Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c15: Appendix I

Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge c15

Language
English

Appendix I

c15.1

(818) Criticizing Oldenberg's view that the Upanisadic concept of Brahman (neuter) becomes in Buddhism the God Brahmā,¹ Thomas says, 'the idea of Brahma (neuter) in the old Upanisads is said to have been hypostatized in Buddhism into a personal God Brahmā. But this rather implies that the older philosophical idea had been known to the Buddhists and this has been transformed into a much less philosophic conception. We have no evidence that Early Buddhism even knew it' (History of Buddhist Thought, p. 90). Of the Tevijja Sutta, Thomas says: 'The Tevijja Sutta, the discourse on the three-fold knowledge, the Vedas, undertakes to discuss the value of sacrifice and the brahmins are represented as holding that it leads to life in the Brahma world. But the Brahma world as described belongs purely to the Buddhist conception of the universe. It is a definite region above the heavens of sense pleasure ...' (*op. cit.*, p. 86). Thomas' conception seems to be that the neuter Brahman is 'the chief conception' (*op. cit.*, p. 87, fn. 1) of the Upanisads and likewise that the Brahmaloka in the Brāhmaṇas and Upanisads was a state attainable on earth and not a place to be reached after death. Our contention is that the idea of a personal Brahmā and of Brahmaloka as a place is the dominant conception of both the late Brāhmaṇas and the Early Upanisads and that the Tevijja Sutta is criticizing these beliefs and not the impersonal concepts which dominate the Middle and Late Upanisads. We have already shown how Brahmā (masc.) is used along with Brahman (neuter) in the Brāhmaṇas and the Early Upanisads, which do not strictly distinguish them in usage and where the personal concept prevails and is even carried over to the Late Upanisads (*v. supra*, 269).

c15.2

(819) It is the same with the concept of the Brahmaloka. It is the highest world in the Brāhmaṇas. In the Kauś. Br. (20.¹) the world of Brahman is the most real¹ (sattamam) of the worlds and is the heaven above the world of the gods, fathers, the living, the world of Agni, of Vāyu, of Indra,² of Varuna and of men In the early Upanisads it is still the highest and the seventh world from the world of men (Brh. 4.3.33). It is definitely a place to be attained only after death and by journeying there (Brh. 6.2.15, Ch. 4.14, 5-6, 5.10 2). The conception of the Brahmaloka as a state attainable in this life emerges only sporadically in the Early Upanisads, where a special theory is put forward such as, for instance, when it is suggested that we enter the Brahmaloka in deep sleep (Ch. 8.3.2). But even in the later Upanisads where Brahman is clearly a state attainable in this life, the earlier view of the Brahmaloka was still too strong to be put aside altogether. We see this clearly in the Mundaka Upanisad, where the earlier idea of the 'meritorious Brahmaloka won by good works' (punyas sukrto brahma-lokah, 1.2.6) is criticized as an insecure goal (*op cit.*, 1.2 7) even though those who attain the imperishable Brahman (*op. cit.*, 2.2 2) are still represented as departing 'through the door of the sun to where the immortal purusa is' (sūrya-dvārena ... yatrāmṛtah sa purusah, *op. cit.* 1 2 11) as at Bṛh. 6 2.15 and Ch. 4.15 5-6, and attaining immortality in the Brahma-worlds (brahmalokeṣu) only at the end of time (parāntakāle, *op. cit.*, 3.2 6). When therefore it is said in the Buddhist texts that Sāriputta thought 'the brahmins were obsessed with the idea of the Brahma world' (ime kho brāhmanā brahmalokādhimuttā, M II 194) and decides to preach to them 'the path to companionship with Brahmā' (brahmānam sahavyatāya maggam, *loc cit.*) it is a reference to a genuine Brahmanical belief and not a fanciful Buddhist conception as Thomas seems to think, when he says commenting on the Tevijja Sutta: 'What is expounded here is not the brahmin theory at all but the possibility of attaining to the Brahma-world as the Buddhists conceived it to exist, that is by the practice of the Brahma-vihāras' (*op. cit.*, p 87). According to the Buddhist texts there are five types of brahmins mentioned in the Vedic literature of which one is said to be those who follow tradition but develop mettā (compassion) (A. II.225). That the practice of mettā leads to the Brahma-world is not a later Buddhist conception, but one found in the Early Upanisads. In the Chāndogya where Vedic knowledge is said to be handed down from Brahmā, it is said that those who learn and teach the Vedas and practise ahiṃsā to all creatures except at holy places (ahiṃsan sarvabhūtānyanyatra tīrthebhyaḥ) reach the Brahma-world (brahmalokam abhisaṃpadyate, 8.15.¹).

c15.3

¹ *Die Lehre der Upanishaden und die Anfänge des Buddhismus*, p. 286

c15.4

¹ The text has 'saptamam' (the seventh) but this is a mistake as Keith has said (v. Rgveda Brāhmanas Translated, HOS, Vol 25, p 457, fn 3)

c15.5

² .. devalokam pitṛlokam jīvalokam . agnilokam .. vāyulokam . indralokam .. varunalokam mṛtyulokam . Brahmano lokam nākam saptamam lokānām ..

c15.6

(820) The reference made to Brāhmaṇical ideas in the Tevijja Sutta can easily be illustrated from Brāhmaṇic and Early Upaniṣadic passages. The Tevijja Sutta speaks of the brahmins of the three Vedas worshipping (āyacanti thomayanti pañjalikā, D. I.240) the sun and the moon at their rising (yato uggacchanti, *loc. cit.*) and setting (yattha ca ogacchati, *loc. cit.*) and of talking of the path leading to companionship of the moon and sun (candimasuriyānam sahavyatāya maggam, *loc. cit.*). It also speaks of their turning round in worship at the turn of the sun and the moon (pañjalikā namassamānā anuparivattanti, *loc. cit.*). In the Kauṣītaki Upaniṣad we are told that Kauṣītaki used to worship the rising sun (udyantam ādityamupatisṭhate, 2 7) and similarly the setting sun (astam yantam, *loc. cit.*). He turns himself with the turn of the sun (ādityasyāvṛtam anvāvarta, 2.8.9; cp. P. anuvattati) and likewise worships the moon (2.9). In the Tait. Br., Indra teaches Bhāradvāja a universal science (sarvavidyā) which is a new version of the three-fold knowledge (eṣa u eva trayī vidyā . . , 3.10.11.5), which makes it possible for him to become immortal and attain to the companionship of the sun: tam sa viditvā amṛto bhūtvā svargam lokam iyāya ādityasya sāyujyam amṛto ha eva bhūtvā svargam lokaṃ etyādityasya sāyujyam ya evam veda eṣa u eva trayī vidyā (*loc. cit.*). The ideal here is sāyujya (companionship) which is accurately conveyed by the Pāli sahavyata-, 'fellowship'. That the brahmins of the three Vedas pray to (avhayāma, D. I.244) Indra, Soma, Varuṇa, Īśvara, Prajāpati, Brahmā, Maharddhi and Yama, the Vedic gods and expect to be born in the highest heaven as a result (D. I 244) is again a common conception of the Brāhmaṇas. The Brāhmaṇic schools mentioned in the Tevijja Sutta (D. I.237) are the main early Brāhmaṇical schools as Wijesekera has shown.¹ The 'Bhavyārijjhā (*v.l.* Bahvarijā, *v.* Rhys Davids, SBB, II, p. 303) brāhmaṇā' are the earliest brahmins of the Ṛgvedic school, known as the Bahvṛcas, whose brāhmaṇa text Keith surmises was the single tradition from which the Aitareya and the Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇas were composed.² The ‘Chandogā brāhmaṇā’ are the Chandogas of the school of the Sāma Veda and whose brāhmaṇa text which included the Chāndogya Upaniṣad is mentioned in the Kātyāyana Śrauta Sūtra (xxii), the Parāśarasmṛti (1.38/39.4.28) and by Pāṇini (4.3.129). The ‘Addhariyā brāhmaṇa’ are the Adhvaryus, which, as Weber says, is the old name for the brahmins of the school of the Yajurveda.¹ The ‘Tittiriyā brāhmaṇā’ are the brahmins of the school of the Black Yajurveda, who had the Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa. There is apparently a significant omission of the school of the White Yajurveda to which the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad and the Śathapatha Brāhmaṇa, which contains this Upaniṣad, belongs. Wijesekera argues that this is because this Brāhmaṇa (and presumably this school) was of a later date than the Tevijja Sutta or was *too new to be designated by the masculine plural, which should be used to denote the teachings of the older Brāhmaṇas* (purāṇa-prokta- brāhmaṇa-) according to Pāṇini (4.3.101; 4.2.64). In our opinion, a simpler and a more probable explanation is that the school which was responsible for the Śathapatha Brāhmaṇa is denoted by ‘Addhariyā brāhmaṇā’. For as Weber has shown the Śathapatha Brāhmaṇa applies the term Adhvaryus to its own adherents whilst their opponents are called Carakādhvaryus who are the objects of censure.² So the brahmanical schools mentioned in the Tevijja Sutta are the earliest and main schools of the Vedas,³ viz.

c15.7

¹ 'A Pāli Reference to Brāhmaṇa-Caraṇa-s' in *Adyar Library Bulletin*, Vol 20, Parts 3-4, pp. 294-309.

c15.8

² HOS., Vol 25, p 22, cp. JRAS, 1915, pp. 493-8.

c15.9

¹ *The History of Indian Literature*, p. 86

c15.10

² *Ibid*, p 87, cp *Indische Studien*, III, p 454

c15.11

³ *i e* leaving out the ‘chandāvā’ a name of obscure significance Wijesekera identifies them (*op cit*, p 299) as candānā=Skr cāndrāyaṇāḥ mentioned in J. Brough, *The Early Brāhmaṇical System of Gotra and Pravara*, pp 82, 124

c15.12

| *School* | *Text* |
| Ṛgveda-bavhārijā brāhmaṇā (Bahvṛcas) | Bahvṛca Brāhmaṇa (lost) but incorporated in the Aitareya and Kauśītakī Brāhmaṇas |
| Sāmaveda-chandogā brāhmaṇā (Chandogas) | Chāndogya Brāhmaṇa |
| Yajurveda-tittiriyā brāhmaṇā (Taittirīyas) | Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa |
| Yajurveda-addhariyā brāhmaṇā (Adhvaryus) | Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa |

c15.13

(821) The above evidence, we believe, should suffice to show that the brāhmaṇical conceptions criticized in the Tevijja Sutta are not a fanciful creation of the Buddhists, but are the genuine Brāhmanical beliefs found in the main streams of the Vedic tradition. The conception of Brahmā (masc.) is not a hypostatized version of the Upaniṣadic Brahman (neuter) as Oldenberg surmised, but the personal conception of Brahmā which emerges at a certain stage in the evolution of the Brāhmaṇas and is found in the Early Upaniṣads. Inasmuch as the Vedas were derived from this Brahmā in the Brāhmanical and Upaniṣadic tradition, the Buddhist criticism that none of the earlier seers or their successors had seen Brahmā amounts to a denial of the very foundations of the Vedic tradition. It seems to deny that the Vedic tradition can claim to be a revelational tradition at all.

Cites (13)