Buddhists only: No Brahman Teaching in Buddhism

[Ablaze]

Is there any source for this 'most excellent' translation?AFAIK the term Brahma originally meant 'prayer' in earliest Sanskrit sources.I have never seen the term Brahma being used to refer excellence.

As mentioned above, the Buddha co-opted various Vedic and Upaniṣadic terms, giving them new life and new meanings in his own teachings.

It may be helpful if you read the translation comments for the Nikāyas provided by Bhikkhu Bodhi, or try the historical, contextualist analyses written by Sanskrit/Pāḷi scholar Richard Gombrich. Any number of authentic, traditional Buddhist sources will corroborate this.

So far, your perspective is biased by Vedic and Upaniṣadic sources. Through this lens, only confirmation bias is possible, not genuine inquiry.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

How many Absolutes can there possibly be?
The argument is largely based on Buddhist "Scripture"
Truth is found within. Buddha would probably be empathetic but largely upset that his teaching becomes reduced to useing the right words.

He did say
"Do not go by tradition" shakyamuni Buddha

Be unattached to concepts even the concept of no concepts.
When people give names to absoluteness, why not? Sure, but ots nameless.

a Buddha is not of the oppinion Buddhism is correct, just that it worked. If a Buddha had that oppinion they would not be supremely awakened. Surely an awakened one holds no bias.
Advaita and all that started long after Buddha(he never even heard advaita),
Buddha just didn't bother worshiping the Gods.

 

[Tyaga]

Then you should be aware that the term "Brahma" in this context is shifted to the adjectival form, meaning sublime, and does not refer to the noun Brahman (ब्रह्मन&#2381.

I thought Brahmavihara referred to companionship with Brahmas(demigods) in Brahmaloka(i.e abode of Brahmas).

Brahmavihara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tyaga]

As mentioned above, the Buddha co-opted various Vedic and Upaniṣadic terms, giving them new life and new meanings in his own teachings.

It may be helpful if you read the translation comments for the Nikāyas provided by Bhikkhu Bodhi, or try the historical, contextualist analyses written by Sanskrit/Pāḷi scholar Richard Gombrich. Any number of authentic, traditional Buddhist sources will corroborate this.

So far, your perspective is biased by Vedic and Upaniṣadic sources. Through this lens, only confirmation bias is possible, not genuine inquiry.

Thanks i will try reading more on this.Although i still can't get how the term 'Brahma' got different meaning in Pali compared to in Sanskrit where it simply meant 'prayer' and later transferred to the Absolute.

 

[crossfire]

I thought Brahmavihara referred to companionship with Brahmas(demigods) in Brahmaloka(i.e abode of Brahmas).

Brahmavihara - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope. They are the four immeasurables (metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha) found in the Kalama Sutta (as one example) and elsewhere in the suttas.

 

[Ablaze]

But the term nibbuto already occurs in the sentence so i think there is no reason to repeat it.

It seems like you missed the point. There is a distinction between brackets [] and parentheses () in translations.

I quote again:

"This is called an individual who neither torments himself nor is devoted to the practice of torturing himself, who neither torments others nor is devoted to the practice of torturing others. Neither tormenting himself nor tormenting others, he dwells in the here-&-now free of hunger, unbound(nibbuto), cooled, sensitive to happiness, with a Brahma-like mind(this translation is awkward)."

Apannaka Sutta: A Safe Bet

Anyway,i think the meaning of words will change by the way you interpret them....

This merely demonstrates what the Buddha taught about nibbāna, particularly that what is asaṅkhata (the unconditioned) is defined as rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo - the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, and the destruction of delusion - and is unbound from desire (taṇh&#257. This is extremely straightforward, and it follows that such a mind that is unconditioned (free from lust, hatred, and delusion) and unbound (free from desire) is sublime/most excellent/supreme - at rest. This does not refer to Nirguṇa Brahman or Saguṇa Brahman. It is not Paramātmā or any other type of Ātman. It is simply the cessation of suffering, which any informed reading of the Buddha's teachings will clearly demonstrate.

 

[Tyaga]

Nope. They are the four immeasurables (metta, karuna, mudita, and upekkha) found in the Kalama Sutta (as one example) and elsewhere in the suttas.

Yes,i'm aware of that.I think by practicing these four aspects,one could attain companionship with Brahmas....or does it lead to Nibbana?

 

[crossfire]

Yes,i'm aware of that.I think by practicing these four aspects,one could attain companionship with Brahmas....or does it lead to Nibbana?

These states are achieved by freeing your mind from greed, hatred, and delusion. You gain the four solaces by doing this.

