But should we believe that? Again there seems to me to be enough motive there for the authors of the story to have made that up, to elivate the status of their teacher. It sounds rather more wonderful that ones teacher could have lived for ever, but chose to die - rather than that his death was in fact due to natural processes.
I have the impression that the Buddha gained mastery over his emotional affects, but not his homeostatic affects (he suffered from overpowering thirst), nor his sensory affects (he suffered from back pain), nor his physical body (bad back again, and bloody diarrhoea). It would seem that the authors may have been trying to exaggerate the Buddha’s mastery in claiming that he could have beaten the illness, could have lived for ever etc. But I do not see any evidence that those claims are true, merely evidence implying that they were not.
But as I pointed out, we don’t really have any evidence for this. it could easily have been a day or two later.
Sure, but we should at least try to interpret it in a way that doesn’t ignore the few details that we have. I mean, as you said, the whole episode is odd: why didn’t the Buddha just not eat it?
But like I pointed out above, it’s not at all odd that the Buddha should have got a whiff of the food when offered. It’s happened to me, and I haven’t got any psychic powers!
Again, who knows what really happened. But to me this is one of the more plausible parts of the story. I think it’s very likely that the Buddha, or any sufficiently advanced meditator, could determine their time of death like that. There’s plenty of similar stories in modern times. Having said which, I can’t prove it.
Yes, you can see the Mahaparinibbana journey on our map of ancient India:
Cunda was at Pāvā, which is identified with Fazilnagar. It’s about 20 kms from there to Kushinagar, so an easy day’s walk if the Buddha was healthy.
An interesting detail is that, whereas normally if the Buddha says he’ll go somewhere, he just goes there, in this case he stopped to rest midway in a mango grove near a small stream called Kakutthā or Kakudhā. Since it’s described as specially shallow, and thus probably seasonal, it’s little surprise that Google maps doesn’t show any streams there.
Anyway, it seem he walked for part of the 20km journey before resting at Kakutthā, then continued on to Kusinara. As always, the actual time passed is unclear.
Mahaparinibbana sutta says like a decaying chariot is held up by bamboo poles so was his (the Buddha’s) body. Ven Mettanando said he might have been carried in a stretcher for this 20km. Perhaps the stretcher was made of bamboo (as the wood would be hollow and therefore light for carrying someone far).
Seyyathāpi, ānanda, jajjarasakaṭaṃ veṭhamissakena yāpeti;
Just as an old cart keeps going by being patched up with bamboo, evameva kho, ānanda, veṭhamissakena maññe tathāgatassa kāyo yāpeti.
in the same way, the Realized One’s body keeps going by being patched up with bamboo, or so you’d think.
The Buddha could have had IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) as a pre-existing condition. Being a “syndrome” this has a range of causes, symptoms, and triggers; most typically any kind of bowel disturbance, from mild diarrhea to whole-hog (so to speak) blood, pus, etc… It can also be triggered rapidly by food intake where the food has not reached the large intestine at all. (And can have a significant psychosomatic component, which, however, shouldn’t figure in the case of a sammasambuddha.)
In recent decades, medical science has “discovered” an ‘Enteric Nervous System’ (ENS). Thirty years or so ago, when I studied anatomy/physiology/pathology, there were only the CNS (central nervous system), PNS (peripheral nervous system), and the ANS (autonomic nervous system, consisting of the sympathetic and parasympathetic). Now they’ve discovered a vast and integrated (and essential) nervous system within the mesentery (sac containing the intestines) and other parts of the GI tract; for example, more neuro-transmitters are said to be released in the ENS than in the brain (CNS) itself.
The implications of this can be readily evidenced, as I have observed in patient cases, and even experienced myself: for instance, contact with food (or other substance) in the upper tract (mouth, esophagus, stomach) can trigger immediate reaction at other parts of the tract, even the other end, without the food (or its digestive byproducts) having actually reached those parts. Specific example: detection of lipids (fat) in the tract triggers the gall bladder to contract, sending a burst of bile through the bile duct into the upper small intestine. (Bile emulsifies fats; people with GB problems, or post-colectomy, have to monitor their fat intake carefully.)
Anecdote: I once concocted a “Swedish Stomach Bitters” from a package of powder some gave me and a bottle of brandy, but it turned out a bit more than expected (e.g. it should have been rather mild, like “Underberg” or those other digestive aids in little bottles one finds at the checkout counter of duty-free shops in airports). I quickly learned that this stuff should be ingested only when already sitting on the toilet, the effect of the taste and ingestion being quickly and powerfully communicated to the lower bowels. (Not that that wouldn’t have it uses.)
[quote=“Mat, post:7, topic:5762, full:true”]
…I wonder if madda(va) might mean the same as majja ie -fermented, as in surameraya majjapamadattana vermani skkha padam samadiyami’…[/quote]
A philological detail that hasn’t been mentioned yet (perhaps as it may be obvious): In my s/w limited knowledge, ‘madda’ could well be the same as ‘majja’, as we see commonly an equivalence between forms of (roman) ‘d’ and ‘j’ in Sanskrit/Pali. For instance ‘dhyana’ and ‘jhana’, or ‘veda’ and vijja’.
You were offered food that you knew to be off and potentially poisonous, and you ate it anyway?
Also, I don’t know how much we can rely on Mil 5.3 6 Piṇḍapātamahapphalapañha but it is in disagreement with you it would seem - unless I have misunderstood it?:
The gods, O king, shouted in joy and gladness at the thought: “This is the last meal the Tathāgata will take,” and communicated a divine power of nourishment to that tender
pork. And that was itself in good condition, light, pleasant, full of flavour, and good for digestion. It was not because of it that any sickness fell upon the Blessed One, but it was because of the extreme weakness of his body, and because of the period of life he had to live having been exhausted, that the disease arose, and grew worse and worse—just as when, O king, an ordinary fire is burning, if fresh fuel be supplied, it will burn up still more—or
as when a stream is flowing along as usual, if a
heavy rain falls, it will become a mighty river with a great rush of water—or as when the body is of its ordinary girth, if more food be eaten, it becomes broader than before. So this was not, O king, the fault of the food that was presented, and you can not impute any harm to it.’
Regarding time:
I would also agree that it seems that way, especially since the sutta states:
And after having eaten the meal provided by Cunda, the Lord was attacked by a severe sickness with bloody diarrhoea, and with sharp pains as if he were about to die.
To me at least, that implies that he neither ate another meal nor slept (i.e. nor did night fall), in between eating and becoming ill. So it would seem to mean the same day.
But then you state:
How likely does that seem from the Pāli? Would it not be more likely that we might be given some details, such as him going those days without food (since we know that was his last meal) if it really were a number of days? Or even some detail about ‘the next day…’ rather than simply the above passage I quoted? I am not saying there is no ambiguity, but I am wondering if I am correct in assuming that the text implies the same day to be the most probable time span it is attempting to communicate.
If it was badly smelling and thus obviously poisonous, I find it highly unlikely that it would have been offered to him. In general I would imagine people serving the Buddha to be very careful, just as wealthy lay followers would be today to the most greatly respected monks of this time. And even more so since he was so old. So I find that idea somewhat unlikely for that reason, that it got through all those people involved in the offering (perhaps even his atendants lookig out for him too) and then only he noticed.
I find it somewhat more likely that he ate it because he thought it was alright. With either idea we have problems, but I feel (at the moment anyway) that this idea has fewer problems. But of course I am not sure. And won’t push this point
Then regarding his previous illness:
Well, I think the previous illness is very significant, because from the time of his previous illness, he knoew he was going to die, right? He nearly did die, and though he was able to recover, he knew he would not live more than 3 months longer. He was barely holding his body together (like an old cart held together with straps) and was only comfortable when in ‘signless concentration of mind’. So he really sounds like he was in a very bad way.
And regarding that he at that point relinquished the life-process (on this site, or Walshe translates as: ‘renounced the life-principle’) - that to me sounds like his body had become so unworkable that it was time to let it go. He had been holding it together, barely, and it was just time to die soon, which he apparently accepted. And stated:
“Come now, monks, for I tell you all conditioned things are subject to decay, strive on with heedfulness! Not long now there will be the Realised One’s Final Emancipation, after the passing of three months the Realised One will attain Final Emancipation.”
This sounds a realistic view of his own physical condition of impermanence, beyond his control.
Also, we not only have him saying he would die in 3 months time after that near-death sickness, but also apparently (I don’t know how reliable), his itinery.
This near-death episode was in Beluva, just near Vesālī. That’s about 30 hours walk to Pava where he had his last meal.
According to this sutta (Mahāparinibbāna) after nearly dying, he went for alms in Vesālī (right nearby Beluva village it seems), and then spent a day at the Cāpāla shrine (where he ‘relinquished the life-process’). Then travelled to Bhaṇḍagāma; and to Bhoganagara (I have no idea how long he spent at those places) before arriving at Pāvā.
So it seems very reasonable that this took 3 months or even possibly much less.
With the above in mind it seems really clear that he was going to die whether or not the food had been poisonous. So either way, the Buddha evidently had an underlying condition.
