What the Buddha got wrong?

Q & A
60

I don’t think one can fault the Buddha for not encouraging refraining from meat as a rule. Our lives are so intermingled with other beings, my head would burst thinking about the suffering I cause to sentient beings on a day to day basis :exploding_head:

Meat and factory-farming aside, what would the Buddha have said to our medical system, medications, vaccines, therapies - all founded on cruelty to beings who have no interest in furthering the health and lifespans of humans? When we take medication for an illness, there have been beings that have been tortured/killed in the process. Do we stop doing that too?

There is no end to this…

Reduce the suffering for everyone and get off the samsara bus!

That’s why I rejoice that the Buddha was the first person who actually did this to the fullest extent possible, and we are here today aspiring to be like that too…:smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

4 Likes
61

The teaching is correct. But the people current ability cannot support her/his understanding. We have 7 stages of purification, if one had not successfully graduate from the 1st level do not go for teaching on the 3rd to 7th level, just a waste of time.

If he or she had not even able to control her or his moral conduct than it will be a waste of time to meditate about body repulsiveness.

It is better to control his or her moral conduct, first.

1 Like
62

I’m curious.

Why does everyone keep saying that the Buddha was omniscient and so should have got everything right? Especially in light of MN90.

There is no ascetic or brahmin who knows all and sees all simultaneously: that is not possible

The psychic power of reading other people’s minds does not necessarily mean being able to predict outcomes perfectly. The reason is Free Will. An outside operator such as the Buddha can bring together all the underlying factors perfectly, but he still cannot guarantee a particular result. One crucial element for a particular outcome - the Free will of other beings in the present moment - cannot be controlled, not even by the Buddha. This is why he says in MN107

…though extinguishment is present, the path leading to extinguishment is present, and I am present to encourage them, still some of my disciples, instructed and advised like this, achieve the ultimate goal, extinguishment, while some of them fail. What can I do about that, brahmin? The Realized One is the one who shows the way.

Nor did the Buddha claim to be Omnipotent. An enlightened person may, by dint of having a better take on antecedent causes (DO) be better able to tilt the probability of an action towards better outcomes, but cannot ensure a particular outcome. All the underlying factors are after all, not under one’s voluntary control. Does not the Buddha say in SN36.21

Some feelings, Sīvaka, arise here originating from phlegm disorders … originating from wind disorders … originating from an imbalance of the three … produced by change of climate … produced by careless behaviour … caused by assault … produced as the result of kamma: that some feelings arise here produced as the result of kamma one can know for oneself, and that is considered to be true in the world

So, in the absence of the ability to predict specific outcomes or control all underlying conditions so as to obtain a specific result, how are we to judge a particular action as Right or Wrong? (Actually, it might be better to use ‘Wholesome’ and ‘Unwholesome’ as the words Right/Wrong are far too narrow IMO!) If we take up a specific case, eg the eating of Meat we can see from MN55 that the key factor we should consider is Intention.

At that time is that mendicant intending to hurt themselves, hurt others, or hurt both?

Applying this concept to all the examples of ‘mistakes’ which have been listed so far, I personally cannot see any place where the Buddha ever acted out of wrong intentions. And those were all that he could control or predict the results of. Whatever people did with things subsequently and whatever came to be has to be accepted by everyone, including the Buddha. Those consequences are nothing except Anicca, Dukkha and ultimately Anatta.

This has immense ramifications in our personal and work life. We are freed from the tyranny of judging our actions retrospectively, based on outcomes which we never intended and which were beyond our control, yet happened nevertheless! Hindsight is always 20/20 isn’t it? Yet, if one’s intentions were wholesome, one can be free of guilt. One can truly be the owner of one’s Kamma - which is essentially volitional action.

Just my two bits - perhaps something to think about. :slightly_smiling_face:

13 Likes
63

Bhante :anjal:

That does sound logical, but it surprises me that this argument has not been tested, or at least noted in the now many experiments that have been carried out on meditators.

But on the other hand, I guess that many of the experiments require metabolism to be working to see the effects using the equipment at hand, so the test subjects probably didn’t go so deep as 4th jhana.

It would be nice to get this theory tested.

3 Likes
64

This is an interesting story about how jhana is conditioned by oxygen intake

Daniel M. Ingram:
interesting aside: when laying there in the hospital bed getting fluids i was on the monitors and i kept trying to get into something jhanic, as i find them healing, and the alarm on the bed kept going off, as my respriratory rate would go below 3/minute at times and generally stayed around 7, and when it went the lowest was when i was able to get something passable as perhaps weak 3rd jhana, and then the O2 sat monitor would go off as my oxygen sat kept dropping to the high 80% range, which correlated well with the better mindstates, so one more question for the scientific journal: is hypoxia and/or hypercarbia part of the jhanic buzz?

2 Likes
65

You have a point, but there are also lots of problems with this. How do we know it’s a real jhāna? Self-reporting is notoriously unreliable. The vast majority of people who think they have jhāna have nothing of the sort. And if you did find a proper jhāna meditator, how would you convince them to take part? They are likely to be utterly uninterested. I once foolishly suggested something of the kind to Ajahn Brahm, getting the dismissal I should have expected. But assuming you are a consummate salesman ( :wink:), would a confirmatory result really convince many people? Those who are already onboard would rejoice, whereas everyone else would say there is a flaw in the experiment or whatever. Just see what’s happening in parapsychology. As the Buddha says of psychic powers in DN 11:

Then someone with faith and confidence sees that mendicant performing those superhuman feats.

They tell someone else who lacks faith and confidence: ‘It’s incredible, it’s amazing! The ascetic has such psychic power and might! I saw him myself, performing all these superhuman feats!’

But the one lacking faith and confidence would say to them: ‘There’s a spell named Gandhārī. Using that a mendicant can perform such superhuman feats.’

I agree with you that it would be cool, but I can’t see it happen.

10 Likes
66

My goodness, is it just me, or is that whole sutta filled with medical advice that is… well…

On one occasion a certain monk was bitten by a snake.
Tena kho pana samayena aññataro bhikkhu ahinā daṭṭho hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṁ ārocesuṁ.

“I allow you to give him the four filthy edibles: feces, urine, ash, and clay.”
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, cattāri mahāvikaṭāni dātuṁ— gūthaṁ, muttaṁ, chārikaṁ, mattikan”ti.

The monks thought,
“Do they need to be received or not?”
Atha kho bhikkhūnaṁ etadahosi—
“appaṭiggahitāni nu kho udāhu paṭiggahetabbānī”ti. Bhagavato etamatthaṁ ārocesuṁ.

“They should be received if there is an attendant. If there isn’t, I allow you to take them yourself and then eat them.”
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, sati kappiyakārake paṭiggahāpetuṁ, asati kappiyakārake sāmaṁ gahetvā paribhuñjitun”ti.

On one occasion a monk had drunk poison.
Tena kho pana samayena aññatarena bhikkhunā visaṁ pītaṁ hoti. Bhagavato etamatthaṁ ārocesuṁ.

“I allow you to give him feces to drink.”
“Anujānāmi, bhikkhave, gūthaṁ pāyetun”ti.

:nauseated_face:

5 Likes
67

That was, unfortunately state-of-the-art medical practice in 2500 BC ! We’ve come a long way haven’t we? :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

The aim was to induce vomiting (emesis) which was thought to be instrumental in removing the poison from the body. Acharya Charaka and Hippocrates were the luminaries who collected and codified such treatments. BTW, ayurveda still follows these principles!

Kemp (1935) in his writing named “Healing Ritual” has mentioned some vital emetic recipes,
intended to induce vomiting. In the management of snakebite poisoning, emetics were
indicated and it was advised not to sleep after the emesis.

“If we are able to see farther, it is only because we stand on the shoulders of Giants.” - Isaac Newton

9 Likes
68

I guess it would have been doctrinally correct to use another emoji…

:face_vomiting:

:rofl:

5 Likes
69

There are ordinary emetics and noble emetics:

AN10.109:2.1: Ahañca kho, bhikkhave, ariyaṁ vamanaṁ desessāmi, yaṁ vamanaṁ sampajjatiyeva no vipajjati, yaṁ vamanaṁ āgamma jātidhammā sattā jātiyā parimuccanti, jarādhammā sattā jarāya parimuccanti, maraṇadhammā sattā maraṇena parimuccanti, sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsadhammā sattā sokaparidevadukkhadomanassupāyāsehi parimuccanti.
I will teach a noble emetic that works without fail. Relying on that emetic, sentient beings who are liable to rebirth, old age, and death, to sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress are freed from all these things.

I hope the Buddha got at least the second one right!

8 Likes
70

I see your last sentence here about reducing suffering and I agree with this. And due to that, I don’t think you are saying (as some do) that because we can’t make a perfect world, we can’t have a 100 percent vegetarian world, then we might as well kill. Such a view would fall under the (ironically called) “Nirvana fallacy” also known as the “perfect solution fallacy” that if the perfected condition cannot exist, then we may as well give up on any less than perfect options.

A move toward vegetarian and more preferably vegan diets does reduce harm, suffering, and killing. It will never eliminate it completely, but does greatly reduce suffering for other sentient beings.

8 Likes
71

other gurus and gods were said to be omniscient. In fact all they were omniscient… until they reached. (Read ie: DN 11 Kevaddha Sutta: What Brahma didn’t know"). A competition on omniscience was implicit like happened with other attributes.

Problem is when some people try to filter that Indian panorama using the christian understanding of Omniscience which it seems contaminates many western minds, scholars and even atheists. It is quite an spectacle seeing an atheist-materialist mind defending positions against Omniscience using Catholic notions. Are like tender efforts to be free of their own god’s shadows.

Inside An 4.36 we find how the Buddha answered to Dina that He was not a human being:

“Are you a human being?”
“No, brahman, I am not a human being.”

The effort to humanize or to divinize the Buddha is not good or bad but it depends of the context.If we talk with people who don’t know Dhamma, normally we would say the Buddha was a human being instead a god. However, in a Dhamma context, the Buddha was not a human being who made mistakes because he ignored the contemporary Science and nasa images. Such depiction of the Buddha try to fit Him into the final authority of this hallucination, with its arising universes, science, human body, perceptions and etc.

At least to me, the Buddha was no more a human being. What Science or the contemporary worldly knowledge says can be important for wordly knowledge, although this is non-relevant for Dhamma knowledge. They are working in that side of an hallucination scheduled to expire.
The Buddha and Dhamma goes beyond that.

At least I don’t believe there is possibility of a successful protestant version for Buddhism. Probably these spaces are available in example for the Semitic religions, because the social normative is a main pillar from the very beginning in order to build a “Religion for society”. However, with Dhamma one start to leave the authority of delusion from the first moment. From the first moment, we learn that we are not just “flesh and blood” but we are aggregates and processes. The “human being” is no longer what it was if there is a cease. Then, What was the Buddha nature?. A “human being”?

Today we think in “human being” in terms conditioned by our culture and worldly knowledge like biology, physiology and etc.

At those old times, it seems it was more common to consider the spiritual condition like the first one to unveil the nature of beings. And the physical appearance was many times in a second place and easier to be deceptive. This is quite the opposite understanding in our modern culture, where we consider the coarse perception and physical appearance like the first one to be considered, and some spiritual nature falls in a second order precisely because today this is a quite invisible dimension, confusing and deceptive. Even non-existent for many people.

Today the human being put more authority in the first sense impressions. Although the issue is to investigate if the Buddhist path is the right place to use that position, even when the whole world can believe such thing

2 Likes
72

The orthodox position is that “simultaneously” was what was wrong here. The Buddha was omniscient in terms of having access to all knowledge when he wanted to, not that he knew it all at once. Think of it as the Buddha having access to a vast library rather than knowing all the texts at once. If he had access to aeons of past lives and had the psychic powers, it’s not so much of an outlandish claim.

5 Likes
73

I totally agree.:pray:t4:
That’s not my main argument- it has to do with calling it a mistake by the Buddha

And like you said, just throwing our hands up in the air and doing nothing isn’t a good thing either. One should take action and do what one can to reduce the suffering of all beings, just as one reduces one’s own suffering.

My view is just that to say the Buddha made a mistake by not vigorously advocating vegetarianism is misplaced.

Given the context of his society, culture, farming practices etc…at the time one can’t fault him for that. He does say that wrong livelihood is trading in living beings. But letting others do the dirty work so one indulges in eating meat ( not because of necessity, but just greed) is
on the individual and needs to be addressed through the Buddha’s teachings on indulgence and greed.

By the same token, scientific research labs in universities, medical sciences, clinical research labs are all torture chambers for thousands of animals ( literally hell realms on earth if you have seen or been there) and I don’t see many people calling for letting natural selection take it’s course on human beings by not testing vaccines or medicines on bunnies, mice and apes for example…mostly everyone wants to live when they get sick regardless of where the medicine is from…

Even the general cosmetics industry has terrible practices that few people talk about -unlike the vegetarian argument. With COVID today, I see disposable masks everywhere. Does it make sense to start advocating for going maskless because of the terrible Long-term plastic pollution?

Our whole society is built on the backs of subjugation and exploitation- the environment, animals and humans alike.

So should we then say the Buddha made a mistake about not encouraging anti-vivisection or buying a tube of antiseptic cream or toothpaste?

It doesn’t end-we can always find reasons to fault someone for not speaking about something or the other.

6 Likes
74

The Jains definitely held that an enlightened being is omniscient. But it would not surprise me if it was primarily a claim to a type of omniscience about spiritual matters. The EBT’s do include these claims about the omniscience of Mahavira by the Jains, but the EBT’s do not commonly make similar claims about the Buddha.

