Lost deity meditation practice in the suttas?

Discussion
1

Recently, I began to research a whole host of suttas, including MN 128, DN 27, the abhibhvayatana suttas, etc. From this I’ve come to the conclusion that the abhibhvayatanas are a lost meditation on the deities in the suttas though other traditions usually claim that these are kasina meditation exercises.

The abhibhvayatanas, or the eight spheres of mastery, talk of the perception of forms, at first internally and externally, and then only externally, vari-colored, limited or limitless.

Eight dimensions of mastery: Perceiving form internally, someone sees forms externally, limited, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the first dimension of mastery.

Perceiving form internally, someone sees forms externally, limitless, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the second dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees forms externally, limited, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the third dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees forms externally, limitless, both pretty and ugly. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the fourth dimension of mastery.

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees forms externally that are blue, with blue color and blue appearance. They’re like a flax flower that’s blue, with blue color and blue appearance. Or a cloth from Varanasi that’s smoothed on both sides, blue, with blue color and blue appearance. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the fifth dimension of mastery.

etc.
We know from the Agganna sutta that beings descended from the abode of streaming radiance after eating the Earth’s nectar, and, due to this, they began to differ in appearance:

Then those beings started to eat the earth’s nectar, breaking it into lumps. But when they did this their luminosity vanished. And with the vanishing of their luminosity the moon and sun appeared, stars and constellations appeared, days and nights were distinguished, and so were months and fortnights, and years and seasons. So far had the world evolved once more.

Then those beings eating the earth’s nectar, with that as their food and nourishment, remained for a very long time. But so long as they ate that earth’s nectar, their bodies became more solid and they diverged in appearance; some beautiful, some ugly. And the beautiful beings looked down on the ugly ones: ‘We’re more beautiful, they’re the ugly ones!’ And the vanity of the beautiful ones made the earth’s nectar vanish. They gathered together and bemoaned, ‘Oh, what a taste! Oh, what a taste!’ And even today when people get something tasty they say: ‘Oh, what a taste! Oh, what a taste!’ They’re just remembering an ancient primordial saying, but they don’t understand what it means.

This explains why Brahma realm beings are described as “diverse in body” while the gods of streaming radiance, and universal beauty are unified in body. The beings keep on eating the earth’s nectar, and they eventually became deities of the sensual realm. This explains those “external forms” that the meditator sees that are “both pretty and ugly”, it seems to be a meditation on the sensual deities, like the Buddha in AN 8.64 where he meditated on light and forms until he could converse with those deities, and find out what order of gods they came from, what food they ate, why they experience such pleasure and pain, etc.

“Then it occurred to me, ‘What if I were to perceive light and see forms; and associate with those deities, converse, and engage in discussion; and find out which orders of gods those deities come from; and what deeds caused those deities to be reborn there after passing away from here; and what deeds caused those deities to have such food and such an experience of pleasure and pain; and that these deities have a lifespan of such a length; and whether or not I have previously lived together with those deities? Then my knowledge and vision would become even more purified.’”

I haven’t reached a conclusion on what “internally” means, in regards to this, but we know that in MN 128 Anuruddha and friends perceived the forms of deities, and we hear the Buddha discuss his experience on the matter as well. The Buddha said:

While meditating diligent, keen, and resolute, I perceived limited light and saw limited forms, or I perceived limitless light and saw limitless forms. And this went on for a whole night, a whole day, even a whole night and day. I thought: ‘What is the cause, what is the reason for this?’ It occurred to me: ‘When my immersion is limited, then my vision is limited, and with limited vision I perceive limited light and see limited forms. But when my immersion is limitless, then my vision is limitless, and with limitless vision I perceive limitless light and see limitless forms. And this goes on for a whole night, a whole day, even a whole night and day.’

So, what makes the perception of these forms limited or limitless is the nature of the samadhi, whether it is limited or limitless. Now, “limited” and “limitless” samadhi has a wide range of meanings in the suttas, there’s the lost practice of literally extending one’s samadhi that Anuruddha explains to Maha Kaccana, which is probably what is being referred to here, the brahmaviharas, whether the five hindrances are present or not, etc.

Now, onto the colors, I believe that most of the traditions explain them to be some kasina practice, and that is a reasonable guess, but as I was searching for “blue” in the suttas I came across this:

Blazing like a crested flame;*
*and the Ariṭṭhakas and Rojas too,*
*and the gods hued blue as flax.*

*The Varuṇas and Sahadhammas,*
*the Accutas and Anejakas,*
*the Sūleyyas and Ruciras all came,*
*as did the Vāsavanesi gods.*
*These ten hosts of gods*
*shone in all different colors.*

*They’re powerful and brilliant,*
*so beautiful and glorious.*
*Rejoicing, they’ve come forth*
*to the meeting of mendicants in the wood.*

*The Samānas and Mahāsamānas,*
*Mānusas and Mānusuttamas all came,*
*and the gods depraved by play,*
*and those who are malevolent.*

*Then came the gods of Mercury,*
*and those who live on Mars.*
*The Pāragas and Mahāpāragas came,*
*such glorious gods.*
*These ten hosts of gods*
*shone in all different colors.

I haven’t looked too much into this, but note the emphasis on colors, and especially on the gods that are “hued blue as flax”. Where else have we heard that?

Not perceiving form internally, someone sees forms externally that are blue, with blue color and blue appearance. They’re like a flax flower that’s blue, with blue color and blue appearance. Or a cloth from Varanasi that’s smoothed on both sides, blue, with blue color and blue appearance. Mastering them, they perceive: ‘I know and see.’ This is the fifth dimension of mastery.

Reposting this here, what do you guys think?

6 Likes
2

In the last week or so, I listened to a talk on MN128 by Ajahn Brahmali. His explanation on this entire sutta was on nimittas, not deity meditation. I looked through all of my history but I can’t figure out which talk it was. It either came from BSWA or YouTube.

1 Like
3

Not necessarily exclusive. Many theists will (mis?)interpret the nimitta as an experience of The Divine :trade_mark:

3 Likes
4

It’s reasonable to think that it may have been about Nimittas, but AN 8.64 elaborates on this further:

“Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still not awake but intent on awakening—I perceived light but did not see forms.

Then it occurred to me, ‘What if I were to both perceive light and see forms? Then my knowledge and vision would become even more purified.’

So after some time, living diligent, keen, and resolute, I perceived light and saw forms. But I didn’t associate with those deities, converse, or engage in discussion.

Then it occurred to me, ‘What if I were to perceive light and see forms; and associate with those deities, converse, and engage in discussion? Then my knowledge and vision would become even more purified.’

So after some time … I perceived light and saw forms. And I associated with those deities, conversed, and engaged in discussion. But I didn’t know which orders of gods those deities came from.

Then it occurred to me, ‘What if I were to perceive light and see forms; and associate with those deities, converse, and engage in discussion; and find out which orders of gods those deities come from? Then my knowledge and vision would become even more purified.’

So after some time … I perceived light and saw forms. And I associated with those deities … And I found out which orders of gods those deities came from. But I didn’t know what deeds caused those deities to be reborn there after passing away from here.

The light and forms were deities while the actual nimitta in MN 128 were the reason/basis for the vanishing of the light and forms that Anuruddha and friends saw.

3 Likes
5

Yeah, the way I’ve heard it described is that the nimitta is like a gateway to astral travel. Fwiw

1 Like
7

Yes, AN8.64 is an interesting sutta, thanks for posting it.

My first thoughts about the sutta are the opening lines:

“Mendicants, before my awakening—when I was still not awake but intent on awakening—I perceived light but did not see forms.

Then it occurred to me, ‘What if I were to both perceive light and see forms? Then my knowledge and vision would become even more purified.’

