suicide in the sangha

[Michel]

... The suttas suggest that Siddhartha Gautama was not always blissed out.  In fact I believe that Devadata division in his sangha was driven by less than saintly behavior of Siddhartha Gautama.  So, perhaps he was not an arahant either?

Where in the suttas do you draw this conclusion from?  I've just finished reading the Samyutta Nikaya today, as translated by Bodhi. I recall that Devadatta tried to kill the Buddha and take over the Sangha. I've also read Wisdom's Digha and Majjhima Nikayas. There's nothing there that suggests that the Buddha was less than saintly in behaviour.

What we know about the Buddha's relation to Devadatta is from the Vinayapitaka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta

If the Buddha wasn't an arahant, then were does that leave us?

[Jhanananda]

Where in the suttas do you draw this conclusion from?  I've just finished reading the Samyutta Nikaya today, as translated by Bodhi. I recall that Devadatta tried to kill the Buddha and take over the Sangha. I've also read Wisdom's Digha and Majjhima Nikayas. There's nothing there that suggests that the Buddha was less than saintly in behaviour.

I wish I could have recorded the suttas that seemed to me to suggest a cause for the division.  I seem to recall several suttas in the Samyutta Nikaya that Siddhartha Gautama gave a scathing lecture, then retreated into solitude during one rains retreat, and he told Ananda not to disturb him.  At that time hundreds of his followers committed suicide. Perhaps, since you just finished reading that Nikaya you might recall the suttas in question.

Also, the heartwood sutta refers to an individual in conflict, which I believe might have been Devadatta.

What we know about the Buddha's relation to Devadatta is from the Vinayapitaka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devadatta

If the Buddha wasn't an arahant, then were does that leave us?

Well, that is the point.  We simply have to accept a few things to make any progress in the contemplative life, and some of those are: I accept Siddhartha Gautama and Jesus were fully enlightened; however, that does not mean that they might have manifested some unpleasant social behavior.  Thus, I agree with Jhanon.

[Michel]

I wish I could have recorded the suttas that seemed to me to suggest a cause for the division.  I seem to recall several suttas in the Samyutta Nikaya that Siddhartha Gautama gave a scathing lecture, then retreated into solitude during one rains retreat, and he told Ananda not to disturb him.  At that time hundreds of his followers committed suicide. Perhaps, since you just finished reading that Nikaya you might recall the suttas in question.

I think this is the only sutta in the Samyutta that describes a mass suicide:

translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
 

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali in the Great Wood, at the Gabled Hall. Now on that occasion the Blessed One, with many lines of reasoning, was giving the monks a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], was speaking in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, was speaking in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness. Then the Blessed One addressed the monks: "Monks, I wish to go into seclusion for half a month. I am not to be approached by anyone at all except for the one who brings almsfood."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded to him. And no one approached the Blessed One except for the one who brought almsfood.

Then the monks — [thinking,] "The Blessed One, with many lines of reasoning, has given a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], has spoken in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, has spoken in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness" — remained committed to the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness in many modes & manners. They — ashamed, repelled, & disgusted with this body — sought for an assassin. In one day, ten monks took the knife. In one day, twenty monks took the knife. In one day, thirty monks took the knife.

Then the Blessed One, emerging from his seclusion after half a month's time, said to Ven. Ananda, "Ananda, why does the community of monks seem so depleted?"

"Because, lord, the Blessed One, with many lines of reasoning, gave the monks a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], spoke in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, spoke in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness. The monks — [thinking,] 'The Blessed One, with many lines of reasoning, has given a talk on the unattractiveness [of the body], has spoken in praise of [the perception of] unattractiveness, has spoken in praise of the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness' — remained committed to the development of [the perception of] unattractiveness in many modes & manners. They — ashamed, repelled, & disgusted with this body — sought for an assassin. In one day, ten monks took the knife. In one day, twenty monks took the knife. In one day, thirty monks took the knife. It would be good, lord, if the Blessed One would explain another method so that this community of monks might be established in gnosis."

"In that case, Ananda, gather in the assembly hall all the monks who live in dependence on Vesali."

"As you say, lord," Ven. Ananda responded. When he had gathered in the assembly hall all the monks who lived in dependence on Vesali, he went to the Blessed One and said, "The community of monks is gathered, lord. Now is the time to do as the Blessed One sees fit."

Then the Blessed One went to the assembly hall and sat down on a seat made ready. As he was sitting there, he addressed the monks: "Monks, this concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is both peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen. Just as when, in the last month of the hot season, a great rain-cloud out of season immediately disperses & allays the dust & dirt that have been stirred up, in the same way this concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing, when developed & pursued, is both peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen.

"And how is concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to be both peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen?

"There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out.

"[1] Breathing in long, he discerns, 'I am breathing in long'; or breathing out long, he discerns, 'I am breathing out long.' [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns, 'I am breathing in short'; or breathing out short, he discerns, 'I am breathing out short.' [3] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the entire body.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the entire body.' [4] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming bodily fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming bodily fabrication.'

"[5] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to rapture.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to rapture.' [6] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to pleasure.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to pleasure.' [7] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication [feeling & perception].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication.' [8] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in calming mental fabrication.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out calming mental fabrication.'

"[9] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in sensitive to the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out sensitive to the mind.' [10] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in gladdening the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out gladdening the mind.' [11] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in steadying the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in releasing the mind.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out releasing the mind.'

"[13] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on inconstancy.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on inconstancy.' [14] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading].' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on dispassion.' [15] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on cessation.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on cessation.' [16] He trains himself, 'I will breathe in focusing on relinquishment.' He trains himself, 'I will breathe out focusing on relinquishment.'

"This is how concentration through mindfulness of in-&-out breathing is developed & pursued so as to be both peaceful & exquisite, a refreshing & pleasant abiding that immediately disperses & allays any evil, unskillful [mental] qualities that have arisen."

[Michel]

Jhananda, you mentioned in a YouTube video at a retreat that in the Samyutta Nikaya you thought there were suttas that showed the Buddha was not in the least compassionate. I did not find any suttas in the Samyutta that suggested the Buddha was not compassionate. Rather the Buddha considered himself to be compassionate towards all living beings as the sutta below illustrates. Perhaps you were thinking of the Anguttara, or something, which I haven't read. There are in the Nikayas I've read instances where he scolds his monks into shame for misrepresenting his teachings. That's about it.

Desanaa Sutta: Teaching

Translated from the Pali by Maurice O'Connell Walshe


 [At Naalandaa the village headman Asibandhakaputta asks the Buddha:]

"Does not the Blessed One dwell in compassion for all living beings?"

"Indeed, headman, the Tathaagata does dwell in compassion for all living beings."

"Well then, Lord, does not the Blessed One teach Dhamma in full[1] to some, but not so fully to others?"

"I will reply to this question, headman, with another. Answer as seems proper to you. What do you think? Suppose a peasant farmer has three fields, one excellent, one middling, and one poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil. Tell me: when the farmer wants to sow his seed, which field would he sow first: the excellent one, the middling one or the poor one that is sandy, salty and with bad soil?"

"Lord, the farmer who wanted to sow his seed would sow the excellent field first. Having done that, he would sow the middling field next, and the one that was poor, sandy, salty, with bad soil he might or might not sow. Why? Well it might do for cattle-food."

"Well, headman, that excellent field is like my monks and nuns. To them I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter,[2] I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge.

"The middling field is like my male and female lay-followers. To these too I teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because these people adhere to me as their island, their shelter, their resort, their refuge.

"The poor field that is sandy, salty and with bad soil is like my wandering recluses and Brahmans of other sects.[3] To them I also teach the Dhamma which is lovely in its beginning, lovely in its middle and lovely in its ending, in spirit and in letter, I display to them the holy life, perfectly fulfilled and purified. Why? Because if they only understand a single phrase, it would long be for their profit."

I love this little gem of a sutta.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Michel, for posting the SN 54.9 Vesali Sutta.  It is indeed the sutta I was thinking of, but I still think that there are a few other fragments of this story to be found elsewhere in the suttas.  Also, a rash of suicides in the early sangha could very well have been the source of the conflict that arose between Devadata and Siddhartha Gautama.

There is also a book, or article that I recall reading some years ago, which I am pretty sure was called "murder in the dharma;" however, a google search does not reveal it.  It might have been purged.  As I recall the book or article was basically an extraction of the suttas where suicide appeared among some of the early Buddha sangha, so the title should read "suicide in the sangha." 

While searching for "suicide in the sangha" links to this discussion on another forum I used to run came up. It begins at the following link:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/defendersofthedharma/conversations/topics/1207
I began the thread with the following essay:

Buddhism may distinguish itself above all other religions over the issue of suicide and euthanasia, because if one reads the Discourses of the Buddha (Sutta Pitaka) one will find that hundreds of the Buddha¹s disciples committed suicide for a range of reasons. And, there is not one instance in the Sutta Pitaka where I can recall that the Buddha ever disparaged the practice of taking one¹s own life.

