Taking refuge in Buddha??????

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Mon Sep 19, 2011 3:46 pm

Dear Members,

I am just curious. In daily life, we start our day by saying
We are taking refuge in The Buddha,
We are taking refuge in The Dhamma,
We are taking refuge in The Sangha.

Some of us have a thinking that Buddha = Arahant

For those people who supportthis view, do you say this
We are taking refuge in The Arahant,
We are taking refuge in The Dhamma,
We are taking refuge in The Sangha

If no why? Since some of you have the understanding that Arahant = Buddha.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:33 pm

One does not "take" refuge; one goes for refuge.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Sep 19, 2011 5:42 pm

DarwidHalim wrote:Some of us have a thinking that Buddha = Arahant
In terms of bodhi, awakening, the Buddha stated:


Sammasambuddha Sutta:

At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation is called a perfectly Enlightened One. A bhikkhu liberated by wisdom, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation is called one liberated by wisdom.

[Here we have an equivalency between the Buddha and the arahants in terms of attainment, and acknowledging this equivalency, the Buddha then asks:]

Therein, bhikkhus, what is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom? ...

The Tathagata, monks, who, being Arahant, is fully awakened, it is he who causes a way to arise which has not arisen before; who proclaims a way not proclaimed before; who is a knower of a way, who understands a way, who is skilled in a way. And now, monks, his disciples are wayfarers who follow after him. That, monks, is the distinction, the specific feature which distinguished the Tathagata who, being arahant, is fully awakened, from the monk who is freed by insight. SN III 66.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:24 am

tiltbillings wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:Some of us have a thinking that Buddha = Arahant
In terms of bodhi, awakening, the Buddha stated:


Sammasambuddha Sutta:

At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation is called a perfectly Enlightened One. A bhikkhu liberated by wisdom, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation is called one liberated by wisdom.

[Here we have an equivalency between the Buddha and the arahants in terms of attainment, and acknowledging this equivalency, the Buddha then asks:]

Therein, bhikkhus, what is the distinction, what is the disparity, what is the difference between the Tathaagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One and a bhikkhu liberated by wisdom? ...

The Tathagata, monks, who, being Arahant, is fully awakened, it is he who causes a way to arise which has not arisen before; who proclaims a way not proclaimed before; who is a knower of a way, who understands a way, who is skilled in a way. And now, monks, his disciples are wayfarers who follow after him. That, monks, is the distinction, the specific feature which distinguished the Tathagata who, being arahant, is fully awakened, from the monk who is freed by insight. SN III 66.


This sutta doesn't imply Tathagata = Arahant.

If you look into this work "liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation", these words are valid and SHARED BY Tathaghata, Arahant, The Perfectly Enlighten One, AND BHIKKU LIBERATED BY WISDOM.

If you have that quoted statement in the definition inside Tathagata and Bhikku liberated by wisdom, why they still differentiate Tathagata with Bhikku liberated by Wisdom????

It also doesn't say Tathagata = Arahant.

In the second statement : "The Tathagata, monks, who, being Arahant, ..." is not necessary equivalent to "The Arahant, monks, who, being Tathagata, ..."

Tathagata can be a monk, a bhikku, a arahant, or even a beggar.

But, thinking Arahant can be a Tathagata, is not implied by that sutta.
Last edited by DarwidHalim on Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby retrofuturist » Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:30 am

Greetings Darwid,

What do these epithets in the aforementioned sutta mean to you then... "the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One"

:?:

What about "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" (Honour to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the fully Enlightened One.)?

If it disturbs you that the Buddha is an Arahant, perhaps you might find more alignment with your views at...

Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum)
http://www.dharmawheel.net/

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14784
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:24 am

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Darwid,

What do these epithets in the aforementioned sutta mean to you then... "the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One"

:?:

What about "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" (Honour to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the fully Enlightened One.)?

If it disturbs you that the Buddha is an Arahant, perhaps you might find more alignment with your views at...

Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum)
http://www.dharmawheel.net/

Metta,
Retro. :)


First of all, it doesn't affect me at all whether Tathagata = Arahant or Tathagata is not the same with Arahant. This is just for the sake of discussion.

Assuming nobody knows who is Tathagata, Arahant, and Perfectly Enlightened One.

When I see the structure of the sentences of
""Bhikkhus, the Tathagata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation is called a perfectly Enlightened One. A bhikkhu liberated by wisdom, liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation is called one liberated by wisdom."

To me it is more likely similar with this:
The Doctor, The Engineer, The Human, xxxx is called a Human. An athlete who can run, xxxx, is called the one who can run.

Simply sharing same quality inside xxxx doesn't mean The Doctor = The Engineer = The Human.

They share ONLY specific quality to be able to called them Doctor, The Engineer, or the Human.

Similarly, because they have "liberated by nonclinging through revulsion towards form (feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness), through its fading away and cessation", they are qualified to be called Tathagatha, Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One, or A Bhikku liberated by wisdom.

IT doesn't imply that Tathagatha = Arahant = Perfectly Enlightened One = Bhikku liberated by Wisdom.

I found there are a lot of weird things if I assume Tathagata = Arahant.
1. During buddha's life, a lot of his students have achieve arahant while they still alive. If Tathagata = Arahant, it mean their view or knowlede is ABSOLUTY similar with the Buddha. Why they still asked Buddha? Do you think they want to test the knowledge of buddha whether their knowledge is the same the student or not?

2. Why NONE of Pali text mentioned Arahant Sakyamuni and none of them mentioned Buddha Sariputta? If you think they are the same, why do you need this word, Arahant and Buddha. Please show me if you find one.

3. Like you mentioned "namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa" (Honour to the Blessed One, the Arahant, the fully Enlightened One.)? If Buddha = Arahant, why we don't just mention namo tassa bhagavato ONLY or namo arahato ONLY, or namo Samma Sambuddhasa ONLY? Do you think it is nice to have long statement saying the same thing?

4. Why you don't take refuge or going for refuge to Arahant, Dhamma, and Sangha, instead Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, if they are same? Will you say it loud in your temple? Dare to do it, just to test they are same when they ask you?

When you go through these, you will find many contradictions and feel weird thing.

LAstly, it doesn't matter whether Buddha = Arahant or Buddha is not Arahant. We won't affect enlightenement path.

I just found for the sake of definition, it may be benefial if we know the EXACT definition through these contradictions.
Last edited by DarwidHalim on Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:29 am

DarwidHalim wrote:This sutta doesn't imply Tathagata = Arahant.



That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata, free from the conditioned." SN IV 359 and SN IV 362

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. SN IV 251 and IV 321

The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion is arahantship. SN IV 252.

"Whoever frees himself from the passions of greed, hatred, and ignorance, they call him, one who is self developed, made divine, thus-gone (tathagata), awake (buddha), one who has left fear and hatred, and one who has let go of all." Itivuttaka 57
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby ground » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:30 am

DarwidHalim wrote:This is just for the sake of discussion.

I do not doubt that. It serves no purpose other than this.

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:37 am

DarwidHalim wrote:First of all, it doesn't affect me at all whether Tathagata = Arahant or Tathagata is not the same with Arahant. This is just for the sake of discussion.
I can only shrug my shoulders. You have been repeatedly pushing a Mahayana/Vajrayana point of view, not knowing at all the radical teachings of the Buddha that the Mahayana/Najrayana actually lost. You might actually learn something here if you take the time to actually listen to others here.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:39 am

tiltbillings wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:This sutta doesn't imply Tathagata = Arahant.



That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata, free from the conditioned." SN IV 359 and SN IV 362

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. SN IV 251 and IV 321

The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion is arahantship. SN IV 252.

