one-time meal contradiction

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Post Reply
User avatar
khemindas
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:06 am
Location: Myanmar
Contact:

one-time meal contradiction

Post by khemindas » Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:55 pm

Very strange sutta for exampe at AN 4.198 https://suttacentral.net/an4.198/en/sujato

Buddha says next while criticizing ascetic practices:
"They eat once a day....That’s how one person mortifies themselves, pursuing the practice of mortifying themselves."

And at the same sutta he praise this practice while it's mentioned in buddhist context:
"They eat in one part of the day....When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, they experience a blameless happiness inside themselves."

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by budo » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:02 pm

Dear Bhante,

You're quoting out of context, the context is that they Yo-Yo between extremes, thus it is not the middle way.

See Maha-Saccaka sutta:
"There are, for example, Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Sankicca, and Makkhali Gosala. They are cloth-less[1] ascetics, rejecting conventions, licking their hands, not coming when called, not staying when asked. They don't consent to food brought to them or food dedicated to them or to an invitation to a meal. They accept nothing from the mouth of a pot or from the mouth of a bowl. They accept nothing from across a threshold, across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a nursing woman, from a woman living with a man, from where it is announced that food is to be distributed, from where a dog is waiting or flies are buzzing. They take no fish or meat. They drink no liquor, wine, or fermented drink. They limit themselves to one house & one morsel a day, or two houses & two morsels... seven houses & seven morsels. They live on one saucerful a day, two... seven saucerfuls a day. They take food once a day, once every two days... once every seven days, and so on up to a fortnight, devoted to regulating their intake of food."

"But, Aggivessana, do they survive just on that?"

"No, Master Gotama. Sometimes they eat outstanding staple foods, chew on outstanding non-staple foods, taste outstanding delicacies, and drink outstanding drinks. They rescue the body & its strength, fortify it, and fatten it."

"What they earlier abandoned, Aggivessana, they later gather up. This is how there is decrease & increase of the body. But what have you learned, Aggivessana, about the development of the mind?"

Yet Saccaka the Nigantha, when asked by the Blessed One about the development of the mind, was unable to respond.

Then the Blessed One said to Saccaka, "The ones you described just now as developed in the development of the body: That is not legitimate development of the body in the discipline of the noble ones. As you don't understand the development of the body, from where would you understand the development of the mind? Nevertheless, as to how one is undeveloped in body and undeveloped in mind, and developed in body and developed in mind, listen and pay close attention. I will speak."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

User avatar
khemindas
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 8:06 am
Location: Myanmar
Contact:

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by khemindas » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:22 pm

budo wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:02 pm
Dear Bhante,

You're quoting out of context, the context is that they Yo-Yo between extremes, thus it is not the middle way.

See Maha-Saccaka sutta:
"There are, for example, Nanda Vaccha, Kisa Sankicca, and Makkhali Gosala. They are cloth-less[1] ascetics, rejecting conventions, licking their hands, not coming when called, not staying when asked. They don't consent to food brought to them or food dedicated to them or to an invitation to a meal. They accept nothing from the mouth of a pot or from the mouth of a bowl. They accept nothing from across a threshold, across a stick, across a pestle, from two eating together, from a pregnant woman, from a nursing woman, from a woman living with a man, from where it is announced that food is to be distributed, from where a dog is waiting or flies are buzzing. They take no fish or meat. They drink no liquor, wine, or fermented drink. They limit themselves to one house & one morsel a day, or two houses & two morsels... seven houses & seven morsels. They live on one saucerful a day, two... seven saucerfuls a day. They take food once a day, once every two days... once every seven days, and so on up to a fortnight, devoted to regulating their intake of food."

"But, Aggivessana, do they survive just on that?"

"No, Master Gotama. Sometimes they eat outstanding staple foods, chew on outstanding non-staple foods, taste outstanding delicacies, and drink outstanding drinks. They rescue the body & its strength, fortify it, and fatten it."

"What they earlier abandoned, Aggivessana, they later gather up. This is how there is decrease & increase of the body. But what have you learned, Aggivessana, about the development of the mind?"

Yet Saccaka the Nigantha, when asked by the Blessed One about the development of the mind, was unable to respond.

Then the Blessed One said to Saccaka, "The ones you described just now as developed in the development of the body: That is not legitimate development of the body in the discipline of the noble ones. As you don't understand the development of the body, from where would you understand the development of the mind? Nevertheless, as to how one is undeveloped in body and undeveloped in mind, and developed in body and developed in mind, listen and pay close attention. I will speak."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Yes I know it, but anyways it's looks like double standarts.

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by budo » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:33 pm

khemindas wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:22 pm

Yes I know it, but anyways it's looks like double standarts.

It's not a double standard. There's a difference between eating a small portion in one meal vs many portions (or plates) in one meal.

Hence the emphasis on number of "saucers" (plates) and/or mouthfuls.

The hard rule is not eating after noon. The soft rule is one meal a day.

Is there a rule on how many portions, plates, or mouthfuls per single meals in the vinaya?
Last edited by budo on Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Volo
Posts: 744
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by Volo » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:33 pm

khemindas wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:55 pm
Very strange sutta for exampe at AN 4.198 https://suttacentral.net/an4.198/en/sujato

Buddha says next while criticizing ascetic practices:
"They eat once a day....That’s how one person mortifies themselves, pursuing the practice of mortifying themselves."

And at the same sutta he praise this practice while it's mentioned in buddhist context:
"They eat in one part of the day....When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, they experience a blameless happiness inside themselves."
Indeed strange. Pali though has somewhat different wording: when criticizing it's "ekāhikampi āhāraṃ āhāreti", while for praise: "Ekabhattiko hoti". Might be that something else is meant in the first case.

santa100
Posts: 3676
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by santa100 » Wed Jul 03, 2019 6:05 pm

khemindas wrote:Buddha says next while criticizing ascetic practices:
"They eat once a day....That’s how one person mortifies themselves, pursuing the practice of mortifying themselves."

And at the same sutta he praise this practice while it's mentioned in buddhist context:
"They eat in one part of the day....When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, they experience a blameless happiness inside themselves."
It's important to quote the whole paragraph to see the full context. Once you see the full context, 2 keywords showing the stark contrast between one who mortifies himself versus one neither mortify himself nor others: irregularity and extremism.
AN 4.198 wrote:And how does one person mortify themselves, pursuing the practice of mortifying themselves? It’s when someone goes naked, ignoring conventions. They lick their hands, and don’t come or wait when asked. They don’t consent to food brought to them, or food prepared on purpose for them, or an invitation for a meal. They don’t receive anything from a pot or bowl; or from someone who keeps sheep, or who has a weapon or a shovel in their home; or where a couple is eating; or where there is a woman who is pregnant, breastfeeding, or who has a man in her home; or where there’s a dog waiting or flies buzzing. They accept no fish or meat or liquor or wine, and drink no beer. They go to just one house for alms, taking just one mouthful, or two houses and two mouthfuls, up to seven houses and seven mouthfuls. They feed on one saucer a day, two saucers a day, up to seven saucers a day. They eat once a day, once every second day, up to once a week, and so on, even up to once a fortnight. They live pursuing the practice of eating food at set intervals...

And how does one person neither mortify themselves nor others...They refrain from injuring plants and seeds. They eat in one part of the day, abstaining from eating at night and food at the wrong time...

SarathW
Posts: 11967
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by SarathW » Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:22 pm

Yes, the way I see Buddha admonishing not to go to extremes of self-mortification and indulgence.
Perhaps another matter is not to get stuck with clinging to rites and rituals.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”

form
Posts: 1140
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 3:23 am

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by form » Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:22 am

The not eating after noon rule was laid down after monk in the dark scared villagers, fell into holes on the ground etc. The main concern is regarding not to overeat as it is not good for health, stirred up defilements and interfere with meditation. It will be debatable whether one including a monk should eat a little after permitted time should hunger became unbearable or just drink some permitted nutrient drink. Some monks that are highly attained in meditation may need only to eat very little because their metabolism became slow and they are not doing much physical work.

justindesilva
Posts: 988
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by justindesilva » Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:57 am

khemindas wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:55 pm
Very strange sutta for exampe at AN 4.198 https://suttacentral.net/an4.198/en/sujato

Buddha says next while criticizing ascetic practices:
"They eat once a day....That’s how one person mortifies themselves, pursuing the practice of mortifying themselves."

And at the same sutta he praise this practice while it's mentioned in buddhist context:
"They eat in one part of the day....When they have this entire spectrum of noble ethics, they experience a blameless happiness inside themselves."
From watching the eating habits of Buddhist priests today , it is observed that the breakfast and lunch are full and nutritious meals. After this if a monk sets himself the next half day for meditation the necessity of another meal will be minimised. It is also observed that the samanera monks are not very strict about not taking meals after sunset until they reach upasampada stage.
The vinaya rules observed by the bikkus have been laid by lord budda after certain incidents as and when they arose when required. There are exceptions to rules of meals for a sick mendicant.

User avatar
Antaradhana
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2019 4:56 pm
Location: Saratov, Russia

Re: one-time meal contradiction

Post by Antaradhana » Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:30 pm

In DN 25, for example, the Buddha, while talking with ascetics about asceticism, generally favorably relates to these austerities, but says that the Path of Dhamma is superior to this.
All that is subject to arising is subject to termination, all formations are non-permanent. And that which is impermanent is suffering. Regarding what is impermanent and prone to suffering, one cannot say: "This is mine, I am this, this is my self".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: inyenzi, Nwad and 139 guests