Living buddhas

[Timbo]

As I understand it, most Buddhists believe that people become awakened here and there, from time to time. They are called buddhas, as far as I know. I have the impression that Buddhist sects and individuals do not always agree on the details. I don't want to stir controversy needlessly. To the contrary, I'm interested to learn a consensus view, if there is one. If no consensus exists, Oh Well...

If there is any consensus at all, how do Buddhists, in general, answer questions such as these:

-- How often does a buddha come along?

-- Another way to ask the same question as the previous one: How many Buddhas are likely alive today? None? A handful? Hundreds, or thousands?

-- Are Buddhas likely to be Buddhists? How likely is it that a buddha might be non-religious, atheist, Muslim, Christian, or whatever?

-- In Sakyamuni Buddha's time, the population of the world was about 100 million. It's now 6.5 billion, 65 times as many people alive now as there were then. Is it reasonable to suppose that more buddhas live today?

Sakyamuni Buddha didn't like to answer pointless, speculative questions. Maybe my questions are of that sort... If so, not doing it deliberately.

I could ask the question in a more personal way... How likely am I to meet a buddha in my lifetime?

Hugs and puppies,


Timbo

[TongueTied]

Not much of a consensus.  What it means to be a "Buddha" varies.  For some it is anyone who is fully awakened.  For others it is the most perfected form of full awakening.  For others a "Buddha" can only refer to the one who rediscovers the dharma.

[Caz]

Buddhas appear wherever needed 

[KarmaPolice]

My understanding of the Theravadin view is that a Buddha is an individual who attains enlightenment without the aid of teachings or teachers (e.g. Siddhartha Gautama), while an arahant is an individual who attains enlightenment through the aid of teachings or teachers. Since Buddhism shows the way to enlightenment, everyone who has attained enlightenment following its teachings is an arahant. There will only be another Buddha once Buddhism has died.

[santamonicacj]

Buddhas appear wherever needed... 

...and as karma permits. (I think that's how it goes.)

[Anders Honore]

As I understand it, most Buddhists believe that people become awakened here and there, from time to time. They are called buddhas, as far as I know. I have the impression that Buddhist sects and individuals do not always agree on the details. I don't want to stir controversy needlessly. To the contrary, I'm interested to learn a consensus view, if there is one. If no consensus exists, Oh Well...

Well, there are a variety of takes on this. Apologies for long post coming up:

Theravada first: a Buddha is is of two kinds: A sammasam-buddha , of which Shakyamuni was the latest one, Maitreya is scheduled to be the next some 2500-47500 years from now. These are the guys who discover the Dharma when it's been lost and are amazing teachers who start up a new dispensation of the vehicle of liberation to last X number of centuries before dying out again. In between, there are a few every other millenia or so who discover the Dharma on their own and become pratyeka (solitary) Buddhas, but they don't teach. That's pretty much it, pretty simple stuff. Other people can be liberated like the Buddhas by following the teachings of the sammasambuddhas but they are termed arhats, not buddhas. But below that, there is an initial awakening distinguished as 'stream-entry' - these guys have had a realisation of Nirvana, but are not yet fully liberated from afflictions like the arhats.

In the Mahayana, it gets a bit more (actually a lot more) diverse:

To start out with, you have more Buddhas as the cosmology gets expanded and the sutras begin to document Buddhas in other world system (some like Amitabha take an active interest in our world as well). These Buddhas, like Shakyamuni, come with all the bells and whistles of being the best of teachers possible, thanks to their powers, stores of merit etc. It is this quality of being the best of teachers that inspires the Mahayana ideal of the Bodhisattva: A being who aspires to become a Buddha for the sake of all living beings.

Trouble is, being this best of teachers requires a bit of extra time to accumulate the necessary wisdom and merit to make it happen: Some 3 incalculable kalpas (one incaluable kalpa: about a million trillion years), give or take or few million years. This being after the initial awakening that sets him on the path proper towards Buddhahood. Beings like this, who are both awakened and have taken vows to attain Buddhahood, are bodhisattvas and become the main focus for the Mahayana. Obviously, given the timeframe for for attaining Buddhahood, this is not really considered to be on the menu for most people in this lifetime. This is more or less the early classical Mahayana position on Buddhahood.

It then gets a bit fuzzy when the teaching of the Tathagatagarbha (Buddhanature) is introduced, stressing that the nature and virtues of Buddhahood is not something accumulated over many kalpas but exists innately in all beings. In its original form, this didn't change the length it took to actualise these virtues, but nonetheless this doctrine was used as a foundation for later versions of Mahayana where it did change.

