December 21, 2017 at 11:21 am #13303sybe07Spectator
I belief both sutta’s describe the nature of the Tathagata and therefor the Budddha.
In MN72 it is said: …” Freed from the classification of form (and the other khandha’s), Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea”.
I am not sure, but i belief both sutta’s do describe the actual situation of the Tathagata or Buddha as freed, in this live, of the khandha’s. This nature of the Budddha is boundless, deep, hard to fathom.
I belief the sutta’s do not refer to a situation in the future but here and now. Here and now, while (ignorant) people reckoned the khandha’s to be the Budddha, his real nature, could not be reckoned that way. Reckoning the khandha’s to be the Buddha or the Budddha to be khandha’s is not seeing the Budddha? In his life he new he was not the khandha’s?
Curious about your thoughts.
December 22, 2017 at 12:03 pm #13314LalKeymaster
MN72 describes that the Buddha (or an Arahant) has no pancaupadanakkhandha, i.e., no attachment to rupa, vedana, etc. And that the nature of Nibbana is not possible to fathom in worldly terms.
This is why sunnata is not “emptiness” in the sense of “emptiness in worldly terms”. It is only empty of raga, dosa, moha (ragakkhayo Nibbanam, dosakkhayo Nibbanam, mohakkhayo Nibbanam).
Until Parinibbana, Buddha (or an Arahant) would have a pancakkhandha, but no pancaupadanakkhandha. Both are absent after Parinibbana. But of course, nama gotta (records) of those pancakkhandha remain forever. That is why the Buddha was able to describe the lives of previous Buddhas.
As was discussed in the other topic, saupadisesa Nibbana (elimination of direct mental suffering) is experienced during the life itself. Elimination of all suffering is at anupadisesa Nibbana or Parinibbana.
December 22, 2017 at 3:08 pm #13317sybe07Spectator
Hi Lal, thanks.
i tend to belief the sutta’s make clear that the nature of the Buddha is not possible to fathom in worldy terms, and also not our own true nature which is the same as the Buddha’s.
We now tend to belief, based on craving and avijja and identifying with khandha’s, that we are ‘a human’, an “I”, a subject, a living being, a person, a man or woman, but that is only due to deeply ingrained habits.
December 26, 2017 at 4:11 pm #13349VinceParticipant
Correct me if I’m wrong but the way I understand it, a Samma Sambuddha is indeed Omniscient, right? Whereas an Arahant has also attained Nibbana the same as a Buddha, but is not Omniscient?
December 26, 2017 at 5:06 pm #13350AkvanParticipant
The Buddha has mentioned that if one sees the dhamma it is only then that one will see the buddha. So in this sense, I think “seeing the buddha and understanding the unfathomable nature of the Buddha does not refer to his bodily form. It is something deeper, like his “gathi” and “guna”. Which connects with what Vince talks about.
I’m not sure if the Buddha has mentioned that he is omniscient, but he has mentioned that what he has preached is just a minute bit of what he knows. So for all intents and purposes we can think of that as being omniscient. So yes, an arahanth will not understand all that a Buddha has understood. For example the Buddha says that only a Samma Sambuddha can fathom the intricate details of how Kamma works and for others not to try understand the details. So even Sariputta, who was second only to the Buddha in wisdom, was not be able to comprehend that.
The Buddha also says that only another Samma Sambuddha can truly see and comprehend the nature of a Buddha. So this can be taken to be the unfathomable nature of the Buddha.
December 26, 2017 at 8:17 pm #13352LalKeymaster
Yes. I also agree with all three comments by Siebe, Vince, and Akvan above.
It is indeed not possible for any living being, including an Arahant, to fully comprehend the wisdom and capabilities of a Buddha. I discuss this a bit at:
Buddha Dhamma: Non-Perceivability and Self-Consistency
Even though an Arahant attains the same Nibbana as a Buddha, the capabilities of a Buddha can be matched only by another Buddha.
Siebe said: “We now tend to belief, based on craving and avijja and identifying with khandha’s, that we are ‘a human’, an “I”, a subject, a living being, a person, a man or woman, but that is only due to deeply ingrained habits.”
That is the essence of Buddha Dhamma. When one realizes that it is not fruitful (and also dangerous) to crave for things in this world, one’s various gathi will slowly dissipate. At the end, at Arahanthood, there will be no “gathi” left, except for harmless habits devoid of defilements. The dangers seen at the Anagami stage, for example, cannot even be fathomed at the Sotapanna stage (dangers of kama raga).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.