Some Mahayana sutras do hold that the Buddha was omniscient, and they probably got this conception of the Buddha from the Mahasamghika. But even those characterizations are often framed specifically in relation to obscurations to knowledge about spiritual matters, mental phenomena, etc. Not necessarily omniscience about all worldly matters.

1 Like
75

yes… I think you are right. Also maybe it can be useful reading about the life conditions at those times:

“… thus if a sudra insults a twice-born with gross invective, he shall have his tongue cut out. […]…if a sudra mentions the names and castes of the twice-born with contemumely, an iron nail, ten fingers long, shall be thrust red-hot into his mouth. If he arrogantly teaches brahmanas their duties, the king shall cause hot oil to put into his mouth and into his ears. […] Jayaswal suggests that these provisions are directed against the Dharma-preaching sudras who claim equality with the higher classes.”

  • Sudras in Ancient India, R.S.Sharma

the social level in Buddha times was very wild. Expecting some words on modern problems like consent, environment and others, it can sound like a complete joke.

Perhaps after 2.500 years, in a next future civilization without money neither the necessity to work, somebody could ask why the equalitarian scholars and teachers of present times they used the Amazon sudras to receive their purchases. Because those future people sure would see the existence and life conditions of the present workers like an atrocity from this primitive Past. Very difficult to understand. A wild age in where a few exclusive people accumulated all the wealth while billion Sudras-workers should experience strong anguish and sad lives just to have a place to live, food and medical attention.

Of course, we all could share that critique from those hypotetic future people in the theorical terms (“Oh, yes… of course I think a similar way”). Although at the same time we know the level we have. And therefore we will conclude their analysis about the silence or hypocresy of present social-concerned teachers and scholars it wouldn’t be exact neither complete. Because we all know that any social-concerned person can order an Amazon purchase or a Pizza and it doesn’t mean nothing in moral terms.

In fact, what one should recognize is how absolutely amazing was what the Buddha established in the teaching and Sangha at those times. There is need of a very high dosis of ignorance and time-centrism to no appreciate that.

5 Likes
76

"At that time Pilindavaccha had arthritis of the hands and feet.
“I allow …

Actually that is a beautiful example of Buddha teaching a gradual wise approach to healing. Starting with the simplest and mildest to see if that works, if not then make it more complex etc.

It reminded me of how the Patimokkha developed, from a basic teaching of the Middle Way and 3-fold advice for practice, to 10 precepts and then more rules as the sangha grew and need arose. :anjal:

2 Likes
77

Two things might help answer your question:

  1. Buddha’s teaching to Jivaka MN 55

  2. Considering the Buddha’s actions and teaching in the context of the place (northern India), technological development and people’s needs of that time. They grew food through permaculture, which included use of animals. Even now eating eggs and drinking milk or eating cheese involves passive participation in killing young roosters and calves.
    We can only do our best, dependent on the social conditions of the place and time. We are fortunate now, in Australia for example, to have a wide choice. :anjal:

4 Likes
78

I think, instead of pointing out your opinion on “what the Buddha got wrong” in EBTs, it may be better to just identify what the Buddha in EBTs admitted that he made a mistake, and/or presented a solution for his mistake.

For example, he admitted he made a mistake to teach asubha ‘impure’ reflection that caused some problems for monks; he then taught mindfulness on breathing. He admitted he made certain Vinaya rules that needed to be changed, corrected, explained for monks/nuns.

1 Like
79

I agree with this general principle, but I think metabolism must still be functioning in some subtle way. Breathing may also be suspended and imperceptible, which may be another interpretation of cessation. In SN 41.6 and MN 43, someone who is in the Nirodha Samapatti is said to still have physical warmth, which to me indicates thermogenesis, thermoregulation, metabolism, etc.

From the much later Mahavibhasa of the Sarvastivadins (ca. 2nd century), there is advice to only dwell in the Nirodha Samapatti for 1 week or less. Some anecdotes about monks who dwelled in it for 2-4 weeks and died due to lack of nutriment. So it seems like nutriment was being slowly used up during this time. But interestingly enough, the monks only collapsed and died after emerging from samadhi.

SN 41.6

“What’s the difference between someone who has passed away and a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling?”

“When someone dies, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled; their vitality is spent; their warmth is dissipated; and their faculties have disintegrated. When a mendicant has attained the cessation of perception and feeling, their physical, verbal, and mental processes have ceased and stilled. But their vitality is not spent; their warmth is not dissipated; and their faculties are very clear. That’s the difference between someone who has passed away and a mendicant who has attained the cessation of perception and feeling.”

2 Likes