The most typical situation for suicide in the suttas/sutras is when one of the followers of the Buddha became terminally ill or was bitten by a
poisonous snake and knew that he or she would not recover and was suffering terribly.

There was indeed an episode in which the Buddha gave a sermon on the foulness of the body, then he immediately went into retreat with
instructions to Ananda to not disturb him. When he came out of retreat he found that about 500 of his disciples had committed suicide.

To me the most significant aspect of this story is there is absolutely no reflection in the suttas on this event. The Buddha at no time doubts his
enlightenment, or his actions, nor do his remaining living disciples, nor is he criticized on record by any of his critiques that were otherwise recorded
in the suttas.

In the Mahaparinibanna sutta we see the Buddha knowing eats rotten pork, then he goes on a three-day forced march and does not drink water until the last moments of his life. One could argue that the Buddha¹s actions certainly represent someone who was knowingly taking actions to cause his own death.

It seems reasonable to interpret the Buddha¹s actions as intentional suicide. So, why would the Buddha be so despondent to take his own life?

While the suttas often provide the time of year, location and key persons present, they sadly do not record the passage of the years, so it is
difficult to gain a larger perspective on the overall trajectory of the Buddha¹s mission and its effectiveness and influence on people. However, we
do know that the Buddha¹s two key disciples, Mahamugallana and Sariputta both died about 6 months before the Buddha.

I believe it is reasonable to speculate that the episode in which hundreds of the Buddha¹s disciples committed suicide was following the deaths of
these two disciples the Buddha was so profoundly discouraged to not be leaving behind a lineage of enlightened disciples that he may have felt that
his lifetime was utterly futile and took his own life by eating the rotten pork.

The more naïve point of view on Buddhism is the Buddha and his disciples were endlessly inspired, they were supported by many householders, and the Buddha was highly revered in his lifetime. However, the discourses of the Buddha (Sutta Pitaka) reveal that the Buddha and his disciples were indeed conflicted over a number of issues, they were not always well fed, and the Buddha was not universally revered in his lifetime.

There is a book on the subject of suicide in early Buddhist literature called ³Murder in the Dharma.²

Kindest regards, Jhanananda

References:

MN 144
SN 213-14, 420 nn. 309-14, 938-41, 1082 n. 172; 1164-67,1407 nn. 55-57, 1773-74
Notes:
MN = Majjhima Nikaya (Middle Length Discourses).
SN = Samyutta Nikaya (The Connected Discourses).

The issue of whether Siddhartha Gautama was perfectly compassionate all of the time, or he might have had a few character flaws reminds me of the biblical book of Daniel, where the phrase has entered the language, "We all have feet of clay."  It is a phrase that the devout need to keep in mind, because they tend to believe that their progenitor was "perfect."

Feet of clay is a reference to the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, by the prophet Daniel as recounted in the Book of Daniel:[1]

Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.
This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,
His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. (Daniel 2:31-33)
...
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.
And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. (Daniel 2:41-43)

The analogy is now commonly used to refer to a weakness or character flaw, especially in people of prominence.[2]

[Michel]

Thank-you, Michel, for posting the SN 54.9 Vesali Sutta.  It is indeed the sutta I was thinking of, but I still think that there are a few other fragments of this story to be found elsewhere in the suttas.  Also, a rash of suicides in the early sangha could very well have been the source of the conflict that arose between Devadata and Siddhartha Gautama....

While searching for "suicide in the sangha" links to this discussion on another forum I used to run came up. It begins at the following link:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/defendersofthedharma/conversations/topics/1207

Interesting essay, Jhananda. Thanks.  So what I conclude from all this is that the Buddha did not think suicide was an evil act in the face of karma. But whether it's wise strategy, that's another matter. For example, if you kill yourself, and say you're a Dhamma follower, then you may never attain streamwinner status. In your next rebirth you may never again come across the Dhamma. You're stuck in samsara.

The issue of whether Siddhartha Gautama was perfectly compassionate all of the time, or he might have had a few character flaws reminds me of the biblical book of Daniel, where the phrase has entered the language, "We all have feet of clay."  It is a phrase that the devout need to keep in mind, because they tend to believe that their progenitor was "perfect."

There's not much to go on in the suttas about the Buddha's personality. Maybe in the Vinaya Pitika there's something. I understand that the Vinaya was recited at the First Council shorty after the Buddha's death.

There is also a book, or article that I recall reading some years ago, which I am pretty sure was called "murder in the dharma;" however, a google search does not reveal it.  It might have been purged.  As I recall the book or article was basically an extraction of the suttas where suicide appeared among some of the early Buddha sangha, so the title should read "suicide in the sangha."

