Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by zan »

The Buddha discusses the god Brahma and people denoted Brahmans (and sometimes Brahmins, I'm not clear on the difference, could be just the translator, but neither are the absolute), but not the supreme Hindu Brahman. Was he unaware of this Hindu teaching? Or did he equate it with Brahma? The hypothesis has been put forth that he was very well aware of Brahman, and that his path to nibbana is the path to Brahman, and that the Tathagata is Brahman, though, considering Brahman is constantly said to be the self and eternal, this would make very little sense since the Buddha declared "sabbe dhamma anatta" (all things are not self, SN 44.10).
Then Brahma Sahampati, having known with his own mind the reflection in the Blessed One’s mind, just as quickly as a strong man might extend his drawn-in arm or draw in his extended arm, disappeared from the brahma world and reappeared before the Blessed One.
SN 47.18, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
Then Vassakara the brahman, the minister to the king of Magadha, approached the Blessed One
-AN 4.183, Thanissaro Bhikkhu translation
Then Vassakāra the brahmin, a chief minister of Magadha, went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him.
-AN 4.183, Bhikkhu Sujato translation
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Coëmgenu »

That teaching does not seem to have been in vogue amongst the Brahmins that the Buddha had dialogue with. Otherwise, it would pop up ubiquitously in the Buddha's dialogues with the Brahmins in scripture. Instead, we see them devoted to a personalized godhead named "Brahma" at the time of the Buddha as testified to by the Buddhist scriptures, not the abstracted universal principle that comes later. "Merging into the supreme Brahman" seems to have been "rebirth in the realm of Brahma" in the Buddha's time.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:15 pm That teaching does not seem to have been in vogue amongst the Brahmins that the Buddha had dialogue with. Otherwise, it would pop up ubiquitously in the Buddha's dialogues with the Brahmins in scripture. Instead, we see them devoted to a personalized godhead named "Brahma" at the time of the Buddha as testified to by the Buddhist scriptures, not the abstracted universal principle that comes later. "Merging into the supreme Brahman" seems to have been "rebirth in the realm of Brahma" in the Buddha's time.
It makes me wonder just how “orthodox” the Rishi’s of the Upanishads were at the time.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Well, a lot of people think that the Upaniṣads are post-Buddha, and Buddhist texts do somewhat support that stance, or at least the stance that Upaniṣadic thought was embryonic and not the mainstream at the time of the Buddha.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:46 pm Well, a lot of people think that the Upaniṣads are post-Buddha, and Buddhist texts do somewhat support that stance, or at least the stance that Upaniṣadic thought was embryonic and not the mainstream at the time of the Buddha.
It definitely wasn’t mainstream Brahmanism, no.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Coëmgenu »

In fact, the most outrightly "Upaniṣadic" thing I can think of in the buddhavacana ascribed to "some" Brahmins is "so loko so attā," and that is not presented as a main doctrine of the Brahmins at all.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:49 pm In fact, the most outrightly "Upaniṣadic" thing I can think of in the buddhavacana ascribed to "some" Brahmins is "so loko so attā," and that is not presented as a main doctrine of the Brahmins at all.
Ven. Sujato made some arguments that Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta came from the Upanishadic tradition. Wynne too. If they were they weren’t orthodox Brahmins. That said I think the suttas and sutras strongly suggest they were annihilationists, which doesn’t seem to match the worldview of the Upanishads at all.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Coëmgenu »

I thought that Rāmaputra was the Brahmin and that Kāmāla was of a non-specified Śramaṇa movement, but it could have been the other way around. What do you know to the contrary?

Rudraka Rāmaputra has a double-theorphoric name associated with Brahmins. I don't actually know what the other's name means.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Ceisiwr »

That’s said, the goal of the Upanishads could possibly be interpreted in an annihilationist sort of way
13. As a lump of salt is without interior or exterior, entire, and purely saline in taste, even so is the Self without interior or exterior, entire, and Pure Intelligence alone. (The self) comes out (as a separate entity) from these elements, and (this separateness) is destroyed with them. After attaining (this oneness) it has no more (particular) consciousness. This is what I say, my dear. So said Yājñavalkya.

14. Maitreyī said, ‘Just here you have led me into the midst of confusion, sir, I do not at all comprehend this.’ He said, ‘Certainly I am not saying anything confusing. This self is indeed immutable and indestructible, my dear.’

15. Because when there is duality, as it were, then one sees something, one smells something, one tastes something, one speaks something, one hears something, one thinks something, one touches something, one knows something. But when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the Self, then what should one see and through what, what should one smell and through what, what should one taste and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one touch and through what, what should one know and through what? Through what should one know that owing to which all this is known? This self is That which has been described as ‘Not this, not this.’ It is imperceptible, for It is never perceived; undecaying, for It never decays; unattached, for It is never attached; unfettered—it never feels pain, and never suffers injury. Through what, O Maitreyī, should one know the Knower? So you have got the instruction, Maitreyī. This much indeed is (the means of) immortality, my dear. Saying this Yājña-valkya left.
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by cappuccino »

Ceisiwr wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:59 pm That’s said, the goal of the Upanishads could possibly be interpreted in an annihilationist sort of way
Formless heavens, infinite consciousness, nothingness


Is the goal of Upanishads
Last edited by cappuccino on Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:57 pm I thought that Rāmaputra was the Brahmin and that Kāmāla was of a non-specified Śramaṇa movement, but it could have been the other way around. What do you know to the contrary?

Rudraka Rāmaputra has a double-theorphoric name associated with Brahmins. I don't actually know what the other's name means.
I haven’t heard of him being connected with the Śramaṇa movement. I believe there is some later text, possibly of Hindu origin, which links him with samkhya. Could be a northern Buddhist text though. I’ll have to remember where I read it. Regarding Sujato, he makes the argument here.
We don’t really know of many groups of yogis in the Buddha’s time. Alara and Uddaka don’t seem to have been part of the samaṇa movement. The structure of the bodhisatta’s practice pre-awakening seems designed to show how he practiced to the utmost of what was available at the time. Clearly the austerities are Jain-like, so by elimination, Upanishadic yogis are the most likely

At least one of the key contexts, MN 26, is set in a brahmin’s hermitage.

“Rāmaputta” sounds very much like a brahmin name. Uddaka (= Udraka) is the name of a brahmanical rishi 6.

Uddaka’s saying criticized by the Buddha in DN 29, “one sees but does not see”, referring to a razor’s edge, is reminiscent of Upanishadic style teachings about the imminent Self; for example, Uddālaka’s teaching on the split banyan seed in the Chandogya.

The students of Alara and Uddaka began by memorizing the texts (oṭṭhapa­hata­mat­tena lapi­talāpa­na­mat­tena). We don’t have any evidence for any religious texts other than the Brahmanical at this time. (The Jains and others may well have had texts, but we have no evidence for it.)

The students were practicing within a lineage or tradition. We have reference to theravāda, sakaṃ ācariyakaṃ, as well as the detail that Rāmaputta is following in the footsteps of Rāma, his (spiritual or biological) father. Most of the samana movements claimed, like the Buddha’s, to have been established by their founders (Jainism being an exception.)

The students learned the five faculties, a set of dhammas that have many connections with things in the Upanishads, and which are featured prominently in the (admittedly later and philosophically divergent) Yogasutra (śraddhāvīryasmṛtisamādhiprajñāpūrvaka itareṣām || YS_1.20 ||)

Having mastered the five faculties, including jhana under samādhi, the highest teachings are the arupas. These have many affinities with Upanishadic teachings. And elsewhere, advanced brahmin yogis are cloesely associated with these, especially in the Parayanavagga.

The Pali commentary seems to assume they were brahmins. I haven’t looked into this with any detail, but a quick glance at the commentary to MN 26 shows that they depict Alara as referring to the Marks of a Great Man, which of course was regarded as a brahmanical idea.

As so often in these studies, no single criteria is decisive. But multiple independent criteria are all easily explained by a single, simple, and obvious hypothesis. Since there is, so far as I know, no counter-evidence or convincing alternative hypothesis, I regard this as probably the correct explanation.
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/a- ... ion/6210/5

I assume “Alara Kalama” means “Alara of the Kalamas”, as in the same tribe as found in the Kalama sutta.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Well, I'll take Ven Sujāto's word over mine, especially since I can't remembered where I heard it argued that Kāmāla was non-Brahmin.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Coëmgenu wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 12:08 am Well, I'll take Ven Sujāto's word over mine, especially since I can't remembered where I heard it argued that Kāmāla was non-Brahmin.
Interestingly a northern sutra strongly suggests Uddaka was an annihilationist
"Uddaka Rāmaputta had this view and taught like this, “Existence is an illness, a tumour, a thorn. Those who advocate nonperception are foolish. Those who have realized [know]: this is tranquil, this is sublime, namely attaining the sphere of neither-perception-nor-nonperception.”
The Discourse on Uddaka [Rāmaputta] - MĀ 114

Which doesn’t sound very Upanishadic. The Upanishads exalt existence, rather than disparaging it. Certainly Nothingness and Neither-perception nor non-perception sound like something annihilationists would praise. Yin Shun suggested that infinite space and infinite consciousness are simply part of element meditation and that Nothingness and Neither-perception nor non-perception were a different kind of practice, which tradition later put together as one list. There is no real way to prove that of course, and such a theory does have problems of its own. Still, interesting to consider. Personally I think even if it’s true you still need some mastery of element meditation to get to them.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by Coëmgenu »

Venerable Yìnshùn's suggestion makes sense given the classical list of six dhātus handed down in the buddhavacana.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
justindesilva
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 12:38 pm

Re: Why didn't the Buddha, at least to my knowledge, discuss the Hindu supreme Brahman?

Post by justindesilva »

Coëmgenu wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 11:15 pm That teaching does not seem to have been in vogue amongst the Brahmins that the Buddha had dialogue with. Otherwise, it would pop up ubiquitously in the Buddha's dialogues with the Brahmins in scripture. Instead, we see them devoted to a personalized godhead named "Brahma" at the time of the Buddha as testified to by the Buddhist scriptures, not the abstracted universal principle that comes later. "Merging into the supreme Brahman" seems to have been "rebirth in the realm of Brahma" in the Buddha's time.
On reading Agganna sutta, or beginningsof earth, it is disclosed that this sutta is disclosed to two brahmins baradvaja and vasetta. Brahmin bharadvaja is identified as a well versed person in vedas, but became followers of lord budda with agganna sutta and similarly brahmin vasetta. Another sutta preached to brahmin Vasetta is vasetta sutta. This gives us a clue that erudite vedic scholars had clarified matters on damma in discussion with lord budda that Alara Kalama who became the first desciple of lord budda, was the teacher of siddartha before prince siddartha went in search of the truth. Alara kalama had been the scholar on vedas, teaching to siddartha.
Post Reply