Just a Simple & Probably Irrelevant Curiosity

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #14714
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Hi all,

      – Page 139 of Pure Dhamma PDF book : “Maha Brahma”

      In traditional Hindu vedic spirituality there is Brahma the creator god as mentioned in the PDF, is one of the gods of the Trimurti ( Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva). And there is Brahman which is totally different. Brahman is the Supreme Source of everything (according the Vedas…) of the Multiverse (thus our galaxy but also beyond it), of the first gods and asuras, etc etc etc. It’s let’s say the Absolute, beyond being and non-being. In non-dual Shaivism it’s called the Paramasiva.
      Important : i’m not the doing the apology of nothing, it’s just a cultural curiosity.
      As much as i read Siddhartha the Gotama wasn’t very keen of the Vedas ?

      Thank you for your eventual attention and comments

      P.S. – Thus : Brahma = creation. Vishnu = temporary preservation. Shiva = dissolution………

    • #14717
      Johnny_Lim
      Participant

      If Brahma creates everything in this universe, I am most certainly unimpressed by his very sick sense of humour. Why? Because he created my greed, hatred, and delusion too! If Brahma really creates everything, isn’t it sick and ridiculous that he also creates suffering and imperfections, and also my post to ridicule him here in this forum?

      Base on what criteria did Brahma create beings who are inferior than us? Base on what criteria did Brahma create beings who are superior than us? Did he create himself? Why did he create imperfect beings like us? Did He enjoy imparting suffering onto us too? There is no answer to these questions. But there are some religions who might tell people that the Creator is putting us to THE TEST. And the ONLY way to end our suffering is to love and worship him unconditionally, then can we wash away our sins. How naive and simple-minded these people can be. These ignorant people mistaken the workings of Dhamma to be the works of a creator God, which is baseless. Let us not forget that even the Buddha had to respect the Dhamma.

      If by wishing and worshipping a creator god can help us end suffering, we would have attained liberation long ago. We have lived forever since beginning-less time, remember?

      • #14722
        Embodied
        Spectator

        The way you commented shows too much tanha/reactivity…why ? And your reading was pervaded by the same emotions: as I clearly stated Brahman it’s different from Brahma, the latter being a “mere” deva, the former “being” the Absolute.
        As far as i know it’s one of the rare subjects that the Buddha preferred not to answer to – which i perfectly understand…
        Personally i don’t fall into the trap of taking sides – i rather choose suspension of judgement. My practices are mainly based upon the Dhamma yet historically/ culturally speaking i find the subject interesting.

        Did you or any other sangha fellow here watch the movie Life of Pi ?

    • #14723
      Lal
      Keymaster

      @Embodied: As far as I understand, Brahman and Brahma (or more accurately Maha Brahma) are the same.

      Of course the Buddha has talked about them. This is the same Baka Brahma mentioned in the Brahmanimantanika Sutta; see # 12 in “Anidassana Viññāṇa – What It Really Means“.

      Those Brahmas (and ancient Hindu yogis) thought that life in the Brahma realm is forever. So, they consider getting to that Brahma realm via jhanas is the same as attaining Nirvana (Sanskrit word for Nibbana) or the “deathless state”.

      That is because they all do not have the capability to see past lives beyond the lifetime of that Brahma realm.

    • #14725
      Embodied
      Spectator

      Lal,

      You right as per Buddhist tradition. But seeing that this is the General Forum i said to myself why not post this subject. So in the same line of reasoning the following it’s also very interesting (to me…) :

      – “The old Upanishads mention both Brahma in the masculine gender deity “Brahmā”, as well as gender neutral “Brahman” as the impersonal world principle.[37]

      According to David Kalupahana, the Upanishads do not strictly distinguish between the two.[38] In contrast, Damien Keown and Charles Prebish state the texts do distinctly present both the male deity Brahma and the abstract Brahman, however, in the Upanishads, deity Brahma is only referred to a few times.[39] The Brahman as the eternal, absolute metaphysical reality – along with Atman (self, soul) – is the predominant and frequent teaching in the Upanishads and other Vedic literature of the Upanishadic period,[40][41] so much so that early Hinduism is also referred to as Brahmanism.[42] The Pāli scriptures, which were written centuries after the death of the Buddha, mention Brahma, but there is no unambiguous mention of the gender neuter Brahman concept.[39]

      The word Brahma is standardly used in Buddhist suttas to mean “best”, or “supreme”.[47][48] Brahman in the texts of Advaita Vedanta and many other Hindu schools, states Nakamura, is a concrete universal, manifesting itself as phenomenal reality which is not illusory and nondual.[49]

      In the earliest Upanishad, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Absolute, which came to be referred to as Brahman, is referred to as “the imperishable”.[50] The Pāli scriptures present a “pernicious view” that is set up as an absolute principle corresponding to Brahman: “O Bhikkhus! At that time Baka, the Brahmā, produced the following pernicious view: ‘It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existent. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere.” The principle expounded here corresponds to the concept of Brahman laid out in the Upanishads. According to this text the Buddha criticized this notion: “Truly the Baka Brahmā is covered with unwisdom.”[51]

      The Buddha confined himself to both ordinary empirical sense experience and extrasensory perception enabled by high degrees of mental concentration.[52][53] The Upanishadic scholars, according to Francis X Clooney and other scholars, assert their insights as a combination of intuitive empiricism, experimentalism, and inspired creative perception.”

      Please tell me if there is something not correct in the content above concerning the Buddhist side.

      Thanks

    • #14727
      y not
      Participant

      The distinction, and the most important point to consider, as I see, between the Upanishads, Vedanta (especially Advaita Vedanta)and Hindu thought in general and Buddha Dhamma is that only in the latter is found a way out of life’s sufferings.

      Indian thought is a mix of the purely devotional, Vaishanavism or Bhakti on the one side and the stricktly metaphysical, from the Kevaladvaita of Sankara to the Bhedabheda of Bhaskara and Yadava to the ‘cosmological and eternal priciples’ of the Upanishads, and most of these last make absolute sense and are irrefutable by reason if one goes into them. When I remarked about this some weeks ago, Lal replied that those Yogis and Gurus resposonsible for these teachings actually retrieved them from fragments of the Buddha Kassapa sasana – of course, with their own views and other additions to it throughout the time since.

      y not

      • #14729
        Embodied
        Spectator

        Y Not,

        “and Buddha Dhamma is that only in the latter is found a way out of life’s sufferings.” Which is terribly important, it’s of a vertiginous deepness.

        “those Yogis and Gurus resposonsible for these teachings actually retrieved them from fragments of the Buddha Kassapa sasana – of course, with their own views and other additions to it throughout the time since.” Quite probably,yes, i wouldn’t be surprised.

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.