Wasnt Buddha a human ?

[asahi]

Gotama was a human .
Tathagata was beyond .

[cappuccino]

When his mind is rightly-gone, rightly developed, has rightly risen above, gained release, and become disjoined from self-identity, then whatever fermentations, torments, & fevers there are that arise in dependence on self-identity, he is released from them.

This is expounded as the escape from self-identity.

Nissaraniya Sutta

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

• Tathāgata is defined as someone who "knows and sees reality as-it-is" (yathā bhūta ñāna dassana). Gata "gone" is the past passive participle of the verbal root gam "go, travel". Āgata "come" is the past passive participle of the verb meaning "come, arrive". In this interpretation, Tathāgata means literally either “the one who has gone to suchness” or "the one who has arrived at suchness".

  wikipedia

[cappuccino]

someone is gone

[arkaprava]

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_36.html

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was traveling along the road between Ukkaṭṭha and Setabya, and Doṇa the brahman was also traveling along the road between Ukkaṭṭha and Setabya. Doṇa 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!”

Notes.

2. Doṇa phrases his question in the future tense, which has led to a great deal of discussion as to what this entire dialogue means: Is he asking what the Buddha will be in a future life, or is he asking what he is right now? The context of the discussion seems to demand the second alternative—Doṇa wants to know what kind of being would have such amazing footprints, and the Buddha’s image of the lotus describes his present state—but the grammar of Doṇa’s questions would seem to demand the first. However, A. K. Warder, in his Introduction to Pali (p. 55), notes that the future tense is often used to express perplexity, surprise, or wonder about something in the present: “What might this be?” “What on earth is this?” This seems to be the sense of Doṇa’s questions here. His earlier statement—“These are not the footprints of a human being”—is also phrased in the future tense, and the mood of wonder extends throughout his conversation with the Buddha.

It’s also possible that the Buddha’s answers to Doṇa’s questions—which, like the questions, are put in the future tense—are a form of word-play, in which the Buddha is using the future tense in both its meanings, to refer both to his present and to his future state.

The Buddha’s refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22:36, SN 22:85–86, SN 23:2

People should go through the notes, before accusing someone by projecting their perceptions of a person.

[bpallister]

Didn't the historical Buddha speak of other Buddhas, such as Amitabha?

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN4_36.html

Notes.

...
It’s also possible that the Buddha’s answers to Doṇa’s questions—which, like the questions, are put in the future tense—are a form of word-play, in which the Buddha is using the future tense in both its meanings, to refer both to his present and to his future state.
...

People should go through the notes, before accusing someone by projecting their perceptions of a person.

That note is just an attempt by Thanissaro Bhikkhu to make room for his eternalistic views.

The issue is not about Dona's questions in future tense (with present implications).

The issue is about Buddha's answers in literal future tense (please kindly see below), which, unfortunately, is forcefully made into literal present tense by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.


Regarding Buddha's answer:

• Both present & future = wrong (Thanissaro Bhikkhu's note)

• Future (literally) = the correct way (please see notes by Bhikkhu Bodhi)

Yes, Dona's question refers to current situation.
However, Buddha's answer refers to future.
(please kindly see Bhikku Bodhi's note again, plus Bhikkhu Sujato translation, and Bhikkhu Pesala post here in this thread.)


On one hand, the note by Thanissaro Bhikkhu shows that it seems he artfully incorporated the idea of "the present tense" alongside the obvious future tense; and then, on the other hand, in actual translation, he forcefully cleaved out the literal and obvious future tense, leaving only the present tense, regarding Buddha's answer, to make it suitable for his eternslistic paradigm.

[arkaprava]

Bhavissati and its uses :
Here bhavissati expresses both the future tense as well as perplexity, surprise, wonder, hope, anticipation, and expectation, often eliciting some kind of deduction. We have this example from the Anātha,-piṇḍik’ovāda Sutta (M 143):

“Surely, bhante, that devaputra must be Anātha,piṇḍika himself! Bhante, Anātha,piṇḍika the
houselord had great faith in the venerable Sāriputta.”
So hi nūna so bhante anāthapiṇḍiko deva,putto bhavissati, anāthapiṇḍiko bhante gaha,pati
āyasmante sāriputte abhippasanno ahosî ti.

The Daru-k,khandha Sutta (S 35.241) has this future-tense phrase expressing hope and anticipation:
“if you are [be] not rotten internally” or “if you are not to rot inwardly” (na anto,pūti bhavissati).
Another well known example of this sentence structure is found in the Samudda Vāṇijja Jātaka (J466), where a group of fugitives (erstwhile carpenters from Benares), scouting the island they have landed on, meet with a strange inhabitant, thus:
Sounds like a human voice we hear. Let us find out what it is [We will know it]. Following
the voice, they saw the man, “Must be a yaksha!” they thought, shaking with fear, and they readied an arrow.
Manussa,saddo viya suyyati, jānissāma nan ti saddânusārena gantvā taṁ purisaṁ disvā
“yakkho bhavissatîti bhīta,tasitā sare sannahiṁsu.