See verses 16 & 17 of the Kalama Sutta here:

Kalama Sutta: The Instruction to the Kalamas

 

[Contemplative Cat]

So only negative words
Not self
voidness
Non existence

Shakyamuni said it would last about five hundred
years before dogma set in.
The rejection of any non Buddhist idea will just become a much more subtle and harder to get rid of mental obscuration.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In regards to the op. I don't see an issue regarding termonology used.

It's a dogmatic arguement and while could be valid in the sense of written aspects involving some schools of Buddhism, it's noteworthy that not all disciplines of Buddhism are writings and termonology based with few exceptions to the practicable applications of Buddhism.

Brahman is conducive to Hinduism and no one argues the point, yet in some regards it can be interchangeable and not entirely exclusionary on basis of context when used as colloquial terms in some discussions and arguements involving Buddhism.

 

[Tyaga]

This merely demonstrates what the Buddha taught about nibbāna, particularly that what is asaṅkhata (the unconditioned) is defined as rāgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo - the destruction of lust, the destruction of hatred, and the destruction of delusion - and is unbound from desire (taṇh&#257. This is extremely straightforward, and it follows that such a mind that is unconditioned (free from lust, hatred, and delusion) and unbound (free from desire) is sublime/most excellent/supreme - at rest. This does not refer to Nirguṇa Brahman or Saguṇa Brahman. It is not Paramātmā or any other type of Ātman. It is simply the cessation of suffering, which any informed reading of the Buddha's teachings will clearly demonstrate.

But there is no mention of mind(manas,citta etc) in this verse.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Makes sense, its just absoluteness. It seems funny when Buddhist put down the Tao and Brahman, because that means they also put down dharmakaya.
These stylized concepts are all rooted in the experience of nondistinction and voidness.
There is no wrong terminology just explainations of enlightenment.
I feel this could be a distraction from that bottom line. Enlightenment is the goal.

In regards to the op. I don't see an issue regarding termonology used.

It's a dogmatic arguement and while could be valid in the sense of written aspects involving some schools of Buddhism, it's noteworthy that not all disciplines of Buddhism are writings and termonology based with few exceptions to the practicable applications of Buddhism.

Brahman is conducive to Hinduism and no one argues the point, yet in some regards it can be interchangeable and not entirely exclusionary on basis of context when used as colloquial terms in some discussions and arguements involving Buddhism.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

This Minds bias toward universalism is also born out of attachment to formlessness. It should be noted that whenever someone find A way they think it is THE way.
Even thinking the way is no way, is still a dogma.

Philosophy and politics are losing battles

 

[Twilight Hue]

The Samyutta Nikaya points to Brahmayana, also Dhammayana in speaking of the Ariyan eightfold way (v, 5-6) wheras Buddha Dharma equates as Brahma. Referencing as divine as one becoming Brahman.

There is a differentiation among terms, Brahma and Brahman, and distinguishment between the Upanishadic version for which Brahman is rejected to that from Yogacara Buddhism for example. The desire for Brahman incidentaly leads to dukkha.

Basically the idea of an unchanging vs dynamic interpretations involving Brahman is the nexus of accepting or rejecting teachings along those lines. Imo.

 

[Ablaze]

Makes sense, its just absoluteness. It seems funny when Buddhist put down the Tao and Brahman, because that means they also put down dharmakaya.

Missed the mark entirely. :thud:

Dharmakaya is not Tao/Brahman.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Once again, the Buddha redefined terms he used. Tao is naturalness; brahman is unity with the divine; dharmakaya is emptiness. So tao and brahman are not dharmakaya.

 

[Contemplative Cat]

Then what is it.

Voidness is voidness whatever name you give it.
What is budha nature, busho. Shunya.

More names! You perpetuate that which you stand against.
So now the "B-word" is a bad word.

If people do not understand Brahman, why would they understand Dharma-Nature.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Brahman indicates atman; dharmakaya indicates anatta. You can't have both an ego-soul and not have an ego-soul. Brahman is one, dharmakaya is another.

 

[Sees]

Then what is it.

Voidness is voidness whatever name you give it.
What is budha nature, busho. Shunya.

More names! You perpetuate that which you stand against.
So now the "B-word" is a bad word.

If people do not understand Brahman, why would they understand Dharma-Nature.

It's emphasized that it's not that because the word/words carries concepts with it, however loose and mystical. Which comes to the exaggerated universalism rampant today - i.e. just meditate and know/experience all is One....which is not Buddha dharma

 

[Ablaze]

Brahman indicates atman; dharmakaya indicates anatta. You can't have both an ego-soul and not have an ego-soul. Brahman is one, dharmakaya is another.

:bow: