Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Buddha was not even a human being
seeker242
ZenFlorida, USA Veteran
in Philosophy
Found this interesting! 
Given that, one can conclude that Siddhartha Gautama was a human being, but Shakyamuni Buddha was not. Yes?
"Any form...feeling...perception...impulses...consciousness... by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of... form...feeling...perception...impulses...consciousness... , great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean."And the commentary.
'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply."
The Commentary and Sub-commentary are not satisfied to let this passage stand, and try to describe the Tathagata's indescribability. To paraphrase: He is freed from the classification of form, etc., because for him there will be no arising of form, etc., in the future (i.e., after death). He is deep in the depth of his character and the depth of his qualities. As for any description in terms of 'a being' that might be used in relation to the Tathagata with such deep qualities, when one sees the non-existence of the description 'being,' owing to the (future) non-existence of the aggregates, one sees that the four statements with regard to the Tathagata after death are invalid.
This explanation, which borrows from Sister Vajira's verse in SN 5.10, misses an important point raised in SN 22.36 and SN 23.2. In SN 22.36 the Buddha states that one is measured and classified by what one is obsessed with. If one is not obsessed with anything, then one is not measured or classified by it in the here and now. In SN 23.2 the Buddha points out that the term "being" applies only where there is craving and passion. The Tathagata, freed from craving and passion, is thus indescribable in the present, even though he obviously still functions in the present. SN 22.86 elaborates on this point in great detail.
Given that, one can conclude that Siddhartha Gautama was a human being, but Shakyamuni Buddha was not. Yes?
5
Comments
The master said, "Not [Mu]!"
Oh Buddha! Give us a sign. Is there any bodhi there . . .
:rolleyes:
It is seven in the morning here and I’m having coffee.
I cannot describe the indescribability of that either.
He came, woke up. Went.
All without coffee
'The Tathagata exists after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata doesn't exist after death doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata both exists and doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply. 'The Tathagata neither exists nor doesn't exist after death' doesn't apply."
This is a classic fourfold refutation of wrong views. Our intellects cannot think of a fifth alternative but the refutation points to where it lies, beyond the reach of the intellect and language.
I'm reminded of that old Buddhist joke about how many Buddhists it would take to change a lightbulb. One to change it, one to not change it, one to both change it and not change it, one to neither change it or not change it, and one more.
into ourselves?
Answer to the usual fantasists
same like Lama Tsongkhapa - apparently he was already enlightened but he manifested as a human being..
so are there any beings who DID become enlightened??
Then there is every shade in between.
What we know for sure is that someone formulated the teachings known as Buddhism.
And that many people find that putting them into practice has clear and positive results.
The Buddha said " know me as one who is awake"
The point is that any concepts, attachments of " I am this" or " I am that" do not exist.... Of course his form remains human, that doesn't change, but he has gone beyond that and into wisdom
I remember reading something where people who meet great masters assume it's just an incarnation of a great being, but the Buddha admonished this sort of thinking, all beings have Buddha Nature, and as humans we all have the potential to become enlightened, in this very life.
Proper causes and conditions lead to proper results. The potential is there!
Right now I am being human but I won't always be.
So I am not a human being, I am simply being human at the moment.
Nouns are some of the most misleading of labels.
Buddha the awakened one was human
(Unless of course he was made up for our inspiration, therefore he is just an inspirational mystic figure)
However, we will never ever know either way!
Interesting tho x
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html
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."
and here is a part of the notes on the bottom -
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 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water.
The awake Buddha died. What was awake, in a sense, is neither born nor dies. Maybe more of us born and grown in the world need to overcome worldly and unworldly snoozing . . . Just a possibility . . .
I would urge anyone curious about this to read the post @Jayantha offered, especially the bolded part at the bottom. "A verb for nirvana".
We are action and so to label an individual as a noun is quite misleading.
@Simonthepilgrim...
HELLO SIMON!!! :wave: :clap: :rockon:
I find it interesting (and somewhat depressing) that wonderful human beings like Gotama the Awakened One and Jesus the Anointed, very shortly after their deaths, are 'divinised' by their followers as if the example of their lives and wisdom of their words are not enough. Reminds me of the way the Romans treated their emperors or how the Greeks finished off their myths.
Why, I wonder, do we need to do this? Perhaps it is because, despite all the pious words about human life being 'precious', people do not really like themselves so the idea that Gotama could die of food poisoning or Jesus tortured to death on a cross somehow reduces their message. For me, the opposite obtains: the fact they were human, just like you and me, is a real statement of hope and optimism. The liberation that they proclaimed is there for each one of us, the hidden 'Easter egg' that comes with our birth.
Yes . . . I think you are right, time to grow up . . . :bawl: