How old were each (or several) of the Buddha's students when they became arhats? I know Buddha was 35. I researched so far by Googling it and also by looking into Sariputra's life and also trying to infer based on what station in life that arhat was at. My question comes from the thought, "Hey, if a 37 year old can become an arhat, maybe I can too!" As a way to motivate and inspire myself.

Just wondering, since enlightenment is the cessation of all suffering, were there other people or beings that had achieved that and were contemporary to buddha. One such candidate may be the Jain leader Mahavira - he is said to have achieved not only freedom from suffering but also omniscience after that. This is just one person, there could have been many others who were fully enlightened but not teaching maybe sitting in a cave or something; especially when one thinks that Buddha himself after his liberation was considering that. So it seems to me a little bit surprising that buddhas have such long waiting period In between them appearing on earth. Did buddha himself resolve this, or comment on anything like this? On the same theme, where did the prophecy of Maitreya-buddha come from - was it shakyamuni-buddha himself who foresaw that? Thanks

I was just looking at the connected discousres (Bhikkhu Bodhi) and it said Sorry for the rushed question, but I wondered if arhats can be said to exist or not after death? Does the Buddha say the same of arhats here as himself: refusing to answer I would like an answer in the Pali tradition, and something which explicitly mentions arhats. ---------- If, as suggested in comments, there's no answer, may I ask if the equivocation in the quote is in the Pali original? To be specific, whether Vacchagotta (I think is the interlocutor) is praising master Kaccana for not speaking of the Buddha beyond "this", or suggesting that Master Kaccana has "surpassed this".

I have often wondered about one particular riddle regarding the stages of the path. If Sakkāyadiṭṭhi, a view of the self, is one of the first fetters conquered at stream- entry, why is it that Māna, that is a consequence of subtle ‘I-am-ness’, is one of the last to go at Arahanthood? In what form does the ‘I’ sustain itself till the last?

When practicing the Dhamma there are many exemplary characters found in Buddhist texts who are worthy of emulation,I want to know whether it would be right for a layman to regard an Arahant Bhikkuni as his role model. Is it suitable?

I just wondered, is it bad karma at all to disagree with an arhat? I'm not saying I would, I just wondered, because killing one is phenomenally bad ! What about disagreeing with a Buddha?

Path and fruition for the 4 stages of holy disciple are frequently mentioned. I understand that the fruition is the removal of the fetters and realization of the knowledge of that respective attainment (stream entry, once returner, non returner, arhatship ). The holy disciple knows that he is a stream entrant upon attainment of stream entry fruition.......he knows he is an arhat upon attainment of arhatship. But what is the attainment of path? How would one describe rightly the attainment of the path? What is the difference in an ordinary person, a faithful disciple who has not attained any path and the holy one who has attained any of the respective path? I would really appreciate actual words of the Buddha for this answer.

As per the Wikipedia article "Arhat" : > In Theravada Buddhism, an **_Arhat_** [...] is a "perfected person" who has attained _nirvana_. And I saw somewhere that one is not allowed to say one is an Arhat. So my question is: how do you identify a person/monk who has achieved Arhatship?

As a practical observation, if one were staying below arhat for the initial aeons, could monastic living limit the efficacy of a bodhisattva? Since that goal heavily rests on seclusion, and both the wandering and monastic models were developed to enhance seclusion, shouldn't a different, more open model of monkhood exist? They should be able to have kids at least for example, since it would help them to help more beings.

