“Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Forum for discussion of East Asian Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
bodhiye
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:43 pm

Re: “Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Post by bodhiye »

I want to say a few words. I think there is some mixing up.

The Veda was esoteric and it's still esoteric. It is not taught to those who aren't born in the three Varnas. Learning the Vedas orally is different from reading printed Vedic texts, or listening to an audio recording of Veda mantras (yes, the Vedas are in public domain now but technically they are as esoteric as they were some 3000 years ago). I could buy a book on the Kalachakra tantra in the market or read the tantra translation online but that doesn't at all mean that I 'know' the Kalachakra tantra. 'Knowing the Vedas' means - to learn it orally from a Vedic teacher. It was taboo to write down the Vedic texts. Veda is called as Sruti and it is learned by hearing (can't really 'know' it from referring to printed matter). (I recall that the Vedas were written down much, much later than other scriptures). Even today, students of the Vedas learn it by listening to their teacher's chanting, repeating it, memorizing the mantras and studying the meaning; traditional teachers do not permit students to keep printed texts before them while learning.

In the Vedas, there are many mantras (like the Savitri mantra, the Purusha Sukta, etc.). The Savitri mantras in various meters are esoteric for the outsiders but they are not esoteric for initiated people of the three varnas. As far as I know, the Vedas are the same for Brahmins and Kshatriyas. Both learn the same corpus of mantras but the difference is in how each varna uses these Vedic mantras. The Savitri mantra, which we are talking about, is chanted repeatedly in daily sandhya (twilight/junction time) rituals. While Brahmins chant the Savitri mantra in the Gayatri meter, the Kshatriyas are supposed to chant the Savitri in the Tristubh meter in their sandhya rituals. However, this doesn't mean that Kshatriyas would not know the Gayatri-Savitri mantra of the Brahmins, they too learn it as a part of the complete Vedic curriculum but only use the version meant for them. Any Kshatriya who studies the Veda would know the Savitri in Gayatri meter, the Savitri in the Tristubh meter, the Savitri in the Jagati meter (along with thousands of other mantras and suktas if he completes Vedic studies) but at the end of the day, he uses the Savitri version meant for his varna. In the same way, any Vedic Brahmin would learn the Kshatriyas' Tristubh Savitri mantra too yet he would only utilize the Gayatri meant for his varna in his sandhya rituals(performed thrice daily).

(I have a hunch that the Buddha possibly knew the Savitri's variants and that the Vedic Brahmins viewed the Savitri in the Gayatri meter as the foremost mantra in that set.)
User avatar
Zhen Li
Posts: 2748
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Location: Tokyo
Contact:

Re: “Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Post by Zhen Li »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:04 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:53 pm I may change my opinion after reading it, but it seems like he is suggesting here that brāhmaṇas simply passed over passages that didn't work for them, and that's their canon.
he actually makes a more interesting proposal, that brahmins were more interested in dhyānas, while non-brahmins were more interested in insight.
I read through it just this morning. It was very interesting.

My take is that it is not that non-brāhmaṇas were more interested in insight, but that brāhmaṇas were simply not taught about anātman (he suggests, for instance, that Mahākāśyapa is never depicted as having been taught the doctrine) and that their "canon" consisted of sūtras that would be entirely amenable to their existing worldview. The goal, in the end, is to get people awakened, and if they're going to be repulsed upon their first meeting with the Buddha, the teaching strategy is flawed.

I appreciate the effort that Caomhghín has gone into in this thread to elaborate his thoughts with thorough examples from the āgama-nikāyas. If he is still firm on the idea of the Buddha being anti-brāhmaṇa, I think that it may benefit to go through Walser's article and have him share his thoughts. I am not claiming that he is "pro-brāhmaṇa," but simply that the opposition/rebellion narrative doesn't ring true.

That there are two versions of SA(2)52 that have either a positive or negative opinion of brāhmaṇas lends credence to the idea that there were discourses geared towards/memorised by brāhmaṇas, and those that were not.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: “Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Post by Malcolm »

Zhen Li wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 5:03 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:04 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:53 pm I may change my opinion after reading it, but it seems like he is suggesting here that brāhmaṇas simply passed over passages that didn't work for them, and that's their canon.
he actually makes a more interesting proposal, that brahmins were more interested in dhyānas, while non-brahmins were more interested in insight.
I read through it just this morning. It was very interesting.

My take is that it is not that non-brāhmaṇas were more interested in insight, but that brāhmaṇas were simply not taught about anātman (he suggests, for instance, that Mahākāśyapa is never depicted as having been taught the doctrine) and that their "canon" consisted of sūtras that would be entirely amenable to their existing worldview. The goal, in the end, is to get people awakened, and if they're going to be repulsed upon their first meeting with the Buddha, the teaching strategy is flawed.
And there is a third option, which we find the PP sūtras, that is, absence of self/emptiness was (and remains) an advanced teaching, and was not simply promiscuously proclaimed as it is today.
Anders
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: “Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Post by Anders »

Malcolm wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 3:30 pm
Zhen Li wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 5:03 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:04 pm

he actually makes a more interesting proposal, that brahmins were more interested in dhyānas, while non-brahmins were more interested in insight.
I read through it just this morning. It was very interesting.

My take is that it is not that non-brāhmaṇas were more interested in insight, but that brāhmaṇas were simply not taught about anātman (he suggests, for instance, that Mahākāśyapa is never depicted as having been taught the doctrine) and that their "canon" consisted of sūtras that would be entirely amenable to their existing worldview. The goal, in the end, is to get people awakened, and if they're going to be repulsed upon their first meeting with the Buddha, the teaching strategy is flawed.
And there is a third option, which we find the PP sūtras, that is, absence of self/emptiness was (and remains) an advanced teaching, and was not simply promiscuously proclaimed as it is today.
That was my thought as well. It surprised me that the author never covered this angle.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra
User avatar
Caoimhghín
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:35 pm
Location: Whitby, Ontario

Re: “Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Post by Caoimhghín »

Zhen Li wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 5:03 amIf he is still firm on the idea of the Buddha being anti-brāhmaṇa, I think that it may benefit to go through Walser's article and have him share his thoughts. I am not claiming that he is "pro-brāhmaṇa," but simply that the opposition/rebellion narrative doesn't ring true.
Well, my "anti-Brahmin" take on the Buddha is one of what I would call a "soft opposition." The challenges are there. The not-very-flattering descriptions of and speech concerning the Brahmins is also there, but I will note that it seems mostly limited to the Pali Canon. The Buddha almost never has a discourse criticizing the Brahmins in a Mahayana sutra, or at least I can't think of an instance off the top of my head. Despite 5+ years of engagement with the agamas, I am still largely unfamiliar with them as a complete body of literature. There are multiple parallels to MN 92, the anomalous one in SA-2 52, and some presumably-more-normal ones in regular old SA that I've not looked at yet at all.

I'll check DA in a bit to see if the Dharmaguptakas also share this seemingly anti-Brahmin material, as a lot of the anti-Brahmin material in the Pali Canon is clustered in the DN literature.

I don't think the Buddha couldn't stand the Brahmins, which I tried to communicate with the hyperbolic "I don't think he was a rabid anti-Brahmin demonstrator or anything like that." But I do think that there is a hefty amount of primary textual material to reckon with if you are going to have theses like Walser's. That being said, it will take me a while to find time to read these two Walser texts.
Then, the monks uttered this gāthā:

These bodies are like foam.
Them being frail, who can rejoice in them?
The Buddha attained the vajra-body.
Still, it becomes inconstant and ruined.
The many Buddhas are vajra-entities.
All are also subject to inconstancy.
Quickly ended, like melting snow --
how could things be different?

The Buddha passed into parinirvāṇa afterward.
(T1.27b10 Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra DĀ 2)
User avatar
Taikor.Taikun
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:40 am

Re: “Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

Post by Taikor.Taikun »

Zhen Li wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:32 am Right, it's definitely a misunderstanding for people to conflate Vairocana with the sun
Vairocana in sanskrit means solar, son of the Sun...etc. In Buddhism, he i called the Sun Buddha or the Great Illuminator. Hence, Mahavoirocana is 大日如来 (the Great Sun Buddha) in Chinese Japanese, Vietnamese... in east asian Buddhism
Post Reply

Return to “East Asian Buddhism”