What is the Chronology of the "Thousand-Eyed" Brahma Concept?

Discussion
1

I have encountered another fascinating Agama sutra without a Pali parallel that involves a Buddhist encounter with a brahmin. In this case, it is EA 16.9. Aniruddha is reverenced by a large assembly of spirits and gods. A brahmin happens by and notices the fragrance of the gods but can’t see them, so he asked Aniruddha about it. Aniruddha informs him about the gods present, which can’t be seen without the heavenly eye.

Aniruddha proceeds to convert the brahmin to Buddhism with the promise of the complete vision gained by the unsurpassed wisdom eye. He says that it surpasses even the vision of Brahma “Thousand Eyes” who sees all of his thousand-world realm at once but can’t see himself. The brahmin questions Aniruddha about this and his Dharma eye opens shortly after leaving while he thought about what Aniruddha had told him.

My question for those more knowledgeable about the Vedic literature is: What is the chronology of this concept of Brahma having a thousand eyes?

I’ve noticed there is also a tradition ascribing a thousand eyes to Indra as well, but there’s not much I can find about Brahma having a thousand eyes. Also, in this Buddhist sutra, “Thousand Eyes” is this Brahma’s name, not just an attribute that he possesses.

5 Likes
2

It may be a reference to the sahasrākṣa (thousand-eyed cosmic being) of the Puruṣa-Sūkta of the Ṛgveda (Book 10 Sutta 90) who is traditionally identified with Brahmā/Prajāpati. He is there also described as sahasra-śīrṣa (thousand-headed) and sahasra-pād (thousand limbed). The thousand here is just a figurative expression to mean uncountable, not exactly a physical being with a thousand physical eyes.

Indra/Śakra (Sakka in Pali) is also similarly figuratively described as a thousand eyed deva as he can see anything anywhere.

4 Likes
3

This doesn’t relate directly to your question, but this reminds me of a friend’s near death experience at a hospital. She described it as her consciousness jumping all around the hospital, being able to choose what to be aware of, but not happening from “inside the body” – her body wasn’t the reference point from where the point-of-view was coming from.

It just makes me wonder if consciousness can do that, maybe if it’s powered up 1000x or more, perhaps there could be these huge fields of consciousness? Why not? :nerd_face:

2 Likes
4

Bhante Sujato also has some interesting notes in MN32 on Anuruddha’s clairvoyance that sees a thousand galaxies … references to a thousand-spoked wheel (rendered a thousand bricks apparently in MA 184).

2 Likes
5

Thanks for the reference.

One of the more curious things about the conversation between the brahmin and Aniruddha is that Aniruddha says that Brahma can’t see the clothes on his own body. And then the brahmin asks why that is, and Aniruddha says because he doesn’t have the wisdom eye. The brahmin this asks if he could see the clothes on his own body if he attained the wisdom eye. Etc. Do you know if there is a special significance to this, a symbolic meaning from the Vedas, perhaps?

Later on, Aniruddha tells the brahmin that both the Self and his bodily self arise when consciousness arises, making a spirit/body distinction. My natural assumption is that perhaps the clothes represents the physical body, but that’s probably my own cultural background.

2 Likes
6

Right, that’s surely the connection here.

Given this, and given the prevalence of cosmic imagery in the Rig Veda, it seems likely the primary referent of the original idea of “thousand eyes” was the starry sky.

Curious indeed. Perhaps it’s a mistranslation, or perhaps it’s to do with the doctrine of sheaths? Making a distinction between layers of the Self as revealed in successive sheaths? (Not a very convincing reading, I know!) See next comment!

Here’s the Jamison/Brereton translation of RV 10.90. It seems that there may be several ideas in this hymn that have echoes in the EBTs.

  1. The Man has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand feet.
    Having covered the earth on all sides, he extended ten fingers’ breadth beyond.

  2. The Man alone is this whole (world): what has come into being and what is to be.
    Moreover, he is master of immortality when he climbs beyond (this world) through food.

  3. So much is his greatness, but the Man is more than this:
    a quarter of him is all living beings; three quarters are the immortal in heaven.

  4. With his three quarters the Man went upward, but a quarter of him came to be here again.
    From there he strode out in different directions toward what eats and what does not eat.

  5. From him the Virāj was born; from the Virāj the Man.
    Upon his birth, he reached beyond the earth from behind and also from in front.

  6. When, with the Man as the offering, the gods extended the sacrifice,
    spring was its melted butter, summer its firewood, autumn its offering.

  7. On the ritual grass they consecrated that sacrifice, the Man, born at the beginning.
    With him the gods sacrificed, (also) the Sādhyas and those who were seers.

  8. From that sacrifice, when it was offered in full, the clotted-butter mixture was collected.
    It [=the sacrifice] was made into the animals: those of the air (and both) those that belong to the wilderness and those that belong to the village.

  9. From this sacrifice, when it was offered in full, the verses and chants were born.
    Meters were born from it. The sacrificial formula—from it that was born.

  10. From it horses were born and whatever animals have teeth in both jaws.
    Cows were born from it. From it were born goats and sheep.

  11. When they apportioned the Man, into how many parts did they arrange him?
    What was his mouth? What his two arms? What are said to be his two thighs, his two feet?

  12. The brahmin was his mouth. The ruler was made his two arms.
    As to his thighs—that is what the freeman was. From his two feet the servant was born.

  13. The moon was born from his mind. From his eye the sun was born.
    From his mouth Indra and Agni, from his breath Vāyu was born.

  14. From his navel was the midspace. From his head the heaven developed.
    From his two feet the earth, and the directions from his ear. Thus they arranged the worlds.

  15. Its enclosing sticks were seven; the kindling sticks were made three times seven,
    when the gods, extending the sacrifice, bound the Man as the (sacrificial) animal.

  16. With the sacrifice the gods performed the sacrifice for themselves: these were the first foundations.
    These, its greatness, accompanied (it) to heaven’s vault, where the ancient Sādhyas and the gods are.

4 Likes
7

I think this might be a translation error. In Pali, “clothes” might be vattha, and this could be confused with vaṭṭa, the “round” (of transmigration).

Or perhaps “clothes” is a red herring and the key term is “body”, as kāya can also mean a realm of rebirth. See eg. MN 49:

Atthi kho, brahme, añño kāyo, taṁ tvaṁ na jānāsi na passasi
There is, Brahma, another realm( /body) that you neither know nor see.

In this passage, a little earlier we find vattate vaso (“exercise power”) , which might also be confused with vattha, perhaps.

4 Likes
8

Interesting. That seems very likely a parallel. The Chinese is pretty clear about “wearing clothes,” but it wouldn’t be the first I saw some strange change in meaning that looks like a change in pronunciation in the Indic text involved. Huh!

In Gandhari, vattha would be vastra, and vaṭṭa would be vaṭa. But the confusion may have happened before the text was put into Gandhari. In some other Prakrit, the words may have sounded more alike as in Pali.

3 Likes
9

From EA 16.9 :

梵志問曰：「設我得無上智慧 眼者，見此身所著服飾不耶？」

阿那律曰：「若 能得無上智慧眼者，則能見己形所著服 飾。」

In these lines above even the Brahmin is not be able to see the clothes on his own body (and neither can the thousand-eyed Brahmā) - and Aniruddha advises him that both need the divyacakṣus (divine eye) to be able to see them - which makes no sense, hence it could not have been about clothes in the Indic original.

1 Like
10

The full text EA 16.9:
聞如是：

一時，佛在舍衛國祇樹給孤獨 園。

爾時，尊者阿那律在拘尸那竭國本所生 處。爾時，釋、梵、四天王及五百天人，并二十八 大鬼神王，便往至尊者阿那律所。到已，頭 面禮足，在一面住。復以此偈歎阿那律 曰：

「歸命人中上， 眾人所敬奉；
我等今不知， 為依何等禪？」

爾時，有梵志名曰闍拔吒，是梵摩喻弟子。 復至尊者阿那律所，頭面禮足，在一面坐。 爾時，彼梵志問阿那律曰：「我昔在王宮生， 未曾聞此自然之香，為有何人來至此間， 為是天、龍、鬼神、人、非人乎？」

爾時，阿那律報梵 志曰：「向者釋、梵、四天王及五百天人，并二十 八大鬼神王，來至我所，頭面禮足，在一面 住。復以此偈而歎我曰：

「『自歸人中上， 眾人所敬奉；
我等今不知， 為依何等禪？』」

梵志問曰：「以何等故，我今不見其形？釋、梵、 四天王為何所在？」

阿那律報曰：「以汝無有 天眼故也，是故不見釋、梵、四天王及五 百天人，及二十八大鬼神王。」

梵志問曰：「設我 能得天眼者，見此釋、梵、四天王及二十八 大鬼神王耶？」

阿那律報曰：「設當得天眼者， 便能見釋、梵、四天王及五百天人，并二十八 大鬼神王。然復，梵志！此天眼者何足為奇！ 有梵天名曰千眼，彼見此千世界，如有 眼之士，自手掌中觀其寶冠。此梵天亦如 是，見此千世界無有罣礙，然此梵天不自 見身所著衣服。」

