“Bodhisattva Gaia” and “Vairocana Sun”

[Zhen Li]

I wasn't referring to the distinction between an avatāra and a nirmāṇa. Both are docetic in nature. I was referring the obvious adherence by Buddhists to standard forms of Indian mythopeia, the use of common tropes, which indeed can include avatāric themes, such as Rudra Cakravartin's aka Kalki, defeat of the mlecchas in the final battle to restore world peace from mleccha domination, after the latter attack Shambhala; or the taming of Mahādeva by Śrī Heruka in the Cakrasaṃvara literature or the taming of Rudra found in the lower tantras, etc., in which these beings initiated an age of chaos and inequity, requiring Vajradhara to step in and intervene, etc.

So, still Team Indra.

Well, yes. But tantric overlaps are a different level. For instance, in the sense I was talking about, plain Indra in Buddhism and Hinduism are just the same deities and Buddhists and Hindus would accept that. They are not just one-off tropes or themes, but are central to the Buddhist worldview. Tantric uses of Hindu narrative themes, like you mention, appear to be more targeted strategies. Buddhists simply lifted Hindu materials wholesale in some cases, and the opposite also occurred.

Its true that the Bonpos work in some Iranian themes into their quasi-Buddhist mythopeia, and that the Chinese and Japanese work in native cultural themes into their mythopeia, and there is indeed some reason to think that the Iranian "paradise", that is the walled garden, may have some influence on the conception and depiction of Sukhavati. Nevertheless, Indian mythopeia is so strong a current wherever Buddhism spread from India that it completely dominates the local myths, which only survive through being appropriated, like domestic animals.

Paradisical garden descriptions, like those in the Sukhāvatī sūtras, are so ubiquitous in Buddhist texts and are even found in Pāli materials like the Apadāna. The longer Sukhāvatīvyūha just takes it to another level. The same can be said for themes of light and fire. The arguments that Persian influences gave rise to these ignore that paradises and light are major parts of almost all world mythology. So, I think that Sukhāvatī clearly is Indian in thematic content goes to support your argument—since it of course captured the imaginations of those in other cultures.

Textually, it's hard to see any major influence from local deities on texts. But some early Chinese translations are so thoroughly Daoist that it sometimes comes across as distortion (I am thinking of some of the Ratnakuta translations). However, in terms of practice, local deities find their way into rituals everywhere. In Japan, although the Indian deities are present in statue form at temples, with few exceptions they are rarely worshipped. Rather, it is the local kami who are worshipped. A temple by my house has some mountain gods and they are invoked daily by the Zen monks.

So, if there was Persian influence on Buddhism, I would suggest it would have been something like that. In Afghanistan, there are so many remnants of Zoroastrian temples right next to Buddhist vihāras. It's conceivable that monks worshipped at the Zoroastrian temple as well.

Buddhism really wasn't interested in refuting or upsetting brāhmaṇas in India because it needed to show that it fits within the local logical of power construction. The state utilises religion as its ideological state apparatus (Althuser's term), and thus religion needs to show how it legitimates the local monarch by fitting within the logic of that region's power structure. In time, the principles of the ideology come to influence and take over the state and we end up seeing, for instance, Chinese cities laid out like maṇḍalas.

[Caoimhghín]

Buddhism really wasn't interested in refuting or upsetting brāhmaṇas in India because it needed to show that it fits within the local logical of power construction.

Well, at one point, Buddhism was highly involved in contesting Brahmin authority. The Buddha in numerous places says that his disciples are the true Brahmins born of Brahma, not those who are Brahmin by birth. Also, the refuge formula is in the gāyatrī metre associated with the Brahmins, not the tṛṣṭubh associated with the Kṣatriyas.

बु द्धं श र णं ग च्छा मि
त त्स वि तु र्व रे णि यं
bu ddhaṁ śa ra ṇaṁ ga cchā mi
ta tsa vi tu rva re ṇ(i) yaṃ

The Buddhist refuge formula is three lines and twenty-four syllables, not four lines and forty-four syllables. See the Gṛhyasūtras, ŚāGS 2.5, PāGS 2.3. This is another way that Buddhism challenges Brahmin exclusivity and authority. He also identifies the Sāvakabuddhas under him as "the body of Brahma, Brahma-become" (brahmakāya brahmabhūta, I think in the Aggaññasutta).

So for every way Buddhism sought to establish that it "fits within the local logical of power construction," it also upset that power construction. IMO.

[Varis]

Well, at one point, Buddhism was highly involved in contesting Brahmin authority. The Buddha in numerous places says that his disciples are the true Brahmins born of Brahma, not those who are Brahmin by birth. Also, the refuge formula is in the gāyatrī metre associated with the Brahmins, not the tṛṣṭubh associated with the Kṣatriyas.

बु द्धं श र णं ग च्छा मि
त त्स वि तु र्व रे णि यं
bu ddhaṁ śa ra ṇaṁ ga cchā mi
ta tsa vi tu rva re ṇ(i) yaṃ

The Buddhist refuge formula is three lines and twenty-four syllables, not four lines and forty-four syllables. See the Gṛhyasūtras, ŚāGS 2.5, PāGS 2.3. This is another way that Buddhism challenges Brahmin exclusivity and authority. He also identifies the Sāvakabuddhas under him as "the body of Brahma, Brahma-become" (brahmakāya brahmabhūta, I think in the Aggaññasutta).

So for every way Buddhism sought to establish that it "fits within the local logical of power construction," it also upset that power construction. IMO.

It was discussed recently over in the TB section how it's unlikely the Buddha said those things as he wasn't raised in a Brahmanical culture and wouldn't have been familiar with them. If anything it says more about who wrote down and compiled these oral teachings long after the parinirvana of the Buddha, which is to say, they were obviously Brahmins.

[Caoimhghín]

He is familiar enough to quiz a Brahmin on that very gāyatrī metre in the Pāli Canon. It's an interesting section. I'll be able to quote it in a bit.

Of course, it can always be later elaboration.

[Varis]

He is familiar enough to quiz a Brahmin on that very gāyatrī metre in the Pāli Canon. It's an interesting section. I'll be able to quote it in a bit.

From a historical POV the Pali Canon was written long after the Parinirvana of Buddha and is unlikely to be an completely accurate account of what he said. The Sakyas were mlecchas outside of varnasrama, the Buddha wouldn't have known much about the intricacies of Vedic culture nor allowed to studied it.

Of course, this is in contrast to the Buddhist tradition which posits him as being a Kshatriya knowledgable of the Vedas. Which again, says more about those who penned these texts than it does about the Buddha himself.

[Zhen Li]

He is familiar enough to quiz a Brahmin on that very gāyatrī metre in the Pāli Canon. It's an interesting section. I'll be able to quote it in a bit.

From a historical POV the Pali Canon was written long after the Parinirvana of Buddha and is unlikely to be an completely accurate account of what he said. The Sakyas were mlecchas outside of varnasrama, the Buddha wouldn't have known much about the intricacies of Vedic culture nor allowed to studied it.

Of course, this is in contrast to the Buddhist tradition which posits him as being a Kshatriya knowledgable of the Vedas. Which again, says more about those who penned these texts than it does about the Buddha himself.

Assuming Śākya denotes descent from the Śaka, the Śakas were mleccha (though Manusmṛti denotes them as lowly/mixed kṣatrīyas) but the Śākyas were not necessarily so—as Vedic culture settled, it was the practice to give land to brahmins in the countryside in order to win it over. It's also worth noting, as Pollock points out, that even the Śakas (of the Northwest, not of the Śākyas) had adopted Sanskrit and Indian culture, but never accepted brāhmaṇas. This might explain why they seem to have a mixed or ambivalent status in Manusmṛti. But, I think we should be careful about using the norms of orthodox brāhmaṇism to interpret history. That being said, I think it is definitely possible that the Śākyas assimilated—but there is some evidence that they were viewed as otherwise in the Āgama-Nikāyas. But your overall point is clear—the purpose is really to make Buddhism seem appealing and to be a suitable alternative that can compete alongside the basis of elite culture.

Well, at one point, Buddhism was highly involved in contesting Brahmin authority. The Buddha in numerous places says that his disciples are the true Brahmins born of Brahma, not those who are Brahmin by birth. Also, the refuge formula is in the gāyatrī metre associated with the Brahmins, not the tṛṣṭubh associated with the Kṣatriyas.

Contesting is essentially what I mean. But in order to join that contest, they needed to have the same basic grammar and assumptions. If they try to oppose brāhmaṇas by looking like lowly upstarts, they're not going to win over any elites. That also means having those elites, including largely brāhmaṇas, convert. Five of the ten principal disciples were brāhmaṇas (by birth), actually making it the largest contingent. We conceive of the "brāhmaṇas authority" as meaning Vedic brāhmaṇa authority, but actually, the point is to challenge the definition and boundaries of what that means. Use the same basic terms but shift the goalposts. It is not that the Buddha was anti-brāhmaṇa (which would be detrimental in every way), but pro-brāhmaṇa. Only by accepting the assumptions and basic principals of the dominant system can you then shift it from within.

[Caoimhghín]

He is familiar enough to quiz a Brahmin on that very gāyatrī metre in the Pāli Canon. It's an interesting section. I'll be able to quote it in a bit.

From a historical POV the Pali Canon was written long after the Parinirvana of Buddha and is unlikely to be an completely accurate account of what he said.

We could say the same of any Buddhist sūtra from any Buddhist tradition. That aside, the Pāli Canon is particularly old and particularly well-preserved. I don't think it can be ignored without very good grounding, and "too Brahmin-seeming" isn't good enough ground for me personally to ignore it. "Not Mahāyāna" is a better reason for me to ignore sections of it that are anomalous when compared with other recensions of the buddhavacana.

The Selasutta at MN 92 is very interesting, regardless if we consider it to be an inauthentic interpolated passage:

Aggihuttamukhā yaññā,
sāvittī chandaso mukhaṁ;
Rājā mukhaṁ manussānaṁ,
nadīnaṁ sāgaro mukhaṁ.
Nakkhattānaṁ mukhaṁ cando,
ādicco tapataṁ mukhaṁ;
Puññaṁ ākaṅkhamānānaṁ,
saṅgho ve yajataṁ mukhanti.
The foremost of sacrifices is offering to the sacred flame;
the Gāyatrī Mantra is the foremost of poetic meters;
of humans, the king is the foremost;
the ocean’s the foremost of rivers;
the foremost of stars is the moon;
the sun is the foremost of lights;
for those who sacrifice seeking merit,
the Saṅgha is the foremost.
(Ven Sujāto translation)

The fire-oblation is the foremost of sacrifices;
The Sāvitrī is the foremost of poetic styles;
A king is the foremost of humans;
The ocean is the foremost of rivers.
The moon is the foremost of heavenly bodies;
The sun the foremost of fires;
But for those wishing to do good,
An offering to the Saṅgha is foremost.
(Laurence Khantipalo Mills/Ven Sujāto translation)

"Burnt offerings are the glory of fires,
Savitri the glory of Vedic hymns,
Glory of human beings, a king,
Glory of flowing rivers, the sea;
The moon is the glory of the stars,
The sun is the glory of all that shine;
Merit is the glory of all who aspire;
The Sangha, glory of those who give"
(Ven Bodhi translation)

So, as we can see, it is still contesting Brahmin authority and the general Brahmin self-narrative, specifically by declaring an offering to the saṁgha as superior to an offering to the Brahmins. This passage also has direct parallels in the Pāli vinaya and in the Saṁyuttanikāya. The prose section is even more interesting than the verse section.

[Caoimhghín]

It is not that the Buddha was anti-brāhmaṇa (which would be detrimental in every way), but pro-brāhmaṇa. Only by accepting the assumptions and basic principals of the dominant system can you then shift it from within.

I actually think that he was anti-brāhmaṇa, in the sense that he contested and denied narratives fundamental to the Brahmin self-conception, such as that they are Brahmins by birth and not by deed, and that those who are Brahmin by deed are not Brahmins. I think his anti-brāhmaṇa stance was also shared by the cultural sphere he immediately grew up in. I don't think he was a rabid anti-Brahmin demonstrator or anything like that. I think that he calmly and clearly challenged the Brahmin religious narrative with such skill that he won over Brahmin converts. I think he did this through both denying Brahmin self-narratives and also by re-defining "Brahmin" entirely as a word. The Aggaññasutta in the Pāli Canon for instance, among other things, is an account of the gradual degeneration of the Brahmins from forest dhyānins to townie reciters who've lost their dhyānas. It begins with the Buddha essentially telling his audience "Do you want to know the real story of the origin of the Brahmins?" It even has a folk etymology for "reciter" that means "one who lost his dhyānas."

