Hello,

I was reading the Muripariyaya Sutta(MN1, "The Root Sequence") and what caught my eye right away was this:

The sutta describes four levels of understanding: The run-of-the-mill person "percieves" because he "has not comprehended [Unbinding]". The Trainee "knows directly" "so that he may comprehend [Unbinding]". The Arahat also "knows directly", but in his case, it is because he already "is devoid of delusion".

However, interestingly, there is a fourth state of understanding: That of the Tathagata. "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding". "The Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening"

It seems to me, then, that the Sutta suggests that the Buddha is subject to a level of understanding that the Arahat is not. For example, with regards to phenomena such as "earth... fire... wind... etc", it is said that the Arahat "has comprehended it directly". The Buddha, in contrast, "has comprehended it to the end".

This just struck me because in most Theravadin models I've seen, the Buddha is the Buddha just because he was the first one in our era to become awakened, so he did it himself, while Arahats have the Buddha's assistance in becoming awakened. But this sutta directly postulates that the Buddha comprehends things more thoroughly than does an Arahat!

So, what is the difference between how a Tathagata comprehends, and how an Arahat comprehends? Is there a way to reach the Tathagata's level of comprehension, or is the Arahat's level the only one that's available?

This is really just out of curiosity - there's plenty of ideas about the difference from a Mahayana perspective, but this struck me because it is part of the Theravada and nowhere before have I seen a Theravada teaching that suggests the Buddha understands more than the Arahata. But of course I've never seen a lot of things.

Thanks,
Jimi

You may be reading more into this than is there. What has you upset is your speculation. But if you stand back and look at it from the perspective of a Tathagata (who, presumably, eventually penetrates the conception of dependent co-arising to its inevitable conclusion and then must find a way to explain this deep teaching to others who have never even entertained such thoughts) perhaps you will understand the sentiment that the sutta is endeavoring to communicate.

How well have you understood the teaching of dependent co-arising? Could you explain it even half as well as the Gotama does in the Mahanidana Sutta?

This doesn't mean that an arahat is incapable of such deep understanding. With the right concentration and focused contemplation it is possible to understand what Gotama understood. If this were not possible, then the path (the noble eightfold path taught by Gotama) would not work as it was intended to work, and Gotama would have been a fraud.


Now, what do you think. You're a smart boy. Do you doubt your ability to make out and understand what the Buddha understood? If so, you're not the person you thought you were. Or another way of putting this is: Argue for your limitations and they are yours.

It all depends on how much effort you put into it. Isn't that what everything in life comes down to? Come on, wake up! Quit asking such ridiculous questions. You know better than that.

Well, I would certainly agree that it seems obvious that it's possible to reach the exact same level of understanding as Gotama did, if you put the work in. Nothing has me upset, and my own views aren't really what's at stake here. Besides, my own views (the ones that are still, naturally, based on faith/scriptural understanding, since Bodhi wasn't built in a day) are influenced by many other standpoints besides the viewpoint of the Pali suttas.

I'm merely asking out of a sort of scholarly curiosity. Maybe that's a little outside the scope of DhO in general, but this is the T&T section, after all. What is the T&T section for, if not silly questions like this?

So what I'm curious about here is, lets assume for the sake of argument that it is possible for a person to reach the same depth of understanding as Gotama. The sutta says that Gotama comprehended things to the end, but an "Arahat" only comprehends them.

Does that mean that, from a Theravada standpoint, Arahats don't have complete awakening?

For a concrete example, lets take Dan I, who claims to be an Arahat. Does he believe he has the same level of understanding that Gotama did? If so, does that mean that he is "more than" "just" an Arahat? And does it mean that after he became an Arahat, he continued to gain further understanding/comprehnsion until he reached Gotama's level?

The question is purely one of scholarly curiosity about a point of doctrine, and it only arises because the sutta clearly differentiates between the depth of comprehension that an arahat attains and the depth of comprehension that a Thathagata attains.

Obviously the point has no bearing on my own practice, or won't for a very long time... but I'm just curious, and I figured there are people on these boards with a deep knowledge of the doctrine of the Pali suttas.

speaking inspecifically, it is inferred or stated that a tathagata (or any other classification of a buddha) is more knowledgeable than an arhat, and all buddhas and arhats (without remainder) phenomenally experience a bit differently than an arhat (with remainder) [1]. to get an idea of the differences of said knowledge, consider what can potentially be learned by figuring out any complex problem alone, as opposed to being guided to the answer ... what is learned in the problem solving process which might not be learned if the process is (relatively) short due to effective external aid? that is the basis of one (primary) difference mentioned regarding the knowledge of one 'rightly self awakened'. here's another example: what could possibly be learned while actively aiding the practice of others that likely could not be learned in the absence of that exposure? that is the basis for the (primary) difference drawn between the knowledge of a tathagata and the knowledge of a paccekabuddha.

by the way, these classifications seem only to be useful as an allusion to the various degrees of mastery possible.
i suspect these were created (in that time) so that there was a (generalized) hierarchy to regard when seeking council ... if a few arhats can't answer your question, go to a buddha ... if a buddha can't answer you question, ask a tathagata. such a setup is practical in a system with limited resources (tathagatas being less common than buddhas, buddhas being less common than arhats)-- especially given that there was no written language then. nowadays, those resources are much less scarce ... you can just hop on the internet and have access to most of what is available, or find the means by which to gain access to the rest (although that presents a different kind of obstacle [2]).

trent

[1] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.042-049x.irel.html#iti-044

[2] there are millions of "granaries" selling chaff as grain, some others trying to give out chaff as grain, a few that might be selling or giving out a product with some wheat (accidentally?) buried in the chaff (but is it worth the sifting?), and a rare producer offering what is virtually pure grain (and for free ... one only need discern it as such, then haul it all the way home).

Point made and taken. I hadn't considered the context of the forum being utilized to place the question.

Just to clarify my position, I'm generally not interested in "Buddhism" the religion. Therefore, what some "Buddhist" says about this or that carries very little interest for me. I'm only interested in what I can verify through direct experience and knowledge, which, from my reading of the discourses, seems to have been the general point that Gotama was also making.

Which is to say that all this hubbub about what the "Theravada" has to say about this or that is of no importance to me, and is completely outside of anything that Gotama taught. Of course, this is my opinion only, based on years of study, contemplation on these subjects, and personal experience with the propaganda of "religionists."


There may be some within the Theravada fold who hold such views. But this alone, and in the long run, does not make such views correct or even valid.


You would have to ask him. No one here is at liberty to speculate on that.


With regard to the first question, not all arahats are created alike, has been my experience. How Theravada views this is of no concern to me. Although reasonable people within that fold might also generally agree that "not all arahats are created alike." It would seem obvious that such speculation would depend upon the effort that each person puts into recognizing the truth as Gotama taught it.

Obviously, I do agree with the highlighted portion as it reflects my own experience also.


"Doctrines" are the special ground of religions, which have been instituted to condition people's thinking. This is one of the reasons why Gotama refused to appoint a successor on his death. He understood how people would or could twist the meaning of what he taught out of all proportion once he was no longer on the scene to correct them. People would do well to reflect on this.

Good points both.

It is important to remember that 90% of Buddha's word was lost before anything was written. It is important to remember that there were two groups of diverging thought pertaining to the oral lineage before anything was written down (many have this confused). The pali-canon is an interpretation of the oral lineage, a simpler one that focuses on sravikahood. The early tradition that grew out of this. Theravada had no clue what to do with things like the manomakaya.

The other interpretation sank into the background due to the theravada tradition being written down-it appears some politics played part...The bodhisattvahood model was then not organized until later, though this tradition dealt with many of the Buddhas advanced concepts to a much greater degree. Buddha would not waste his time speaking of 500 lives of his bodhisattva training to deal with, as lord Buddha put it, "mere morality". He was teaching a path. Moreover the Buddha says to sravikas, "“Which are more numerous, the few leaves in my hand or those overhead in the forest?" Not surprisingly, the bhikkhus replied that, in comparison to the leaves in the entire forest, the leaves in the Buddha’s hand were but few. In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them."

The Buddha is saying this to disciples who ultimately practice a path for themselves. Who can manage their own load, but no more. Or worse, who can manage others load, but chooses to just manage their 'own'. He clearly lays out the path to Tathagatahood, the path that carries many, for advanced practitioners who see the friction of practicing in a way that Gotama didn't. Gotama practiced the bodhisattva path; so it is a matter of 'do as I say not as I say I have done'...while the wise, see that the highest path he is transmitting is the path of Buddhahood and thus the one that Gotama actually took!

This is not teaching with a closed fist, but teaching to the motivational tendencies and thus the level of that/those person(s). There is over 1200 years of very serious investigation into this great path. Great masters like Nagarjuna and the Buddha Padmasambhava (Buddhist tradition says Pamasambhava has been the most realized being the past 2500 years. A more developed Tathagata then the great sage Gotama the Buddha & holder of the office-of-world-teacher!) have taught so much about the advanced path. Read Asanga's texts to learn the different types of arhats and how this differs so much with the bodhisattvas attainments. The tantric paths & Dzhogchen have a Bodhisattva core but instead focus on attaining Buddha bodies rather than going through the Bodhisattva Bhumis, though still for the sake of all sentient beings. The Buddhas assist those who truly wish to carry the load of many, by providing all sorts of samadhis and subtle knowledges not ever available to sravikas (disciples).

I am thus making clear "early buddhism" doesn't solely equate to the pali-canon version of the Buddhas teachings.

I now begin a no-sleep intensive retreat. May you all attain the highest before I return!

Hi BYD,

Although your last post was posted in the appropriate subforum (theoreticians and traditionalists), I notice that a few of your posts seem to revolve around the "my vehicle is bigger than your vehicle" angle. This is the impression I have gotten myself. I may be the only one reading ti like so. If so, that's cool. Each to his/her own. If not, my apologies.

Even though there is a subforum for all 'theory and traditional views', the majority of the subforums here at the DhO are all about 'practice'; actual practice, actual techniques, actual methods, actually talking about how to go about doing things in a practical downto earth way, to get certain results and to progress in certain areas.

If one is going to get any traction here to either convince or help others on the path that one views as 'right', it probably won't be via posts that could be mistaken for 'chest puffing', of the 'my vehicle is bigger than your vehicle' kind, whether it is a valid view or not. This approach alone does not seem to yield much practical and useful knowledge for others to put into action, and usually seems to endlessly revolve around one person trying to paint their belief system as correct and others' systems of belief as not correct.

It would be much, much more helpful and skillful if you share your own practice methods, techniques, results, and how to go about reproducing them. This will surely get traction here at the DhO as yogis here can then put them into action and then and only then does any opinion on what is correct gain any validity here at the DhO. Reproducibility.

There have been a number of people who have passed through this site to pronounce to everyone that their path and whatnot was the bees knees and everyone else was wrong. If they never stuck around, it's because they never shared the practical means behind their paths and rather preferred to just pronounce their superiority and all that boring unhelpful, unskillful stuff which has never gelled very well here at the DhO. I am hoping you have not given and will not give this possible impression to others here.

To avoid such unhelpful (at times plain wrong) impressions, I would seriously be interested in learning about what techniques and methods you are using on your current 'no-sleep' retreat and what you hope to achieve or not achieve, what the results were or were not, the phenomenological descriptions, can they be practiced by yogis at the DhO to get the same results that you may experience.

Having seen the dropping away of a felt sense of agency/being seemingly for good 6 weeks ago, I'd also be quite interested in how someone at AF could then progress on to not feeling physical pain ( I have not experienced mental pain in the past 6 weeks). The physical body gets tired and then it needs to rest but I do not experience a mental fatigue of sorts that 'I' once did many times before. I need less sleep these days. What practices could I use to end the physical fatigue?

How does one go about dissolving 'habit energies, delusion, attachment and aversion of the subtlest orders"? I have not experienced sorrow or any mental pain in the last 6 weeks. But I have experienced certain habit energies which have arisen without any affective component. They do seem to be dissolving by themselves though as there is now no affective fuel that is causing them to multiply in strength. I have not experienced any affect in the past 6 weeks. But if you say one still experiences these things at AF, what practices and techniques would you advise for one at the AF stage?



How would one at the AF stage progress to what you perceive as the 7th stage of arahat/sravikahood? And have you arrived at this stage? If so, how did you arrive at this stage? And if you passed this stage, how did you do that too?. The 'how' part is what interests me most. If you wish to PM me answers instead, then please PM me.

Thanks for reading and possibly considering this post. If not, then all the best.

Have a good and successful retreat.

Sincerely,

Nick

just wanted to add that i would also be quite interested in the answers to these questions.. if you do know of practices that lead to greater things (so to speak) than the ones we do here, it would be quite interesting to see what those are, and to demystify them (so to speak) by having many practitioners try them out for themselves (if they so choose - i myself would probably only pursue them after attaining AF), seeing what happens, and reporting the results on an archived internet forum that anyone will be able to view free of charge for as long as the site lasts (and hopefully all these posts will be archived somewhere for continued viewing if this site does disappear).

good luck on your retreat!

EDIT: I'd also be curious how you are informed about what early buddhism was/wasn't about given that 90% of the buddha's words were lost before anything was written down.. what are your sources? if they are from people, where did they get their sources? etc..

"So, what is the difference between how a Tathagata comprehends, and how an Arahat comprehends?"

See here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

Ten Powers of a Tathagata

9. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[5] What are the ten?
10. (1) "Here, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the possible as possible and the impossible as impossible.[6] And that [70] is a Tathagata's power that the Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.
11. (2) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the results of actions undertaken, past, future and present, with possibilities and with causes. That too is a Tathagata's power...[7]
12. (3) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the ways leading to all destinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...[8]
13. (4) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the world with its many and different elements. That too is a Tathagata's power...[9]
14. (5) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is how beings have different inclinations. That too is a Tathagata's power...[10]
15. (6) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the disposition of the faculties of other beings, other persons. That too is a Tathagata's power...[11]
16. (7) "Again, the Tathagata understands as it actually is the defilement, the cleansing and the emergence in regard to the jhanas, liberations, concentrations and attainments. That too is a Tathagata's power...[12]
17. (8) "Again, the Tathagata recollects his manifold past lives, that is, one birth, two births, three births, four births, five births, ten births, twenty births, thirty births, forty births, fifty births, a hundred births, a thousand births, a hundred thousand births, many aeons of world-contraction, many aeons of world-expansion, many aeons of world-contraction and expansion: 'There I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared elsewhere; and there too I was so named, of such a clan, with such an appearance, such was my nutriment, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life-term; and passing away from there, I reappeared here.' Thus with their aspects and particulars he recollects his manifold past lives. That too is a Tathagata's power...
18. (9) "Again, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, the Tathagata sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions thus: 'These worthy beings who were ill-conducted in body, speech and mind, revilers of noble ones, wrong in their views, giving effect to wrong view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, [71] after death, have reappeared in a state of deprivation, in a bad destination, in perdition, even in hell; but these worthy beings who were well-conducted in body, speech and mind, not revilers of noble ones, right in their views, giving effect to right view in their actions, on the dissolution of the body, after death, have reappeared in a good destination, even in the heavenly world.' Thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions. That too is a Tathagata's power...
19. (10) "Again, by realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, the Tathagata here and now enters upon and abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints. That too is a Tathagata's power that a Tathagata has, by virtue of which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.
20. "The Tathagata has these ten Tathagata's powers, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.
21. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me: 'The recluse Gotama does not have any superhuman states, any distinction in knowledge and vision worthy of the noble ones. The recluse Gotama teaches a Dhamma (merely) hammered out by reasoning, following his own line of inquiry as it occurs to him' — unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.[13] Just as a bhikkhu possessed of virtue, concentration and wisdom would here and now enjoy final knowledge, so it will happen in this case, I say, that unless he abandons that assertion and that state of mind and relinquishes that view, then as (surely as if he had been) carried off and put there he will wind up in hell.


See also here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/arahantsbodhisattvas.html

IV. How the Buddha is distinguished from other arahants