The Buddha gave some specific advice about this. In the Canki Sutta (MN 95):
How is truth discovered? Here a bhikkhu lives near some village or town. Then a householder or his son goes to him in order to test him in three kinds of ideas, in ideas provocative of greed, of hate, and of delusion, wondering, "Are there in this venerable one any such ideas, ...
Buddha is a completely self-enlightened one (without help from another Buddha, direct or indirect).
Bodhisattva (in Theravada) is a being on its way to enlightenment.
Bodhisattva (in Mahayana) is an awakened being who vowed to indefinitely stick in Samsara for the sake of others.
Arhat (in Theravada) is a completely enlightened person (thanks to a Buddha's ...
I believe I've heard a number of stories (no reference sorry) whereby the person that cooks the rice in the Zen monastery is actually enlightened. I appreciate this is a different tradition from Theravada but it points to a similar thing, maybe. So on that basis one might be tempted to say no, you can't tell.
However Daniel Ingram openly states that he is ...
"Would the arahant kill the killer? Would a Buddha kill the killer?"
'Yes, Sutavā, you heard correctly [...]. A bhikkhu who is an arahant [...] is incapable of transgression in nine cases. (1) He is incapable of intentionally depriving a living being of life"
-- AN 9.7 (Bodhi trans.)
"Here, Visakha, a noble disciple considers thus: 'For all their ...
Such a question assumes death is the cessation of existence. This is not the Buddhist view. Killing the murderer won't solve anything, it merely brushes the dirt under the carpet. Since violent thoughts will reemerge in the killer's next life, and grow once more because they weren't ever eradicated, nothing is achieved by killing.
Killing someone is ...
Also known at the Trolley Problem from Game Theory. My answer is that this kind of question is a red herring. Ethics is about how you wrestle with experience to try to minimise suffering. Hypothetical questions like this one are pointless because they will never occur as real dilemmas. Buddhist ethics is focussed on how one actually behaves in every day life....
MN 1.3.1 Kakachupama sutta
Majjhima Nikāya 21 - Kakacūpamasutta
The Parable of the Saw
"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with
a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at
heart would not be upholding my Teaching.
Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus:
According to the teachings I received, once the practitioner attains certain level of mastery in meditation, their sleep acquires a character of meditation. It's not like they don't sleep at all, but they do retain certain level of deep awareness during their sleep.
Specifically, when they see a dream, they know it's a dream. They remain aware of their body ...
The answer is Yes. Please look through this website.
"If a layman attains arahant-ship, only two destinations await him; either he must enter the Order that very day or else he must attain parinibbàna" -- Milindapanha III.19
Sammasambuddha - Omniscient and has attained nibbana(enlightenment) on his own without the teaching of another. Preaches the Dhamma and guides other beings to Nibbana. Had cultivated Paramitas in three ways for a minimum period of "Sara(4) Asankya Kalpa Lakshaya" as a Bodhisatva. More than one Sammasambuddha cannot exist in the world at the same time. Always ...
I would say that the most efficient way would be to follow the advice given in the early texts because in my experience the advice given there is morally irreprehensible.
For example, I would heed the advice given in:
AN 9.8, To Sajjha (Sajjha Sutta)
MN 47, The Inquirer (Vīmaṃsaka Sutta) (For ease of comprehension, I'd change the word "states" for "...
As per my understanding, formal taking of Bodhisattva vow (with ceremony and all) is not a hard requirement, as long as one eventually internalizes the core message of the vow: that one must surrender the hope of ever attaining Nirvana and get very comfortable with the idea of staying in Samsara for a long, long time.
Here is a version of the vow we chanted,...
This is what one of the suttas says:
When this was said, the wanderer Vacchagotta asked the Blessed One:
“Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the
fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an
end of suffering?”1
“Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of
Thus have I heard: A lay person can become an Arahath, but he will enter the Sangha within a week or he will enter Parinibbana. If it's a Pacceca Buddha, he will leave the lay life to dwell in the forest since there's no Sasana in the world. Also, if an Anagami lay person dies, he will be born in one of the pure abodes. There he will attain Arahantship and ...
An arahant would certainly have perfected the 5 precepts at the least and would abstain from harming anyone. I also belive that the Buddha might have said that an arahant was even incapable of killing. Any enlightened being would certainly try and find another option even if doing so resulted in failure.
