What the Buddha got wrong?

[Dana]

The following issues and questions regarding some sections of several suttas in DN may fit better under a topic ‘What the Buddha’s followers got wrong or added in’. But here they are, based on the Buddha’s advice to Kalamas and on a good intention to know things as they really were:

DN 14: Mahāpadāna Sutta, re: previous Buddhas

Q1: How long is an Eon?

Q2: Did those previous Buddhas live on Earth? If so, are their descriptions consistent with our current knowledge of human history and cultural development?

Their extremely long lifespans are not consistent with any real evidence from human history. Also, class identities such as aristocrat, Brahmin etc. are very recent human invention, a few thousand years old at most.

Q3: Did that story about previous Buddhas come from Vedas? Is that sutta found in Chinese Tipitaka?

DN16: Mahāparnibbāna Sutta, re: how to prepare the Buddha’s corpse for cremation

Q1: Why would a Buddha put so much importance on embalming or wrapping up a body for cremation? Is that consistent with His teaching regarding the body, letting go, non-attachment?

Q2: Was such ‘embalming’ an old Indian custom, recorded in Indian texts? Is such procedure recorded in Vedas?

DN26: Cakkavati Sutta,

It seems to me that the story (parts 2 to 8, from King Dalhameni to Buddha Metteya) may have been imported and inserted between the first and last parts of the original sutta. It is not consistent with what we now know about human and animal lifespans throughout Earth history, or with human evolution based on real evidence.)

Q1: Is that sutta found elsewhere in Pali Tipitaka? Is it found in Chinese Tipitata? Is such story found in ancient Veas or other Indian texts?

Q2: For example, are such long and short lifespans of people plausible? What world is that story describing?

DN27: Aggaṅṅa Sutta, re story of origin

Again it seems to me that the story of origin of various things is an import from ancient Indian culture. Added in. For example origin of Sun, Moon, constellations, etc. Each culture had stories of origin, with some seeds of truth in them.

Q: Is that sutta found in Chinese Tipitaka? Is it found elsewhere in Pali Tipitata? Is there similar story of origins in Vedas or other Indian writings?

[dayunbao]

Maybe the Buddha not foreseeing that the more misogynistic aspects of Indian culture would become dominant and end up crippling the bhikkhunis? And so he didn’t enshrine their independence in the Vinaya using a stronger, harder to refute wording? I know it’s a bit of a stretch, since during the lifetime of the Buddha there were Jain nuns and possibly some female Brahmin teachers, but it must have crossed the Buddha’s mind that after his parinibbana things could get a lot harder for the bhikkunis.

[Khemarato.bhikkhu]

@dayunbao

end up crippling the bhikkhunis? And so he didn’t enshrine their independence in the Vinaya

Idk, I have the opposite take: it’s amazing that the Buddha had the foresight to keep around the allowance for Bhikkhuni ordinations by Bhikkhus alone.

[Gabriel]

@Viveka

SO in making assessments about the Buddhas actions/teachings, I would recommend that it is worthwhile to spend some time in defining the criteria for success, for whom, by whom, and in what time frame.

It’s interesting that there are relatively few points we can find, of which several touch upon omnicience. Additionally, I suggest that if we had a topic of “What the Buddha got right” we would look for similar ‘mundane’ examples.

What we wouldn’t find in both topics are dhamma claims: meditation, liberation, afterlife, kamma, dependent origination, khandhas, etc., in short: the fundament of Buddhism. They are axiomatic, not based on experience that could be verifiable or falsifiable. Sure, Buddhists have no problem to make sense of these concepts, quote liberated masters who confirm the dhamma, find justification in other sciences etc. But in the end there is no way to reconstruct the teaching as it is presented to us ex nihilo as a necessarily true set of concepts.

What I mean is: of course people can say “this works for me”, “that I can confirm by my own experience”, but it doesn’t constitute a general assessment of “He got that right” when it comes to the paññā aspects.

[dayunbao]

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

Idk, I have the opposite take: it’s amazing that the Buddha had the foresight to keep around the allowance for Bhikkhuni ordinations by Bhikkhus alone.

I’d say it’s amazing how much independence and responsibility the Buddha gave the bhikkhunis during his life time, but it’s hard to view the situation from the standpoint of ancient Magadhan society. There were already Jain nuns, so in samana culture there was a precedent. By the time he died, the Buddha would have seen a thriving bhikkhuni sangha. So, despite his claims about the eventual ending of his sasana as a whole, maybe he didn’t think the bhikkhunis would come under attack within a few hundred years of his death? That a whole bhikkhuni lineage (the Theravada) would basically disappear for hundreds of years? That his own followers would resort to misogynistic arguments to stop the re-establishing of that bhikkhuni lineage? However, if establishing the bhikkhuni sangha and giving them so much independence and responsibility was as radical at the time as it seems to us today, then it seems like a failure to understand basic human nature on his part, and foresee the kinds of trouble the bhikkhunis might encounter later on. Although to be fair, I suppose there was nothing the Buddha could have done about later Buddhists putting words into his mouth, like adding the garudhammas. All he could have done was make stronger statements about how the bhikkhuni sangha should remain independent. But who knows, maybe he did and they were removed from the Vinaya.

[stu]

One thing I thought of was breathing stopping in 4th jhana and the mediator ‘breathing’ through the skin. Not the ‘perception of breath’ (that disappears before jhana I think), but the actual breath.

But I had two problems:

1. I didn’t know if this was something the buddha said or a later addition. I still don’t know the answer to this one. Anyone know of a sutta reference?

2. I also thought that there’s been a lot of scientific research into meditators now and I probably would’ve heard if someone had actually stopped breathing in one of those experiments, but maybe not. So I did a bit of research and this came up in my Google search:

Pigs can breathe through their butts. Can humans?

This quote from the article brightened my day:

“We initially looked at a mouse model system to see if we could deliver oxygen gas intra-anusly,”

[Gillian]

Following this success in animal models, Takebe said that his team hopes to start a clinical trial of the treatment in humans sometime next year.

Are there any volunteers?

[stu]

Actually, when I had a colonoscopy a few of years ago they did inflate me beforehand. I’d forgotten about that mildly unpleasant, but amusing experience. Perhaps they were trying to help me breathe?

[suaimhneas]

MN 67 is an example of where the Buddha was persuaded to change his mind. A group of 500 relatively new monastics are dismissed for being excessively noisy. However, after the intervention and pleading of Sakyan laypeople and even Brahmā Sahampati:

“May the Buddha approve of the mendicant Saṅgha! May the Buddha welcome the mendicant Saṅgha! May the Buddha support the mendicant Saṅgha now as he did in the past! There are mendicants here who are junior, recently gone forth, newly come to this teaching and training. If they don’t get to see the Buddha they may change and fall apart. If young seedlings don’t get water they may change and fall apart. … If a young calf doesn’t see its mother it may change and fall apart. In the same way, there are mendicants here who are junior, recently gone forth, newly come to this teaching and training. If they don’t get to see the Buddha they may change and fall apart. May the Buddha approve of the mendicant Saṅgha! May the Buddha welcome the mendicant Saṅgha! May the Buddha support the mendicant Saṅgha now as he did in the past!”

then:

The Sakyans of Cātumā and Brahmā Sahampati were able to restore the Buddha’s confidence with the similes of the seedlings and the calf.

It’s not actually clear-cut that sending away was a mistake (though the laypeople etc. didn’t really introduce any new facts). Perhaps one could counter that the Buddha knew and anticipated the subsequent entreaties for the monastics. However, the Buddha does seem rather human in this situation.

[suaimhneas]

That’s an interesting point. I’ve wondered about that. It just seems physiologically impossible (unless something paranormal is going on ) or one is breathing through one’s pores or through elsewhere (let’s not go there! ) , which doesn’t seem plausible to me. I guess perhaps it becomes so quiescent as to be practically imperceptible (and perhaps was mistaken to have actually stopped?).

In terms of jhana characteristics, I’d say it’s middle ranking in terms of level of attestation. It’s not an attribute that turns just on a single sutta, but it’s also not something that crops up all over the place in a jhana pericope. I went looking for references to this at one point and came across one or two more later. Here are some (this is not exhaustive but I suspect I probably have most of them): DN33 and DN34, SN41.6, AN9.31 and SN36.11. AN10.72 is also relevant, which is the sutta that refers to breath as being a thorn to 4th jhana. MN44 is relevant too with its description of the successive cessation of the verbal, bodily and mental formations in the jhanas and the immaterial attainments, since it equates the bodily formation with the breath. This doesn’t explicitly mention the fourth jhana but I guess logically cessation of the bodily formation has to happen after the cessation of the verbal formation in the 2nd jhana.

In the interpretation of jhana where bodily perceptions cease before jhana, then I guess references to cessation of breath have to imply the cessation (or deep quiescence at least) of the physical process (perhaps observed by someone else or maybe it is noticed by the meditator when coming out of 4th jhana that they have not been breathing for a while). Otherwise, these references have no meaning or purpose. Someone pointed that out to me on dhammwheel relatively recently (where I got drawn into a short debate on this breathing issue).

Otherwise, in interpretations that do not hold to this assumption, it could be either case (cessation of perceptions of breathing or cessation of the physical process). Or it could be both (perception of quiescence of breathing in the 4th jhana and cessation of the perceptions themselves in the first immaterial attainment with the “surmounting of perceptions of forms, with the passing away of perceptions of sensory impingement, with non-attention to perceptions of diversity”).

Either way, on balance, I think such suttas refer to the physical breath. So perhaps they arguably represent some of kind of physiological misunderstanding if they imply an actual stop to this physical process rather than it becoming so gentle/slow as to be near imperceptible.

[arturovm]

Yes, I was stumped by that for a while as well. Even went so far as to ask a question on Stack Exchange

Seeing that it’s mentioned in relatively few places in the Canon where the Fourth Jhāna is talked about, I’m still holding out hope that one day someone discovers that it was a later addition.

[dougsmith]

@sujato

@Khemarato.bhikkhu

Four phases of matter? Solid, liquid, gas, plasma?

Right! I actually discussed this with a plasma physicist recently. It’s actually amazingly accurate.

The four “classical elements” (with perhaps one or two occasional additions) were part of many ancient systems of knowledge, they certainly weren’t original to the Buddha. And I’m not sure that the Buddha’s understanding of them was particularly different or unusual.

It would be useful to look at the Wiki on the classical elements. For example:

The most commonly observed states of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma share many attributes with the classical elements of earth, water, air, and fire, respectively, but these states are due to similar behavior of different types of atoms at similar energy levels, and not due to containing a certain type of atom or a certain type of substance.

Additionally, the Buddha believed that all material objects were made up of amalgamations of these four elements, and indeed human bodies were as well. I don’t believe that there are any parts of a human body hot enough to be in a state of plasma. (Nor are there in most objects that surround us in daily life). Therefore the fire element is more akin to “heat” in a general sense than plasma in particular.

[llt]

@stu

I didn’t know if this was something the buddha said or a later addition. I still don’t know the answer to this one. Anyone know of a sutta reference?

SA 474, SN 36.11, and SN 36.15 have this. The SA 474 passage is below:

佛告阿難：「初禪正受時，言語寂滅，第二禪正受時，覺觀寂滅，第三禪正受時，喜心寂滅，第四禪正受時，出入息寂滅；空入處正受時，色想寂滅，識入處正受時，空入處想寂滅，無所有入處正受時，識入處想寂滅，非想非非想入處正受時，無所有入處想寂滅，想受滅正受時，想受寂滅，是名漸次諸行寂滅。」 (T 99, 2: 121b2–121b9)

The Buddha told Ānanda, “When in the First Dhyāna, words and speech are extinguished. When in the Second Dhyāna, vitarka and vicāra are extinguished. When in the Third Dhyāna, mental joy is extinguished. When in the Fourth Dhyāna, inhalation and exhalation are extinguished. When in the realm of infinite space, the appearance of form is extinguished. When in the realm of infinite consciousness, the appearance of the realm of infinite space is extinguished. When in the realm of nothingness, the realm of infinite consciousness is extinguished. When in the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, the realm of nothingness is extinguished. With the extinction of perceptions and sensations, then perceptions and sensations have been extinguished. This is called the gradual extinction of formations.”

SA 568 and SN 41.6 also gives a discourse by a monk named Kamabhu, that does not mention the dhyanas, but is much along the same lines. MN 44 has a similar passage. Some notes about SN 41.6:

Citta the householder asks Venerable Kāmabhū about the meditative state of the cessation of perception and feeling (saññā-vedayita-nirodha), also called the Nirodha Samāpatti. Kāmabhū tells Citta that when entering the cessation of perception and feeling, first comes the cessation of verbal formations (vacī-saṅkhāra), then bodily formations (kāya-saṅkhāra), and finally mental formations (citta-saṅkhāra). When emerging from this state, the process is simply reversed. Verbal formations are associated with vitakka and vicāra. Bodily formations are associated with the in-breath and out-breath (assāsa-passāsa). Mental formations are associated with perceptions and sensations (saññā-vedayita). From this we can see a progression into this samādhi that first eliminates thought, then breathing, and finally all fine mental activity.

The Sarvastivada dhyana tradition held that in the Fourth Dhyana, in the four formless attainments, and in the Nirodha Samapatti, there is no breathing.

@stu

I also thought that there’s been a lot of scientific research into meditators now and I probably would’ve heard if someone had actually stopped breathing in one of those experiments, but maybe not. So I did a bit of research and this came up in my Google search:

There were a number of studies, starting in the 1980’s, that noticed that for people practicing Transcendental Meditation, their reports of states of “pure consciousness” roughly corresponded to periods of meditation in which their breath was suspended. Breath suspension is one possible interpretation of passages in which the breath is said to “cease”.

[arturovm]

You won’t believe this, but I just saw this on my Twitter feed. What an incredible coincidence! Now, whether ventilation through the butt is enough to replace good, old-fashioned lung breathing during the Fourth Jhāna, I think that’s something that would still be up for debate/research.

https://www.cell.com/med/fulltext/S2666-6340(21)00153-7

[DhammaWiki]

@llt

meat

In Ven. Dhammika’s book To Eat or Not to Eat Meat, he writes:

THE LAST LINK IN THE CHAIN
Here is a quandary for you. We saw before that a causal link can be discerned between eating meat and animals being killed. Nowadays there are many persons between these two points - the slaughter man, the meat packers, the distributors, etc. but in either its simplest or its most complex form the three key participants are (1) the slaughter man, the one who actually draws the knife across the animals throat; (2) the middleman who sells the meat and (3) the customer, the person who buys and consumes the meat. The existence of these three depends on each other. Now it is obvious why the Buddha mentioned slaughter men, hunters, deer stalkers, fishermen, executioners, etc. as those who do not practice Dhamma (Samyutta Nikaya II,256). It is also clear enough why he described people who sell meat as failing to practice Right Livelihood (Anguttara Nikaya III,208). But interestingly, nowhere does the Buddha complete what seems to be the logical sequence by mentioning the third and last link in the chain, the buyer/eater. Why is this? If killing an animal is wrong and selling its meat is wrong, why isn’t buying meat wrong too? Here is another quandary for you. The Buddha said that his lay disciples should avoid making their living by five trades (vanijja); these being trade in weapons (sattha), in human beings (satta), in meat (mamsa), in alcohol (majja) and in poisons (visa, Anguttara Nikaya III.208). Although this seems clear enough, looking at it a little more carefully might reveal something relevant to the question of meat eating. Why are these trades wrong, unwholesome or kammicly negative? Let’s have a look at arms dealing. While the blacksmith is forging steel to make a sword he is unlikely to have any evil intentions, he is probably preoccupied with forging his steel and he certainly does not kill anyone. The arms dealer who sells the sword does not kill anyone either. He’s just selling a commodity. So why did the Buddha consider arms trading to be a wrong means of livelihood? Obviously because weapons, like poisons make killing possible. Their main purpose, indeed their only purpose, is to kill. The arms dealer is centrally situated in a chain that could lead to someone being killed, even though he himself does not kill anyone. A, arms manufacturer - B, arms dealer = C, purchaser and killing. Now if we reverse this sequence and apply it to meat eating then surely the same conclusion would have to be drawn; C - eating meat - B, meat seller = A, slaughter man and killing. Why in both these cases has the Buddha left out one or two of the key links in these chains?

I agree with Ven. Dhammika, why didn’t the Buddha just come out and say lay people should not purchase or consume meat? We know the reasons monastics must accept what is in the dana bowl, but lay people can make a choice and the Buddha obviously knew the drawbacks of slaughterhouses and butchers.

[sujato]

@dougsmith

I don’t believe that there are any parts of a human body hot enough to be in a state of plasma. (Nor are there in most objects that surround us in daily life). Therefore the fire element is more akin to “heat” in a general sense than plasma in particular.

Good point.

@arturovm

Now, whether ventilation through the butt is enough to replace good, old-fashioned lung breathing during the Fourth Jhāna, I think that’s something that would still be up for debate/research.

Hah ha, indeed, we should absolutely get on to that!

@DhammaWiki

why didn’t the Buddha just come out and say lay people should not purchase or consume meat?

I think one way of reframing it is to think of ethics in terms of aspiration rather than prohibition.

At the minimal level, ethical precepts ward us off from some of the most severe transgressions. But this prohibition is often taken to be a complete description of moral life. If you keep precepts, you’re good.

But it was never meant to be that simple. The expanded version of the first precept says that “one lives full of compassion for all sentient beings”. This is clearly calling us out to a higher standard than simply, “not personally sticking the knife in.”

