart and Karma refers to how it might split and end up. There's no wholeness, this is an illusion. There is no self. The Aggregates that make you split apart.
Sincerely no constancy in self at all that endures that, so those perceptions that heard the Dharma may end up in an arupa area stuck for countless kalpa without ever being able to regain human form. The part of you that rejected parts of the Dharma might end up in a hungry ghost or animal etc. My point is you assume the aggregates are going to remain whole after you die. THEY DO NOT.
The Buddha, Tathagata, our teacher and father, was born into this world due to previous karma, perfected in infinite lives prior, in the pressence and under the tutelage of innumerable Buddha-lords in worlds inconcievable. This is the path of the Boddhisattva.
He was in Tushita heaven and learned it on his own. That's where Maitreya is. After all these Kalpas there has only been a handful to make it that far.
Ok well clearly you're not at a point where you can act compassionately and have a respectful dialogue, in which case there's no point in discussing this with you. Have a good day, and good luck on your journey
You're free to disagree with me, and I would like to have respectful dialogue but I think maybe there's a misunderstanding of the terms. An Arahant is a Buddha. If you are thinking I am not being compassionate in trying to explain something so that you might be able to understand clearer then by golly the least compassionate person evar. I am trying to help you.
You're free to disagree with me, and I would like to have respectful dialogue but I think maybe there's a misunderstanding of the terms. An Arahant is a Buddha.
What you have to understand is that Mahayana defines buddhahood differently. Moreover, it's a complete system in and of itself, just like Theravada, which is why inter-tradition dialogues often end with everyone talking past each other.
As I said, I don't have much of a desire to have this dialogue since you've already shown you don't care about respect. To boot you're making no effort to understand other points of view.
What you have to understand is that Mahayana defines buddhahood differently. Moreover, it's a complete system in and of itself, just like Theravada, which is why inter-tradition dialogues often end with everyone talking past each other.
How are you defining Buddhahood if not by a person who acheived Nirvana and liberation? :wtf:
The difference between Samyaksambuddha and a Pratyekabuddha is that a Pratyekabuddha was unable to expound the Dharma before death. The only difference between a Śrāvakabuddha and a Pratyekabuddha and Samyaksambuddha is how they acheived Buddhahood.
A Samyaksambuddha acheived Buddhahood on their own by learning the Dharma on their own (they were not exposed to it) and taught Dharma when there was no Dharma.
A Pratyekabuddha acheived Buddhahood by learning the Dharma on their own (they were not exposed to it) and could not find a way to teach it.
A Śrāvakabuddha acheived Buddhahood by learning the Dharma from a Samyaksambuddha and could also find a way to teach it. That is an Arahant.
"There are three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple. The attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two."
As I said, I don't have much of a desire to have this dialogue since you've already shown you don't care about respect.
How do I not care about respect other than not minding if you don't respect me? I'm telling the truth. You have to understand the difference between admonishing what is a lie, and admonishing what is true.
Fact: An Arahant is a Buddha.
Falsehood: Becoming an Arahant is harmful to other sentient beings.
To boot you're making no effort to understand other points of view.
What am I misunderstanding or ignorant of? What I am saying isn't admonish-able because it is fact.
Thinking you're right and not listening to what anyone else says is not the way of the buddha.
Actually when a person says something that is false and another tries to correct a false view it is not an admonishable offence. Have you looked up a Sravakabuddha? Do you know what Tathagata means? What do you think an Arahant is?
"There are three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple. The attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two."
You are severely misunderstanding what i'm saying. I don't care if an arahant is a buddha. That's not the point. We desire to become a fully enlightened buddha, the highest attainment, because they are in best position to help others. There's a difference between an arahant and a fully enlightened buddha. See the link I just posted. There's no need for e-yelling. *sigh* Why did I stay in this conversation...
But this is what I said before, a person who refuses to become an arahant is refusing Buddhahood thereby refusing liberation. You and I aren't disagreeing at all and instead you're arguing a different point now.
So as I said before, a person who refuses to become an arahant is refusing Buddhahood thereby refusing liberation.
You act very arrogant. I don't mean that to be mean, I mean that to say that it is in your best interest to work on it. The point was never whether or not an arahant is a buddha. The point is that there is a higher attainment than arahant. We wait until we achieve that, because then we can best help other sentient beings.
We desire to become a fully enlightened buddha, the highest attainment, because they are in best position to help others. There's a difference between an arahant and a fully enlightened buddha. See the link I just posted. There's no need for e-yelling. *sigh* Why did I stay in this conversation.
Okay the new point is that you want to be a Samyaksambuddha instead of an arahant because you want special higher attainment, and I reiterate my metaphor. Why would a person who is given the cure by the doctor who is not sick, refuse the medicine that can cure to the disease given to him by the doctor who has already given it to others (and it has been proven to work) and instead try to cure people by becoming a doctor while staying sick? That just seems counterproductive. As I said before, the best interest for others is to take the medicine first and then if you want to become a doctor become a doctor.
How are you defining Buddhahood if not by a person who acheived Nirvana and liberation? :wtf:
The only difference between Samyaksambuddha and a Pratyekabuddha is that a Pratyekabuddha was unable to expound the Dharma before death. The only difference between a Śrāvakabuddha and a Pratyekabuddha and Samyaksambuddha is how they acheived Buddhahood.
A Samyaksambuddha acheived Buddhahood on their own by learning the Dharma on their own (they were not exposed to it) and taught Dharma when there was no Dharma.
A Pratyekabuddha acheived Buddhahood by learning the Dharma on their own (they were not exposed to it) and could not find a way to teach it.
A Śrāvakabuddha acheived Buddhahood by learning the Dharma from a Samyaksambuddha and could also find a way to teach it. That is an Arahant.
Well, for one thing, in Mahayana buddhahood is characterized by omniscience. Therefore an arahant, lacking omniscience, isn't a Buddha from the Mahayana point of view. In addition, nirvana is understood differently in Mahayana.
In Mahayana, those who have attained nirvana still have work to do. This idea originates from certain Mahayana texts such as the Threefold Lotus Sutra, where the arahant is said not to have reached final nirvana. Essentially, they're seen as being intoxicated with the samadhi of cessation, not the nirvana that's attained by a fully enlightened Buddha.
Moreover, it's said that Buddhas are then able to awaken these individuals from their temporary cessation in order for them to continue towards complete Buddhahood (making Buddhas extremely important), which is characterized by omniscience. This is said to be due to Buddhahood being the result of wisdom and merit accumulation, and not just the eradication of afflictions.
The nature of Shakyamuni in Mahayana is a bit more complicated, as well. For one thing, Mahayana isn't homogeneous in a number of areas; but in general, the historical Buddha is seen to be a nirmanakaya, i.e., a manifestation of the Dharmakaya who appears for the benefit of sentient beings.
Of course, all of this contrasts with how the Buddha and nirvana are presented and understood in Theravada, which, as I said, is why these inter-tradition dialogues often end with everyone talking past each other. They're not very productive, either, which is why I tend to stay out of them.
He was in Tushita heaven and learned it on his own. That's where Maitreya is. After all these Kalpas there has only been a handful to make it that far.
What you're saying then, is that there is a conformation of aggregates somewhere at this very time that, when dissolved, will create the rebirth of a new consciousness in our world in the form of Matreya the next fully enlgihtened Buddha?
yes, that is true
Also, the karma that is created by my volition will lead to renewed rebirths and eventually the conformation of aggregates that will give rise to a fully enlightened Buddha. "I" is used semantically. There is no "I" that is "reborn." "I" am Boddhisattva. "Matreya" is Boddhisattva. "Matreya" will be "reborn" and attain full enlightenment. "I" will eventually be "reborn" and attain full enlightnement for the sake of all living beings.
"My" full enlightenment will, in a very distant life, be fortold in the same way that Matreya has been fortold. That is the Boddhisattva path.
Please stop speaking down about my beliefs like I am some fool.
I do? I believe I said clearly we stand on the shoulders of Giants and I am strictly saying that you're not giving respect where it is due. Shakyamuni Buddha has given us the cure, so why would we refuse it?
I don't mean that to be mean, I mean that to say that it is in your best interest to work on it.
I have actually asked for help about it before, but hardly any one wished to assist me, telling me how I could get rid of it. That's not the point though. Focus!
The point was never whether or not an arahant is a buddha.
So the point is now you understand and Arahant is a Buddha. :smilec:
The point is that there is a higher attainment than arahant.
:hrm: Why would you need a higher attainment than Arahant unless you sincerely believe that an Arahant cannot help sentient beings? That's untrue.
We wait until we achieve that, because then we can best help other sentient beings.
That's not true at all, there's no self that endures that can achieve that. Everything is in the moment and the path to enlightenment is given to you. Refusing to sever the fetters that binds yourself to Samsara actually perpetuates the cycle.
