Rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahman Vedas

[Deeele]

@cjmacie

Linda Blanchard’s take on it all, however, may interest you (if you’re not already familiar with her book), as it elaborates Jurewicz’s research specifically in terms of the paticca-samuppāda doctrine, which appears to play a central role in the Buddha’s message as radically reinterpreting traditions he was born into.

My take on it is in life there are realities (such as earth, wind, body, mind, sky, etc) & these realities will play a part in most attempts to describe the world & life. Therefore, most philosophies will share certain phenomena in common.

For example, reading The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, Section II - The Process of Creation, there are verse which sound very much like the Old Testament creation story in Genesis, particularly the use of the phrases: “In the beginning” & “Let there be” and the overall differentiating of the undifferentiated via “naming” or “calling”:

There was nothing whatsoever here in the beginning. It was covered only by Death (Hiraṇyagarbha), or Hunger, for hunger is death. He created the mind, thinking, ‘Let me have a mind.’ He moved about worshipping (himself). As he was worshipping, water was produced. (Since he thought), ‘As I was worshipping, water sprang up,’ therefore Arka (fire) is so called. Water (or happiness) surely comes to one who knows how Arka (fire) came to have this name of Arka.

Water is Arka. What was there (like) froth on the water was solidified and became this earth. When that was produced, he was tired. [Page 27] While he was (thus) tired and distressed, his essence, or lustre, came forth. This was Fire.

He (Virāj) differentiated himself in three ways, making the sun the third form, and air the third form. So this Prāṇa (Virāj) is divided in three ways. His head is the east, and his arms that (north-east) and that (south-east). And his hind part is the west, his hip-bones that (north-west) and that (south-west), his sides the south and north, his back heaven, his belly the sky, and his breast, this earth. He rests on water. He who knows (it) thus gets a resting place wherever he goes.

In Section VI - The Three Aspects of the Universe, there is a discussion about ‘nama-rupa’, which while being a valid descriptor of how the human mind constructs its world, does not necessarily mean the Buddha’s use of ‘nama-rupa’ was always & predominantly the same:

This (universe) indeed consists of three things: name, form and action (trayaṃ vā idam—nāma rūpaṃ karma).

Of those names, speech (sound in general) is the Uktha (source), for all names spring from it. It is their Sāman (common feature), for it is common to all names. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all names.

Now of forms the eye (anything visible) is the Uktha (source), for all forms spring from it. It is their Sāman (common feature), for it is common to all forms. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all forms.

And of actions the body (activity) is the Uktha (source), for all actions spring from it. It is their Sāman (common feature), for it is common to all actions. It is their Brahman (self), for it sustains all actions.

These three together are one—this body, and the body, although one, is these three. This immortal entity is covered by truth (the five elements): The vital force is the immortal entity, and name and form are truth (nāmarūpe satyam); (so) this vital force is covered by them.

Then Section IV - The Creation and Its Cause it introduces the ideas of: (i) the organ of speech; (ii) the mind; and (iii) the vital force, which are very similar to the kaya, vaci & citta sankhara, defined in MN 44 as breathing, applied thought & perception/feeling, and also found as terms in dependent origination:

This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It differentiated only into name and form—it was called such and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it is differentiated only into name and form—it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self has entered into these bodies up to the tip of the nails—as a razor may be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living, It is called the vital force; when It speaks, the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; when It hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the mind.

Then Section V - Manifestations of Prajapati continues:

‘Three he designed for himself’ means: The mind, the organ of speech and the vital force; these he designed for himself… Prāṇa, Apāna, Vyāna, Udāna, Samāna and Ana—all these are but the vital force. This body is identified with these—with the organ of speech, the mind and the vital force.

These are the three worlds. The organ of speech is this world (the earth), the mind is the sky, and the vital force is that world (heaven).

These are the three Vedas. The organ of speech is the Ṛg-Veda, the mind is the Yajur-Veda and the vital force the Sāma-Veda.

These are the gods, the Manes and men. The organ of speech is the gods, the mind the Manes, and the vital force men.

