Talk:Buddha – God or Man

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 July 2006. The result of the discussion was keep, although strong support for delete.

Deos anyboy know how to get the <ref></ref> command properly working?Sacca 02:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Done -- Ritchy 02:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

thank you Sacca 03:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge with God in Buddhism?

This article deals with essentially the same topic as the article Talk:God in Buddhism. Therefore, the two talk pages should be merged.

Buddha: God or Man ?

This section is too long and includes an irrelevent quotation. The basic fact is quite straight-forward. The Buddha was asked whether he was a man or a god and he replied that he is neither, but is a Buddha. The source of this well known quotation should be located and the quote + citation provided. Though this quote will be found in the Pali Canon, all Buddhists will have no difficulty with this.

This topic could then logically include some information of the state of a Buddha when alive and when dead, though this is still not strictly needed for this section. The Theravadin views on this (with citations please), as outlined at the end of this section, should be clearly identified as such. Historically and currently, the majority of Buddhists would raise objections to various aspects of these views. These other views should be reported. Some of them were well covered in the Eternal Buddha section, but somebody has seen fit to drastically truncate this section.

The whole of the Gunasekara quote should be cut -- it has no bearing on the topic of this section. It belongs with material on Buddhist views on gods/God. Note also the typical confusion between "god" and "God".--Stephen Hodge 23:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it does seem too long now. The quote is not really relevant here, it is not about superiority, but about whether Buddha was a god or man. Personally I have never heard the mention where Buddha denies his human-hood, and implying that a Buddha is above manhood and godship, and a diffeent species alltogether. It would be quite a curious quotation for me. In Theravada it is often emphasized that Buddha was a man, I would be quite surprised i this was negated by the Pali Canon. For now, until somebod actually shows the place where it can be found, I hold it's one of the common misconceptions concerning quotes in the Pali Canon (I see quite a few on Wikipedia). This quotation might actually come from the Mahayana sutras.

Yes the other views should be reported; maybe we could just make a new article. Sacca 01:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, the quote is found in the Dona-sutta (Ang ii.37-30), where a brahmin called Dona comes across the Buddha and asks him, "Are you are god (devo)? Are you a gandharva ? Are you a yaksa ? Are you human (manusso) ?" The Buddha says no to all of these questions, he is none of these beings because he has eliminated desire. He finally says, "I am a Buddha". The original dialogue is a bit repetitious, as things tend to be, so it might be best to include a summary with the Pali reference.

I am glad to see that the section has been pruned a bit.--Stephen Hodge 02:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really wishing to stick an oar in, but I feel that the issue of Man/God is one that is found being raised a lot in the large number of pages authored by User:PHG relating to his (and McEvilly's) views that Mahayana Buddhism is not much more than a rebranding of Greek religion and philosophies. See e.g. Greco-Buddhism#The_Buddha_as_an_idealized_man-god, Kushan_Empire#The_Kushans_and_Buddhism etc. (20040302 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC))

Well stephen you found that one quickly! I have however not change my stance on the issue, although it can be included in the article if you wish. Maybe also provide a reference to the whole sutta on access to insight. I personally feel that on this occasion Buddha was trying to explain why he was looking so serenely. Not because he was a god or a human or a gandhabba (or any other class of being), but because he was a Buddha (completeley awakenened). Sometimes he was also flexible and inventive in his use of language, for example when he says a brahmin is defined not by birth but by the 'inner result from his practice', so by implication he might call himself a brahmin (I don't know if he ever did) although he was a khattiya (warrior class). greetings, Sacca 03:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Stephen and Sacca. Very interesting discussion above - thanks for that. Having just studied the Dona Sutta, it is very apparent to me that the Buddha is, as I think Stephen would agree, quite clearly, simply and unambiguously denying that his nature is that of a human being. Of course he is not saying "I don't have a human body". It is obvious that he does. But he is saying that he is inwardly not a human being - and that is what truly counts. So it is simply factually false to state in blanket, unqualified terms that the Buddha qua Buddha "is a human being". He is not. He could not have made it clearer that he is not. It is obvious that a perfect Buddha is a different nature of being from that of a human, and to call the Buddha "human" is essentially as wrong as it would be to call him a ghost or a gandharva! I think one must face up to what the Buddha clearly says here (and note, too, what he says, corroboratively in the Mahayana) and not try to wriggle out of it (not that I would dream of accusing Sacca of doing such a thing!). All best wishes to you, Sacca and Stephen. From Tony. TonyMPNS 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure you are happy to interprete this quote as a justification of your previous beliefs. But now that I have read the whole Sutta for myself (at Access to Insight - the server was down previously), let me try to help you understand the Sutta.

STOP!

Sorry, just wanted to get your attention, because actually, I just found out what's really going on here. The sutta has in this respect been too freely translated, as is actually mentioned in footnote number 2. I will quote from those footnotes here: (for more details read footnote 2 for yourself: ]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.036.than.html#n-2])

Dona phrases his question in the future tense and ... the Buddha's answers to Dona's questions — which, like the questions, are put in the future tense...'

Is it clear to you now what happened? The translator (Ven. Thanissaro) didn't put the translations in the future tense, but in the present tense! So in fact the questions, when rightly translated, are: "Shall you be a deva, shall you be a Gandhabba, shall you be a Yakkha, shall you be a human being?" And the answers are: "No, , brahmin, I shall not be ... a human being". He then goes on to give the causes that can give rise to birth as a deva,gandhabba, yahhkaa and human, and says of each of them that the fermentations by which he shall be a deva/gandhabba/yakkha/human: those are abandoned by him, are cut off, etc.

And at the end he still does not claim to be a seperate class of being, and just tells him to remember him as awakened (according to the translator).

Also pay attention to the verse, which is correctly translated:

"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."

Again, he's speaking about going to a deva-state, become a gandhabba, and go to a yakkha-state & human-state.

I am really diappointed in Thanissaro bhikkhu by the way, for publishing this in this way, but he probably thought it wouldn't do much harm. But that's another story.

