Was the Buddha human?

lobster

Andrew Skilton writes that the Buddha was never historically regarded by Buddhist traditions as being merely human:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

Holy Mother of Cod ... again ...

Buddha was a transcendent Supergal all along?
Call me sceptical but I doubt it. Probably not an alien either ...

Was Buddha human? Omnidirectional and omniscient like the Holy Triad?

Bunks

It is said that immediately after his birth, he stood up, took seven steps north, and uttered:

"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."

That's pretty special in anyone's book!!

Jeroen

Well the Hindu’s claim that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, so of course he must have been transcendently special in their books. Although I have to say a lot of ancient religion gets kinda muddled when they start borrowing from eachother...

Buddhadragon

All cultures down the ages have loved to embellish spiritual masters and avatars in a shroud of mysticism.
Siddharta Gautama was very much a human being, who attained enlightenment through the use of very human mental faculties, reasoning and effort.
That's why we admire him so much.
There is no merit in being born a supernatural being with supernatural powers.
That's a piece of cake.

seeker242

How could the Buddha be a human when all the things that define "human" are regarded as "not me, not mine, not myself"?

paulyso

could it be his brain is human but his mind is not?could it be the fruits of his labor?his mind expanded beyond the brain matter container?

Hozan

@DhammaDragon said:
All cultures down the ages have loved to embellish spiritual masters and avatars in a shroud of mysticism.
Siddharta Gautama was very much a human being, who attained enlightenment through the use of very human mental faculties, reasoning and effort.
That's why we admire him so much.
There is no merit in being born a supernatural being with supernatural powers.
That's a piece of cake.

>

Exactly this! ??

David

@seeker242 said:
How could the Buddha be a human when all the things that define "human" are regarded as "not me, not mine, not myself"?

I wouldn't say Buddha was "a" human but that he was being human.

More of a verb than a noun.

person

There is a sutta where Buddha when asked what he is would only identify himself as awake, not deva or spirit or human.

On 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."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html

lobster

@seeker242 said:
How could the Buddha be a human when all the things that define "human" are regarded as "not me, not mine, not myself"?

He was born, he died. Human.
Nirvana unborn. However he was not 100% Nirvana ... Still human. Awake human ... and eventually dead human. Nirvana still unborn.

jwredel

... and of course, if this were part of the dialog in the Diamond Sutra, it might go something like ...

"And the Buddha answered, Subhuti those to whom you refer are neither human nor non-human. Wherefore? Because Subhuti these 'humans' are not really such, they are just called by that name."

Buddhadragon

@lobster said:
He was born, he died. Human.
Nirvana unborn. However he was not 100% Nirvana ... Still human. Awake human ... and eventually dead human. Nirvana still unborn.

Whichever way we want to describe the state of Buddhahood and Nirvana, yes, our aggregates will still disintegrate.

According to the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, when Ananda was extremely despondent at the Buddha's approaching death, the Buddha adressed him this way:

“…Ananda, have I not taught from the very beginning that with all that is dear and beloved there must be change, separation, and severance?
Of that which is born, come into being, is compounded and subject to decay, how can one say:
‘May it not come to dissolution!’
There can be no such state of things.
And of that, Ananda, which the Tathagata has finished with,
that which he has relinquished, given up, abandoned,
and rejected – his will to live on – the Tathagata’s word
has been spoken once for all:
‘Before long the Parinibbana of the Tathagata will come about’ “

As Ananda pleaded the Budhha to live on till the end of times, the Buddha once more said:

“Enough now, Ananda!
Do not sorrow and cry.
Have I not already repeatedly told you that there is separation and parting
from all that is dear and beloved?
How is it possible that anything that has been born, has had a beginning,
should not again die?
Such a thing is not possible."

Among other things, "Tathagatha" means "that which is coming and going."
The Buddha described himself as a "flowing occurrence."

lobster

@DhammaDragon said:

Among other things, "Tathagatha" means "that which is coming and going."
The Buddha described himself as a "flowing occurrence."

Perfect ... and gone ...

Many thanks ...

David

A flowing occurrence.

Something sounds soothing in that somehow.

Buddhadragon

@David said:
A flowing occurrence.

Something sounds soothing in that somehow.

Even empowering, @David.
We are not fixed identities, we are free to be, free to choose, all the time.

David

Yeah, I won't be pigeonholed.

Why lament too much over impermanence when it can also work to our advantage?

Am I a runner? No, but I was running and now I sit. Am I a sitter? I will ask again when I am walking. Am I a human being? In a conventional sense but absolutely not... I am being human, for now.