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.”
Wasnt Buddha a human ?
Wasnt Buddha a human ?
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
Notice he says he will not be, not that he isn’t.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.”
“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.”
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.”
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
chownahOn 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."
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
If you want to make good progress in Buddhism, it is far better to treat him as a human rather than some mystical beings.
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
Wasnt 《Buddha》mystical enough ? Isnt He most unique ? The One and Only !
No bashing No gossiping
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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.
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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.
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.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
- Bhikkhu Pesala
- Posts: 4647
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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.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.
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).
Blog • Pāli Fonts • In This Very Life • Buddhist Chronicles • Software (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
According to Ven. Thanissaro's translation the future tense is not used:
In Ven Bodhi's and Sujato's translations. they use the future tense. At least, these are the three translations i checked."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."
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.
This was the last word of the Tathagata.
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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!"
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!"
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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".
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".
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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!"
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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").
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
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
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'.
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)'."
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)'."
- Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
- Posts: 2179
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm
Re: Wasnt Buddha a human ?
This is also relevant here in this thread:
Copied (with some white spaces & emojis edited out) from viewtopic.php?p=645842#p645842
==========
==========
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:
===========
Bottomline:
Copied (with some white spaces & emojis edited out) from viewtopic.php?p=645842#p645842
==========
==========
un8- wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 2:13 pmIt'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.Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:25 pmcappuccino 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:
Bhikkhu Sujato“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 Bodhi(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.”
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:
Excerpt FromBhikkhu 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.”
The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha
Bodhi
===========
Bottomline:
- Buddha was a Human.
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
- 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