This has indeed been a very good exercice for me, and has really shown me that making compromises in translating to make a sutta more 'readable', can indeed give rise to meanings which Buddha never intended. My utmost regard for you all, Sacca 08:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sacca, Thanissaro is well-known for his very free, "poetic" renderings -- he is very unreliable for settling philological disputes. However, it is the use of the future tense here that is confuses everybody with beginner's level Pali. It is a mistake to think that the "bhavissati" here means "will be". The future tense in Pali (and Sanskrit) has other well-known meanings apart from the simple future. Among those other usages, the one which is relevent here is its use to express perplexity, surprise or wonder. This is quite normal usage. Warder gives the example kim ev' idam bhavissati -- 'What can this be ?', 'What is this ?'. In the context of the Dona-sutta, it is obvious that Dona is perplexed and hence the future tense is used but with a present menaing, something like "Could it be that you are a deva ?" etc. As user Tony mentions below, it is obvious that the Buddha is not denying that he has a human body, but is indicating that he can no longer be classed as any samsaric form of being in essence.--Stephen Hodge 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo again Sacca. Thanks a lot for your interesting comments. I had a look at that footnote which you kindly gave me the reference for, and it seems to indicate that it is not at all certain that the future tense is being used here in the sense of future - that it is a way of expressing surprise over a present situation. We say in English things like, "This person here will be your son, I assume?" It is referring to the present but expressing a degree of uncertainty or doubt. I think the key thing is that the Buddha has destroyed all the taints that attach to a human being and so already, here and now, he has ceased to possess a "human nature". He is a different order of being altogether. He is a Buddha. Sacca, I think we have different understandings of this matter, but I appreciate your very interesting comments. It may be that I am, in fact, wrong in my interpretation of that passage. But it is interesting that it is precisely this view of the Buddha (that he is no longer, inwardly, a "human" once he becomes Buddha) which is celebrated and promulgated by major Mahayana sutras. One can see in the difference of view between us over this sutta how the Theravada-style of understanding and the Mahayana-style of understanding regarding the nature of the Buddha perhaps existed from very early on and transmitted themselves in different streams of Dhamma/Dharma. Thanks again for the very thought-provoking comments. All the best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tony, I would say the Buddha doesn't posses a 'defiled' nature any more, and that he is a pure human, because those defilements are not inherent to being a human. Remember further that that particular comment in note 2 (a 'Buddha' cannot be defined at all) is not relevant any more if Buddha said "The fermentations by which I would go to the human state" (or deva/yakkha/gandhabba-state). That comment in note 2 refers to "I am not human", which is wrongly translated. Also the doubts concerning the precise meaning of Dona's questions (whether they are meant for future or present), do not apply to Buddha's answers. "I will not go there" is stating his own path or intention, it is not a question any more and the future tense is thus not ambiguous nor in doubt. greetings, Sacca 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks again, Sacca, for your very worthwhile comments. I concede that the future tense is used in the relevant passage of the Dona Sutta, but I still believe one should not dismiss out of hand the idea that this tense can be used to refer to both a future and present state (this is what Bhikkhu T. states in the note to his translation). As for the Buddha's "human nature": well, we are here entering fundamental Buddhology, if you like, so we probably won't get very far (I as a Mahayanist and you perhaps as a Theravadin). But I would say that the "human" realm is just one of the 5 or 6 modes ("gatis") of samsaric existence into which a consciousness can be born. A Buddha is essentially out of that - "crossed over to the other shore." By its very nature, being born human (unless that form of incarnation is deliberately chosen by a Bodhisattva) indicates tendencies (or a karmically-generated, temporary "nature") which is of the human sphere. But Buddhas, once they have become Buddhas, are not human any longer (although the body is human): in essence, they are something way beyond that, as they have obliterated all the specific kleshas and ashravas that typify the human condition and transcended samsara. They don't have to wait until they "die" to become fully "Buddha"! So in sum I would say: the Buddha's body remained human (although a very unusual human body - with its 32 marks of a superman) after his Awakening, but that physical body is not in toto the Buddha! But of course this is my Mahayana vision of the matter - so we'd probably best leave it at that and see what other editors think on this profound question! Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 13:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with your represantation of 'fundamental Buddhology' and I believe this is the Theravada position also, just a few small and insignificant details here and there and maybe some the wording would not be used in the Pali Canon. But in essence it's just the same.

I would not really typify myself as a 'true' Theravadin, since I do not attach authority to the commentaries like the Atthakathas and even the Abhidhamma, which are both part of Theravadin buddhism. I know some 'Theravadin' bhikkhus who have the same opinion, and some are very senior monks. For me only the remaining two Pitakas (Vinaya and Sutta) have Buddha-authority since all the other texts are composed by later monks. But I totally agree with the original orthodox Theravadin position of not adding to the Tipitaka and trying to ascertain the original teachings of Buddha, and not trying to change them. It's just that this is sometimes not really practiced in Theravada nowadays, because of its large commentarial tradition. So, like the Abhidhamma, I also do not attach Buddha-authority to the Mahayana Sutras. To me they are just later writings, put into the mouth of the Buddha to give them more authority. This is just the historical background-information. So, I like to always make the historical status of a text clear, and I think the historicity of texts does matter. The historicity is mostly verifiable (the scientific community is into this kind of thing) and relevant for people who think like me (and there are enough). I thus think this is relevant information to attach to articles on various texts, so please forgive me, and rest assured that I will do the same for later Theravadin scriptures, and would not do this for the Agamas and the various recensions of Vinaya (Dharmaguptaka, Mulasarvastivada), which are almost as reliable as the Vinayapitaka and Suttapitaka (only that they have been translated one or two times inbetween, once to Sanskrit, and after that somtimes to Chinese also). Best wishes to you, too, greetings, Sacca 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Sacca. Thanks very much for your friendly comments. I respect the sincerity of your beliefs. I share your view that it is best to defer to the suttas/vinaya (and for me as a Mahayanist, above all else, to the Mahayana sutras) rather than to all the commentaries if one wants to know of the Buddha's teachings. In the final analysis, it is a matter of (reasoned) belief and faith as to which scriptures one puts one's trust in. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to discuss these controversial matters in a reasonable manner (not always the case on Wiki, unfortunately!). Cheers. From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo once more, Sacca. Yes, I totally agree with you on the beauty of that the passage from the "Lankavatara Sutra" on how what people address as "God" etc. is in fact the Buddha. One thing, though: I notice in the translation you have put up (the Suzuki/Goddard one) that a key clause is missing. This is: "Then there are others who recognize me as Brahma, as Vishnu, as Ishvara". This is enormously important for this article on "Buddha: God or Man" as "Ishvara" is the general Sanskrit term for "God", and of course many people in the Buddha's India (or later) worshipped Brahma or Vishnu as "God". So I think it is vital that we include this sentence. Also, if you quote from a text and you miss out some words (to shorten your quote), then you must put a series of three full-stops ( ... ) where the deleted part is, so that the reader knows that something has been removed. I am not sure if your Suzuki/Goddard version of the "Lankavatara" is exactly as you have posted it, or not (words or clauses removed for the sake of brevity?). A better, revised version by Suzuki is the one which he did himself (without Goddard) and which I used in my original posting of that part of the text. Anyway, I just wanted to recommend that you put in that key sentence about "Ishvara" - and add in brackets after it, perhaps, [God] - so the reader realises the relevance. Thanks a lot. Glad you love that part of the Lanka. Be careful: you might soon be turning into a Mahayana Buddhist ! All the best to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tony, I am SO sorry to disappoint you, but I didn't put those parts from the Lankavatara Sutra in the article, it was the anonimous user 216.254.121.169, I think. So all the compliments go to him. greetings, greetings, Sacca 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Sacca. Thanks for your message above. Oh, such a disappointment for me: I was getting decidedly excited, thinking that you were on the verge of crossing over to join the Mahayanists: in fact, I was shocked (just joking!). Anyway, the new "Buddha: God or Man" page that you set up is a very stimulating one. I may have to add the missing sentence from the "Lankavatara Sutra" myself, to make the quote more directly relevant. I think lots of readers will find the whole entry of great interest. Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Integration

Hello, I feel maybe we could merge God - Buddha or Man (just kidding, I mean off course Buddha - God or Man with Eternal Buddha. I think both these page are really about the Nature of the Buddha, which would be an appropriate name for the new merged article.

