Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by whynotme »

As many knew, nikaya is not original but is collected in a span of time, so there may be fault or inaccurate things in them. Some details are illogical, and are evidently added wrongly. If you can spot any, share it here:

One of the detail is that before death, the Buddha ate poisoned food and was sick. It seems so wrong, because there is no reason for the Buddha to make his body ill, given that his teaching is to get rid of both mental and physical suffering.

The Buddha already knew one of the food is poisoned, so he did not let anyone eat it, but allowed himself to eat it then get sick, very illogical. He just need to tell the donor to throw it away and everyone will be happy with other foods, include himself.

It seems that detail is added to make people believe in determinism, doesn't it?
Please stop following me
SarathW
Posts: 21238
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by SarathW »

Banana always come with a banana peel.
I think it is a natural protection.
We should have the intelligence to sort what is useful from what is useless.
By the way there are lot of use of the banana peel if you look for it.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4646
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

The food was not poisoned, and it did not cause the Buddha's death.
  1. Since he was Omniscient he knew that the food would make him sick, nevertheless he ate it.
  2. He was invited for the meal, so he ate. To refuse to eat would have deprived Cunda of incomparable merit
  3. Afterwards, he told Ānanda to inform Cunda not to be remorseful or to think in that wrong way
  4. Death is inevitable for all living beings, including the Buddha. He had already predicted his demise, and he no craving for prolonged existence
If there is anything incorrect, or that you think is incorrect, then leave it aside. Not everyone likes marmite and honey is not good for diabetics.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by whynotme »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:The food was not poisoned, and it did not cause the Buddha's death.
  1. Since he was Omniscient he knew that the food would make him sick, nevertheless he ate it.
  2. He was invited for the meal, so he ate. To refuse to eat would have deprived Cunda of incomparable merit
  3. Afterwards, he told Ānanda to inform Cunda not to be remorseful or to think in that wrong way
  4. Death is inevitable for all living beings, including the Buddha. He had already predicted his demise, and he no craving for prolonged existence
If there is anything incorrect, or that you think is incorrect, then leave it aside. Not everyone likes marmite and honey is not good for diabetics.
Oh, I did not mean the food is poisoned intentionally, but the food is not good for eating.

By the way, why did the Buddha eat the food that make him sick? Because it is fun and entertainment? So why don't he eat food that make him sick everyday for fun?

The explain you wrote is just simply wrong, because it seems you don't remember the detail of the sutta. In the sutta, Cunda invited the Buddha and the monks for the meal, which means he prepared enough food for all of them, the Buddha and the monks, but only the Buddha ate the poisoned food alone.

So, according to your reason, if the Buddha refused to eat that food, he still could eat other food that were prepared for them, and Cunda still received the merit without hurting the Buddha. This will make everyone happy, isn't it?

Could you explain what is wrong with the new approach? Or just because it is contrary to the sutta, you can not accept the simple fact?

Or the Buddha likes pain, and want to entertain himself with that feeling before nibbana? It is weird.

And for your advice, why don't I leave that thing aside? Oh, so you say Buddhism should be like Christianity, where follower should believe every thing they were told, no matter how illogical it is? And if I leave that aside, what about the next generation? They will not spot that detail and believe that the Buddha like pain

Pain is the new black, right?
Please stop following me
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by whynotme »

Another inaccurate thing in the Mahàparinibbàna sutta is that, before the Buddha's death, there was a monk stand in front of him, and the Buddha told him to step aside because he prevented the devas to see the Buddha.

It seems the detail is added to the suttas by someone without the divine eye, because he thought that the divine eye of the devas is similar to the ordinary eye of the human, and is blocked by physical objects. The divine eye can see through Earth, material, is not blocked by space and time, and then how can a person block the vision of the devas?

Oh, I think we should put that aside, and believe whatever is written in the sutta.
Please stop following me
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by DNS »

The Debate of King Milinda discusses a lot of the things that appear to be contradictions.

The Debate of King Milinda
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by santa100 »

whynotme wrote:Another inaccurate thing in the Mahàparinibbàna sutta is that, before the Buddha's death, there was a monk stand in front of him, and the Buddha told him to step aside because he prevented the devas to see the Buddha.
Before jumping to the conclusion that some sutta excerpt is accurate or inaccurate, one should spend more time to carefully investigate and analyze the passage. For if you've already formed a pre-conception about the accuracy of the message, your mind would've already closed off to any subsequent productive discussion.
Regarding the case of the monk blocking the view of the devas, notice the full paragraph in DN 16:
Almost all of the Divinities, Ānanda, from the ten world-elements have assembled to see the Realised One, everywhere around Kusinārā and the Mallas’ Sal Wood at Upavattana for as far as twelve leagues there is no place, even so much as a tip of a pricking hair, unpervaded by powerful Divinities, and the Divinities, Ānanda, are complaining, saying: ‘We have come from afar to see the Realised One, only occasionally, infrequently, do Realised Ones, Worthy Ones, Perfect Sambuddhas arise in the world, and today during the last watch of the night will be the Realised One’s Final Emancipation, and this powerful monk is stood in front concealing the Realised One, and we are not able to see the Realised One at the last moment.’”
Sure, with their divine eye the devas could just stay in their heavenly palaces and see the Buddha from there. Why would they even bother to come down to earth at all in such huge numbers that there wasn't even space for a tip of a pricking hair? This explains how important it was to be able to get a direct gaze at the Buddha. Ven. Thanissaro' note explained further:
From Vedic times, it has been considered auspicious in India to gaze on a holy person or heavenly being, and to be gazed on by such a being as well. Here the fact that heavenly beings themselves want to gaze on the Buddha indicates the high regard they have for him (this is also the motive for their Great Meeting in DN 20); the phrase later in this paragraph, "the One with Eyes," indicates that they also regarded his gaze as highly auspicious for them. Later passages in this discourse indicate that human beings have similar feelings about the auspiciousness of the Buddha's gaze and the Buddha as an object of one's own gaze. A great deal of the later history of Buddhism in India — including devotional practice, Buddhology, meditation practice, and even the architecture of monasteries — grew out of the continuing desire to have a vision of the Buddha and to be gazed on by the Buddha, even after his Parinibbana.
It is sometimes assumed, based on a passage in SN 22.87, that the Pali canon is uniformly negative toward this aspect of Buddhist tradition. There, Ven. Vakkali, who is ill, states that "For a long time have I wanted to come & see the Blessed One, but I haven't had the bodily strength to do so," and the Buddha comforts him, "Enough, Vakkali. Why do you want to see this filthy body? Whoever sees the Dhamma sees me; whoever sees me sees the Dhamma." It should be noted, however, that the Buddha's treatment of this topic is sensitive to the context. In SN 22.87, he is talking to a monk who (1) is too sick to come see the Buddha on his own strength; and (2) is on the verge of arahantship. Here in DN 16, however, the Buddha dismisses Ven. Upavana so as to honor the desire of the devas who want to see him in his last hour; and he sends Ven. Ananda into Kusinara to inform the lay people there so that they too will be able to see him in his last hour. His motive here may be similar to that given for encouraging the building of a burial mound dedicated to him: seeing him will help human & heavenly beings brighten their minds, and that will be for their long-term welfare & happiness. Thus the attitudes expressed on this topic in the Pali canon, when taken in their entirety, are more complex than is generally recognized.
User avatar
samseva
Posts: 3045
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by samseva »

If I remember correctly, the Buddha had given up the will to continue on living not long before the meal that caused him to be sick.
SarathW
Posts: 21238
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Incorrect things in Nikaya?

Post by SarathW »

You find details here in Mahaparinibbana Sutta.

https://suttacentral.net/en/dn16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply