Canon Commentary: Brahmajāla Sutta (DN 1)
Citation: Extracted from The All-embracing Net of Views:
The Brahmajala Sutta and its Commentaries, translated and introduced by Bhikkhu Bodhi. (BP209S), http://www.bps.lk/olib/mi/mi017-p.html
This is part of a series where I try to provide some sort of commentary on what I learn from the Pali Canon. As I read through, I will try to discern some wisdom from each of the suttas, and try to understand it as fully as I can. I may get some things wrong, and that’s okay because it’s all part of learning; as I learn more, I’ll update this commentary to reflect that.
The Brahmajāla Sutta is widely regarded as the ‘first’ sutta. It’s the first sutta within the first of the Nikayas, the Digha Nikaya. It’s very verbose, and covers a huge amount of principles, also holding the record of being perhaps one of the longest — at least the longest I’ve read to date. It’s written in such a way that instead of telling us what to think, it tells us what not to think. I suppose in some way, this is a good representation of the spectrum of Buddhist thought since we’re often advised to experience for ourselves, rather than take the word of a teaching as fact.
The basic premise of the Brahmajāla Sutta is that Brahmin Suppiya and his follower Brahmadatta are following The Buddha and his group of devotees on the road. Suppiya would insult and try to discredit The Buddha, but Brahmadatta would defend him. A group of monks, hearing this, began to speak amongst each other in support of The Buddha, and about the dissonance between the Brahmin and his supposedly loyal follower Brahmadatta. The Buddha then lectures the monks on the differing views of The Brahmin.
Precepts (Virtues) — Sīla
The Buddha first wants to address the response to the insults that the monks should give. He instructs them to not defend him with emotion, since that in itself creates an obstacle for their own enlightenment, but instead stick to what is truthful and factual. He lists the precepts by which he lives his life; and gives the monks their ammo to defend him factually and correctly. The precepts are split into short (cūḷasīla), middle-length (majjhimasīla) and long (mahāsīla).
This is an excellent and valuable part of the Brahmajāla Sutta, since it clearly defines the framework by which The Buddha lives his life. It’s effectively an instruction to the monks that they should live this way too, but it’s written in such a way that he ‘sells’ the benefits of living this way thereby putting the choice in the hands of the individual — a so-called passive instruction.
Many of these precepts are widely regarded by lay followers as virtues only for monks to follow, though most of them are somewhat common-sensical (don’t kill, lie, steal etc). There’s some cross-over with the Pañcasila, or Five Precepts, which are a big part of Buddhist teaching. The only one of the pañcasila that’s notably absent in the Brahmajāla Sutta is the abstinence from intoxicants. My conjecture here is that the precept to abstain from intoxicants must have been a later addition, since this sutta would otherwise present a perfect place to express such a virtue.
Some of the precepts are somewhat strict and most-likely incompatible with modern western society. For instance, abstinence from buying and selling, dancing, singing, instrumental music, and witnessing unsuitable shows, accepting gold and silver, accepting uncooked grain, raw meat… The strictness is somewhat forgiven by the fact that the section is worded in a way to present to the monks the path The Buddha is walking, rather than an instruction to walk that way themselves.
62 Wrong Views
This is the main section of the sutta, split into eighteen speculations about the past, and forty four speculations about the future. I’ll crudely package all the views into the next two paragraphs. It’s not going to be my intention here to analyse the different views, but rather I’m going to focus on what the declaration of these views in this way means — the bigger-picture if you will.
The Views
On the past, he speaks of eternalism (both of the self, and of the world), with reference to past lives, transference of self between lives, memories of the earth’s formation, experiential tranference, logical and rational inference of the nature of the world and the self, and any which variation within — including often times, the reverse of each believe. Also discussed in this fashion are semi-eternalistic beliefs, the universe, eel-wriggling (so-called ambiguous evasion) and fortuitous origination (the belief that the creation of the self and the world have no causal relationship).
On the future, he speaks of existence after death, with reference to form, capacity, consciousness and state, in three categories perception persistence, perception transience, and the (brace yourselves) perception of transient perception. Moving on from this, he discusses many variations of nihilistic beliefs (existence vanishes after death), again around form, capacity, consciousness and state, and amongst different realms (infinity of consciousness, nothingness, and perception nor non-perception). The final future views are focused around attainable mortal nirvana, based upon each of the senses, then one for each of the four jhana states.
What does it all mean?
The 62 wrong views are a very heady topic indeed; one I was forced to read slowly and considerately else I lose the train of knowledge. As I read it through, I felt almost disconnected from the text, I didn’t understand its point. The passages are sometimes contradictory, making great pains to cycle-around and collect up every individual viewpoint it could carry.
So I resolved to investigate it and understand what was being said, and perhaps more importantly, why this is a crucial thing for Buddhists to understand.
At the beginning of the section about the past and the section about the future you have this passage (showed in combination below):
“There are, bhikkhus, some recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the [past/future], who hold settled views about the [past/future], and who on [eighteen/forty-four] grounds assert various conceptual theorems referring to the [past/future]. And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?”
