Dharma Wheel

Jnana wrote:FWIW, according to the Theravāda Paṭisambhidāmagga a buddha has the following knowledges and abilities not shared by arhat disciples:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

The Theravāda commentaries also differentiate between sammāsambodhi, paccekabodhi, and sāvakabodhi. Accordingly, a mahābodhisatta develops the perfections, etc., to a greater degree in order to realize sammāsambodhi.


*i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

deepbluehum wrote:

Jnana wrote:FWIW, according to the Theravāda Paṭisambhidāmagga a buddha has the following knowledges and abilities not shared by arhat disciples:

• knowledge of the penetration of other beings' faculties
• knowledge of other beings' biases and underlying tendancies
• knowledge of the twin miracle*
• knowledge of the attainment of great compassion
• omniscience & unobstructed knowledge

The Theravāda commentaries also differentiate between sammāsambodhi, paccekabodhi, and sāvakabodhi. Accordingly, a mahābodhisatta develops the perfections, etc., to a greater degree in order to realize sammāsambodhi.


*i.e. the ability to produce fire and water from various parts of the body, as well as walk amid an aura of colors while a created image of his body sits or lies down, etc.

The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tiger wrote:deepbluehum,

You did not get my point of questioning your definition of "Kshatriyas", so I will make it more clear here. Were "Kshatriyas" Indo-Aryans(Caucasians) or Native Dravidians and Austro-Asiatics? Besides, you are only taking the "Brahmanic" definition of these caste terms, which is really absurd considering that their influence in India was only limited to the North Western region. A Brahmin would only call an Indo-Aryan king as "Kshatriy" which is why Greek, Chinese or Persian kings are not called "Kshatriyas". And this is the same reason why the Nandas, Mauryas, Palas, are recorded as "Shudras" by them. When even Ashoka is recorded as "Shudra", by these minority groups who had no real influence during his time, how can you take this perception and standard of social classes (of the Indo-Aryans) as a basis to explain Buddhist social dynamics especially when the vast majority of Indians did not have any castes? I have visited many famous Buddhist caves and the are inscriptions usually in most caves about the laymen and women who donated for the construction of the caves. You would be surprised that no caste of the lay men or women is mentioned with the only exception of "Brahmin"!

deepbluehum wrote:
The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

pueraeternus wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:
The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause.

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually they don't.

If so, then you have to ask why the Arhat Mogallana was forced to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth, since his "divine" eye was insufficiently strong to see where she had gone.

pueraeternus wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:
The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause. He basically cut and paste various portions of the long e-sangha discussion he had with me, but only his replies, and not my refutations from other more relevant Pali suttas.

Malcolm wrote:

pueraeternus wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:
The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause.

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

deepbluehum wrote:What you guys are willfully ignoring is that the bodhi for an arahant is the same as a buddha, an arahant is an arahant sammasambuddha. The Buddha clearly refutes any cognitive obscuration.

deepbluehum wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

That's what you are, Mr. Dzogchen.

deepbluehum wrote:What you guys are willfully ignoring is that the bodhi for an arahant is the same as a buddha, an arahant is an arahant sammasambuddha. The Buddha clearly refutes any cognitive obscuration.

deepbluehum wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
No, actually they don't.

If so, then you have to ask why the Arhat Mogallana was forced to ask the Buddha where his mother had taken rebirth, since his "divine" eye was insufficiently strong to see where she had gone.

Then you have to ask how come buddha had to ask where had all his students gone after he came out of his cave retreat, when he didn't know they had killed themselves.

You can ask a lot of questions.

deepbluehum wrote:

pueraeternus wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:
The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause. He basically cut and paste various portions of the long e-sangha discussion he had with me, but only his replies, and not my refutations from other more relevant Pali suttas.

I'm waiting.

Malcolm wrote:

pueraeternus wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:
The suttas that Tiltbilings cites in his thread refutes these commentarial threads.

Tilt cites only the suttas that suit his cause.

Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

Malcolm wrote:

deepbluehum wrote:

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, like most one-sided polemicists.

That's what you are, Mr. Dzogchen.

Unlike you, I am not pursuing a polemical agenda. I am happy to let people practice whatever the hell they want without telling them they are wrong, or screwed up, etc. If people want to believe that Arhats are omniscient, that's ok with me. I just don't believe it, and I don't think their citations or reasonings are sound. But I sure am not really that interested in arguing about it, I have better things to do with my time.

M

pueraeternus wrote: What you and Tilt are willfully ignoring is that not even Shariputra comes close to the vast range of the Buddha's omniscience, and he acknowledges it himself.

pueraeternus wrote:For now, refer to this:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 8-piya.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The important point:

sariputtalionroar.jpg

So as you can see, Shariputra acknowledges that he only gets the Drift of the Dhamma and that he does not comprehend the mind of the Buddha at all, and that no one surpasses the Buddha. So do you now, get the drift?

deepbluehum wrote: But the bodhi is the same. That's a crucial point that the Buddha mentions. There's no cognitive obscuration. The Buddha has developed great powers. That's something else. There's no one in history that matches Buddha.

deepbluehum wrote:

pueraeternus wrote:For now, refer to this:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 8-piya.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The important point:

sariputtalionroar.jpg

So as you can see, Shariputra acknowledges that he only gets the Drift of the Dhamma and that he does not comprehend the mind of the Buddha at all, and that no one surpasses the Buddha. So do you now, get the drift?

This is interesting, but doesn't really prove your point, because Sariputta did not have developed psychic powers. Maha-moggallana did. This is about the question of those who liberated through understanding vs. those who are liberated through jhana and understanding. Sariputtas shortcomings do not establish all Arahants were deficient or had shortcomings. Maha-moggallana travelled with the Buddha all over the universe.