  I saw a reference to it on one site. But like you, I couldn't find the actual book.

[Jhanananda]

Interesting essay, Jhananda. Thanks.  So what I conclude from all this is that the Buddha did not think suicide was an evil act in the face of karma. But whether it's wise strategy, that's another matter. For example, if you kill yourself, and say you're a Dhamma follower, then you may never attain streamwinner status. In your next rebirth you may never again come across the Dhamma. You're stuck in samsara.

It all depends upon whether you are an arahant.  If you are an arahant, then there is no result; however, if you are not, then of course there is endless returning until one works out all of one's craving.

There's not much to go on in the suttas about the Buddha's personality. Maybe in the Vinaya Pitika there's something. I understand that the Vinaya was recited at the First Council shorty after the Buddha's death.

I might be wrong, but the Vinaya Pitika seems to have come later.  I have thus taken no interest in the Vinaya Pitika.

I saw a reference to it on one site. But like you, I couldn't find the actual book.

"murder in the dharma;" has most probably been removed.

[Michel]

There's not much to go on in the suttas about the Buddha's personality. Maybe in the Vinaya Pitika there's something. I understand that the Vinaya was recited at the First Council shorty after the Buddha's death.

I might be wrong, but the Vinaya Pitika seems to have come later.  I have thus taken no interest in the Vinaya Pitika.

I spent the day trying to find anything I could on the Vinaya. There is a consensus among the Therevadan scholars that it was recited at the First Council. This quote is typical of what they say:"Immediately after the final passing away of the Buddha, 500 distinguished Arahats held a convention known as the First Buddhist Council to rehearse the Doctrine taught by the Buddha. Venerable Ananda, who was a faithful attendant of the Buddha and had the special privilege of hearing all the discourses the Buddha ever uttered, recited the Sutra, whilst the Venerable Upali recited the Vinaya, the rules of conduct for the Sangha."

If the Vinaya is an authentic teaching of the Buddha, then I think it should be examined to see what if any wisdom it contains.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Vinaya Pittaka is a much later addition to the Pali Cannon? When do you think it was added?

I've read a couple of the suttas in the Vinaya and this interesting one below is one where the Buddha is not particularly compassionate towards the precious feelings of one of his disciples.

Thanissaro's translation and comments:

...Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha and had ordained after
receiving his parents' grudging consent. He was their only child and, though married,
was childless. His parents, fearing that the government would confiscate their
property at their death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure Ven.
Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his mother realized that he was
firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu and so asked him at least to have intercourse
with his former wife so that their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna
consented, took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times.
Immediately he felt remorse and eventually confessed his deed to his fellow
bhikkhus. Word reached the Buddha, who called a meeting of the Community,
questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a rebuke. The rebuke fell into two major
parts. In the first part, the Buddha reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a
samaṇa — a monk or contemplative — and that his behavior was unworthy of his
position. Also, the Buddha pointed out to him the aims of the teaching and noted
that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here was that Ven. Sudinna
had not only acted inconsistently with the content of the teaching, but had also
shown callous disregard for the Buddha's compassionate aims in making the
Dhamma known.

"'Worthless man, it is unseemly, out of line, unsuitable, and unworthy of a
contemplative; improper and not to be done... Haven't I taught the Dhamma in
many ways for the sake of dispassion and not for passion; for unfettering and not
for fettering; for freedom from clinging and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have
taught the Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have
taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered; while I
have taught the Dhamma for freedom from clinging, you set your heart on clinging.

"'Worthless man, haven't I taught the Dhamma in many ways for the fading of
passion, the sobering of intoxication, the subduing of thirst, the destruction of
attachment, the severing of the round, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation,
unbinding? Haven't I in many ways advocated abandoning sensual pleasures,
comprehending sensual perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual
thoughts, calming sensual fevers? Worthless man, it would be better that your penis
be stuck into the mouth of a poisonous snake than into a woman's vagina. It would
be better that your penis be stuck into the mouth of a black viper than into a
woman's vagina. It would be better that your penis be stuck into a pit of burning
embers, blazing and glowing, than into a woman's vagina. Why is that? For that
reason you would undergo death or death-like suffering, but you would not on that
account, at the break-up of the body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad
destination, the abyss, hell. But for this reason you would, at the break-up of the
body, after death, fall into deprivation, the bad destination, the abyss, hell...

"'Worthless man, this neither inspires faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful.
Rather, it inspires lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful.'"
The second part of the rebuke dealt in terms of personal qualities: those that a
bhikkhu practicing discipline is to abandon, and those he is to develop.

