Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c5.s3: The Goal of Life

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c5.s3

Language: English

The Goal of Life

v1.c5.s3.1

We shall now consider the value of the remark found in the Pāli texts that the ancient Brāhmaṇas of different schools believed that all paths led to union with Brahmā (*Brahma-sahavyatā*).² In the cosmological accounts of the Pāli texts, Brahmaloka is deemed as the highest sphere of existence, next to Ābhassarā and the gods who first appeared there regarded themselves as the first born and as such the lord and creator of all beings who originated after them.³ They deemed themselves as eternally existing.⁴ In the *Mahāgovinda-suttanta*, it is clearly stated that the highest ambition of Mahāgovinda was to visualize Brahmā the highest god, and a graphic description⁵ is also given of Brahmā Sanaṃkumāra. Brahmaloka, the highest sphere of existence, according to Buddhism, was attainable through the practice of the four brahmavihāras, viz., *mettā*, *karuṇā*, *muditā*, and *upekkhā*. The Buddhist accounts of Brahmā and Brahmaloka are practically an echo of the notions current among the ancient Brāhmaṇas, with this difference that the attainment of union with Brahmā was possible, according to the *Brāhmaṇa* texts,¹ through the study of the Vedas or the performance of a sacrifice correctly, while, according to the Buddhist texts, it was possible only by becoming a recluse, leading an austere life of a brahmacārin and practising the four *brahmavihāras*.²

v1.c5.s3.2

² See *Digha*, II, p. 251; Barua, *Pre-Buddhist etc*, pp. 43-44.

v1.c5.s3.3

³ *Digha*, I, p. 18: Aham asmi Brahmā Mahābrahmā abhibhū anabhibhūto aññad-atthu-daso vasavattī issaro kattā nimmātā seṭṭho sañjātā va pitā bhūta-bhavyānam.

v1.c5.s3.4

⁴ *Digha*, I, p. 18: nicco dhuvo sassato avipariṇāma-dhammo.

v1.c5.s3.5

⁵ *Digha*, II, p. 240: vaṇṇavā yasavā sirimā etc.

v1.c5.s3.6

¹ *Ś. Br.*, XI, 44: 5, 6, 9 quoted in Keith, *op. cit.*, p. 450.

v1.c5.s3.7

² *Dīgha*, II, p. 241:

v1.c5.s3.8

The conception of Brahmā as the first born can be traced in the Ṛgvedic account of Prajāpati or Viśvakarman who is described thus: "He is the god who is the first born, the golden germ, Hiranyagarbha, who creates the whole universe, who gives life, whose commands the gods obey, whose shadow is death and immortality, who is lord of man and beast, of the mountain and the sea."³ In the *Brāhmaṇa* period too, Prajāpati is given the place of the creator, the supreme god, the ruler of the universe.⁴

v1.c5.s3.9

³ Keith, *op. cit.*, p. 437.

v1.c5.s3.10

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 442.

v1.c5.s3.11

Though to Prajāpati the highest place is accorded in the Vedic texts, and the same finds corroboration in the tradition preserved in the Buddhist texts, the idea of unity behind the diversity, the absence of any being at the very beginning appear also in the Vedic texts, though not in the earlier section i.e.,

v1.c5.s3.12

Hitvā mamattaṃ manujesu brahme
Ekodibhūto karuṇādhimutto
Nirāmagandho virato methunasmā
Etthaṭṭhito ettha ca sikkhamāno
Pappoti macco amataṃ brahmalokan ti.

v1.c5.s3.13

v1.c5.s3.14

(Maṇḍalas, II-IX) of the *Ṛgveda*. The earliest trace of this conception of unity is found in the *Ṛgvedic* hymn X. 86 of Dīrghatamas, where it is said: "They call it Indra, they call by many names, Agni, Yama, Mātarisvan."' It is further developed in the hymn X. 129 where is stated: "in the beginning there was neither being nor not-being: there was no atmosphere nor sky . . . . there was neither death nor immortality, nor night nor day: there was nothing else in the world save the One which breathed, but without wind, of its own power."² The above-mentioned two conceptions are linked up together in the *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa* thus: "the first thing is stated to be not-being, then arises Prajāpati, who is the same as Puruṣa, and then the Brahman, the holy science, . . . ."³ In the *Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa* again, the order is changed: the first entity is not-being, then springs into life mind i.e., the Brahman, and then Prajāpati.⁴ In the same *Brāhmaṇa* again, we notice a further development, viz., the identification of Brahman with Ātman and the enunciation of the theory that the knowledge of the Ātman can free one from his actions—a notion traceable in the *Śatapatha* also.⁵ Its development into the philosophy of *tat tvam asi* or *so'ham* which we find in the early Upaniṣads followed as a matter of course. Buddhism did not go so far as to identify Brahman with Ātman, but like the *Taittirīya* and *Śatapatha Brāhmaṇas*, asserted that Brahmā was preceded by 'not-being,' which was also, according to it, the beginning or the real form of the manifest, which began with the god Mahābrahmā. The 'not-being' in Buddhism is termed *Nirvāṇa* or *Buddhatva*, and hence one who attains that state is placed above the Brahmaloka or Brahman the personal. Buddhism only kept up the logical sequence by looking upon Brahman or the beings that originated after him as essentially anātman and avoided the illogical step of deriving a being (ātman) from the non-being. It is this little but vital difference that made the Buddhist and Brāhmaṇic schools, though issuing, in fact, from the same line of thought, separate from each other wider and wider. Hence Buddhism and Upaniṣadic thoughts may be treated as contemporary developments, the former paving the way for the advent of non-Brāhmaṇic schools of thought, and the latter bringing forth in its train the various systems of Brāhmaṇic philosophy.

Linked texts (5)

Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit
Taittirīyabrāhmaṇa — Sanskrit
Dīghanikāya — Pāli
Majjhimanikāya — Pāli
Śatapathabrāhmaṇa — Yājñavalkya & Śāṇḍilya (Vedic teacher), Sanskrit