[Shemker394]

Hi All,
I've been having a little look at this sutta and I'd like to get everyone's opinion on it.
Basically two Brahmins ask Buddha about the correct path to union with Brahma.
Buddha asks:
is there then a single one of these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas who has seen Brahma face to face? My initial thought here was that Buddha was guilty of anthropomorphism - by attributing a human trait to this state of "union". It would only make sense if the two chaps understood "union" as dualistically standing reverentially in the Brahma Realm before their god. Not union in a monist sense in any case.

Okay, for the purposes of this sutta, they went along with Buddha's line of thought and replied that none had seen Brahma face to face.

After this, Buddha asks whether any Brahmin has ever seen Brahma face to face, to which the reply is also no.

Then Buddha proceeds to deliver rebuke after rebuke, eg:
So what these Brahmins learned in the Three Vedas are saying is : “We teach this path to union with Brahma that we do not know or see One may then conclude that Brahma is being dismissed as a theist fancy but it's not quite the case, as Buddha then goes on to explain that he knows the path to Brahma.
For, Vasettha, I know Brahma and the world of Brahma, and the way to the world of Brahma, and the path of practice whereby the world of Brahma may be gained So is the problem with the manner of practice, rather than the concept of Brahma per se?
It would appear so, as Buddha instructs them on the correct manner:
“Then, with his heart filled with loving-kindness, he dwells suffusing one quarter, the second, the third, the fourth. Thus he dwells suffusing the whole world, upwards, downwards, across, everywhere, always with a heart filled with loving-kindness, abundant, unbounded 6 without hate or ill-will...

Just as if a mighty trumpeter were with little difficulty to make a proclamation to the four quarters, so by this meditation, Vasettha, by this liberation of the heart through cornpassion, …through sympathetic joy, … through equanimity, he leaves nothing untouched, nothing unaffected in the sensuous sphere. This, Vasettha, is the way to union with Brahma. I can see that Buddha was perhaps taking a gradualist approach here, addressing the query of the two Brahmins in order to lead them to higher teachings but...
The notes state that the 'Divine Abidings' (Brahmavihara) predate Buddhism, so isn't a bit disingenuous and propaganda-like to present a scenario where nobody had ever attained these abidings?

Also, am I correct in assuming that this is the basis for the practice of metta? As it stands here, that practice by itself is not one which is presented as resulting in liberation. Would that be a fair conclusion?

Namaste
Kris

Link:
http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=13