Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

Hi:

This morning I was looking at MN 97, the Dhanañjani Sutta, which concerns an unheedful householder:

Relying on the king, he plunders brahmans & householders. Relying on the brahmans & householders, he plunders the king. His wife — a woman of faith, fetched from a family with faith — has died. He has fetched another wife — a woman of no faith — from a family with no faith.

The householder, Dhanañjani, has apparently fallen into such negligence due to the pressures of daily life. Later, when he falls ill, Ven. Sariputta pays him a visit and teaches him the brahma viharas.

However, the Buddha then rebukes Ven. Sariputta, saying that this teaching only led to Dhanañjani's being born into the "inferior brahma world".

My question is: what should Sariputta have done instead? Dhanañjani's background and capabilities did not seem to have made him a good candidate for any higher teaching. He was evidently not ripe for liberation. Generally the Buddha provides those teachings which are suitable for his audience. Although there was surely "more to be done", there was no time left to do it, and the student was in grave danger of falling into a lower realm. So why was Sariputta rebuked?

More generally, if the brahma viharas are pointless, why are they given such extended treatment in the Visuddhimagga, for example? Why practice them at all?

On a peripheral note, what is meant here by "a family with no faith"?

Lazy_eye wrote:Hi:

This morning I was looking at MN 97, the Dhanañjani Sutta, which concerns an unheedful householder:

Relying on the king, he plunders brahmans & householders. Relying on the brahmans & householders, he plunders the king. His wife — a woman of faith, fetched from a family with faith — has died. He has fetched another wife — a woman of no faith — from a family with no faith.

The householder, Dhanañjani, has apparently fallen into such negligence due to the pressures of daily life. Later, when he falls ill, Ven. Sariputta pays him a visit and teaches him the brahma viharas.

However, the Buddha then rebukes Ven. Sariputta, saying that this teaching only led to Dhanañjani's being born into the "inferior brahma world".

My question is: what should Sariputta have done instead? Dhanañjani's background and capabilities did not seem to have made him a good candidate for any higher teaching. He was evidently not ripe for liberation. Generally the Buddha provides those teachings which are suitable for his audience. Although there was surely "more to be done", there was no time left to do it, and the student was in grave danger of falling into a lower realm. So why was Sariputta rebuked?

More generally, if the brahma viharas are pointless, why are they given such extended treatment in the Visuddhimagga, for example? Why practice them at all?

On a peripheral note, what is meant here by "a family with no faith"?

I have nothing to offer here beyond common sense and guesswork, but you might find it helpful.

Sariputta was considered to be "foremost in wisdom" and his ability to teach the Dhamma was praised by the Buddha;

Śāriputra often preached with the Buddha's approval and was awarded the title of 'General of the Dharma' (Pāli: Dhammasenāpati) for his propagation of the teachings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sariputta

Sariputta, who was second only to the Buddha in the depth and range of his understanding, and his ability to teach the Doctrine of Deliverance.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el090.html

So perhaps the Buddha had confidence that Sariputta could teach in such a way that even such "unpromising" individuals as Dhananjani could achieve enlightenment. Or, the sub-text might be that one who has such apparently poor background and circumstances should not be judged as being incapable of liberation in this lifetime. After all, the Buddha saw possibilities in the most unheedful of people: Angulimala.

As to the "family with no faith", I would imagine that this refers to a community that has either not heard or developed confidence in the Buddha's teaching, or has no established religion with its associated morality. The purpose in the text seems to be to indicate a moral backsliding in Dhananjani; he has chosen as a life partner someone who is not a suitable spiritual companion.

On a more general point, I don't think that the Sutta should be taken to imply that the Brahmaviharas are pointless. Sariputta might have done better on that specific occasion, but that is compatible with them being of immense value in general.

Bhikkhu Bodhi's footnote to his translation says:

This remark has the force of a gentle reproach. The Buddha must have seen that Dhānañjāni had the potential to attain the supramundane path, since elsewhere (e.g., MN 99.24-27) he himself teaches only the way to the Brahma-world when that potential is lacking in his listener.

Sam Vara wrote:As to the "family with no faith", I would imagine that this refers to a community that has either not heard or developed confidence in the Buddha's teaching, or has no established religion with its associated morality.

