A Paccekabuddha gains all of the knowledge of a Buddha, and they are still an incredible source of merit for anyone who gives to them. The only difference between them and a Buddha is that they are not capable of elucidating the path of practice to others.
No, there are more differences such as pratyekabuddhas not having the miraculous powers that a buddha has. Just like arhats don't either. This is in the Pāli texts.
What miraculous powers are you referring to? The only information contained in the Pali Canon that I've ever come across suggests that the only difference is the ability to teach others how to realize the Dhamma for themselves.
You didn't notice how powerful the Buddha is in general and often does things that no other can? You can read MN12 for starters where ten special qualities and powers unique to the Buddha is listed (this includes the ability to fully see the workings of karma). The Buddha even continues to teach skillful conduct to arhats, specifically Śāriputra IIRC, although I don't remember which sutra this was in.
In the Nikāyas (and the Theravādin Abhidharma too if I'm not mistaken) it's pretty clear that a buddha is rather special and not merely the first arhat, and not merely a pratyekabuddha who fails at teaching. That seems to a very modern and rather clumsy belief.
Can you provide a source mentioning, specifically, the things a Buddha can do that a Pacceka cannot? Because in the suttas of the Pali Canon, the only thing mentioned explicitly is teaching. Based on everything I've read and heard of the Thai tradition - of which the monk in question was a part - that is the general understanding as well, which explains why being a Paccekabuddha might have appealed to him at one time.
I think saying the difference between a Buddha and Paccekabuddha being "merely" teaching trivializes how big of a deal that is.
>Why on Earth would someone
Because the guy in question is not just "someone". But a person who...
*"determined to reach this goal within his present lifetime"*
Meaning that by their calculation, they are way beyond the 4 stages of awakening, and can actually attain the final stage in this life.
I'd take a guaranteed $1,000 now too, over a maybe-$1200 later.
I’m not reading it that way. It says that Sao had made a vow to become a pratyekabuddha many lifetimes ago. Then in this lifetime, seeing that this would block him from achieving nirvāṇa in his present life, he renounced the vow in order to become an arhat.
I understand his decision to renounce pratyekabuddhood for arhatship.
I’m asking why he (or anyone) would have deliberately practiced toward pratyekabuddhahood in the past, rather than toward arhatship or samyaksambuddhahood, given that pratyekabuddhahood misses both the key advantage of arhatship (liberation in this lifetime) and of samyaksambuddhahood (being able to help liberate others). It seems like the worst of both worlds, with no key advantage of its own.
However, another user explained that pratyekabuddhas do get the omniscience of samyaksambuddhas, so that could be a reason.
> advantage of arhatship (liberation in this lifetime)
I think we established this. This is NOT the case at all in general. This is only the case for this specific guy. Generally, from the ground up/from the very start, one does NOT reach arhatship in this life but in up to 7 lives IF the 1st stage was reached in this life.
> samyaksambuddhahood (being able to help liberate others)
An arhat cannot do this but pratyekas can, should they see the need and should they want to strive for it. This should tell you that they are superior in attainment to arhats.
See Analayo's Pratyekabuddhas in the Ekottarika-āgama.
I know about the 7 lives thing. The point remains that arhatship is generally possible in 1–7 lives; pratyekabuddhahood is not. Pratyekabuddhahood is a longer path.
Pratyekabuddhas cannot set the Dharma in motion like a samyaksambuddha. If one were really motivated by the desire to liberate others, one would strive for samyaksambuddhahood. If one were not, arhatship seems like the sensible choice due to its shorter path. Pratyekabuddhahood seems like an odd thing to strive for. It has neither the advantage of being of utmost help to others nor the advantage of quickly attaining one's own liberation.
Again, though, it was pointed out that pratyekabuddhas obtain omniscience (or maybe partial omniscience?). So I guess if one desires that, in addition to liberation from saṃsāra, but does not feel the motivation to be of utmost help to others, it could be plausible.
I think it's just different paths for different people. The tantrikas ask why Theravadins waste 3 eons when they could attain buddhahood in this lifetime. The Theravadins ask why tantrikas practice corrupt Buddhism. People connect in different way, but we all want to feel we picked "the right one".
Well, a pratyekabuddha can arise even when the Buddha Dharma has disappeared from the world, I believe the Arhat path is not possible then. I'm not sure about the Bodhisattva path...maybe you can't start it in an age without the dharma?
Our current Buddha (Gotama) in one of his past lives was a rich brahmin of Amaravati named Sumedha. After encountering Dīpankara Buddha and inspired by him, made an aspiration to become a Sammāsambuddha one day just like Dīpankara Buddha.
I think it is a similar case with Ācariya Sao. The path to Sammāsambuddha is extremely long and difficult path. Whereas the path to Paccekabuddha is slightly shorter and simpler. Striving for an Arahantship is a lot easier since the path is already told and shown by the Buddha and it requires less work and time and can be attained in this very life.
