What the Buddha got wrong?

Q & A
122

I wanted to come back to this, having read Grzegorz Polak’s Reexamining Jhāna. This does not seem to be a mistake of the Buddha, but an error made by the Sutta compilers.

According to him, this has all the marks of a later addition, during an era in Early Buddhism when monks had problems interpreting the Buddha’s meditative teachings. He makes a very convincing case that this (among other things said about Jhāna) is the result of outside influence. Hindu Yoga was the predominant practice during that time, with Buddhism being more of a fringe school of thought, and in Hindu Yoga, one of the highest goals is the complete cessation of bodily activity and consciousness, including the breath. It’s even mentioned explicitly in some Upaniṣads quoted in the book.

So it makes sense that later Buddhists interpreted the Buddha’s teachings from what was the common frame of reference at the time. The Buddha was, after all, a great innovator, both in his time and ours.

2 Likes
123

It’s all quite murky. Polak writes:

The earliest Upanisads like the Brhadāranyaka Upanisad or the Chāndogya Upanisad do not contain any detailed descriptions of the meditative techniques.

Which is correct. So how can it be a compelling case? You’d have to argue that much later upanisads are still earlier than jhana suttas, which I can guarantee can not be done with certainty.

125

To be quite honest, I got a bit lost between the Jains and all the other schools he mentions in the book. Maybe it’s not the Upanishads? Or maybe they are?

In any case, regardless of meditative techniques not being described, the soteriogy doesn’t appear to have changed much, if at all. Kamma was regarded as what keeps one’s soul stuck to this existence, so the only way to become unstuck is by stopping all actions, and stopping consciousness.

That aim is quite different from the aim of Buddhism. In the Suttas it’s always some insight that has soteriological value, and the Jhānas are usually portrayed as the means through which that insight is achieved.

(Posted again because I’m not sure I replied to the right post the first time)

126

For detailed description of Hindu meditative techniques, one should read the Yoga Sūtra of Patañjali. It was compiled sometime between 500 BCE and 400 CE (?) by Patanjali in India who organised knowledge about yoga and its meditative techniques from much older traditions.

1 Like
127

Bhante @Sujato, I wonder on what grounds he would/could have been excluded.
Obviously, the Buddha gave consideration to types of people inappropriate to ordain.

Isn’t it the case that Devadatta started out a good monk but just became too big for his britches (so to speak)?

How could the Buddha have created a category which would exclude people who might later become a problem for the sangha? How would later preceptors make the determination? Did even the Buddha have the power to predict the future?

3 Likes
128

Excellent points! Even if one were to full know what would happen in the future, at the time of ordination, Devadatta had done nothing wrong.

4 Likes
129

There is the example of Angulimala, whom the Buddha foresaw had spiritual potential. He personally ordained him, but explicitly forbade the monks in the future from using that as a precedent, insisting that, as a general rule, notorious serial killers shouldn’t be ordained.

3 Likes
131

In the MN 64 the Buddha converses with mendicants:

“Mendicants, do you remember the five lower fetters that I taught?”
“dhāretha no tumhe, bhikkhave, mayā desitāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti?

When he said this, Venerable Māluṅkyaputta said to him,
Evaṁ vutte, āyasmā mālukyaputto bhagavantaṁ etadavoca:
“Sir, I remember them.”
“ahaṁ kho, bhante, dhāremi bhagavatā desitāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti.

“But how do you remember them?”
“Yathā kathaṁ pana tvaṁ, mālukyaputta, dhāresi mayā desitāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti?

“I remember the lower fetters taught by the Buddha as follows: identity view,
“Sakkāyadiṭṭhiṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
doubt,
vicikicchaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
misapprehension of precepts and observances,
sīlabbataparāmāsaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
sensual desire,
kāmacchandaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi;
and ill will.
byāpādaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, bhagavatā orambhāgiyaṁ saṁyojanaṁ desitaṁ dhāremi.
That’s how I remember the five lower fetters taught by the Buddha.”
Evaṁ kho ahaṁ, bhante, dhāremi bhagavatā desitāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanānī”ti.

