My theory on Original Buddhism

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Watana
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:33 am

My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Watana »

"Mindfulness" has nothing to do with "awareness", its orignal meaning was that of "retaining a thought", at all times (whether standing, sitting, walking, lying down etc). Mettā mindfulness was the most basic Buddhist practice. It had 4 steps, also known as "the 4 jhāna". The idea was to cultivate mettā up to the point where it would become "infinite".

This is a reinterpretation of the ancient Yogic meditation based on the 7 elements : earth, water, fire, wind, ether (translated as "space" in the Theravāda), soul/ātman (translated as "consciousness" in the Theravāda) and god/Brahma (which was often conceived as either "nothingness" or "neither existence nor non-existence"). By making ether "infinite" in his mind, a sādhu could apprehend ātman, which was believed to be made of ether. Then, by making ātman "infinite", the sādhu could finally experience Brahma, the universal ātman, and be freed from the cycle or reincarnation.

The Tathāgata learned elemental meditation under his previous teachers, who held Brahminic beliefs. But unlike them, he wasn't satisfied with the mystical experience of Brahma. What he sought was something more practical, something that would make him a real saint/brahmin. He realized that, by using mettā as an object of mindfulness meditation, he would be able to perfect his own equanimity (in the 4th jhāna).

Thanks to his infinite equanimity, the Tathāgata could then reflect on people's actions, and on his own past actions, in a totally impartial manner. Through this, he realized that bad actions were the result of craving, obsessions, lust, greed. He then resolved to get rid of craving, and he did, through sheer force of will. He called his achievement "nibbāna" ("quenching"), and his 3 reflections "the 3 knowledges"... those are references to the sacrificial fire that the brahmins would lit for their rituals, and to the 3 Veda, their sacred hymns ("veda" literally means "knowledge").

During his teaching carreer, the Tathāgata referenced Brahminic terms extensively, either as satire (as in the case of the "3 fires") or as reinterpretations of Brahminic ideas and beliefs. He thus equated nibbāna with Brahma, and he would call any accomplished person "a (true) brahmin" (as opposed to the brahmin-by-birth, those of the brahmin caste).

Unfortunately, some bhikkhu failed to understand all his references. They thus took everything literally... conceiving Brahma as a god living in some kind of heaven... thinking that crucial qualities like mettā and equanimity couldn't lead to nibbāna... this is how the Buddhist religion (as opposed to the real teachings of the Tathāgata) was born.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Watana wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:22 pm "Mindfulness" has nothing to do with "awareness", its orignal meaning was that of "retaining a thought", at all times (whether standing, sitting, walking, lying down etc). Mettā mindfulness was the most basic Buddhist practice. It had 4 steps, also known as "the 4 jhāna". The idea was to cultivate mettā up to the point where it would become "infinite".

This is a reinterpretation of the ancient Yogic meditation based on the 7 elements : earth, water, fire, wind, ether (translated as "space" in the Theravāda), soul/ātman (translated as "consciousness" in the Theravāda) and god/Brahma (which was often conceived as either "nothingness" or "neither existence nor non-existence"). By making ether "infinite" in his mind, a sādhu could apprehend ātman, which was believed to be made of ether. Then, by making ātman "infinite", the sādhu could finally experience Brahma, the universal ātman, and be freed from the cycle or reincarnation.

The Tathāgata learned elemental meditation under his previous teachers, who held Brahminic beliefs. But unlike them, he wasn't satisfied with the mystical experience of Brahma. What he sought was something more practical, something that would make him a real saint/brahmin. He realized that, by using mettā as an object of mindfulness meditation, he would be able to perfect his own equanimity (in the 4th jhāna).

Thanks to his infinite equanimity, the Tathāgata could then reflect on people's actions, and on his own past actions, in a totally impartial manner. Through this, he realized that bad actions were the result of craving, obsessions, lust, greed. He then resolved to get rid of craving, and he did, through sheer force of will. He called his achievement "nibbāna" ("quenching"), and his 3 reflections "the 3 knowledges"... those are references to the sacrificial fire that the brahmins would lit for their rituals, and to the 3 Veda, their sacred hymns ("veda" literally means "knowledge").

During his teaching carreer, the Tathāgata referenced Brahminic terms extensively, either as satire (as in the case of the "3 fires") or as reinterpretations of Brahminic ideas and beliefs. He thus equated nibbāna with Brahma, and he would call any accomplished person "a (true) brahmin" (as opposed to the brahmin-by-birth, those of the brahmin caste).

Unfortunately, some bhikkhu failed to understand all his references. They thus took everything literally... conceiving Brahma as a god living in some kind of heaven... thinking that crucial qualities like mettā and equanimity couldn't lead to nibbāna... this is how the Buddhist religion (as opposed to the real teachings of the Tathāgata) was born.
One thing Wynne doesn’t take into account is that the 4 elements and the formless are associated with the annihilationists, rather than the eternalist views of the Upanishads. Āḷāra Kālāma & Uddaka Rāmaputta were very likely annihilationists. Regarding Brahma, it’s not clear which came first. Brahma the personal God or Brahman as the abstract ultimate reality. Gonda addresses this point. I’ll look for the work shortly.
“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
Watana
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:33 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Watana »

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). 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. Some even said that Brahma was just ineffable, that it was neither a thing nor nothing.

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.
Last edited by Watana on Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by DooDoot »

Watana wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:22 pm "Mindfulness" has nothing to do with "awareness", its orignal meaning was that of "retaining a thought", at all times (whether standing, sitting, walking, lying down etc).
Yes.
Watana wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:22 pm. He thus equated nibbāna with Brahma
No.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

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
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“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
Watana
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:33 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Watana »

The term "ceto-vimutti" ("liberation of the mind) refers to nibbāna, and it is associated with the 4 immeasurables (aka the "divine dwellings/abiding") in several sutta whose (partial or complete) authenticity can be established by all the references to Brahminism they contain.

The expressions "divine abiding", "divine dwelling", "union with Brahma", "joining Brahma", "attaining Brahma" etc are everywhere in the canon.

Brahma was the goal of most ascetics (including the Tathāgata before his nibbāna), thus it makes sense for him to have used it interchangeably with nibbāna, especially when talking to brahmins. Note that the Tathāgata didn't invent a new religion, he merely reinterpreted older beliefs, by giving them concrete and practical meanings.

Since the Tathāgata would call his accomplished disciples "brahmins" (those who are in the image of Brahma, those who are born from Brahma's mouth), he definitely used Brahma interchangeably with nibbāna.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Ceisiwr »

Watana wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:04 pm The term "ceto-vimutti" ("liberation of the mind) refers to nibbāna, and it is associated with the 4 immeasurables (aka the "divine dwellings/abiding") in several sutta whose (partial or complete) authenticity can be established by all the references to Brahminism they contain.

The expressions "divine abiding", "divine dwelling", "union with Brahma", "joining Brahma", "attaining Brahma" etc are everywhere in the canon.

Brahma was the goal of most ascetics (including the Tathāgata before his nibbāna), thus it makes sense for him to have used it interchangeably with nibbāna, especially when talking to brahmins. Note that the Tathāgata didn't invent a new religion, he merely reinterpreted older beliefs, by giving them concrete and practical meanings.

Since the Tathāgata would call his accomplished disciples "brahmins" (those who are in the image of Brahma, those who are born from Brahma's mouth), he definitely used Brahma interchangeably with nibbāna.
Can you tag or at least make it clear who you are replying to please. The conversation is awkward to follow otherwise. Thank you.
“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.”
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Pulsar »

Watana wrote
The Tathāgata learned elemental meditation under his previous teachers,
What exactly is elemental meditation?
You had written.
This is a reinterpretation of the ancient Yogic meditation based on the 7 elements : earth, water, fire, wind, ether (translated as "space" in the Theravāda), soul/ātman (translated as "consciousness" in the Theravāda) and god/Brahma (which was often conceived as either "nothingness" or "neither existence nor non-existence"). By making ether "infinite" in his mind, a sādhu could apprehend ātman, which was believed to be made of ether. Then, by making ātman "infinite", the sādhu could finally experience Brahma, the universal ātman, and be freed from the cycle or reincarnation.
Do you mean Buddha to be, learnt to apprehend Atman made of ether, and then joined with Brahman by becoming infinite? it sounds O so complicated...
  • When the canon refers to earth, air water and fire, it is only a reference to the form, made of 4 great elements.
When the canon implies that earth air water and fire cannot be found in Nibbana, what it implies is, in Nibbana no form is found. To generate a form a karmic consciousness has to be active., according to Dependent Origination. Is DO relevant to the understanding of your original Buddhism?
In my understanding of DO, Karmic consciousness has been wiped out in the Arahant.
Even in the state of 4th jhana form disappears, since Karmic consciousness is temporarily eliminated, at this point Nama-rupa- vinnana recycling is brought to a temporary halt.
My dearest Watana, you would know this well if you are familiar with Sn 4.11 Kalahavivada.