In the Poṭṭhapāda Sutta (D 9), the Buddha points out to the wanderer Poṭṭhapāda the falsity of such
a view as that “consciousness must be one thing, the self another” (aññāva saññā bhavissati añño attā).57
The Vinaya provides us with at least four examples, namely:
“Now this must be no mean [ordinary] thing, that these people are carefully making repairs”
(Na kho idaṁ orakaṁ bhavissati, yatha-y-ime manussā sakkaccaṁ bhattaṁ karonti) (Cv 6.5.1 =
V 2:159).
“Now this must be no mean thing, that the houselord is bestowing so much gold coins!” (Na
kho idaṁ orakaṁ bhavissati, yathâyaṁ gahapati tāva bahuṁ hiraññaṁ pariccajatîti) (Cv 6.5.1
= V 2:159).
“Now this must be no mean thing, that the Blessed One has it announced in Rājagaha with
regards to Deva,datta.” (Na kho idaṁ orakaṁ bhavissati, yathā bhagavā deva,dattaṁ rāja,gahe
pakāsāpetîti) (Cv 7.3.3 = V 2:190).
“Now this must be no mean thing, that these people are carefully preparing a meal. What now
if I too were to prepare a meal.” (Na kho idaṁ orakaṁ bhavissati, yatha-y-ime manussā sakkaccaṁ bhattaṁ karonti; yan nūnâham pi bhattaṁ kareyyan’ti) (Pāc 33 = V 4:75)


Here, the future tense is used to expresses perplexity, surprise and wonder in the sense of what must
be or must not be, of what can be or cannot be, eg kim ev’idaṁ bhavissati, “What can this be?” or na vata
imāni manussa,bhūtassa padāni bhavissanti, “These cannot be the footprints of a human being!” [§1].
Another such example is found in this Dhammapada verse:
Na muṇḍakena samaṇo Not by a bald head is one a recluse,
abbato alikaṁ bhaṇaṁ not keeping to vows, speaking falsehood,
icchā,lobha,samāpanno filled with desire and greed,
samaṇo kiṁ bhavissati how can one be a recluse?


In the Pada Doṇa Sutta, the Buddha, by his answer, is declaring to Doṇa that since he (the Buddha)
has overcome all those conditions that would bring one back as a deva, a gandharva, a yaksha, or a human
—meaning that he would not be reborn—there is no class of beings, persons or species to which he belongs: he is Buddha, sui generis.61 Section 2c below poses an interesting problem because there bhavissati
and bhavissāmi can be rightly taken both as the future tense and as expressing perplexity. However, from
the Buddha’s answer in the future tense, too. Here, I think, we need to understand his answer as encompassing both the present (he is sui generis) and the future (the Buddha is not reborn). This clearly makes
good sense of the Sutta.

Translation :
At one time the Blessed One was going along a high-road between Ukkaṭṭhā and Setavyā.

The brahmin Doṇa, too, was going along the high-road between Ukkaṭṭhā and Setavyā. Now the brahmin Doṇa saw the Blessed One’s footprints, with the thousand-spoked wheels, all rimmed and hubbed,
perfect in every way. When he saw them, it occurred to him:
“Wonderful indeed, sir! Marvellous indeed, sir! These surely would not be the footprints made by a
human!”

Manusso no bhavaṁ bhavissatîti. Na kho ahaṁ, brāhmaṇa, manusso bhavissāmîti

The Buddha cannot be categorized
“You, master, must be a deva, aren’t you?” [“Will our master become a a deva?”]
“No, brahmin, I’m not a deva.” [“No, brahmin, I won’t become a deva.”]
“You, master, must be a gandharva, aren’t you?” [“Will our master become a a gandharva?”]
“No, brahmin, I’m not a gandharva.” [ “No, brahmin, I won’t become a gandharva.”]
“You, master, must be a yaksha, aren’t you?” [ “Will our master become a a yaksha?”]
“No, brahmin, I’m not a yaksha.” [ “No, brahmin, I won’t become a yaksha.”]
“You, master, must be a human, aren’t you?” [ “Will our master become a a human?”]
“No, brahmin, I’m not a human.” [ “No, brahmin, I won’t become a human.]
2.3 “When asked, ‘You, master, must be a deva, aren’t you?’—
you say, ‘No, brahmin, I’m not a deva.’
When asked, ‘You, master, must be a gandharva,aren’t you?’—
you say, ‘No, brahmin, I’m not a gandharva.’
When asked, ‘You, master, must be a yaksha, aren’t you?’—
you say, ‘No, brahmin, I’m not a yaksha.’
When asked, ‘You, master, must be a human, aren’t you?’—
you say, ‘No, brahmin, I’m not a human.’

3.1 Brahmin, those influxes by which, when not abandoned, one wouad become a deva,
those influxes have been abandoned by me,
cut them off at the root, made them like a palm-tree stump, done away with them,
so that they are not subject to further growth.
Brahmin, those influxes by which, when not abandoned, one would become a gandharva [divine minstrel or intermediate being],
those influxes have been abandoned by me,
cut them off at the root, made them like a palm-tree stump, done away with them.- Piya Tan

Either put forward your grammatical arguments, or turn to Page 55 of Introduction to Pali by A.K Warder which is based on the Saddanīti. Or stop projecting your own perceptions on other people.

[arkaprava]

Even Bhikkhu Bodhi gives preference to context in place of actual meaning, an example would be :

tattha mayaṃ appasaddā appākiṇṇā phāsuṃ vihareyyāmā”ti.

which he translates as :

There we can dwell at ease, without noise and without any crowds.

But appa means small,less,etc.

He clarified to me this personally.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

an6.43

• A human being who is fully enlightened

  ~ Bhikkhu Bodhi

• Awakened as a human being

  ~ Bhikkhu Sujato

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

• the Supreme Human Being

  Sutta Nipāta 5.1

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

• Awakened as a human being

  Theragāthā
  Udāyittheragāthā—Bhikkhu Sujato

[sphairos]

Didn't the historical Buddha speak of other Buddhas, such as Amitabha?

yes, he said the Amitabha will come in 2021 as a Camgirl

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

• Who is a recluse, a human being, in his last body, a man,
  The peerless, the dustless, of this Lord the disciple am I.

  mn56 Upālisutta—I.B. Horner

[Ceisiwr]

Does it make any difference?