You do realize that I was the person who shared Kosalan Philosophy in the Kāṇva Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa and the Suttanipāta, right. And directed Ajahn Sujato to Stephen to help him connect with Lauren Bausch? I definitely read that paper before you did. And I’m very glad that you summarized it for everyone. Thank you.
The term ānāpānasatisamādhi is demonstrably later when we look at the sutta from a philological perspective. I’m not saying that the concept itself is later.
So what you are saying to me is that because the Ānāpānasati Sutta is a later addition, you think the term ānāpānasatisamādhi is late and that it has been inserted into the sutta that I am looking at, and so that indicates the sutta is also late, and highly redacted. And you are also saying to me that you think the eight liberations were practiced by brahmana, specifically one of Buddha’s teachers among, likely, many others, since possibly, or even likely, Buddha was born.
Thank you for sharing it, though my comment wasn’t necessarily in regards to that paper. I think if anything Lauren Bausch would tend to attribute more education in Vedic Brahmanism to the Buddha than I feel comfortable with. I personally think he was much more knowledgable about contemplative and fringe (pre)Upanisadic ideas from the Brahmanas than he was everyday Brahmanism—and we even see him asking householder brahmins about holidays and rituals every now and then as though he did not know them personally.
I’m sure the Buddha knew about mainstream Brahmanical ideas as is obvious from the suttas, but I don’t think he was particularly educated in the everyday brahmin lifestyle, personally, or I at least think we have much less evidence to point to that.
It could be that you are intentionally misinterpreting. That’s OK. We’ll leave off with conversation, and maybe some other time we can find better understanding and less combativeness.
No, I think there was just a miscommunication here. I’m referring specifically to the compound ānāpānasatisamādhi, not the term ānāpānasati nor the concept of samādhi. What I’m saying is that the compound of these is not attested and there is a clear explanation for its inclusion in this sutta—it consistently appears from a starting point through to the end of the chapter and appears to be some kind of redactor’s or compiler’s edit due to a misunderstanding of one of the preceding suttas. Bhikkhu Anālayo discussed this in his book on the development of Early Buddhist meditation IIRC, but I’m not 100% of the reference. I can dig around for it and re-edit it in if I find it though.
And this yes I am hypothesizing seems rather likely for the reasons in my post. Of course we can’t be 100% certain but it seems highly plausible to me. Everything else I’m not saying is later or invalid, I just was not addressing it specifically and was focused on the pre-Buddhist origins of this list I saw.
I’m sorry that you feel this way. I can assure you I’m not intentionally misinterpreting nor am I trying to be combative. I feel that there have been some miscommunication errors, probably due to the platform/internet as a medium, and I honestly was quite confused by some of your comment and was trying my best to respond based on what I understood. You said that you weren’t going to explicitly state what you were thinking, so I tried to draw out the meaning to be able to respond and understand further. Your remark on reading the paper first seemed aggressive to me to be honest, and so I’m assuming we have misinterpreted one another.
Hi @Vaddha! I know we have unfinished business on another thread, but I was perusing the forum, saw the title, and well… DN 15 is like my hometown, and I any cannot resist any opportunity to dialogue about anything related to it. I assure you, though, I will deliver on what I promised on the other thread in due time. (Further reflection has caused me to see more of what you’re saying there, though I still have questions.)
Rather quickly, though, after having read through the discussion here, I think I concur with most of what I read. There are a few of my own viewpoints, however, I would like to contribute and hear your thoughts:
What real, sutta-based evidence do we have for reading kasiṇa practice into the aṭṭha vimokkhā beyond their (often, but not exclusively) occurring together?
Are you familiar with SN 7.11? It seems little known: there’s not much written on it. But I think it may be important for insight into the aṭṭha vimokkhā.
To my knowledge, DN 15’s treatment of the aṭṭha vimokkhā is unique to that sutta; on a related note, so are its definitions of paññāvimutti and ubhatobhāgavimutti.
That the aṭṭha vimokkhā in DN 15 appear in a discourse on paṭiccasamuppāda–in particular, in the context of the nāmarūpa-viññāṇa tangle–is significant, and should not be overlooked (along with the Snp 4.11 tie-in which you mentioned).
(The second and third points became even more wildly complex when we consult the Chinese.)
So, if you’re not done with this thread, I’d like to take these few points as a starting point for further “discussion and discovery.”
The exact same description is used for the 2nd vimokkha:
AN 10.29 / DN 15 …
Not perceiving form internally, they see visions externally. This is the second liberation.
AN 10.29
Not perceiving form internally, someone sees visions externally, yellow, with yellow color, yellow hue, and yellow tint. [etc.]
So here kasiṇa practice is at least part of the 2nd vimokkha, and this is clearly somehow related to the first. I’m not entirely sure on what the first is—it’s been interpreted in various different ways ny traditional exegesis. I think it may be some kind of embodied meditation on the elements transitioning into the totality of kasiṇa practice where an element/color takes over completely (like infinite space, etc.).
Very familiar! It’s also in the Sutta Nipāta (Snp 1.4). I don’t quite see how you might connect it to the aṭṭha vimokkhā though—it makes no mention of them, the kasiṇas, or any other particular meditation practice. It does mention meditative qualities, such as saddhā, sati, vīriya, etc., but these are rather general and broad. Maybe you meant another sutta, or if not, could you elaborate on how you see the relation between these two?
I’m not sure there’s any reason they would be unique. The same exact list is found elsewhere in the Anguttara Nikāya and the Majjhima Nikāya, and in relation to meditative prowess of the Buddha/Saṅgha; the Eight Liberations are listed as something powerful that one becomes very competent in (just as MN 77 discusses) for liberation. The specific application of the aṭṭha vimokkhā here in terms of the ubhatobhāgavimutti may be unique, but not the list itself. Thoughts on this?
Yes. Actually, in the post on Snp 5.7, two of my comments here and here address the connection to Snp 4.11 and the tangle between nāmarūpa/viññāṇa further—drawing in Snp 3.12 and the translation of the Chinese Arthapada parallel by Charles Patton (very grateful!) as well for some insight into the relationship. I am beginning to think that Snp 4.11 and DN 15 may very well be related in some way. Whether DN 15 is a prose form of Snp 4.11, or perhaps it was given around the same time and place, or perhaps they simply cover the exact same theme. Either way, I agree it should not be overlooked, and some of how we interpret Snp 4.11’s historically anomalous passage on meditation, I think, can be informed by DN 15.
I would say, yes, this is certainly evidence of a connection between the two systems; however, it says nothing about the kasiṇas being a part of the aṭṭha vimokkhā. Perhaps (probably?) significantly, the description of the aṭṭha vimokkhā version of that 2nd vimokkha leaves out the very phrase which would pretty much prove that it was a kasiṇa practice.
I disagree strongly with this translation of rūpāni as “visions.” It sounds like a reference to the sort of visual nimitta associated with kasiṇa practice. Perhaps I’m mistaken about this; I don’t know the translator’s leanings. But “forms” would do just fine, I think. And, form (rūpa) is not limited to a kasiṇa-based interpretation.
For the first and second vimokkhā, I see standard asubha/dhātu meditations as the simplest and most straightforward explanation. Among other things, they would transition nicely into the third vimokkha. There’s more I could say about this, but I’m a little pressed for time. Sorry. Next time?
Sorry. That should have been SN 14.11.
Yes, you’re right. The uniqueness I was referring to was the content of paññāvimutti: paññāvimutti generally doesn’t appear along with its content–so that is by definition unique. And, this idea of using non-clinging to the viññāṇaṭṭhiti as a vehicle for insight sort of appears in the deathbed sutta of that Brahmin (the name escapes me) where the Buddha chastised Ānanda(?), but that’s it as far as I know. And, yes, the list is no different, but the specific application of the aṭṭha vimokkhā (i.e., anulomampi, paṭilomampi, etc.) is not found elsewhere (again, as far as I know). What’s interesting is that, in two of the Chinese parallels (the Sarvāstivādin redactions), ubhatobhāgavimutti is defined as the combination of the attainment of paññāvimutti as defined in the Pāli plus the anulomapaṭilomampi mastery of the aṭṭha vimokkhā. To me, that sound precisely like the sort of “Buddhicization” of Brahmin practices you’ve been referring to.
A hearty “Yes!” to all of this. I’m aware of Snp 3.12 (at least, I don’t think I am): I am going to look over it. Thanks!
And, where can I get my hands on Charles’ translation?!!
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Here is the Pāḷi for the DN 15 aṭṭha vimokkhā and then the kasiṇa practice:
Ajjhattaṁ arūpasaññī bahiddhā rūpāni passati
Ajjhattaṁ arūpasaññī eko bahiddhā rūpāni passati
The 2nd vimokkha does not leave out any phrase; it is rather an exact parallel. The only difference is the inclusion of the word ‘eko’ which does not change the meaning and simply refers to the meditator.
‘Forms’ or ‘visions’ both work. I agree ‘forms’ is more general and less interpretive. I do think there could be a potential oversight here though, because you’ve mentioned the nimitta and kasiṇa practice. This association is only true of the later commentarial tradition in which kasiṇa practice involves some kind of disk of symbol that one visualizes; this is not the original use of the term nor would it be how the brahmins would have done it IMO. Admittedly I did not clarify this very much. As I mentioned, though, kasiṇa really means ‘totality’ and it corresponds to the infinite dimensions of space/consciousness. It does not refer, in the early texts, to any kind of circular visualization or physical disk one uses. It’s similar to MN 121/122, where one establishes the mind on the totality of the earth element after the forest, and then one transitions into the formless attainments. I think there may even be some connection to the practices in those suttas here as well—they describe a form of kasiṇa to formless practices, so why not. That said then, I should be clear that I am not conceiving of kasiṇa practice as the later tradition does. I think that that is a later development not reflected in the early texts. The kasiṇas—which appear Brahmanical as Wynne discussed in ‘The Origin of Buddhist Early Meditation’—have more to do with totalities and infinite perceptions of elements or colors.
Dhātu meditation would correspond to kasiṇa meditation, and this is my current belief as well. One starts out with a more embodied idea of the elements (dhātu), and then one transitions over into the kasiṇa which is just taking that element and perceiving it formless-ly and infinitely, like with infinite space. This could also be done with a color, space, or consciousness. As I mentioned above, this also corresponds to what is described in AN 10.29 before the second vimokkha parallel: it mentions the word ‘limitless’/‘boundless’ as potential descriptions of how one practices. So in those terms, I imagine that one transitions from a more limited perception working with the elements into a limitless kasiṇa one.
Ah, good catch. There are definitely correspondences here! I think this furthers the idea of the relationship between the dhātu and the kasiṇas mentioned above, and the mention of ‘light’ also reminds me of the color kasiṇas which it may loosely correspond to.
No, you’re right, the originals are word-for-word matches. I was looking at your English paraphrase in the post, where you added a bit about “yellow hue, yellow tint” and so on, and I assumed it was verbatim.
You’re right, again. I did have that commentarial conception of the kasiṇas in mind. Taking your definition of the kasiṇa (which seems much more at home in the sutta context, incidentally), then, yes, there’s no real discrepancy between what each of us is saying.
I have a different interpretation of the first two dhātus in SN 14.11. I see ābha and subha as references to the Ābhassarā and Subhakiṇhādevas. There are indeed suttas where the terms ābha and subha appear as shorthand in lieu of the full names of these devas: the name escapes me, but I’m thinking about a particular discourse where the Buddha visits a Brahma realm and informs the Brahma of beings in still higher heavens (or, might dhātus be a more fitting term in this instance?) than his own. In any case, again, this is all in line with these other efforts to metaphysically one-up “Brahminism.”
However, what would that then say about the third vimokkha and its connection to mettā? I don’t know.
Oh wow, interesting. That is pretty compelling; you may be on to something there. This reminds me of AN 4.123 and then AN 4.125 where the Buddha connects each jhāna and brahmavihāra to a different brahmā deity. The second jhāna connects to the Ābhassarā devā, and the third to the Subhakiṇhā.
Definitely something to consider. Perhaps this involved bringing one’s mindstate to divine power, deities, or some meditative state equated with them that the Buddha later analyzed and demystified into the 4 jhānas. Just some thoughts.
8 libration are absent in brahminical text pre or post all text do not mention 8 Libration… patanjali to do not mention this stages…
I think Indians are not big fan of meditation and meditative experience description of meditative practices are totally absent in many schools…
I think it’s buddha who explained all this stages clearly…and made distinct from one another on the basis of small difference…if you read patanjali yog Sutra and achive concentration it is impossible to tell on what stage of meditation u r without reading buddha…
Vissudhimagga did more work on this and even explained us nimtta and all…
Something I’ve been interested in, which is tangential to this I know, is the origins of the formless heavens. I’ve looked into the non-Buddhist ascetic traditions through the Jains, and they don’t have formless heavens that we find in Buddhist thought. Is there a corollary to these heavens in Brahmanical texts? Or does it seem to be an invention of Buddhists? I could imagine the heavens were created to deprecate these meditations as still locked in the round of samsara.
Yes, you are correct. In Later Vedic texts, especially the Upanisads, we see that the older ideas of having a body in heaven dropped out. Merging with the unmanifest aspect of reality (which is formless) became a form of liberation from all other impermanent states of existence. This was gradual shift that happened slightly different in different ways. Sometimes the brahmaloka (of brahman) was a little more of a physical journey and there was still a choice to be reborn if one so desires (such as in the older JUB). The whole idea that “rebirth is a cycle of suffering we must escape from” was not native to Brahmanism.
There was tension between groups aiming for a permanent, higher heaven/state associated with the unmanifest vs. the average brahmin who made merits to win heavenly worlds which were not usually permanent. The reaction to this we see in later portions of the SB, JUB, etc.: come up with especially esoteric ritual action and knowledge that will get one to cross over ‘dying again’ and win the permanent heaven — rather than siding with the non-ritualists who favored contemplation and meditative states.
It seems the Buddha was trained in meditations which led to the unmanifest aspect of reality from mystical forms of Brahmanism, which were very refined formless realms with very refined states of perception. In the BĀU, Yājñavalkya talks with one of his wives on the formless liberated state and how all dual perception ceases — it seems to be almost a state of nothingness or neither perception or non perception, perhaps infinite consciousness for some. The Buddha realized that these were still dukkha as they involved consciousness, willing them into existence, and did not involve the complete cessation of craving in the present life it seems.
All that to say: these would be rather innovative Brahmanical mystic states that were mainly being critiqued by Buddhism as states of consciousness and impermanent. It’s possible other meditators got into them as well, but mostly that’s just a guess.
I think perhaps the liberations and bases for mastery are referring to the Brahmaviharas. For the bases the practice seems to be about overcoming our reactions to different types of people. It’s possible the colours there actually refer to the different castes (each caste had a colour in Brahminisn) rather than kasinas. Incidentally this would mean they originally there were no colour kasinas, only the elemental ones.
Ok friend… whatever you have mentioned is not true…
First of all anything present before the buddha dosent make it brahminical or hindu …
In case of your query I think only karma was mentioned in samkhya shastra …
About 8 jhanas …we know buddha had made two teachers who are masters in jhana . But I do wonder why no brahminical text mentioned or explain stages of jhana . So am little skeptic here.
My understanding says … Brahmins was not interested in jhana that much back then. For them rituals were more important…and Jain’s are still not interested in jhanas …
About nibbana…nibbana was general term …for jain it means different and for Hindu it is different… for Buddhist the idea is different…
@Mrunal
You don’t seem to understand the rhetoric question. I write like that because the method of many people who claim to be EBT experts in this forum apply a very simplistic method. What was discovered before the Buddha means non buddhism. What is explained so little in the suttas and is difficult to understand is suspected to be non-Buddhism.
Karma is not Brahmanical. There is no scholarly consensus on that. It cannot be attributed to any single religion in the Indian subcontinent. Same goes for Jhana. I don’t think Nirvana was even mentioned in the foremost of Brahmanical texts(Vedas). Brahmanism/Hinduism adopted/appropriated it due to Buddhist influence.
@pannaiya , so when, for example, I read the discussion in this suttacentral several times, from an EBT perspective, the following things are suspected of being brahmanical: Four Brahmaviharas, Jhanas of Non-Material, 8 Liberations…
Does that mean it has really been examined in the Vedas, which have so many books? Or has the author understood, practiced the four brahmaviharas, the immaterial jhanas, the 8 liberations… and from his perfect practice concluded that these do not lead to the destruction of the taints? Because of that the conclusion was drawn: this must be brahmanical, not buddhism…??
