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