Was the Buddha really just a human being?

rivercane

This is something I've been thinking about lately and I was wondering if anyone could help shed some light on this. It seems that in nearly every tradition the Buddha is considered to be a normal human being who achieved enlightenment in one lifetime. Yet we hear tales such as his mother having the dream of a white elephant handing her a lotus flower and then entering her side. I believe the Buddha also came out through her side when he was born and I read that he never cried at birth and supposedly took seven steps then said, "I have arrived.", or something to that effect. I have also read that he displayed other miracle powers during his youth.

I know that some of these could be myths that arose long after his death, or symbolism used to convey a spiritual lesson, but it just seems that there were a lot of signs to indicate that he was more than just a normal human being. There is the prophecy that he would either be a great ruler or a great saint, which is why his father went to such elaborate lengths to stop him from entering the religious life and to prepare instead to be the next ruler of his father's kingdom.

It reminds me of the birth of Christ. The story seems to be very similiar actually, with the predictions made by astrologers and prophecy of a coming savior. I don't quite get the insistence that Buddha was solely a human being, since the Buddha acknowledged that there were gods, demi gods, demons, spirits, etc. It seems to make sense that he would also be a kind of supernatural being, for lack of a better term.

Is it to emphasize that, like Jesus, he had to overcome human temptations and human limitations just like all of us, even though he was born with special powers? That maybe being born with this special ability did not make it any easier for him to achieve enlightenment, even though he was more or less born the Buddha? What is your take on this?

Jeffrey

In mahayana there is the trikaya. I think it might be imponderable to know whether he is a human or not. Despite that I would say he was a human totally in harmony with the dharmakaya and able to manifest however needed such as nirmanakaya, a being, or sambhogakaya to shower tranquility or what not on the followers who have the power to see sambhogakaya (which that limits to bodhisattvas).

zenmyste

WHO KNOWS!?! And to be honest it doesnt really matter!

Stories are made up every day to inspire us..
I personally think buddha may not have even existed, and whether he did or didnt, i dont really care. He was suppose to have lived over 2500 years ago, (thats along time) so im not gonna worry about it too much!
Its more the teachings (where ever they came from) that matter!

I have the same view about jesus!

I dont agree for a minute that jesus could perform miracles and was the son of God! (i dont even believe there is a god) Just all stories to inspire.

person

I'm not so certain that most sects view Shakyamuni as a mere human. This may be more of a tip to western Buddhists. Certainly they say he began as an ordinary human but through his many lives he accumulated vast amounts of merit and wisdom until he finally attained enlightenment as Shakyamuni.

It is a widespread teaching that he was born with 32 major and minor marks due to his karma in a previous life.

You may find the wiki page on Buddhahood "enlightening"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhahood#Buddha_as_a_supreme_human

Shakyamuni was said to live in the Tushita heaven as a bodhisattva before choosing to be reborn to attain his Buddhahood. Maitreya is now said to live there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tushita

I'm not trying to claim that this is all absolutely true, just that these are things that are taught.

federica

What did he say?
Did he leave you something important to think about?
I think he did.

Think on that first.
Then maybe, the remaining questions will be relevant.

Or not.

how

The Buddha's value is found in your practise. Is their really anything more special than this?

Dakini

I think the Buddha started out as a human being. But over the generations and centuries, a mythology developed around him, so that he became larger-than-life and became deified. Same thing happened to Jesus, too, undoubtedly. The Buddha was not a "Buddhist", and the Christ was not a Christian, he was a Jew. Both were teachers.

riverflow

"And all the good you've done
Will soon get swept away.
You've begun to matter more
Than the things you say."



Who the Buddha was matters little without walking the path, just as Eckhart said it doesn't matter if Jesus was born in Bethlehem long ago or not without being born in your heart.

genkaku

It is said that "A complete human being is a Buddha. A complete Buddha is a human being."

Within that framework it doesn't seem to matter much if someone can ride a broomstick or turn water into wine. What seems to matter is the issue of completeness.

rivercane

Thank you @person, that was really helpful. I had a feeling it had something to do with accumulating merit over many lifetimes.