These are the father, mother and child. The mind is the father, the organ of speech the mother, and the vital force the child.

In conclusion, my point is just because this Upanishad identifies the phenomena of vital force (kaya sankhara), speech (vaci) and mind (citta) and groups them together as constituents of creation, does not mean the Buddha used these as a blue print for any of his teachings, including dependent origination.

The body as a reality contains breathing, the mind contains thought function, perception & feeling. When these basic phenomena are affected by ignorance & defiled asava (outflows), these phenomena then lead to conditioning the body & mind to generate stress & suffering.

For example, the science of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) understands an impure, polluted or blocked vital force (chi; prana) can cause physical & mental disease. Just because the vital force is mentioned in the Upanishad does not mean theories of TCM were based on the Upanishad.

[Deeele]

Well… I am stuck on reading this Upanishad therefore sort of off-topic regarding the Four Vedas. However, as a comparative study with DN 13:

‘Well then, Vaseṭṭha, what about the early sages of those Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas, the makers of the mantras, the expounders of the mantras, whose ancient verses are chanted, pronounced and collected by the Brahmins of today, and sung and spoken about — such as Atthaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamataggi, Angirasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāsettha, Kassapa, Bhagu - did they ever say: “We know and see when, how and where Brahmā appears”?’ ‘No,

Section VI - The Line of Teachers

1. Now the line of teachers: Pautimāṣya (received it) from Gaupavana. Gaupavana from another Pautimāṣya. This Pautimāṣya from another Gaupavana. This Gaupavana from Kauśika. Kauśika from Kanṇḍiriya. Kauṇḍinya from Śāṇḍilya. Śāṇḍilya from Kauśika and Gautama. Gautama—

2. From Āgniveśya. Āgniveśya from Śāṇḍilya and Anabhimlāta. Ānabhimlāta from another of that name. He from a third Ānabhimlāta. This Ānabhimlāta from Gautama. Gautama from Saitava and Prācīnayogya. They from Pārāśarya. Pārāśarya from Bharadvāja. He from Bharadvāja and Gautama. Gautama from another Bhāradvāja. He from another Pārāśarya. Pārāśarya from Baijavāpāyana. He from Kauśikāyani. Kauśikāyani—

3. From Ghṛtakauśika. Ghṛtakauśika from Pārāśaryāyaṇa. He from Pārāśarya. Pārāśarya from Jātūkarṇya. Jātūkarṇya from Āsurāyaṇa and Yāska. Āsurāyaṇa from Traivaṇi. Traivaṇi from. Aupajandhani. He from Āsuri. Āsuri from Bhāradvāja. Bhāradvāja from Ātreya. Ātreya from Māṇṭi. Māṇṭi from Gautama. Gautama from another Gautama. He from Vātsya. Vātsya from Śāṇḍilya. Śāṇḍilya from Kaiśorya Kāpya. He from Kumārahārita. Kumārahārita from Gālava. Gālava from Vidarbhīkauṇḍinya. He from Vatsanapāt Bābhrava. He from Pathin Saubhara. He from Ayāsya Āṅgirasa. He from Ābhūti Tvāṣṭra. He from Viśvarūpa Tvāṣṭra. He from the Aśvins. They from Dadhyac Ātharvaṇa. He from Atharvan Daiva. He from Mṛtyu Prādhvaṃsana. He from Prādhvaṃsana. Prādhvaṃsana from Ekarṣi. Ekarṣi from Viprachitti. Viprachitti from Vyaṣṭi. Vyaṣṭi from Sanāru. Sanāru from Sanātana. Sanātana from Sanaga. Sanaga from Parameṣṭhin (Virāj). He from Brahman (Hiraṇyagarbha). Brahman is self-born. Salutation to Brahman.

[Deeele]

Going further off-topic, some interesting verses on liberation (mukti), which seems to say to identify speech as ‘fire’; the eye as ‘the sun’; the vital force as ‘air’; the mind as the ‘moon’.

‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘since all this is overtaken by death, and swayed by it, by what means does the sacrificer go beyond the clutches of death?’

‘Through the organ of speech—through fire, which is the (real) priest called Hotṛ. The sacrificer’s organ of speech is the Hotṛ. This organ of speech is fire; this fire is the Hotṛ; this (fire) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation.’

‘Through the vital force—through air, which is the (real) priest called Udgātṛ. The vital force of the sacrificer is the Udgātṛ. This vital force is air, and it is the Udgātṛ; this (air) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation.’

‘Through the eye—through the sun, which is the (real) priest called Adhvaryu. The eye of the sacrificer is the Adhvaryu. This eye is the sun; this sun is the Adhvaryu; this (sun) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation.’

‘Through the mind—through the moon, which is the (real) priest called Brahman. The mind of the sacrificer is the Brahman. This mind is the moon; the moon is the Brahman; this (moon) is liberation; this (liberation) is emancipation.’

The Commentary of Śaṅkarācārya states: “which takes one beyond the death that consists in attachment to limitations relating to the body and the elements”.

More:

‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when this man dies, what is it that does not leave him?’

‘Name. The name indeed is infinite and infinite are the Viśvadevas. He (who knows thus) wins thereby verily an infinite world.’

‘Yājñavalkya,’ said he, ‘when the vocal organ of a man who dies is merged in fire, the nose in air, the eye in the sun, the mind in the moon, the ear in the quarters, the body in the earth, the ether of the heart in the external ether, the hair on the body in the herbs, that on the head in the trees, and the blood and the seed are deposited in water, where is then the man?’

‘Give me your hand, dear Ārtabhāga, we will decide this between ourselves, we cannot do it in a crowd.’ They went out and talked it over. What they mentioned there was only work (karma) and what they praised there was also only work. (Therefore) one indeed becomes good through good work (karmaṇā) and evil through evil work. Thereupon Ārtabhāga, of the line of Jaratkāru, kept silent.

This is your self that is within all; everything else but this is perishable.

‘explain to me the Brahman that is immediate and direct—the [Page 475] self that is within all.’ ‘This is your self that is within all.’ ‘Which is within all, Yājñavalkya?’ ‘That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death. Knowing this very Self the Brāhmaṇas renounce the desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant life. That which is the desire for sons is the desire for wealth, and that which is the desire for wealth is the desire for the worlds, for both these are but desires. Therefore the knower of Brahman, having known all about scholarship, should try to live upon that strength which comes of knowledge; having known all about this strength as well as scholarship, he becomes meditative; having known all about born meditativeness and its opposite, he becomes a knower of Brahman. How does that knower of Brahman behave? Howsoever he may behave, he is just such. Except this everything is perishable.’

[cjmacie]

[quote=“Deeele, post:17, topic:5571, full:true”]

[quote=“cjmacie, post:15, topic:5571”]
Linda Blanchard’s take on it all, however, may interest you (if you’re not already familiar with her book), as it elaborates Jurewicz’s research specifically in terms of the paticca-samuppāda doctrine, which appears to play a central role in the Buddha’s message as radically reinterpreting traditions he was born into.
[/quote][/quote]

Having revisited this, and taken another look at Linda’s book, I should clarify that the basic idea is to be found in Jurewicz essay (predating the “Fire and Cognition” book by 10 years): "Playing with Fire: The pratītyasamutpāda from the perspective of Vedic thought"
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Playing%20with%20Fire_The%20pratityasamutpada%20from%20the%20perspective%20of%20Vedic%20thought_JPTS_Jurewicz_2000.pdf

Here Jurewicz hypothesizes step-by-step correspondences between the Vedic creation myth and the Buddha’s use of a similar sequence of concepts and relationships in the paticcasamuppada. In the Vedic version, Atman = fire creates and fulfills human life (through cognition). In contrast, the Buddha points to fire (tanha in it’s Sanskrit form ) as the key damaging link, in a sequence of logical conditioned steps, changes, deprived of any substantial underpinning (atman), which elucidate the impersonal mechanics of human suffering. He, in effect, entirely refutes the purpose of the Vedic schema, which would be evident to his more educated listeners (Brahmins), and casts the schema in a form to be understood and overcome on the path to liberating the mind. Again, this is the hypothesis she presents, citing abundant documentation.

