Talk:Tathāgata

"Hey, what do you think of the tathagata page? I had originally made it a redirect to buddha, but then someone came along and put in a jargony definition about the buddha-mind and a bunch of quotes. Yet, I am hesitant to revert it unilaterally. I thought maybe you could put your eyes on it."

"It looks like crap to me. Sometimes these Zen people really talk a lot of nonsense. Axe it." mahābāla 13:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) (anonymisation unecessary)

Well, I disagree with the above sentiment.

Although I agree with that generally 'tathagata' is a synonym for 'buddha', they do remain distinct words with their own provenance.

As for the current content - it is better than a blank page, and it certainly isn't vandalism. It can also be considered a valid view. (20040302 10:24, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Added some more text so that it doesn't sound so much like a set of arbitrary quotes from Sutra. (20040302 10:46, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))

---

The Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tathagata as a term is not sufficently individual or meaningful to warrant it's own page - it rates a footnote as an epithet of the Buddha with it's own connotations. Splitting every little sub-topic off onto it's own page will not enhance the Wikipedia, it is better to have a few solid articles which cover the subject - and this subject is better covered elsewhere. Meanwhile user 20040302 there are a lot of places where your knowledge of Vajrayana would be very useful - Buddhist texts for instance, and even the Vajrayana article is still pretty stubby. mahābāla 13:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that not a single other article has links to this article?! mahābāla 13:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is this a Troll response? Only asking, because I can see a distinction between Tathagatha and Buddha, and so far I haven't seen any positive approach to the article from you. Though it is true that I wouldn't have come here if I hadn't read Nat's note! (20040302 14:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))

I don't, and did not above, deny a distinction between Tathagata and Buddha, but as I say the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. What this means is that not everything gets it's own page. To my mind, my 'positive' approach to this subject, Tathagata is best discussed in the context of the term Buddha outside of which is it not meaningful. I believe it was you that denied the value of non-contextual 'truth'. Axe this article, which no one will miss since nothing links to it, transfer any useful text from this page to Buddha. mahābāla 09:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hehe.. (Re: denied the value of non-contextual 'truth' ) Well, I don't know that I can say that, as there are some contexts where the value of non-contextual truth is apparent (telling young children that strangers are bad comes to mind) - however, I would say that non-contextual truth outside of any context is indeed valueless. Currently I have more to say on other things concerning Tathagata. I think I understand your position on this article, but feel that there may be more to say which would not really apply to the (already very large) Buddha article. As you say, because the page is unlinked - it is not particularly significant to the wikipedia community at this time. (20040302 10:07, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Thanks for the suggestion regarding the other articles.. I will look into that. (20040302 14:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Well, although I didn't want to act rashly on it, let me state my opinion. I think that the word Tathagata in every context which I have ever heard it used, is synonymous with Buddha. On this basis, I am strongly inclined to revert the page to a redirect. I have never before heard the distinction that the great bodhisattvas may be tathagatas but not Buddhas. The fact that I haven't heard it doesn't mean much, though: if Mar. 2 says so, and there are no objections, then I guess we should leave the page up to clarify that point. However, wikipedia is really not a repository for quotes, and I don't quite see the need to include these ones, so I would recommend that we should at least get rid of those. - Nat Krause 14:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mahabala that as the page is pretty much unlinked, it isn't much of an issue. I also agree with Nat that a repository of quotes seems to be not in following with the Wikipedia intent. Regarding synonym/non-synonym, I would like to refer to some reference material sometime soon to clarify. The issue (of whether or not a Bodhisattva who is fully enlightened but who has yet to manifest as a Buddha is actually a Buddha) is one I am aware of, but I do not have all the details to mind. So can I suggest patience, and then act according to context? (20040302 15:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Buddha is Tathagata, the two are the same, like an apple is a fruit. A Bodistattva cannot have attained Enlighenment else he would be Buddha / Tathagata. A Tathagata comes once every few thousand years, the last one being Shakyamuni / Siddartha Buddha and the next to be Maitreya Buddha. But the word should have its own page because the word Tathagata is the word Buddha uses to refer to himself and how he said others should refer to him. Buddha means the Enlightened One, but Tathagata means the one who has come, similar meaning to Messiah.

Paul I

Yes its a fair definition now, but one mistake is you say Buddha required faith. Faith means to believe in something blindly without proof, Buddha always taught to question everything and never believe without studying all the facts.

Genuine meaning of Tathagata

The Tathagata, pronounced: “Taaht-ahgatah”, in the common nonsensical definition by ignorant modern “Buddhism” is meant “thus come one”, or “thus gone one”. This view ignorantly implies a formal appellation of importance (such as Sir, Master, Great-One, etc.) rather than a denotation of a profound spiritual attainment.