Watana wrote
"Mindfulness" has nothing to do with "awareness", its orignal meaning was that of "retaining a thought", at all times (whether standing, sitting, walking, lying down etc).
What do you mean by original meaning? Are you referring to the meaning embedded within Samma Sati?
The meaning of mindfulness in relation to Samma Sati means guarding of the mind, against entry of signs released by contact...since contact leads to suffering.
This is fairly well explained in Salayatana Samyutta.
Real mindfulness is guarding oneself from suffering, but you appear to think it is the retention of a thought.
What kind of thought is that? This is very new to me. Pl explain.
Now there are others who think mindfulness is about focussing the mind on an object. I don't think so. The meditative teachings in relation to 8-fold path are all dynamic, they are all object independent. As long as the mind is dependent on an object, it cannot be freed. Freedom from all entanglements is the goal of the practice of Original Buddhism.
It is good to see you again.
With love :candle:
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by mikenz66 »

Watana wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 9:04 pm The term "ceto-vimutti" ("liberation of the mind) refers to nibbāna, and it is associated with the 4 immeasurables (aka the "divine dwellings/abiding") in several sutta whose (partial or complete) authenticity can be established by all the references to Brahminism they contain.
While some do argue that (Richard Gombrich for example), the more common understanding is that ceto-vimutti refers to temporary release from the hindrances due to samādhi, as opposed to paññā-vimutti, deliverance through wisdom. Still a very important part of development, however.

See for example:
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/vimutti
http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmaf ... .-piya.pdf

:heart:
Mike
User avatar
Watana
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:33 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Watana »

mikenz66 wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 10:41 pm While some do argue that (Richard Gombrich for example), the more common understanding is that ceto-vimutti refers to temporary release from the hindrances due to samādhi, as opposed to paññā-vimutti, deliverance through wisdom. Still a very important part of development, however.
Yes, and the most popular ideas of the Theravāda have already been debunked by Gombrich and other (real) scholars. Yet the Theravāda, whose doctrine is both inconsistent and illogical in many aspects (there are so many contradictions of essential ideas, some major concepts like nibbāna and "dependent origination" don't even have any real definition/explanation), keeps clinging to those very ideas and concepts.

Might as well say the Earth is flat at this point. Oh wait... the Earth is indeed flat according to the Theravāda... oopsie !
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by SarathW »

I have no overall objection to Watarna considering the fact some Buddhists believe in eternal Nibbana. (Mahayana, Dhammayutta)
However, the major missing point is he has not even had any idea of the Anatta teaching. That is what Buddhism differs from Hinduism.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Watana wrote: Sat Mar 13, 2021 8:22 pm ...
Unfortunately, some bhikkhu failed to understand all his references. They thus took everything literally... conceiving Brahma as a god living in some kind of heaven... thinking that crucial qualities like mettā and equanimity couldn't lead to nibbāna... this is how the Buddhist religion (as opposed to the real teachings of the Tathāgata) was born.
Brahman is the soul of the cosmos/universe, an abstract ultimate reality; it underlies the whole cosmos. Its personified deification is called Brhamā.
This belief is originated in the early Upanisads (such as Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, Chandogya Upanisad), and not a Buddhist idea (of "some Bhikkhu"?).

But in early Buddhism, according to SN 6.1, it reports that Brahma Sahampati came to request the Buddha to teach his discovered Dhamma to the world, soon after the Buddha became fully enlightened. The Dhamma the Buddha discovered refers to both conditioned arising/dependent origination (paticcasamuppada) and Nibbana/Nirvana, according to SN 6.1. :meditate:
Last edited by thomaslaw on Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Watana
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:33 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Watana »

SarathW wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:15 am I have no overall objection to Watarna considering the fact some Buddhists believe in eternal Nibbana. (Mahayana, Dhammayutta)
However, the major missing point is not he has not even had any idea of the Anatta teaching. That is what Buddhism differs from Hinduism.
I believe that "anatta" wasn't a metaphysical assertion, I think it was just a way for the Tathāgata to convert those who held Brahminic beliefs :

"See consciousness ? it's always changing, and it can make us experience suffering, therefore it can't be the eternal and blissful soul (ātman)... sooo how about you join my sect now ? Even women are allowed ! Now go grab some water and wash my feet please."
thomaslaw
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:55 am
Location: Australia

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by thomaslaw »

Watana wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:21 am "See consciousness ? it's always changing, and it can make us experience suffering, therefore it can't be the eternal and blissful soul (ātman)... sooo how about you join my sect now ? Even women are allowed ! Now go grab some water and wash my feet please."
Which sutta?
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by SarathW »

Watana wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:21 am
SarathW wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 12:15 am I have no overall objection to Watarna considering the fact some Buddhists believe in eternal Nibbana. (Mahayana, Dhammayutta)
However, the major missing point is not he has not even had any idea of the Anatta teaching. That is what Buddhism differs from Hinduism.
I believe that "anatta" wasn't a metaphysical assertion, I think it was just a way for the Tathāgata to convert those who held Brahminic beliefs :

"See consciousness ? it's always changing, and it can make us experience suffering, therefore it can't be the eternal and blissful soul (ātman)... sooo how about you join my sect now ? Even women are allowed ! Now go grab some water and wash my feet please."
That is why I said that you have no idea what Anatta means.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply