Only one Buddha

The Watercooler
1

Is there any specific reason given in the Canon to why only one Buddha can arise in the world at a time?

2

What does “arise” mean to you?

Attain Enlightenment? I think it’s per Universe or Solar System that I’ve read before in the Pali Canon. But this could be an idiosyncrasy in Ancient Thought. But it could also be true as the Tradition of the Elders has a strong meaning.

Yet do you expect two Buddhas from two Solar Systems or Universes to collide in giant force fields, so that they cannot go near eachother in physical space-time? Clearly not that. But at the same time I cannot find ample evidence that “at the same time” was not transferred over from the thought of “individually” as in “individually, one Buddha attains Enlightenment”, “individually another”. I think that may be meant, more focused on individuality than exclusivity. But that is just a theory. Sorry for my meanderings.

3

In the EBTs? No. Perhaps Ven. @Dhammanando is aware of something from the commentaries or later texts.

4

The Milindapañha gives three reasons.

Dvinnaáč buddhānaáč anuppajjamānapañha

The commentary to the AN gives one reason, corresponding to the second reason of the Milindapañha. Bhikkhu Bodhi summarises in his endnote:

Mp explains the word “contemporaneously” (apubbaáčƒ acarimaáčƒ, lit., “not before, not after”) to cover the period from the time a bodhisatta enters his mother’s womb until the Buddha’s relics disappear. There can be only one Buddha at a time because a Buddha is without a counterpart or peer (see 1:172, 1:174). Thus if two Buddhas were to arise simultaneously, this statement would be invalidated. The issue is also dealt with at Mil 236–39, cited by Mp. Mp says that because no suttas speak of the arising of Buddhas in other world systems, while there are suttas that say Buddhas do not arise elsewhere, it is only in this world system (imasmiáčƒyeva cakkavāិe) that they arise.

Mp-áč­ cites several suttas that it interprets as excluding the possibility of Buddhas arising elsewhere, but these texts do not seem to be as categorical as the author supposes. Perhaps this argument was intended to counter the idea being advanced in early Mahāyāna sĆ«tras (or even among other pre-Mahāyāna schools) that Buddhas arise in the world systems of the ten directions.

1 Like
5

SN 22.58 defines the Buddha as the one who became enlightened first. Obviously there can only be one “first” person within a dispensation.

5 Likes
6

In different parts of planet Earth even, different Buddhas could have attained Enlightenment and taught Sanghas by that metric. Maybe one first Buddha, maybe possibly more by serendipity if allowed, or maybe many even today that become Enlightened, not in contact with the first teachings. Then again there are Buddhist traditions that claim differences between Buddhas and Arahants, say, for example in the topic of Omniscience. Buddhas are said to be Omniscient. And it has been said that a Buddha is able to bring others to Buddhahood, which has been understood to be the actual purpose of Buddhism.

7

There can only be one.

1 Like
8

i don’t know of a reason in the canon but the following is what makes sense to me logically:

  1. a buddha cannot attain enlightenment from the instruction of another. they discover they path for themselves, by themselves.

  2. a buddha exerts influence through the cosmos - according to the pali canon, i think it’s 1000x1000x1000 solar systems that a buddha exerts influence.

  3. from the pali canon, we know that when a bodhisattva is born in the time of another buddha, the moment they hear the dhamma, they will ordain within the dispensation of the already existing buddha

  4. two buddhas couldn’t arise in close sequence, as the second would then be a bodhisattva in the first one’s dispensation (as per 3 above)

  5. the possibility of two buddha’s arising at the identical time could be possible, but i think they’d need to be separated by at least a distance of 2 above. if not, they would be speaking the dhamma over each other, and ordinary people listening to both of them wouldn’t be sure who to follow. it would be undermining of the potency to the dhamma.

9

There are no discrepancies in the words of the Buddhas. I think it makes sense that Buddhahood is not a status to be held within the Sangha or perceived from the outside. In fact it seems to have nothing to do with such external factors. Buddhahood is in the other hand seems to me to be more of an Awakening and Enlightenment that is a complete change of character and inner Wisdom, and development of Compassion for all sentient beings, instead of just a high position in the Sangha. It may have even little to do with Teaching at times (though preaching the Dhamma is necessary of course), and more to do with doing. Changing the world in other ways as well. One may learn from a Buddha’s example.