Pacceka Buddha translated as Lonely Buddha ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Pacceka Buddha translated as Lonely Buddha ?

Post by chownah » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:26 am

James Tan wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:35 am
justindesilva wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:21 pm
James Tan wrote:
Wed Mar 14, 2018 5:10 am


:goodpost:
May I introduce the sutta by name " Isigili sutta" MN116
where lord budda explains with names who lived in the mountain called Isigili. This sutta names 13 of them. and explains that these and other pacceka buddas of great power who have given up desire of rebirth or becoming are worthy of sslutation, as they are sages of immeadurable virtue, who have gone beyond all attachments.
Pacceka buddas who find enlightenment without the guidance of any body lack the faculty of convincing others of the darma. They therefore live by themselves solitarily.
It is said that there had been 500 pacceka buddas before the Gautama budda.
The pali dictionary by Dr. G.P. Malslaekara gives details with names of certain pacceka buddas.
Thanks , so Pacceka Buddha liberated by themselves without teacher without listening to dhamma and never give teaching . The only thing is even if you meet one you can't verify . Probably , we would cast doubt on this person .
I just want to point out that that MN116 does not give the definition of pacceka buddha...it just exhorts a bunch of them....so your description might be correct but so far we have no sutta support for it. Here is a link to mn116:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .piya.html
It would be nice to find a sutta with a more or less unambiguous statement about what they are.
chownah

James Tan
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Pacceka Buddha translated as Lonely Buddha ?

Post by James Tan » Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:59 am

Here's a reply in a thread in SC forum from bhante Dhammanando about Pacceka Buddha .

Dhammanando :

Well, perhaps, though in the earliest texts texts referring to paccekabuddhas we’re left so much in the dark that it’s hard to draw any strong conclusions about this. Basically all we’re told is:

The names of certain paccekabuddhas of yore.
That they possess the special qualities of ariyans: āhuneyyo, pāhuneyyo, etc.
That a gift of food to a paccekabuddha is a hundred times more meritorious than such a gift to an arahant, but only a hundredth as meritorious as one to a Tathāgata.
That like Buddhas, arahants and cakkavattī rājās they deserve a stūpa after death.
That it’s not a good idea to insult one:


" When that was said, a certain monk said this to the Gracious One: “What was the reason, reverend Sir, what was the cause, through which the leper Suppabuddha became a poor man, a wretched man, a miserable man?”
“Formerly, monks, the leper Suppabuddha was a son of a wealthy merchant in this very Rājagaha. While going to his pleasure park he saw the Pacceka Buddha Tagarasikkhī entering the city for alms, and having seen him, this occurred to him: “Who is this leper roaming around with his leper’s robe?” And having spat, and circumambulated him disrespectfully on the left side, he went away.
As a result of that deed of his for many years, for many hundreds of years, for many thousands of years, for many hundreds of thousands of years, he boiled in the nether regions. And as a result of the remaining part of that deed of his he became a leper in this very Rājagaha, a poor man, a wretched man, a miserable man. " Ud.5.3

Senryu:

And so far as I understand, you cannot really be a paccekabuddha if you are Buddhist anyway, since, being a Buddhist, enlightement would make you an arahant, not a buddha, right?

Dhammanando :

In the fully-developed conception of paccekabodhi, arrival at this kind of awakening is said to always occur either in an “empty aeon” (suññakappa, i.e., one in which no sammāsambuddhas appear) or in a non-empty aeon (asuññākappa) during the dark period in between the dispensations of two sammāsambuddhas. Within this scheme I think that a paccekabuddha would count as a “Buddhist” in the sense that to awaken is by definition to have gone to the Dhamma for refuge. Also by virtue of the fact that the preparatory work for paccekabuddhahood is done during non-empty aeons through exposure to the Dhamma by repeated encounters with sammāsambuddhas, their disciples and their dispensations. It’s only in his final life that the Private Buddha is truly private.

Senryu:

So even if an arahant doesn’t teach, he’s still an arahant if he got there from Buddhist practice. And so vowing to become a paccekabuddha is actually vowing to be reborn in a place/time where there is no Buddhism, and then attain enlightenment, and not teach! So that, is why I believe it is totally absurd for any Buddhist to want to become a paccekabuddha.

Dhammanando :

The all-too-common statement that “paccekabuddha don’t teach” is not quite accurate. In fact they do (or at least may) teach. What they don’t do is establish a dispensation with a fourfold assembly, etc. But if one didn’t teach, just by virtue of his existence he would be serving as an “incomparable field of merit to the world” in a dark age when few such are to be found.

Senryu:

So why would anyone choose to be born in a place that doesn’t even have teachings to guide you to the fruit you want to acquire?!

Dhammanando :

Who knows? Perhaps a person may have such a strong preference for his own company that he just doesn’t fancy being part of any club.





Dhammanando:

It’s only in his final life that the Private Buddha is truly private.

I mean “private” in the sense that they arrive at awakening in their last birth without being under anyone’s tutelage. In other respects they’re not necessarily very private at all. For example the Pali commentaries and certain Tibetan texts like to depict them as dwelling or roaming about in gangs of five hundred.



:namaste:
:reading:

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Pacceka Buddha translated as Lonely Buddha ?

Post by chownah » Sat Mar 17, 2018 4:05 am

That's great! I'm hoping that someone brings some sutta references which substantiate what dhammanando said.
chownah

justindesilva
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Pacceka Buddha translated as Lonely Buddha ?

Post by justindesilva » Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:15 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 2:26 am
James Tan wrote:
Fri Mar 16, 2018 6:35 am
justindesilva wrote:
Thu Mar 15, 2018 6:21 pm

May I introduce the sutta by name " Isigili sutta" MN116
where lord budda explains with names who lived in the mountain called Isigili. This sutta names 13 of them. and explains that these and other pacceka buddas of great power who have given up desire of .....
I just want to point out that that MN116 does not give the definition of pacceka buddha...it just exhorts a bunch of them....so your description might be correct but so far we have no sutta support for it. Here is a link to mn116:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .piya.html
It would be nice to find a sutta with a more or less unambiguous statement about what they are.
chownah
If we refer to the para xii in isigili sutta , we can find a description about who a pacceka budda is. It also explains that a pacceka budda is of great virtues too. Perhaps why a description of pacceka buddahood is not given may be that it is not of importance for cessation of our own samsara.

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Pacceka Buddha translated as Lonely Buddha ?

Post by chownah » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:52 am

justindesilva wrote:
Sat Mar 17, 2018 5:15 pm
If we refer to the para xii in isigili sutta , we can find a description about who a pacceka budda is. It also explains that a pacceka budda is of great virtues too. Perhaps why a description of pacceka buddahood is not given may be that it is not of importance for cessation of our own samsara.
Then where do all the statements that people make about pacceka buddhas come from?
For instance, in the notes for the isigili sutta in the link which I brought it says:
1.They are Buddhas, who have attained enlightenment independent of another's aid, but lack the faculty of convincing others.
Where does this come from?....is it non-sutta?
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 83 guests