Arhats?

[Informer]

There is no reason for the requirement of a "Buddha" to help one advance from the original realization of emptiness. To break an arhat free to become a buddha requires a buddha, would that even begin to make sense for the original realization of emptiness? No, because the initial realization of emptiness is one of the first actual realizations.

 

If you realize the twofold without metta you are stuck and require a buddha. (imo)

 

IE: teh pills.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Informer

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Informer]

"Arhat (Sanskrit: अर्हत arhat; Pali: arahant), in Buddhism, signifies a spiritual practitioner who has realized certain high stages of attainment. The implications of the term vary based on the respective schools and traditions."

 

"The alternative etymology is "foe-destroyer" or "vanquisher of enemies," which corresponds to the Jain definition."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arhat_%28Buddhism%29

Edited February 19, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

This means that what an Arhat means to you is base on a: your indoctrination into a belief system, or b: your experience.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Seth Ananda]

Before I comment on anything, I want to ask you:

 

Are you just arguing for arguments sake? Or are you genuinely interested in this path?

 

If your answer is yes or maybe, then I want to ask you this:

 

If the teachings of Buddhism is just another dogmatic set of beliefs to be indoctrinated into: Then why do you want to engage in this path?

lol, KO delivered!

[Seth Ananda]

Yeah dude, no . Not even close.

Don't be so sure...

 

The I AM phase is easier to access than people generally realize.

 

I am devoting the year to stabilizing it before moving on...

[Informer]

Before I comment on anything, I want to ask you:

 

Are you just arguing for arguments sake? Or are you genuinely interested in this path?

 

If your answer is yes or maybe, then I want to ask you this:

 

If the teachings of Buddhism is just another dogmatic set of beliefs to be indoctrinated into: Then why do you want to engage in this path?

 

It's not about me, so let's not get personal. What you wrote above is simply attempted fallacious redirection of the failure to be able to formulate a proper rebuttal in a timely fashion.

 

Have I said anything about you thus far? Why do you direct your comments at me rather than the statement?

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

Don't be so sure...

 

The I AM phase is easier to access than people generally realize.

 

I am devoting the year to stabilizing it before moving on...

 

Was is hardly part of realization. Realization is life altering and permanent ime. The statement was in regards to the ninja edit:

 

I was able to experience unconditional love and compassion.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Informer]

I guess it will continue to remain unknown until a realization is achieved.

 

*shrug*

 

Maybe you can go back to the topic at hand whenever you are ready.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[Lucky7Strikes]

Edited February 20, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Neither of you understand what you are really debating against.

Great way to engage someone in a discussion. What point does this type of sentence really serve? What's behind its manifestation?

Edited February 20, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

You've been reading way too much of Vmarcos posts on this board. Also, no one 'makes' an Arhat 'break free' of anything. It only depends on whether they want to make the resolve to reach buddhahood.

An arhat in the theravada tradition has already reached the highest attainment. So to an arhat, he is already enlightened. Your point above is only from the standpoint of mahayana.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That is exactly what bodhicitta means. The "Thought of Enlightenment," is the resolve to cultivate towards buddhahood. In the sutras: This is described as taking 3 asamkyeya kalpas* of cultivating the 6 paramitas (sometimes classified as 10) until anuttarasamyaksambodhi is achieved. Anyone who has not realized the 2 fold selflessness (1st bhumi,) is engaged in relative bodhicitta. From the 1st bhumi up, individuals are engaged in absolute bodhicitta. Buddhahood represents the pure "Thought of Enlightenment," since buddhas respond spontaneously to all sentient beings of differing capacities, mentalties, of varying karmic roots of virtue, etc.; in all universes, for the sole purpose of maturing sentient beings toward buddhahood. We shouldn't have a conceptual understanding of this of just meaning to teach "Buddhism" and for just humans. Buddhas do what is necessary in order to mature sentient beings of any capacity. This article describes the aspects

And have you seen the Buddhas directly helping out sentient being in all directions in this multi universe or did you read that in a book? If latter, then that is conceptual belief.

