[TudareWQT]

Dear friends,

I was looking at this sutta for the first time today and thought I'd ask for your comments.

I'd also like to draw your attention to this part of note 2 at the bottom of the page at the link:

"The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all."



AN 4.36 - Dona Sutta: With Dona

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.(great being)

On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"

"No, brahman, I am not a deva."

"Are you a gandhabba?"

"No..."

"... a yakkha?"

"No..."

"... a human being?"

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

"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."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....036.than.html

[vSzsgifP]

Taking the risk to be wrong and finding the sutta beautiful I think that at the end Buddha states that he is beyond "human condition" or human nature (as the opposite of Buddha Nature) or by any other "human" categorization expected by regular people or "standard" human beings. I think that the sutta goes about The Buddha having surpased what is "human condition". That is why he is the Buddha. Surpassing it, he do not leave "human condition traces" told metaphorically as... "wheels of 1000 spokes..." instead of the regular "human conditioned" foot prints.

Human Condition is thoroughly explored in Bhikkhu Bodhi's "In the Buddha's Words" in the first Chapter where several suttas are selected: SN 3.3; SN 3.25; AN 3.35; SN 36.6; AN 8.6; SN 22.7; AN 2; DN 21; DN 15; AN 3.69; SN 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 15.8; SN 22.99.

The Buddha not accepting any category for himself talks about his supreme mental condition... guessing maybe an "absoulte" state. But he do not state for himself a kind of the metaphysical categories or entity as we can found in the Mahayana traditions.

Just a tentative guess.

[furillo]

Hi Aloka-D,

I'd also like to draw your attention to this part of note 2 at the bottom of the page at the link:

"The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all."

Thank you for drawing my attention to that. It's good to to be reminded of all the ways it [the un-categorical nature of awakening] gets put differently.
May all beings be at ease.
bucky

[AcecePesFeacy]

Thank you for drawing my attention to that. It's good to to be reminded of all the ways it [the un-categorical nature of awakening] gets put differently.

I think the commentary is getting a little carried away. The Buddha clearly defined himself as "awake", using the analogy of a lotus.

The nature of awakening has categorically been described in many places.