Thanks for your insight into the ceremony. I have not experienced this as I have never visited many of the Buddhist countries - my experience is limited to countries where Buddhism is not regarded as a major religion, so there is no tradition of alms giving and monasteries live on donations from benefactors.
Upon reflecting on this matter, I’ve come to realize that the concerns raised by Christie align closely with the recurring criticisms voiced by Confucianists and Neo-Confucianists. This parallel can be drawn to the period when Buddhism first arrived in China, as it faced similar reproaches regarding the societal implications of ascetic practices, often being accused of "placing a burden on society " Buddhism’s supposed selfishness etc. While my insights may not substantially contribute to the ongoing conversation. For myself I am still ruminating over it and letting it simmer.
1 Like
Thanks for your post. A few other people have pointed this out to me, and it is interesting that Mahayana has evolved to address some of these concerns, by focusing more on compassion and universal attainment of all living beings as opposed to individual realisation.
I have also come to realise that some individuals, judging by their rather strong responses to my post, do find the ascetic life appealing, and they believe their own personal realisation effectively becomes the repayment for the “debt” of kindness from society.
I wish you the best as you ponder over the issue. Although it could be argued the East Asian countries where Mahayana is dominant seems to have fared better than Theravadan dominant countries, this is a long bow to stretch as the East Asian countries also tend to be polytheistic, and one could also argue these countries have had political and social issues of their own (indeed, which country hasn’t?).
There has been various books describing the decline and corruption of Buddhism in Thailand, Sri Lanka and Burma which some have recommended to me (via personal messages). I think all religions suffer a share of this “corruption.” The optimist in me still like to believe that for the majority, Buddhists are sincere in their thoughts and their practice, and even though the institutions may be dysfunctional there are still plenty of good intentions in individuals.
I would’ve thought that “some individuals” are just trying to correct your statements such as : the vinaya is what is wrong with theravada buddhism, or your materialistic reading of alms giving/receiving which they think is incorrect.
In fact one of the respondents even said :
“In my post above, I gently tried to point out the wrong views you had mentioned —no need to defend them again here. I did it out of concern for others who might read what you’ve said and become confused about things like almsgiving, refuge, meditation etc. “.
Yet instead of assuming good intentions, you assign an intention to people that they love practicing austerities which is why they disagree with you, while also accusing them of twisting your words.
3 Likes
Well, at the end of the day, we all have wrong views (including, and especially, mine). If our views were right, we would be all be enlightened.
I think it’s important to respect and tolerate all views. They don’t need to be “corrected” - if someone has a different view, they can state that view and everyone is free to evaluate multiple views and choose which they align with, if any. The Buddha himself was tolerant of other views, he even refers to himself as a “brahmin” on many occasions but he takes care to state his views, how they are different from alternate views, and why he holds these views. I do the same, and I respect others who have their own views.
If you have views different from mine, then I would love to hear them. We learn from considering viewpoints different from our own, and in the end hopefully our views will become less wrong over time. My very best wishes to you and your own journey towards realisation.
A few days I ago, I offered an interpretation of this sutta as essentially an example of the Buddha exercising “skill in means” (upāya-kauśalya) by using the technique of pariyāya.
I stated that this can be interpreted as the Buddha redefining samaṇa as one who practices the Buddha’s teachings.
I now realise this analysis is incorrect (or at least naive and misdirected) and wish to withdraw this and offer hopefully an improved interpretation.
Whilst I still believe that this sutta is an example of upāya-kauśalya, what the Buddha is refuting (in a very subtle way) is the central teachings of the old Upanisads, notably the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka (one of the oldest of the Upanisads), and specifically the notion of the Sanskrit ātman (Pali attā) and the end of rebirth through the gnosis with the universal principle of brahman. In other words, the Buddha is really restating the anatta principle which refutes the Vedic notion of an eternal unchanging self.
Let’s step back and see how I arrived at this interpretation.
Samyutta 1.81 is part of the series of linked suttas describing the questions a deity had put forward to the Buddha at Sāvatthī and the Buddha’s responses. It is part of the Sagāthāvagga which @sujato noted is structured similarly to the Ṛg Veda and therefore the Sagāthāvagga could be interpreted as a commentary or response to Vedic ideas and thoughts.
The specific question asked by the deity is:
“Kesūdha araṇā loke,
kesaṁ vusitaṁ na nassati;
Kedha icchaṁ parijānanti,
kesaṁ bhojissiyaṁ sadā.
Kiṁsu mātā pitā bhātā,
vandanti naṁ patiṭṭhitaṁ;
Kiṁsu idha jātihīnaṁ,
abhivādenti khattiyā”ti.
The Buddha’s response is:
“Samaṇīdha araṇā loke,
Samaṇānaṁ vusitaṁ na nassati;
Samaṇā icchaṁ parijānanti,
Samaṇānaṁ bhojissiyaṁ sadā.
Samaṇaṁ mātā pitā bhātā,
vandanti naṁ patiṭṭhitaṁ;
Samaṇīdha jātihīnaṁ,
abhivādenti khattiyā”ti.
I won’t bother providing a translation as @stephen has already done so in his post. But I note the striking similarity between the Buddha’s response and the following two passages from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka. I am going to quote these passages in English as I don’t understand Sanskrit:
A man who ís attached goes with his action to that very place to which
his mind and character cling.
Reaching the end of his action,
of whatever he has done in this world -
From that world he returns
back to this world,
back to action.
That is the course of a man who desires.
When they are all banished,
those desires lurking in one ís heart;
Then a mortal becomes immortal,
and attains brahman in this world.
It is clear that the Buddha’s reference to Samaṇā icchaṁ parijānanti (my translation: “ascetics understanding desire”) is a direct reference to the above.
This is important, because “attains brahman in this world” is the Vedic notion of the ātman fusing with the brahman (the “ultimate reality”) and more specifically the god Brahmā as exemplified by the formula ahaṃ brahmāsmi(I am the Lord God Brahma) which is the traditional expression of Vedic salvific gnosis.
Note in the very next line the Buddha then subtly shows he disagrees with the above through the line Samaṇānaṁ bhojissiyaṁ sadā (my translation: “ascetics are always free”) showing that no gnosis in fact takes place.
So, the word samaṇa does not in fact refer to a Buddhist practitioner (as I originally suggested) but is the original meaning of the word as an ascetic who practices austerities. This is because the Buddha is referencing Bṛhad-āraṇyaka where it is clear that the mortal who attains “attains brahman in this world” has to be one who knows and understands the five fire wisdom, and who live in the jungle (in other words to live as as a renunciate). In the Chāndogya it is made clear these are in fact ascetics who practice austerities.
In summary, the Buddha’s response can be seen as confirming that an ascetic who truly understand desire is not “lost” (ie. reborn) but also not unified with the brahman (and in fact will attain realisation, which is implied). I can see now how easy it is to misinterpret this sutta unless one is familiar with Vedic literature and Vedic philosophy.
I have a debt of gratitude to Prof Richard Gombrich who provides a lot of this context through his books “What the Buddha taught” and also “How Buddhism Began” without which I will not have reached this deeper level of understanding.
That is not what it means - ahaṃ brahmāsmi is split as ahaṃ brahma asmi “I (the ātman) am (none other than) brahman”. It does not mean “I am the Lord God Brahmā” which would be a preposterous claim for any Vedic follower to make.
There is no “fusing with the brahman” that is meant by the above phrase. Where do you find such an idea occurring in the Vedic texts?
1 Like
As I understand it, and I am happy to be corrected on this, the Vedic gnosis is the union between the macrocosm (the universal principle brahman) with the microcosm (the eternal self ātman) and hence ultimately to the god Brahmā as the personification of the universal principle. In other words ātman=brahman=Brahmā.
To quote from Gombrich’s “Theravada Buddhism”:
If the essence of man was the ātman and the essence of the universe was brahman, the principle of macrocosm-microcosm equivalence led to the famous conclusion that ātman=brahman. As the Chāndogya Upanisad put it, ‘Thou art that’; man is in essence the same as the essence of the world – not as it looks to you now, but as it can be understood by the wise.
This is further expounded by Grombrich in the book “What the Buddha Thought”:
One can regard the god Brahmā as a personification of the supreme principle brahman, or one can consider brahman to be a more sophisticated expression of the thought that created Brahmā. Indeed, both ways of seeing it are no doubt valid and correct. Presumably the more sophisticated process, abstraction, produced the duality in the first place. But one can also presume that the god was more popular than the ontological principle.
The phonetics of the formula “I am brahma” (ahaṃ brahmāsmi) are such that here brahma could be either neuter or masculine. Indeed, the formula occurs twice in a short passage, and the first time is naturally read as neuter, but the second time might seem more likely to be masculine (Brahmā).
Where do you find the idea in the Vedic texts that a disunion (between ātman & brahman) is the present state of affairs and that a union between them is the desired state of affairs?
If an upaniṣad was saying ahaṃ brahmāsmi “I (the ātman) is/am brahman” - how would it be able to suggest a prospective future union between oneself (ātman) and brahman, as the two are recognized explicitly as being non-different to begin with?
According to what authority is this equation being suggested? This would mean every person with a self-identity (ātman) could identify as a Brahmā god, so in theory everyone would be a Brahmā. Such an idea would make the idea of salvation absurd to a vedic practitioner. The idea of multiple Brahmās or brahmans is not to be found anywhere in the Vedic texts (as far as I know) - but such an idea of multiple Brahmās is found in the EBTs, and to the Vedic people it would have sounded absurd.
I don’t think Gombrich is a Vedic scholar. I have not come across any of his academic work on the Vedic texts or about the Vedic language, so I am not sure what his understanding is. However, Brahmā as a deva (god) is not a Vedic god but mostly a post-vedic god.
Why is the second time more likely to be masculine within the same short passage? Were the authors of the short passage not able to make up their mind - or were they trying to confuse us? Does Gombrich suggest any logic to his interpretation?
This is discussed at length in at least 3 of Gombrich’s books. I won’t quote them, probably far better if you read (I am happy to provide page numbers on request) and get the full context.
I am not a Vedic expert, I am merely quoting Gombrich as a presumed authority. If you question his authority, then I suggest you should probably take up the issue with him personally. He was the Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford, I am relying on his interpretation of the text.
I have not read much of what he has published. I have a few of his books though so please do cite where you found those in his works, and I will first go through them.
I just stated that I have not come across any of his scholarly publications of the Vedic texts. His publications on general Hinduism are also very small compared to what he has published on early Buddhism (to my knowledge).
Jstor Search: Richard Gombrich produces no results on the topic of the Vedic religion.
Google Scholar: Richard Gombrich also produces no results on the topic of the Vedas that I can see.
Almost all of them appear to be about early Buddhism. So I consider him an authority on Early Buddhism, and a Pali & Sanskrit scholar. I dont consider him an authority on the Vedic religion or texts.
Regarding his scholarship in Pali – I came across his paper A VISIT TO BRAHMĀ THE HERON on JSTOR (published 2001) where he appears to wax eloquently about why Baka Brahmā is called as such in two suttas (and speculates about the baka being a cunning bird and the Brahma ostensibly being made fun of by comparing him to a baka etc).
The obvious and commonsensical explanation is that Baka in Pali (as an adjective/epithet of Brahmā) is a orthographic corruption of the Sanskrit word “vyaya” (one who is liable to “perish”). Vyaya becomes baka in Gandhari (due to orthographic confusions between the letters v/b and y/k that arose in the Kharoṣṭhī script in which the canon was originally written) and the Pali sutta (when being copied in Brāhmī script at a later date) evidently inherits the same from the Kharoṣṭhī original. The Gandhari Dharmapada : John Brough, 1962 (Introduction, pgs 45-48) explains this phenomenon, making nonsense of Gombrich’s speculations about the ostensible similarity of the behaviours of the heron and “vyaya” brahmā.
1 Like
Sure.
I would probably start with Chapter 3 of "What The Buddha Thought, and in particular the section called “Macrocosm and Microcosm” pages 37-41 (but I would recommend reading the whole chapter for the full context).
Also Chapter 2 of “How Buddhism Began” but in particular point 2 on page 32.
Also Chapter 2 of “Theravada Buddhism” but in particular pages 42-43.
Of course, the macrocosm-microcosm analogy is not unique to Vedic philosophy, there are parallels in other cultures and religions.
But for another treatment, presumably from an authoritative reference, I cite:
And in particular the following quote:
What follows from the above is that the Vedic view emphasizes upon an underlying unity of the entire cosmos; all the living and non-living beings are in fact various reflections of the same Supreme Reality which has manifested itself in many forms:
One is that which manifests in all.
In every figure of his creation, the resplendent Lord has been a model.
I went through the books you mentioned, and in none of those does he suggest that in the Vedic texts there is a disunion between ātman & brahman, but he does say in ‘How Buddhism Began’, pg 32 pt 2 that “He who understands brahman will become brahman” thus hinting that a union of ātman with brahman is conditional on knowing brahman.
That sentence is evidently a mistranslation of “sa yo ha vai tatparamaṃ brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati”, or in short “brahmavid brahmaiva bhavati” (from the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad). It rather means “one who knows brahman is brahman”, not what Gombrich translates.
If the upanishad had meant “one who knows brahman will become brahman”, it would have said “brahmavid brahma eva bhaviṣyati” (in the future tense). One that is not brahman today cannot in future become brahman, as that would mean brahman changes with time - which is to make a mockery of Upanishadic philosophy. I would expect an Oxbridge professor to be more clued up than this.
1 Like
But I didn’t say that there was a “disunion” between the ātman and the brahman (I don’t this word appeared in any of my posts). I think the books actually referred to the ātman representing the microcosm, and the brahman as the macrocosm. There is an underlying unity between the two (at least, from a metaphysical perspective). But this unity can be obscured by desire, represented by fire. So by understanding and conquering desire, the unity can be reestablished.
But that was the implication of your statement “the Vedic gnosis is the union between the macrocosm (the universal principle brahman) with the microcosm (the eternal self ātman)”
There can be no union unless there was disunion begin with, so to suggest a union is to presume a state of disunion to start with. In any case, such a union is a misunderstanding based on a mistranslation as I’ve pointed out in my prior post above. So it shows the relevant upaniṣad wasnt understood properly in the first place. To then compare it to Buddhism with a faulty starting premise confuses both Buddhism and the Upanishadic philosophy.
I think you are over-presuming. I was talking about the macrocosm vs the microcosm, which are different concepts. The “union” of the macrocosm and the microcosm is metaphysical, and does not imply “disunion” betwen the ātman and the brahman, since they represent the same entity all along.
I am also not entirely agreeing with your criticism of Gombrich. First of all, he never stated that “He who understands brahman will become brahman” was a translation of a text from the Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad - you made that assumption.
Even if he was, I think his translation is acceptable. In Pali at least (and I am assuming in Sanskrit as well), the present tense can be used to express a variety of meanings, including describing a future time, or a vivid future visualised as the present. In any case, I understand Gombrich’s statement but I have difficulty understanding your translation. Sometimes the more literal translation may not be the more accurate translation.
Gombrich’s statement is consistent with the following passage from Bṛhad-āraṇyaka:
When they are all banished,
those desires lurking in one’s heart;
Then a mortal becomes immortal,
and attains brahman in this world.