"Then the Blessed One, having in many ways rebuked Ven. Sudinna, having spoken
in dispraise of being burdensome, demanding, arrogant, discontented, entangled,
and indolent; in various ways having spoken in praise of being unburdensome,
undemanding, modest, content, scrupulous, austere, gracious, self-effacing, and
energetic; having given a Dhamma talk on what is seemly and becoming for
bhikkhus, addressed the bhikkhus."

This was where the Buddha formulated the training rule, after first stating his
reasons for doing so.

"'In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for the bhikkhus with ten aims
in mind: the excellence of the Community, the comfort of the Community, the
curbing of the impudent, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of
effluents related to the present life, the prevention of effluents related to the next
life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the
establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering of discipline.'"

These reasons fall into three main types. The first two are external: 1) to ensure
peace and well being within the Community itself, and 2) to foster and protect faith
among the laity, on whom the bhikkhus depend for their support. (The origin stories
of the various rules depict the laity as being very quick to generalize. One bhikkhu
misbehaves, and they complain, "How can these Sakyan-son monks do that?") The
third type of reason, though, is internal: The rule is to help restrain and prevent
mental effluents within the individual bhikkhus. Thus the rules aim not only at the
external well being of the Community but also at the internal well being of the
individual. This latter point soon becomes apparent to anyone who seriously tries to
keep to the rules, for they foster mindfulness and circumspection in one's actions,
qualities that carry over into the training of the mind...

Poor guy! I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that reprimand. LOL

[Jhanananda]

I spent the day trying to find anything I could on the Vinaya. There is a consensus among the Therevadan scholars that it was recited at the First Council. This quote is typical of what they say:"Immediately after the final passing away of the Buddha, 500 distinguished Arahats held a convention known as the First Buddhist Council to rehearse the Doctrine taught by the Buddha. Venerable Ananda, who was a faithful attendant of the Buddha and had the special privilege of hearing all the discourses the Buddha ever uttered, recited the Sutra, whilst the Venerable Upali recited the Vinaya, the rules of conduct for the Sangha."

If the Vinaya is an authentic teaching of the Buddha, then I think it should be examined to see what if any wisdom it contains.

How did you come to the conclusion that the Vinaya Pittaka is a much later addition to the Pali Cannon? When do you think it was added?

I've read a couple of the suttas in the Vinaya and this interesting one below is one where the Buddha is not particularly compassionate towards the precious feelings of one of his disciples.

I agree, the Vinaya Pittaka should be examined, regardless of when it arrived, for any value that can be gained from it;  however, one must always keep in mind that the suttas are an anthology of religious literature that has a common inspiration.  The same it true with the Bible and Gospels.  None of these documents are the word of god, nor the original written words of an enlightened teacher. 

Secondly, somewhere there is a quote that states that the Tipitaka was recited by Ananda 1 year after the death of the Buddha at the first great counsel.  Now you have read the first three volumes, which accounts for 1/2 of only 1 Pittaka.  Tipitaka means three libraries, which traditionally refers to the Sutta Pittaka, the Vinaya Pittaka and the Abbidhamma Pittaka.  Now, can you believe that any individual could remember that much material and recite it all at a single great counsel?

Thirdly, the Abbidhamma Pittaka has been shown to have arrived later.  Since the premises of Mahayana Buddhism hinge upon the Abbidhamma Pittaka, then I believe it is reasonable that the Abbidhamma Pittaka arose specifically to support the premises of Mahayana Buddhism, and that was under King Melinda in the first century BC.

Thus, if there was a Tipitaka at the first great counsel, and the Abbidhamma Pittaka could not have been one of them, then there must have been some other collection that represented the "three collections."  I believe it was the Digha, Majjhima, and Samyuta Nikayas.

...Ven. Sudinna, the story goes,

"'Worthless man...

Poor guy! I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that reprimand. LOL
[/quote]
No, it does not sound very compassionate.  There is another sutta, I think in the Samyuta Nikaya, where Siddhartha Gautama has a conversation with a king who executed convicts by various means, and he weighed them before and after and found no change in their weight, so he concluded that there was no soul.

If Siddhartha Gautama was the committed compassionate one that he has a reputation for, it seems to me that he should have rebuked that king for torturing people to death; and he would have inspired the king to develop a functional penal system.

[Michel]

I agree, the Vinaya Pittaka should be examined, regardless of when it arrived, for any value that can be gained from it;  however, one must always keep in mind that the suttas are an anthology of religious literature that has a common inspiration.  The same it true with the Bible and Gospels.  None of these documents are the word of god, nor the original written words of an enlightened teacher.