With regard to "Brahmins by birth" versus "Brahmins by deed," "by birth" and "by deed" are two different things that the Buddha compares with regard to this, but you'll need to give me a bit to give you an actual citation. There is also the dialogue between the Buddha and the two Brahmins where he asks "Have you seen Brahma?" and they answer "No." and he says "How are you sure that Brahma even exists?" He is denying that their heavenly father birthed them, as earlier in that sutra, the Brahmins explain that all Brahmins are born from the mouth of Brahma. Give me a bit for the quote.

[Zhen Li]

It is not that the Buddha was anti-brāhmaṇa (which would be detrimental in every way), but pro-brāhmaṇa. Only by accepting the assumptions and basic principals of the dominant system can you then shift it from within.

I actually think that he was anti-brāhmaṇa, in the sense that he contested and denied narratives fundamental to the Brahmin self-conception, such as that they are Brahmins by birth and not by deed, and that those who are Brahmin by deed are not Brahmins. I think his anti-brāhmaṇa stance was also shared by the cultural sphere he immediately grew up in. I don't think he was a rabid anti-Brahmin demonstrator or anything like that. I think that he calmly and clearly challenged the Brahmin religious narrative with such skill that he won over Brahmin converts. I think he did this through both denying Brahmin self-narratives and also by re-defining "Brahmin" entirely as a word. The Aggaññasutta in the Pāli Canon for instance, among other things, is an account of the gradual degeneration of the Brahmins from forest dhyānins to townie reciters who've lost their dhyānas. It begins with the Buddha essentially telling his audience "Do you want to know the real story of the origin of the Brahmins?" It even has a folk etymology for "reciter" that means "one who lost his dhyānas."

With regard to "Brahmins by birth" versus "Brahmins by deed," "by birth" and "by deed" are two different things that the Buddha compares with regard to this, but you'll need to give me a bit to give you an actual citation. There is also the dialogue between the Buddha and the two Brahmins where he asks "Have you seen Brahma?" and they answer "No." and he says "How are you sure that Brahma even exists?" He is denying that their heavenly father birthed them, as earlier in that sutra, the Brahmins explain that all Brahmins are born from the mouth of Brahma. Give me a bit for the quote.

Thank you. I agree with your descriptions. I also recall what you are referring to but do not know the specific source.

The only matter I differ on is the matter of being "anti-brāhmaṇa." What he does dispute is the idea that humans are descended from brahmā. If I recall correctly, the brāhmaṇas come to agree with him. By redefining brāhmaṇa as someone with noble conduct, they are able to maintain their status which would otherwise be baseless.

While appealing to pride in this way is a skilful means, I think most brāhmaṇas who joined the saṅgha (and there were a lot) were doing so out of a sincere thirst for truth and due to their karmic roots. Many of them were practising tapasvins and could clearly see the superiority of the Buddha's approach in practice. What convinced later brāhmaṇas to join Buddhists? It seems to usually be being convinced by reading or hearing the Dharma. Debate is another matter to consider.

[Varis]

We could say the same of any Buddhist sūtra from any Buddhist tradition. That aside, the Pāli Canon is particularly old and particularly well-preserved. I don't think it can be ignored without very good grounding, and "too Brahmin-seeming" isn't good enough ground for me personally to ignore it. "Not Mahāyāna" is a better reason for me to ignore sections of it that are anomalous when compared with other recensions of the buddhavacana.

It's not just that it's "too Brahmin-seeming", there are points in the Pali Suttas where the Buddha demonstrates knowledge about things only a Brahmin could know. As a foremost example of this, how did the Buddha know the Gāyatrī mantra in Gāyatrī meter? Even if we accept the notion that the Buddha was a Kṣatriya he would have received a particular Gāyatrī mantra in Triṣṭubh meter. Only Brahmins received the Gāyatrī mantra that is in Gāyatrī meter, and Brahmins traditionally recited it quietly in order to prevent people from hearing what they were saying as it was regarded as esoteric knowledge.

[Varis]

The only matter I differ on is the matter of being "anti-brāhmaṇa." What he does dispute is the idea that humans are descended from brahmā. If I recall correctly, the brāhmaṇas come to agree with him. By redefining brāhmaṇa as someone with noble conduct, they are able to maintain their status which would otherwise be baseless.

The notion that someone could become a Brahmin through their conduct was already present in the Vedas. The Ṛṣi of Gāyatrī, Viśvāmitra, was born a Kṣatriya and became a Brahmarṣi through tapas.

The Buddhas comments in the Suttas on Brahmins don't appear to me to be a shifting of the goalposts or redefinition of what it means to be a Brahmin, as much as a "look at how far you've fallen from your own teachings" message.

[Anders]

An interesting article on early Buddhist attitudes towards brahmanism.
https://www.academia.edu/34226012/When_ ... -read-more

[Caoimhghín]

We could say the same of any Buddhist sūtra from any Buddhist tradition. That aside, the Pāli Canon is particularly old and particularly well-preserved. I don't think it can be ignored without very good grounding, and "too Brahmin-seeming" isn't good enough ground for me personally to ignore it. "Not Mahāyāna" is a better reason for me to ignore sections of it that are anomalous when compared with other recensions of the buddhavacana.

It's not just that it's "too Brahmin-seeming", there are points in the Pali Suttas where the Buddha demonstrates knowledge about things only a Brahmin could know. As a foremost example of this, how did the Buddha know the Gāyatrī mantra in Gāyatrī meter?

On what grounds do you say and/or imply that it is impossible for the Buddha to have known about the gāyatrī metre? All he, or anyone else in his community, have to do is see a fire oblation, which were not necessarily secret in the Buddhas time, just as they are not necessarily secret today. You point out that the knowledge of the content of the mantras as well as how you practice them were secret, but we are talking about 1) the mention of a metre, and 2) the mention of the Pali version of the name "Savitur" in conjunction with said metre. This is certainly dealing with Brahmin-specific terminology, practice, etc., but it's not like the Buddha suddenly got up and performed a flawless Agnihotra for the Brahmin and then proceeded to explain to him the symbolism of every gesture. The Buddha recites it all in standard ślokas either way, presuming we're to believe that the Buddha truly summarized things that he said in prose in verse afterwards (which would not be out of the question for ancient societies). He also had several Brahmin disciples that he presumably had conversations with. Even if no specific person ever taught him the Savitur mantra in the gāyatrī metre, he is the Buddha. He has access to this information. If he can see the asaṃjñasattvas, he can similarly see the Brahmins engaged in their secrets.

As for, "The notion that someone could become a Brahmin through their conduct was already present in the Vedas," it is quite possible this is true. In the Buddhist texts, the Buddha presents it as such that during his time it was believed that you needed to be born a Brahmin. Several Brahmins in the early Buddhist texts also voice this sentiment. Maybe some particular way of interpreting the story of Viśvāmitra becoming a Brahmin wasn't in vogue amongst the Brahmins near where the Buddha lived. I certainly wouldn't know.

[Varis]

On what grounds do you say and/or imply that it is impossible for the Buddha to have known about the gāyatrī metre?

I didn't. If you read my post again I stated that it was [historically] impossible for the Buddha to know the Gāyatrī mantra that comes in Gāyatrī meter. There were three main forms of Gāyatrī mantra, one in Gāyatrī meter given to Brahmins, another in Triṣṭubh meter given to Kṣatriyas, and a final in Jagati meter for Vaiśyas. I never stated it was impossible for him to know Gāyatrī meter. Assuming he really was a Kṣatriya as tradition claims, as a child he would have received a completely different Gāyatrī than the one he references in Sundarikabharadvaja Sutta.

All he, or anyone else in his community, have to do is see a fire oblation, which were not necessarily secret in the Buddhas time, just as they are not necessarily secret today.

They were exclusive. Traditionally only twice-born were allowed to witness a Yajña. Furthermore, only twice-born were allowed to even hear the Vedas under threat of some quite gruesome punishments. Sadhus renounce their caste so technically not twice-born.

You point out that the knowledge of the content of the mantras as well as how you practice them were secret, but we are talking about 1) the mention of a metre, and 2) the mention of the Pali version of the name "Savitur" in conjunction with said metre.

I'm specifically speaking of this passage in the Sundarikabharadvaja Sutta, the one I assumed you referenced in your very first post about the Buddha speaking to a Brahmin:

If you say you brahmin are, but call me none,
then of you I ask the chant of Sāvitrī,
consisting of three lines
in four and twenty syllables.

Even if no specific person ever taught him the Savitur mantra in the gāyatrī metre, he is the Buddha. He has access to this information. If he can see the asaṃjñasattvas, he can similarly see the Brahmins engaged in their secrets.

Yes this is true, but I'm speaking of what is historically provable.

As for, "The notion that someone could become a Brahmin through their conduct was already present in the Vedas," it is quite possible this is true. In the Buddhist texts, the Buddha presents it as such that during his time it was believed that you needed to be born a Brahmin. Several Brahmins in the early Buddhist texts also voice this sentiment. Maybe some particular way of interpreting the story of Viśvāmitra becoming a Brahmin wasn't in vogue amongst the Brahmins near where the Buddha lived. I certainly wouldn't know.

Yes, at some point caste became fixed by birth and people stopped following what it says in the Vedas. In the above passage I mentioned that's the point that the Buddha is getting at. A Brahmin comes to the Buddha asking what the Buddhas caste is because his Brahmins friends make fun of him for hanging out with non-Brahmin followers of the Buddha. The Buddha then proceeds to point out the absurdity of the situation because this so-called Brahmin doesn't even know the Gāyatrī mantra, which means he either didn't receive it, or never recites it, in either case it makes him a Śūdra according to the Vedas.

[Caoimhghín]

On what grounds do you say and/or imply that it is impossible for the Buddha to have known about the gāyatrī metre?

I didn't. If you read my post again I stated that it was [historically] impossible for the Buddha to know the Gāyatrī mantra that comes in Gāyatrī meter. There were three main forms of Gāyatrī mantra, one in Gāyatrī meter given to Brahmins, another in Triṣṭubh meter given to Kṣatriyas, and a final in Jagati meter for Vaiśyas. I never stated it was impossible for him to know Gāyatrī meter. Assuming he really was a Kṣatriya as tradition claims, as a child he would have received a completely different Gāyatrī than the one he references in Sundarikabharadvaja Sutta.

I was speaking earlier about the Majjhimanikāya mention of the "Sāvittī" in the Selasutta. As you point out, in the Suttanipāta, it is more specific: "sāvittiṁ [...] tipadaṁ catuvīsatakkharaṁ," specifying three lines and 24 syllables. This was one of the areas, along with the Vinaya mention, that I hadn't reviewed specifically yet.

It certainly contextualizes your response to clarify that you are speaking about what is "historically" possible/plausible, but I still disagree that it is not historically possible/plausible that the Buddha hadn't acquired (at least some) knowledge of the practice of the Vedic religion during his time and didn't know that the Brahmins recite the Savitur mantra in Gāyatrī metre. As I mentioned before, he has several Brahmin students. Also, not yet brought up, there are the Buddha's former teachers, of which we have various lists, but the most famous two in those lists are Āḷārakālāma and Uddakarāmaputta. I've often heard it claimed that Āḷārakālāma was a Brahmin, but when I look for confirmation, I don't actually see this proven anywhere or actually stated in materials that deal with him.

Regardless, earlier, I alluded to the Buddha's miraculous vision by which he sees the heavens, etc., but we don't actually need to resort to such a thing to explain how the Buddha could have known the Savitur in 3 lines and 24 syllables. That trivium, however secret, is easily attainable within the realm of normal human knowledge when compared to the attainability of knowledges like that of, say, the spheres of immaterial attainment, of the asaṃjñasattvas, of the buddhafields, knowledge of the aggregation and dissolution of the world-systems, etc. Whether he learned it from a teacher of his while a bodhisattva in his final birth during the practicing of his austerities, whether he learned it from a disciple convert, whether he learned it as general cultural knowledge at some undisclosed time during his life, whether he was taught it as a youth in the palace because someone knew of the attribution of the 32 marks to him, or whether he learned it via miraculous gnosis, I don't think it is outside of the realm of possibility that the Buddha, historically speaking, was actually familiar with the Savitur in 3 lines 24 syllables, as well as other elements of Brahmin practice contemporary to him, and I also think that the sūtras and parallels of those sūtras wherein the Buddha discloses such information may not be ahistorical.

I suppose it's a matter of what we think is likely versus unlikely.

[Zhen Li]

The only matter I differ on is the matter of being "anti-brāhmaṇa." What he does dispute is the idea that humans are descended from brahmā. If I recall correctly, the brāhmaṇas come to agree with him. By redefining brāhmaṇa as someone with noble conduct, they are able to maintain their status which would otherwise be baseless.

The notion that someone could become a Brahmin through their conduct was already present in the Vedas. The Ṛṣi of Gāyatrī, Viśvāmitra, was born a Kṣatriya and became a Brahmarṣi through tapas.

The Buddhas comments in the Suttas on Brahmins don't appear to me to be a shifting of the goalposts or redefinition of what it means to be a Brahmin, as much as a "look at how far you've fallen from your own teachings" message.

Good point.

[Zhen Li]

An interesting article on early Buddhist attitudes towards brahmanism.
https://www.academia.edu/34226012/When_ ... -read-more

I haven't read this but it would make sense alongside Walser's other arguments on the Mahāyāna. It also examines the question of "canon," which I found to be one of the weaknesses in his latest book. We assume the Buddha must have had a firm and distinctive attitude towards all existing sects—but that is not necessarily the best way to win over people.

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. Isn't this how we all (even subconsciously) create our canons? It's what we draw on and reach for when thinking about the Dharma. I think, for instance, of the place the formerly insignificant Kalamasutta has in contemporary Buddhist circles, and how formerly central sutras, like the Tathāgataguhya, are almost unknown now.

His point in Genealogies of the Mahāyāna seems a bit different, which is that rather than overlooking passages that don't work with their worldview, they interpret what exists in the context of it. Taking śunyatā and anātman to their limits, they can become something akin to brahman. I'm not sure if he addresses this in that article, but he also made the point that there are no texts where the Buddha refutes brahman in the way he does ātman. I suppose the idea with "genealogies" is not to look for origin points (although ironically he ended up doing that), but rather to look for intellectual lineages and influences.

Also on this question of what is and isn't potentially historically the Buddha's words or not. This is also canon-building in a different way. This is using the standards of contemporary science and history to create a canon—but that's not how it was done traditionally. Find what speaks to you and what works. What you know to be true directly (I, for instance, have no doubt in Amitābha). Disputing over unknowable particulars is really fruitless, but a past time if nothing more. If we can't practice or accept anything until we know with absolute certainty that someone historical spoke it at a certain place and time, we will never get anywhere. That's why faith is necessary—it's the willingness to begin practicing without knowing whether the practice is true. Without faith we would never gain anything, but would be stuck in one place forever, like a dog chained to a pole and running in a circle.

[Malcolm]

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.

[Caoimhghín]

There is also the dialogue between the Buddha and the two Brahmins where he asks "Have you seen Brahma?" and they answer "No." and he says "How are you sure that Brahma even exists?" He is denying that their heavenly father birthed them, as earlier in that sutra, the Brahmins explain that all Brahmins are born from the mouth of Brahma. Give me a bit for the quote.

I only remembered it vaguely. Here is a snippet of the actual dialogue, not my half-remembered version. The entire section is rather interesting outside of this quoted bit as well IMO.

‘But yet, Vāseṭṭha, is there a single one of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas who has ever seen Brahmā face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama.’
‘Or is there then, Vāseṭṭha, a single one of the teachers of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas who has seen Brahmā face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
‘Or is there then, Vāseṭṭha, a single one of the teachers of the teachers of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas who has seen Brahmā face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
‘Or is there then, Vāseṭṭha, a single one of the Brahmans up to the seventh generation who has seen Brahmā face to face?’
‘No, indeed, Gotama!’
‘Well then, Vāseṭṭha, those ancient Rishis of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas, the authors of the verses, the utterers of the verses, whose ancient form of words so chanted, uttered, or composed, the Brahmans of to-day chant over again or repeat; intoning or reciting exactly as has been intoned or recited—to wit, Aṭṭhaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamataggi, Aṅgirasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāsettha, Kassapa, and Bhagu—did even they speak thus, saying: “We know it, we have seen it, where Brahmā is, whence Brahmā is, whither Brahmā is?”’
‘Not so, Gotama!’
‘Then you say, Vāseṭṭha, that none of the Brahmans, or of their teachers, or of their pupils, even up to the seventh generation, has ever seen Brahmā face to face. And that even the Rishis of old, the authors and utterers of the verses, of the ancient form of words which the Brahmans of to-day so carefully intone and recite precisely as they have been handed down—even they did not pretend to know or to have seen where or whence or whither Brahmā is. So that the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas have forsooth said thus: “What we know not, what we have not seen, to a state of union with that we can show the way, and can say: ‘This is the straight path, this is the direct way which makes for salvation, and leads him, who acts according to it, into a state of union with Brahmā!’”
‘Now what think you, Vāseṭṭha? Does it not follow, this being so, that the talk of the Brahmans, versed though they be in the Three Vedas, turns out to be foolish talk?’
‘In sooth, Gotama, that being so, it follows that the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas is foolish talk!’
‘Verily, Vāseṭṭha. that Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas should be able to show the way to a state of union with that which they do not know, neither have seen—such a condition of things can in no wise be!
‘Just, Vāseṭṭha, as when a string of blind men are clinging one to the other, neither can the foremost see, nor can the middle one see, nor can the hindmost see—just even so, methinks, Vāseṭṭha, is the talk of the Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas but blind talk: the first sees not, the middle one sees not, nor can the latest see. The talk then of these Brahmans versed in the Three Vedas turns out to be ridiculous mere words, a vain and empty thing!’

