Is Buddha tooth here the real McCoy?
-
If my stoppage can effectively reinstall buddha's 32 forms of perfection in the minds of today's beings and the believe that relics are a true reflection of that, it is such a small price to pay.
i dig u boh, question is do u dig me? -
the 32 forms of Perfection is not seen by modern people as only the believer can see it .
If i am Buddha ,why do I need to show u my 32 forms of Perfection ?Even if you see it , you will deem it as David Copperfield or some illusionist and start slandering,
then am I the person causing your plunge to avici Hell ?
Thats why you have to put to test Buddha's teaching , I can show you the splendour of Buddhaland , if your mind is in deep doubt of the accomplishment of Buddha ,how can you see that ?
-
exactly my pt, the 32 forms is not seen by modern day people and that is why that guy in the newspaper is ignorant enuff to say that it doesnt look like a human's tooth. But our duty as modern day buddhists is not to add doubt to this ignorance but to explain that because buddha is unlike ordinary man in physical manner, it is only natural that his teeth does not resemble an ordinary human's.Originally posted by bohiruci:the 32 forms of Perfection is not seen by modern people as only the believer can see it .
and correction to ur statement, 32 forms can be seen by anyone regardless of beliefs -
I think the main problem for the Buddha Relic Temple is that it is accountable to many Buddhists in Singapore and overseas who have donated so much money and effort. If the tooth is found to be fake, then the temple and Ven Fazhao would be in big trouble. But seriously, he does not seem to want to let the tooth be "scrutinised", so that actually does not bid very well...
-
hmm ... i dunno .. you switch sides so often , i dunno what you driving at actually .Originally posted by Xprobe:exactly my pt, the 32 forms is not seen by modern day people and that is why that guy in the newspaper is ignorant enuff to say that it doesnt look like a human's tooth. But our duty as modern day buddhists is not to add doubt to this ignorance but to explain that because buddha is unlike ordinary man in physical manner, it is only natural that his teeth does not resemble an ordinary human's.
and correction to ur statement, 32 forms can be seen by anyone regardless of beliefs -
It is the tooth of a herbivore.
-
for 80% of Buddha life , He is mostly a herbivore
so theres nothing to be surprised -
I find this reply a problem. The tooth is not his own private property now. It belongs to the temple (of which he is the abbot, not the owner) and the larger community of Buddhists who donated Dana to its building. I think there is going to be alot more controversy as there had always been about the tooth, largely due to the large amount of donations that went into it.But Venerable Shi Fazhao said Venerable Cakkapala had given him the tooth; it was a private matter between two people and not between two countries. 'Don't politicise it,' he said.Would he let an expert examine the tooth in Singapore? He replied: 'It's mine, why should I let you examine it? Why don't you go examine what's in Sri Lanka and China first?' -
hmmm....a herbivore is an animalOriginally posted by bohiruci:for 80% of Buddha life , He is mostly a herbivore
so theres nothing to be surprised
I think u mean vegetarian......
-
when lots of $$$ are concerned......pple are going to get defensiveOriginally posted by sanath:I find this reply a problem. The tooth is not his own private property now. It belongs to the temple (of which he is the abbot, not the owner) and the larger community of Buddhists who donated Dana to its building. I think there is going to be alot more controversy as there had always been about the tooth, largely due to the large amount of donations that went into it. -
I will not be surprised IF the jewellery donated by the public that was kept in the temple disappears
-
Pluck out the tooth of any human being in India, Nepal or Sri lanka also cannot match that sizeOriginally posted by laoda99:It is the tooth of a herbivore. -
Hmmm, interesting debate! I rejoice xprobe been zealous over Buddha. Quite true that modern people do not have the chance to see the Buddha's 32 major characteristics and 80 minor ones but I do know of a way of seeing the Buddha and I guess many of us here knows how to. To see the Buddha, one will just have to learn the Dharma, practise the Dharma and uphold the Dharma. One will definitely see him in his teachings.
The tooth whether it is real or fake dun really matters. Even if one had donated a huge amount and if the tooth turns out to be fake, the donor would have accumulated vast amount of merits (oops if he became angry on finding out it is fake). If it is real, even more merit is accumulated. Both are actually win-win situation. It is the motivation that is really important.