In east-asian Buddhism, most famously in Chan (Zen), there is a greater focus on this innate nature as being Buddha here and now, resulting in teachings like 'One inch of Zazen(Meditation), one inch of Buddhahood' and how 'one enlightened thought makes one equal to a Buddha and one deluded thought makes one a sentient being', with a stress on the only difference between Buddhas and sentient beings being that the former realises his nature as Buddha and the other is ignorant of it. Chan is a bit fussy on whether this reduces the actually timeframe towards actualising the qualities of Buddhahood, but there is nonetheless a definite shift in focus to Buddhahood being immanently present and complete in all beings here and now, as opposed to it being something accomplished many millions of years in the future.

In this tradition, one might say that someone fully awakened to this nature is a Buddha, or (more loosely) even use it of someone who is awake to it at this moment, but not yet fully awakened to it. Or, it might still refer to the classical rendition of the fully actualised qualities of being the best of teachers possible (the formers technically 'only' being bodhisattvas). But even within this framework, there is a distinction between bodhisattvas, who are aware of their nature as Buddhas, and Buddhas, who are completely awakened to it. A simile used by the famous Zen teacher Dogen that the difference in illumination between a bodhisattva who has just awakened and a Buddha is like the difference between the light of a firefly and the sun. Nevertheless, you do find famous teachers referred to as 'living Buddhas' as they have some measure of irreversibility in their realisation, whether it is technically 'merely' the irreversible full awakening of the Boddhisattva on the final stages, or the full fruition of Buddhahood. The tradition has generally been a bit fussy on this.

A short while later, tantric Buddhism, which later still comes to dominate in Tibet, comes on to the scene and makes no qualms about it: The qualities of Buddhahood are innate and by realising these one can actualise them fully even in this lifetime, instead of having to take the long road of accumulating these qualities over countless lifetimes. So here, the claim is you most definitely have full living Buddhas with all the bells and whistles of being the best of teachers possible appearing in the world.

Of course, such Buddhas can appear in this world according to most any kind of Mahayana doctrine to serve sentient beings, but they are more typically considered to have attained Buddhahood a long time before taking birth in this realm (the most famous case being the Dalai Lama, who is held to be an emanation of Avalokiteshvara, who, although he appears as a Bodhisattva, is held to really be a Buddha).

There are some variations on the above versions but these are, are broad lines, the gist of it.

If there is any consensus at all, how do Buddhists, in general, answer questions such as these:

-- How often does a buddha come along?

Well, that depends on what you mean by a Buddha. If you mean a Buddha who actively demonstrates all the bells and whistles of being the best of teachers possible here in this world, the next one is Maitreya; he is scheduled to come along some 2500-47500 years from now, depending on how you you crunch the numbers. Last one to appear died 2500 years ago.

As for the more informal 'living buddhas' as the later traditions might interpret it: Probably at least a dozen or so every generation. Maybe a few less if you're pessimistic. Several times more that if you're optimistic.

-- Another way to ask the same question as the previous one: How many Buddhas are likely alive today? None? A handful? Hundreds, or thousands?

No one knows, but going on loose impressions of what's on the grapevine in various places I'd guess somewhere between 10 and 200. Maybe a bit more, probably not less than 10.

-- Are Buddhas likely to be Buddhists? How likely is it that a buddha might be non-religious, atheist, Muslim, Christian, or whatever?

Well, the Mahayana sutras are pretty clear that Buddhas can appear in any guise and shape to guide living beings, so in theory they could appear as anything, possibly without anyone ever recognising them as Buddhas. Nonetheless, most traditions hold to the view that the only way to realise Buddhahood is through Buddhism, so the expectation is probably that they will most likely be Buddhist.

Speaking strictly personally, considering that beings on the verge of Buddhahood are also more likely to have meditative powers that provide a hotline to Buddhas in realms beyond this one, I can easily imagine people realising Buddhahood without coming into contact with what we know as 'Buddhism' in this world. But I'd imagine this to be rare any way you look at it, since there is probably little reason not to train in Buddhism if you're aware of it.

-- In Sakyamuni Buddha's time, the population of the world was about 100 million. It's now 6.5 billion, 65 times as many people alive now as there were then. Is it reasonable to suppose that more buddhas live today?

