Buddhists only: No Brahman Teaching in Buddhism

[crossfire]

I'm starting this thread for Buddhists so we can explain that there is no such teaching of Brahman within Buddhism. Brahman is a teaching of Hinduism, yet there seems to be some confusion about this.

The purpose of this thread is to allow Buddhists to set matters straight regarding this confusion. Sutta contributions and other teachings are most welcome.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

As far as I can tell, there is no Brahman in Buddhism.

There are however Brahmas. Thousands of them. And they're all deluded in thinking they are the uncreated creator of all.

"There comes a time, monks, sooner or later after a long period, when this world contracts. At a time of contraction, beings are mostly reborn in the Abhassara Brahma world. And there they dwell, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious - and they stay like that for a very long time."

Wrong view number 5: "But the time comes, sooner or later after a long period, when this world begins to expand. In this expanding world an empty palace of Brahma appears. And then one being, from exhaustion of his life-span or of his merits, falls from the Abhassara world and arises in the empty Brahma-palace. And there he dwells, mind-made, feeding on delight, self-luminous, moving through the air, glorious - and he stays like that for a very long time."

"Then in this being who has been alone for so long there arises unrest, discontent and worry, and he thinks: ‘Oh, if only some other beings would come here!’ And other beings, from exhaustion of their life-span or of their merits, fall from the Abhassara world and arise in the Brahma palace as companions for this being. And there they dwell, mind-made, … and they stay like that for a very long time."

"And then, monks, that being who first arose there thinks: "I am Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. These beings were created by me. How so? Because I first had this thought: ‘Oh, if only some other beings would come here!’ That was my wish, and then these beings came into this existence!" But those beings who arose subsequently think: "This, friends, is Brahma, Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, the All-Powerful, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, Ruler, Appointer and Orderer, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. How so? We have seen that he was here first, and that we arose after him."

Patika Sutta - Wikipitaka - The Completing Tipitaka

 

[crossfire]

As far as I can tell, there is no Brahman in Buddhism.

There are however Brahmas. Thousands of them. And they're all deluded in thinking they are the uncreated creator of all.


Patika Sutta - Wikipitaka - The Completing Tipitaka

Yep. :yes: The Great Brahma was so deluded that he thought he was the creator of all.

 

[Tyaga]

I'm not a Buddhist.But i have came across many passages from Theravada suttas which speaks about Brahman and several times Brahman is equated with Dhamma.

"dhammakàyo itipi, brahmakàyo itipi, dhammabhuto itipi, brahmabhuto itipi "

27. Aggaa sutta - Pali

" so anattantapo aparantapo diṭṭheva dhamme nicchāto nibbuto sītībhūto sukhapaṭisaṃvedi1 brahmabhūtena attanā viharati."

51. Kandaka - Pali


Many other suttas also contain the term Bahmabhuta('Brahman become')which is attested in Bhagavad Gita as well.

In this sutta,the term Brahmachakka is used as synonym of Dhammachakka

12. Maha Sihanada Sutta - Pali

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Thank you for being so kind as to translate...

 

[Tyaga]

Thank you for being so kind as to translate...

Referring to me?

If then,the term Brahmabhutena attana vihariti roughly translates as follows

Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism - Joaquín Pérez-Remón - Google Books

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Referring to me?

If then,the term Brahmabhutena attana vihariti roughly translates as follows

Self and Non-Self in Early Buddhism - Joaquín Pérez-Remón - Google Books

A page which isn't able to be read. Also helpful.

 

[Tyaga]

A page which isn't able to be read. Also helpful.

-.-


āgo ca doso ca avijjā ca virājitā: taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ āhu sabbappahāyina"nti.

It_utf8

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,
Brahma-become,
awakened, Tathagata,
one for whom fear & hostility
are past,
one who's abandoned
the All.

Itivuttaka: The Group of Threes

 

[Gjallarhorn]

-.-


āgo ca doso ca avijjā ca virājitā: taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ āhu sabbappahāyina"nti.

It_utf8

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,
Brahma-become,
awakened, Tathagata,
one for whom fear & hostility
are past,
one who's abandoned
the All.

Itivuttaka: The Group of Threes

Thank you.

And seeing as the only other reference of "Brahma" is this:

"The human state, monks, is the devas' reckoning of going to a good destination. Having become a human being, acquiring conviction in the Dhamma-&-Vinaya taught by the Tathagata: this is the devas' reckoning of the gain that is good to gain. When that conviction is settled within one — rooted, established, & strong, not to be destroyed by any brahman or contemplative; deva, Mara, or Brahma; or anyone else in the world: this is the devas' reckoning of becoming well-established."

What can we assume about the meaning behind the word in this context? Is it a god? A perspective?

And why would a Buddha, being one with Brahma, try to destroy its own teaching?

 

[Tyaga]

Thank you.

You're welcome

"The human state, monks, is the devas' reckoning of going to a good destination. Having become a human being, acquiring conviction in the Dhamma-&-Vinaya taught by the Tathagata: this is the devas' reckoning of the gain that is good to gain. When that conviction is settled within one — rooted, established, & strong, not to be destroyed by any brahman or contemplative; deva, Mara, or Brahma; or anyone else in the world: this is the devas' reckoning of becoming well-established."

What can we assume about the meaning behind the word in this context? Is it a god? A perspective?

And why would a Buddha, being one with Brahma, try to destroy its own teaching?

I would say that just like in Hinduism,Buddhism too have various meaning to the term 'Brahma'.When mentioned along with Devas and other demigods ,we can say that Brahma is referring to a sort of demigod who is trapped in Samsara.But when Buddha himself is said to become Brahma,we can say that it refers to the Vedantic Brahman.Clearly,even the Maha-Brahma(Great Brahma) is inferior to the Buddha as seen in one of the suttas,so why would the Buddha claim to become a mere Brahma who is inferior to Maha-Brahma?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

You're welcome




I would say that just like in Hinduism,Buddhism too have various meaning to the term 'Brahma'.When mentioned along with Devas and other demigods ,we can say that Brahma is referring to a sort of demigod who is trapped in Samsara.But when Buddha himself is said to become Brahma,we can say that it refers to the Vedantic Brahman.Clearly,even the Maha-Brahma(Great Brahma) is inferior to the Buddha as seen in one of the suttas,so why would the Buddha claim to become a mere Brahma who is inferior to Maha-Brahma?

It strikes me as an example of Upaya. To describe an experience that is similar to nirvana, Gautama used something that was commonly known to connect to his audience. It would explain why the word is just an epithet and not part of a treatise.

 

[Tyaga]

It strikes me as an example of Upaya. To describe an experience that is similar to nirvana, Gautama used something that was commonly known to connect to his audience. It would explain why the word is just an epithet and not part of a treatise.

Possibly yes,but keep in mind that Nirvana/Moksha is already attested in Upanishads and would have been a well known concept during the time Siddhartha and Mahavira lived.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

What about Tao(this mind has a membership to the local Buddhist temple)
Or Dharmakaya

 

[crossfire]

-.-


āgo ca doso ca avijjā ca virājitā: taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ āhu sabbappahāyina"nti.

It_utf8

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance
are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,
Brahma-become,
awakened, Tathagata,
one for whom fear & hostility
are past,
one who's abandoned
the All.

Itivuttaka: The Group of Threes

I found the full text and a translation of Itivuttaka 68:

3. 2. 9.
(Paṭhamarāgasutta&#7747

68. Vuttaṃ hetaṃ bhagavatā. Vuttamarahatā'ti me sutaṃ:

1. Yassa kassaci bhikkhave rāgo appahīno. Doṣo appahino moho appahīno, ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave baddho3 mārassa, pamukkassa mārapāso, yathākāmakaraṇīyo ca pāpimato.

1. Suci sīmu. 2. Muni sīmu. 3. Bandho sīmu.

[BJT Page 396] [\x 396/]

Yassa kassaci bhikkhave rāgo pahīno doso pahīno moho pahīno, ayaṃ vuccatibhikkhave abaddho1 mārassa, omukkassa mārapāso. Na yathākāmakaraṇīyo pāpimato'ti.

Etamatthaṃ bhagavā avoca. Tatthetaṃ iti vuccati.

2. "Yassa [PTS Page 057] [\q 57/] rāgo ca doso ca avijjā ca virājitā: taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ āhu sabbappahāyina"nti.

Ayampi attho vatto bhagavatā. Iti me suta'nti.

§ 68. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Anyone
whose passion is unabandoned, whose aversion is unabandoned, whose
delusion is unabandoned is said to have gone over to Mara's camp, has come
under Mara's power. The Evil One can do with that person as he likes. But
anyone whose passion is abandoned, whose aversion is abandoned, whose
delusion is abandoned is said not to have gone over to Mara's camp, has thrown
off Mara's power. With that person, the Evil One cannot do as he likes."

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance

are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,

Brahma-become,

awakened, Tathagata,

one for whom fear & hostility
are past,

one who's abandoned
the All.

Full text of "Itivuttaka"

Scroll down to Sutta 68 at above link​

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Or any multitude of names given to the nameless.
Buddhist are known to be smart & it doesn't look good assuming Brahman and Brahma are the same. Ones a deity, ones a Monad/ concept of an absolute.

For sure there are stronger arguments against Brahman.
For example if people get caught up on names they may believe their concept of reality is the actual reality. When the truth is actually Wordless.
People just tripping over words for something wordless.

 

[Tyaga]

I found the full text and a translation of Itivuttaka 68:

3. 2. 9.
(Paṭhamarāgasutta&#7747

68. Vuttaṃ hetaṃ bhagavatā. Vuttamarahatā'ti me sutaṃ:

1. Yassa kassaci bhikkhave rāgo appahīno. Doṣo appahino moho appahīno, ayaṃ vuccati bhikkhave baddho3 mārassa, pamukkassa mārapāso, yathākāmakaraṇīyo ca pāpimato.

1. Suci sīmu. 2. Muni sīmu. 3. Bandho sīmu.

[BJT Page 396] [\x 396/]

Yassa kassaci bhikkhave rāgo pahīno doso pahīno moho pahīno, ayaṃ vuccatibhikkhave abaddho1 mārassa, omukkassa mārapāso. Na yathākāmakaraṇīyo pāpimato'ti.

Etamatthaṃ bhagavā avoca. Tatthetaṃ iti vuccati.

2. "Yassa [PTS Page 057] [\q 57/] rāgo ca doso ca avijjā ca virājitā: taṃ bhāvitattaññataraṃ brahmabhūtaṃ tathāgataṃ
Buddhaṃ verabhayātītaṃ āhu sabbappahāyina"nti.

Ayampi attho vatto bhagavatā. Iti me suta'nti.

§ 68. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Anyone
whose passion is unabandoned, whose aversion is unabandoned, whose
delusion is unabandoned is said to have gone over to Mara's camp, has come
under Mara's power. The Evil One can do with that person as he likes. But
anyone whose passion is abandoned, whose aversion is abandoned, whose
delusion is abandoned is said not to have gone over to Mara's camp, has thrown
off Mara's power. With that person, the Evil One cannot do as he likes."

One whose passion, aversion, & ignorance

are washed away,
is said to be
composed in mind,

Brahma-become,

awakened, Tathagata,

one for whom fear & hostility
are past,

one who's abandoned
the All.

Full text of "Itivuttaka"

Scroll down to Sutta 68 at above link​

Doesn't Mara symbolize death?AFAIK Buddha got enlightened after conquering Mara i.e after conquering the death,thus attaining the deathless state free from Samsara.So here,becoming Brahma could be synonymous with attaining deathless state,conquering Mara and attaining Nirvana.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

I figured Mara was the thoughts that agitate practice

 

[crossfire]

Doesn't Mara symbolize death?AFAIK Buddha got enlightened after conquering Mara i.e after conquering the death,thus attaining the deathless state free from Samsara.

Mara is usually delusion, etc., which seems to be the case in this sutta. Sometime Mara can be a symbol of death, but apparently not in this sutta.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Doesn't Mara symbolize death?AFAIK Buddha got enlightened after conquering Mara i.e after conquering the death,thus attaining the deathless state free from Samsara.So here,becoming Brahma could be synonymous with attaining deathless state,conquering Mara and attaining Nirvana.

Mara doesn't symbolize death anymore than birth. Mara is an anthropomorphic view on samsara. Nirvana is both death-less and (re)birth-less.

 

[Tyaga]

Mara is usually delusion, etc., which seems to be the case in this sutta. Sometime Mara can be a symbol of death, but apparently not in this sutta.

Yeah,he tried to seduce Buddha during his meditation.

I guess it is similar case like Advaitic Maya....