(Tevijjasutta DN 13, Rhys Davids translation)

Speaking of MN 92, the Selasutta, and mentions of the Savitur mantra in the Pāli Canon, the Sarvāstivādin sūtra that corresponds to the Theravādin Selasutta is very striking, and there is a translation from Bingenheimer for it hosted at SuttaCentral. I'll be quoting from it till the end of this post. A lot of the elaboration from the Theravādin version, as well as specific dialogue and interchange between the Buddha, Sela, and Keṇiya, is completely absent. The "setup" is similar, but the context is completely different. The context is only the same inasmuch as it involves an interchange between the Buddha and a Brahmin. The Theravādin version has the conversion of a group of Brahmins. The Sarvāstivādin interestingly walks a line between being a sectarian text and being an expressly non-sectarian text. What I mean to say by that is that there are sections of SA-2 52, translated as "Non-Buddhist teachers" by Bingenheimer (it's from 別譯雜阿含經 @ T100.390b27), that can be construed as portraying Brahminism in a more positive light, and at least one section where it could be construed as calling it "heretical" in some way.

In this version, the narrator establishes that there are 96 sects of wanderers with associated devotees holding views. These include but are not limited to:

“One should first make offerings to our teacher the wanderer!” [...] “First one should make offerings to our teacher the wandering ascetic!” [...] “First give our teacher Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta a big offering, after that give to the others!” [...] “One should make offerings to our teacher the fire-worshiper!” [...] “One should first make offerings to our teacher the elder follower of the Vedas!” [...] “Make offerings to our teacher the renowned follower of the Vedas!”

Interestingly, at the end of this list of views, a Buddhist donor is also listed, saying "One should first make offerings to our teacher the Tathāgata and the community of monks!" Interesting, that.

Indra (Śakra) then voices that there has been a proliferation of heretical views, and that "Holding heretical views, while the Buddha and the Saṅgha exist in the world, is unwholesome." He disguises himself as a Brahmin and asks the Buddha, "One makes offerings today in order to obtain good results in future lives. From which field of merit does one reap great fruits with only a small offering?" The Buddha then responds, "Always[,] for the sake of sentient beings[,] preaching the Dhamma, showing the way: this is called the Saṅgha field of merit[,] vast without end."

(I'm cutting out quite a bit here, btw, to get to the relevant section.)

The people of Rājagṛha, Brahmins included, are so impressed with the elocution of the Buddha, that they assemble a great offering for the Buddha and the Saṁgha. This is the part the two versions have in-common. Just this donation of mixed attendance. The Sarvāstivādin version of the gāthā that mentions the Savitur mantra goes:

“Among Brahmanical texts, /
those on the fire-sacrifice are the best.
Among texts of non-Buddhists, /
the Sāvitrī is the best.

Among people of the world, /
the king is the highest leader.
Among the hundred streams and many rivers, /
the great ocean is deemed the best.

Among stars, stellar houses, and constellations, /
moonlight is deemed the best.
Among lights, /
sunlight is the best.

Above, below, and in the four directions, /
in the realms of gods and human beings,
Among the host of noble ones /
the Buddha is the most worthy of veneration.”

The end is dedicated to the Buddha, as opposed to the Saṁgha, and it is not overtly about donation anymore, despite appearing in a textual context arguably to-do with donation/offering. The specification of "texts" (經) in the Chinese translation is also interesting. Instead of converting, the people of Rājagṛha (presumably including the Brahmins also assembled?) simply receive teachings and do not go forth into ordination in the Buddha's Saṁgha.

[Caoimhghín]

The specification of "texts" (經) in the Chinese translation is also interesting.

So "texts" is not just 經, but rather "經書," which is considerably more "textual" in tone than just "sūtra" (經). I didn't notice 書 beside it in my initial quick perusal. There are various other terms used in the translation that are very writing-specific as well.