<p>Yes and no in the case of infallibility.</p>

<p>Infallible - what ever they do their actions do not created new <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra" rel="nofollow">conditioning</a>. The actions are not based on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons_(Buddhism)" rel="nofollow">3 unwholesome roots</a>.</p>

<p>Fallible - though the actions are not based on unwholesome volition, they may not always be the optimal or best cause of action. Their infallibility is based on the fact they are never wrongly motivated, though the outcome of any action may not always have the desired or optimal results and also some action can be done differently to make a bigger impact.</p>

<p>They know the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da" rel="nofollow">cause and effect</a> regarding the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namarupa" rel="nofollow">mind and matter process</a> hence understanding enough about the cause of misery and the elimination of misery.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-02T03:17:48.833Z
2014-12-02T06:20:01.010Z
2014-12-02T06:20:01.010Z
Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena
<p>I've heard it said that Popes are infallible,(whether one believes this or not). </p>

<p>Although the arahant has removed all the defilements, can they still be wrong, make mistakes, or are they all-knowing? I vaguely remember a story of an arahant playing a dirty trick on his less than wise brother? </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-02T21:39:30.710Z
The "infallibility" is a dogmatic concept in the catholic church, and interestingly (at least for me, need not be for some other buddhists) there is and has been inner-catholic dissens about whether they should claim that "dogmatic infallibility" for the pope at all or not. (contd...)
Gottfried Helms
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-12-02T21:40:14.310Z
(...)It was only the late 19 century, when the first pope claimed this for himself! And there were important reasonings why that "dogmatic infallibility" was not given historically earlier (one was: the popedom over generations would constraint itself too much) So "infallibility" is/was not a property of sages, holy men - but just a concept for the dogmatic discipline. (And it may well be that they'll throw it away again later, not all chatholics like this concept)
Gottfried Helms
<enlightenment>
Are arahants infallible?
# Are arahants infallible?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-12-02)

I've heard it said that Popes are infallible,(whether one believes this or not).

Although the arahant has removed all the defilements, can they still be wrong, make mistakes, or are they all-knowing? I vaguely remember a story of an arahant playing a dirty trick on his less than wise brother?

**Tags:** enlightenment

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The "infallibility" is a dogmatic concept in the catholic church, and interestingly (at least for me, need not be for some other buddhists) there is and has been inner-catholic dissens about whether they should claim that "dogmatic infallibility" for the pope at all or not. (contd...)  
> **username_1**: (...)It was only the late 19 century, when the first pope claimed this for himself! And there were important reasonings why that "dogmatic infallibility" was not given historically earlier (one was: the popedom over generations would constraint itself too much) So "infallibility" is/was not a property of sages, holy men - but just a concept for the dogmatic discipline. (And it may well be that they'll throw it away again later, not all chatholics like this concept)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-12-02. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

Yes and no in the case of infallibility.

Infallible - what ever they do their actions do not created new [conditioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%85kh%C4%81ra). The actions are not based on the [3 unwholesome roots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_poisons_(Buddhism)).

Fallible - though the actions are not based on unwholesome volition, they may not always be the optimal or best cause of action. Their infallibility is based on the fact they are never wrongly motivated, though the outcome of any action may not always have the desired or optimal results and also some action can be done differently to make a bigger impact.

They know the [cause and effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da) regarding the [mind and matter process](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namarupa) hence understanding enough about the cause of misery and the elimination of misery.


---

