Wasnt Buddha a human ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by asahi »

Buddha denied Himself a human being , what does this mean ?




Doṇasutta
AN 4.36

He then approached the Blessed One and said to him:

(1) “Could you be a deva, sir?”

“I will not be a deva, brahmin.”

(2) “Could you be a gandhabba, sir?”

“I will not be a gandhabba, brahmin.”

(3) “Could you be a yakkha, sir?”

“I will not be a yakkha, brahmin.”

(4) “Could you be a human being, sir?”

“I will not be a human being, brahmin.”
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Ceisiwr »

asahi wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:59 pm Buddha denied Himself a human being , what does this mean ?




Doṇasutta
AN 4.36

He then approached the Blessed One and said to him:

(1) “Could you be a deva, sir?”

“I will not be a deva, brahmin.”

(2) “Could you be a gandhabba, sir?”

“I will not be a gandhabba, brahmin.”

(3) “Could you be a yakkha, sir?”

“I will not be a yakkha, brahmin.”

(4) “Could you be a human being, sir?”

“I will not be a human being, brahmin.”
Notice he says he will not be, not that he isn’t.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by chownah »

In this rendering of the sutta the buddha indicates that he (at the time of his speaking these words) is not those things and gives a detailed explanation of why.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
On one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya, and Dona the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkattha and Setabya. Dona the brahman saw, in the Blessed One's footprints, wheels with 1,000 spokes, together with rims and hubs, complete in all their features. On seeing them, the thought occurred to him, "How amazing! How astounding! These are not the footprints of a human being!"

Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga.[1] On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2]

"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"

"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.

"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened.'


"The fermentations by which I would go
to a deva-state,
or become a gandhabba in the sky,
or go to a yakkha-state & human-state:
Those have been destroyed by me,
ruined, their stems removed.
Like a blue lotus, rising up,
unsmeared by water,
unsmeared am I by the world,
and so, brahman,
I'm awake."
chownah
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by form »

If you want to make good progress in Buddhism, it is far better to treat him as a human rather than some mystical beings.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by asahi »

Wasnt 《Buddha》mystical enough ? Isnt He most unique ? The One and Only !
No bashing No gossiping
form
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by form »

asahi wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:16 pm Wasnt 《Buddha》mystical enough ? Isnt He most unique ? The One and Only !
Yesterday I reread the best selling Buddhism book of all time. "What the Buddha taught" by Dr W. Rahula. I think the reason why this book is so well received and beneficial is because he presented the Buddha as an outstanding human being. Probably one just need to put 4NT into actual practice, that will be all is needed to progress till the end.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Bundokji »

The Buddha is said to have transcended all states of existence, so he would always answer in the negative when he is faced with such questions. Anatta in this context serves as a reflexive tool to reveal what vantage point are we using to determine what the Buddha is/was. For humanists, the Buddha was a human who attained his highest potential.

As such, what the Buddha is/was is a misleading question serves to further the game of existence and non-existence.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Doṇa Sutta wrote:“Devo no bhavaṃ bhavissatī”ti? “Na kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, devo bhavissāmī”ti. “Gandhabbo no bhavaṃ bhavissatī”ti? “Na kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, gandhabbo bhavissāmī”ti. “Yakkho no bhavaṃ bhavissatī”ti? “Na kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, yakkho bhavissāmī”ti. “Manusso no bhavaṃ bhavissatī”ti? “Na kho ahaṃ, brāhmaṇa, manusso bhavissāmī”ti.
It is clear from the use of the future tense that the question and answer are about the future. The defilements due to which the Buddha could become a deva or any other kind of being in the future have been cut off.

The Bodhisatta was born as a human being, lived as a human being, then became a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha at the age of 35. Clearly, he did not then cease to be human, but he had eradicated all of the defects of a typical human being.

It is important to realise that he had powers and special qualities that are unique to a Buddha, even beyond the special qualities of an Arahant. For example, an Arahant can be murdered, but a Buddha cannot. Other monks and nuns with the mystic powers could recollect their previous lives, but not without limits. For a Buddha, there is no limit to their powers of recollection. Only a Buddha can perform the Twin Miracle (Yamaka Pāṭihāriya).
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Bundokji »

According to Ven. Thanissaro's translation the future tense is not used:
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
In Ven Bodhi's and Sujato's translations. they use the future tense. At least, these are the three translations i checked.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Sam Vara »

There could be some mild word-play in this exchange. The future tense in Pali can express surprise, wonder, and perplexity, as in 'What is this?!" This seems to be the sense in which the question is asked. A bit like the English (and Irish!) construction "Might you be Mr.Smith?" or "Will you be needing a drink, now?!"

The Buddha, replying in the same tense, makes a point about his lack of future becoming.

"Will you be a God, now?!"

"No, not any more I won't!"
circuit
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:00 am

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by circuit »

the Bodhisatta or "Buddha-to-be" or prince Gotama was a human.

after Supreme Enlightenment, the Buddha arouse in the world. Buddha already gone through human limits, Buddha already abandoned all fetters, all human negative qualities. Buddha is Above-human, the Super Samādhi Wisdom.

