Another Buddha??

[Netti-Netti]

There must be some Buddhists who choose not to get off the wheel and keep coming back in order to continue their works of compassion. Which reminds me, why would Buddhism need a second or third Buddha?

Rinpoche Padmasambhavastarted has been called the second Buddha. He is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism and allegedly the author of the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

The Dalai Lama has also been referred to as the second Buddha. So has a monk by the name of Acharya Nagarjuna. So it seems there are three second Buddhas!!

In the Kadampa tradition, Geshe Kelsang Gyatso (a scholar/teacher) has been identified as the "third Buddha."

If Guatama Buddha got off the wheel a while back, how can we accept these various new incarnations as legit?

Maybe the terms "second Buddha" and "third Buddha" are just being used figuratively to show respect and veneration for an important teacher....

[seattlegal]

Not getting off the wheel until all are liberated is a Bodhisattva vow, which is different from a Buddha. (The mechanism for a Buddha being born is different from a Bodhisattva, if I understand correctly.)

Gautama was considered to be the fourth Buddha. The next Buddha, the fifth, is referred to as Maitreya. I guess there are countless Buddhas.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti,

thank you for the OP.

the Suttas teach that there were innumerable Buddhas prior to Buddha Shakyamuni, though it lists 7 if i recall correctly, and will be on this world system at any rate, at least 16 more Buddhas to arise.

in the specifics you are mentioning in the OP it is more of a way of expressing appreciation and respect than anything else as the term Buddha is really just a descriptive title.

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Not getting off the wheel until all are liberated is a Bodhisattva vow....

Understood. But that's the Mahayana vow, isn't it? I'm trying to reconcile that view to Guatama's original teaching and perhaps a faulty notion I have that complete enlightenment would imply no coming back - i.e., no more incarnations.

The general consensus appears to be that Guatama was fully enlightened. That being the case, I would not expect any more incarnations.

Apparently some people have no problem with the fact that Guatama did not teach the Mahayana sutras. ok, I'm not losing sleep over it, but....

Gautama was considered to be the fourth Buddha. The next Buddha, the fifth, is referred to as Maitreya.

It seems Tibetan Buddhists regard Maitreya as both a Buddha and Boddhisattva.
Maitreya Buddha | **TIBET ARTS**

Some of the literature describes the Maitreya Buddha as a future Buddha who is as yet a bodhisattva in Tusita heaven, who presumably will at some point arrive on the scene to fulfill a Messianic mission that includes him becoming a world leader who ushers in a new world order (Mmm, sound familiar?) Apparently there's little disagreement about this among Buddhists.

Interestingly, even though many Buddhists are still waiting for the Maitreya Buddha to show up, there's now a whole list of folks who have claimed to be Maitreya. Quite a few of them are 20th century personages - including L. Ron Hubbard.
List of Buddha claimants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

the Suttas teach that there were innumerable Buddhas prior to Buddha Shakyamuni, though it lists 7 if i recall correctly, and will be on this world system at any rate, at least 16 more Buddhas to arise.

in the specifics you are mentioning in the OP it is more of a way of expressing appreciation and respect than anything else as the term Buddha is really just a descriptive title.

Namatse Vajradhara. Thank you for that. Also, thank you for your patience. As you can see, I'm struggling with the basics

Someone called Buddhism a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs. For me the problem is not just that some of these beliefs appear incompatible. As an observer *on the outside looking in,* there is also the problem of having a hard time making a determination about how important some of these concepts are. I suspect the issues could limit Westerners' participation in oriental philosophies and "religions."

Thanks again.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti,

if you are new to the Buddha Dharma and are interested in what may be considered foundational teachings, i would strongly suggest this site:

BuddhaNet's Buddhist Studies: A Basic Buddhism Guide

with regards to seemingly contradictory statements... that is precisely what you'd expect to find!

the Buddha taught that there are 84,000 different ways to enter the Dharma. 84,000 is a symbolic number which is indicative of myriad beings and their individual needs and capacities to understand and implement the teachings. taken in a literal sense this means that for every individual being there is a specific set of teachings which are ideal and that set is unique for that being and it may be quite different than anothers though the basics are shared by all schools. ymmv

metta,

~v

[Nick the Pilot]

Netti-Netti

The word Buddha is sometimes used by people to mean two different things. One meaning that is used is that all sentient beings at or above Gautama's level are Buddhas. Some people say that there are billions of Buddhas.

The other meaning used is that there is only one Buddha at a time. As Vaj has alluded to, Gautama was/is the only Buddha in a line of singular Buddhas in succession. In order to avoid confusion, I always call this kind of Buddha the World Teacher.

"Someone called Buddhism a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs."

--> Feel free to bring up any teachings you feel are contradictory. The more, the better.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Namatse Vajradhara. Thank you for that. Also, thank you for your patience. As you can see, I'm struggling with the basics

Someone called Buddhism a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs. For me the problem is not just that some of these beliefs appear incompatible. As an observer *on the outside looking in,* there is also the problem of having a hard time making a determination about how important some of these concepts are. I suspect the issues could limit Westerners' participation in oriental philosophies and "religions."

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste Netti,

if you are new to the Buddha Dharma and are interested in what may be considered foundational teachings, i would strongly suggest this site:

BuddhaNet's Buddhist Studies: A Basic Buddhism Guide

with regards to seemingly contradictory statements... that is precisely what you'd expect to find!

the Buddha taught that there are 84,000 different ways to enter the Dharma. 84,000 is a symbolic number which is indicative of myriad beings and their individual needs and capacities to understand and implement the teachings. taken in a literal sense this means that for every individual being there is a specific set of teachings which are ideal and that set is unique for that being and it may be quite different than anothers though the basics are shared by all schools. ymmv

metta,

~v

How many different recipes are there for making pie? Would you hold someone to following "the original recipe" for apple pie when the person has peaches instead of apples? If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes? Would those contradictions invalidate the whole concept of pies, making pies into the ammunition for pie fights?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

How many different recipes are there for making pie? Would you hold someone to following "the original recipe" for apple pie when the person has peaches instead of apples? If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes? Would those contradictions invalidate the whole concept of pies?

Greetings SG. I would have to make one less trip to the forum if you would include the answers with the questions you raise. Thank you.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Greetings SG. I would have to make one less trip to the forum if you would include the answers with the questions you raise. Thank you.

You must have posted this reply while I edited my post to include my smart-a**ed Zen style answer!

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You must have posted this reply while I edited my post to include my smart-a**ed Zen type answer!

It seems the main difference relates to nonsectarian *Pie in the Face* ritual.

Generally, your questions strike me as fairly clear and reasonable ways of conceptualizing essential issues of doctrinal orthodoxy. I did have a problem with this one:

"If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes?"

Wouldn't it depend on the nature and severity of the contradictions? If you put in too much baking soda -- or not enough -- the pie may not even be edible, let alone a "delicious pie." In a very real sense, then, it may not qualify as Suchness. That could be a problem.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

It seems the main difference relates to nonsectarian *Pie in the Face* ritual.

Generally, your questions strike me as fairly clear and reasonable ways of conceptualizing essential issues of doctrinal orthodoxy. I did have a problem with this one:

"If you were to compare all of the different recipes for making delicious pies, wouldn't you expect to find some contradictions between the different recipes?"

Wouldn't it depend on the nature and severity of the contradictions? If you put in too much baking soda -- or not enough -- the pie may not even be edible, let alone a "delicious pie." In a very real sense, then, it may not qualify as Suchness.

You put baking soda in your pies? Eww....

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You put baking soda in your pies? Eww....

Sorry, I meant baking powder. Does that change the analysis?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Sorry, I meant baking powder. Does that change the analysis?

I think I'd rather stick with the baking soda, if you must use a leavening agent. Baking powder can be rather explosive with too much heat. (I don't use either.)

btw, Would "Pie in the Face Ritual" be counted among the 'special transmission outside of doctrine?'

[Netti-Netti]

Good thing you don't have responsibilities as a moderator around here, SG.
If they were considering you, I think you may have ruined your chances.

Originally Posted by seattlegal

btw, Would "Pie in the Face Ritual" be counted among the 'special transmission outside of doctrine?'

Good of you to include a relevant issue in the discussion. Alas, I don't have any answers for you.