Shakyamuni and Dipankara?

Buddhapada

Hello all,
I was reading about the Buddhas of the Three Times and am a little confused.
For example, why is Shakyamuni regarded as the founder of Buddhism if he was preceded by Dipankara who supposedly achieved enlightenment before him? And, if Buddhism didn't technically exist until Gautama, then how would Dipankara even have been considered a Buddha?
I have a few more questions but I can't recall them right now; I'll post them later in this thread.
Thank you,
- Buddhapada

vinlyn

There is no evidence that such a being ever existed, as opposed to Shakyamuni for whom there is historical evidence. And how many people do you know who lived for 100,000 years?

caz

Buddhapada said:

Hello all,
I was reading about the Buddhas of the Three Times and am a little confused.
For example, why is Shakyamuni regarded as the founder of Buddhism if he was preceded by Dipankara who supposedly achieved enlightenment before him? And, if Buddhism didn't technically exist until Gautama, then how would Dipankara even have been considered a Buddha?
I have a few more questions but I can't recall them right now; I'll post them later in this thread.
Thank you,
- Buddhapada

According to the Mahayana tradition the Buddha before Shakyamuni was Kasyapa.

Buddhapada

@caz sorry, I didn't really put that clearly. What I meant to say is that Dipankara is regarded as the Buddha of the Past, and Shakyamuni is regarded as the Buddha of the Present.

Buddhapada

vinlyn said:

There is no evidence that such a being ever existed, as opposed to Shakyamuni for whom there is historical evidence. And how many people do you know who lived for 100,000 years?

It is true, and I'm not saying necessarily that I believe it. However, the sense is that Dipankara lived before Shakyamuni - so my question would be if Dipankara, who is considered a Buddha, came before Shakyamuni, then why a) consider him a Buddha since Buddhism had not existed at a time and/or b) attribute the creation or founding of Buddhism to Shakyamuni? I'm not trying to argue anything, I'm just a little confused. Sorry if it came across the wrong way.

vinlyn

I understand, @Buddhapada. I just always feel the need to keep us a little honest about how we think. It is not uncommon for people here on the forum to sort of brag about how Buddhism is the one religion where things can be proven, yet then we so often discuss things that are not proven.

But since you are phrasing your question as you have here, let me tackle it at least theoretically. For example, right now I have a cup of juice here with me. At some point in (probably) pre-recorded history, some early man perhaps hollowed out a gord and started to drink from it. He invented the concept of a cup. but probably didn't give it a name, or if he did, that name was lost to history. Perhaps Buddhism was like that. An emerging concept without a name, or a name that has been lost to history.

Keep in mind that we call it Buddhism. Maybe in another era it was called something completely different. Perhaps Ralphism. And then, as the plan seems to be in the Dhamma, its followers dwindled and disappeared until someone else -- in our case Siddhartha -- rediscovered the concepts. Keep in mind, we don't call it Siddharthaism, because it is named after what we call any discoverer of the concept, not our discoverer.

One question that I have about this concept that each Buddha rediscovers the concept after it has faded away -- can we point to any great concept that has actually disappeared from mankind?

Nirvana

We call it Buddhism. Maybe in another era it was called something completely different... And then, as the plan seems to be in the Dhamma, its followers dwindled and disappeared until someone else -- in our case Siddhartha -- rediscovered the concepts. Keep in mind, we don't call it Siddharthaism, because it is named after what we call any discoverer of the concept, not our discoverer.

GREAT Answer!

caz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dīpankara_Buddha