Waning Moon Conrad

Can anyone tell me why it is that the Theravadans believe that you can only have one buddha per aeon and anyone else has to become an arhat?

lugotorix

I think it's just a matter of terminology. In Theravada, the arhats are considered spiritual equals of the Buddha. The only thing that distinguished them is that the Buddha has no teacher, but rediscovers the Dharma after it has disappeared. So the first person to reintroduce it gets called a Buddha.

It's only later in Mahayana that they make a bigger distinction between the two.

I'm speaking as a Mahayana Buddhist, though, so maybe someone following the Theravadin branch could elucidate further.

lugotorix

bagong

Yes, lugotorix's explanation is correct. The primary distinction between a Buddha and an Arhat in Theravada is that the former (re)discovers the Dhamma without the benefit of teaches and proclaims it to the world, whereas the latter follows the path layed out by a Buddha. So by definition, there can only be one Buddha during a cycle of the Buddha-sasana (the Buddhist teachings). Such a cycle is much shorter than an aeon, however - the Theravada, like the Mahayana, accepts that there will be 1000 Buddhas appearing in this aeon, of whom 4 have already come.

Substantively, they are virtually the same: both Arhats and Buddhas obtain the extinction of all 10 fetters and 4 cankers. The only difference that I'm aware of is that the Buddha is supposed to be omniscient, whereas the Arhat is not. Of course, the Buddha as described in the suttas is not literally omniscient (for instance, he must ask for directions when travelling), so its questionable whether even this distinction was made in the earliest phases of Buddhism.

Waning Moon Conrad

This would of course bring me to the question - if it's a matter of definition, then why should an arhat not be omniscient if a buddha can be?

muon

There can be no doubt that some Buddhist texts mythologize the Buddha, and attribute a wide range of abilities and characteristics to him that are not allotted to arahants. But on the other hand, very few Buddhists nowadays, if ever, take all of these stories literally. Buddhists have no commitment to inerrancy of texts. You've been given a modern Theravadin explanation of the (non)difference between a Buddha and an arahant previously. I don't see that the omniscience or non-omniscience of Buddhas and arahants is that interesting, given its marginal and contested role in the religion.

kctan

IIRC in the Therevadan tradition, there's a big difference between arhats & buddhas. It's something to do with the state of how one achieve enlightenment. If one achieve enlightenment for the sake of oneself, one can only be an arhat while if one achieves enlightenment for the sake of enlightening all humans then one can be a buddha.

Becoming an arhat is much more easier then becoming a buddha as it's much easier to understand the dharma & practise it for oneself rather then trying to understand it & promote it at the same time. More frequently the buddha would be will end up as a bodhisattva instead.

Note that there are 3 paths to follow in buddhism. Namely buddha, arhat & bodhisattva.

(IIRC again, in therevadan tradition, arhathood is the highest goal for one in following the path of the buddha. In mahayana, it's bodhisattvahood. Or could be the other way round, my memory on this subject ain't that good now. Of course there's an arguement for all this but I can't recall it now.)

andy_d

The bodhisattva is the Mahayana ideal. I'm not even sure if the state is recognised by Theraveda schools.

kctan

IIRC, it is although both side think the other side's ideal is flawed.

lugotorix

Actually, it is. It's just considered too difficult a path to follow except for a very few extraordinary people. The Mahayana response was, since it is possible for ordinary people to eventually reach Buddhahood, however remotely in the future, then the Bodhisattva path was a more compassionate choice. I guess it just boils down to whether you're a realist or an idealist.

There was an article originally published in Philosophy East and West about the Theravada tradition and the bodhisattva ideal that goes into more detail; it's available online here: The Bodhisattva Ideal in Theravaada . BTW, the website that hosts that paper, http://sino-sv3.sino.uni-heidelberg.de/ , is a mirror of the Center for Buddhist Studies Taiwan site and has a lot of good article reprints, if anyone's interested.

lugotorix