[Buddha-l] Re: Nirvana si, bodhi no!

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 03:05 -0500, Bruce Burrill wrote:

> This raises an interesting question. In the Pali suttas there seems to be a 
> fushion of the Buddha and the arahant. Words such as tathagata and buddha 
> are not infrequently used for the arahant. 

Every day, like many Buddhists, I chant "namo tassa bhavato arahato
sammaa-sambuddhassa" pretty much incessantly, at least when I'm not
reading Nietzsche, Jung, James, Peirce, Taylor or Ganeri or writing
something of my own. Perhaps I am excessively literal and naive, but I
have always taken that phrase to suggest that a buddha is an arahant.
And I have also also assumed that the only difference between an arahant
and an anuttara-sammaa-sambuddha is that the later did not have a buddha
teaching him the dhamma, while everyone else does. (Reminds me of an
observation once made by someone to account for why Groucho Marx was so
prone to depression: "He was the only person in the world who didn't
have Grouch Marx to cheer him up.")

> So, the questions: what exactly in the suttas (not the commentaries) is 
> bodhi, and how does it differ, if at all, from that of the arahant?

As far as I am aware, there is no difference at all. Buddhas and
arahants both have exactly the same set of bojjhangas. The only
difference, I think, is that an arahant had the help of the teachings of
a buddha in acquiring the bojjhangas, and a pacceka-buddha and anuttara-
sammaa-sambuddha have no such help.

> Anyway, you thoughts on this would be of interest, if not
> entettainment.

Entettainment? I take it that's the Pali spelling of entertainment.
Sorry, but I'm not anywhere near the scholar of the Pali canon that you
are, so I have nothing to say on this matter that you and Robert
Morrison and Lance Cousins could not say with more more authority and
insight than I can muster (even on a good day). I have stated my
uninformed prejudices on the matter, so now I wait to see what someone
who knows the literature has to say about the passages you have
collected.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico