Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:02 pm
Watana wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:37 pm
The names of the attainments don't have anything to do with negating the good/bad quality of an action (which is what nihilism is about).
I said annihilationism, not nihilism.
Brahma was only seen as a deity by the "least intelligent" people, those who had the ability to conceive very abstract things viewed Brahma more like a spiritual essence pervading the entire universe, a cosmic consciousness.
Whilst it is true that Brahman is a more philosophically sophisticated concept than Brahma, it is not clear at all which of these concepts came first. The work I was referring to in my last post was "Prajapati's relations with Brahtnan, Brhaspati and Brahtna" by Jan Gonda:
https://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publications/PU00010269.pdf
Some even said that Brahma was just ineffable, that it was neither a thing nor nothing.
I'm not aware of anything in the vedāḥ which equates Brahma with "neither a thing nor nothing", nor in the Upaniṣadaḥ. That being said, I haven't read them all. Do you have a quote?
Also, the "formless" attainments couldn't have been associated with the "annihilationists", because those very attainments were invented by Brahmins, the ones who believed in both reincarnation and the eternal soul.
Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta being Brahmins does not exclude them from being annihilationists when the Buddha met them. In DN 1 the arising of annihilationist views is equated with the 4 elements or the formless attainments. This is also found in numerous parallels, as Ven. Anālayo's findings show here:
DN 1 at DN I 37,1 and its parallels DĀ 21 at T I 93b20, T 21 at T I 269c22, a Tibetan discourse parallel in Weller 1934: 58,3 (§191), a discourse quotation in the *Śāriputrābhidharma, T 1548 at T XXVIII 660b24, and a discourse quotation in D 4094 ju 152a4 or Q 5595 tu 175a8. The same versions also attribute the arising of annihilationist views to the immaterial attainments (for Sanskrit fragments corresponding to the section on annihilationism see also Hartmann 1989: 54 and SHT X 4189, Wille 2008: 307).
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... o/ebms.pdf
It does make sense that those who are disgusted with existence would seek states which, they believed, would obliterate the self. The formless attainments themselves are practices in deconstructing existence, of emptying it out until there is "Nothing" or "Neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation". Even if we look to Ajita Kesakambali we see a connection with the elements there. Kasiṇa practice itself likely came from annihilationist beginnings.
We see another connection with Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta. The suttas state that out of all of the speculative metaphysics doing the rounds at the time, annihilationism is said to be the foremost view as it is close to non-clinging:
(8) “Bhikkhus, of the speculative views held by outsiders, this is the foremost, namely: ‘I might not be and it might not be mine; I shall not be, and it will not be mine.’ For it can be expected that one who holds such a view will not be unrepelled by existence and will not be repelled by the cessation of existence. There are beings who hold such a view. But even for beings who hold such a view there is alteration; there is change. Seeing this thus, the instructed noble disciple becomes disenchanted with it; being disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate toward the foremost, not to speak of what is inferior.
https://suttacentral.net/an10.29/en/bodhi
We are also told that out of all of the attainments, Nothingness or Neither-conceptualisation-nor-non-conceptualisation are the best:
“Ānanda, take a mendicant who practices like this: ‘It might not be, and it might not be mine. It will not be, and it will not be mine. I am giving up what exists, what has come to be.’ In this way they gain equanimity. They approve, welcome, and keep clinging to that equanimity. Their consciousness relies on that and grasps it. A mendicant with grasping does not become extinguished.”
“But sir, what is that mendicant grasping?”
“The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.”
“Sir, it seems that mendicant is grasping the best thing to grasp!”
“Indeed, Ānanda. For the best thing to grasp is the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception.
MN 106
MN 106 actually states that the annihilationist view can lead into the formless of "Nothingness". What we have then is the praising of annihilationism as the best of the speculative views, and ākiñcaññāyatana & nevasaññānāsaññāyatana praised as the best meditative attainment around with the annihilationist view explicitly linked to the formless. This clearly gives a link between the two, with ākiñcaññāyatana & nevasaññānāsaññāyatana then being the highest attainment among the best ascetics around, i.e. the annihilationists. In other words, the formless attainments were the meditative method of choice for the annihilationists and so come from them. In turn this would explain why the Buddha sought out Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta after he had awakened. They had the highest attainments in the best philosophy at the time. The philosophy that was cloest to non-clinging. Namely, annihilationism. Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta were annihilationists. This is perhaps why other Brahmins viewed at least Uddaka Rāmaputta with scorn:
This King Eḷeyya is a fool to be so devoted to Rāmaputta. He even shows him the utmost deference by bowing down to him, rising up for him, greeting him with joined palms, and observing proper etiquette for him. Yamaka, Moggalla, Ugga, Nāvindakī, Gandhabba, and Aggivessa—for they show the same kind of deference to Rāmaputta.’
AN 4.187
More from Ven. Anālayo, who shares my conclusions:
From the perspective of attempting to find a deeper meaning and a broader scope of implication for the term vibhava-tanhā, the final four grounds for annihilationist views listed in the Brahmajāla-sutta are intriguing. They suggest that nonexistence or non-becoming may have been envisioned as a goal to be reached through meditation practice in ancient India, in particular through attaining any of the immaterial spheres.
Since the experience of these immaterial spheres requires a considerable amount of meditative proficiency and practice, an annihilationist view related to the attainment or experience of these states could not reasonably assume that all beings are destined to such annihilation. That is, from the perspective of the upholders of such a view, annihilation would probably not have been considered as the inevitable fate of all beings, but rather as a goal to be attained through an appropriate form of conduct and meditation practice.
The idea behind such an aspiration for annihilation could be a merger with a form of ultimate reality, held to be equivalent to boundless space, or to boundless consciousness, or to no-thingness, or to neither-perception-nor-non-perception. Attaining such a merger at the death of the body, any self-hood would be successfully annihilated.
https://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg ... raving.pdf