“Who on earth do you remember being taught the five lower fetters in that way?
“Kassa kho nāma tvaṁ, mālukyaputta, imāni evaṁ pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni desitāni dhāresi?
Wouldn’t the wanderers who follow other paths fault you using the simile of the infant?
Nanu, mālukyaputta, aññatitthiyā paribbājakā iminā taruṇūpamena upārambhena…

BUT in AN 10.13 discourse the Buddha explained the fetters very briefly as well, only as:

“What are the five lower fetters?
Katamāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni?
Identity view, doubt, misapprehension of precepts and observances, sensual desire, and ill will.
Sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīlabbataparāmāso, kāmacchando, byāpādo—
These are the five lower fetters.
imāni pañcorambhāgiyāni saṁyojanāni.”

Q: Why did then the Buddha reprimand Mālunkyāputta for giving Him just a concise reply?
Did the Buddha forget what He said previously, or is the AN10.13 an abridged version of the Buddha’s original full discourse on the fetters found in other collections?

4 Likes
132

MN 64 (= MA 205), and AN10.13 are just texts, not the actual words of the Buddha.

The extant all early Buddhist texts, some being compiled early, some later, are sectarian texts, and not entirely based on oral tradition. The texts are also artificial creation in both structure and content after being written down, or during writing process.

2 Likes
133

But what about even the earliest suttas, earliest teachings by the Buddha recorded in the ‘Heart’ of Tipitaka -Vinaya Mahākhandhaka Vagga? And the brief discourse to Mahapajapati recorded in AN8.53? In Pali originals, though perhaps in a different dialect, aren’t those authentic words of Buddha and his attendants?

Still, I find them very beautiful and helpful for the Dhamma practice and living in peace and harmony.

1 Like
134

I came across this discourse in SN about Channa killing himself - SN35.87.

Is there a commentary connected with it about what illness he suffered from? is that discourse consistent with the Vinaya?

1 Like
135

I think “energy” would be a closer modern equivalent to how the Buddha saw the fire element.

“And what is the interior fire element? Anything that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual. This includes — that which warms, that which ages, that which heats you up when feverish, that which properly digests food and drink, or anything else that’s fire, fiery, and appropriated that’s internal, pertaining to an individual.” (MN 140)

It’s actually fascinating and a little surprising that ancient Indians recognized that the energy in fire was the same thing as the energy within the human body.

The four elements of earth, water, air, and fire thus correspond to our everyday experience of solid, liquid, gas, and energy (rather than plasma). Really, it’s a pretty decent pre-scientific attempt to make sense of the material world.

12 Likes
136

I wonder what the Pali word for heartburn is? :wink: After all, the digestive acids are very strong fires indeed.

1 Like
137

Fish are classed as animals.

2 Likes
138

I haven’t read the whole thread so I don’t know whether this has been said already, in but DN 11 (Kevatta Sutta) the idea of

touching and stroking with the hand the sun and moon

is puzzling in the case of the sun, as it is not a solid.

1 Like
139

It’s plasma and you can “touch” it as it has boundaries. Just try it with a small candle flame (be quick and careful). :anjal:

1 Like
140

Say it’s a mind made body, and can survive high temperature and pressure, going into the core of the sun, the pressure there is super high to be able to push the nucleus of hydrogen together to fuse into helium.

1 Like
141

When a noble disciple has these seven factors, they have properly investigated their own nature with respect to the realization of the fruit of stream-entry.
Evaṁ sattaṅgasamannāgatassa kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvakassa dhammatā susamanniṭṭhā hoti sotāpattiphalasacchikiriyāya.
A noble disciple with these seven factors has the fruit of stream-entry.”
Evaṁ sattaṅgasamannāgato kho, bhikkhave, ariyasāvako sotāpattiphalasamannāgato hotī”ti.

That is what the Buddha said.
Idamavoca bhagavā.
Satisfied, the mendicants were happy with what the Buddha said.
Attamanā te bhikkhū bhagavato bhāsitaṁ abhinandunti.

seems all missed the pointy!!! not the monks, they got it, its this croud that is looking for faults in the Buddha when you all might be lookng for the faults in your own thinking unwolesome thoughts.

2 Likes