梵志問曰：「何以故？千眼 梵天不自見形所著服飾？」

阿那律曰：「以其 彼天無有無上智慧眼故，故不自見己 身所著服飾。」

梵志問曰：「設我得無上智慧 眼者，見此身所著服飾不耶？」

阿那律曰：「若 能得無上智慧眼者，則能見己形所著服 飾。」

梵志問曰：「願尊與我說極妙之法，使得 無上智慧之眼。」

阿那律曰：「汝有戒耶？」

梵志問 曰：「云何名之為戒？」

阿那律曰：「不作眾惡， 不犯非法。」

梵志報曰：「如此戒者，我堪奉 持如此之戒。」

阿那律曰：「汝今，梵志！當持禁 戒，無失毫釐，亦當除去憍慢之結，莫計 吾我染著之想。」

時，梵志復問阿那律曰：「何 者是吾？何者是我？何者是憍慢結？」

阿那律曰： 「吾者是神識也，我者是形體之具也。於中起 識生吾、我者，是名為憍慢結也。是故，梵 志！當求方便，除此諸結。如是，梵志！當作 是學。」

梵志即從座起，禮阿那律足，遶三匝 而去。未至所在，於中道思惟此義，諸塵 垢盡，得法眼淨。

爾時，有天昔與此梵志親 友，知識梵志心中所得諸塵垢盡，得法眼 淨。爾時，彼天復往至尊者阿那律所，頭面 禮足，在一面住。即以此偈歎阿那律曰：

「梵志未至家， 中道得道跡；
垢盡法眼淨， 無疑無猶豫。」

爾時，尊者阿那律復以偈告天曰：

「我先觀彼心， 中間應道跡；
彼人迦葉佛， 曾聞此法教。」

爾時，尊者阿那律即其時離彼處，在人間 遊，漸漸至舍衛國，到世尊所，頭面禮足，在 一面住。爾時，世尊具以法語告阿那律，阿 那律受佛教已，便從坐起，頭面禮足，便 退而去。

爾時，世尊告諸比丘：「我聲聞中弟 子，得天眼第一者，所謂阿那律比丘是。」

爾 時，諸比丘聞佛所說，歡喜奉行。

It refers to the teaching of both practicing sila ‘precept’ 持禁 戒 and overcoming ‘self-conceit/pride’ 憍慢結 in connection to both the 天眼 dibba-cakkhu ‘divine sight’ and 無上智慧眼 ‘the highest wisdom sight’ in the Buddhist mythology.

For attaining the 無上智慧眼, one needs to practicing sila ‘precept’ 持禁 戒 and overcoming ‘self-conceit/pride’ 憍慢結 in the story.

無上智慧眼 is better than 天眼 in the story.

無上智慧眼 also refers to 法眼淨 (dharmacakṣu-viśuddha).

If having attained 無上智慧眼, the thousand-eyed Brahmā (千眼 梵天) is ‘able to see the clothes on his own body’. (若 能得無上智慧眼者，則能見己形所著服 飾).

I will refer to this ‘able to see the clothes on his own body’ as ‘seeing yourself as you really are’ in the story.

1 Like
11

I now consider this Buddhist mythology is an expansion of Geya-anga portion of SA/SN.

Early Buddhist adaptation of general Indian religious beliefs about divine beings is featured in the collection.

12

I think it is better to consider “Thousand Eyes” in the text EA16.9 is just the name of this Brahma (“有梵天名曰千眼”).

According to Brahma Saṃyutta (in the three versions, SN, SA and ASA: T 100), several Brahmās are given with their individual names, although some names inconsistently and some consistently (such as Brahmā Sahāṃpati and Brahmā Baka) shown in the texts of Brahma Saṃyutta.

The individual names of Brahmās are in fact a new creation, not shared with the Vedic tradition.

These changes reflect not only the ethical messages of Early Buddhism, but also the early Buddhist adaptation of Vedic religious beliefs about deities (devas) in general, and their application to one particular type of deities – Brahmā.

13

Yes, I said that in my synopsis. Actually, the brahmin asks if he could see his own clothes, and Aniruddha says a person can do that with the unsurpassed (無上) wisdom eye (慧眼). They aren’t talking about the divine eye at this point, but moving on to the wisdom eye that sees more than it does.