Right now I have some info on the Nature of Buddha which I would like to add, but which just doesn't fit into any of the two mentioned existing articles. greetings, greetings, Sacca 00:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If all these bits and pieces are going to be merged, wouldn't an article title Buddhology be the most suitable ? After all, that's what all this is about. Also rather than stick the bits together on an ad hoc basis, I suggest an article sandbox should be set up. There the various necessary elements can be arranged and built up in a structured manner, with input from all interested parties. A planned frame-work would be most desirable -- less work in the long run. I think an article sandbox can be set up as a sub-file of the talk page.--Stephen Hodge 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer Nature of Buddha, I doubt many people would understand what Buddhology stands for. I myself am quite omfortable with just merging - these things always seem to work out ok. But if you make a planned frame-work please go ahead, I will add my ideas to it. greetings, Sacca 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Stephen and Sacca. I think it makes sense to bring the information contained in the two articles together in some way. As Stephen says, what we are really talking about here is "Buddhology" - the study of the nature of the Buddha. Personally, I don't mind "Nature of the Buddha" or "Buddhology" for a new ("combined") entry. We should preserve most of the material in the two existing articles, though, I feel. I think Stephen's idea of planning a basic structure for the entry is a good and sensible one. Maybe there could be a general Introduction on the basic differences and similarities of view of the Buddha as between Theravada, Mahayana and Tantrism, and then topic subheadings such as the already existing "Eternal Buddha" and "Buddha: God or Man?", followed by such as "The Buddha of the Pali Scriptures"; "The Theravada View of Buddha"; "The Buddha of the Mahayana Sutras"; "The Buddha of Tantrism", etc. Sections could be added as/if appropriate: e.g. "The Yogachara Vision of the Buddha". This could make for a very informative article. What do you think? All best wishes. Tony. TonyMPNS 14:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. I agree with seperating 'Pali Canon' from 'Theravada'. I must say I myself am not totally clear on what the differences hear would really be, but still think this would be best because there probably are some differences. However, if you say 'Pali Scriptures' then it becomes similar to 'Theravada'. Pali scriptures includes all the commentaries, and these commentaries are what defines Theravada. The Pali Canon is the more authenic view, the information whithout the sometimes distorting information from the Theravada commentaries.

One note is that the section of Pali Canon would then probably end up to just be some quotes. And there is a sensitive point there, because I noticed that the Mahayana view of Buddha is often based on quotes from the Pali Canon which are taken out of context and subsequently take on a different meaning. Also these adopted meanings sometimes disregard contradicting statements that the Buddha made on other occasions. So my question here is: what to do with these kind of quotes? I would prefer to put quotes like this in the Mahayana section, because they are used with the 'out of context' meaning, and do not take into account the message that is delivered in the Sutta in which the sentence is pronounced. Maybe the section on pali canon can be more than quotes, if the text there is still very much aimed at the Suttas themselves and not at building up theories based upon them. I think that it would be ok as long as the 'not this', not 'that', not 'neither this nor than', not 'both this and that' statements of the 'undefinable nature' of Buddha are respected. These occur many times throughout the Canon, especially when the Buddha is specifically asked about how or what he is. These quotes should thus be fundamental in the section Pali Canon.

Also, I would prefer to keep the info under the sectarian heading wherever possible. So, this would mean that the info under 'Buddha- god or man' would be put under 'Pali Canon' and/or Theravada, and that Eternal Buddha would either fall under Mahayana, or else be seperated into two pieces: Eternal Buddha in Mahayana and Eternal Buddha in Tantra/Vajrayana. Or any other way. It's just that as 'Eternal Buddha' is not universally accepted, it should fall under a sectarian heading. It would also allow for the Theravadin views on Universal Buddha to be moved to Theravada. greetings, Sacca 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Sacca. Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. I personally share your view that a distinction should be drawn between the "Buddha of the Pali Suttas/Vinaya" and "The Theravada View of the Buddha". Other Theravadins might, however, object to this. But I would still go ahead with it and see what kind of reaction it elicits - and decide after that what might further need amending/modifying.

Yes, I think it is a sound idea to put things like "Eternal Buddha" solely in the section dealing with the Mahayana (or Mahayana/Tantra). When I originally wrote that piece on "Eternal Buddha", it was intended as stating what the Mahayana view of the matter was; but other editors felt that it was unbalanced, so they added Theravada rejections of the "eternal Buddha" belief. I personally think that was unnecessary, as I had specifically stated that this was a view embodied within Mahayana Buddhism (thus implicitly excluding Pali Buddhism/Theravada from this understanding of the Buddha). On the question of quotes taken out of context and elaborated into theories (from your own point of view and that of the Theravadins) about the Buddha: firstly (and I don't mean to be harsh here), it is irrelevant within the Mahayana section whether you or the Theravadins think that certain quotes from the "Pali Buddha" were taken out of context by the Mahayanists; we would deny that. This can only be POV on both sides, so best to leave that. It could become a topic of endless debate. Instead, I think we (editors of this new entry) should simply use relevant quotes in each section and explain the meaning given to them by the adherents of the particular branch of Buddhism (or by the suttas/sutras) we are discussing. Thus: if you wrote a piece on "He who sees Dhamma sees me; he who sees me sees Dhamma" in the Pali Buddha section, you would give the interpretation of this which is relevant to the Buddha-vision presented by the Pali suttas (or, if it is similar, by Theravada). Then, if I, for example, did a piece on the Eternal Buddha, I could quote any Mahayana usage of that same quote (or a similar version of it) and explicate it according to the explanation given within the Mahayana sutras. Do you see what I mean? I think each side should simply and honestly post the general understanding of such matters that typifies the branch (or school) which is being discussed. There may be two or three points of repetition, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is valuable, as it shows how different Buddhists can see the same statement in different ways. I'd be interested to hear what you and Stephen think about these suggestions. I think the main thing is accuracy and honesty. We should respect different (accurate) viewpoints - and be allowed to express them without the other party's reaching for the censor's scissors! I do think, though, that it is best for the "Theravadin" view not to start invading the Mahayana section, or vice versa. As long as the sections are clearly labelled as "Pali Buddhism/Agamas", "Mahayana", "Tantra", etc., the reader will know to whom the various views in each section belong. The Introduction could perhaps state common ground, e.g. that the Buddha was the highest level of being that it is possible to find in the entire cosmos. What do you and Stephen think? Good wishes to you. Yours, Tony. TonyMPNS 16:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's fine with me. Just the Theravada view, and don't have a general Pali Canon section which would have to be shared. Witin that Theravada section the PaliCanon can be mentioned, just as with the Mahayana section the same can be done. greetings greetings, Sacca 17:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