"Whoever frees himself from the passions of greed, hatred, and ignorance, they call him, one who is self developed, made divine, thus-gone (tathagata), awake (buddha), one who has left fear and hatred, and one who has let go of all." Itivuttaka 57


I admire you ability to quote statements from certain sutta. But that quatation cannot solve the questions I pose to the forum.

In buddhism you cannot learn (in my opinion) by taking the statement from 1 sutta, and then other one from another sutta.

I believe you know this: Inside Pali text, 1 statement of sutta can be contradicting with another statement from other sutta. This is why even inside Theravada they share different view.

We need to penetrate inside the statement and see what is this contradiction, why they contradict.

We will get lost by the face value. At least it has happened to me in the past.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:44 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:This sutta doesn't imply Tathagata = Arahant.



That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is asankhata, free from the conditioned." SN IV 359 and SN IV 362

That which is the destruction of greed, hatred and delusion is nibbana. SN IV 251 and IV 321

The destruction of greed, hatred, and delusion is arahantship. SN IV 252.

"Whoever frees himself from the passions of greed, hatred, and ignorance, they call him, one who is self developed, made divine, thus-gone (tathagata), awake (buddha), one who has left fear and hatred, and one who has let go of all." Itivuttaka 57


I admire you ability to quote statements from certain sutta.
The point is simple enough. The Buddha clearly used the term tathagata and buddha in reference to the arahant, and he made it quite clear that the bodhi he attained is no different from that of the arahant. You have not shown otherwise.

Also, you show quite clearly that you do not understand what the word bodhi means, as the Buddha used it. You are lecturing us from a place of ignorance.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:48 am

tiltbillings wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:First of all, it doesn't affect me at all whether Tathagata = Arahant or Tathagata is not the same with Arahant. This is just for the sake of discussion.
I can only shrug my shoulders. You have been repeatedly pushing a Mahayana/Vajrayana point of view, not knowing at all the radical teachings of the Buddha that the Mahayana/Najrayana actually lost. You might actually learn something here if you take the time to actually listen to others here.


It doesn't give me any benefits to push you Mahayana/Vajrayana view. I study buddhism through contradiction. When I am in Mahayana forum, they will called me Theravada freak.

I am not Mahayanist or Theravadist. They simply contrain my mind, bring to benefit to myself.

I took my precept with Ajahn Brahmn. Am I Theravadist? I took my vow with Lama Zopa, am I Vajrayanist? I am not none of them.

But I go to this forum to humbly request your all members opinion about the contradiction in buddhism.

We will learn a lot thorugh this contradiction challenge/ debate.

I simply ask the critical comments, not the personal attack.

Nothing personal at the end, we are simply learning.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Sep 20, 2011 4:58 am

DarwidHalim wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:First of all, it doesn't affect me at all whether Tathagata = Arahant or Tathagata is not the same with Arahant. This is just for the sake of discussion.
I can only shrug my shoulders. You have been repeatedly pushing a Mahayana/Vajrayana point of view, not knowing at all the radical teachings of the Buddha that the Mahayana/Najrayana actually lost. You might actually learn something here if you take the time to actually listen to others here.


It doesn't give me any benefits to push you Mahayana/Vajrayana view. I study buddhism through contradiction. When I am in Mahayana forum, they will called me Theravada freak.
The problem is that you conflate the Mahayana and the Theravada, mixing them up, making a mess of things, as you did when you said: Arahant still have things to learn. They have not reach buddhahood, but they have definitely free from rebirth.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby ground » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:01 am

DarwidHalim wrote:But I go to this forum to humbly request your all members opinion about the contradiction in buddhism.

We will learn a lot thorugh this contradiction challenge/ debate.


There is no contradiction other than that you are creating for yourself. That's fine if you cause for yourself that which you seem to need. But you should not request others to share the contradictions you caused for your own purpose.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:08 am

TMingyur wrote:
DarwidHalim wrote:But I go to this forum to humbly request your all members opinion about the contradiction in buddhism.