Hmmm, funny thing for me is till now I still have not visited that place yet. Must accumulate more merits to go! -
I agree with you. A Buddha's relic should never be seen as a personal collector items, like paintings etc. I hope the community who donated to the monastary did it because they wanted to propagate the true dharma teachings, and not for the blessings and personal gains they hope to receive from the presence of the relic. The reason why Buddha left these relic down through generation was because he wanted these items to remind us to practise Buddhadharma, just like the disciples did in his presence. If buddhist failed to see this point, they are not true buddhist afterall.Originally posted by sanath:I find this reply a problem. The tooth is not his own private property now. It belongs to the temple (of which he is the abbot, not the owner) and the larger community of Buddhists who donated Dana to its building. I think there is going to be alot more controversy as there had always been about the tooth, largely due to the large amount of donations that went into it. -
Waste of time....
-
I posted in E-Sangha:
I have some questions to ask about this relic...
But first of all, are there pictures of the Sri Lanka's and Kandy's so we can do a little comparison with Singapore's tooth?As recorded in the sutras, the Buddha was indeed anatomically different from a mortal human. How can we compare his tooth with a human tooth. His 32 main features and 80 subfeatures all recorded in the sutras. This can possibly explain it. Anyway, the Buddha also had 40 teeth, so this amy also explain the difference.
Regarding this website, it says about Buddha's teeth:
See this article below for more details of the 32 main features and 80 sub features
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/Signs-of-Buddha-32-80.htm
# siihahanu: lion-like jaw (such a jaw is necessary to accommodate the 40 teeth of mark 23.)
# cattaa.liisadanto: 40 teeth (most people have only 32 teeth and normally some are missing too. Such a set of forty teeth is permanent throughout life -- not like ours which change from milk teeth > adult teeth > false teeth!)
# samadanto: evenly-spaced teeth
# avira.ladanto: gapless teeth
# sukkadanto: crystal canine teeth. Some people ask how when, as we sometimes find in the scriptures, the Buddha and Ananda are walking along, how Ananda could know that the Buddha has noticed something and is smiling about it. Normally, Ananda would walk directly behind the Buddha, but the reason he could know that the Buddha was smiling is because even just the parting of his lips, light would eminate from his canine teeth)
Just wondering... it says Buddha had 'Canine teeth' and clearly Buddha's teeth looks different from ours, but what exactly is like? How does it look like? Can we do some comparisons with the tooth shown above. -
Though relics isn't that important comparitively with practising the Dharma teachings, nevertheless a relic of Buddha isn't just like any ordinary bone or tooth relic (has many special and miraculous features), therefore isn't such a 'waste of time' as you thought.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Waste of time....
Read: Shariras/she li zi/relics -
Since practicing buddha dharma is the only concern, relics can be considered a true waste of time.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Though relics isn't that important comparitively with practising the Dharma teachings, nevertheless a relic of Buddha isn't just like any ordinary bone or tooth relic (has many special and miraculous features), therefore isn't such a 'waste of time' as you thought.
Read: Shariras/she li zi/relics -
Buddha never said if you practise dharma, you don't need to care anything, whether its the relics or your own life.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Since practicing buddha dharma is the only concern, relics can be considered a true waste of time. -
Since a person is dead, do we still need to care about his ashes?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Buddha never said if you practise dharma, you don't need to care anything, whether its the relics or your own life. -
Yes, as part of respect and veneration.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Since a person is dead, do we still need to care about his ashes?
p.s. a tooth is not 'ashes', ashes is more like powder. -
I am just taking an example... A sarira is just a by-product of death which is the same as ash.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Yes, as part of respect and veneration.
p.s. a tooth is not 'ashes', ashes is more like powder. -
Remains, yes. The difference is ashes are literally irreducible small particles in powder form, while sariras are solid relics that cannot be destroyed by any means like fire or pressure or etc, not even if you hit it hard with a metal stick.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:I am just taking an example... A sarira is just a by-product of death which is the same as ash. -
yeah. his reply was rather un-monk-like and un-buddhist-like.Originally posted by sanath:I find this reply a problem. The tooth is not his own private property now. It belongs to the temple (of which he is the abbot, not the owner) and the larger community of Buddhists who donated Dana to its building. I think there is going to be alot more controversy as there had always been about the tooth, largely due to the large amount of donations that went into it.
I didn't like the way he replied for such a high level monk. -
interestingÂ…
iÂ’m in no position to judge them real or fake, or what people doing is right or wrong. speculations, distorted evidences are also non-beneficial to one and others. truth may also turn out to be pleasant and unpleasant. being too attached to concepts of real and fake obstructs clarity and discriminatory wisdom to develop. trust, intuition, equanimity... if we practice and cultivate diligently, we need not look elsewhere, externally nor internally for shariras. a fake one transforms into a real one; real is also fake like dreams, bubble foams eventually. just 2cents worth...
i have no money or gold to donate and give away. but hereÂ’s a gift for everyone.
may all be well.
namo amituofuoÂ…