Hello:Pondera wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 2:13 amI believe the Buddha was omnipotent also. But how does that justify the deaths of these monks.2600htz wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:19 pmHi:Pondera wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 4:40 am There’s the case where the Buddha was teaching the contemplation of disgust with the body to (for example) 50 monks (I don’t recall the actual number). After teaching, he retired to his hut.
20 of those monks were so disgusted with their bodies that they committed suicide.
The Buddha emerged the following day and was informed of this. His advice to the remaining 30 monks was to switch over to anapanasati.
How did the Buddha not see that ahead of time? Is he responsible for their deaths?
I think its because the Buddha was able to see into the past and the future, but only if he directed his mind towards that. He was not omnipotent (example SN 42.9).
About the subject, i think suicide falls into the precept of not killing (and fulfills all steps needed for commiting a kill: there is a living being, intention to kill, a weapon, and the action ) . Forbiding is an exaggeration, precepts are more suggestions, unless you are talking about monks. I dont know about rules, but pretty sure there is some words about suicide being wrong in the canon pali. Even if there where no rule, it does not mean it is a good thing, or that the Buddha was fine with it.
Is there some way to say that they ended up in a better realm with better chances of reaching Nibbāna?
I don’t quite see what you’re saying.
I am of the opinion the Buddha was not omnipotent. He just gave those instructions and went to seclusion. Its not his fault that those monks misunderstood what he was saying, neither his fault that they commited suicide. But i think that if he had made the determination to see into the future of those monks he could have avoided that, but he didnt.
In MN-71 he is asked if he is omniscient, his answer was NO. He had the triple knowledge.
Regards.5. “Venerable sir, I have heard thus: ‘The recluse Gotama claims to
be omniscient, all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and vision
thus: “Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake,
knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present in
me.” Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said
by the Blessed One, and not misrepresented him with what is
contrary to fact? Do they explain in accordance to the Dhamma in
such a way that nothing which provides a ground for censure can be
legitimately deduced from their assertion?”
“Vaccha, those who say thus do not say what has been said by me,
but misrepresented me with what is untrue and contrary to fact.”