Yes, I'll try not to take everything literally.

Secondly, somewhere there is a quote that states that the Tipitaka was recited by Ananda 1 year after the death of the Buddha at the first great counsel.  Now you have read the first three volumes, which accounts for 1/2 of only 1 Pittaka.  Tipitaka means three libraries, which traditionally refers to the Sutta Pittaka, the Vinaya Pittaka and the Abbidhamma Pittaka.  Now, can you believe that any individual could remember that much material and recite it all at a single great counsel?

Back then it was an oral tradition. I think the Buddha chose Ananda on the basis of his having a remarkable memory among other talents, and thus ensuring that his teachings would be passed on to future generations. But you could be right.

Check this article on pneumonics, The Art of Memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_memory

You being an anthropologist, do you think that oral traditions pass on their religious beliefs accurately from one generation to another?

Thirdly, the Abbidhamma Pittaka has been shown to have arrived later.  Since the premises of Mahayana Buddhism hinge upon the Abbidhamma Pittaka, then I believe it is reasonable that the Abbidhamma Pittaka arose specifically to support the premises of Mahayana Buddhism, and that was under King Melinda in the first century BC.

I believe the suttas represent  all of the Bhudda's teachings. Therefore no need for the Abbhidhamma which is an overly complex summary of the teachings in the Nikayas. My research so far indicates that it came much later then some of the Nikayas.

Do you think the Anguttara Nikaya contains any new teachings worth looking at? I know it came late as well.

Thus, if there was a Tipitaka at the first great counsel, and the Abbidhamma Pittaka could not have been one of them, then there must have been some other collection that represented the "three collections."  I believe it was the Digha, Majjhima, and Samyuta Nikayas.

Interesting theory.

No, it does not sound very compassionate.  There is another sutta, I think in the Samyuta Nikaya, where Siddhartha Gautama has a conversation with a king who executed convicts by various means, and he weighed them before and after and found no change in their weight, so he concluded that there was no soul.

If Siddhartha Gautama was the committed compassionate one that he has a reputation for, it seems to me that he should have rebuked that king for torturing people to death; and he would have inspired the king to develop a functional penal system.

Yes, I read that sutta. Why did the Buddha remain silent? You might be right.

[Jhanananda]

Back then it was an oral tradition. I think the Buddha chose Ananda an the basis of his having a remarkable memory among other talents, and thus ensuring that his teachings would be passed on to future generations...

You being an anthropologist, do you think that oral traditions pass on their religious beliefs accurately from one generation to another?

I do not at all believe that Ananda was the chosen one.  Go back and read the suttas again.  The chosen ones of the Buddha sangha were Sariputta, and Mogalana; however, they both died shortly before Siddhartha Gautama, which, I believe, was a source of deep disappointment for Siddhartha Gautama. 

This means that Ananda was the booby prize for all of us.  Also, if you read the suttas more closely you will find that Ananda did not have the attainment of jhana until after Siddhartha Gautama had died, then Andanda was confronted by an arahant for not having jhana, so Ananda sat down and meditated for the evening, then claimed that he had jhana.  Sorry, I do not buy it.

The interesting thing is if you examine the origins of all literature, Bible, Greek philosophy, Pali Canon, etc. you will find it was all oral tradition, and almost none of it was written down until the first century BC.  So, the questions to ask are:

1) Why was no literature written down until the first century BC?

Answer: Oral tradition assured a money stream for those who remember the literature of a culture.  This is why most world literature was oral until the first century BC. 

2) So, why was world literature written down?

Answer: Around the first century BC, my guess is enough cultures had collapsed due to invasion by Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Babylonians, etc. that people started wanting their culture and beliefs in a written record, instead of a fragile oral record.  This is when the Bible was finally written down, as well as the Pali Canon, and other ancient "literature."

I believe the suttas represent  all of the Bhuddas teachings. I find the Abbhidhamma overly complex and my research so far indicates that it came much later than the First Council. Do you think the Anguttara Nikaya contains any new teachings worth looking at? I know it came late as well.

I have not read the whole of the Anguttara Nikaya, as it was not available at the time that I was willing to invest my time in reading the Pali Canon.  I have; nonetheless, read some gems from the Anguttara Nikaya. So, I believe it is worth reading.  Please let us know what you think, if you get around to reading it.

Yes, I read that sutta. Why did the Buddha remain silent? You might be right.

Well other suttas show that respected mystics were tortured to death by the king in question, so it seems reasonable to me that if Siddhartha Gautama was going to survive long enough for his enlightened message to be recorded, then he had to behave himself around kings.