Comments
No you will not attain fully awoken, unsurpassed, complete enlightenment in this life in this world. The Buddha was boddhisattva for time immeasurable, traversing an infinite number of lives and buddha-realms, learning the dharma and perfecting his state of karma before being born into this world and achieving Buddhahood thus turning the wheel of dharma for countless suffering hearts.
His teachings resonate like a great echo accross thousands of earth years, effecting the hearts of people to this very day.
Perfect yourself, and strive for Buddhahood for the sake of all living things. Fear not for the suffering of this life or the next. Thou art Boddhisattva and destined for Buddhahood.
Oh there were also passages about Buddhist Nuns who ministered to Bhikkus and they acheived awakening while the Buddha was still alive, which is strange because the "8 heavy precepts" put on the Bhikkunis would have made that impossible if they were truly the Buddha's words, but I do not think they are. :rolleyes:
The Vinaya was written after the Buddha was already dead.
Don't slur Theravada Buddhism k thx.
I'm continually surprised by how many people still use this extremely derogatory and misused term. Usually I don't say anything about it because I don't really care all that much, but maybe I should since people don't seem to understand just how derogatory this word actually is.
The Pali/Sankrit term hina basically means 'low' or 'inferior,' but those translations doesn't really do it justice. The entry for hina in the Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary give a fuller range of its meaning: inferior, low; poor, miserable; vile, base, abject, contemptible, despicable. Whatever the definition, it should be clear that the connotation is extremely negative; and while one translation for hinayana is 'lower vehicle,' an equally valid translation is 'garbage vehicle.'
:facepalm: An Arahant is a Buddha.
I repeat, an Arahant is a Buddha. You're thinking in terms of immaterial greed. A Buddha is someone who has achieved Nirvana. An Arahant is a Buddha.
He was the person who taught the Dharma when no path to freedom existed. No enlightenment, no salvation at all. Of course you're not quite like him, because you're standing on the shoulders of giants.:crazy:
Well no, because this is just mere greed for immaterial power, and even Shakyamuni Buddha was not the first Samyaksambuddha. He just discovered the path to suffering by himself, not unlike a Pratyekabuddha except he can teach the Dharma to others leaving the path to Śrāvakabuddha Buddhahood open.
This isn't a race, it's freedom. Whether you want to be "higher" is a deluded way of thinking. We all achieve the same Buddhahood, but some have more adversity to find the path, and most can't express how to achieve it.
No, no, no, why would you want that?
Keep in mind as well, however, that both Theravada and Mahayana adherants agree that the boddhisattva path to Buddhahood is the highest of aspirations.
Yes I am not surprised because I am a Theravada Buddhist.
It is very derogatory. In fact ignorant people try and say Theravada Buddhism isn't what they're talking about when they say "Hinayana" as well to save face. I'm not going to say this doesn't offend me, because it does. Not only are people here confused by the words Arahant, Samyaksambuddha, Pratyekabuddhas, and Śrāvakabuddha but they don't understand that the goal is to liberate themselves. You can't help anyone else if you yourself are deluded.
I feel that you have much to learn. You should not be so impatient with yourself or with the path. Continue to study the dharma and seek instruction from a mentor or guru. Many of the concerns that you are expressing are tell-tale signs of delusion and attachment and will lead to your suffering.
Metta
There's is no "Highest" in liberation. You are either free or you are not free. Samyaksambuddhas gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dharma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew.
NO ONE IN THIS TIME CAN EVER BECOME A SAMYAKASAMBUDDHA WITHOUT SAYING THEY DON'T WANT TO BE FREE FROM SAMSARA! :crazy:
That's just taking what Shakyamuni Buddha struggled for and throwing it aside which is unnecessary and foolish.
Of course, those who wish to become doctors can do so. But they must have intelligence, courage and the means to study medicine. Likewise, it is not compulsory for everyone to become a Buddha to find their salvation. Those who wish to become Buddhas can do so. However, they need the courage and knowledge to sacrifice their comforts and practice all kinds of renunciations in order to attain Buddhahood. Others can be content to be healthy.
To attain Arahantahood, one has to eradicate all greed and selfishness. This implies that while relating with others, an Arahant will act with compassion and try to inspire others to go on the Path leading to Liberation. They are the living proof of the good results that accrue to a person who follows the method taught by the Buddha. The attainment of Nirvana is not possible if one acts with a selfish motive. Therefore, it is baseless to say that striving to become an Arahant is a selfish act.
Buddhahood is indisputably the best and the noblest of all the three ideals (Supreme Buddha, Silent Buddha and Arahant) but only because they are able to teach the path to freedom when no path exists. Not everyone is capable of achieving this highest ideal, not because they are inferior, but because they're lucky enough to have a Buddha there to teach the path, and lucky enough to be able to articulate the message before there is no more path at all. Surely all scientists cannot be Einsteins and Newtons. There must be room for the other scientists who nevertheless help the world according to their capabilities.
Indeed my wording was incorrect. There is no higher or lower. And as I stated in a previous post, I know that there is no way for a person or any other form of sentience to attain Samyakasambuddha status in this world, at this time.
In reference to "highest," I am speaking in regards to boddhicitta and the intention of withholding arhatship in order to attain nirvana in a distant life, at a time, and in a world, when the dharma is currently unknown and in doing so allowing countless suffering lives to be liberated by the perfection of one's full enlightenment. This does not in any way diminish the arhat path, or the striving of one's nirvana and the end of suffering.
The difference in these paths is where the philosophies of the Mahayana differ from the Theravada tradition. Both are bound by the same core philosophies, however, of the 4 nobles truths, the 8-fold path, and 12 Niddanas.
I'm certainly glad that, having found this site, I am able to discuss such things with you. I have, to be perfectly honest, limited knowledge of Theravada Buddhism, and focus much of my studies on the Mahayana sutras and the Boddhisattva path.
This is true, and it is stated VERY frequently in the sutras that the boddhisatva path is most certainly NOT an easy one. I suppose, using your metaphor, I seek the skills of the physician, particularly out of compassion for all sentient life.
That's the spirit, but consider the following. Shakyamuni had to leave a life of luxury, leave his family, endure starvation, endure mocking, had to sacrifice everything he had in order to become a Boddhisattva. He had to battle Mara's harshest traps and essentially throw away his humanity. Are you up for the task in this lifetime?
Personally, I don't mind if people say that the aspiration for buddhahood is higher, because relatively speaking, I think it's a valid statement. Either way, my philosophy is fairly simply: I don't care what your path is, it's cool with me; just don't call mine garbage.
The problem with this idea is it is very risky and undermines what Shakyamuni has already given to us. It's like the sick patient refusing the medicine that the well doctor has given them because they want to become a doctor first. It's ego masturbation, not really a willingness to be free from the sickness.
An Arahant can teach Dharma, and show the way to the path, but they cannot influence another person to liberate them. The Buddha could do that. He has done that. He's given it to us.
Ah, indeed they differ. The problem is I think there's an inherent idea that the Theravada tradition is somehow flawed. I don't understand that.
I am glad to meet you too! I can help you if you would like to learn about Theravada, and I enjoy reading Mahayana literature, but ultimately my opinion is that it's perpetuating a lot of mythology, and metaphor that is misleading.
I am willing to work every day toward perfecting myself with patience and loving-kindness. If I feel that the time has come, in this life, for me to forsake my worldly existence and to take up the path of total renunciation, then I must do so for the sake of the salvation of all living things.
Consider as well, however, Vimilakirti, the lay-disciple well-renowned as practitioner of the boddhisattva path, engages in non-attachment and renunciation among worldly affairs in order to teach and attend to those suffering worldly attachment. He praises the buddha, and the paths of the disciple, and perfects himself for the sake of all living beings.
The concept of renunciation means more than walking away from my family and job and education, it is a renunciation in spirit and non-attachment to any aspect of my existence. When time has come, in the distant distant future, my karma with give rebirth to a new sentience, prepared for the trials that the boddhisatva must face before attaining nirvana and turning the wheel of dharma.
Didn't say they weren't I said they're metaphorical and mythological. Much like Parables.
Oh, I'm sure.
And not everyone is qualified to do so. In fact, as I said, in order to do that in our time you have to ignore what the Buddha taught. You'd have to cycle again and again until the Dharma is no longer in this world.
See, and that's the misleading part. You don't aspire for liberation at all. You refuse it until the path is obscured and then think you'll have the faculties to achieve what Shakyamuni could. You can't. The Aggregates that make up you recycle as long as you put off salvation.
They are both liberated Buddhas! And an Arahant is a Śrāvakabuddha .
Let us only hope so.
Have you forgotten Anatta? The fact that all aggregates that make up your sense of identity are impermanent? When you die, all things that make up you recycle and make someone new, and this human birth is truly a rare thing. It's a chance to understand the cure to dukkha that the Buddha taught. It's not just an emptiness of Dharmas, but first and foremost that there's no permanent self. You don't endure after this life in any way shape or form the aggregates recycle and come apart. Only way you can retain anything is freedom from Samsara.
