Food enchanted by spells (SN 7.8)

score:3

Accepted answer

See pages 96-97 of Piya Tan's essay:

The Saṁyutta Commentary paraphrases the significance of the two verses, thus (as the Buddha’s arrière pensée):

Though I have stood for such a long time waiting for alms, you would not give even a spoonful; but now that I have revealed all the Buddha-qualities to you as though spreading out sesamum seeds on a mat, you wish to give. This food has been gained, as it were, by singing a song (gāyanena gāyitvā). Therefore, as it has been ‘chanted over with verses’ (gāthā’bhigīta) it is not fit to be eaten by me. Since there is the Dharma (dhamme sati), out of respect for the Dharma, established in the Dharma, the Buddhas sustain their life. This is their rule of conduct, this is their way of livelihood (esā vutti aya ājīvo). Such food should be discarded and only what is properly gained should be eaten.” (SA 1:232; see Miln 228-232)

The Critical Pali Dictionary defines abhigīta as “spoken over with mantras,” suggesting that the Buddha rejects the offering by the brahmin because he has chanted over it with the sacrificial hymns. However, Bodhi thinks that “it is doubtful that the Buddha would reject food for such a reason. Further, according to [SED], gāthā is not used with reference to the verses of the Vedas, and thus here the word likely refers to the Buddha’s own verses” (S:B 446 n446). To suggest that the Buddha rejected the brahmin’s offering simply because it has been chanted over with Vedic mantras would suggest that the Buddha is superstitious! The real reason has to do with right livelihood (sammā,ājīva).

His translation is a bit different from Ven. Sujato's, i.e.:

Gāthā’bhigītaṁ me abhojaneyyaṁ
The gatha-sung should not be partaken by me,

sampassataṁ brāhmaṇa n’esa dhammo
O brahmin, this is not the way of those who see.

gāthā’bhigītaṁ panudanti buddhā
Buddhas reject what is gained by the singing of verses,

dhamme sati brāhmaṇa vuttir esā.
When there’s Dharma, brahmin, this is the rule.

I re-read the "food" chapters of these Vinaya summaries ...

... and didn't see anything there about ex-sacrificial food not being allowable as alms food.

Upvote:1

Based on ChrisW's answer, the standard commentaries seem to be of the opinion that food offered as remuneration for teaching the Dhamma is not accepted by the Buddhas. They also reject the idea that the Buddha was superstitious.

This seems to conflict with Itivuttaka 107:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, brahmans & householders are very helpful to you, as they provide you with the requisites of robes, alms food, lodgings, & medical requisites for the sick. And you, monks, are very helpful to brahmans & householders, as you teach them the Dhamma admirable in the beginning, admirable in the middle, admirable in the end; as you expound the holy life both in letter & meaning, entirely complete, surpassingly pure. In this way the holy life is lived in mutual dependence, for the purpose of crossing over the flood, for making a right end to stress."

From my reading of other suttas of Brahmana Samyutta (SN 7), I think the Buddha rejected food ritually chanted over from the Vedic fire sacrifice, not because he was superstitious, but because he discouraged superstition. By accepting the food, he would be validating the notion that the sacrificial milk rice is special and meant for noble ones. Challenging superstition seems to be part of the theme of SN 7.

In SN 7.7, the Buddha says that austerities does not make one pure and chanting mantras does not make one a brahmin.

In SN 7.9, the Buddha challenged the superstition of caste by birth.

In SN 7.21, the Buddha enlightened a brahmin who held the superstitious view that purification rites using water can wash away sins.

More post

Search Posts

Related post