Yes, I was wondering if it meant followers of the Buddha specifically, or more generally following a religion that teaches morality and is more or less consistent with "mundane Right View". I guess I'm assuming that since Buddhism wasn't exactly an institutionalized religion at the time, it would have been a little unusual for Dhanañjani to marry a Buddhist follower -- more likely that he'd find someone who adhered to the established Brahmanic religions and customs.

So is the sutta saying "don't marry an atheist"?

So is the sutta saying "don't marry an atheist"?

Again, I wouldn't hazard a definite view on this one. It certainly makes sense to see it as a formula indicative of moral decline in the individual concerned, but I couldn't derive a "should/should not" from it.

I'm not aware of any other expressions of restriction on who one might marry. For us, I guess it would be perfectly acceptable for a Buddhist atheist to marry another Buddhist atheist!

Lazy_eye wrote:Hi:

More generally, if the brahma viharas are pointless, why are they given such extended treatment in the Visuddhimagga, for example? Why practice them at all?

This is an excellent question. I am in no position to give an authoritative answer but my understanding is that the brahama viharas can be a strong supportive practice to the gradual path of awakening. From my experience, they eradicate ill will (in my case a general sense of alienation) and give me a sense of equanimity that can be applied too all phenomenon as they arise in satipatanna practice.

There is a modern heretical view that the Theravada tradition has misunderstood the proper roll of the brahama viharas and that they are a path to awakening in themselves. I don't have any reason to accept this view but do I think the significance of the practice is underestimated.

FatDaddy wrote:There is a modern heretical view that the Theravada tradition has misunderstood the proper roll of the brahama viharas and that they are a path to awakening in themselves. I don't have any reason to accept this view but do I think the significance of the practice is underestimated.

According to AN 11.17 the brahma viharas are one of 11 doorways to the deathless. So not heretical at all. "In themselves" is not the complete picture, however, as they have to be understood as "fabricated & intended. Now whatever is fabricated & intended is inconstant & subject to cessation."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Lazy_eye wrote:So why was Sariputta rebuked?

A composite sutta incorporating relatively late moralizing into an earlier narrative frame is a good explanation, it seems to me.

Everything up until Dhanañjani departs is a standalone sutta about diligence for householders, and quite nice. Continuing on in order to add a formulaic heavenly itinerary seems rather out of place.

DN 13 suggests that talk of the Brahma World may have been code for nibbana, and elsewhere we can see that the awakening factors can be developed alongside the brahmaviharas as well as anapanasati.

I think the reciter-redactor-compilers simply lost touch, somewhat, with these subtleties. Casualties of culture.

The Brahmaviharas Are Not Enough
talk from October 16, 2012

The Limits of the Unlimited Attitudes

FatDaddy wrote:There is a modern heretical view that the Theravada tradition has misunderstood the proper roll of the brahama viharas and that they are a path to awakening in themselves.

I've seen neo-Buddhists who have the view that the brahmaviharas are not enough - in the sense that anger, hatred, contempt are wholesome attitudes that must also be practiced if one is to attain enlightenment.

Thanks for the nice talk, Binocular.


Mike

Regarding the Brahma Viharas, I don't know how I would cope without them. They help me to get through each day. For me, even that alone would be a good enough reason to cultivate them.

Metta

I think the brahma viharas are probably necessary to cultivate sila that goes beyond and doesn't rely on precepts. The attitude that the brahma viharas cultivate is also the attitude we need to engage wisely and kindly with the world. So the brahma viharas are necessary to follow the path if you ask me.

binocular wrote:

FatDaddy wrote:There is a modern heretical view that the Theravada tradition has misunderstood the proper roll of the brahama viharas and that they are a path to awakening in themselves.

I've seen neo-Buddhists who have the view that the brahmaviharas are not enough - in the sense that anger, hatred, contempt are wholesome attitudes that must also be practiced if one is to attain enlightenment.

That seems very unusual!

I've come across many teachers who say that it's better not to try and forcibly suppress things like anger, but rather to note them and counteract them with metta practice, for instance. But although this may be something of a deviation from orthodox Theravada, it's still a far cry from holding such behaviors up as "wholesome".

binocular wrote: I've seen neo-Buddhists who have the view that the brahmaviharas are not enough - in the sense that anger, hatred, contempt are wholesome attitudes that must also be practiced if one is to attain enlightenment.

Where on earth have you seen that view?