Is Tathagata a concept ?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

un8- wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 8:41 am Tathagatha means "thus gone/come". It's a name to describe a phenomena.

Please kindly note "the one who has". It's not just "thus gone/come". It's "the one who has thus gone/come".
  • The term is often thought to mean either "one who has thus gone" (tathā-gata), "one who has thus come" (tathā-āgata), or sometimes "one who has thus not gone" (tathā-agata). This is interpreted as signifying that the Tathāgata is beyond all coming and going – beyond all transitory phenomena.
    wikipedia: tathagata
It obviously represents an individual, a person, a being, and hence a concept.



Furthermore, the above quote clearly and mahayanically implies ...
  • Tathāgata is beyond all coming and going – beyond all transitory phenomena.
... while trying to mistakenly depict Tathagata as a non-transitory phenomena, trying to mistakenly equate Tathāgata with nibbana-dhatu (the point which becomes more clear in the subsequent paragraphs in the wikipedia).


Tathāgata is
  • a person
    an individual
    a concept
    not a "phenomena"
Nibbana-dhatu:
  • not a concept
    the one and only phenomena that is unconditioned

: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
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:26 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
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:41 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:26 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

:woohoo:

: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
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:25 pm to suit his eternalistic paradigm
he is not eternalist
un8-
Posts: 747
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 6:49 am

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by un8- »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 12:25 pm
cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:41 am
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 11:26 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

:woohoo:

:heart:
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.
There is only one battle that could be won, and that is the battle against the 3 poisons. Any other battle is a guaranteed loss because you're going to die either way.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

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

:woohoo:

:heart:
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



: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
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:48 pm It surely is the translation issue.
you must depend on your understanding overall


in order to know if something was lost in translation
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:11 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 3:48 pm It surely is the translation issue.
you must depend on your understanding overall


in order to know if something was lost in translation
:shrug:


My understanding is that Taghagata is a concept & Buddha is a human being. And, I know something is surely lost & off in TB's translation you quoted. The quotes I presented since then are the evidences.

:mrgreen:
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
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:14 pm Buddha is a human being.
Tathāgata is often thought to mean "one who has thus gone"
From Wikipedia


hence the human being is gone

:shrug:
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:34 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:14 pm Buddha is a human being.
Tathāgata is often thought to mean "one who has thus gone"
From Wikipedia


hence the human being is gone

:shrug:


The human being (who .......) has (thus) gone

:thumbsup:
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
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:46 pm The human being who has thus gone
right… who was there is gone

:coffee:
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:50 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 4:46 pm The human being who has thus gone
right… who was there is gone

:coffee:

Not exactly.

I wrote:
  • The human being (who .......) has (thus) gone


The blank following "who" is to be filled by the qualities of the Buddha as described in the wikipedia's Tathagata. And, these qualities are also related to "thus".
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
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:24 pm Not exactly
no self is just as much a self doctrine as self


which is not selfless
Last edited by cappuccino on Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by cappuccino »

lack of identity is from lack of craving


which is not no self, rather just absence
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Is Tathagata a concept ?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:25 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Sep 20, 2021 5:24 pm Not exactly
no self is just as much a self doctrine as self


which is not selfless


however knowing this is better than not knowing this

The topic is about Tathagata. :shrug:
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