0
Buddha's death reconsidered
11 March 2005
Shakyamuni himself died from eating tainted pork.... I read that in a post on Belief Net recently. Here is my response, somewhat edited and expanded:
To clarify, this is an interpretation of a rare Sanskrit word, translated from a long-unspoken language into English - but its exact definition is still disputed among Sanskrit and Buddhist scholars. It may in fact simply be a bad translation of an uncommon word. But the choice of translation has significant impact.
The reference to the Buddha's last meal comes from the Mahaparinibana Sutra, an early Theravadin work written in Sanskrit. In this work, the food prepared for that meal is called "suukaramaddava," a word that appears nowhere else in the sutras.
Arthur Waley, the great translator, wrote an interesting essay on this word and its meaning in 1932 ("Did Buddha die of eating pork?" - see link below). In this essay, Waley notes that... (emphasis added):
"The word suukaramaddava occurs nowhere else (except in discussions of this passage) and the -maddava part is capable of at least four interpretations.
"Granting that it comes from the root MRD 'soft', cognate with Latin mollis, it is still ambiguous, for it may either mean 'the soft parts of a pig' or 'pig's soft-food' i.e. food eaten by pigs.
"But it may again come from the same root as our word 'mill' and mean'pig-pounded', i.e. 'trampled by pigs'.
"There is yet another similar root meaning 'to be pleased', and as will be seen below one scholar has supposed the existence of a vegetable called 'pig's-delight'."
So the Buddha may not have eaten pork, but rather food prepared for pigs, enjoyed by pigs (like truffles), or food milled by pigs. That's a wide range of meanings.
Waley also lists several medicinal plants listed in contemporary works that include the prefix "pig" in them - suukara-kanda (pig-bulb), suukara-paadika (pig's foot), sukaresh.ta (sought-out by pigs).
Another translator, Neumann, takes suukaramaddava to mean 'pig's delight,' a kind of truffle. So there is a valid argument to be made that the word suukaramaddava does not mean pork, but rather a plant that has a erlationship with pigs.
Waley doesn't discount the possibility the word meant pork, but indicates it could have had other meanings. The sutra is not definite as to which is meant. See Did Buddha Die of Eating Pork?
The significance of a single word to the later doctrine cannot be overlooked, however. Taken one way, it allows Buddhists leeway to eat meat (Shakyamuni leading by example - if the Buddha did it, it must be right), regardless of some contradictions to this in other texts. Taken another, it fortifies the argument for vegetarianism in Buddhism.
Fifth century Chinese translations of the sutras (and the subsequent canon in Chinese) do not include the "death by pork" comment, but instead indicate the last meal was a vegetarian dish that included a fungus grown on a sandalwood tree (rather than meat).
The early Mahayana texts had strict prohibitions against eating flesh and that has continued to be part of the Mahayana practice since the line was founded. The first Mahayana reference to a meatless diet is found in the Mahaaparinirvaana Sutra. However, these prohibitions are not found in the earlier Theravadin works, which can claim doctrinal precedence.
Hence the centuries-old argument about whether vegetarianism is doctrine, or optional, in Buddhism. It depends in part on whether you belong to a Theravadin or Mayahanin school. But the practice of vegetarianism has not been strictly applied in Mahayana schools, and some Theravadin schools have taken it up as accepted practice. The lines are blurred.
Waley makes an educated guess that vegetarianism arose among Hindu followers of Vishnu a century or two before the Mahayana movement took root (the Vishnu cult was the rising movement in Hindu culture at that time).
Cultural and social pressures from the Hindu majority may have pushed the minority Buddhists to accepting their neighbours' vegetarian lifestyle in order to reduce friction in their communities. This became doctrinal when the Mahayana texts were being written, somewhat later.
Whether or not the Buddha died from eating pork or truffles is an interesting philological discussion, but not the real question, however. It is whether Buddhists today can morally justify killing other beings for our convenience, pleasure and comfort. Or should Buddhists accept the responsibility of finding compassionate solutions, even if they are inconvenient?
Can one ever justify inflicting pain, torture, bruality and violence - violent and agonizingly painful death - on another creature? Especially on another sentient creature who is screaming and writhing in pain? If you say no, then you cannot in any conscience eat meat.
