[Sniliabiz]

Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's review of this argument: In an extended discussion of the Tevijja Sutta (DN No. 13) he contrasts the Buddha's description of the four divine abodes (brahma-vihāra) as the "path to union with Brahmā" with the Upanishadic dictum that the way to attain brahman is through knowledge of the true self. This, he says, once again illustrates the distinction between the ethical standpoint of Buddhism and the ontological orientation of brahminism. So far, so good. But Gombrich then goes on to argue that for the Buddha "union with Brahmā" is simply a metaphor for Nibbāna, and thus he concludes "the Buddha taught that kindness ... was a way to salvation" (p. 62). Such an inference, however, cannot stand, for in many texts the Buddha declares the divine abodes to be inadequate for attaining Nibbāna (e.g. DN 17, MN 83, MN 97, etc.); it would also mean that paññā, insight or wisdom, is not needed for final liberation. Gombrich is not unaware of the texts that contradict his position, but he casually dismisses them as the work of "the compilers of other suttas" (p. 61). The contrary evidence, however, is just too weighty to allow such an easy way out. I'm not sure adding to Sutta citations is going to help here, as both sides seem to have some support. Nevertheless, I note that within SN 46.*, in the Suttas towards the end, the seven factors of enlightenment are connected to each of the brahmaviharas as well as anapanasati. This tells me that both the brahamaviharas as well as anapanasati are able to be used for the elimination of the hindrances and the development of the factors, which also means that brahmavihara practice is capable of supporting panna.