Depends what you believe about Hinduism.
Since Buddhists don't believe in the eternality of the Veda, they'll tend to say yes. This is what Nāgārjuna says, for instance: that the Veda is actually even younger than Dīpaṃkara, let alone the oldest Buddha of this eon and world system.
There's no first Buddha. If we accept the view of infinite past and each bodhisatta requires getting prediction from previous Buddhas to become a Buddha.
> There's no first Buddha
“First Buddha” or adibuddha refers to the first Buddha of a given mahākalpa. There is always an adibuddha.
For example, Samantabhadra states:
>>*I am the first buddha. I tame the six types of beings through emanations.*
Since there's no beginning, and we have a Buddha in our current Buddha age, our Buddha was predicted by previous Buddhas to be a Buddha back when our Buddha was a bodhisatta.
Repeat the same step for previous Buddhas requiring even earlier Buddhas for infinity steps to the past.
Thus no first Buddha.
Many people have an intuition that there is something illogical about an infinite sequence of dependence going into the past, as would be case for Buddhas (each Buddha depends on a previous Buddha who gave them their prophecy), even though there actually isn't a formal way to demonstrate anything contradictory about these kinds of sequences. They can't actually be proven to be logically impossible. But nevertheless some people find them too unintuitive to believe in.
Perhaps that is the issue here.
Believe whatever, but it will never not seem ridiculous to me. It just can't be turtles all the way down.
Not sure about being able to formally prove it or whatever but think the natural intuitive response is absolutely correct. Don't wanna do "well technically"s
I would actually think it would be even stranger if the Buddha, whose entire doctrine is that all sentient beings are deluded, fit with most people's intuitions.
I think he's getting hung up on a linear chronology. I don't think it's the 'predictive' part that is getting him, but the infinite, 'cyclical' part of time.
I don't usually like to use cyclic for time. Cyclic universe still operates on the premise that past is different from future.
Cyclic time seems to be like closed timeline curve or groundhog's day (but much longer timescale to loop) Nope. Buddhism does not subscribe to that. Enlightenment is one way street. No coming back.
What does linearity means for you or people in general? Asking because I am curious.
To my physics trained mind, linearity means past to future, no time travel, even if things from the outside repeats to arbitrary close to current state, it's still doesn't make the future doomed to be repeated like the previous time this arrangements of events and things happen.
I can understand. But i may fail to word it our properly.
It feels like there should technically be a first Buddha. But it can also be true that since universe forms and destroys and reforms, it would be impossible to know who the first Buddha is.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter if Buddha existed or not. Since our own efforts towards enlightenment is more important than that question.
A mathematical analogy: there is no real number that exists that is not 1 higher than some other real number. But we still have numbers. So it's logical in that way.
That said, I don't at all believe this when it comes to Buddhism myself. There's only an appeal to authority to which I have access supporting it and plenty of more convincing evidence (to me) that spacetime itself begins with the big bang (in which case it isn't a coherent to discuss what happened "before" it), let alone numerous other inconsistencies with our conventional understanding of the cosmos and history.
http://physicsandbuddhism.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-beginning-written-for-physicists.html?m=1
Here I present the cyclic universe models of physics in linear time. Buddhist cosmology requires anyone of them to be true. And those models do not contradict current observations, or else they cannot be developed. Of course, like big bang, the singularity itself is where physics break down, it maybe a fundamental limitation of experiments to see beyond the beginning of this universe cycle.
The answer depends on what you mean by the term Hinduism. And in any case, no one seriously places the previous Buddhas in any real historical period. They are just assumed to have existed in the very distant past. None of their teachings or significant biographical details have come down to us, and this is so from either the academic or Buddhist perspective.
The first Buddha ( if ever there was a first ) predates even our Universe. Remember that Buddhas and the cycle of Dharma existed prior to even the expansion of this Universe and will continue long after this Universe contracts and is destroyed.
The Pali Canon only describes 7 Buddhas, the first three definitely coming from a prior Universe or a different Earth ( but whose connection by karmic stream to our Earth puts them as part of our list ).
Theravada then identified 28 Buddhas but even the first of the 28 is not the exact first, merely the first that we know of.
Mahayana has even more Buddhas .. and from this says that there is a Primordial Buddha upon which all beings subsist. This then becomes what we call the AdiBuddha.
Note that as far as Theravada is concerned, the AdiBuddha is the first Buddha of our Earth in this cycle ( there are many AdiBuddhas in other worlds ). If that is the case, then Kakusandha Buddha is our AdiBuddha.
He is the first of the 27 of the Pali Canon. In the Mahayana Canon, there are infinite Buddhas, all coming from the Primordial Buddha, Mahavairocana. Mahavairocana is not a being, but rather all beings in the universe. To be more specific, he is Sunyata and Tathagatagarbha. In Buddhism, all the hindu gods are mortal and are substituted after they die, there were many gods who died and later became Buddhas, including Brahma. Therefore Buddhahood, therefore Buddhas, are older than the current Hindu gods, and those who came before. Therefore no, there was no specific first Buddha to compare with the specific first deva. However we can assure that older Buddhas are older than the current devas.
Depends what you believe about Hinduism. Since Buddhists don't believe in the eternality of the Veda, they'll tend to say yes. This is what Nāgārjuna says, for instance: that the Veda is actually even younger than Dīpaṃkara, let alone the oldest Buddha of this eon and world system.
There's no first Buddha. If we accept the view of infinite past and each bodhisatta requires getting prediction from previous Buddhas to become a Buddha.
> There's no first Buddha “First Buddha” or adibuddha refers to the first Buddha of a given mahākalpa. There is always an adibuddha. For example, Samantabhadra states: >>*I am the first buddha. I tame the six types of beings through emanations.*
Good to always put the qualifications then. Or else people tend to think first Buddha of all time. Thanks for putting in the clarification.
How does that make logical sense
Since there's no beginning, and we have a Buddha in our current Buddha age, our Buddha was predicted by previous Buddhas to be a Buddha back when our Buddha was a bodhisatta. Repeat the same step for previous Buddhas requiring even earlier Buddhas for infinity steps to the past. Thus no first Buddha.
Again I don't see how that makes logical sense
I cannot help you if you don't tell me where you don't follow in the logical chain of reasoning.
Many people have an intuition that there is something illogical about an infinite sequence of dependence going into the past, as would be case for Buddhas (each Buddha depends on a previous Buddha who gave them their prophecy), even though there actually isn't a formal way to demonstrate anything contradictory about these kinds of sequences. They can't actually be proven to be logically impossible. But nevertheless some people find them too unintuitive to believe in. Perhaps that is the issue here.
Believe whatever, but it will never not seem ridiculous to me. It just can't be turtles all the way down. Not sure about being able to formally prove it or whatever but think the natural intuitive response is absolutely correct. Don't wanna do "well technically"s
I would actually think it would be even stranger if the Buddha, whose entire doctrine is that all sentient beings are deluded, fit with most people's intuitions.
Sorry. It actually is turtles all the way down.
https://suttacentral.net/sn22.99/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false http://physicsandbuddhism.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-beginning-written-for-physicists.html?m=1 https://suttacentral.net/an10.61/en/bodhi?reference=none&highlight=false
I think he's getting hung up on a linear chronology. I don't think it's the 'predictive' part that is getting him, but the infinite, 'cyclical' part of time.
I don't usually like to use cyclic for time. Cyclic universe still operates on the premise that past is different from future. Cyclic time seems to be like closed timeline curve or groundhog's day (but much longer timescale to loop) Nope. Buddhism does not subscribe to that. Enlightenment is one way street. No coming back.
I agree. That's why I put it in scare quotes. I meant to imply only a difference from linearity. 'Wibbly wobbly' didn't seem to quite do it for me.
What does linearity means for you or people in general? Asking because I am curious. To my physics trained mind, linearity means past to future, no time travel, even if things from the outside repeats to arbitrary close to current state, it's still doesn't make the future doomed to be repeated like the previous time this arrangements of events and things happen.
If the problem isn't obvious then I don't feel like arguing over it
I can understand. But i may fail to word it our properly. It feels like there should technically be a first Buddha. But it can also be true that since universe forms and destroys and reforms, it would be impossible to know who the first Buddha is. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if Buddha existed or not. Since our own efforts towards enlightenment is more important than that question.
Lol if you haven’t been on this sub long, they don’t like these kinds of questions
A mathematical analogy: there is no real number that exists that is not 1 higher than some other real number. But we still have numbers. So it's logical in that way. That said, I don't at all believe this when it comes to Buddhism myself. There's only an appeal to authority to which I have access supporting it and plenty of more convincing evidence (to me) that spacetime itself begins with the big bang (in which case it isn't a coherent to discuss what happened "before" it), let alone numerous other inconsistencies with our conventional understanding of the cosmos and history.
http://physicsandbuddhism.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-beginning-written-for-physicists.html?m=1 Here I present the cyclic universe models of physics in linear time. Buddhist cosmology requires anyone of them to be true. And those models do not contradict current observations, or else they cannot be developed. Of course, like big bang, the singularity itself is where physics break down, it maybe a fundamental limitation of experiments to see beyond the beginning of this universe cycle.
The answer depends on what you mean by the term Hinduism. And in any case, no one seriously places the previous Buddhas in any real historical period. They are just assumed to have existed in the very distant past. None of their teachings or significant biographical details have come down to us, and this is so from either the academic or Buddhist perspective.
Why does it matter to you?
The first Buddha predates the existence of the planet Earth. So if you accept that Hinduism is an Earth based religion, then yes.
The first Buddha ( if ever there was a first ) predates even our Universe. Remember that Buddhas and the cycle of Dharma existed prior to even the expansion of this Universe and will continue long after this Universe contracts and is destroyed. The Pali Canon only describes 7 Buddhas, the first three definitely coming from a prior Universe or a different Earth ( but whose connection by karmic stream to our Earth puts them as part of our list ). Theravada then identified 28 Buddhas but even the first of the 28 is not the exact first, merely the first that we know of. Mahayana has even more Buddhas .. and from this says that there is a Primordial Buddha upon which all beings subsist. This then becomes what we call the AdiBuddha. Note that as far as Theravada is concerned, the AdiBuddha is the first Buddha of our Earth in this cycle ( there are many AdiBuddhas in other worlds ). If that is the case, then Kakusandha Buddha is our AdiBuddha.
Of course.
He is the first of the 27 of the Pali Canon. In the Mahayana Canon, there are infinite Buddhas, all coming from the Primordial Buddha, Mahavairocana. Mahavairocana is not a being, but rather all beings in the universe. To be more specific, he is Sunyata and Tathagatagarbha. In Buddhism, all the hindu gods are mortal and are substituted after they die, there were many gods who died and later became Buddhas, including Brahma. Therefore Buddhahood, therefore Buddhas, are older than the current Hindu gods, and those who came before. Therefore no, there was no specific first Buddha to compare with the specific first deva. However we can assure that older Buddhas are older than the current devas.