I understand that I may be over-thinking things and that the teachings are not an intellectual exercise but I can't help but feel that the nature of the Buddha is an important question as well as whether or not he existed, especially if I am going to have a firm foundation to my faith.

upekka

Buddha says 'he who sees Dhamma (Buddha's Teaching) sees me)

karmablues

I've always been taught that although over the countless lifetimes the Buddha was reborn in both the higher realms and lower realms but that for every Buddha the final lifetime where he attains englightenment and enters Nirvana, in such final lifetime he will always be born as a human being because it is the most ideal life form to take for attainment of enlightenment.

This point normally comes up in the context of being taught that as we are so lucky to be reborn as human beings, we should put our utmost effort into our practice. A human being is regarded as the most ideal life form to take for attaining enlightenment because beings in higher realms experience a lot of bliss and they also have very long lives meaning they don't see aging, sickness and death much either. So they can easily become complacent and don't practice much. On the other hand, those born in the lower realms, there is too much suffering which is not conducive for the kind of mental training that the practice entails. However, as human beings, the conditions are conducive as there is enough suffering for us to easily relate to the Buddha's teachings, and at the same time the suffering is also not too severe as to impede the practice.

rivercane said:

I understand that I may be over-thinking things and that the teachings are not an intellectual exercise but I can't help but feel that the nature of the Buddha is an important question as well as whether or not he existed, especially if I am going to have a firm foundation to my faith.

In Thailand, the teachers often encourage their students to practice meditation on recollection of the Buddha as a means to increase faith and enter states of higher concentration. Of course, this meditation would not be suitable for those who question Buddha's existence, but otherwise it can be very beneficial for the practice. According to the Mahanama Sutta, recollection of the Buddha is to be practiced as follows:

There is the case where you recollect the Tathagata [as follows]: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'

At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting the Tathagata, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on [his recollection of] the Tathagata. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.

Mahanama, you should develop this recollection of the Buddha while you are walking, while you are standing, while you are sitting, while you are lying down, while you are busy at work, while you are resting in your home crowded with children.

Nevermind

Well, if Buddha was a God then the path will only work for Gods. Hey wait a minute, come to think of it, no one has ceased to suffer...

lobster

Was the Buddha really just a human being?

Yes.
Just like you. Born. Suffered. Woke up. Died.

riverflow

"Was the Buddha really just a human being?"

Just?

As if being fully human (or fully alive in any other manifestation) were something not remarkable, not miraculous?

karasti

I hope he was just a human. I'd have a very hard time being a God (or Goddess as the case may be). I do a really bad job at it in From Dust (video game). Plus, I don't like to be the center of attention, ever!

I think Buddha was a human. I think Jesus was a human. I think all the stories about them and their miraculous births, were just that...stories.

Jason

From the Theravadin point of view, tradition tells us that the Buddha, who was born into the khattiya (warrior) caste somewhere in northern India near present-day Nepal, was one of the great wandering ascetics (samana) who taught in the later Vedic Period (approximately 400 BCE), and whose teachings were considered heterodox because they rejected the authority of the Vedas, the self (atman) of the early Upanishads, and the four main social classes (varna) dividing Indian society.

The most prominent 'orthodox' tradition in northern India at that time was Brahmanism, which, of course, relied heavily on the Vedas for their religious authority, and included some of the early Upanishads as well. It's clear from the Suttas that the Buddha was extremely familiar with them as references to Vedic and Upanishadic passages abound, although it's unclear as to precisely how he acquired this knowledge. Being from a prominent family, it's possible that he studied them with religious scholars, or it could be that he learned of them while wandering and debating with other contemporary religious teachers.

The story goes that the Buddha, whose given name was Siddhattha Gotama, lived a life of relative luxury, as his father, King Suddhodana, was either a king or prominent leader in charge of a large tribal confederacy. Whatever the case, the idea is that they were from a wealthy and respected family, and as the first born son, the Buddha was expected to be his father's heir and succeed him as the head of the Sakya clan.

Accounts differ as to certain details, but the general consensus is that the Buddha's mother, Queen Maya, died just after childbirth, and the Buddha was raised by his mother's younger sister, Pajapati, who married his father after her sister's death. His father, fearing predictions by brahmin scholars that his son would either become a great leader or holy man, did everything he could to make sure that his son would follow in his footsteps, giving him anything he desired and keeping him sheltered from the outside world. At the age of about 16, his father arranged a marriage between him and Yasodhara, a cousin of the same age from another prominent family.

Together, they lived a royal lifestyle for a number of years, and eventually conceived a child. However, becoming increasingly restless and dissatisfied with worldly life, the Buddha began to contemplate the nature of human suffering and was overcome by an overwhelming desire to seek a way to conquer ageing, sickness, and death. At the age of 29, near or at the time of his son's birth, the Buddha decided to renounce the worldly life and set out in search of an end to suffering as a wandering mendicant, a goal he's said to have achieved 6 years later. (In most traditional accounts, the Buddha's spiritual restlessness is said to have been the result of seeing an old man, a sick man, and a corpse during a chariot ride through the country, while his decision to leave the worldly life behind was inspired by the sight of a wandering ascetic.)

His path to awakening began by studying with two ascetic teachers, where he practiced meditative techniques leading to the development of the third and fourth 'formless meditations' (arupa-jhanas), respectively, as well as other ascetic practices such as relying on alms. Unsatisfied with results under these teachers, however, who took their respective meditative states as the supreme goal, he set out with five other ascetics to practice even more extreme austerities in the hopes of subduing his passions and finding a permanent end to suffering, such as subsisting on a handful of food or less a day. His self-mortification is said to have been unrivalled among his companions, nearly starving himself in the process. But this, too, he found unsatisfactory.

He began taking food again, which caused his fellow ascetics to abandon him. Reassessing his path, he decided to take a moderate or 'middle' approach, avoiding the indulgences of his youth and the extreme asceticism he barely survived. He continued to explore meditation, and it was through a combination of developing the first four jhanas together with cultivating insight, directing the mind towards penetrating with discernment 'knowledge and vision of things as they are present' (yatha-bhuta-nana-dassana), that finally lead to the Buddha's awakening (MN 36, SN 12.23), which is synonymous with nibbana (unbinding)—the end of suffering; the extinction of craving (tahna) (AN 10.60); and the extinguishing of greed, hatred, and delusion (SN 38.1).

After his awakening experience, The Buddha set out into the world and began teaching whoever would listen, starting with his five former companions and including his family, until his death some 45 years later. Throughout this narrative, there are many miraculous tales surrounding the Buddha's life, some of which are admittedly hard to swallow.

However, while many see these fantastic events as something to either be 100% believed or rejected, I see them as being full of rich symbolism and meant more as teaching aids than events we're required to accept as literal occurrences, or else later additions and/or exaggerations attempting to essentially deify the Buddha, potentially in an effort to compete with rival schools, as well as teachers from other sects. It should also be noted that much of the Buddha's biographical information comes from much later sources, and many were probably co-opted from other places and myths, such as the biography of Mahavira.

pegembara

Gotama was a human being. When he woke up from the dream of existence, Gotama became the Buddha, the awakened one. The moment that occurred he stopped being a human being from his point of view. Gotama was his last birth. There was no more coming into being for the Buddha.

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

"No, brahman, I am not a human being."

Dona Sutta

The Buddha preached the Gospel of Immortality to
the world for forty long years. The mortal body, which was
depersonalized by the Bodhisatta, in the process of waking up
to Buddhahood, was visible to the public, as the body of the
Buddha, and the public identified the Buddha with it. Though
this body was not Buddha strictly, the Buddha appeared to the
world, through this body, and preached the Gospel. When this
mortal body died, however, no one could identify the Buddha
as before. The Buddha seemed to disappear from the world,
when this so called body of the Buddha died, even though the
Buddha was still visible to one who saw the Dhamma.

http://www.nisalaarana.lk/The Philosophy Of Vesak.pdf

John_Spencer

riverflow said:

"Was the Buddha really just a human being?"

Just?

As if being fully human (or fully alive in any other manifestation) were something not remarkable, not miraculous?

