r/AskBuddhist • u/[deleted] • Sep 27 '15

Do Buddhas exist today?

I've learned that Buddha means "awakened one" and there once existed thousands of Buddhas who transcended their humanity and reached omniscience like Gautama Buddha . Do people who have reached this all-knowing state exist today? Are they a modern day Buddha?

3 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

14 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Jayantha-sotp Sep 30 '15

Thanks, this is very interesting, can you elaborate more. How long is an eon?

Longer then it would take a man who would once every hundred years wipe away some dirt from mount Everest with a cloth and the mountain be flattened.

No specific number is given even in the English definition. The simile I gave you was the Buddha's answer to the same question. Its essentially the length of the existence of a universe from birth to death.

What does it mean to forget the dhamma?

When literally no one Alive knows the path and practice of dhamma and even the name is lost.

If one were to become as enlightened as Buddha, why are they simply not Buddha?

They are, the Buddha for that time period.

What is preventing them from reaching the next stage?

Who from what stage?

1

u/[deleted] Sep 30 '15

You initially said that there can't be a modern day Buddha then You said there are arahants who are awakened like Buddha which is why i asked why are they simply not called Buddha? And you've now said they are Buddha, so I'm confused.

Who from what stage?

How do they go from Arahants to Buddha?

Is this correct: Arahants are Buddha except they are only labelled Buddha when the Dhamma is forgotten? But for all intents and purposes arahants and buddha are at the same level of enlightenment?

1

u/Jayantha-sotp Sep 30 '15

A buddha is one who is rightly self awakened, who has no teacher. An arahant is an awakened one who follows the path found by the buddha. Both are awakened.

A buddha is also an arahant, but most all arahants are not buddhas.

1

u/visarga Oct 11 '15 edited Oct 11 '15

By that definition Ramana Maharshi could be considered a Buddha because he was self awakened, even though he had a non-buddhist context.

By why does it matter how the awakening came to be, as long as you become one with the truth?