To clarify, this is an interpretation of a rare Sanskrit word, translated from a long-unspoken language into English - but its exact definition is still disputed among Sanskrit and Buddhist scholars. It may in fact simply be a bad translation of an uncommon word. But the choice of translation has significant impact.
The reference to the Buddha's last meal comes from the Mahaparinibana Sutra, an early Theravadin work written in Sanskrit. In this work, the food prepared for that meal is called "suukaramaddava," a word that appears nowhere else in the sutras.
Arthur Waley, the great translator, wrote an interesting essay on this word and its meaning in 1932 ("Did Buddha die of eating pork?" - see link below). In this essay, Waley notes that... (emphasis added):
"The word suukaramaddava occurs nowhere else (except in discussions of this passage) and the -maddava part is capable of at least four interpretations.
"Granting that it comes from the root MRD 'soft', cognate with Latin mollis, it is still ambiguous, for it may either mean 'the soft parts of a pig' or 'pig's soft-food' i.e. food eaten by pigs.
"But it may again come from the same root as our word 'mill' and mean'pig-pounded', i.e. 'trampled by pigs'.
"There is yet another similar root meaning 'to be pleased', and as will be seen below one scholar has supposed the existence of a vegetable called 'pig's-delight'."
So the Buddha may not have eaten pork, but rather food prepared for pigs, enjoyed by pigs (like truffles), or food milled by pigs. That's a wide range of meanings.
Waley also lists several medicinal plants listed in contemporary works that include the prefix "pig" in them - suukara-kanda (pig-bulb), suukara-paadika (pig's foot), sukaresh.ta (sought-out by pigs).
Another translator, Neumann, takes suukaramaddava to mean 'pig's delight,' a kind of truffle. So there is a valid argument to be made that the word suukaramaddava does not mean pork, but rather a plant that has a erlationship with pigs.
Waley doesn't discount the possibility the word meant pork, but indicates it could have had other meanings. The sutra is not definite as to which is meant. See Did Buddha Die of Eating Pork?
The significance of a single word to the later doctrine cannot be overlooked, however. Taken one way, it allows Buddhists leeway to eat meat (Shakyamuni leading by example - if the Buddha did it, it must be right), regardless of some contradictions to this in other texts. Taken another, it fortifies the argument for vegetarianism in Buddhism.
Fifth century Chinese translations of the sutras (and the subsequent canon in Chinese) do not include the "death by pork" comment, but instead indicate the last meal was a vegetarian dish that included a fungus grown on a sandalwood tree (rather than meat).
The early Mahayana texts had strict prohibitions against eating flesh and that has continued to be part of the Mahayana practice since the line was founded. The first Mahayana reference to a meatless diet is found in the Mahaaparinirvaana Sutra. However, these prohibitions are not found in the earlier Theravadin works, which can claim doctrinal precedence.
Hence the centuries-old argument about whether vegetarianism is doctrine, or optional, in Buddhism. It depends in part on whether you belong to a Theravadin or Mayahanin school. But the practice of vegetarianism has not been strictly applied in Mahayana schools, and some Theravadin schools have taken it up as accepted practice. The lines are blurred.
Waley makes an educated guess that vegetarianism arose among Hindu followers of Vishnu a century or two before the Mahayana movement took root (the Vishnu cult was the rising movement in Hindu culture at that time).
Cultural and social pressures from the Hindu majority may have pushed the minority Buddhists to accepting their neighbours' vegetarian lifestyle in order to reduce friction in their communities. This became doctrinal when the Mahayana texts were being written, somewhat later.
Whether or not the Buddha died from eating pork or truffles is an interesting philological discussion, but not the real question, however. It is whether Buddhists today can morally justify killing other beings for our convenience, pleasure and comfort. Or should Buddhists accept the responsibility of finding compassionate solutions, even if they are inconvenient?
Can one ever justify inflicting pain, torture, bruality and violence - violent and agonizingly painful death - on another creature? Especially on another sentient creature who is screaming and writhing in pain? If you say no, then you cannot in any conscience eat meat.