1 Like
14

The full translation has been posted at Dharma Pearls with the Chinese: The Numerical Discourses | Chapter 16: The Fire Extinguished | 9. The Brahmin

6 Likes
15

Names in early Buddhist texts are rarely just names. Especially when it comes to significant beings like a Brahma. they usually encode some kind of meaning.

It’s true that many names are not literally found in the Vedas in the same way. But some, probably most, of them have Vedic antecedents. The relationship between Buddhist and Vedic texts is not literal, and best seen as the Buddha’s conscious and creative response to his culture.

Note to MN 26 on Sahampati:

While Sahampati features prominently in the suttas, no deity of that name is found in early Brahmanical texts. He seems, however, to be the Buddhist version of Brahmā Svayambhū, the “Self-born Divinity”, to whom Yājñavalkya traces the authority of his teaching lineage (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.6.3, 4.5.3, 6.5.4). Yājñavalkya identifies this “self-born” with the sun (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 1.9.3.16; see also Maitrāyaṇī Saṁhitā 4.6.6) and with Prajāpati (13.5.3.1). Explaining the origin of the soma rite of the “All-Sacrifice”, he says that Brahmā Svayambhū, while performing fervent austerities, decided to offer his self to all creatures and all creatures to his self, thus establishing lordship (adhipatya) over all creatures (Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 13.7.1.1). The root pati (“lord”) here establishes a linguistic link with sahampati. Further, in the earliest use of svayambhū at Rig Veda 10.83.4, the “self-born” deity Manyu “prevails” (sahuriḥ sahāvān) in battle. Thus we can identify Sahampati, the “Lord Who Prevails”, with the highest divinity recognized by Yājñavalkya, who originated as victor in battle, whose physical manifestation is the sun, whose spiritual function is to imbue all creatures with divinity, and who serves as the ultimate source of authority. Meanwhile, the epithet sayambhū was taken for the Buddha (pli-tv-kd11:35.1.37).

Note on Baka in MN 49:

The word baka means “stork” or “crane”. To search for a high divinity of this name in Brahmanism is to be disappointed, for instead we find a man-eating demon (rakṣasa) in bird form whose fate is to be slain by the hero Bhīma (or Kṛṣṇa). Pali stories (ja38, ja236) tell of how the stork dozes peacefully as if meditating by the water, while in reality he is trying to fool fish into approaching so he can snatch them up. A cunning, large, white, high-flying, predatory bird who fakes meditation is a fitting image for the antagonist of this sutta.

2 Likes
16

My impression is that this is about tantric knowledge. We have different kind of bodies, as it were. We have a course body, a finer rupa body, and an arupa body. The last two are experienced in resp. rupa and arupa jhana. This is about different levels of coarseness in our lifes. The physical body is most coarse. Any moment these bodies are part of our life.

Different kinds of bodies are like ones cloths. We can undress in meditation, while we let go the layers of clothing , as it were. All these bodies are not me, mine, my self. But they are like cloths we can lay down.

Nibbana is in this simile, like being naked, without any cloths, totally undressed. Only one who knows this nakedess, this emptiness, the unconstructed, has the eye of wisdom. Only he/she can see all the clothing. One must know cessation to understand dependend arising and taking up cloths while grasping.
It is impossible to understand the Truth of Dependend Origination without knowing the Truth of stilling of all constructing activities, unwordly peace, Nibbana. Both Truths must be known (MN26)

AN3.99 uses cloths to refer to qualities. Someone with perfect morals wears a nice cloth, as example.

Taking on clothes is a nice way to portray the taking up, the grasping of formations, such as taking up the clothing of me, mine, and my self. Or dressing oneself with the coarse body by seeing this as me and mine.

We dress ourselves while grasping at formations. Non-grasping, Nibbana, is like being naked. One must be naked to see all layers of clothing. No Brahma knows yet what nakedness is. They do not yet see all clothing because they do not yet know the stilling of all constructing activities (dressing oneself), nakedness, peace, cessation, Nibbana. Only a fully enlightend person like a Buddha knows the naked state. Nothing grasped.

The wisdom-eye knows nakedness and therefor knows also all what we dress while taking up cloths.

17

Some concrete details are needed to support this notion of Vedic antecedents, regarding the individual names of Brahmās presented in EBTs, particularly Brahma Saṃyutta of SN/SA/ASA.

18

No, it is not tantric, but religious myth in Early Buddhist texts.

19

No, this sutta point to something that is no myth.

20

Yes, it does present some kind of meaning, in the sense of early Buddhist adaptation of Vedic religious beliefs about deities (devas) in general, such as Brahmā.