Sadly the trip to Kusinārā (perhaps heading in search of medical care) was a tough one - it’s just under 4 hours walk it seems, for someone healthy, but it must have taken them a fair portion of the day perhaps, and he died that night.
There are degrees. Bad stuff gets served as food all the time.[quote=“Senryu, post:31, topic:5762”]
he was going to die whether or not the food had been poisonous
[/quote]
Yes.[quote=“Senryu, post:32, topic:5762”]
it is interesting and includes various comparisons of texts
[/quote]
Thanks, yes, it’s a persuasive argument and I will adjust my translation accordingly.
Oh, and this is from the Buddhist Studies dep. at U Toronto, which seems to be doing some great work.
Hmm. A random FB post? Well, to be sure, not everything on Facebook is wrong all the time! Just most of it!
I believe I have tracked down this post, and several related articles, and none of them are hugely convincing.
When evaluating the reliability of an article, we have to begin with the things that are easy to check. If they check out, good, we can have more faith in the things that are hard to check. But if even the things that are simple and easy to check turn out to be false, then we should have little confidence in what remains.
The FB post, as well as this article, are copies of an article on TheBuddhism.net, but the original seems to have vanished.
The article begins:
There are a few misleading facts which the Brahmins spread
And goes on to say that the idea that the Buddha ate pork was a brahminical conspiracy. However, this ignores the commentary to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta itself. The text gives several explanations for the term, but the first and apparently authoritative version says:
Sūkaramaddavanti nātitaruṇassa nātijiṇṇassa ekajeṭṭhakasūkarassa pavattamaṃsaṃ. Taṃ kira mudu ceva siniddhañca hoti, taṃ paṭiyādāpetvā sādhukaṃ pacāpetvāti attho
Sukaramaddava: neither too young nor too old, the readily available flesh of a mature pig. It is soft and tender because of being well cooked.
Modern scholars, too, while not always agreeing, have taken seriously the idea that it is pork. Perhaps brahmanical writers have had some influence in India, but it is plainly false to say that the notion is nothing more than Hindu propaganda.
The article continues without any sources or even nods towards historical methods, merely repeating legend as fact. He states:
Indian high society at the time abhorred pork & beef
There is no evidence for this. On the contrary, rice with meat was specifically cited as being a sign of high class food, which Siddhattha ate while growing up. From AN 3.39:
While the bondservants, workers, and staff in other houses are given rough gruel with pickles to eat, in my father’s house they eat fine rice with meat.
The article goes on to say:
The three high casts, “Kshathri” (Rulers), “Brahmin” (Educators, intellectuals & farmers) and “Vaishya” (Traders) were all vegetarians.
This is just as false, as the passage above shows. In fact vegetarianism was a fairly restricted spiritual practice at the time.
The article goes on to say that there are several kinds of mushroom called maddava, and cites several monks in support of this. Since I cannot check this independently, all I can do is to infer the reliability from what I can check, which is approximately zero.
One interesting and correct fact in the article, however, is that it says that such mushrooms are in the West known as “hog mushroom”. Having never heard of such a name, I checked, and it is indeed true. There are some mushrooms that in some western languages are referred to thus.
I guess this is what Rhys Davids was relying on when he called sūkaramaddava “truffles”. It is also true that some Chinese translations give a kind of fungus for this. However, these are also not unbiased sources, as by that time their Buddhist culture was largely vegetarian. In any case, it is possible that this refers to some kind of mushroom, but it is certainly not proven.
There is another article, found here and here, that makes similar claims, so let’s look at that.
Once again the article begins by describing Cunda, but this is just offering legendary speculation as unquestioned fact, so that is not encouraging. It says the Jains spread the rumor that he had been eating pork. (I thought it was Hindus? Anyway!) This is apparently a confusion from elsewhere in the canon, where the Jains criticized the Buddha for eating meat.
The article goes on to quote the commentary (although it misleadingly says “Sumangalavilasini and Dighanikaya”, and later says “according to Dighanikaya” which is badly wrong). The quote from the commentary merely gives one of several commentarial explanations, with out mentioning this inconvenient fact.
As I mentioned above, the first and apparently authoritative explanation in the commentary is that sūkaramaddava is pork. Why do I say “apparently authoritative”?
Well, on controversial points the commentary will sometimes quote various opinions. Sometimes it will give a judgment about which is correct, whereas in other cases, such as this, it makes no definitive statement. Instead, it uses a more subtle approach. The accepted opinion of the commentator, Buddhaghosa, is given usually first, and directly. Then other opinions are introduced with such phrases as Eke bhaṇanti or Keci bhaṇanti, “some say”, or “they say”.
And that is what we find here. These secondary opinions are marginal voices, with a hint of heterodoxy. They are presumably either recorded in the older commentaries on which Buddhaghosa relied, or else were the opinions of various teachers. Buddhaghosa used this method to show what his opinion was, without being overly critical of others.
That the first opinion is the received opinion of the Theravada tradition is confirmed in the sub-commentary. This only comments on the first explanation, ignoring the others.
To return to our article, not only has the author falsely attributed the explanation to the canonical text, he has ignored the accepted explanation in the commentary and offered up a heterodox opinion as fact.
The article goes on to repeat the mistake that Hindus (sic! this is anachronistic) and Jains never ate meat. He then cites “Chinese and Tibetan literature” in support of the claim that it is mushroom. While, as noted above, this does appear in at least one Chinese translation, it is not, so far as I know, mentioned in any Tibetan texts.
To sum up, these articles are nonsense. The fact is that the EBTs plainly depict the Buddha and his disciples as eating meat. What the Buddha’s last meal was doesn’t affect this in the slightest. In the past, as today, there were various opinions, and the matter was quite uncertain.
The Theravada mainstream view is that sūkaramaddava was pork. I have not seen any strong evidence to convince me otherwise. Having said which, the Chinese translation as mushroom is, suspicions of bias notwithstanding, our earliest witness to this text’s meaning, and perhaps should prevail.
I’m not adding anything to the discussion here, but it seems to me that Cunda, consistent with the Buddha’s recollections of which a rich meal in his youth might consist (from AN 3.39, as Bhante cited), woudl wish to prepare the finest meal he could muster as homage to the Buddha. Mushrooms, from what I’ve just googled (which now makes me an expert ) were a common food and even a hallucinagenic (see Prehistoric High Times: Early Humans Used Magic Mushrooms, Opium | Live Science ) since the Stone Age.
Whether the last meal of the Buddha was Cunda’s mushrooms, or Cunda’s pork meal, it doesn’t matter too much in the end, as the Buddha suffered his last illness after this meal, whatever it was. It just seems to me that at a time when mushrooms were a common and ordinary food since the Stone Age, a meal prepared for the Buddha might involve meat. Even if Cunda’s recipe was a failure ( I’ve met few blacksmiths who could cook worth a darn : “Just brown the meat, stir in the noodles, seasoning, then smite them, smite them with the liquid gold until there can be no more smiting.” ), it seems he would endeavor to do his best for the Buddha.
That describes how I got into Buddhism! The Lamas I met knew stuff I did but no-one else seemed to talk about. The more I listened, the more I could witness they were right about, so I figured they might also know stuff I don’t know yet
Doesn’t this rule out your idea of it being soft and tender due to being hung? If we can trust the commentator’s understanding of this food, at least.
Funnily enough, Mahavira ate meat, as was recorded in one episode in which he was given chicken, which had been killed by a cat I believe. Apparently Jains generally deny this and also try to explain it away by saying it is some vegetarian dish called chicken, rather like our Buddhist situation with vegetarian food called pork! My understanding is that it was a standard samana rule to accept whatever food you were given, and that that rule was higher than choosing through any personal preference. So, so long as it was not killed for you, seems it was the rule to accept it. And it seems the Buddha followed that already perhaps well established samana tradition in various ways.
Could you give examples of where the Buddha and his disciples are depicted eating meat? I am aware of some of the rules about it, but I have never come across an actual depiction of them eating meat. Thanks!
Do all Chinese versions translate it as mushroom? Or some of them like that, some of them as pork? Also, if all translate it as mushroom, is it a pork-related Chinese character, or an non-pork-related mushroom character? And, is there a chance it was changed some time after being translated?
I don’t think this logic is firm. In Japan, meat is common. Does this mean that therefore a meat meal must be ‘ordinary’ and would not be served for a special meal? (Think Kobe beef). Or fish - then think fugu (pufferfish).
Mushroom eating is not so common in the UK, basically only two types usually eaten here. But in France they eat more, and some other European countries, so they are more ‘common’ there. Now, where do you suppose you are more likely to find expensive meals with mushrooms considered as delicacies? Hopefully you see my point.
Well, it’s an obscure usage, and I suspect the commentary missed it.
That’s interesting, can you find a source for this?
It’s implied in the suttas, where the Buddha is accused by the Jains. Note that the accusation is specifically that he eats meat killed on purpose for him; the jains didn’t seem to object to eating meat per se. It’s more explicit in the Vinaya, where the food for the monks is defined including meat and fish, and there are several examples of meat being served, indeed quite extensive discussions of the kinds of allowable meat. A search for “meat” on SC should turn up most of these cases.