 

Bodhicitta means, as you say, the vow to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. For the sake of all sentient beings. That is compassion. Metta is a form of compassion extending to all beings. Ok?

 

Metta is also included as one of the ten paramitas in the pali canon.

 

Metta is the first of the 4 Brahmavihara's (My link,) which practitioners of all religions develop. If metta were to mean the vow to cultivate buddhahood: Then no one would be able to demonstrate basic compassion. Every human is capable of demonstrating some level of compassion; even animals are capable of demonstrating what we humans call compassion. What you and Informer are saying is an insult to practitioners of all the worlds traditions: Since Mahayana Buddhism is the only philosophy to state cultivation towards omniscience for the benefit of all sentient beings as it's path and result.

Insulting? Don't be so dramatic. You are now insulting the basic compassion of the basic awareness of sentient beings. This oh so inferior compassion gives rise to religion and practitioners. Religion and practitioners don't make compassion out of thin air. You display a lot of, how do you say, justified attitude. That is an exercise in power and not wisdom.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

An arhat in the theravada tradition has already reached the highest attainment. So to an arhat, he is already enlightened. Your point above is only from the standpoint of mahayana.

 

This is incorrect. An Arhat in the Theravada tradition is not the highest attainment. They recognize that the Buddha is a much higher attainment but see Arhat as a more realistic goal to strive for.

 

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/study/comparison_buddhist_traditions/theravada_hinayana_mahayana/intro_comparison_hinayana_mahayana.html

 

Buddhas and Arhats

There is quite a significant difference between the Hinayana and Mahayana presentations of arhats and Buddhas. Both agree that arhats, or liberated beings, are more limited than Buddhas, or enlightened beings, are. Mahayana formulates this difference in terms of two sets of obscurations: the emotional ones, which prevent liberation, and the cognitive ones, which prevent omniscience. Arhats are free of only the former, whereas Buddhas are free of both. This division is not found in Hinayana. It is purely a Mahayana formulation.

 

To gain liberation or enlightenment, both Hinayana and Mahayana assert that one needs nonconceptual cognition of the lack of an impossible “soul.” Such a lack is often called “ selflessness,” anatma in Sanskrit, the main Indian scriptural language of Sarvastivada and Mahayana; anatta in Pali, the scriptural language of Theravada. The Hinayana schools assert this lack of an impossible “soul” with respect only to persons, not all phenomena. Persons lack a “soul,” an atman, that is unaffected by anything, partless, and separable from a body and a mind, and which can be cognized on its own. Such a “soul” is impossible. With just the understanding that there is no such thing as this type of “soul” with respect to persons, one can become either an arhat or a Buddha. The difference depends on how much positive force or so-called “ merit” one builds up. Because of their development of the enlightening aim of bodhichitta, Buddhas have built up far more positive force than arhats have.

 

Mahayana asserts that Buddhas understand the lack of an impossible “soul” with respect to all phenomena as well as with respect to persons. They call this lack “voidness.” The various Indian schools of Mahayana differ regarding whether or not arhats also understand the voidness of phenomena. Within Mahayana, Prasangika Madhyamaka asserts that they do. However, the four Tibetan traditions explain this point differently regarding the Prasangika assertion. Some say that the voidness of phenomena understood by arhats is different from that understood by Buddhas; some assert the two voidnesses are the same. Some say that the scope of phenomena to which the voidness of phenomena applies is more limited for arhats than it is for Buddhas; some assert it is the same. There is no need to go into all the details here.

 

[see: Comparison of the Hinayana and Mahayana Assertions of the Understandings of Voidness by Arhats and Buddhas.]

 

Further Points Concerning Buddhas and Arhats

The assertions of Hinayana and Mahayana concerning arhats and Buddhas differ in many other ways. Theravada, for instance, asserts that one of the differences between a shravaka or “listener” striving toward the liberation of an arhat and a bodhisattva striving toward the enlightenment of a Buddha is that shravakas study with Buddhist teachers, while bodhisattvas do not. The historical Buddha, Shakyamuni, for instance, did not study with another Buddha. He studied only with non-Buddhist teachers, whose methods he ultimately rejected. In the fact that Buddha’s understanding and attainment did not arise from reliance on a Buddhist teacher, Theravada asserts that a Buddha’s wisdom surpasses that of an arhat.