The Buddha-to-be had yet to put all of the Dhamma together. What set the Buddha apart from everyone else was that he was forging in unknown territory with inquisitively and investigation, diligently practicing to see where things led. His concern here was to purify his knowledge and vision. It appears to me that he was expanding his awareness and knowledge of different realms of existence and the nature of how they operate, particularly in light of his burgeoning right understanding of rebirth (which heretofore was not known). He doesn’t get stuck in these realms, misunderstanding and thinking he’s reached his goal of ending dukkha.

That’s my stab at it!

1 Like
8

@jaratan Great post! I really like where you appear to be going with this. This is a direction I’ve been thinking about for YEARS, but, as you pointed out, this is all probably pretty archaic stuff that didn’t get transmitted in full, and all we have left in the texts are cryptic, vestigial strings.

I’m really busy for the next week or two, so, regrettably, I won’t be able to dialogue with you much on this for the time being. I do hope the thread stays open and we get some really engaging responses. I’ll probably look in on things from time to time.

What I can do is suggest, if you have not already done so, give SN 14.11, the Sattadhātu Sutta, a look. Ābhā and subha are clearly references to the ābhā and subha deities (as are the four formless attainments, for that matter). I’m aware that you were focusing on the abhibhāyatanā, but this sattadhātu also being a parallel to the related aṭṭha vimokkhā implies that this is all of a sub-family, as it were.

Note: AN 8.64 which you quoted from is located at Gayāsīsa, where the Buddha converted the 1,000 disciples of the Kassapa brothers and, more importantly, battled the nāga, which is a whole other rabbit hole when it comes to archaic traditions and “blazing hues.”

2 Likes
9

AN 8.64 (and MA 73) read very much like a traditional animist vision quest in which a person seeks to communicate with spirits. The purpose of such practices varies with different native cultures, but I do think it’s one of many examples of animistic practices and beliefs in early Buddhism.

3 Likes
10

When I read MA 73, I see nothing about animistic practices. I read the sutta solely as the Buddha-to-be aiming to purify his knowledge and vision for the purpose of knowing when he had awakened and gone beyond. Until he accomplished this, he wouldn’t know what was necessary to know in order to fully awaken.

He wasn’t aiming to just produce light and see shapes and forms, he needed to go further to purify his knowledge and vision. He needed the knowledge of meeting and conversing with gods, to know their names and births, their foods and experiences, their life spans, their actions that lead to birth in the heavens, the heavens themselves and ultimately whether he had previously been born in those heavens. Once he had this knowledge and vision, he understood and was able to proclaim his attainment and freedom from rebirth.

1 Like
11

Just to make sure everyone’s on the same page, and we’re not talking past one another, maybe @cdpatton can define what he means by animist, so anyone wishing to challenge that will be in a better position to do so.

2 Likes
12

Oh, I wasn’t challenging Charles Patton, just saying how I interpret the sutta!

I’m also very interested in hearing what a traditional animist vision quest is. It doesn’t sound like something the Buddha would value!

1 Like
13

Thanks for the response, I’ve read SN 14.11 before, and, with the recent connections made, it being tied to the deities seems likely. The eight liberations seemed to parallel the planes of consciousness a little, but its connections to the Jhanas cannot be disregarded, as the mendicant is instructed to do the eight liberations “forwards and backwards”.

Also, in Mahamoggallana’s verses in the Theragatha:

“One who attains the eight liberations forwards and backwards before breakfast, and then goes on almsround—

don’t attack such a mendicant! Don’t ruin yourself, brahmin! Let your heart have trust in the perfected one, the unaffected; quickly venerate him with joined palms: don’t let your head explode!”

The parallel Is interesting, but I can’t seem to make sense of it right now.

Interested to see where you research brings you regarding all of this!

2 Likes
14

It’s okay. It’s only a vague similarity. A vision quest is specific in native American spirituality, in which a young man (I believe) goes into seclusion, perform certain rites of purification, and sits in contemplation until a vision comes to him. The vision is understood to be spirits communicating with him to inform him as to the direction his life might take. They were often formative experiences that shaped their lives. This was a practice among plains tribes like the Sioux, I believe.

Animist shamans would do practices like these to connect with the spiritual world, which they considered to a hidden side of the visible world. In a Buddhist context, there’s a Vedic cosmology that’s assumed, so the Buddha is communing with heavenly beings. Still, it really sticks out compared to most Buddhist descriptions of meditation. That’s the only reason I make the connection. It seems to me a vestige of some animist past that Buddhists were aware of.

4 Likes
15

Buddhism and Buddhism are also often just vaguely similar.

But, actually, you’re implying more than just them being aware of it; you’re implying a measure of cultural continuity as well as a evolutionary paradigm wherein earliest Buddhism presents very differently not only from later Buddhism but also from what we generally picture “early Buddhism” to have been.

Understanding that we’re all just spitballing here, can you give me/us an idea of what that chain may’ve looked like? You and I have discussed this before, though not to any great depth. I’m not expecting you to have a whole detailed schemata worked out, but I’d like to hear what you have. Hopefully, we’ll be able to fill in the lacunae as we go.

1 Like
16

Yeah, I think there’s more of a continuity for Buddhism than other religions, and it’s something that continues to be present in Buddhism to the present day. It’s dismissed among Westerners and modern people who’ve adopted the Western way as “folk religion” or “superstition.” Christianity very consciously made a complete break from the animism of native Europeans and the steppes tribes that migrated into Europe toward the end of the Roman empire. The Church basically declared animism witchcraft and evil and forcibly converted the non-Christians during the medieval period. This is why Western civilization has a very difficult time considering animism legitimate - we have this cultural legacy we’ve inherited. We feel superior, but what has the superiority complex really gotten us?

Whereas, in Asia, that kind of ideological war against animism didn’t happen. There was instead a gradual move toward abstract Greek-styled philosophy in the classical period, and then the colonial period brought Christian missionaries and science and so on to the mix. What Buddhism is today is the end result of all those changes and outside influences.

When I compare Buddhism to general animism beliefs, I see a lot of overlap. I didn’t become aware of it until the past year or two as I continued to explore the historical context of Buddhism, and I think most modern people in the West filter it out when they learn about Buddhism. We think spirits and fantastical storytelling and even the idea of rebirth is unnecessary superstition. Rebirth is probably the main part of the animist set of beliefs that Western Buddhists have a real debate about. Much of the rest of it goes unrecognized because we don’t know what we’re looking at.

I wrote a little introduction to the subject as a Substack essay for those who haven’t seen it:

Animism in Early Buddhism

There’s a couple book recommendations at the beginning of the article that give a good overview of animism as a general subject. It’s a huge topic by itself because there’s all sorts of varieties of indigenous culture and spirituality found around the world.

In the essay itself, I chose a few examples of parallels between Buddhism and animistic cultures. As with AN 8.64, the basic description is usually very similar to an animistic practice, but it’s changed to fit a later Buddhist paradigm. There are some fascinating cases of that throughout Buddhist literature that wouldn’t be apparent unless we consciously explore animism.

2 Likes
17

Very interesting post, OP. I think you may be onto something. It brings to mind the visualizations of deities that Tibetan Buddhists do in their practice.

2 Likes
18

This is key! There is no (by which I mean NO!) body of Buddhists on the planet which do not incorporate form of animism in their Buddhism, excepting those touched by Western Protestantism.

We tend to write it off as cultural accretion gathered from the native practices of the various lands to which Buddhism traveled. But, we never pause to ask why such “accretion” is so ubiquitous as to be a universal facet of Buddhism; might it not be indicative of something inherent to Buddhism?

(All this confirmation bias is going on while we systematically ignore, too, that there is no era of even South Asian where it was not also present.)

1 Like