As for the figurative language in the Mahayana Sutras, I said before, I take them as parable, metaphorically, or figuratively.
The aggregates disolve, and my personality and everything that composes "me," will be no more. What remains are my karmic impressions. These impressions will give rise to the rebirth of consciousness, and based on the karma of this current life, this new sentience, which for semantic reasons may be referred to as my future life, will continue to perfect itself along the boddhisattva path, giving rise after death to another rebirth of consciousness, ad infinitum until the time has come for my full, completely awoken, unsurpassable enlightenment.
The Buddha, Tathagata, our teacher and father, was born into this world due to previous karma, perfected in infinite lives prior, in the pressence and under the tutelage of innumerable Buddha-lords in worlds inconcievable. This is the path of the Boddhisattva.
I am not disrespecting it. I am saying you aren't making any sense.
Arahants are Shravakabuddhas. You are putting off Buddhahood. That's exactly what a person who puts off Arahantship does. :facepalm:
I don't think you understand what an Arahant is. An Arahant is a Buddha who was an enlightened 'disciple of a Samyaksambuddha'. These disciples are those enlightened individuals who gain Nirvāṇa by hearing the Dharma as initially taught by a Samyaksambuddha (In our case Shakyamuni). They might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the Dharma in a time or world where it has been forgotten, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksambuddha .
:facepalm: So you are putting off Buddhahood.
There is no half Buddhahood. There's a Buddha and there's a non-Buddha.
No, no to do what is in your best interest is to actually become an Arahant.
Are you kidding me? You're thinking you will somehow remember the Dharma when your perceptions, sensations, emotions, consciousness and form is gone.
There's no cost to others by becoming an Arahant. That's ridiculous. :nonono:
You help no one if you stay in Samsara forever.
*huuuugs*
:crazy: We're being silly aren't we? :tongue2:
Maybe just a little.
:thumbsup: Yes, indeed.
:thumbsup: Yes, indeed.
No, no, no, as I said before, there will be no you at that point. :nonono: Let me explain a little so you see the problem.
You are made up of 5 aggregates.
Emotion
Perception
Sensation
Form
Consciousness.
When you die, your body and form might return to the earth and rot, your consciousness may live on in a plant, your sensation may split apart and go into a Deva, your emotions may split up and end up in an animal or hungry ghost or an Ashura, you don't get any wholeness, you split apart and Karma refers to how it might split and end up. There's no wholeness, this is an illusion. There is no self. The Aggregates that make you split apart.
Sincerely no constancy in self at all that endures that, so those perceptions that heard the Dharma may end up in an arupa area stuck for countless kalpa without ever being able to regain human form. The part of you that rejected parts of the Dharma might end up in a hungry ghost or animal etc. My point is you assume the aggregates are going to remain whole after you die. THEY DO NOT.
He was in Tushita heaven and learned it on his own. That's where Maitreya is. After all these Kalpas there has only been a handful to make it that far.
You're free to disagree with me, and I would like to have respectful dialogue but I think maybe there's a misunderstanding of the terms. An Arahant is a Buddha.
What you have to understand is that Mahayana defines buddhahood differently. Moreover, it's a complete system in and of itself, just like Theravada, which is why inter-tradition dialogues often end with everyone talking past each other.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html#admonish
make yourself easy to admonish. Thinking you're right and not listening to what anyone else says is not the way of the buddha.
How are you defining Buddhahood if not by a person who acheived Nirvana and liberation? :wtf:
The difference between Samyaksambuddha and a Pratyekabuddha is that a Pratyekabuddha was unable to expound the Dharma before death. The only difference between a Śrāvakabuddha and a Pratyekabuddha and Samyaksambuddha is how they acheived Buddhahood.
A Samyaksambuddha acheived Buddhahood on their own by learning the Dharma on their own (they were not exposed to it) and taught Dharma when there was no Dharma.
A Pratyekabuddha acheived Buddhahood by learning the Dharma on their own (they were not exposed to it) and could not find a way to teach it.
A Śrāvakabuddha acheived Buddhahood by learning the Dharma from a Samyaksambuddha and could also find a way to teach it. That is an Arahant.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html
"There are three types of Buddhahood: the Samma Sambuddha who gains full Enlightenment by his own effort, the Pacceka Buddha who has lesser qualities than the Samma Sambuddha, and the Savaka Buddha who is an Arahant disciple. The attainment of Nibbana between the three types of Buddhahood is exactly the same. The only difference is that the Samma Sambuddha has many more qualities and capacities than the other two."
How do I not care about respect other than not minding if you don't respect me? I'm telling the truth. You have to understand the difference between admonishing what is a lie, and admonishing what is true.
Fact: An Arahant is a Buddha.
Falsehood: Becoming an Arahant is harmful to other sentient beings.
What am I misunderstanding or ignorant of? What I am saying isn't admonish-able because it is fact.
Actually when a person says something that is false and another tries to correct a false view it is not an admonishable offence. Have you looked up a Sravakabuddha? Do you know what Tathagata means? What do you think an Arahant is?
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!
An Arahant is a Buddha.
You are severely misunderstanding what i'm saying. I don't care if an arahant is a buddha. That's not the point. We desire to become a fully enlightened buddha, the highest attainment, because they are in best position to help others. There's a difference between an arahant and a fully enlightened buddha. See the link I just posted. There's no need for e-yelling. *sigh* Why did I stay in this conversation...
You act very arrogant. I don't mean that to be mean, I mean that to say that it is in your best interest to work on it. The point was never whether or not an arahant is a buddha. The point is that there is a higher attainment than arahant. We wait until we achieve that, because then we can best help other sentient beings.
Okay the new point is that you want to be a Samyaksambuddha instead of an arahant because you want special higher attainment, and I reiterate my metaphor. Why would a person who is given the cure by the doctor who is not sick, refuse the medicine that can cure to the disease given to him by the doctor who has already given it to others (and it has been proven to work) and instead try to cure people by becoming a doctor while staying sick? That just seems counterproductive. As I said before, the best interest for others is to take the medicine first and then if you want to become a doctor become a doctor.
Well, for one thing, in Mahayana buddhahood is characterized by omniscience. Therefore an arahant, lacking omniscience, isn't a Buddha from the Mahayana point of view. In addition, nirvana is understood differently in Mahayana.
In Mahayana, those who have attained nirvana still have work to do. This idea originates from certain Mahayana texts such as the Threefold Lotus Sutra, where the arahant is said not to have reached final nirvana. Essentially, they're seen as being intoxicated with the samadhi of cessation, not the nirvana that's attained by a fully enlightened Buddha.
Moreover, it's said that Buddhas are then able to awaken these individuals from their temporary cessation in order for them to continue towards complete Buddhahood (making Buddhas extremely important), which is characterized by omniscience. This is said to be due to Buddhahood being the result of wisdom and merit accumulation, and not just the eradication of afflictions.
The nature of Shakyamuni in Mahayana is a bit more complicated, as well. For one thing, Mahayana isn't homogeneous in a number of areas; but in general, the historical Buddha is seen to be a nirmanakaya, i.e., a manifestation of the Dharmakaya who appears for the benefit of sentient beings.
Of course, all of this contrasts with how the Buddha and nirvana are presented and understood in Theravada, which, as I said, is why these inter-tradition dialogues often end with everyone talking past each other. They're not very productive, either, which is why I tend to stay out of them.
What you're saying then, is that there is a conformation of aggregates somewhere at this very time that, when dissolved, will create the rebirth of a new consciousness in our world in the form of Matreya the next fully enlgihtened Buddha?
yes, that is true
Also, the karma that is created by my volition will lead to renewed rebirths and eventually the conformation of aggregates that will give rise to a fully enlightened Buddha. "I" is used semantically. There is no "I" that is "reborn." "I" am Boddhisattva. "Matreya" is Boddhisattva. "Matreya" will be "reborn" and attain full enlightenment. "I" will eventually be "reborn" and attain full enlightnement for the sake of all living beings.
"My" full enlightenment will, in a very distant life, be fortold in the same way that Matreya has been fortold. That is the Boddhisattva path.
Please stop speaking down about my beliefs like I am some fool.
I do?
I have actually asked for help about it before, but hardly any one wished to assist me, telling me how I could get rid of it. That's not the point though. Focus!
So the point is now you understand and Arahant is a Buddha. :smilec:
:hrm: Why would you need a higher attainment than Arahant unless you sincerely believe that an Arahant cannot help sentient beings? That's untrue.
That's not true at all, there's no self that endures that can achieve that. Everything is in the moment and the path to enlightenment is given to you. Refusing to sever the fetters that binds yourself to Samsara actually perpetuates the cycle.