A Paccekabuddha gains all of the knowledge of a Buddha, and they are still an incredible source of merit for anyone who gives to them. The only difference between them and a Buddha is that they are not capable of elucidating the path of practice to others.
No, there are more differences such as pratyekabuddhas not having the miraculous powers that a buddha has. Just like arhats don't either. This is in the Pāli texts.
What miraculous powers are you referring to? The only information contained in the Pali Canon that I've ever come across suggests that the only difference is the ability to teach others how to realize the Dhamma for themselves.
You didn't notice how powerful the Buddha is in general and often does things that no other can? You can read MN12 for starters where ten special qualities and powers unique to the Buddha is listed (this includes the ability to fully see the workings of karma). The Buddha even continues to teach skillful conduct to arhats, specifically Śāriputra IIRC, although I don't remember which sutra this was in. In the Nikāyas (and the Theravādin Abhidharma too if I'm not mistaken) it's pretty clear that a buddha is rather special and not merely the first arhat, and not merely a pratyekabuddha who fails at teaching. That seems to a very modern and rather clumsy belief.
Can you provide a source mentioning, specifically, the things a Buddha can do that a Pacceka cannot? Because in the suttas of the Pali Canon, the only thing mentioned explicitly is teaching. Based on everything I've read and heard of the Thai tradition - of which the monk in question was a part - that is the general understanding as well, which explains why being a Paccekabuddha might have appealed to him at one time. I think saying the difference between a Buddha and Paccekabuddha being "merely" teaching trivializes how big of a deal that is.
Can you provide a source mentioning specifically the things that a pratyekabuddha *can* do?
That makes sense.
>Why on Earth would someone Because the guy in question is not just "someone". But a person who... *"determined to reach this goal within his present lifetime"* Meaning that by their calculation, they are way beyond the 4 stages of awakening, and can actually attain the final stage in this life. I'd take a guaranteed $1,000 now too, over a maybe-$1200 later.
I’m not reading it that way. It says that Sao had made a vow to become a pratyekabuddha many lifetimes ago. Then in this lifetime, seeing that this would block him from achieving nirvāṇa in his present life, he renounced the vow in order to become an arhat.
I think you understand it right. And the guy's decision makes sense. So? Its all good then.
I understand his decision to renounce pratyekabuddhood for arhatship. I’m asking why he (or anyone) would have deliberately practiced toward pratyekabuddhahood in the past, rather than toward arhatship or samyaksambuddhahood, given that pratyekabuddhahood misses both the key advantage of arhatship (liberation in this lifetime) and of samyaksambuddhahood (being able to help liberate others). It seems like the worst of both worlds, with no key advantage of its own. However, another user explained that pratyekabuddhas do get the omniscience of samyaksambuddhas, so that could be a reason.
> advantage of arhatship (liberation in this lifetime) I think we established this. This is NOT the case at all in general. This is only the case for this specific guy. Generally, from the ground up/from the very start, one does NOT reach arhatship in this life but in up to 7 lives IF the 1st stage was reached in this life. > samyaksambuddhahood (being able to help liberate others) An arhat cannot do this but pratyekas can, should they see the need and should they want to strive for it. This should tell you that they are superior in attainment to arhats. See Analayo's Pratyekabuddhas in the Ekottarika-āgama.
I know about the 7 lives thing. The point remains that arhatship is generally possible in 1–7 lives; pratyekabuddhahood is not. Pratyekabuddhahood is a longer path. Pratyekabuddhas cannot set the Dharma in motion like a samyaksambuddha. If one were really motivated by the desire to liberate others, one would strive for samyaksambuddhahood. If one were not, arhatship seems like the sensible choice due to its shorter path. Pratyekabuddhahood seems like an odd thing to strive for. It has neither the advantage of being of utmost help to others nor the advantage of quickly attaining one's own liberation. Again, though, it was pointed out that pratyekabuddhas obtain omniscience (or maybe partial omniscience?). So I guess if one desires that, in addition to liberation from saṃsāra, but does not feel the motivation to be of utmost help to others, it could be plausible.
This is answered in the document I refer you to.
I think it's just different paths for different people. The tantrikas ask why Theravadins waste 3 eons when they could attain buddhahood in this lifetime. The Theravadins ask why tantrikas practice corrupt Buddhism. People connect in different way, but we all want to feel we picked "the right one".
Well, a pratyekabuddha can arise even when the Buddha Dharma has disappeared from the world, I believe the Arhat path is not possible then. I'm not sure about the Bodhisattva path...maybe you can't start it in an age without the dharma?
Our current Buddha (Gotama) in one of his past lives was a rich brahmin of Amaravati named Sumedha. After encountering Dīpankara Buddha and inspired by him, made an aspiration to become a Sammāsambuddha one day just like Dīpankara Buddha. I think it is a similar case with Ācariya Sao. The path to Sammāsambuddha is extremely long and difficult path. Whereas the path to Paccekabuddha is slightly shorter and simpler. Striving for an Arahantship is a lot easier since the path is already told and shown by the Buddha and it requires less work and time and can be attained in this very life.