The important part is this line:
And owing to what, with reference to what, do these honorable recluses and brahmins frame their speculations?
What I take from this is that The Buddha isn’t declaring each of these views incorrect, he is instead disputing the actual act of taking the view in itself. He’s boldly declaring that there is no reason for us to be contemplating the past, nor contemplating the future in this way.
At the end of each of the types of views, he speaks some variation of the following statement. I’ve denoted below the non-repeated text, since each variation of this paragraph incorporates the aforementioned view within.
“Whatever recluses or brahmins maintain a doctrine of [neither percipient nor non-percipient immortality], all of them do so on these [eight] grounds or on a certain one of them. Outside of these there is none.
First of all, there’s this concept of ‘maintaining a doctrine’ and this seems to support my conjecture of the purpose of this part of the sutta. What’s particularly stark about this statement is that after declaring each of the variations, he declares ‘Outside of these [views] there is none’. To me, the message here is clear — by maintaining a doctrine, we close ourselves to alternative views that sit outside of our view. It’s a broad stroke way of showing us that there are lots of conflicting and subtly differentiating views around us, and we will encounter a problem by even maintaining a doctrinal view.
Remember, this is with reference not to ‘normal, every-day views’ such as “I prefer vanilla to chocolate ice-cream.” These are doctrinal views — views that influence us in many ways, and instruct us how to live our lives. He’s not condemning the views themselves, he’s condemning the taking of the view, because that closes us off to other sources of influence.
Condition and Emancipation
There is the implication that having the view itself (whatever that might be) can cause craving. Again, this doesn’t feel to me as if he is denying the views themselves, he is focused only on the taking of the view.
Therein, bhikkhus, when those recluses and brahmins [take a specific view] — that is only the feeling of those who do not know and do not see; that is only the agitation and vacillation of those who are immersed in craving.
Taking the view itself implies you are immersed in craving and agitation, since none of the views are focused on the here and now; they do not see the ‘truth’ of the world around them.
The Buddha then talks about contact, and how our lives are conditioned by it. Contact in this sense can be best described as the intersection between each of the five aggregates that make up the entirety of our human experience (consciousness, form, mental formations, perception and feeling). In short, it’s the impression on our senses.
When those recluses and brahmins who are speculators about the past, speculators about the future, speculators about the past and the future together, who hold settled views about the past and the future, assert on sixty-two grounds various conceptual theorems referring to the past and the future — that too is conditioned by contact. That they can experience that feeling without contact — such a case is impossible.
We cannot experience any of the views to test their validity — such a case is impossible. As a result, it seems that taking such a doctrinal view is not conducive to furthering our own state of mind or state of being.
…all these recluses and brahmins experience these feelings only by repeated contacts through the six bases of contact.
By maintaining the view, we repeat the feeling. This leads The Buddha onto a very early and perhaps rudimentary exploration of dependent origination. This is not something I’ll go into here, as I believe this deserves a topic by itself since it’s rather complex. The point of what he suggests though, is by maintaining a view, we create suffering.
I’ll end the analysis with this rather poignant exposition that The Buddha gives to his followers, as I believe it perfectly encapsulates the viewpoint:
Just as, bhikkhus, a skillful fisherman or a fisherman’s apprentice, after spreading a fine-meshed net over a small pool of water, might think: ‘Whatever sizeable creatures there are in this pool, all are trapped within this net, trapped and contained in this very net’ — in the same way, all those recluses and brahmins are trapped in this net with its sixty-two divisions. Whenever they emerge, they emerge caught within this net, trapped and contained within this very net.
Brahmajāla Sutta Conclusion
The Brahmajāla Sutta is a tough read — I give great respect to anyone who understood it as they read. It took me several attempts, and in-fact my inability to grasp it, became the foundations for this article.
Upon realising the intent of the Brahmajāla Sutta, I couldn’t help but think to myself that there’s has to be a more succinct way to express this message, after all, it’s well over 10,000 words at present. I’m not criticising the sutta, but rather putting myself in a position to further explore the intent of it as a stand-alone document.
This seems very much to me like the Brahmajāla Sutta is an instruction manual for a debate. It often was the case that the leading philosophical class of the time, the Brahmins along with the Ascetics, were set against new followers of The Buddha in debate. In fact, there are several suttas within the Digha Nikaya where various Brahmins visit The Buddha and have debates of this nature. The Brahmajāla Sutta seems to me, teaches the new followers of The Buddha how to argue the Buddhist point of view against these very learned philosophical leaders of the time. The repetition that surrounds each view gives each follower a well formed argument to use in a debate.
It’s almost an index, or directory, of all the collected views of Brahmins and Ascetics at the time, and introduces the Buddhist point of view to the table. This accounts for the verbosity and length of the discourse, and gives a new angle to how useful the lesson is.
None of this takes away from the wisdom we can gain in the 21st centry though, it just makes it a little harder to understand. One we’ve dug through the Brahmajāla sutta’s mire of different views, we begin to comprehend the deeper message The Buddha was giving. Do not hold a doctrinal view, else you inadvertently cause suffering.
