When you think of the Buddha's appearance, do you think of him as in the iconography or in another way?
And what's your view on the 32 signs of a great man?
No, I don't think of him really like most of the iconography.
I don't think of him as made of brass or stone or with all the weird colors that they put him in.
I think of him in a robe.
Usually I think of him with me bowing down at his feet.
I'll tell you the truth.
When I think of the Buddha or the Sangha, either way I think of myself.
I see their feet first, really.
And I see them in robes.
It's just a vision that comes.
The 32 signs of a great man are
a source of a lot of difficulty, I think, for Westerners.
I was asking about them.
I mean, just let's be open-minded.
I was arguing, playing devil's advocate, and I said, well, how is it possible for someone's mouth, someone's tongue, to cover their forehead?
I mean, really.
Getting your tongue to your ears is, well, or getting your tongue to your ears, how is that possible?
So we argued it, you know.
My feeling was it really just meant that he had a long tongue.
But no, people take it literally that his tongue could cover his whole forehead and touch both ears.
But the argument that they use is that there are very strange sorts of beings out there.
There are people with very strange body parts.
For example, one interesting thing I found was I was recently alerted to the fact that Moggallana is said to have had blue skin.
So he's shown with blue skin in Sri Lanka.
Whenever you see a picture of Moggallana he's blue.
So I asked why is that monk blue?
And they said it's Moggallana.
And they explained it's because he just came from hell and the fear of hell was so sharp in him that he was born with blue skin.
And so, you know, that's hard to believe.
But then I read in this book that someone in England, a few hundred years ago, was actually born with blue skin and had blue skin through their life.
So that's an example of how you really can't say for sure.
What I would say is that with anything like this,
It's really just a matter of fact was it true that the Buddha had a tongue that could touch his ears and many other Mostly that's really the biggest one one of the poses the biggest problem for me I think there was another one, but the tongue one is probably the biggest I
So did he have such a tongue or did he not?
And once you pose that question, you can of course ask yourself, does it matter?
And of course it doesn't.
There's so many questions like that.
Was it true that the Buddha did this?
Was it true that the Buddha did that?
Is it factually correct?
Are all these stories actually true that we hear about devas coming down and this happening and that happening?
Did the Buddha really perform this miracle or that miracle?
It's just a question of historical fact.
Did it happen or did it not?
And then does it matter whether it did or not?
Because in Buddhism it doesn't.
It doesn't matter whether the Buddha performed any miracles or not.
It doesn't matter whether he was a dwarf or a hunchback.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful.
I'm not trying to disrespect, but it has no impact on the Dhamma.
It has some impact on our faith.
And if the Buddha had been, perish the thought, a dwarf or a hunchback, we would think, well, how could such a perfect person be born in such a state?
Based on the teachings of the Buddha, you'd have to think of him as being born in a much more perfect form.
But it doesn't have an impact on our practice, other than that.
Alfred?
For me, there are certain suttas, what I read,
I don't look at the whole canon as the inerrant word of the Buddha.
Certain suttas just stand out as truth to me, to my inner core, and some do not.
And so I will look at them and just put them on a back burner and don't get too caught up to it.
I realize how old these texts are.
there's that one and a few others that just to when I read them jump out at me like it's you know possibly a lot later edition yeah I don't know but I don't let it bother me because the ones that ring true ring deeply true to me and and you know the the others I just
and I appreciate the fact that they're there, but I realize that I don't think that this whole canon is without error.
Yeah, but the only thing that I would say in defense of it is that we are not perfect either.
I mean, this example, I'm not going to spend too much time defending it, but I have had examples of that sort of thing.
And you have to realize that everyone... We come to the Dhamma with prejudices.
That's why it's so important for us.
And those prejudices are going to color what we find valid and what we find invalid.
So I've had arguments with monks about this suit to being invalid or that.
And once you point something out to them, they have to concede the fact.
that their whole reason for doubting it was, you know, improbable.
So, for example, just give a simple silly example, the fact that Moggallana had blue skin.
And as I said, it isn't without precedence even in recorded history.
So who knows?
We aren't perfect that we know everything that's possible.
We don't know whether it could have been the fact that the Buddha did have such a big tongue.
And of course we don't know that it was maybe just an exaggeration.
Of course it might not be.
The point, I think, being that it's not really a core Buddhist teaching.
I mean, it's not going to shake the foundations of Buddhism if we find out that the Buddha didn't really have such a tongue.
So, but definitely in this case, I'd have to say that it's not one of the suttas that I reread as inspiration for my own practice.
Although, there are some aspects of the, I believe it's the Mahaparisa Lakkhanas Sutta, no?
Or the, I don't remember what it's called, the one in the Digha Nikaya with the Lakkhanas?
has some really interesting things, like how the Buddha would chew every rice grain.
No rice grain was swallowed without having been chewed.
Now that is inspiring.
The way he sat, the way he walked, the way he talked, those parts of his mannerisms, and then how he says, and that's a small fragment of the virtues of the Buddha.
If you read that, it's just an incredibly inspiring passage.
Of course, it kind of spoils it when you're still thinking, but what about the tongue?
But, no, I think that there's something really valuable in that, the one particular sutta that I'm thinking.
But I want to caution... Sorry?
No.
Like magical powers.
If you don't have them, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Exactly.
Many people are totally able to throw out all the magical powers, which is ridiculous.
There are many people out there who have had experiences that are magical, that can only be described as out-of-body experiences, whatever.
And I'm convinced that that is reality.
Anyone who practices meditation sees that things aren't exactly as they seem here.
One day, maybe one day, physics will catch up and start to realize.
Look at quantum physics, how it's totally shattered our concept of what reality is.
We can't really describe reality anymore.
So no one's in a position to say this can't be.
So another point that you might make is,
From our understanding of magical powers, if someone wants their tongue to touch their toes, it's possible to develop a power in some radical way to do that.
There are magical things that can be done with extreme concentration and focus.
Of course, this is totally radical talk and most people won't accept it, which is why, in short, the best answer is put them on the back burner, as Alfred says.
Don't pay too much attention to them.
You know, it shouldn't be a sticking point where you say, you know, I can't believe in Buddhism because I can't believe that the Buddha had such a tongue.
No, that would be a shame.
I think the best thing to do would be to say, oh, that's interesting.
Buddha had a tongue like that?
Wow.
Because who cares?
I mean, what is it about us that we have to deny such things?
No, I won't rest until I find the truth of this one.
I won't rest until I can prove that the Buddha didn't have such a tongue, right?
So why not just say, okay, Buddha had such a tongue, that's cool.
Can I get back to meditation now?
Why not?
There was a teacher in Thailand who said, Buddhism puts the magic back in life.
Which, you know, I'm just quoting it off the top of my head.
I don't particularly hold to such a quote.
But what she is trying to say is this exact thought.
I wouldn't say we should try to put the magic back into life particularly, but
To some extent we have to let go of this obsession with skepticism and the desire to disprove and to doubt things.
Basically the desire to doubt things.
So it's actually kind of a useful teaching in that sense.
It catches you and you start doubting and then the teacher can say, look at the doubt.
It's useful.
Get people thinking.
It's like a Zen koan.
The Buddha had a tongue that could touch his ears.
Think about that until you let go of your doubt.
Maybe you could become enlightened on it even.
No?
Anyway.
Great.
I'm glad we've got some conversation going on with these.
We're not going to get through many questions this way though, which is okay.