Linda Blanchard’s book takes this analysis further into her own theory that the Buddha was describing, in contrast with the Vedic myth, a rather psychological and secular interpretation. I think she attempts to parallel the Buddha’s comparison / contrast with the common Vedic understanding of his time (according to Jurewicz), with her own modernist comparison / contrast with traditional Theravada as found today.

Were you capable of reading this (Jurewicz’s essay – it’s just 10 pages), without having to believe it, and without having to spin off into reaction against difference with your own beliefs, you might be in a position to meaningfully discuss it, or choose not to.

Btw, I’m very familiar with Than-Geoff’s book. as well as that by Silananda Sayadaw, and other expositions and historical analyses of paticcasamuppada. One particularly succinct but comprehensive survey of the topic can be found in V. Analayo’s first book on Sattipatthana (2003) pp. 107-112 in the print version, pp. 99-103 in an internet downloadable version:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjRnbTzhrbUAhUG6iYKHSnTBv4QFgg2MAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abhayagiri.org%2Fmedia%2Fdiscs%2FAPasannoRetreats%2F2013%2520Fourth%2520Foundation%2520of%2520Mindfulness%2FSources%2FAnalayo_Satipatthana-The-Direct-Path-to-Realization.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEL4rMY3JdpCFVsqM19gihOmgGVTg&cad=rja
In his second book on Sattipatthana (2013), he revisits the topic, including reference to Jurewicz theory, on pp.123-127.

[Deeele]

[quote=“cjmacie, post:25, topic:5571”]Jurewicz hypothesizes step-by-step correspondences between the Vedic creation myth and the Buddha’s use of a similar sequence of concepts and relationships in the paticcasamuppada.
[/quote]

This is irrelevant, as I already explained.

The Buddha examined a disease & the causes of that disease, similar to a medical researcher examining cancer & the causes of cancer.

The Buddha examined what pre-existed within the mental phenomena of suffering (rather than examined what pre-existed in the Vedas).

The only Vedic aspect of paticcasamuppada would be the hijacking & redefinition of the term ‘nama-rupa’ in order to debunk its Vedic importance.

Instead of ending differentiating via ending ‘naming-forms’ ('nama-rupa) to merge into the undifferentiated non-dual oneness with the Brahma-Self; the Buddha taught to end & remove craving from the mind-body (nama-rupa); thus rendering the whole business of ‘naming-forms’ as irrelevant to the spiritual path.

I recommend to read & embody Tan Geoff’s explanation of ‘nama-rupa’ in his Shape of Suffering book.

@cjmacie

Btw, I’m very familiar with Than-Geoff’s book

So, based on your posts here, it sounds like you disagree with Than-Geoff’s meditative book & verifiable analysis but prefer the non-fruitional (non-meditative) speculations of Jurewicz & Blanchard. [quote=“cjmacie, post:25, topic:5571”]
One particularly succinct but comprehensive survey of the topic can be found in V. Analayo’s first book
[/quote]

Please quote the passages you believe are relevant. Thanks[quote=“cjmacie, post:25, topic:5571”]
pp. 107-112
[/quote]

I read nothing relevant to this topic from pp107 - 112 but read words & ideas contrary to Tan Geoff.

This topic is about rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahma Vedas, which based on my research so far, does not appear to be a very strong & systematically defined doctrine in the Vedas and even in the Upanishads.

Where as Analayo appears to be mostly expressing some personal ideas about D.O. based on the Patisambhidãmagga. Your inference that Analayo seems to believe the Buddha was explaining D.O. as a substitute to Brahman theories appears tenuous.

At the time of the Buddha, a variety of philosophical positions on causality were current in India… The Buddha, on the other hand, proposed dependent co-arising (paticca samuppãda) as his “middle way” explanation of causality… According to the Paìisambhidãmagga, these twelve links extend over three consecutive individual lifetimes.

While off-topic, Analayo later gives an alternative views of D.O. similar to Tan Geoff.

Another example of a direct application of the principle of conditionality can be found in the Indriyabhãvanã Sutta, which qualifies pleasure and displeasure arising at any of the six sense doors as dependently arisen (paìicca samuppanna), a usage that is not related to past or future lives. The same holds true for the Madhupiœôika Sutta’s detailed analysis of the perceptual process. This discourse depicts the “arising” (uppãda) of consciousness “in dependence” (paìicca) on sense organ and sense object, with contact being the coming “together” (saÿ) of the three. This passage reveals a deeper significance of each part of the term paìicca sam-uppãda, “dependent” “co-” “arising”, without any need for different lifetimes or for the whole set of twelve links. Thus realization of dependent co-arising can take place simply by witnessing the operation of conditionality in the present moment, within one’s own subjective experience.

Since Analayo seems to comprehend “dependent” “co" "-arising”, namely, the 12 links should probably arise together, I wonder why Analayo would entertain the Patisambhidãmagga idea?

Regardless, back to topic thanks. Let’s try to make quality posts identifying & quoting key issues.

[cjmacie]

[quote=“Deeele, post:26, topic:5571, full:true”]
The Buddha examined a disease & the causes of that disease, similar to a medical researcher examining cancer & the causes of cancer.

The Buddha examined what pre-existed within the mental phenomena of suffering (rather than examined what pre-existed in the Vedas). [/quote]

Jurewicz and others document their views, using Vedic as well as Pali sources. These statements (quoted here) appear to simply assert some kind of view.

[quote=“Deeele, post:26, topic:5571, full:true”]
So, based on your posts here, it sounds like you disagree with Than-Geoff’s meditative book & verifiable analysis but prefer the non-fruitional (non-meditative) speculations of Jurewicz & Blanchard. [/quote]

How exactly is it to be inferred that I “disagree with Than-Geoff’s meditative book & verifiable analysis”? And “prefer… speculations…”? My text is largely enumerating sources, without specifically judging them other than as worthy of consideration. Than-Geoff’s* book (“The Shape of Suffering”) is dhamma teaching, an exegesis of sutta sources and according to his understanding and reflecting his teaching lineage.

This terminology – “meditative book and verifiable analysis”, “non-fruitional (non-meditative) speculations” “read and embody Tan Geoff’s explanation” – is this intended to represent some kind of privileged revelation and/or attainment, rather than a perspective of view-point, however well studied?

@cjmacie

One particularly succinct but comprehensive survey of the topic can be found in V. Analayo’s first book

[quote=“Deeele, post:26, topic:5571, full:true”]
Please quote the passages you believe are relevant. [/quote]
Ven. Analayo is presenting a survey of interpretive views of paticcasamuppada, specifically against the background of “a variety of philosophical positions on causality … current in India [at the time of the Buddha]”. He does contribute, IMO, a rather notable point (emphasis added) :
“…
the twelve links are but a particular frequent application of the general structural principle of dependent co-arising. In the Paccaya Sutta [SN], the Buddha introduces this important distinction between the general principle and its application. This discourse speaks of the twelve links as dependently originated phenomena, while “pattica samuppada” refers to the relation between them, that is, the principle.”

“To speak of dependent co-arising is to speak of specific conditions related to specific events. Such “specific conditionality” (idappaccayata) can be illustrated in the following manner:
When A is → B comes to be. With the arising of A → B arises.
When A is not → B does not come to be. With the cessation of A → B ceases.[paraphrasing M III.63, which is quoted in a footnote]”

He goes on to illustrate with passages throughout the suttas demonstrating specific conditional relationships and groupings of them, and relates this to a “specific application of conditionality to the practice of meditation apparent during most of the contemplations of dhammas”, i.e in the context of the Satipatthana Sutta, the topic of his book(s).

[quote=“Deeele, post:26, topic:5571, full:true”]This topic is about rebirth & reincarnation in the Brahma Vedas…

Where as Analayo appears to be mostly expressing some personal ideas about D.O. based on the Patisambhidãmagga. Your inference that Analayo seems to believe the Buddha was explaining D.O. as a substitute to Brahman theories appears tenuous. [/quote]
In contrast with Analayo’s rather even-handed presentation of the available interpretations of paticcasamuppada (across both Satipatthana books), how can you characterize this as expressing his “personal ideas” based the Patisambhidamagga, and where overall he cites a long list of sutta passages and interpretations of other authors/commentators?

@Deeele

Since Analayo seems to comprehend “dependent” “co" "-arising”, namely, the 12 links should probably arise together, I wonder why Analayo would entertain the Patisambhidãmagga idea?

Isn’t he using “co-” in terms of the relationship between the two elements/events in any specific conditioned link? Evidence that he asserts that the 12 links arise together, or that he “entertains” the Patisambhidãmagga idea in any other than as one of a list of interpretations – all this, in lieu of more accurate textual analysis on the part of your critique, would appear to indicate arather “tenuous” grasp of his exposition.

Note: The Patisambhidamagga interpretation of “three consecutive lifetimes”, as well as the Vedic mythology of successive births and deaths of the enduring Atman, as documented by Jurewicz and other authorities, and as further present in the Upanishadic phase of Vedic development – these indicate the relevance of my discussion to the OP topic here.

Further indications are that your “research” here is as yet in a formative stage. But please keep at it. There’s much to be learned in this area, and thank you for sharing it.

[*] referring to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Ajahn Thanissaro as others use, and Than-Geoff as used by some who are familiar with him personally, as he does list himself as author in some of his writings as “ThanissaroBhikkhu (Geoffrey DeGraff)”.

[LindaB]

Also, Deele, I hope you’ve found some great books on Brahmanism. My highest recommendation goes to Brian K Smith’s " Reflections on Resemblance, Ritual and Religion". Very thorough, very engaging.

[LindaB]

An answer to one of Deele’s points above, just four-and-a-half years late. Also an aside to cjmacie: I am not the plain-named Linda, but just arrived as LindaB (I don’t think I used any other name before).

Deele said: “Sorry, while I can empathize with the enthusiasm of Blanchard & Jurewicz, this meditation object of Paticca-samuppāda should not be mistaken for speculative myths from Brahmanism & Judaism.”

I say: Sorry, but you’ve misunderstood what I said in my book, which had nothing at all in it about dependent arising (DA) being about speculative myths from Brahmanism or Judaism. It did use Prof. Jurewicz insights into the pattern of Vedic thought being used as a structure in DA but in no way did I imply – nor did the Buddha imply in his use of the structure – any support for those myths. DA is in no way about those myths.

What I do say is that the Buddha used the structure of Vedic thinking about the construction of atman to parallel what he was trying to point out: how we in our ignorance construct what we think of as the self (but is anatta – not-self) and how it leads to dukkha. I do, I think, agree that DA is well-utilized as a lens for meditation, though I didn’t read the whole thread here so I won’t be surprised if you meant something else entirely in the above quote.

[mikenz66]

Hi Linda,

Great to see you here. Unfortunately, cjmacie passed away a couple of years ago:
Chris Macie (cjmacie) passed away a few years back - Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Deele has also been absent for some time.

Your input is certainly appreciated. If you are not aware of them, you might be interested in Bhikkhu Analayo’s comments on Dependent Orignation, which I linked to here:

Ven Analyayo on Dependent Origination - Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

[LindaB]

Thanks, Mike, happy you’re here.

I am sad to hear that Chris is no longer with us. I generally post to old threads hoping to carry on the conversation with participants, but imagining other people read them years later, like I do, and might pick up the conversation again. It was just hard seeing my work so misrepresented.

Yes, I’m familiar with Analayo’s work. He’s amazing. I’d like to have used the phrase “I keep up with his work” but !whew! hardly possible – he’s so prolific.