Did Buddha make a mistake here?
silver
In the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast. Veteran
As I've mentioned any number of times, I've been reading OPWC (Old Path White Clouds) and I'm a little more than half way through it. I've learned so much from the book about basics and the real life story of the Buddha, who never fails to blow me away with his clarity and wisdom when people come to him with their problems.
Until now.....I just read a part where I cocked my head and wondered, 'what was he thinking?' -- and it was uh out of character for him. Or at least, I thought so: The situation was that about 500 bhikkus and monks were staying near this village and the region was going through a drought and as time went on, there was less food available to everyone, and the followers were struggling with hunger. The younger ones suffered the most because they deferred to the elders in the group. Often times, the members of the group would come back with empty bowls and a lot less than usual.
One day, one of Buddha's right hand men came to him to suggest that they move to an area where he knew they would have less trouble finding food. Buddha responded by saying that he didn't want to abandon the villagers and they needed to suffer right along with them. That's when I thought the Buddha had lost it and maybe his judgment was suffering due to not having enough to eat. I thought to myself that if I were the Buddha, I would split the group into 1/2 or 1/3 so that the villagers would continue to enjoy the presence of the monks and would ease the problem of getting enough to eat.
Has anyone else ever wondered stuff like this?
And it's not like I would say or think that this makes the Buddha all washed up. I'm just curious.
Comments
That's the problem with setting the Buddha up on a "pedestal of perfection" and expecting for him to always be right. You're either going to end up following him blindly or denouncing him as imperfect (in other words "human")... but the fact is he was just a man, and we can't even be sure the texts accurately reflect what did happen.
Don't expect so much of "the Buddha". He is said to have achieved Enlightenment, not Perfection!
Follow the Path and know for yourself what's right.
I haven't heard that story. As you already know, probably all of the stories we read today have been subject to 'editing' or someone's memory, so this is on my mind when I read any sutta or other scripture type things. It doesn't seem daft of him to stay put, more like exceedingly compassionate to the villagers, who probably felt some pride in hosting all these bikkhus. You'd think the villagers would chase all those hungry mouths away from THEIR food, but maybe the bikkhus were seen as 'good luck' or just a comfort for the villagers during a hard time. Maybe the villagers believed they were accumulating 'merit', and by leaving, the Buddha knew they would be disappointed on top of coping with not enough to eat?
Having very little to eat is something we moderns really don't experience. Back then, not eating for a couple of days might be no big deal in that village, and lack of food just something to cope with rather than make big sweeping changes in the plan. Just some thoughts.
I myself am not setting him up on a pedestal, even though what I've learned so far about him is amazing and the teachings have helped immensely, @Toraldris. It's been discussed - the comparing of religions and I can see how this 'worship' of especially insightful men comes about...the psychology of it is amazing to me.
I've enjoyed your response -- makes a whole lot of sense and some things that I wouldn't have thought about, like the group being seen as good luck, etc.
If you could say which sutta it is we could probably find it online and discuss it properly.
In the book it just told the story, no sutta was mentioned - what's a sutta? Just half-kidding, @SpinyNorman.
Here's a good sutta to look at, the Satipatthana Sutta:
Access to Insight: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html
Or:
Sutta Central: http://suttacentral.net/en/mn10
If you have the time it's useful to go back to the source material. Accounts in books aren't always very true to the original.
I feel @Toraldris is spot on. We can not expect perfection from Buddha or his reporting fan club.
Personally I feel that the contemplation and reinterpretation of Dharma is an ongoing requirement. Secular, punk, therapeutic, engaged and other Buddhist doctrines are emerging in the West.
It all started with those upstart Theravadin elders browbeating the other sects - many of which are now defunct. Then we have those Mahayanist heretics with their made up dharma. I won't even mention those hodge podge Vajrayanists and their pretensions . . .
I am just glad I was thrown out of the Yinyana Buddist Cult, mainly for having the audacity to start it . . .
http://web.archive.org/web/20031011051958/http://pages.britishlibrary.net/edjason/triple/
and now back to 'De Truth' . . .
following is what i have heard from my childhood as a child born to a buddhist family:
if you give to an animal you get 100 fold (definite it must be food)
if you give to a man/woman you get 1000 fold
if you give to a virtuous man/woman (monk/nun) you get 100,000 fold
if you give to a stream winner what you get is immeasurable
there is nothing to talk about how much you get if you could give to an Arahnt or Buddha
So Buddha might have known their previous kamma (cause) for them not to have enough food (effect)
if Buddha and other monks left the village at such a time, the villagers might not be able to make good kamma by giving from the little food that they had
by staying Buddha and monks could help villagers to make good kamma by giving to Buddha and monks (cause in the present), so their future would be better (effect in the future)
Where do you find these cushions, @lobster?! So glad you do
Personally I feel that the contemplation and reinterpretation of Dharma is an ongoing requirement.
Humans love to re-invent the wheel.
I would not consider that a mistake. Maybe if all the monks died of starvation, then maybe I might say it was a mistake! Technically, if you are not clinging to sense pleasure, etc. then not having enough food to eat for a while should not be all that big of a deal.
Another big problem is we never have the whole story. By the time these were written down, the early monks were far removed from the time and place also.
In this case, we don't know the real reason Buddha wanted the Sangha to remain there. That "place where there was more food" if the land was in a drought sounds like the city where people have money and the luxury of importing and paying for food.
Perhaps he knew they would not be welcomed there, appearing to be refugees trying to take advantage of the people. Perhaps that city area already had enough refugees begging for food who would object to a crowd of holy beggers descending on them. Perhaps it was the people of the city asking him to abandon the poor village and set up shop in the rich district, and this was his way of telling them to help the poor village instead. Maybe his Sangha needed taught a lesson about accepting whatever the world throws at you instead of accumulating the comforts of temples and rich donations. Lots of possible reasons, but we'll never know. The Sutras don't mention disease or starvation wiping out part of his Sangha, so everything came out all right in the end.
Far as we know.
Yes, a lot or a little could be missing from our not having been there.....If I recall the story properly, the Buddha's assistant said that there was a healthy forest there.
One thing I thought of that wasn't mentioned, was that the traveling itself, although not too far away, would still be hard on any of them who were in a weakened state already.
So, given all those possibilities, it seems as though - in the end - the pros and cons were pretty even.
I agree with much of what the others have said, but to add something else, who is to say that we as average (and very skewed) people in today's world can have a clue what the Buddha intuited from the situation and why he made the choice he did. I think it's hard to comprehend in our "take care of yourself, your family, your home, your friends...and if there is anything else left, donate a few bucks to someone else" society. But I think there is probably quite alot of value in the decision to suffer alongside someone else in that manner and perhaps Buddha knew exactly what he was doing (assuming the story is true, of course). Perhaps if we don't get it, that makes us the crazy ones, and not Buddha.
When we read the suttas, @silver, sometimes we lack enough information of the cultural background of the described event.
In circumstances where I'm totally stumped by certain customs which clash with our values today, I tend to trust in the Buddha's wisdom and reason he did the best that could be done in view of the circumstances.
If I have any doubts, questions or niggly feelings about anything I read, regarding the Buddha's words and actions, I remember the furore around his assessment that if women joined Sanghas, the Dhamma would be severely curtailed, and how much doubt has been thrown on those words, as being extremely likely to have been added later.
The wheel has to ROLL, Spiny.
The Buddha.
. . . and Google/images.
People respond to expression in different ways. I work well visually.
Ain't that the truth?
That or you just think so ......
It could have been. The same has been said about the Kalama Sutra, too, not that I put much stock in such an assertion. It gets over-used as it is, why add fuel to the fire by asserting inauthenticity? Hell, some people base their entire Buddhist being on that sutra.
The truth is, we don't really know. For many it serves only as an obstacle - just the idea that the Buddha could think or say something so politically incorrect, is enough to send many "Buddhists" into apoplexy. I often wonder why some folks react with such knee-jerk suddeness, when, as with all things the Buddha said, it truly requires a lot of contemplation instead. For others it provides a lifetime of contemplation.
Um...the tank?
@Chaz - I love that word: apoplexy.
From reading that book I'm always talkin' about (OPWC), and other stuff about the Buddha, I gather that his concern about women joining, was that they would be another distraction and a very powerful one at that. His concern about various distractions were repeatedly mentioned.
I feel quite strongly that to him, it was just one too many of the bigger distractions that could very well overwhelm the all-men groups (sangha's?) and he was never known to say he was against it except for reasons that seemed to follow that line of reasoning. I can't say as I blame him.
You should not be apoplectic if you understand that Women complement Men - to believe otherwise is Misogeny! I am a true feminist! not because I'm a man, but because, I know I have a feminine aspect, and women know that masculinity can be domineering- to deny it is ignorance of being, to accept is to be accepting...
who?
whoa!
men?
woah men...
yin yang
think it's just a big bang
and made you feel atop
but all men do
when exertion stops
you get up and go
and your hardness becomes a FLOP!
"Buddha makes no mistakes!"
Thats why you are here
raise you game
because nothing ever
stays the same
...\lol/...
>
Fwiw, I was only saying I like the word apoplexy ...shrug That was interesting.
Does that mean that you're disagreeing with my most recent post?
Btw, are you related to @lobster in any way?
FWIW I am not disagreeing with you @silver I am making multiple comments on above posts poetically - and poetry expresses more than prose... And on a forum like this, reading what is expressed in a linear fashion, often results in misunderstanding My relationship with @lobster is a very British one, we live on the same Island, probably within 8 miles of each other... I know roughly where he/she hangs out and the bicycle she/he rides. FWIWEM - I am prepared to clarify what I say, whereas @lobster often leaves the reader confused. If my comments make you confused, explain the confusion, and I will rectify. - so now I will stop being prosaic...
But you have to realise one thing - those, like me and @lobster, who flirt with the truth, often find themselves in places where a soft landing is required
I believe @lobster is an interior designer
who makes upper market cushions for the NW London Market
NB is the advertising medium
buddhism is just the wrapping and the casket
...\lol/...
I like the word apoplexy too - but there there are many other words I also like!
Okay. Just checking.
Sometimes, in our attempts to recreate the wheel, we make squares instead.
Think so?
LOL
Knew I had better explain that for those with a non visual preference:
People communicate in and respond to different cues:
Some predominantly use a visual form of expression, 'I see what you mean' for example.
Others respond better to 'I hear you'.
Other are kinaesthetic feely types who need the occasional butt kicking cushion.
And yes I just so think . . .
My predominant mode of communication is visual language orientated.
Time to cater for everyone? Just not possible as you never cease reminding . . .
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
Then, my deahh, we agree that Men complement Women...
@DhammaDragon was that a compliment!
...\lol/...
Yes. And it is now considered by many that the fault for BEING distracted, lay with the Minds of Monks, not the inclusion of women.
I think it's quite evident, if we take the history and attitude (both past and present/current) towards ordained women/nuns in Buddhism, generally, that the ones with the constant gripes about the issue, are men.
And male sexual offenders within the Buddhist community, are not uncommon.
>
Why?
I feel quite strongly that to him, it was just one too many of the bigger distractions that could very well overwhelm the all-men groups (sangha's?) and he was never known to say he was against it except for reasons that seemed to follow that line of reasoning. I can't say as I blame him.
>
>
>
I'm not sure which part(s) you're asking why about. It might be complicated - for me. :smirk:
Why can't you blame him for having stated that it might have been one too many of the bigger distractions....?
And come to think of it, what other bigger distractions are you thinking of....?
I'm not poking here, I'm genuinely curious....
I'm not sure I'm looking to blame him for much of anything, actually...?
As far as distractions go that were mentioned along the way in the book, I just remember that there were a few that were mild, some medium, and so on.
I can read, spell and pretty much speak/write like a champ - it's my comprehension and - at times remembering stuff - that gives me trouble. I know it's lame, but you know the saying iiwii.
![:\](https://newbuddhist.com/plugins/emojiextender/emoji/little/confused.png ":\")
Why can't you blame him for having stated that it might have been one too many of the bigger distractions....?
>
Ohh, I get it now!
Well, I think maybe at several junctures perhaps, the Buddha may have realized just what a giant snowball his Awakening had on the world, and I suppose being human, he felt overwhelmed at times...It seemed to be too much of a problem for him to deal with, given his own early conditioning and being a male of the species, etc. Knowing this, I wouldn't excuse him for being unwilling - at first, to allow women in.
Don't fret. You're not the only one. There are some people on here - @Jason (who is also a Mod) who have almost encyclopaedic knowledge of the suttas, teachings, arguments, and other literature, that would leave many in the shade.
me? Dumb-simple. I read what piques my interest and pick up a great deal form others.
I like this forum particularly, because there are very few pretentious twits, and if any surface, or poke their heads above the parapet, they don't get much joy for being patronising or 'superior'.
Other forums I won't mention out of professional courtesy, however, enjoy a thriving, roaring trade in such membership.
I don't HAVE to know everything, and within a time-frame, at that.
I just go with the flow, do what works and just try my best.
Oh man, I love that - pretentious twits - Yes! (sadly)
>
Another argument put forward has been that, at the time, the societal limitations placed upon women, and their role and status in society, meant that by permitting ordination, this would have given women equal status to Monks. This was a major stumbling block for many men at the time, and given that all who followed the Buddha were unenlightened men, it is not difficult to conceive that they were burdened with the prejudices and opinions of the time.
The rules and regulations for Nuns are far more numerous and stringent, than those for Monks.
It is (again) believed that some of the more condescending/patronising ones were later additions, but many of the rules were in fact enforced for their personal protection, rather than limitation.
Yes, @Federica, that makes a lot of sense.
(Don't tell me that too often. It'll only go to my head....
One thing you almsot never hear about with the Buddha on women in the Sangha is that it was a skillfull means set-up. He said what he did to test the reaction of the sangha - to see if they'd follow along blindly or take a little responsibility. Also to see if they had gotten way from the prejudices of their patriarchal society and were ready to move on. As soon as Ananda gave the Buddha a resoned response, he "aquiesced".
This also makes a lot of sense.... Kind of 'double-bluffing' them to test their dedication to their quest for unconditional.....'everything'.....
It's a great time to move on then!
The dialogue that exists between us represents an absolute, given, that our posts represent our personal and complete authority, based on our personal experience, we are merely nothing more than our personal representations.
nuff said!
I listened to In our time" on Zen buddhism and it showed me something!
If in UK listen to it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04sxv29
It has it's perks and at the same time, the commentators were laughing at trying to talk about Zen but they had to promote themselves;else what are they doing! - I heard the laughter! ...\lol/...
The Buddha made mistakes. The Dharmakaya did not shine out of his holy cushion. He was a man. The Sangha did not collapse because of the inclusion of women as he badly prophesied.
This nonsensical but so human worship of wisdom beyond its expressive capacity, denies us enlightenment as a mundane possibility and turns us into unobtainable Buddhist SuperGals . . .
http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm
The fact that Buddha was a warrior aristocrat and used to acquiescence, probably did a lot to increase his demeanour and reputation. Just remember or study how convicted ludicrous fraudsters (eg. the founder of Osmondism or Mormonism as it is now known) become sanctified.
The Buddha had integrity, wisdom, enlightenment and insight, no divine providence. The Buddha had the foibles of a sexist man of his time and culture. There is hope for all of us lads and ladies. Yippee!
Do you regard the histo-buddha an anti-female profit @lobster?
That's probably because he didn't.
>
No, he didn't. Enlightened people tend not to tether themselves to such trivia.
Someone else seems to be talking out of their zafu tonight, lobster.
Must be panto season . . .
Unlike those who were present, or those determined to elevate I feel the case either way is . . . Buddha trivia.
@Lobster...your 4:21 post was among your best!