It's possible. I have heard some express views along these lines. Traditionally, Buddhism is rather pessimistic about this though, as it considers the propensities of people (and/or conditions facilitating this) to become liberated to grow worse over time, until eventually Buddhism will disappear altogether. Going by most traditional calculations, we are currently deep in the Dharma ending age. Nevertheless, it seems to be working for some still.

I could ask the question in a more personal way... How likely am I to meet a buddha in my lifetime?

Good question. I'd say that depends on the purity of your aspiration and your willingness to follow through on it. But imo, not at all impossible if you're determined to find one.

Still, rare enough that I wouldn't suggest waiting around to stumble across on.

[Timbo]

Anders,

That was a generous, gracious and honest reply. More than I hoped for. Thank you so very much.

Is this the sort of message that ought to be saved for others by making the thread sticky? I suspect you invested quite a lot of work in it.

Thanks also to others who have replied, Caz, KarmaPolice and ToungueTied.

In between, there are a few every other millenia or so who discover the Dharma on their own and become pratyeka (solitary) Buddhas, but they don't teach.

Hoo boy, now I'm getting lost.

This thread reminds me that I've forgotten quite a few concepts and terms since the last time I studied these topics. It's a lot to learn, and, I must admit, I study haphazardly.

What about those who learn the Dharma with the help of other teachers, become enlightened, and do teach others? Does this happen, and what are they called? Stream-entry? Arhats? Something else? Is this a more common occurrence?

This is probably an ignorant question, but I can't figure out a better way to ask it.

Cheers,


Timbo

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Buddhas appear wherever needed... 

...and as karma permits. (I think that's how it goes.)

That's my understanding too - one of my teachers once said that if our karma was good enough the buddhas would be like the leaves on the trees. One day.

 

[Anders Honore]

What about those who learn the Dharma with the help of other teachers, become enlightened, and do teach others? Does this happen, and what are they called? Stream-entry? Arhats? Something else? Is this a more common occurrence?

In the Theravada: stream-entrants if they are not yet fully liberated, arahants if they are.

The Mahayana refers to such practitioners as Shravakas (hearers) to reflect the fact that they have become enlightened through listening to the teachings of a Buddha.

If they've taken bodhisattva vows, they'll just be called Bodhisattvas, although they are still hearers in the sense of needing to hear the teachings to become enlightened.

[kwanseum]

To start out with, you have more Buddhas as the cosmology gets expanded and the sutras begin to document Buddhas in other world system (some like Amitabha take an active interest in our world as well).

Firstly, let me say Anders post was fantastic. 

Then let me flesh out with some names - we've got the seven Buddhas of the past (과거칠불), the Buddha of the future (미륵), Maitreya the cosmic Buddha (비로자나불), Buddha's of the Pure lands such as Amitabha  (비로자나불) and so on!

In east-asian Buddhism, most famously in Chan (Zen), there is a greater focus on this innate nature as being Buddha here and now.

And from a Seon perspective I'd like to stress our own Buddha nature (불성). 

I am Buddha, you are Buddha, along with all beings.

In the words of Bob Marley, "wake up and live".

[Spiny le Norman]

Buddhas appear wherever needed 

Is there an application form I need to fill in?

Spiny

[catmoon]

Buddhas appear wherever needed 

Is there an application form I need to fill in?

Spiny

No, there's a Buddha that does that for you when it is needed.

[Caz]

Buddhas appear wherever needed 

Is there an application form I need to fill in?

Spiny

No, there's a Buddha that does that for you when it is needed.

 

Imagine that you've probley walked past a Buddha without knowing, We (me) ignorant beings blinded by the vails of our own delusion cannot even discern what is a correct action let alone clearly identify a holy being LOL
Its odd some people you meet just continually says things that make you go hmmm, The best method for seeing them is to view every sentient being you encounter as a Buddha...its very odd doing this but it has some interesting results. 

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Paranoia tantra I like it.

[catmoon]

Imagine that you've probley walked past a Buddha without knowing, We (me) ignorant beings blinded by the vails of our own delusion cannot even discern what is a correct action let alone clearly identify a holy being LOL
Its odd some people you meet just continually says things that make you go hmmm, The best method for seeing them is to view every sentient being you encounter as a Buddha...its very odd doing this but it has some interesting results. 

Well, then, you must then regard me as a Buddha, take my advice and alter your practice (ahem) as previously indicated.

Or, to put it another way, you must regard the Dalai Lama and Kelsang Gyatso both as Buddhas and follow their directions. Oh and don't forget Pat Robertson is a Buddha too.

It sounds very nice to say you will regard everyone as a Buddha, but can it actually be done?