From this perspective, we can ask ourselves, “How can we live in a way that will manifest compassion more fully, to enable and encourage the reduction of harm and promotion of welfare of all sentient beings?”

It is tragically obvious that our modern systems of factory farms and systematic abuse and exploitation of animals creates incomprehensible harm to the animals directly, and indirectly is a major contributor to pollution and global heating.

Aspiring to live the best we can, should we not act in a way to promote the welfare of all beings by not eating meat?

[Brahmali]

@Snowbird

So, coming from a much more traditional background I’m not really keen on the framing of this thread but I understand that it is a natural one.

@Nimal

• You are providing ammunitions to those who already doubt the teaching and invite others to do so. I am sure there will be a lot of critics who will say “we knew it, we told you so”. … washing dirty linen in public.

You know, I’ve come to believe the exact opposite. I think it’s spiritually rewarding to accept that the Buddha made mundane mistakes.

The Buddha’s insights were in the spiritual realm. He did not anywhere claim omniscience, quite the contrary. To assume that the Buddha had perfect knowledge in all sphere of life - whether in medicine, chemistry, or whatever - distracts us from his real achievement of a comprehensive understanding of human suffering and happiness.

To be able to relate to the Buddha as a teacher, it matters that we view him in the right way. If we put him on the wrong pedestal, or on a pedestal that is too high or too ornate, we may lose the all-important connection to the Buddha’s humanity. It is the fact that he was fully human that equips him so superbly to be a teacher of other humans. For instance, there are a significant number of autobiographical suttas, in which the Buddha teaches the path using his own practice as an example. This only work if the Buddha is “one of us”.

When we recognise that the Buddha made mistakes, we humanise him, which in turn allows us to take him even more seriously as our teacher.

@dougsmith

If for example it’s understood to be entirely phenomenological, that’s a different matter.

I would say this is the predominant view of the suttas. The typical use of this framework is in the four elements meditation. According to MN 28, this can be done by recognising that one’s own body is of the same nature as the external worlds. This is much easier done if we use the four traditional elements than, say, the periodic table. I mean, the teachings are pragmatic.

@arturovm

To be clear, I’m not referring to the teachings on rebirth, or the planes of existence, for example, but, rather, the instances where the Buddha is a little like, “Look at me and my supreme supranormal powers.”

At DN 11, we find the Buddha saying the following:

Seeing this drawback in psychic power, I’m horrified, repelled, and disgusted by demonstrations of psychic power.

@stu

One thing I thought of was breathing stopping in 4th jhana and the mediator ‘breathing’ through the skin.

@suaimhneas

That’s an interesting point. I’ve wondered about that. It just seems physiologically impossible

@arturovm

Yes, I was stumped by that for a while as well.

We can probably all agree that meditation tends to slow down the bodily processes. As the meditation deepens, the breath becomes shallower and less pronounced and the body becomes increasingly still. I would argue that this process comes to its logical conclusion in the fourth jhāna, with the full stop of all metabolism. If the body is not metabolising, then oxygen is no longer required.

[Nimal]

@Brahmali

To assume that the Buddha had perfect knowledge in all sphere of life - whether in medicine, chemistry, or whatever - distracts us from his real achievement of a comprehensive understanding of human suffering and happiness

Bhante, thank you for your response. Yes, the Buddha’s real achievement is his understanding the human suffering and the way for the cessation of suffering. And we should relate to the Buddha from that perspective rather than putting him on a different pedestal as you you have said.

But, as I said in my first post, by discussing the so called mistakes we are doing the exact opposite. I think what we should do is understand the fact that not all scriptures are authentic words of the Buddha because they have come to us through verbal transmission and concentrate on suffering and its cessation. This way, we see the Buddha as a human who can be trusted and for whom we can develop faith.

After all what are we going to gain by discussing them? I think most people who have developed faith in the Buddha because they think the Buddha had some super natural power will lose that faith which is counter productive. Even the others like those who have responded here get distracted from what they are supposed to be doing which is following the path. Can you please say to which factor of the path this discussion fit in?

So IMHO, your intention to humanise him has unintended consequences.
With Metta

[Ficus]

@DhammaWiki

why didn’t the Buddha just come out and say lay people should not purchase or consume meat?

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

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!

@sujato

Aspiring to live the best we can

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…

[HSS]

@Viveka

Is teaching contemplation on the repulsiveness of the body wrong? It yields good results for some, but bad results for others.

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.