In the Khemakabhikṣusūtra, 差摩比丘經, _Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó_, T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103 (readable in Pāli at [22.89 of the Saṁyuttamikāya](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html))Venerable Chà Mó, who is _Khemakabhikkhu_ in Pāli, gives a sermon to "many elder monks". This has to-do with Ven Chà Mó's not-yet-having-attained severance from pernicious and subtle self-view. To illustrate his quandary and, in so doing, seemingly educating himself to overcome his fetter, he delivers the simile of the flower's scent and the simile of the perfumed rag. The simile of the flower's scent challenges the elders to locate the locus of the scent of a flower. The simile of the perfumed rag speaks of a launderer who hides the filth introduced to a piece of fabric with a skilled application of perfumes. What do these mean? Context: > Like this I heard: > > One day, there were myriad elder monks dwelling in Kauśambī at > Ghoṣitārāma. > > At that time, there was the monk Chà Mó dwelling also in Kauśambī by > the badarikā orchard, his body was increasing in iterations of woe and > sicknesses. > > At that time, there was the monk Tuó Suō keeping watch over the sick. > At that time, Tuó Suō came to the myriad elder monks, bowed to the > myriad elder monks’s feet, then to one side retreated to reside there. > > The myriad elder monks spoke to the monk Tuó Suō: “You, go to the monk > Chà Mó, speak: ‘The myriad elders implore you: Does your body slowly > come to find peace? Do suffering and misery not increase, is it yes?’” > > At that time, the monk Tuó Suō, subject to the myriad elder monks' > dispensation, came to the monk Chà Mó and told to Chà Mó their > tellings, saying: “The myriad elders beseech you, your body slowly > comes to find peace, sufferings and miseries do not increase, yes?” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I am sick and not recovering, I do > not find peace, myriad hardships accumulate without salvation, > tremendous and mighty suffering aches me, I presently suffer and > endure much. It is like the slaughter of a bull, the sharp knife > having cut into the live stomach, to fetch its inner organs, that > bull’s stomach pain is the very same as what I am enduring! My present > stomach pain is greater than that of the bull’s. It is as if two > warriors clutched one weak man, suspended him attached above a fire, > burning his two feet, my present two feet’s burnings are greater than > his.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō returned to the elders, according to what Chà Mó > had said, he told them of his great sickness, entirely explaining to > the elders. > > At that time, the elders returned Tuó Suō, dispatching him to come to > Chà Mó, that he might speak to Chà Mó, to say: “The Bhagavān has > taught these five aggregates of binding, which of these five? The > rūpaskandha, vedanā, saṃjñā, saṃskāra, vijñānaskandha, you, Chà Mó, > can only poorly observe that these five aggregates of binding are > without you, and are nothing to you belonging resolutely.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō subject to the elders taught likewise > thereafter, went forth to speak to Chà Mó, saying: “The elders speak > to you, the Bhagavān speaks of these five aggregates of binding, you > poorly observe they are without you, and are nothing to you belonging > resolutely.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō, saying: “I, in these five aggregates of > binding, am able to find no me, and they are nothing to me belonging.” > > Tuó Suō returned to address the elders: “The monk Chà Mó spoke, > saying: ‘I, in these five aggregates of binding, observe and find no > me, and they are nothing I own.’” > > The elders again dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: “You, > in these five aggregates of binding observe and find no me, and they > are nothing I own, thus āsravāḥ are all-ended, and you are an arhat, > resolutely?” > > At that time, Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, came closer > to the monk Chà Mó, speaking to Chà Mó, saying: “The monk is able to > thusly observe the five aggregates of binding, thus his āsravāḥ are > all ended, an arhat he is, resolutely?” > > Chà Mó replied to Tuó Suō, saying: “I observe these five aggregates of > binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, but it is not that my > āsravāḥ are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.” > > At that time, Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, addressed the > eldesr: “Chà Mó spoke: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and > find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ > are all ended and it is not that I am an arhat resolutely.’” > > At that time, the elderes spoke to Tuó Suō: “You will again return to > speak with Chà Mó: ‘You say: “I observe these five aggregates of > binding and find no me, and are nothing I own, and yet it is not that > my āsravāḥ are all ended [and it is not] that I am an arhat.” The > front and end of your notion are incoherent.’” > > Tuó Suō, subject to the elders’s teachings, went forth to Chà Mó: “You > say: ‘I observe these five aggregates of binding and find no me, > nothing to me belonging, and yet it is not that my āsravāḥ are all > ended and it is not that I am an arhat.’ The front and end of your > notion are incoherent.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I in these five aggregates of > binding, observe and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, > meanwhile I am not an arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, this > I-making. I am not yet resolute, not yet knowing it, not yet having > severed from it, not yet having vomited it out.” > > Tuó Suō left and returned to the elders, himself speaking to the > elders: “Chà Mó said: ‘I in these five aggregates of binding, observe > and find no me, and nothing to me belonging, meanwhile I am not an > arhat, I with my pride, my desiring, I-making, I am not yet resolute, > not yet knowing, not yet having severed, not yet having vomited. > > The elders once more dispatched Tuó Suō to speak to Chà Mó, to say: > “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your > form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings, > thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than > consciousness?” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “I do not say that my form is me, nor > am I other than form; nor that feelings, thoughts, formations, > consciousness, are me and mine, nor that I am other than > consciousness, thus in these five aggregates of binding I have pride, > I have desiring, these are I-makings. I am not yet resolute, not yet > knowing, not yet having severed from it, not yet having vomited it > out.” > > Chà Mó spoke to Tuó Suō saying: “What vexation moves you, spurring you > on to directions contrary? You fetch a cane, that I may come, I myself > with my cane, will approach the elders, I beseech you, give me my > cane.” > > At that time, the myriad elders, in the distance, saw Chà Mó with his > staff on his way coming, themselves spread out a seat for him, found a > place to rest his feet, themselves went forth to greet him, to take > his robe and alms bowl, ordering that he promptly sit, exchanging > words to reassure the weary, speaking to Chà Mó saying: > > “You speak of having ātman, how to you have ātman? It is that your > form is ātman? It is that ātman is other than your form? Feelings, > thoughts, formations, consciousness, this is "me?" Am I other than > consciousness?” > > Chà Mó Bhikṣu spoke: > > “It is not that form is me, but it is not that I am other than form; > there is no feeling, thought, formation, or consciousness that is > mine, yet I am not other than consciousness, thus in these five > aggregates of binding I have my pride, I have my desiring, this > I-making. I am not yet resolute, I am not yet knowing, not yet having > severed, not yet having vomited. It is like the flowers. The utpala, > paduma, kumuda, or puṇḍarīka flower's. It is like these flowers' > scent. Is it the roots' scent? Is the scent other than the roots? Is > it the stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents' or > the coarse constituents' scent? Are the fine constituents other than > the coarse constituents? It is so said, no?" > > The elders responded: "No, resolutely, Chà Mó! It is not the utpala's, > the paduma's, the kumuda's, the puṇḍarīka's roots’ scent, but it is > not that the scent is other than root, so too also it is not the > stem's, the leaf's, the whiskers', the fine constituents', or the > coarse constituents' scent, so too also it is not that the fine > constituents are other than the coarse constituents." > > Chà Mó again asked: "It is what's scent?" > > The elders replied: "It is the flower's." > > Chà Mó again replied: "I, too, am thus so. It is not that my form is > me, yet I am not other than form; there is no feeling, thought, > formation, or consciousness that is resolutely mine, yet I am not > apart from consciousness. So I in these five aggregates of binding see > no me, and they are nothing I own, as such is my pride, my desiring, > I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet having severed, > not yet having vomited. Elders, hear my exposition of analogy. > Worldlings and sages, on account of metaphor attain to understanding. > Such an analogy is this: The wet-nurse has a cloth, she pays the > launderer to wash it, he washes it with all kinds of grey broth, he > rinses until glistening. The filth still remainders lingering in > fumes, there must be applied to it all kinds of incenses & perfumes, > he knows how to cause these fumes to vanish. Like this, one must > inquire into what extent the sage disciple severs from these five > aggregates of binding, with true insight there is no me, and there is > nothing I own, enduring these five aggregates of binding I have pride, > I have desiring, I-making, not yet resolute, not yet knowing, not yet > having severed, not yet having vomited. Afterwards, in these five > aggregates of binding, further investigation is undertook, profound > insight into saṃsāra is attained, this form, this form’s origin, this > form’s cessation, this feeling, thought, formation, consciousness, > this consciousness’s origin, this consciousness’s cessation. And so, > in these five aggregates of binding, with profound insight into > saṃsāra, after that, my pride, my desiring, these I-makings, are all > entirely cast away, this is called penetrating insight into the true > aspect.” > > When Chà Mó spoke the dharma, those elders’s manifold contaminants > became immaculate with their attainment of the pure dharma eye. (Khemakabhikṣusūtra 差摩比丘經 _Sermon of the Monk Chà Mó_ T99.29c06 Saṁyuktāgama sūtra #103)