[Michel]

I do not at all believe that Ananda was the chosen one.  Go back and read the suttas again.  The chosen ones of the Buddha sangha were Sariputta, and Mogalana; however, they both died shortly before Siddhartha Gautama, which, I believe, was a source of deep disappointment for Siddhartha Gautama.  This means that Ananda was the booby prize for all of us.  Also, if you read the suttas more closely you will find that Ananda did not have the attainment of jhana until after Siddhartha Gautama had died, then Andanda was confronted by an arahant for not having jhana, so Ananda sat down and meditatesd for the evening, then claimed that he had jhana.  Sorry, I do not buy it.

You've studied the suttas a lot longer than I have and I respect that. But this is my first read of the suttas and I probably will probably undergo many changes of opinion. My first impressions are that I don't think the Buddha thought he had failed in his mission and that he committed suicide because Sariputta and Moggalana weren't around. His other chief disciples, namely Mahakassapa and Anuruddha, where held in the highest esteem by the Buddha, and both where fully enlightened, were great teachers in their own right.  At the First Council there were some 500 arahants! That's quite the achievement.  As he lay there dying of food poisoning, he said to Ananda: "Ananda, it may be that you will think: "The Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!" It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and Discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher." (Mahaparinibbana Sutta - DN 16.6.1). I think he felt that he had taught his disciples the Dhamma well enough for them to carry on. So I don't think the Buddha committed suicide by eating rotten pork because he had no one to carry on the teachings. If he wanted to commit suicide wouldn't he have used the knife? Why go through the pain of a slow and tortuous death of food poisoning? It doesn't add up.

Would you say the Dhamma as a body of teachings, as presented in the Pali Canon, is sufficient to propel one to full enlightenment? If you answer yes, then the Buddha mission was a success. It's also not bad for a booby prize.

The interesting thing is if you examine the origins of all literature, Bible, Greek philosophy, Pali Canon, etc. you will find it was all oral tradition, and almost none of it was written down until the first century BC.  So, the questions to ask are:
1) Why was no literature written down until the first century BC?

Answer: Oral tradition assured a money stream for those who remember the literature of a culture.  This is why most world literature was oral until the first century BC. 

2) So, why was world literature written down?

Answer: Around the first century BC, my guess is enough cultures had collapsed due to invasion by Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Babylonians, etc. that people started wanting their culture and beliefs in a written record, instead of a fragile oral record.  This is when the Bible was finally written down, as well as the Pali Canon, and other ancient "literature."

That makes sense.

I have not read the whole of the Anguttara Nikaya, as it was not available at the time that I was willing to invest my time in reading the Pali Canon.  I have; nonetheless, read some gems from the Anguttara Nikaya. So, I believe it is worth reading.  Please let us know what you think, if you get around to reading it.

I look forward to reading it and will share anything new that I find.

[Jhanananda]

You've studied the suttas a lot longer than I have and I respect that. But this is my first read of the suttas and I probably will probably undergo many changes of opinion. My first impressions are that I don't think the Buddha thought he had failed in his mission and that he committed suicide because Sariputta and Moggalana weren't around. His other chief disciples, namely Mahakassapa and Anuruddha, where held in the highest esteem by the Buddha, and both where fully enlightened, were great teachers in their own right. 

I think I read the 3 primary Nikayas through about 3 times closely, then I started to translate key suttas for myself, because every time I read through the suttas my confidence in their translation decreased.  When I began to translate the suttas for myself is when I realized that the extent of translation errors in the published suttas was so extensive that it could not be explained by mere incompetence; but better explained by a concerted effort of thousands of years by a pretentious and hypocritical priesthood.  So, I get that your first reading through the suttas is tainted by a belief that their translation has been accurate.

At the First Council there were some 500 arahants! That's quite the achievement. 

Yes, it is quite an achievement for any enlightened teacher to have produced 500 genuine arahants.  However, there are suttas in the Samyutta Nikaya that shows Siddhartha Gautama asking for a show of hands for how many of each of the noble attainers there were in his sangha.  It also shows his disciples just raising their hands because they thought it would please him.  So, after teaching for 15 years, I find no reason to believe that any enlightened teacher could produce 500 genuine enlightened followers in any age.  More typical of the success of most mystics is to produce one or two genuine enlightened followers.

As he lay there dying of food poisoning, he said to Ananda: "Ananda, it may be that you will think: "The Teacher's instruction has ceased, now we have no teacher!" It should not be seen like this, Ananda, for what I have taught and explained to you as Dhamma and Discipline will, at my passing, be your teacher." (Mahaparinibbana Sutta - DN 16.6.1). I think he felt that he had taught his disciples the Dhamma well enough for them to carry on.

OK, this is a reasonable argument.

So I don't think the Buddha committed suicide by eating rotten pork because he had no one to carry on the teachings. If he wanted to commit suicide wouldn't he have used the knife? Why go through the pain of a slow and tortuous death of food poisoning? It doesn't add up.

This is a good argument, as we see most of the suicides in the sangha prior to his death were with the knife.  So, if he was going to commit suicide, then why would he not use the knife as well?  I have reflected upon the topic of Siddhartha Gautama committing suicide for a very long time.  I believe why he resorted to food poisoning, or made it look like he died of food poisoning, was because committing suicide knife would have ruined any chance of his teaching surviving him.  Whereas, accidental death would be tolerated by his future followers.

[Cal]

At the First Council there were some 500 arahants! That's quite the achievement. 

Yes, it is quite an achievement for any enlightened teacher to have produced 500 genuine arahants.  However, there are suttas in the Samyutta Nikaya that shows Siddhartha Gautama asking for a show of hands for how many of each of the noble attainers there were in his sangha.  It also shows his disciples just raising their hands because they thought it would please him.  So, after teaching for 15 years, I find no reason to believe that any enlightened teacher could produce 500 genuine enlightened followers in any age.  More typical of the success of most mystics is to produce one or two genuine enlightened followers.

Something I'd ask be considered is proximal meditation to the fully enlightened. Jhanon, who has some measure of enlightenment, definitely has a "proximal" effect on me. As I have gotten more in-tune with the charisms, I recognize this "energy" more readily, and have felt it when he and I have just sat near and had a conversation. Do you not think that the Sangha could have provided a similar effect? That the Buddha just being so near, would not help further those around him? Not to mention, his 2 proclaimed arahants.

I'd like to propose it more possible than not. Not in the actual value of 500, I read somewhere that through oral traditions the number 500 was just used to describe a large gathering, which could be as small as 20. But that already enlightened students (not fully) could be free of all fetters, which could be exponentially aided by just being in close quarters with arahant and deathless.

I recall a PM I sent to you, Jhananada, something about visiting. This energy is what I speak of now.

Even more off topic; Shaktipat and Healing (transferable energy)-Some time back my wife and I were laying in bed. I absorbed to sleep, as I normally do and I put my hand on her back. She freaked, said why is your hand so hot? She felt it with her own hand and said that it was cool to the touch. I have been doing these things quite often and every time I have, I have gotten a noticable reaction from her. This particular night, as I absorbed further, I intentionally placed my hand on her back and directed my energy to her, shortly after I got this reaction.

Back on topic; could this not be the "straw that broke the camels back"? That through all his wisdom and greatness, just his aura was enough to make those of little or no attainment, believe his words? Could they not of felt him, felt the divine while near him? I believe it so. I believe  that those who took their life, did so because they felt his attainment, his aura, his energy, and foolishly thought it enough to break dependant origination. I recall a post about intellectualizing recently, and I agree, it has been in abundance. Yet, this comes more as a feeling to me, an understanding. I will of course, defer to you wisdom, Jhananda, but could you entertain this?

[Michel]

I think I read the 3 primary Nikayas through about 3 times closely, then I started to translate key suttas for myself, because every time I read through the suttas my confidence in their translation decreased.  When I began to translate the suttas for myself is when I realized that the extent of translation errors in the published suttas was so extensive that it could not be explained by mere incompetence; but better explained by a concerted effort of thousands of years by a pretentious and hypocritical priesthood.  So, I get that your first reading through the suttas is tainted by a belief that their translation has been accurate.

I certainly don't take the Nikayas to be accurate in every sense. I'm more than willing to entertain the idea that they are corrupted translations. What attracted me to the GWV was its willingness to unpack all the literature of the mystics. I looked at a lot of other teachers before I came here, and this is where I felt the most comfortable. Unpacking all the mystic's literature is the only way to go, otherwise you're running on a faith based approach, and often I've noticed people who do this, often end up having their faith hijacked and seduced by a charismatic charlatan with dire consequences to their spiritual quest - and that is definitely not the way to do it. I feel sorry for people who end up that way. These people are very foolish. How can you do something like that? It's unbelievably stupid. Ha, I bet that in one of my past lives I did the same damn thing. Hahaha.  In this life I've had an incredible distrust of all religious authority figures and some so-called mystics. I use to through snowballs at the Roman Catholic priest when I was a kid around age ten. So I must have been burned somewhere in the past.