There is only One Buddha, and others are only His manifestations. The Buddha can make thousands of His manifestations, called "from one become a thousand, but those thousand are not another entity".
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 2299
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by mjaviem »

Sam Vara wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:04 pm There could be some mild word-play in this exchange. The future tense in Pali can express surprise, wonder, and perplexity, as in 'What is this?!" This seems to be the sense in which the question is asked. A bit like the English (and Irish!) construction "Might you be Mr.Smith?" or "Will you be needing a drink, now?!"

The Buddha, replying in the same tense, makes a point about his lack of future becoming.

"Will you be a God, now?!"

"No, not any more I won't!"
:goodpost:
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by DooDoot »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:59 pm Notice he says he will not be, not that he isn’t.
Similar to SN 44.10, you seem to be confusing the terminology of the befuddled questioner with the terminology of the Buddha. The meaning of "human being" ("manussa") to Dona was probably completely different to how the Buddha defined a "human being" ("manussa"). :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Gwi
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 3:33 am
Location: Indonesia

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Gwi »

Buddhå = Perfect Human (a human)

2 perfect humans:
(1) Sammāsambuddhå (with omniscience)
Achievement time: min. 4 Asangkheyyā + 100.000 kappā
Max. 16 Asangkheyyā + 100.000 kappā
(2) Pacceka-buddhå (without omniscience)
Achievement time: min/max. 2 Asangkheyyā + 100.000 kappā

The Buddha cannot make the slightest mistake!
That's why it's called: Buddhå 'Perfect Human'.
Bahagia Tidak Harus Selalu Bersama

Dhammapadå 370
"Tinggalkanlah 5 (belantara) dan patahkan 5 (belenggu rendah),
Serta kembangkan 5 potensi (4 iddhipādā + 1 ussoḷhi).
Bhikkhu yang telah menaklukkan 5 kungkungan (belenggu tinggi),
Lebih layak disebut 'orang yang telah mengarungi air baih (saṃsārå)'."
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

This is also relevant here in this thread:

Copied (with some white spaces & emojis edited out) from viewtopic.php?p=645842#p645842





==========
==========
un8- wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:13 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:25 pm
cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:41 am "Master, are you a deva?"
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

Dona Sutta

That translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is either wrong/biased (maybe intentionally to suit his eternalistic paradigm), or the pali source he used is corrupt:

Here are the proper ones, in correct tense:
  • “Sir, might you be a god?”
    “I will not be a god, brahmin.”
    “Might you be a fairy?”
    “I will not be a fairy.”
    “Might you be a native spirit?”
    “I will not be a native spirit.”
    “Might you be a human?”
    I will not be a human.”
    Bhikkhu Sujato

    (1) “Could you be a deva, sir?”
    “I will not be a deva, brahmin.”
    (2) “Could you be a gandhabba, sir?”
    “I will not be a gandhabba, brahmin.”
    (3) “Could you be a yakkha, sir?”
    “I will not be a yakkha, brahmin.”
    (4) “Could you be a human being, sir?”
    I will not be a human being, brahmin.”
    Bhikkhu Bodhi
It's not a translation issue, it's grammatical style like saying "might you be", even Bhikkhu Bodhi notes that it's referring to now and not the future.


It surely is the translation issue. That very Bhikkhu Bodhi's note (kindly see below) is the proof of that. Thanissaro Bhikkhu might have brought in the Chinese Mahayana eternalistic ideation, if he didn't invented it himself.

Let me quote the whole note of Bhikkhu Bodhi where he (BB) himself clearly stated that Buddha answered in future tense, even though the asker implies the question in the present time. Please kindly note BB even wrote "literally" ... ((But the Buddha uses the future form literally and thus in each case answers, “I will not be”))

Then, BB continued explaining that "present tense" used by the Buddha Himself was found in Chinese parallel.

Yes. "Buddha is not a human being" is just a Mahayana and/or eternalistic ideation.

Here it is:
  • Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:“Mp interprets the conversation on both sides as referring to the future: the brahmin asks about the Buddha’s future rebirth and the latter replies with respect to his future rebirth. As I read the exchange, however, a subtle word play is involved. The brahmin uses the future bhavissati as a polite way of inquiring about the present, which I render “could you be?” (Bhavissanti is used above in just this way, negatively, in the sentence, na vat’imāni manussabhūtassa padāni bhavissanti, “These could not be….”) But the Buddha uses the future form literally and thus in each case answers, “I will not be” (na bhavissāmi), referring to his destiny in a future life. Two Chinese parallels, SĀ 101 (at T II 28a19–28b17) and EĀ 38.3 (at T II 717c18–718a12), render this entire conversation as pertaining to the present. The brahmin asks the Buddha whether he is () a deva, a nāga, etc., a human being, or a nonhuman being, and the Buddha simply denies () that he is any of these. There is no reference to the future.”
    Excerpt From
    The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha
    Bodhi
===========
===========





Bottomline:
  • Buddha was a Human.
:heart:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
Post Reply