We will learn a lot thorugh this contradiction challenge/ debate.


There is no contradiction other than that you are creating for yourself. That's fine if you cause for yourself that which you seem to need. But you should not request others to share the contradictions you caused for your own purpose.


Kind regards


Then, what is the use of this forum if one of the purpose is not through asking, whether it is in contradiction form or other forms? They are some people who feel it as personal. It is up to them. I respect their respond.

Btw, IS THIS FORUM USED FOR PRAISING EACH OTHER?

Ok, please help to answer those questions if you know so I can learn from you.
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:13 am

DarwidHalim wrote:I believe you know this: Inside Pali text, 1 statement of sutta can be contradicting with another statement from other sutta. This is why even inside Theravada they share different view.
The suttas are actually quite consistent on this question of the bodhi of the arahant and the Buddha.

During buddha's life, a lot of his students have achieve arahant while they still alive. If Tathagata = Arahant, it mean their view or knowlede is ABSOLUTY similar with the Buddha. Why they still asked Buddha? Do you think they want to test the knowledge of buddha whether their knowledge is the same the student or not?
The problem is that the knowledge you are referring to is not bodhi, not awakening.


Why NONE of Pali text mentioned Arahant Sakyamuni and none of them mentioned Buddha Sariputta? If you think they are the same, why do you need this word, Arahant and Buddha. Please show me if you find one.
I have already shown you a text where the Buddha is clearly calls himself an arahant. One does not need to see a text referring to "Buddha Sariputta." Sariputta is clearly identified as an an arahant, and the Buddha has said that an arahant also tathagata and on who is awake, buddha. Are you telling us that an arahant is not awake?
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby DarwidHalim » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:18 am

NOT ALL THERAVADIST have a narrow mindset, who doesn't like to be challenge or ask contradiction thing.

Things become ugly and becomes so personal, without bringing any benefits.

In Buddhism, it is full of contradiction. EVEN INSIDE THERAVADA inside.

See this BIG news.
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/312 ... ch-status/

There is a lot of Theravadins who have open minded.

Your quality is tested and reflected through your personal attack.

It is through contradiction we are mature and skillful. That is my view, btw :)
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
DarwidHalim
 
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby ground » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:20 am

DarwidHalim wrote:Then, what is the use of this forum if one of the purpose is not through asking, whether it is in contradiction form or other forms?

You should ask either the founders or every single user. Everybody may have different expectations.
For me it is to learn about right view in particular and all sorts of views in general.


DarwidHalim wrote:... whether it is in contradiction form or other forms?

Ah you seem to apply the term "contradiction" only to provoke response, i.e. you do actually not believe that there is a contradiction but you use it a rhetorical tool. If that is so then there is of course always the issue of sensitivity and skilfulness how to initiate and to maintain communication.


DarwidHalim wrote:Btw, IS THIS FORUM USED FOR PRAISING EACH OTHER?

From my perspective it is to learn about views, i.e. one's own in relation to the views of others and in the course of this to refine one's own view.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby tiltbillings » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:24 am

Back to the topic, please.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19918
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Taking refuge in Buddha??????

Postby ground » Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:31 am

DarwidHalim wrote:Dear Members,

I am just curious. In daily life, we start our day by saying
We are taking refuge in The Buddha,
We are taking refuge in The Dhamma,
We are taking refuge in The Sangha.

Some of us have a thinking that Buddha = Arahant

For those people who supportthis view, do you say this
We are taking refuge in The Arahant,
We are taking refuge in The Dhamma,
We are taking refuge in The Sangha

If no why? Since some of you have the understanding that Arahant = Buddha.


The Buddha is an Arhat. So Arhat is an aspect of the Buddha. sammásambuddha is another aspect of the Buddha, Tathagata still another.

An aspect is neither different from the conceptual entity it is an aspect of nor identical. Why? Because it is an aspect. An aspect is a conceptual isolate.


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alan, Mr Man, palchi and 12 guests