So in the end it will actually be pretty simple I think, to integrate the two articles. Shall we just begin then?greetings, Sacca 17:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo again Sacca. Thanks very much for the above. Yes, please feel free to start writing the Theravada section, and then I shall add (perhaps over this weekend) a section on the Mahayana, incorporating the "Eternal Buddha" material. I think Stephen's idea of utilising a "sandbox" is excellent. Perhaps we should now create that and add our various pieces, and when it is ready post it as a main entry on Wiki proper. Perhaps Stephen could write something on the Tantric view of Buddha/Adibuddha, or anything else (time permitting)? Good luck! From Tony. TonyMPNS 18:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have just noticed that Stephen has already set up a good "stub" for "Buddhology" - which can perhaps serve as a framework for the new article? Tony. TonyMPNS 21:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on Buddha is currently not very long by Wikipedia standards (informal consensus allows articles quite a bit longer than the 30KB that the software implicity recommends). If we are to have a coherent article on the nature of the Buddha—which I think would be a great addition—why don't we place at the Buddha article. I have periodically wished that article were more fleshed-out.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Nat. I think your suggestion of simply putting all of this material into the main "Buddha" entry is very defensible and sound - although I have no objections, either, to a separate article on "Buddha: God or Man" or "Buddhology/Nature of Buddha". It might be more conventient for the reader to have most of this material together, in the "Buddha" article. I personally would have no objection to that. But I am not sure what Stephen, Sacca and others would feel? On this one (i.e. where to locate this material), I myself am willing to go with the majority view. Best wishes, from Tony. TonyMPNS 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you want to put the whole future 'Buddhology' article into Buddha it will be a very long adn confusing article. It will not deal with just the basic info people are looking for. Much of it will be too detailed for a general article on Buddha. Also the goal of Wikipedia is not to have long articles, I never heard about that. I did hear about limitations on the lenght. So I am in strongly favor of continuing with our plan for Buddhology. Maybe you should just look how that's going to work out first and then make up your opinion again. It seems nobody is quite satisfied witht the current setup (including me) Greetings, Sacca 00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Article.... why?

Buddha, the awakened, is simply that. Not man, nor god, nor neither nor both. To take position on these four would be wrong because in Buddhism, there is no fixed nature. No same thing, nor different things. Nor both nor neither. Can't be same because that would mean you right now is the same as you 10 years ago. Can't be different, saying that you in the picture taken 10 years ago is different than you right now would mean you are independent of others(which cannot be true). Can't be both because they are opposites. Cannot be neither, because it cannot "be".

So why create the article? Bah.. Maybe I'm thinking too much again.. Monkey Brain 04:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A silly question

There is no God in Buddhism, boy. God or Gods exist in Christianity or Islam or other various religions, but there is simply no entity equal to that God in Buddhism. If you think there is, it is most likely a misconception created during translations between languages. So add this into the wiki and move on. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, when I saw "A silly question", I assumed that you would be asking something. Instead, it seems that you have decided to call everyone else's work silly. How interesting.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 12:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it's really funny isn't it? I didn't say silly work, I said silly question, dude. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But there are beings who think they are God (the Creator), similar to the god of Christianity and Islam. For example Baka Brahma and Maha Brahma.Greetings, Sacca 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And obviously they are the extreme minority. This is not worthy of a new article, you should merge this article with Buddha and state these minor interprets there. -- G.S.K.Lee 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't even think merging is necessary, maybe a deletion of the article is in order, these speculations confuse the general reader! I mean why try to confuse Buddha with "God" (probably abrahamic god), it's kinda silly like G.S.K.Lee said. Monkey Brain 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

These gods do NOT represent the teaching of Buddha. But they ARE gods recognized in the Pali Canon. They do not have eternal life and did not create the world. Since a few of these deluded 'I-think-I-created-the-world'-gods occur in the Buddha's teaching it is appropriate to have an article explaining the position of Buddha (who was not a god, but a man).Greetings, Sacca 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, they are not gods/God, they are like-gods but essentially not gods. God/gods does not exist in Buddhism or that the matter is unimportant. Yes, there were few deluded ones who think they are creator-god/god, but why is there an article about Whether Buddha Is God or Not? I can see a valid reason in creating an article on Buddhist god-like beings, but why this article on whether Buddha was God or Not? This article seems to point at a Abrahamic related POV(speculation). I see no valid reason to keep this article, although the editors may have had good intentions in creating this article and have worked hard to keeping this article updated. It still does not justify why there is an article about a speculation? It should be/already is stated in the Biography of Gautama Buddha. Monkey Brain 05:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, just read a few suttas in the Pali Canon. It is very clear there are devas (which is generally translated as either gods or angels)). Non of these gods created the world, so they are not of the christian God-variety. I understand many people do not know much of Buddhism and subsequently think it is a-theistic religion.

Secondly, the title of this article does not apply any more. Buddhology it is. --Greetings, Sacca 07:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Listen, this is the English Wikipedia, and when you say God, the majority of the average readers will immediately think of the kind of being depicting in this article, because that is what is called the God in English/Western culture. By that the existence of this article is a misguidance. Reading your comments, I strongly doubt you do not and still not understand the point and the meaning of the word God in English. I would like to see some useful content of this article be merged with Buddha following a deletion of this page. -- G.S.K.Lee 12:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Added article for deletion. Since some people(like me, G.S.K.Lee, and other) find this article to be purely an absurd/silly/unnecessary! Monkey Brain 00:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

disputed

I do not understand why gsklee put this tag up. The article treats different points of view, from the points of view of different traditions in buddhism. Also user gsklee doesn't give any reasons for putting up the tag. I suggest to remove it as it has no basis. Greetings, Sacca 14:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see a powerful reference within the article explaining the whos and whys. I even do not see the name "Baka Brahma". -- G.S.K.Lee 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Still you do not give a reason. A reference is not a reason. Baka Brahma is not a reason. But never mind.... Greetings, Sacca 07:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in Baka Brahma, check out the Majjhima Nikaya, Sutta number 49. This sutta is very briefly summarized in the following way:

49. Brahmanimantanika Sutta: The Invitation of a Brahma.

   Baka the Brahma, a high divinity, adopts the pernicious 
   view that the heavenly world over which he presides is 
   eternal and that there is no higher state beyond. The 
   Buddha visits him to dissuade him from that wrong view 
   and engages him in a contest of Olympian dimensions.