I have read somewhere that Arhats (people who attained Nirvana) do not sleep like normal people do. Instead they just stay calm in a suitable position to give the rest required for the physical body, but their mind is always alert... Is this true?

What are differences between these entities? I understand they all are entities that they posses some abilities that normal humans don't have. Are there any other similar entities that might be easily confused?

If every bad event is because of karma, how can anyone ever murder an arhat? > Killing an Arhat (enlightened being) is one of the ānantarika-kamma actions.

Do fully enlightened "persons" still meditate, and why? I get why they keep living, to help sentient beings. But does meditation help in that way?

I have read a person without senses cannot attain arhatship or even go through the noble eight fold path. But the story of Chakkupala thero confuses me somewhat

The Sammasambuddha (Skt: Samyaksambuddha) is also an Arahant according to the Dhajagga Sutta . Is the Pacceka Buddha (Skt: Pratyeka Buddha) also an Arahant? What's the difference between Pacceka Buddha and Arahant? Why are disciples of the Buddha who achieved Nibbana called Arahants, instead of being a type of Buddha? Although wikipedia calls them Sāvakabuddha (Skt: Śrāvakabuddha) though stating that this was not in the Pali Canon.

I have questions about the Bodhisattva ideal, based on the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva . I’m also curious about how this practice is for one with the aspiration of becoming an Arhat. The general Bodhisattva ideal seems to be that you are supposed to have compassion and take everything upon you no matter what happens. But isn’t this sometimes going to make things worse – for *everyone* - the perpetrator included? And I wonder if you people have any reflections on how this is for someone with the aspiration to become an Arhat? Is s/he equally supposed to have compassion and take everything upon him/her self – no matter what happens? What are the differences and similarities here between the two? **Some background** In “the 37 practices of the Bodhisattva” there are some passages about how a Bodhisattva reacts to different situations. Some situations described are quite extreme, and too much for someone on my level! But many of them are such that I try to practice them, and here is an example (verse 15): > “Though someone may deride and speak bad words About you in a public > gathering, Looking on her as a spiritual teacher, Bow to her with > respect— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.” This is a situation I come upon very often at work. We have had some big problems with calumny, people saying bad things about each other. I find it quite difficult to see someone doing this as “a spiritual teacher”. But, more disturbingly, I think it might be counterproductive. If a person keeps saying bad things about the others, and we all look upon that person as “a spiritual teacher”, how is the situation going to get better? Violence is another example. If a woman is about to be raped, is she not going to fight back? Is she supposed to take the misdeed upon herself? How is not fighting back going to make the situation better? Isn't this just going to produce more rapists? I’m thinking here about verse 13: > Even if someone tries to cut off your head When you haven’t done the > slightest thing wrong, Out of compassion take all her misdeeds Upon > yourself— This is the practice of Bodhisattvas.

Imagine this scenario: A serial killer is pointing his gun at an innocent person John and wants to kill John. An arahant is near the killer and knows that the killer will kill 5 more innocent people after he kills the innocent person John. The arahant can choose to kill the killer before the killer kills John and the other 5 innocent persons. Would the arahant kill the killer? Would a Buddha kill the killer? If yes, why? If no, why?

Is the taking of a Bodhisattva vow a *requirement*(1) in Mahayana, or is it merely an *option* (or maybe at most a recommendation)? And if it's not a requirement, then for someone who decides not to take it, what if anything is the difference, in terms of the overall aim(2), between the Mahayana approach and the Theravada approach? -- (1) By "requirement" I'm invoking the usual idiomatic use of that word -- i.e. pointing to an action and its consequences. For example, "if you want to build muscle, you are required to lift weights" or "if you want to avoid rebirth in a hell realm you are required to refrain from murdering your parents" (2) Clearly there are differences in practice formats, but I'm thinking more of the end point. In that context, without the vow to continue as a Bodhisattva, Theravada and Mahayana seem like one and the same.

How valid or verifiable is the claim that a sotapanna leads no more than seven lives? Or a once returner returns once? There is another claim that practicing earnestly for seven days or seven weeks or a maximum of seven years should be enough to attain nibbana. Whereas as far as I can see, nibbana doesn't seem too common at all. Certainly not the kind of numbers one would expect if it was possible in a few years. Is there present day evidence for the latter? If there isn't then shouldn't it also lead me to wonder about the former? (Note: I'm not saying arahatship or lesser ariya states are impossible, just not very sure about the maintainability and significance of the number 7) What is the learned opinion here? The Zen approach of *nowhere to go, nowhere to arrive* seems more commonsensical to the extent that there is nothing to disprove. On the flip side one can be really only wearing out one's cushion in the Zendo, and there'd be no way to verify one's attainment.