The term Tathagata is composed of two parts, Tat, and agata. Tat has been since time immemorial in India, meant Brahman, the Absolute, as in the famous Upanishadic dictum: “That (Brahman) thou art” (tat tvam asi). “That” is here, of course Brahman, the Godhead, the Subject of Selfhood which the muni, or sage, has reached at the pinnacle of his having fulfilled wisdom’s perfection. Agata is the past tense denotation of gata (going, traveling, trekking), here being meant “arrival, gone-unto, attainment of, arrival-at”. As such, Tathagata in the ancient Prakrit Pali, is meant literally “(The sage who has) arrived at the Absolute”, or in Sramanic context of Vedanta and Buddhism, “(He-thou) is (arrived at) That”.

The very term Tathagata, which has of yet never been discovered by anyone until now, is none other than a personal appellation of that very rare someone who has realized by wisdom “tat tvam asi”. The Tathagata, therefore, is equally as well meant “The ‘tat tvam asi’ comprehensor/sage”.

It is unfathomable that modern so-called Buddhism’s position is that the spiritual appellation of the Buddha’s attainment, “attained/arrived at Brahman” (Tathagata) is merely an honorary designation for a popular sage. As [It 57] and other passages clearly show, “become-Brahman” is the meaning of the term Tathagata, or he who has arrived (agata), again being meant the transfiguration and assimilation of the mind (citta) in upon itself (bhava), and thereby achieving the Absolute, i.e. Brahman, as such (brahmabhutam tathagata) is said.

To say that Tathagata, is meant by nonsensical “Buddhism”, to the effect: that Tathagata denotes the “thus-come one”, or “thus-gone one” has no contextual validity, is utterly illogical to read Pali as such, and carries no meaning whatsoever, which is all the more so magnified given that the very term Tathagata carries, regardless of translation, a very weighty importance and denotation; thereby secular ‘Buddhism’ intends to castrate the meaning of the term Tathagata, is yet another resection of original Buddhism by modern sects to turn Buddhism into a moralistic movement devoid of metaphysics.

Scriptural collaboration of same: (Tathagatassa hetam, adhivacanam brahmabhuto itipi)-“The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'” [DN 3.84]. (brahmabhutam tathagata)-“Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata” [It 57] - webmaster attan.com User Attasarana

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Meaning

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

Sorry for putting links only. :Austerlitz -- 88.75.220.56 (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wingspeed, you are wrong with your judgement (rm matter of at best very tangential relevance to definition and, despite citations, WP:OR) . I am going to reinsert. This is a description of some of the socalled Tathagata's qualities and as such as important as your "definition".

In section 18 of Diamond Sutra it is stated that the Tathagata does have the human eye as well as the divine eye, the eye of insight, the eye of transcendent wisdom and the Buddha eye. , , .

Austerlitz -- 88.72.31.120 (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

@Austerlitz. Your edit on the subject of the Buddha eye needs to be more readily comprehensible. At present it stands out from the rest of the article: I must confess I find it quite baffling - and I've contributed a fair bit of the existing text; so I don't know what the average reader might make of it. It needs to be put in context and properly explained. Perhaps we could do that here, and then determine how this aspect of the subject might best be incorporated in the body of the text. Please forgive me for taking it out until we've achieved that. Regards

Wingspeed (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

@Wingspeed. I am going to think about your words even though I do not agree. Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.137 (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you call it the edit on the subject of the "Buddha eye"? Besides there are mentioned another four eyes. And why do you want to explain "properly" the socalled "ineffable"?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.109 (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

1) The term Buddha eye arises, in translation, in numerous contexts. I should have here said the Buddha's eyes - a distinction which, as it happens, serves to pinpoint the problem. This is not an article about the Buddha, or indeed his numerous (innumerable, even) qualities. The proper place for that is Gautama Buddha. This article is intended, as I understand it, to illuminate specifically what is by the term Tathagata, the meaning of which is often not immediately obvious, even to the comparatively well-informed reader.

2) Didn't suggest above that the ineffable needs to be explained; that, by definition, is only possible in a very limited sense and is already assayed in the article. I meant, rather, that the aptness of inclusion of the topic of the Buddha's eyes in this article needed to be explained. Seems to me the appropriate place for it has now been identified. Same would apply, I imagine, to the matter on Dhamma brothers and sisters excised by Mitsube. Wingspeed (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to doubt the translations of the Diamond Sutra you cannot subsume all of those five eyes to the term "the Buddha's eyes". The socalled Buddha eye is one of the eyes of the socalled Tathagata.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.109 (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source ? Shakyamuni said: "One who extracts the ‘thorns’ is a synonym for the Tathāgata." The Buddha said about the term tathāgata-garbha: "Since the tathāgata-garbha is present in all beings, all males are Dharma brothers, all females are Dharma sisters.

hello Mitsube! Why do you hold this source not reliable?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.206.109 (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)