Good point! I think it should be listed as a parallel. The similarities are great, yet the differences are interesting and illuminating.
3 Likes
I agree, it also makes the Buddha much more human and fallible. Even though he had perfected himself, he still could not know everything or predict the future. This is also in line with another sutta where the idea of omniscience is criticized.
1 Like
I guess also the famous teaching to Bahiya. Bahiya had to ask 3 times. Finally Buddha taught him which lead to arahat then Bahiya killed. Good thing that Bahiya persisted. Buddha has that normal human characteristics and canât predict or guess everyoneâs state of being ready to understand or when they will die etc.
His first teaching when meeting someone on the road right after he got enlightened didnât get undertood either. He had to learn how to teach more effectively perhaps?
The type of answer one chooses is largely dictated by oneâs beliefs about scripture and the Buddha.
If one believes scripture is always literally true, and that the Buddha does not make mistakes, then one needs an answer that, say, moves blame onto the listeners.
If one believes not every story in scripture actually happened, one can ask what purpose retaining this story served - what was it meant to illustrate?
If one believes the Buddha is not omniscient, that he can therefore take actions that lead to bad results, this is an example where he did not understand the impact his teaching would have and therefore made a poor choice.
If one uses an outsiderâs view, instead of a Buddhistâs view⌠Well, imagine a newsstory where a teacher shows a number of students a meditation technique, then makes himself unavailable to those students for two weeks, and a number commit suicide. What would you think of the teacher.
Iâd say questions like this are a great way to uncover, and maybe even challenge, your presumptions.
2 Likes
There are different ways to reach a destination. Some are rough, painful and difficult to do but fast. Some are smoother, easier but take longer time and effort. The Buddha simply gives another option for whoever cannot or does not want to take the rough way.
If you cling and cannot let go of the body, then you do not understand nibbana and do not see the path.
When you cling to the body or life, you will see death is horrible. However, death is only horrible if after death you will suffer more.
The Buddha has no trouble if death will lead his disciples to nibbana or better condition.
Not everybody can walk the hard path if they do not understand the teaching, and cannot see the path. They may think they see and understand, but they donât. If this is the case, their death will be horrible.
The Buddha said: âMonks, one who cultivates contemplating the absence of beauty, much cultivates it, attains great fruit and great benefit.â The great benefit is the ability to forever let go of the body.
âHaving cultivated contemplating the absence of beauty, the monks then exceedingly loathed their bodies.â They have reached the condition that they can let go of the body. If they are not noble ones, it is hard for them to achieve that result. Moreover, they are the ones who received the training directly from the Buddha, so to get to this training step, they already completed their morality training and were endowed with virtue and vision.
If they are ready for nibbana or better condition, and the only obstacle for them is the body or this life, should they wait until death comes while they must endure the unbearable loathsomeness of the body?
However, not everybody will be able to walk that path, so the Buddha gave another one that is easier and smoother, but will take longer time and more effort to reach the final goal.
We sometimes expect the Buddha to know everything at all times because we do not understand the danger of consciousness. Of course, if the Buddha wants to know something, he can inquire and direct his mind to that and get the answer if needed. What will happen to you if you constantly hear voices, see pictures, smell all odors that will never stop? Do you think this is good or it will drive you crazy? Is it better if we only see what we need to see, hear what we need to hear, know what we need to know whenever we need?
We may think that the Buddha does not see or know that his teaching will lead to this suicide and that is his mistake; however, that is just our judgment. Do we really understand what he sees or knows, and why he does not have any trouble with that problem? When you are ready to reach your goal, why donât you drop your last obstacle?
When we are not free from ignorance, overcome with conceit, we love to judge this or that, and we will bear the consequence of our speech or action; therefore, it is better to hold the judgment even if we think we are correct, since it only gives us trouble. It is not good to make wrong judgments about a noble one. We may think that we are correct now, but that may just be because of our ignorance.
Your response is very insightful and even though no doubt is on WHAT the Buddha taught i.e. Dhamma, there are questions that arise on abilities of being a teacher. I am wondering if the definition of a Buddha is one that uncovered the Dhamma for her or himself, is it possible that a later arahant is more slilful as a teacher?
Of course we have the Dhamma from the Buddha as that we know for sure is the Truth, and we cannot know if other people have right view⌠so good to go back to the suttas, yet i think it is still fair to ask oneself that question of the qualities of a Buddha?
Omniscience due to the nature of consciousness means that things can be known when attention is directed on them it is impossible to know everything at one time.
However, if Pali names for such animals as crocodiles and turtles are right, the Buddha made mistake classifing them as animals that are born, age, and die in water.( In MN 128)
They are born from eggs outside the water.
I didnât read the other comments here, but it is possible that these monks who died were born in a place where they could continue to practice the path - so, ultimately it wouldnât have been a âmistake.â Also, perhaps the Buddha was intending this episode to be a lesson for future teachers (perhaps monks) - i.e., suggesting that they need to be careful when instructing others in asubha.
I think you mean MN129.
Though it may be a mistake, itâs also possible that the translator is being overly specific in rendering udakasmiáš as âin waterâ. Besides exact location, the locative case in Pali can also indicate mere proximity to something. Though crocodiles donât lay their eggs in water, their nests are never very far from water.
Coincisentally venerable Analayo talks about just this topic at around 55 minutes here
[The Wisdom Podcast] Ven. AnÄlayo: Early Buddhist Oral Tradition (#143) #theWisdomPodcast
Ven. AnÄlayo: Early Buddhist Oral Tradition (#143) ⢠The Wisdom Podcast - Podcast Addict via @PodcastAddict