However I do encourage you to actually read the whole sutta, as it gives much more detailed info on the views that Baka Brahma held. Greetings, Sacca 07:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is disputed about the accuracy of this article? If no one can raise specific points, I'll remove the dispute tag.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Beside the Point

Ummm... this whole thing is beside the point. The end goal of Buddhism doesn't really have anything to do with gods. Yes, there are devas, and they're sort of like the western 'god' concept. But that doesn't really have anything much to do with Nirvana or Enlightenment, does it? Any mind can awaken through enough effort, and in that sense you could argue that the potential for the divine exists in all living things. And one could argue that Nirvana isn't the same thing as the deva realm, and therefore that those who attain it are not gods. But to argue back and forth as to whether Sakyamuni Buddha was a god confuses the issue. Look, it doesn't really matter if he was/is, or wasn't/isn't, does it? Concentrate on your own enlightenment. Appreciate the techniques he taught us. Take refuge in the three jewels and remember the noble truths. The Eightfold Path will help you awaken, not silly debates over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Wandering Star 05:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

the discussion of God in Buddhism is "why should I become a Buddha"?, what's so great about Nirvana? and why should I follow Buddha if he was "just a man"? what's so special about becoming a Buddha? and there in lies the reason to explain if Buddha is God or Man or what is "Buddha nature".--Sangha 12:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember Buddhists posit that we can all become "Buddha"s some day, so this is not a question of deifying Buddha, but trying to discern "Buddhahood" and it's complete understanding for Buddhists on attainment to Buddhahood - so this is different from the Abrahamic God concepts where God is generally held to be a separate being.

Sangha (nice username, btw), I am new to Buddhism, and as such my understanding is very limited. I welcome anyone that can assist me in developing by challenging the concepts I post here. Namaste.

That said, I cannot speak for why others would follow Buddhism. I can only tell you why it is that I have adopted this as my religion. "What's so great about Nirvana?": well, you don't have to experience any more rebirths, you free yourself from the wheel of karma, and you don't have to deal with the pains and hassles that existence brings with it. Some religions describe the ideal afterlife as one where people are in a state of ecstasy all the time. Personally, that would burn me out pretty quickly. When everything is always bliss, then bliss becomes ordinary, and the 'void' comes back. By that I mean the sensation that something is missing, and that existence is blase. Kinda like getting rich. You have everything you ever wanted, and for a while, that's really cool. Then, when it becomes ordinary, you want more. If you get more, you still feel like you need something. I don't want to need anything. I want to be happy. Also, I don't really like the idea of an eternal anything. It's just not consistent with reality. Things are in a constant state of flux, and while all this change might seem disorienting to alot of people, it's kind of comforting to me. Eternity would be boring. I guess in that sense, I lean towards Therevada. Of course, I have no real idea what Nirvana is like. If I did, I wouldn't be here to tell you about it. I guess only the Buddhas know for sure. "Why should I follow Buddha is he was 'just a man'?" Why not? If he knew the way to enlightenment, then who cares if he was just a man? If someone is polite enough to open a door for me, especially a door that leads to something that will bring me peace of mind, does it matter if that person was god or man? I'll take my wisdom where I can get it. "What's so special about becoming a Buddha?" Seeing yourself as a part of the greater whole, to which all living things are a part of. Not being blinded by your own illusions. Being able to see things more clearly. The ability to grow and develop as a human being, and reach your fullest potential. Not being attached to desires or objects anymore, being capable of a truly lasting happiness. Not having to stuff the void anymore, with objects or people or power. Becoming truly able to love. Letting go of your ego. "What is Buddha nature?" Something wonderful. Wandering Star 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"What is Buddha-nature?" As you have said, being a buddha means letting go of the illusion. When we let go of the illusion, then we have the empty-nature(aka Shunyata). "Empty-nature" is kinda of an oxymoron word. How can an empty nature be "something wonderful"? Unless you are enlightened, something wonderful is a still an illusion. Monkey Brain 03:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True. But in any event, it is still irrelevant as to whether Sakyamuni Buddha was a god or a man. Although, I must say that I like to concieve of him as a man. After all, if he was merely human, and attained enlightenment, then other mere humans (ourselves included) can too. If he were a god, it would be all to easy to dismiss it, saying, "Oh, well, that's something no human can do. So why should I even try?". Wandering Star 14:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Dona Sutta

Sacca, I have changed back the tense of the questions and answers. Any competent Pali scholar will tell you that it is incorrect to translate the questions in the future tense -- they are intended to express surpise, wonderment or confusion. It's a well-known idiomatic form found both in Pali and Sanskrit: that's a fact, so stop trying to wriggle out of it. Attempts to change it to the future tense are either distorting the meaning for dogmatic POV or even dishonest. A real scholar ahould just live with the facts, awkward though they may be.--Stephen Hodge 23:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually it's wrongly translated, the wonder is expressed in a future tense, and this is possible in english also, so that would be the proper translation. Then the answer would be put as in the Pali also, in the future tense, and the meaning of the sutta would change dramatically (not allow the non-human Buddha any more), following the correct translations. You might be interested to see the discussion we had about it, and stop using the word wriggling, as a proper scientist does not denigrate reasoned views of others using this kind of language. I will put the proper translation back, if you want to put anything else as acomment to that, you are welcome.Greetings, Sacca 02:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The future tense is the proper translation if the range of meaning of the English future tense is identical to the range of meaning of the Pāli future tense. What Stephen Hodge is saying is that they are not identical. That being the case, there are multiple possible translations, and we must take a stance on which of those translations is more correct.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sacca, the problem here is not so much what the Pali says, but how it should be understood and translated into English. Some, but definitely not all, Theravadin sources, want to construe the questions and answers literally as future tense. This distortion of the obvious meaning is presumably motivated by a desire to prevent a possible reading of the text which might suggest the Buddha is not a human-being qua Buddha. It really does not matter to me either way: what I object to is the attempt to pass off mistranslations as the truth for sectarian ends -- and the article should make it clear that your version is slanted to sectarian considerations.

A reasonable knowedege of Pali should tell you that the "future as future" interpretation here is wrong. First, note the form of the brahmin Dona's questions: devo no bhava.m bhavissati. This type of expression is idiomatic: even though it uses the future in Pali, it means and must be translated in English with the present tense. Cf Warder p55: "The future also expresses perplexity, surprise and wonder, for example in ki.m ev' ida.m bhavissati, 'What can this be ?' ". The same idiom is, unsurprisingly, also used in Sanskrit -- see Witney "Sanskrit Grammar" p338, where a very similar sentence is given as an example from the Maha-bharata: ko ayaṃ devo nu yakṣo nu gandharvo nu bhaviṣyati (MBh III) "Who is this ? He is doubtless a god, a yaksha or a gandharva !" (note present tense). In fact, the parallel here is so close, this kind of exclamatory question was probably a well-known cliche.

Back to Dona's utterance, this must be translated as "Is this being a god ?" or even "Now would this being be a god, [I wonder] ?". These are not true questions, but more like exclamations. Note well that he is not actually addressing the Buddha, but more thinking aloud, hence the form of the verb "bhavissati" -- 3rd sing (he/it). If Dona was directly addressing the Buddha, he would have used "bhavissasi" -- 2nd sing (thou). So logically, Dona cannot be asking the Buddha "Will you become a god", but is expressing his perplexity as an exclamatory question. The Buddha replies na kho aha.m devo bhavissāmi -- "I am certainly not a god !". He uses the future form "bhavissāmi", echoing Dona, because the future is used idiomatically to express strong disagreement or disapproval (cf Warder p55), but this again must be translated with the present tense in English.

Finally, three parallel versions of the Do.na-sutta can be found in the Chinese translations T2.717c18, T2.28a, T2.467a, which all translate the questions and answers as present tense: simply "Are you a god", "No, I am not a god" etc.

So, let's have an end with this nonsense. I shall rewrite the Dona-sutta portion to reflect the above, making it clear in tactful manner that your preferred version is a mistranslation for sectarian ends.--Stephen Hodge 15:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to mention the preamble to Dona's "questions". He was passing by the vicinity of the Buddha and then the text says: addasā kho doṇo brāhmaṇo bhagavato pādesu cakkani sahassārāni sanemikāni sanābhikāni sabbākāraparipūrāni; disvā, assa etad ahosi: "acchariyaṃ vata, bho, abbhutaṃ vata, bho! Na vat' imāni manussa-bhūtassa padāni bhavissanti". All importantly, he uses the future form bhavissanti of the footprints, but this only makes sense in English if we translate with the present -- so yet again we have the idiomatic use of the future to express wonder, perplexity or surprise. Dona is clearly expressing perplexity because he uses the enclitic vata which always expresses surprise etc. Thus this should be translated as: 'Then the brahmin Dona saw on the footprints of the Bhagavat the wheel-marks with their thousand spokes, with their rims and hubs and all their attributes complete. On seeing these he thought, "Ah ! How amazing ! Ah ! How marvellous ! These are surely not the footprints of one in human form !" '.--Stephen Hodge 16:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Still further to the above, see Duroiselle's Pali Grammar, section 613 Future Tense:

iv) bhavissati, the 3rd pers. sing. of bhavati, to be, is often used in the sense of "it must be that ...": corā pathamaṃ ñeva bheri-saddaṃ sutvā issara-bheri bhavissatī ti palāyitvā, the thieves, on first hearing the beating of the drum, [said], "It must be the drum of an official" and fled; ayaṃ me putto bhavissati, he must be my son.

v) bhavissati preceded by the negative particle na may be translated by "it cannot be": nāyaṃ issara-bheri bhavissati -- This cannot be an official's drum.

Note that these are not translated by a literal future tense.--Stephen Hodge 17:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

One final point at this stage: Sacca has written that the Buddha says "that he would not be any kind of these beings (in the future)". This completely misunderstands the Pali. The Buddha gives a series of hypotheticals about his being a god etc thus: ahaṃ āsavānaṃ appahīnattā devo bhaveyyaṃ. He is not referring to the future at all. He is saying, "If I had not eradicated the asavas, I would/might be a god [but I am not]". The Pali text here does NOT use the future tense, but the optative bhaveyyaṃ. The optative does not indicate tense (future or otherwise), for it indicates suppositions or hypothetical situations. This English use of "would" here is confusing for non-native speakers, I know, because it looks as though it refers to the future but it does not.

All the above grammatical points are facts which can be ascertained in any standard Pali grammar (try Geiger), not opinions. The translation of the Dona-sutta should reflect this. If some Theravadin followers choose to ignore these facts, then the aim is, of course, exactly as Sacca says above in his own words, to "not allow the non-human Buddha any more". Sacca's preferred translation is preceded by a sectarian interpretation or preconception which determines how the translation is to be done. I'm sorry to that I do not consider this an honest approach to truth -- it should be the other way round, no matter how inconvenient for one's pet views.--Stephen Hodge 22:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sacca, one afterthought: you said somewhere that you have compared the Pali suttas with the Chinese Agamas and that they are virtually identical. I presume therefore that you can read Chinese. I have given the Taisho references, so have a look and see how you would translate the relevent portions. Let me know if they confirm your version--Stephen Hodge 04:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, My pali is not that good so I can go into detailed grammatical discussions about this. My knowledge of pali is limited to translations of individual words, not on grammatical structures of sentences. I do have contacts with a group of people who specialize into scholarly studies comparing the Pali Canon with the Agamas, identifying commonalities and differences. I myself just read the English (and other language) translations of the two real pitakas, as was specifically recommended and allowed by Buddha ;-). This wrong translation of the Dona Sutta only becomes really relevant when translating the words of Buddha in the Dona Sutta, Dona's words there don't matter so much. I based my statements on the Dona Sutta exclusively on the notes that come with Ven. Thanissaro's translation. Your label of that as sectarian is not correct, it was just using the information I had at the time. I have no interest in the whole theravada line of commentaries and abhidhamma-stuff. I asked a friend of mine (who does have good knowledge of Pali), to check up on the Pali version of the Dona Sutta. I'll wait for his response. Greetings, Sacca 06:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you have been wasting my time. In effect, you have admitted that you have no personal knowledge which would enable you to determine which rendering of the DS is correct, even though you seem to persist in referring to my version as "this wrong translation". Curious. Is this how you always do things ? And, by " a group of people who specialize into scholarly studies comparing ..", are you referring to Rod Bucknell's group ? If so, I too have contacts with them -- I have also been asked to contribute to their project.

Your comment that Dona's words don't matter is astonishing -- this is not how we read texts ! The entire thing is important since it contextualizes each segment of information. In this case, the form of Dona's questions are vital since they provide the grammatical and semantic context. Ignore them and you will end up with a wrong translation. My label of sectarian is correct regarding your preferred version. I am not necessarily saying that you personally are being sectarian, since you did not do and -- as you admit -- are actually incapable of doing a translation of the DS. The way I translate is to set aside all preconceptions about the content and translate what the text itself says, following established grammatical and semantic principles. That is the only honest way of translating. Some people have a preconception, consciously or unconciously, about the nature of the Buddha -- though note that Thanissaro does actually follow my understanding, even though he equivocates in his footnote, so presumably you would say that Thanissaro is also wrong. Armed with that preconception, they then "translate" or, rather, project a meaning onto the text so that it fits that preconception, often relying on the atthakathas for the meaning (circular logic !). This is a dishonest and unscholarly way of translating, but it is rampant.

Anyway, I still have not finished with this Dona-sutta subsection. I have something in mind :)--Stephen Hodge 19:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Stephen, I think maybe you need to look at your character a bit, I also don't know any Rod other than danda. I stand by my opinion, it is a valid conclusion based on Thanissaro's translation and his comments about it. What's done in that translation is changing the tense of the words of Buddha in order to make it confer with the tense of one possible translation of Dona's words. However you translated Dona's words, Buddha's words are not words of wonder and amazament. This matters. Calling any other translation than your own sectarian is just, plainly, wrong and not even verifiable. And then the want to discredit other people - this reminds me too much of sectarianism. This will bring you various kinds of problems. It's also what they call POV. So yes, just do it and go ahead. Just don't forget to reflect on the meaning of the words of Buddha (that you analyse so impartially and without any preconceptions) also. Greetings, Sacca 15:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we all need to look at ourselves from time to time, don't we Sacca. But I'll tell you something: for better or worse, I don't not suffer fools gladly. I'll ignore your irrelevent ad hominem attack and let others judge the merits of my argument. As for Thanissaro's translation, I have already indicated that I have no problem with it, though it is noteworthy that he relegates your preferred translation to a footnote.

But what makes me really annoyed is when you write "[the] Buddha's words are not words of wonder and amazament". It becomes clear to me that you haven't even bothered to read what I wrote in detail. Just to remind you, I said "The Buddha replies na kho aha.m devo bhavissāmi -- "I am certainly not a god !". He uses the future form "bhavissāmi", echoing Dona, because the future is [also] used idiomatically to express strong disagreement or disapproval (cf Warder p55), but this again must be translated with the present tense in English." So, as you do even read carefully what I wrote, I really can't be bothered to discuss the matter any further with you.

Ah, just one last thing: for your information, Rod Bucknell of Queensland University heads a project involving an international team of scholars to collate and compare all extant versions of the Nikayas and Agamas. I initially, but mistakenly it seems, thought that you were somebody involved in serious study of this nature and so would know of Rod.--Stephen Hodge 20:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes well I am very sorry you did. Your translation of "I am certainly not a god !" is, I would like to point out to you, a present tense translation of a future tense original. It would thus be better to translate it as "I would certainly not be a god!". You kind of smuggle the am in there (without properly reflecting on it?), while the use of would would be much better. It's a more valid reply to the question (which is put in future tense with a sense of wonder and amazement), it doesn't remove the future tense, and expresses strong disagreement. What more do you want? If you translate like this it's ok. You also don't generate proclamations which do not fit in with the rest of the Suttapitaka (always do check on this when translating - it's circumstantial evidence and prevents obvious mistakes). "I will certainly not be a god" is another valid translation. "I am certainly not a god" is not a good translation, no matter how many lines you write on pali grammar.

So, depending on the translation of the question, there two valid ways of translating the answer:

Will he/it be a god? --> I will certainly not be a god.

Would he/it be a god? ---> I would certainly not be a god.

Well it's funny you mention Queensland, because the people I know actually do live in Queensland (which for me is the other side of the world). So maybe I am connected to this Rod. Never heard of his name though. Happen to have heard of Mark Allon? Received his name in an email from Queensland today, on a related issue. These names actually don't matter much. Science is about the method, and not about the names or 'who you know'. We use these names here for Verifiability (with a big V), and because they sometimes make some discovery or have an opinion, that's all. Thanks for telling me his (Rod's) name, I'll try to remember it. And I think you didn't get my joke, but I kind of expected that. Greetings, Sacca 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sacca,you write, "the use of 'would' would be much better ... it doesn't remove the future tense". Good though your English is, as a non-native speaker, you might not realize that "would" is NOT a future tense. Formally, it is actually the past tense of "will" ! Apart from cases involving reported speech, the main usages in English are to express the conditional or probability. These uses obviously do not fit here.

You also write, "'I am certainly not a god' is not a good translation, no matter how many lines you write on Pali grammar" and "there two valid ways of translating the answer". Now let's get this right: you have admitted that you cannot read Pali, but you feel you have the expertise to make judgements on this. Do you have some kind of special abhijña ? To quote you, Sacca, I think it is you who needs to look at your character a bit.

Putting aside the specifics of these discussion, I would be interested to hear from you why you are so certain that your preferred translation is correct. Why is it so important to you that you apparently do not even give my version any consideration ? I am trying hard to understand.

On less important matters, we have already established that you do not bother to read my comments properly, so as you mention Mark Allon, please refresh your memory and have a look at my comment of the 19/07/06 on the Mahayana Talk Page addressed to you under the topic heading From Buddha - god or man talkpage. Oh, and I did get your joke, but I didn't think it was worthy of comment -- please note the correct spelling is daṇḍa.--Stephen Hodge 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This has turned into some kind of contest now. Just to end it, I think both 'would' and 'will' are acceptable, and 'am' is not.

For anyone wanting to see some other usages of the translation of 'will', see Dhammapada verse 264, where Venerable Narada translated bhavissati as 'will be'. In this instance also 'would' would be a valid translation. See here:

(264) Icchaalobhasamaapanno sama.no ki.m bhavissati

How will one who is full of desire and greed be a monk? (Ven. Narada trs.)

In this case, it is clear that the usage of 'is' is the worst option, just as with the Dona Sutta.

Greetings, Sacca 06:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Sacca, this is not a contest: among other things, I hope this discussion might inspire you enough to learn enough Pali to make informed judgements. Your DhP quote is poorly chosen. Any educated native English speaker will tell you that Narada's version here is clumsy and unidiomatic. Look at Thanissaro's version of this line: "filled with greed & desire: what kind of contemplative is he ?" or Rockhill's translation of the identical line in the Sanskrit Udāna-varga: "he who lives in ignorance and lust, how can he be a śramāṇa ?" Then look at the whole context, the following verse (265) is always linked together with this verse: it's clearly talking about somebody who is already apparently or claims to be a śramāṇa. In the commentary on this line in the aṭṭhakātha, samaṇo kiṃ bhavissati is glossed as samaṇo nāma na hoti -- [he] is not called a 'śramāṇa'. Thus to paraphrase you, it is clear that the usage of 'is' is the best option, just as with the Dona Sutta.--Stephen Hodge 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hallo Sacca and Stephen. I have been following this discussion with great interest, not least because I recently contributed to a similar debate elsewhere on Wiki. I think as a general principle or "modus operandi" in our discussion of how to translate certain Indic passages it would be sensible and wise to give very serious attention to the advice and information provided by people who are genuine Buddhist scholars and are noted for their translations of some of the most difficult Buddhist texts. Stephen is one such person, it has to be said. It would therefore seem reasonable to defer to his judgement when we ourselves are not skilled to any substantial degree (I include myself in this) in the Pali language. It seems to me that Stephen has provided ample evidence (quite apart from common sense) that a present tense expresses the spirit and meaning of the disputed sentences far better than a future one. Just think: if you were wandering through a forest and came across a remarkable being sitting there, would you ask: "Oh, what are you going to become in the future?" Of course not! This is absurd. Instead, one would say, "What kind of being is this? Is this a god or a human?" One might phrase it using a different tense, but the intended meaning would be the same: "What kind of being might you be? Might you be a god or a human?" This expresses tentative uncertainty, probing enquiry, and surprise. And as Stephen has taught us, the use of the (technically) future tense in Pali and Sanskrit can be applied in situations of strong disagreement or disapproval (hence the Buddha's adoption of that tense in his reply to Dona). In sum, though, I would make the main point that it surely behoves those of us who do not possess the full range of core Buddhist languages over which Stephen Hodge presides as a genuine and acclaimed Buddhist scholar and translator to respect what such a person says. I can personally guarantee the readers of this discussion page that Stephen Hodge, whom I have often commissioned to do Buddhist translation work for me, is scrupulously objective and unbiased in his renderings of Buddhist texts. He is always guided by what the text, context and grammar of a particular passage communicates, rather than by any extraneous, personal preferences. I know that for a fact. So: I for one would say that if we do not possess the sound knowledge of Pali of which Stephen has command then we should be humble enough to say that we are not operating from a sufficiently informed base as to be justified in rejecting what he insists is an accurate translation and should defer to his better judgement. Best wishes to Sacca and Stephen, as always. From Tony. TonyMPNS 10:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Tony!—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Nat. Kind of you! Yours, Tony. TonyMPNS 20:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Tony for his kind accolade -- it's always nice to see one's modest efforts are appreciated by some.--Stephen Hodge 23:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes thanks all of you for your comments. I would still prefer the use of would, will, and also might (as was kindly offered by Tony). I would certainly not favour Tony's other suggestion of "Oh, what are you going to become in the future?", I think that's just something Tony picked in order to make some kind of point maybe, but it does not represent my opinion at all. It's not really fair to suggest that I support this translation, but anyway thank you very much for contributing. I actually support his use of 'might', as it also gives an indication of uncertainty to the question, which the use of 'are' does not. I know some people who are well versed in Buddhism and Pali grammer and who do not consider the use of 'are' as the best translation.

The problem here is when you use one of the accepted english translations, and then consequently use this translation to support some claim without considering the range of other accepted translations, which, taken together, give a better overview of the actual meaning of the Pali words:

"I might certainly not be a god or human!" (Tony's version) has a very different feeling to it as "I certainly am not a god or human being!". This last translation is a nice and hard translation, but does not convey at all the use of future tense in which the question was put, and which might have some consequences for any subsequent filosophical views arising based on the use of 'are'. Or does anybody disagree here, and thinks we should use the 'are' translation and then base some further philosophical views on this present tense English translation? This is my main concern, and the reason why I think 'are' is not a suitable translation. To me it is very clear that some meaning is lost to us when we use this english present tense translation, and scrutiny is called for when using this narrow English translation for any further claims. So yes, that's why I prefer the use of 'might', 'will' or 'would', to better convey the original 'uncertain ambiguity' in meaning of Buddha's statement. 'Might' and 'would' might be the better alternatives here. If Stephen calls that sectarianism, I am truly sorry, but I will start to distrust Stephens motivations right there. Given that Stephen actually did do just that in the previous edits he made to this article, I am personally not sure of his objectivity. He throws the sectarianism label a bit too easily.

So in practical terms for this Wikipedia project, I believe not only the use of the 'are' translation should be in the article, there's reason enough for that. Either two versions ('are' and one of the others), or just the 'might', 'would' or 'will' variety. Remember the extended note Venerable Thanissaro put under his translation, he did't mention the use of future tense for nothing, and personally I'm very happy he did so, as otherwise I would have needed to use some of my other channels to Pali grammar to get the whole story on this sutta - as it is I didn't need to bother them too much. People who do serious study of the Suttas without knowing the details of Pali language would either need the note to the sutta by Ven. Thanissaro, or access to some other channel through which to access this knowledge. Otherwise one would end up either disbelieving the present Sutta, or disbelieve all the rest of the other suttas in which Buddha is presented as just a normal perfected human being - a Buddha that is.

And Stephen, I am happy I know the background to this one translation, but my interest does not take me to detailed pali studies. I would do this if I was interested in all the atthakathas (Pali commentaries), which have often not been translated, or would need to do some other orignal research myself. However, just the Bipitaka is enough for me, together with access to good and experienced, knowledgeable (not just Pali or suttas) teachers, and books in which the results of new research is presented. So I just use (multi-language) translations, and when I have some issue I can use my kaḷyaṇaṃiṭṭa (just kidding Stephen) in the various groups I do have access to, to help solve any issues (including Pali issues) I might encounter. And I think that's good enough.

Garavamettaya, Sacca (Greetings, Sacca 14:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC))

Overall, we seem to have come in a full circle when Sacca says "I believe not only the use of the 'are' translation should be in the article, there's reason enough for that. Either two versions ('are' and one of the others) ..." That's exactly what we had at the beginning of this long discussion ! But at last, Sacca spells out the motivation for his objections to an idiomatic translation: "and then base some further philosophical views on this present tense English translation? This is my main concern, and the reason why I think 'are' is not a suitable translation." So there is supposed set of philosophical views that Sacca thinks might be drawn from the translation that I prefer, even though no such views have been expressed. By objecting to these unnamed philosophical views, Sacca must be contrasting them to another, differing set of philosophical views or presuppositions which he favours. Isn't this what one calls sectarianism ? The article needs to state that there is one translation (my favoured version), perfectly feasible grammatically and idiomatically, which is corroborated by three independent Chinese versions, and then there is another understanding of the text which is preferred by some Theravadins to avoid what they perceive as possible undesired philosophical consequences. The reader of the article then has eough information to draw their own conclusions.--Stephen Hodge 17:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Nat, for wrongly attributing it to you. But please do not change any other things I have written down. I understand that for all three (Tony, Nat, Stephen) of you the 'are' translation might be a nice one, because it concords with some Mahayana filosofies. Again, Stephen, you confuse concern based on a disregard of basic things like tense in translation with sectarianism. I notice you won't go into it, so never mind, we'll find a solution in the article itself. Again, you call me a Theravadin when I am not, only in your dreams maybe. I suspect you are guided by your Mahayana ideology in condemning even concern with the meaning of a translation. You sound just like the Pope to me, and not like the Dalai Lama.Greetings, Sacca 03:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Also remember the verse with which the sutta is closed:

"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."

Why would he speak here in future tense, when he would speak the narrowest of present tenses before? It seems Tony's suggestion of "Oh, what are you going to become in the future?" has some validity after all, in the verse uttered by Buddha immediately after the passage we were discussing here... But maybe Stephen would claim that this does not matter at all since it does not occur in the same paragraph? Or maybe you have a valid reason, some variant reading of the chinese versions, or a note on Pali grammar or any other thing? Greetings, Sacca 03:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Stephen, a good edit was it, that you made. I made some additions, also putting in the might/would variety. I don't understand why you were so 'disagreeing' with the 'might/would' variety before, and now put it like this in the article. Is this the objectiveness you use in the articles but not in your private opinions expressed in talk-pages? I thought you would have taken it out or tried to put it down. My compliments. Please have a good look at my additions. Greetings, Sacca 04:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)