 

In addition, bodhisattvas work to become universal Buddhist teachers; shravakas do not, although as arhats they certainly teach disciples. Before passing away, Buddha himself deputed his arhat disciple Shariputra to continue “turning the wheel of Dharma.” According to Theravada, however, Buddhas excel arhats in being more skillful in methods for leading others to liberation and in the breadth of their conduct of teaching. This is the meaning of a Buddha’s being omniscient. However, according to this presentation, a Buddha would not know everyone’s address and would have to ask such information from others.

 

According to the Vaibhashika school of Hinayana, Buddhas are actually omniscient in knowing such information, but they only know one thing at a time. According to Mahayana, omniscience means knowing everything simultaneously. This follows from its view that everything is interconnected and interdependent; we cannot speak of just one piece of information, totally unrelated to the rest.

 

Hinayana says that the historical Buddha achieved enlightenment in his lifetime and, like an arhat, when he died, his mental continuum came to an end. Therefore, according to Hinayana, Buddhas teach only for the rest of the lifetime in which they achieve enlightenment. They do not emanate to countless world systems and go on teaching forever, as Mahayana asserts. Only Mahayana asserts that the historical Buddha became enlightened in a previous lifetime many eons ago, by studying with Buddhist teachers. He was just demonstrated enlightenment under the bodhi tree as one of the twelve enlightening deeds of a Buddha. The precursor of this description of a Buddha is found in the Mahasanghika School of Hinayana, another of the eighteen Hinayana schools, but is not found in either Sarvastivada or Theravada.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Sunya

[Apech]

 

Ah! Hats!

 

(sorry carry on ....)

[konchog uma]

 

bud! ah!

 

what was i saying??

[Lucky7Strikes]

This is incorrect. An Arhat in the Theravada tradition is not the highest attainment. They recognize that the Buddha is a much higher attainment but see Arhat as a more realistic goal to strive for.

Uhhh, I kind of disagree That article kind of twists the theravada distinction of a Buddha and the arhat. The only difference the Buddha says to delineate between himself and the rest of the awakened disciples is precisely that they are disciples who learned via his teachings, and he alone was the self awakened one. It's not that the BUddha declared himself the only "universal" teacher. There are disciples acting as teachers throughout the pali canon. The distinction between shravaka and bodhisattva in the article is also a bit misleading. Shravaka just means disciple. Bodhisattva in the pali canon just points to someone who is working towards liberation, or becoming an arhat. So they are talking about two different aspects of a practitioner.

 

As the article concludes, the Buddha is an arhat. Arhat means one who has attained total liberation and will attain parinirvana upon his death. He has no fetters. His mindstream ceases. So there is no higher attainment since once the arhat dies, according to the hinayana, he is done.

 

The debate between arhats and higher awakening is mostly from the Mahayana and Vajrayana perspectives. It makes no sense for someone who becomes a monk and decides to devote his entire life to monastic practices to go, "oh hey, that seems too hard, I'm going to dedicate myself to the lower attainments."

 

The final attainment of cessation is equal, so the difference isn't important.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Lucky7Strikes

[steve]

A r-hat

 

 

 

Sorry, carry on...

[SeriesOfTubes]

The scurvy dog says: AAARRRRRRRRhat!

 

[Informer]

 

A rats savior is the owl. How you ask? The rat gains wings.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Informer

[Sunya]

The debate between arhats and higher awakening is mostly from the Mahayana and Vajrayana perspectives. It makes no sense for someone who becomes a monk and decides to devote his entire life to monastic practices to go, "oh hey, that seems too hard, I'm going to dedicate myself to the lower attainments."

 

I'm just saying it how I learned it. I was taught by Theravadin nuns in Bodh Gaya during a retreat about this. Maybe the nuns were secretly Mahayanists then.