Sravakabuddha is a Mahayana terminology so it's not found in the Pali canon.
Sometimes the Buddha refers to himself as an Arahant because they have all attained releases which are the same, abandoning of greed, hate and delusion (it is like saying we are humans instead of men and women).
Only the wisdom of the Buddha is different to the rest, as the wisdom ...
It's impossible for an Arahant to kill intentionally as he has no aversion. An Arahant might try to bring the killer into his senses if he thought it's possible. Just like how the Buddha distracted Angulimala when he was trying to kill his mother.
Actually Paceccabuddhas do teach but in brief and in general terms like from one Theravada example after 4 Paccekabuddas received meals for 4 days from a King at his palace when the King asked them for a teaching they each gave a short sentence on one day, together it was: "Overcome greed, overcome aversion, overcome delusion, overcome restlessness." Notice ...
Here is an alternate perspective from the Mahayana tradition. (I'm not equating arahant & bodhisattva, but if you are asking what a Buddha would do it is perfectly legitimate in my mind to consider also what a bodhisattva would do.) In 'Words of My Perfect Teacher,' Patrul Rinpoche says:
"For all good or bad actions, the intention is by far the most ...
The Buddha is reported not to have slept, but teaching ceaselessly and just entering a state of meditation for two hours per day/night. I don't have any scriptural evidence for this and am rather sure, that none such evidence exists.
Yes, Buddha did meditate. This is for the pleasant abiding here and now.
From the discussion, What did Buddha do to pass his time? --
Some relevant info:
Then the Blessed One, having emerged from seclusion after the passing of
three months, addressed the monks: “Monks, if wanderers of other sects
ask you, ‘By means of what dwelling, ...
According to the Nibbedhika Sutta:
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of
body, speech, & intellect.
If you see this answer, bad karma or not, is related to the intentions of the individual. The story of the blind monk Ven. Chakkhupala in Dhammapada 1 and the story of the hunter's wife in Dhammapada 124 would serve as ...
If you want to see what the authoritative figures have to say on the topic, here's a quote from What Happens to an Arahant at Death? A Dialogue between Bhikkhu Bodhi and B. Alan Wallace:
BB: The problem then is how nibbāna after the death of the arahant can be a real element (a real entity, a real dimension, a real state, whatever term one uses) ...
As a rule of thumb, they will be
Very calm (stable). Not swayed by pleasurable/exciting things, not upset or frustrated by pain/failure/disagreement.
Immovable. Impossible to disturb. Solid like a rock.
Not doubting themselves but not arrogant either. In other words, extremely open-minded AND very confident at the same time, which is an almost impossible ...
I just want to give my two cents even though this question is old.
Long time ago (like during the time of the "Early Buddhist schools" old) there was a lot of debate as to the fallible nature of arahats. In the historical narrative a contemplative named Mahadeva compiles a list of five points speaking to some flaws an arahat can possess, you can find ...
Cultivating bodhicitta (both ultimate and relative) is absolutely indispensable on the Mahayana path; and one who has vowed to do so is called a bodhisattva. From my understanding, this vow can be made with as little or as much pomp and circumstance as befits one's mind - the key is to inspire confidence and commitment. Check out Shantideva's 'Way of the ...
Volitionally taking the life of another living being is only possible if one has defilements left. Killing is rooted in hatred (dosa).
An enlightened being such as an Arahant or a Buddha has eradicated all defilements and fetters and are therefore not capable of killing since the unwholesome root is simply not there.
The following quotes is with basis in Theravada Buddhism.
Here is some videos about Buddhas, Pacceka Buddhas and Arahants by Ven. Yuttadhammo:
Monk Radio: Arahants and Buddhas
Monk Radio: Do Arahants Know Everything About Reality?
Monk Radio: Do Arahants Experience Extreme Suffering?
Monk Radio: Are Arahants Free from Karma?
Benefit of Pacceka Buddhas (...
The arahant would not kill the killer. A Buddha would not kill the killer.
Even if by killing the killer, lives would be saved in thousands, the arahant or a Buddha would not kill the killer. Even if by killing the killer, lives would be saved in millions, the arahant or a Buddha would not kill the killer. Even if by killing the killer, lives would be ...