In Theravada, since arhat has obtained cessation, there is no way an arhat can be a Buddha after he passes away.
But in Mahayana, an arhat can be a Buddha, as it was mentioned that the Buddha has predicted the Buddhahood for some of his disciples, such as Sariputra. when a Buddha has passed away, he also attained cessation and how is it possible he exists to exhort arhats, who likewise attained cessation to strive for Buddhahood?
thanks for your reply.
but Theravada does not agree with Mahayana view that once a Buddha or Arhat has attained cessation, there is no way they will stay or come back to samsara.
any theravada buddhists want to comment on the Theravada views on this topic?
Sravaka-Buddhas (Pali:Savaka-Buddhas): gain Nirvana, but attain Enlightenment by hearing the Dharma as initially taught by a Samyaksam-Buddha. After attaining enlightenment, Sravaka-Buddhas might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the Dharma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Samyaksam-Buddha.
Sravaka-Buddhas are one of three types of Buddha. Within Mahayana Buddhism they are often referred to as Arhats.
Originally posted by Rooney9:thanks for your reply.
but Theravada does not agree with Mahayana view that once a Buddha or Arhat has attained cessation, there is no way they will stay or come back to samsara.
According to Milindapanha, it is said that citta (mind) is not 'functioning (appavattam)' in one of the two circumstances: 'when it has become drowsy and entered bhavanga; and ... when it has attained cessation' (Miln.300). As this sees citta as not 'functioning' when bhavanga occurs, such a 'non-functioning' citta could also occur in cessation.
In other words, when we enter into deep dreamless sleep every night, the mind enters into the state of bhavanga, also known as the 8th consciousness where there is no content of mind or citta, in other words the citta lies in a dormant and non functioning state. Similarly in Nirvana, citta becomes non functioning. However it does not mean that the functioning of does not have a potential to arise again as a continuum of wisdom persists. An arhat will not however be reborn due to the force of karma. If someone liberated does return it is due to the power of vows and compassion, not clinging, desire and karma. Theravada texts however generally does not discuss about this and the main emphasis is on personal liberation.
For example several passages like M.I.175 and A.IV.454 describe a monk who 'enters on and abides in the cessation of cognition and feeling; and having seen by wisdom, his cankers are utterly destroyed'. This describes the attainment of Arahatship either in or immediately after the state of cessation. If the former is meant, then wisdom (panna) can be present in cessation; if this is so, then so can discernment, for whatever is the object of wisdom is also known discernment (M.I.292).
Buddha is an arhat but an arhat is not the Buddha because he lacks the "merits" that Buddha has cultivated for many aeons.
There are two views - Theravada and Mahayana.
But what is samsara and Nibbana?
Can we find Nibbana in samsara?
Go figure and see the truth for yourself.
'enters on and abides in the cessation of cognition and feeling' - this is refering to state called Nirodha Samapatti, and can only be experienced by an Anagami or Arhat.
Daniel Ingram describes his experience with this in
As for Nirvana is Samsara, this is certainly the case.
"Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.
Originally posted by Isis:Buddha is an arhat but an arhat is not the Buddha because he lacks the "merits" that Buddha has cultivated for many aeons.
There are two views - Theravada and Mahayana.
But what is samsara and Nibbana?
Can we find Nibbana in samsara?
Go figure and see the truth for yourself.
Arahats lack Omniscience that a Supreme Buddha has. To aim for Buddhahood is a very noble aim, I wish the aspirants here all the best!
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:'enters on and abides in the cessation of cognition and feeling' - this is refering to state called Nirodha Samapatti, and can only be experienced by an Anagami or Arhat.
Daniel Ingram describes his experience with this in
Appendix: The Cessation of Perception and Feeling (Nirodha Samapatti)
As for Nirvana is Samsara, this is certainly the case.
"Nothing of sa�s�ra is different from nirv�ṇa, nothing of nirv�ṇa is different from sa�s�ra. That which is the limit of nirv�ṇa is also the limit of sa�s�ra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So N�g�rjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirv�ṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Sa�s�ra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirv�ṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, M�dhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirv�ṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yog�c�ra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth.
Need mastery of all jhanas