Brahman in Early Buddhism? - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**medprof** · 08-23-2011, 01:16 AM

Was just reading up on whether or not the notion of Brahman (the impersonal Absolute) was addressed by the Buddha in the Pali Canon, and found the following on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

Brahman in Early Buddhism

It has been asserted by current secular Buddhism, that Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous _expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.”

As "Brahma-vihara" means to dwell in Brahman, "Brahma-patha" are the four paths towards achieving it.[19]

The highest appellation in Buddhist Nikayan sutra is “Brahambhutena attano” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman”; absolutely equivalent to ‘Tat tvam asi’ (That/Brahman, thou art). For the Buddha himself is = Brahmabhu’to (Become That, Brahman). For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60].

[DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." (this passage also proves [from earlier context] that Brahma (god/s) is utterly different than the word Brahman).

[DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.”

[DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!”

[3.646 Pat-Att.] “To have become Brahman [is the meaning of] Brahmabhuto.”

[Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).”

[It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.”

[SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.”

[SN 5.5] “The Arya Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).”

[MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.”

[SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman."

[Majjhima ii, 199] "These alone could conduce to the attainment of the Brahma-sahavyata or the attainment of the world of Brahman."

In the text Lalitavistara (a Northern Buddhistic text), it is written that the Buddha prayed to Parabrahma.[20]

In the Surangama Sutra it reads[21]: Adoration to the heavenly Devas and Rishis,-accomplished
and disciplined executors of this Dharani-
Adoration to Brahman, to Indra, to the Blessed Rudra,
and to their consorts, Indrani and Sahai.
Adoration to Narayana, Lord of this world, Lord of the
five great Mudras, and to his consort.

It is said in the that the Tathagata is not merely an incorporation of Dhamma but also of the Brahman, he has become not only the Dhamma, but also the Brahman.[22]

"In another passage we read that the 'vehicle that leads to the brahman' (brahmayana) i.e. to Nirvana has its origin in ourselves (attani sambuutam):"[23]

A Brahma-kshetra is a name for a Buddhist monastery.[24]

The Buddha is also called Brahma-patta (skt. Brahma Prapta.[25]).

Buddha talked of "Brahmavihara" as the stage of enlightenment.[26]

The Buddha was also called in texts as "Brahmaprapta" or Individual who has become One with Brahman.[27]

In Modern Day

A Lama who converses with Notovitch explains to him the doctrine of divine incarnation from a Buddhist point of view:

The great Buddha, Soul of the Universe, is the incarnation of Brahma. He remains almost always in passivity, preserving within himself all things from the beginning of time, and his breath vivifies the world. Having abandoned man to his own resources, he yet at certain epochs comes forth from his inertia taking upon himself a human form to save his creatures from irremediable ruin...< 16>[3]

Alternative Analysis

it is explicitly stated in Buddhist sutras that the worship of an Ishvara (an ancient South Asian term for a creator god, most likely not referring to the Abrahamic God who may not have been known in South Asia during the Buddha's lifetime, but given the context meaning either Shiva, Kali or Brahma [28]) is unnecessary to the attainment of Nirvana, as the Buddha believed worshippers are still trapped in an endless cycle of rebirth (Samsara). Buddhists DO NOT worship Brahma (a Hindu deity) or "Deva" (an ancient South Indian term for a deity, today meaning either a Hindi translation of the English "God"/ Latin "Deus" concept [although Christian Indians tend to use the term "Parameshvara" or "Supreme Creator God" for the Christian God the Father] or a synonym for the ancient South Asian concept of Brahman). In Buddhism, the historical Buddha, the celestial and predecessor Buddhas, and the Buddhas to Be's (Bodhisattvas) fulfill the devotional needs of believers, while an emphasis is placed on the lack of Creation and Judgement abilities of these Salvation/Teaching deities. Much of this, particularly the quotes attributed to the Buddha of the Nikayas, explicitly contradicts my understanding of the Buddha's words. Does anyone know what to make of it?

**Buildityrit** · 08-23-2011, 04:06 AM

Hi Zero,

The above Wikipedia link says that the information in the quote is part of a series on Hindu philosophy. As its not from a Buddhist source, there will probably be differences in interpretation.

At the Theravada website 'Access to Insight', for the meaning of Brahman in the Pali Glossary, it states:

"brahman (from Pali brāhmāṇa):The brahman (brahmin) caste of India has long maintained that its members, by their birth, are worthy of the highest respect.

Buddhism borrowed the term brahman to apply to those who have attained the goal, to show that respect is earned not by birth, race, or caste, but by spiritual attainment.

Used in the Buddhist sense, this term is synonymous with arahant."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html I also couldn't make any sense of the Nikaya references in the quote. For example the one below from the quote I looked up in the Samyutta Nikaya suttas at 'Access to Insight ':

[SN 5.5] “The Arya Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” .....and there was nothing like that in SN 5.5

.

**Jambjanatan** · 08-23-2011, 11:50 AM

Well explained Aloka-D!

There is great confusion about the issue of Brahman and Brahma also in Nepal. That may even be the reason that there a many temples in Kathmandu where both...the Buddha and Brahma or even Vishnu along with Buddha are worshiped by both...Hindu and Buddhists alike... since centuries and still up to today.

Hindu Priests and even Government officials (who for 99% are Hindu here...the ruling class) strongly believe that the in Nepal born Buddha was just an avatar of Brahma and therefore a Hindu deity. Buddhists in Nepal strongly oppose this view but with little impact. This leads to confusion by foreign visitors who seek eastern wisdom or are duly interested in Buddhism.

**Misiotoagodia** · 08-25-2011, 08:08 AM

Anyone know if the concept of Brahman (as the "Ultimate Reality") was even around during the time of the Buddha? He certainly seems to have addressed Brahma (as a deity), but what about the pantheistic/panentheistic "Source", the underlying substratum, that Brahman seems to be?

**Aozenee** · 08-25-2011, 11:12 AM

hi Zero

Brahma is described as follows. Does this help?

But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be.

DN 11

**AlexanderDrew** · 08-25-2011, 10:50 PM

hi Zero

Brahma is described as follows. Does this help?

That's certainly a reference to Brahma the deity, but what I'm looking for is mention (refutation) of the notion of Brahman, All is the Divine (non-personified). As far as I'm aware, there is no Source (capital "S") from which all things derive and which permeates all things, according to the Buddha's teachings.

**Saad Khan** · 08-25-2011, 11:09 PM

but what I'm looking for is mention (refutation) of the notion of Brahman, All is the Divine (non-personified)

Hi Zero, I'm not really sure why you see this as relevant to Buddhism, have you seen the term used somewhere ?

All I know of myself is the Pali Glossary definition I gave #2.

**forextradinginfo** · 08-26-2011, 02:57 AM

I've seen more than just a few people (claiming to be Buddhists) asserting that the Buddha taught an Ultimate Reality, an Absolute that parallels the Advaita Vedantist notion of Nirguna Brahman, which is why I went searching for information in the first place, thus coming across the Wikipedia entrance. Just wondering how to respond to such views.

Didn't the Buddha ever refute the notion of a divine substratum to the universe?

**BadbarmrapBef** · 08-26-2011, 03:01 AM

There's an article 'Buddhism and the God- Idea' which might be helpful.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...a/godidea.html

**Enfotanab** · 08-26-2011, 03:08 AM

Aloka-D,

Thank you. I had read this previously, some years ago. I was mistaken for not returning to it, as I did not recall its mention of the impersonal godhead. It seemed to focus much more on the notion of a Creator God when I first read it early in my exploration of the Buddha's teachings. A thorough re-read should help immensely.

_/\_

**ElenaEvgeevnaa** · 08-26-2011, 09:42 AM

There's an article 'Buddhism and the God- Idea' which might be helpful.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...a/godidea.html

Thanks for showing this link Aloka-D.... very clear description about the essence of the teachings.

**xsVfF9Em** · 08-31-2011, 06:50 PM

I've seen more than just a few people (claiming to be Buddhists) asserting that the Buddha taught an Ultimate Reality, an Absolute that parallels the Advaita Vedantist notion of Nirguna Brahman

Hi Zero,
Some Buddhists do make such claims but a closer inspection of the suttas demonstrates that Buddha refused to engage in speculation and statements about 'ultimate' states. Such claims are essentially irrelevant to the teachings.

Didn't the Buddha ever refute the notion of a divine substratum to the universe? A trawl through the suttas sees Buddha having dealings with various Brahmas. As far as I know they are Form Realm Gods of the highest order but I recall Buddha admonishing one of them by recounting how he had fallen from even higher planes of existence.

That's about as near as I've ever read in the suttas to the Hindu notion of Nirguna Brahman - the "Ultimate". In a sense, Buddha never needed to refute any specific claim of an ultimate basis, as his teachings go beyond any conditioned attributes, as in this sutta:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....008.than.html

Buddha never refuted different states, levels or realms, as in the form and formless Jhanas etc. But bear in mind that he didn't teach anything for the sake of clinging to it, rather he taught his followers to let such things go.

08-23-2011, 01:16 AM	#1
medprof Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 510 Senior Member	Brahman in Early Buddhism? Was just reading up on whether or not the notion of Brahman (the impersonal Absolute) was addressed by the Buddha in the Pali Canon, and found the following on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman Brahman in Early Buddhism It has been asserted by current secular Buddhism, that Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous _expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.” As "Brahma-vihara" means to dwell in Brahman, "Brahma-patha" are the four paths towards achieving it.[19] The highest appellation in Buddhist Nikayan sutra is “Brahambhutena attano” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman”; absolutely equivalent to ‘Tat tvam asi’ (That/Brahman, thou art). For the Buddha himself is = Brahmabhu’to (Become That, Brahman). For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and (2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say Brahmabhu’to=Buddho [AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.], to assume that Brahman= Brahma (god) and that (4) the Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Mahabrahma" [DhA 2.60]. [DN 3.84] "The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'." (this passage also proves [from earlier context] that Brahma (god/s) is utterly different than the word Brahman). [DN 1.249] “ I teach the way to the union with Brahman, I know the way to the supreme union with Brahman, and the path and means leading to Brahman, whereby the world of Brahman may be gained.” [DN 1.248] ”all the peoples say that Gotama is the supreme teacher of the way leading to the Union with Brahman!” [3.646 Pat-Att.] “To have become Brahman [is the meaning of] Brahmabhuto.” [Atthakanipata-Att. 5.72] “To become Brahman is to become highest Svabhava (Self-nature).” [It 57] “Become-Brahman is the meaning of Tathagata.” [SN 3.83] “Without taints, it meant ‘Become-Brahman’.” [SN 5.5] “The Arya Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” [MN 1.341] “The Soul is having become Brahman.” [SN 4.117] "Found the ancient path leading to Brahman." [Majjhima ii, 199] "These alone could conduce to the attainment of the Brahma-sahavyata or the attainment of the world of Brahman." In the text Lalitavistara (a Northern Buddhistic text), it is written that the Buddha prayed to Parabrahma.[20] In the Surangama Sutra it reads[21]: Adoration to the heavenly Devas and Rishis,-accomplished and disciplined executors of this Dharani- Adoration to Brahman, to Indra, to the Blessed Rudra, and to their consorts, Indrani and Sahai. Adoration to Narayana, Lord of this world, Lord of the five great Mudras, and to his consort. It is said in the that the Tathagata is not merely an incorporation of Dhamma but also of the Brahman, he has become not only the Dhamma, but also the Brahman.[22] "In another passage we read that the 'vehicle that leads to the brahman' (brahmayana) i.e. to Nirvana has its origin in ourselves (attani sambuutam):"[23] A Brahma-kshetra is a name for a Buddhist monastery.[24] The Buddha is also called Brahma-patta (skt. Brahma Prapta.[25]). Buddha talked of "Brahmavihara" as the stage of enlightenment.[26] The Buddha was also called in texts as "Brahmaprapta" or Individual who has become One with Brahman.[27] In Modern Day A Lama who converses with Notovitch explains to him the doctrine of divine incarnation from a Buddhist point of view: The great Buddha, Soul of the Universe, is the incarnation of Brahma. He remains almost always in passivity, preserving within himself all things from the beginning of time, and his breath vivifies the world. Having abandoned man to his own resources, he yet at certain epochs comes forth from his inertia taking upon himself a human form to save his creatures from irremediable ruin...< 16>[3] Alternative Analysis it is explicitly stated in Buddhist sutras that the worship of an Ishvara (an ancient South Asian term for a creator god, most likely not referring to the Abrahamic God who may not have been known in South Asia during the Buddha's lifetime, but given the context meaning either Shiva, Kali or Brahma [28]) is unnecessary to the attainment of Nirvana, as the Buddha believed worshippers are still trapped in an endless cycle of rebirth (Samsara). Buddhists DO NOT worship Brahma (a Hindu deity) or "Deva" (an ancient South Indian term for a deity, today meaning either a Hindi translation of the English "God"/ Latin "Deus" concept [although Christian Indians tend to use the term "Parameshvara" or "Supreme Creator God" for the Christian God the Father] or a synonym for the ancient South Asian concept of Brahman). In Buddhism, the historical Buddha, the celestial and predecessor Buddhas, and the Buddhas to Be's (Bodhisattvas) fulfill the devotional needs of believers, while an emphasis is placed on the lack of Creation and Judgement abilities of these Salvation/Teaching deities. Much of this, particularly the quotes attributed to the Buddha of the Nikayas, explicitly contradicts my understanding of the Buddha's words. Does anyone know what to make of it? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-23-2011, 04:06 AM	#2
Buildityrit Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 397 Senior Member	Hi Zero, The above Wikipedia link says that the information in the quote is part of a series on Hindu philosophy. As its not from a Buddhist source, there will probably be differences in interpretation. At the Theravada website 'Access to Insight', for the meaning of Brahman in the Pali Glossary, it states: "brahman (from Pali brāhmāṇa):The brahman (brahmin) caste of India has long maintained that its members, by their birth, are worthy of the highest respect. Buddhism borrowed the term brahman to apply to those who have attained the goal, to show that respect is earned not by birth, race, or caste, but by spiritual attainment. Used in the Buddhist sense, this term is synonymous with arahant." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html I also couldn't make any sense of the Nikaya references in the quote. For example the one below from the quote I looked up in the Samyutta Nikaya suttas at 'Access to Insight ': [SN 5.5] “The Arya Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana (path to Brahman).” .....and there was nothing like that in SN 5.5 . Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-23-2011, 11:50 AM	#3
