The testimony provided by a comparative study of the early discourses instead conveys the impression that these four levels of awakening are an integral part of the teachings of early Buddhism in the form in which they have been preserved in the textual records.
I don’t know but atleast you should know what you stated before please back every of your statement with sutta or visuddhimagga but if it’s just your conjecture that’s ok too
Ratana I’m glad that you answered honestly “I don’t know”. If your serious about the path, there’s certain things that you need to look into or do for yourself. I’m asking you to name or look into them for your own maximum benefit. You’ll be able to come to your own conclusion without needing any sutta’s or “blindly” believing what others tell you about your opening post question.
I don’t think you can see right now how clear the answer is . . . . Let’s say when you find out FOR YOURSELF the 3 kinds of Buddha’s and with me possibility sharing a few explanations. The answer will be so clear to you, that it’s like “Ah ha!” moment.
I’m ready here to explain / share material’s on this topic when you tell me the 3 kinds of Buddha’s.
Just to give you a hint . . . Arahantship is Buddhahood . . .
Ratana, I highly recommend for anyone that practices the Buddha Dhamma to learn and use the Pali words as much as possible. It’s not necessary, but it would be very beneficial.
Thank you.
The 3 types of Buddha’s are:
Sammasambuddha: One who “rediscovers” the truths through their own effort and (has the ability) teach it to others.
Paccekabuddha: One who discovers the truth’s through own’s own effort, but "doesn’t " have the ability to teach these truths to others.
Savakabuddha or Arahantbuddha (This is what arahanthood means): One attains nibbana by learning, “listening” or “hearing” of the Dhamma from a Sammasambuddha or other Ariya’s.
The word “savaka” means “one who hears”
From Wikipedia:
Buddhas are supposed to reach nibbaṇa by their own efforts and insights. A Sāvakabuddha might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Sammasambuddha .
Now let me ask you, do you know of or heard any stories about any Arahants having greater Dhamma knowledge or supernatural powers than Sammasambuddha’s? (Think about the Buddha chief disciples).
Do you see where I’m going with this now? Are you starting to understand why we don’t need to go to the sutta’s or anything for this question?
Where does the term Savakabuddha come from? Because it’s not in the suttas. I can’t find it in Abhidhamma or even commentaries. Keep in mind, when we are discussing things here if we are using material outside of the EBTs it’s helpful to mention that so people don’t get misled.
EDIT: I was able to find one instance of the word. It the commentary to the Appadana:
I couldn’t find the term in Bhante Bodhi’s article either.
Thank you for bringing this up. I’m glad to see someone is on top of things. Keep up your good work. Anyways this is what I was taught.
As well thank you for the link !!!
One can also put things together by understanding the terms “Buddha”, “savakasangho” and what it represents attaining Arahanthood.
To you, what does the word “Buddha” and “savakasangho” mean? As well what does arahant’s represent or what is it?
How many types of Buddha’s do you know of? If you don’t accept savakabuddha (which is totally understandable from your point of view, I would feel the same way in regards to certain things people say in these forums). If you believe there’s 3 types, what would the name/title be of the third type?
As far as I know, the Buddha never talked about three Buddhas. He talked about Samasambuddhas, Paccekabuddhas, and Arahants. If you can show somewhere he did I would be interested in seeing. Perhaps some of the other forum members would know if this is a Mahayana thing or perhaps found in non-Pali EBTs.
As far as I know, savakabuddha is a late commentarial term in the Pali tradition. It is not used throughout the EBT’s. The usual term for an enlightened disciple is arahant / arhat.
We shouldn’t conflate EBT’s with much later commentaries from one tradition. Rather than showing why we don’t need sutras, this type of issue underlines why these texts and their history are so important.
I thought the same until snowbird shared that link with me.
Am I not understanding something correctly? Isn’t that link snowbird shard with me links to the khuddaka Nikaya? Isn’t khuddaka nikaya a part of the Tipitaka Pali Canon?
What’s another meaning of Buddha? Enlightened being. What are Arahants? Enlightened beings . . . How does Arahants attain enlightenment? From “listening” “hearing” or "learning the Dhamma from a SammasamBuddha. What’s the pali word for “hearing” or “listening” in our context? “savaka”
Quote
“Buddhas are supposed to reach nibbaṇa by their own efforts and insights. A Sāvakabuddha might also lead others to enlightenment, but cannot teach the dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten, because they depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a Sammasambuddha .”
Is there any inconsistencies with what’s being said here?
It seems like the most important question here is. “Are Arahants Buddha’s?” This is all I got to say . . .
There’s 3 types of enlightened beings according to Theravada. Buddhas and arahants. Buddhas there’s 2 types. Buddhas are used for people who attained enlightenment (in that lifetime) on their own, without a teacher. Buddhas who teach are called fully enlightened Buddhas, Buddhas who don’t teach (the dhamma) are called private Buddhas.
Arahants are those who got enlightened from hearing the teaching and practising.
While there can be many deeper usage of Buddhas and arahants, for instance, Buddhas are arahants (worthy ones) too, it’s good to keep in mind what many Buddhists initially learn about.
I think in Mahayana, the term Buddha has been so equated to enlightenment that they use them interchangeably. So it wouldn’t surprise me to see sravakaBuddha as one of the term they use comfortably.
I know this is out of context but why do you call them mahayana not dharmaguptaka because that is the vinaya they use except Tibetan they use mulasarvastivada vinaya
I think even a theravadin can be a mahayana but only if their goal is buddhahood not arahanthood if they use brahmavihara not vipassana as the means
Mahayana is more commonly used to describe the northern transmission of Buddhism historically to China, Japan etc, who generally aim for Buddhahood, have Mahayana only sutras like Amitabha sutra, Lotus sutra etc. Not so much as the motivation for Buddhahood. One can say that to aim for Buddhahood is to have Mahayana like spirit. But to claim oneself as Mahayana might involve believing in mahayana sutras, which are not found in the Pali canon.
Agamas are preserved within Mahayana, so yes, there could be people who ordain in Mahayana, but choose only to focus on Agamas. They could be said to be early Buddhists who are in Mahayana.
For simplicity sake, I think the practical consideration is what texts one chooses to go for. Like many of us uses Pali canon, so we are under Theravada. Whereas the EBT can choose to consult both Pali canon and Agamas. One still has to ordain under one or another tradition. So the very shape, colour of the robes becomes the easy way to identify oneself as one tradition or another.
As lay person, it’s more blurred distinction and the boundaries can be more fluid. Like you can join Tzu chi, Fo guang shan, and focuses on EBT.