A question about more then one Buddha

bookworm

I'm a bit confused with this one i was reading The Milanda Panna and if anyone can help me better under stand this then i will be really grateful the blessed one said that it is impossible that in one world two Perfectly Enlightened Buddhas could exist at the same time and it goes on to say if two Buddhas were to exist at the same time then the earth could not bear the weight of their combined goodness and it would tremble and shake and break up.

Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

Jeffrey

According to the Mahayana I think there are multiple Buddhas possible.

vinlyn

More than one Buddha at a time? Why not? But "the earth could not bear the weight of their combined goodness and it would tremble and shake and break up" is just an old fable.

bookworm

maybe but its still a pretty wild thought though

Jeffrey

In the mahayana there is a trikaya or 'three bodies'. Nirmanakaya is the in the flesh Buddha that we may get to know such as Shakyamuni. Samboghakaya is the radiant bliss body that a Bodhisattva senses. It is always here. Dharmakaya is emptiness of phenomena and radiates to all beings.

So always there is Samboghakaya and Dharmakaya. Dharmakaya radiates to all beings respecting neither high or low. So all beings of the cosmos have dharmakaya radiating to them though they may not be aware of it. Also all beings are within one of the 5 families of Buddhas which means they have a close personal relationship to all Buddhas including Shakyamuni.

Buddha Shakyamuni and Buddha Padmacara (Padmasambhava) are inseperable.

bookworm

Thank you Jeffrey and everyone that commented i really appreciate it

Jeffrey

You might like to read the end of the Avatamsaka sutra. It is very reassuring that Buddhas are a part of our 'conventional' life. It is known as the Samantabadracharya (sic). It is a special prayer to wish for rebirth in a land where the Buddha is present. It is specially formulated by an enlightened being to prove out this task.

parts of the Avatamsaka sutra can be found here -> http://www4.bayarea.net/~mtlee/

exerpt:

"Good men, even if all the Buddhas of the ten directions were to speak continuously, for as many eons[4] as there are fine motes of dust in an ineffably ineffable number of Buddha lands, the virtues and merits of the Thus Come One could never be fully described.

"Those wishing to achieve these merits and virtues should cultivate ten vast and great practices and vows. What are these ten?

First, Pay homage and respect to all Buddhas.
Second, Praise the Thus Come Ones.
Third, Make abundant offerings.
Fourth, Repent misdeeds and evil karma.
Fifth, Rejoice at others' merits and virtues.
Sixth, Request the Buddhas to turn the Dharma wheel.
Seventh, Request the Buddhas to remain in the world.
Eigth, Follow the teachings of the Buddhas at all times.
Ninth, Accommodate and benefit all living beings.
Tenth, Transfer all merits and virtues universally."

karasti

I'd be interested in the time frame of the comment. Remember 2000 years ago humans mostly lacked a grasp at exactly how big the world even is. It's easier to understand how they could have held such thoughts and spread fables like that when you consider that the world they knew to exist wasn't that much bigger than the area they lived in. But like I said, it would depend on when it originated. Just a thought.

I think there probably has been more than one Buddha, and I don't think it would be impossible by any means for 2 to exist at once. We could have one in each hemisphere!

seeker242

http://www.buddhistelibrary.org/library/view.php?adpath=96

This is the text you are talking about yes? Chapter 52 is the reference I think. Interesting book, never heard of it before!

Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

I don't think so because even in the Pali Canon, where this book originates from, many people attained nirvana before others passes away etc.

The type of Buddha this text talks about is only a "Samyaksam-buddha". It's not talking about a "Pratyeka-buddha" or a "savaka-buddha" (Arahant). http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Buddha

Samyaksambuddhas gain Nirvana by their own efforts, and discover the Dhamma without having a teacher to point it out. They then lead others to enlightenment by teaching the Dhamma in a time or world where it has been forgotten or has not been taught before, because a Samyaksambuddha does not depend upon a tradition that stretches back to a previous Samyaksambuddha, but instead discovers the path anew.

Maitreya Buddha is said to be the next Samyaksambuddha to appear, after Siddhartha's teaching have been nearly forgotten.

All three types attain nirvana but it says only a Samyaksam-buddha, like Siddhartha or Maitreya, can be one at a time.

footiam

bookworm said:

I'm a bit confused with this one i was reading The Milanda Panna and if anyone can help me better under stand this then i will be really grateful the blessed one said that it is impossible that in one world two Perfectly Enlightened Buddhas could exist at the same time and it goes on to say if two Buddhas were to exist at the same time then the earth could not bear the weight of their combined goodness and it would tremble and shake and break up.
y
Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

I am confused too. Most probably, the perfectly enlightened Buddha here refers to the likes of Gautama Buddha. It is said that there had been past Buddhas like him and one more would appear. Everyone should be able to attain Nirvana though and that necessarily means we'd become Buddha, at least not that kind of Buddha. It most probably is like the case of one becoming a doctor but not a surgeon. And we don't have to die to attain Nirvana. Gautama Buddha lived on till a ripe old age after attaining enlightenment under the Pipal tree, remember?

how

It is just the unfortunate light, the truth and the way of a fearful religious organization.

Meditate with it all and that which is important and that which is superfluous will all settle in time, each to their rightful places in your practice.
Suddenly, the spiritual curfews for Buddha's, will be as etherial as whatever dream keeps such stories slumbering along.

jll

you are confusing Buddhas with enlightened people, arahants.

there are many arahants in the world but only one Buddha at any one time.

the next Buddha is Maitreya .
the previous one was Siddharta gautama.

bookworm said:

I'm a bit confused with this one i was reading The Milanda Panna and if anyone can help me better under stand this then i will be really grateful the blessed one said that it is impossible that in one world two Perfectly Enlightened Buddhas could exist at the same time and it goes on to say if two Buddhas were to exist at the same time then the earth could not bear the weight of their combined goodness and it would tremble and shake and break up.

Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

Citta

@Seeker242 is correct. The Theravadin position is that there is only one Sammasambuddha ( Pali ) in any era of this world.. A Sammasambuddha rediscovers Buddhadhamma for that era. Other people in that era may become Enlightened, but they will become Enlightened by following the teachings of the Samasammbuddha for that era.
The Sammasambuddha for our era is Shakyamuni Buddha..Gautama Siddhartha..' The Buddha '.
The Buddha for the previous era of this world was Dipankara Buddha. The Buddha for the next era of this world will be Maitreya Buddha..By the time of Maitreya the knowledge of the Dhamma will be completely lost to humananity, and he will rediscover it. Just as Shakyamuni rediscovered the Dhamma lost after being discovered by Dipankara.
So, there are Buddhas and Sammasambuddhas, Samsambuddhas rediscover the Dhamma. Buddhas realise the Dhamma rediscovered by the Sammasambuddha.
That is the position held in the Theravada and by some Mahayanists.
Its gets complicated however..The Mahayana teaches that there are Buddhas who have never had a human birth...

Jeffrey

There is also Padmasambava who is believed to be inseparable with Shakyamuni. Distinct but inseparable. And there are a lot of others with the story being they were enlightened; for example there is Milarepa.

Citta

The claims concerning Padmasambhava would not be accepted outside of certain schools of the Vajrayana.
And neither he nor Milarepa are Sammasambuddhas.

Jeffrey

Still other Buddhas accepted in some places. It's arbitrary who shall be declared 'an authority'. For example we could declare Theravadan opinion authoritative, but that would be arbitrary. I didn't say they were Sammasambuddhas I said they were Buddhas and inseparable from Buddha Shakyamuni. Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava) devotional practice is as much a part of much of Tibetan Buddhism as the Lotus Sutra is important to Nichiren. There is little value in creating disharmony in the sanghas though healthy mature debate is encouraged.

Citta

bookworm said:

I'm a bit confused with this one i was reading The Milanda Panna and if anyone can help me better under stand this then i will be really grateful the blessed one said that it is impossible that in one world two Perfectly Enlightened Buddhas could exist at the same time and it goes on to say if two Buddhas were to exist at the same time then the earth could not bear the weight of their combined goodness and it would tremble and shake and break up.

Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

This is the OP Jeffrey.
@bookworm may be less confused if he/she knows that the Theravada does indeed teach that there cannot be two Perfectly Enlightened Buddhas in any world system at the same time, if we assume, as I think we can assume, that this refers to Sammasambuddhasas.
And furthermore if @bookworm knows that within the Mahayana there is a spectrum of views.
This however is not 'arbitrary'.
If one follows the Theravada then the consensus view is one Sammasambuddha per world system per era.
If one follows the Mahayana then there are various viewpoints consistent to their own school.

Jeffrey

I meant it is arbitrary because nobody has an 'e-meter' and go back in time and measure Padmasambhava's enlightenment (or Shakyamuni for that matter). Thus it is arbitrary exactly because it depends what tradition you are in rather than some evidence that can prove that matter.

Citta

If it is consistent to the tradition that you practice it may or may not be historically accurate but it certainly isn't arbitrary.
Unless you are saying that the school you are drawn to is arbitrary, and I think there are good reasons to doubt that.
As a Dzogchen practitioner I have no dog in this fight. I was addressing the OP's professed confusion.

Jeffrey

I guess I am using 'arbitrary' in a special way. Whether you are brown eyed or blue is arbitrary to me. You are what you are. Of course genetics causes it but I would say that it was caused by genes. But just a thought experiment say it is your fate to have your eye color 'Gods decision' would be arbitrary. You might think that karma is not arbitrary but I am meaning in the sense that a Theravadan could hypothetically have been a Mahayanan but by the grace of karma.

I admit I am using an odd way of saying arbitrary. I am not trying to foist my beliefs on you, as poorly expressed as they are, rather I am exploring my own view.

So in a sense the choice of school is arbitrary because it is just chance or karma what you are attracted to. Like it is arbitrary if a child becomes a dentist or orthodontist. They could have possibly been either.

Victorious

Citta said:

@Seeker242 is correct. The Theravadin position is that there is only one Sammasambuddha ( Pali ) in any era of this world.. A Sammasambuddha rediscovers Buddhadhamma for that era. Other people in that era may become Enlightened, but they will become Enlightened by following the teachings of the Samasammbuddha for that era.
The Sammasambuddha for our era is Shakyamuni Buddha..Gautama Siddhartha..' The Buddha '.
The Buddha for the previous era of this world was Dipankara Buddha. The Buddha for the next era of this world will be Maitreya Buddha..By the time of Maitreya the knowledge of the Dhamma will be completely lost to humananity, and he will rediscover it. Just as Shakyamuni rediscovered the Dhamma lost after being discovered by Dipankara.
So, there are Buddhas and Sammasambuddhas, Samsambuddhas rediscover the Dhamma. Buddhas realise the Dhamma rediscovered by the Sammasambuddha.
That is the position held in the Theravada and by some Mahayanists.
Its gets complicated however..The Mahayana teaches that there are Buddhas who have never had a human birth...

Not Sammasambuddhas and Buddhas. Seeker had it right from the start. There are THREE types of awakened beings all called Buddhas.

Sammasam buddhas, Pratyekka buddhas and Sravaka buddhas.

Sravaka buddhas become awakened by following the path discovered by a Sammasam buddha.

Pratyekka buddhas are like Sammasam buddhas selfawakened beings but they lack the ability to teach the dhamma since they are not fully aware how their awakening came about.

That is my understanding.
/Victor

Citta

IF its karma its certainly not arbitrary.
I tend to the view that the school you are drawn to represents a certain mindset..and that is not arbitrary either.

Jeffrey

Yes I am defining that word differently from you. The reason I am doing it is to put across a message. I am sorry that I can't find a word to explain differently. I guess I mean that the different streams just are. Blue eyes just are blue eyes. Theravada just is Theravada. I am saying that there is no evidence either way and that the Theravadans just 'happen' to view it such as they do.

Citta

Victorious said:

Citta said:

@Seeker242 is correct. The Theravadin position is that there is only one Sammasambuddha ( Pali ) in any era of this world.. A Sammasambuddha rediscovers Buddhadhamma for that era. Other people in that era may become Enlightened, but they will become Enlightened by following the teachings of the Samasammbuddha for that era.
The Sammasambuddha for our era is Shakyamuni Buddha..Gautama Siddhartha..' The Buddha '.
The Buddha for the previous era of this world was Dipankara Buddha. The Buddha for the next era of this world will be Maitreya Buddha..By the time of Maitreya the knowledge of the Dhamma will be completely lost to humananity, and he will rediscover it. Just as Shakyamuni rediscovered the Dhamma lost after being discovered by Dipankara.
So, there are Buddhas and Sammasambuddhas, Samsambuddhas rediscover the Dhamma. Buddhas realise the Dhamma rediscovered by the Sammasambuddha.
That is the position held in the Theravada and by some Mahayanists.
Its gets complicated however..The Mahayana teaches that there are Buddhas who have never had a human birth...

Not Sammasambuddhas and Buddhas. Seeker had it right from the start. There are THREE types of awakened beings all called Buddhas.

Sammasam buddhas, Pratyekka buddhas and Sravaka buddhas.

Sravaka buddhas become awakened by following the path discovered by a Sammasam buddha.

Pratyekka buddhas are like Sammasam buddhas selfawakened beings but they lack the ability to teach the dhamma since they are not fully aware how their awakening came about.

That is my understanding.
/Victor

I decided to leave Pratyekka Buddhas out of the equation because even if they exist they are not Sammasambuddha and therfore do not clarify the issue raised by the OP.
Plus the fact that their existence appears to be largely hypothetical.
As far as I am aware they do not exist in nature as it were.
But again, if they did we would not know as they do not/ cannot teach.

Victorious

@Jeffrey. Our desires define us. So those desires we foster drive our Becoming. I thnik

Citta said:

Victorious said:

Citta said:

@Seeker242 is correct. The Theravadin position is that there is only one Sammasambuddha ( Pali ) in any era of this world.. A Sammasambuddha rediscovers Buddhadhamma for that era. Other people in that era may become Enlightened, but they will become Enlightened by following the teachings of the Samasammbuddha for that era.
The Sammasambuddha for our era is Shakyamuni Buddha..Gautama Siddhartha..' The Buddha '.
The Buddha for the previous era of this world was Dipankara Buddha. The Buddha for the next era of this world will be Maitreya Buddha..By the time of Maitreya the knowledge of the Dhamma will be completely lost to humananity, and he will rediscover it. Just as Shakyamuni rediscovered the Dhamma lost after being discovered by Dipankara.
So, there are Buddhas and Sammasambuddhas, Samsambuddhas rediscover the Dhamma. Buddhas realise the Dhamma rediscovered by the Sammasambuddha.
That is the position held in the Theravada and by some Mahayanists.
Its gets complicated however..The Mahayana teaches that there are Buddhas who have never had a human birth...

Not Sammasambuddhas and Buddhas. Seeker had it right from the start. There are THREE types of awakened beings all called Buddhas.

Sammasam buddhas, Pratyekka buddhas and Sravaka buddhas.

Sravaka buddhas become awakened by following the path discovered by a Sammasam buddha.

Pratyekka buddhas are like Sammasam buddhas selfawakened beings but they lack the ability to teach the dhamma since they are not fully aware how their awakening came about.

That is my understanding.
/Victor

I decided to leave Pratyekka Buddhas out of the equation because even if they exist they are not Sammasambuddha and therfore do not clarify the issue raised by the OP.
Plus the fact that their existence appears to be largely hypothetical.
As far as I am aware they do not exist in nature as it were.
But again, if they did we would not know as they do not/ cannot teach.

Now you got my curiosity... why do you purpose that pratyekka buddhas are hypothetical? And how do you know that they do not "exist in nature"? As opposed to the other types? Do you mean the Sutta references or actual encounters?

I do not think that the only defining carachteristic of a Pratyekka buddha is that they cannot teach (which would be a useless description in any case), I would rather purpose their enlightenment as speaking for it self ne?

But I must admit I have not knowingly met any of these Beings. I think I have come across a sotapanna or two and maybe a bodhisattva though.

/Victor

blu3ree

the buddha was one who realized enlightenment without aid in a time of great ignorance.

Citta

Well I dont 'know' Victor...but as far as I can tell there are no historical records of any Pretyekka Buddhas. I would be interested to be put right about that.
Its a bit like when a proposition is put forward because it fits a theoretical framework, rather than being a matter of observation.
But I might be wrong.

Jeffrey

In my sanghas liturgy we go to refuge to the BuddhaS.

Victorious

Citta said:

Well I dont 'know' Victor...but as far as I can tell there are no historical records of any Pretyekka Buddhas. I would be interested to be put right about that.
Its a bit like when a proposition is put forward because it fits a theoretical framework, rather than being a matter of observation.
But I might be wrong.

Well I googled and according to wikipedia they are mentioned in the Jatakas.

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

I think I have a vauge memory of hearing some jataka about that when I was little. No memory of what... But I guess the Jatakas are not considered Canonical in any case!?

Anyway the same page also mentioned the Rhino sutta as describing Pratyekabuddhas.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html

But I have read that many times and I cant see why really...it seems to be more of good advice how and why to practise in solitude.
Also searched for the word pratyekka in the pali for that sutta but found none...!?

Maybe someone can explain why this sutta is assumed to be connected to Pratyekka buddhas?

A more promising lead is this ref also found on the wikipedia page.

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh305-p.html

I have not read it yet and need to get back to work for now!

Cheers
Victor

Victorious

Jeffrey said:

In my sanghas liturgy we go to refuge to the BuddhaS.

Yes I do not actually see why not!

Namo Homage or Honor
Tassa to the
Bhagavato Blessed One or Auspicious One or Exalted One
Arahato Worthy One / enlightened one
Samma Sambhuddasa Fully Enlighted by Himself

does not mention any specific Buddha. I.e not Gotama explicitly. I have always thought that the reference was to the Buddhahood of any or all Buddhas and not one specific Samma sambuddha...?

/Victor

Citta

Victorious said:

Citta said:

Well I dont 'know' Victor...but as far as I can tell there are no historical records of any Pretyekka Buddhas. I would be interested to be put right about that.
Its a bit like when a proposition is put forward because it fits a theoretical framework, rather than being a matter of observation.
But I might be wrong.

Well I googled and according to wikipedia they are mentioned in the Jatakas.

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

I think I have a vauge memory of hearing some jataka about that when I was little. No memory of what... But I guess the Jatakas are not considered Canonical in any case!?

Anyway the same page also mentioned the Rhino sutta as describing Pratyekabuddhas.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.03.than.html

But I have read that many times and I cant see why really...it seems to be more of good advice how and why to practise in solitude.
Also searched for the word pratyekka in the pali for that sutta but found none...!?

Maybe someone can explain why this sutta is assumed to be connected to Pratyekka buddhas?

A more promising lead is this ref also found on the wikipedia page.

http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh305-p.html

I have not read it yet and need to get back to work for now!

Cheers
Victor

They are mentioned as a group in various places. I have never seen mention of an individual historical figure being identified as an example of a Pratyekka Buddha.
Examples of those identified as Sravaka Buddhas occur in each tradition.. Nagarjuna is one such Mila is another as Jeffrey says. Dogen yet another.
Padmakara is a bit more tricky, as with Bodhidharma, the evidence for their literal existence is tenuous.
In our own time many believe that Ajahn Mun and Ajahn Chah were fully Enlightened.
Just as many believe that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has reached the goal.

But I know of no claims identifying particular individuals as Pratyekka Buddhas.
It may be of course that they exist but as they do not teach they have no public profile.

David

For one to be enlightened, all others must be in the dark.
For all to be enlightened, one must remain in the dark.

Of course if there is more than one Buddha then they lack the self needed to be separate from one another anyways.

Also the prediction that the next Buddha wont live until the dharma is lost was made long before it was so widely spread. I think the dharma is more important than the myth of the dharma.

Citta

I am not saying that I accept any of the above. I don't.
From a Dzochen pov its not even particularly important if any Buddha/s ever lived.

I just think if we are going to discus the mythos that it should be an informed discussion.

Citta

bookworm said:

I'm a bit confused with this one i was reading The Milanda Panna and if anyone can help me better under stand this then i will be really grateful the blessed one said that it is impossible that in one world two Perfectly Enlightened Buddhas could exist at the same time and it goes on to say if two Buddhas were to exist at the same time then the earth could not bear the weight of their combined goodness and it would tremble and shake and break up.

Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

Sometimes it is useful to remind ourselves about the OP.

Victorious

Citta said:

They are mentioned as a group in various places. I have never seen mention of an individual historical figure being identified as an example of a Pratyekka Buddha.
Examples of those identified as Sravaka Buddhas occur in each tradition.. Nagarjuna is one such Mila is another as Jeffrey says. Dogen yet another.
Padmakara is a bit more tricky, as with Bodhidharma, the evidence for their literal existence is tenuous.
In our own time many believe that Ajahn Mun and Ajahn Chah were fully Enlightened.
Just as many believe that Chogyal Namkhai Norbu has reached the goal.

But I know of no claims identifying particular individuals as Pratyekka Buddhas.
It may be of course that they exist but as they do not teach they have no public profile.

Wow Thanks @Citta! Last time I was in Sri Lanka the was a bana from a claimed Arahant. But I never went.

No in that case I have not heard about any pratyekka buddhas!

/Victor

karmablues

Ajahn Sao, who was Ajahn Mun's teacher, was said to be developing his path towards becoming a Pratyekka Buddha, while initially Ajahn Mun was developing towards becoming a Samyaksam Buddha. People believed this was why Ajahn Sao was not that good at giving dhamma talks as compared to Ajahn Mun since the former had not been accumulating qualities over the lifetimes for becoming a teaching Buddha. Nonetheless, it is said that Ajahn Mun eventually gave up his desire to become a Samyaksam Buddha as he felt it would take too long and instead became enlightened as a Sravaka Buddha in his current lifetime. In Theravada there is only the gradual path and the one for becoming a Samyaksam Buddha takes several incalculable aeons, an unimaginably longer period than that which is needed for becoming a Sravaka Buddha.

absolute

according to the mahayana there are numerous infinite, countless, worlds exist. in some worlds buddhas exist and others don't. in our world we live in fortune aeon because 1000 buddhas come in this aeon including historical buddha shakyamuni 4th buddha of thousand buddhas. it is said other countless buddhas still live in other countless worlds such as amitabha from sukhvati ,bhaisajyaguru (medicine buddha), five dhyani buddhas and so on. but one buddha exist only in one world at a time because if two or more buddhas exist at a same time and same place, their monks or people may compete one another with what they understood. according to the sutras most buddhas' dharmas or teachings are same but they may differently from one another depend on their monks or people's point of view and different situations. in the lotus sutra the buddha explained why there are 3 yanas(mode or method of spiritual practice) exist : bodhisattva yana, pratyekka yana, and sravaka yana, he said that there are no 3 yana exist only one yana
why it is divided by three yanas because of the monk's point of views or mind capacities

Citta

And according to the Theravada that is mostly the waste product of male bovines...
So take your pick folks.

lobster

Anyway my question is does that mean there can be one person who can attain Nirvana in the whole world until he/she passes away?

Don't believe everything you read, it applies to most media.
Personally I am relying on you to attain. Then I might be able to learn a thing or two . . .
Any hope?
:wave:

bookworm

Yes thank you Lobster i learned a few things after this thread most importantly i learned that an Arhat is someone who has attained Nirvana