Jambjanatan Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 376 Senior Member	Well explained Aloka-D! There is great confusion about the issue of Brahman and Brahma also in Nepal. That may even be the reason that there a many temples in Kathmandu where both...the Buddha and Brahma or even Vishnu along with Buddha are worshiped by both...Hindu and Buddhists alike... since centuries and still up to today. Hindu Priests and even Government officials (who for 99% are Hindu here...the ruling class) strongly believe that the in Nepal born Buddha was just an avatar of Brahma and therefore a Hindu deity. Buddhists in Nepal strongly oppose this view but with little impact. This leads to confusion by foreign visitors who seek eastern wisdom or are duly interested in Buddhism. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-25-2011, 08:08 AM	#4
Misiotoagodia Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 610 Senior Member	Anyone know if the concept of Brahman (as the "Ultimate Reality") was even around during the time of the Buddha? He certainly seems to have addressed Brahma (as a deity), but what about the pantheistic/panentheistic "Source", the underlying substratum, that Brahman seems to be? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-25-2011, 11:12 AM	#5
Aozenee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 414 Senior Member	hi Zero Brahma is described as follows. Does this help? But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. DN 11 Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-25-2011, 10:50 PM	#6
AlexanderDrew Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 609 Senior Member	hi Zero Brahma is described as follows. Does this help? That's certainly a reference to Brahma the deity, but what I'm looking for is mention (refutation) of the notion of Brahman, All is the Divine (non-personified). As far as I'm aware, there is no Source (capital "S") from which all things derive and which permeates all things, according to the Buddha's teachings. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-25-2011, 11:09 PM	#7
Saad Khan Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 433 Senior Member	but what I'm looking for is mention (refutation) of the notion of Brahman, All is the Divine (non-personified) Hi Zero, I'm not really sure why you see this as relevant to Buddhism, have you seen the term used somewhere ? All I know of myself is the Pali Glossary definition I gave #2. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-26-2011, 02:57 AM	#8
forextradinginfo Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 331 Senior Member	I've seen more than just a few people (claiming to be Buddhists) asserting that the Buddha taught an Ultimate Reality, an Absolute that parallels the Advaita Vedantist notion of Nirguna Brahman, which is why I went searching for information in the first place, thus coming across the Wikipedia entrance. Just wondering how to respond to such views. Didn't the Buddha ever refute the notion of a divine substratum to the universe? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-26-2011, 03:01 AM	#9
BadbarmrapBef Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 514 Senior Member	There's an article 'Buddhism and the God- Idea' which might be helpful. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...a/godidea.html Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-26-2011, 03:08 AM	#10
Enfotanab Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 398 Senior Member	Aloka-D, Thank you. I had read this previously, some years ago. I was mistaken for not returning to it, as I did not recall its mention of the impersonal godhead. It seemed to focus much more on the notion of a Creator God when I first read it early in my exploration of the Buddha's teachings. A thorough re-read should help immensely. _/\_ Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-26-2011, 09:42 AM	#11
ElenaEvgeevnaa Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 497 Senior Member	There's an article 'Buddhism and the God- Idea' which might be helpful. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...a/godidea.html Thanks for showing this link Aloka-D.... very clear description about the essence of the teachings. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

08-31-2011, 06:50 PM	#12
xsVfF9Em Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 439 Senior Member	I've seen more than just a few people (claiming to be Buddhists) asserting that the Buddha taught an Ultimate Reality, an Absolute that parallels the Advaita Vedantist notion of Nirguna Brahman Hi Zero, Some Buddhists do make such claims but a closer inspection of the suttas demonstrates that Buddha refused to engage in speculation and statements about 'ultimate' states. Such claims are essentially irrelevant to the teachings. Didn't the Buddha ever refute the notion of a divine substratum to the universe? A trawl through the suttas sees Buddha having dealings with various Brahmas. As far as I know they are Form Realm Gods of the highest order but I recall Buddha admonishing one of them by recounting how he had fallen from even higher planes of existence. That's about as near as I've ever read in the suttas to the Hindu notion of Nirguna Brahman - the "Ultimate". In a sense, Buddha never needed to refute any specific claim of an ultimate basis, as his teachings go beyond any conditioned attributes, as in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....008.than.html Buddha never refuted different states, levels or realms, as in the form and formless Jhanas etc. But bear in mind that he didn't teach anything for the sake of clinging to it, rather he taught his followers to let such things go. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)