Excellent post @riverflow.

We are extraordinary beings... as you have just proved.

Florian

"Dost thou reckon thyself only a puny form
When within thee the universe is enfolded?"

Baha’u’llah quoting Imam Ali,
the first Shia Imam

Sabre

Some days I reflect on the Buddha as if he was very ordinary and other days I portray him as one of the most special people on earth. In a way the Buddha was normal because he was human, but in another way he was not so normal because he discovered the dharma without a living teacher. We could say it's somehow special, or we could say it's not; it's a matter of perspective in a way. But either way doesn't matter that much, because what's left now are the teachings we can still practice today. If we see the Buddha as a normal human being or somehow special doesn't change a lot in this for me.

vinlyn

Sabre said:

Some days I reflect on the Buddha as if he was very ordinary and other days I portray him as one of the most special people on earth. In a way the Buddha was normal because he was human, but in another way he was not so normal because he discovered the dharma without a living teacher. We could say it's somehow special, or we could say it's not; it's a matter of perspective in a way. But either way doesn't matter that much, because what's left now are the teachings we can still practice today. If we see the Buddha as a normal human being or somehow special doesn't change a lot in this for me.

Best post in the thread! (so far)

Sabre

Also a matter of perspective. But thanks.

Nevermind

John_Spencer said:

riverflow said:

"Was the Buddha really just a human being?"

Just?

As if being fully human (or fully alive in any other manifestation) were something not remarkable, not miraculous?

Excellent post @riverflow.

We are extraordinary beings... as you have just proved.

"Well, we're extraordinarily good at trashing our environment."
~ Debie Downer

Jeffrey

Am I a human? Am I a son? Am I a tax payer? Am I an athlete? Am I a scholar?

Yes, but these things cannot pigeonhole me. They are just labels pointing out a facet.

seeker242

Before he got enlightenment, yes! After he got enlightenment, no!

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/17118/the-buddha-was-not-even-a-human-being

nenkohai

My personal take on it all: humans, corporately, have no idea what they really are capable of. As a whole, we underestimate ourselves. According to the Bible, God created humans only a little less than himself. Above his angels, even.

Its a weird reverse hubris.

footiam

rivercane said:

This is something I've been thinking about lately and I was wondering if anyone could help shed some light on this. It seems that in nearly every tradition the Buddha is considered to be a normal human being who achieved enlightenment in one lifetime. Yet we hear tales such as his mother having the dream of a white elephant handing her a lotus flower and then entering her side. I believe the Buddha also came out through her side when he was born and I read that he never cried at birth and supposedly took seven steps then said, "I have arrived.", or something to that effect. I have also read that he displayed other miracle powers during his youth.

I know that some of these could be myths that arose long after his death, or symbolism used to convey a spiritual lesson, but it just seems that there were a lot of signs to indicate that he was more than just a normal human being. There is the prophecy that he would either be a great ruler or a great saint, which is why his father went to such elaborate lengths to stop him from entering the religious life and to prepare instead to be the next ruler of his father's kingdom.

It reminds me of the birth of Christ. The story seems to be very similiar actually, with the predictions made by astrologers and prophecy of a coming savior. I don't quite get the insistence that Buddha was solely a human being, since the Buddha acknowledged that there were gods, demi gods, demons, spirits, etc. It seems to make sense that he would also be a kind of supernatural being, for lack of a better term.

Is it to emphasize that, like Jesus, he had to overcome human temptations and human limitations just like all of us, even though he was born with special powers? That maybe being born with this special ability did not make it any easier for him to achieve enlightenment, even though he was more or less born the Buddha? What is your take on this?

People like and enjoy a good fairy tale.

genkaku

Will someone explain to me why I should credit assertions about "enlightenment" that are issued by those claiming to seek -- but not yet having attained -- that enlightenment? How can anyone credibly assert that someone else is "enlightened" (by whatever definition) without first being enlightened? And if the person making the assertion were "enlightened," would s/he say so?

Mind you, I am as happy as the next fellow to hear a good and sometimes even inspiring tale, but my sense of Buddhism is that it does not encourage anyone to live a life based on tales, however good they may sound.

Am I missing something here?

Theswingisyellow

If Buddha was a real person, one can't really say with absolute certainty that he actually existed, why would he be different than any other human being that you meet? You can't perform miracles, walk on water, see the future or turn coke into pepsi, so logic would follow neither can any other human being.
If he existed, he was a dude with a sharp insight and keen mind who IMO understood well the nature of our existence, which is no slight feat but not miraculous. He was a Steven Hawking of the human mind.

Florian

genkaku said:

Will someone explain to me why I should credit assertions about "enlightenment" that are issued by those claiming to seek -- but not yet having attained -- that enlightenment? How can anyone credibly assert that someone else is "enlightened" (by whatever definition) without first being enlightened? And if the person making the assertion were "enlightened," would s/he say so?

Mind you, I am as happy as the next fellow to hear a good and sometimes even inspiring tale, but my sense of Buddhism is that it does not encourage anyone to live a life based on tales, however good they may sound.

Am I missing something here?

I would suggest that you don't credit any assertions about enlightenment. It's just that after some study and practice it may become difficult to avoid doing so. It becomes particularly difficult to avoid doing so if you have the good fortune to be able to observe at length someone who is a lot further down the path than oneself. It shows, and it is more convincing than any assertions. Not that it is common, or even sensible, for people to assert their enlightenment. It's not often complete. Outside of the scriptures and the implicit claims of commentators, I've only known one case of an explicit assertion, and I took it with a large pinch of salt.

Citta

When I first read 'Siddhartha' by Herman Hesse I was made mildly indignant by the portrait that Hesse paints of the Buddha...A human teacher who has reached great depths of stillness of mind...But whose teaching is not a universal panacea.( In fact the eponymous hero of the novel having met the Buddha decides that it is not for him.)
With each passing year I am more convinced that Hesse got it pretty much right.

zenmyste

Citta said:

When I first read 'Siddhartha' by Herman Hesse I was made mildly indignant by the portrait that Hesse paints of the Buddha...A human teacher who has reached great depths of stillness of mind...But whose teaching is not a universal panacea.( In fact the eponymous hero of the novel having met the Buddha decides that it is not for him.)
With each passing year I am more convinced that Hesse got it pretty much right.

Awesome!!!!!!!

I completely agree! I absolutely love that book, have u seen the movie?? Not as good as the book but still worth a cheeky watch... :-)

Floating_Abu

In the Diamond Sutra, it says whoever seeks me in form or in sound walks the heterodox path, and cannot perceive the Tathagata.

As I understand, being and non-being both apply. But if I were to guess, I would say that humility and humanity are probably very strong aspects of a Buddha.

Best wishes,
Abu

lobster

The Buddha asked to be remembered as awake.
http://www.buddhagautama.com/apps/blog/show/6127940-dona-sutta-an-4-36-remember-me-as-awakened-

Now I appreciate that some believe 'awake' means something superhuman, even beyond craptonite but really . . . was the Buddha an awake human?
http://indrajalapatha.blogspot.in/2013/05/enter-through-faith-cross-through-wisdom.html
How wonderful.

rivercane

lobster said:

The Buddha asked to be remembered as awake.
http://www.buddhagautama.com/apps/blog/show/6127940-dona-sutta-an-4-36-remember-me-as-awakened-

Now I appreciate that some believe 'awake' means something superhuman, even beyond craptonite but really . . . was the Buddha an awake human?
http://indrajalapatha.blogspot.in/2013/05/enter-through-faith-cross-through-wisdom.html
How wonderful.

Yes, awake. But he obviously did not mean this in a literal sense, so it is open to to interpretation.

It still seems to me, and I could be wrong about this, that the Buddhist faith, as taught in most traditions, has historically asserted that the Buddha was more than solely a human being. That Buddhism is more than just a secular philosophy. Again, most traditions.

I didn't grow up Buddhist in a historically Buddhist country, so I don't know for sure, but I find myself wondering why Christianity, after being exported across the globe, didn't suffer from this apparent difference in interpretation in the East. I mean, I can totally see interpreting the whole "Kingdom of God is inside you" thing in a yogic sense or believing that Jesus was a Buddha or other enlightened being but people who convert to Christianity in Asian countries seem to have no problem believing that Jesus was literally the Son of God. Strange.

In the West, there seems to be a sort of cultural refusal to believe that the Buddha was more than anything but a human being. Maybe it's because we "need" to believe this to counter balance to the heavy claims of Christianity, in which we are raised. I think that it is a more enlightened faith, I mean even atheists can find a home in Buddhism, but as time goes on I find myself believing that is less of just a philosophy and having more faith in the Buddha as an enlightened being - "divine", if you will. I guess this is important to me for personal reasons but really, it's not a big deal to me what others believe. I only asked the question because I was curious to see how others felt and to discuss the topic. The responses I read here at NewBuddhist help me to deepen my understanding, and I often find myself considering new perspectives.

riverflow

rivercane said:

Yes, awake. But he obviously did not mean this in a literal sense, so it is open to to interpretation.

@rivercane - In Mahayana, specifically three interpretations, three "bodies," but not supernatural: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trikaya

Nirmanakaya could be described as the "historical dimension" -- that is, specifically Shakyamuni.

FWIW, the monastics (all Vietnamese) at the monastery I go to have said on more than one occasion that the Buddha was a human being who showed the way.

Again, I find it odd the word "just" being used in such a way that suggests that being human is somehow demeaning or bad-- or the need for Shakyamuni to quite literally be something "more than," which suggests the same. I'm not even really sure what "more than human" really means. Super-double-extra-special? Not so "special" that he didn't die from food poisoning...

Lazy_eye

One of the first books on Buddhism I read -- and among those which have been the most significant to my practice -- was Thich Nhat Hanh's "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching". It begins with these words:

The Buddha was not a god. He was a human being like you and me...

With an opening like that, I found the book hard to put down.

vinlyn

Lazy_eye said:

One of the first books on Buddhism I read -- and among those which I've found most significant -- was Thich Nhat Hanh's "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching". It begins with these words:

The Buddha was not a god. He was a human being like you and me...

Yes, Exactly. The reason that some people want to make him out to be so much more is that they can then add credence to their claim that Buddhism is the only "right" religion.

John_Spencer

If the Buddha wasn't a human being how come he had back pain?

person

Lazy_eye said:

One of the first books on Buddhism I read -- and among those which have been the most significant to my practice -- was Thich Nhat Hanh's "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching". It begins with these words:

The Buddha was not a god. He was a human being like you and me...

With an opening like that, I found the book hard to put down.

Does that mean the Buddha is more mundane or we humans are more transcendent?

Kundo

Does that mean the Buddha is more mundane or we humans are more transcendent?

At the risk of sounding crass - I think the Buddha just got his shit together a lot sooner than any of us do (if we do at all)

In metta,
Raven

lamaramadingdong

How many human beings have there been that weren't just human beings?

John_Spencer

lamaramadingdong said:

How many human beings have there been that weren't just human beings?

All of us.

poptart

The fact that Buddha was only human is enormously encouraging. It means you don't have to be born divine to achieve enlightenment. It is available to all of us.

John_Spencer

poptart said:

The fact that Buddha was only human is enormously encouraging. It means you don't have to be born divine to achieve enlightenment. It is available to all of us.

We all have a divine spark in us - our job is to kindle it.

lobster

We all have a divine spark in us - our job is to kindle it.

Even those of us devoid of divinity can be Buddhas. Yeah Baby! Buddhahood here I come . . . or should that be . . . Here am I . . . .
. . . something along that path . . .
:om:

Florian

Nobody is devoid of divinity.

In my opinion.

lobster

Nobody is devoid of divinity

Not even those who sold our divinity and soul to the devil for Buddhahood?
Do I need a refund?

how

Many practioners who doubt their own inate adequacy see in the Buddha's divinity, a reason to follow his teachings.

Many practioners when discovering their own inate adequacy see divinty everywhere.

There is room for all.

Florian

@Lobster. Was that a joke or an objection?