[Jueqelyl]

I wonder if anyone here can help with a sutta reference.

Oft, when trawling through theist sites of one kind or another, I encounter this sutta, which (they claim) demonstrates Buddha was actually a theist .

In particular, this chunk:

"the Tathagata knows the straight path
that leads to a union with Brahma.
He knows it as one who has entered the world of Brahma and has been born in it.
There can be no doubt in the Tathagata." http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospe...chapter_49.htm

A lousy translation? Taken out of context?

Just wondering if anyone knows where it's from and could point me towards a proper translation.

namste
Kris

[Intockatt]

Hi Kris,

I think its from DN 13 :Tevijja Sutta

http://www.leighb.com/dn13.htm#start

In the notes above the sutta it says:

"It's important to note that in this sutta, the Buddha is using "Union with Brahma̅" as a metaphor for Nibbana - a point missed by the mainstream Theravadan tradition as well as by early translators. "



metta,

Aloka

[QuidQuoPro]

Firstly its union with Brahma, not Brahman


Brahma is considered to have all the four immeasurables, which are also existent in those who have put and end to craving


From what I can tell the Buddha is saying that the only real union with Brahma is the end of craving which brings all the four immeasurables to true prefection, which are considered to be what Brahma has


In essence, in this Sutta, he was simply renamed Nibbana as "union with Brahma" (since thats the language that the Brahmin is used to) yet the final outcome is simply nibbana


I wouldnt worry about the Theists though, they have a way of putting their own particular God into the Suttas, Vedantists in particular

[evalayCap]

Thanks for the replies and the link guys. I've had a hunt around and it seems the Brahma / Brahman question is wide open:
In this respect it is noteworthy that the neuter Brahman is quietly ignored, That is quite in accordance with the method of the Suttantas. The Buddha is in them often represented as using, in his own sense, words familiar to his interlocutors in a different sense, The neuter Brahman is, so far as I am aware, entirely unknown in the Nikâyas, and of course the Buddha's idea of Brahmâ, in the masculine, really differs widely from that of the Upanishads. http://www.buddhistlibraryonline.net...8-tevigga.html

Logic would dictate that Buddha would not confuse the two, as he met the deity Brahma on many occasions. He is portrayed as a limited being whom Buddha sometimes instructs, not something with which one can attain union. I tend to side with Aloka-D's quote that "Union with Brahma̅" is being used as a metaphor for Nibbana.

Others claim that it is a sutta which teaches rebirth in the Brahma Lokas, rather than liberation but this seems a tad forced.

I'm interested to hear what anyone else thinks.

namaste
Kris

[GotActichwicy]

Sorry I send a post and I didnt see the feedback of Aloka and Craig. I remove it anyway.

[Creva4k]

I tend to side with Aloka-D's quote that "Union with Brahma̅" is being used as a metaphor for Nibbana.

Yes.

I wouldnt worry about the Theists though, they have a way of putting their own particular God into the Suttas, Vedantists in particular

[HQTheodore]

In the notes above the sutta it says:

"It's important to note that in this sutta, the Buddha is using "Union with Brahma̅" as a metaphor for Nibbana - a point missed by the mainstream Theravadan tradition as well as by early translators. "

Hi

That is not the case to me because the sutta only instructs to the first jhana and then cultivation of the four brahma viharas from the first jhana.

I must disagree with both Richard Gombrich and Leigh Brasington that "Union with Brahma" is a metaphor for Nibbana.

That the sutta ends in the following way demonstrates "Union with Brahma" is not a metaphor for Nibbana:
...the Bhikkhu who is free from household cares should after death, at the break up of the body, become united with Brahma, who is, the same -- such a thing is in every way possible! If "Union with Brahma" was a metaphor for Nibbana, then union with Brahma "after death" could not occur.

To me, the sutta simply demonstrates how the Buddha offered teachings according to the dispositions & wishes of others. It is incorrect for us to hold such teachings are the core teachings of the Buddha. They are merely the Buddha answering to the aspirations of others.

When we study the suttas, we will find many rebirth teachings are the same, where Buddha provides answers that accord to the questions, predispositions, pre-existing beliefs & wishes of others.

[HugoSimon]

I must disagree with both Richard Gombrich and Leigh Brasington that "Union with Brahma" as a metaphor for Nibbana.

Hi Element,
Do you figure the sutta means union with the limited god Brahma?

Have you ever encountered any reference to Brahman in the suttas? It's a main plank of Hinduism which doesn't seem to get touched upon, as far as I can see.

namaste
Kris

[wepoiyub]

Hi Kris

Sure. There are suttas when the Buddha visits Brahma or Brahma Gods, such as MN 49.

Brahma is included in the Buddhist 'cosmology', which is also used to classify mental states. MN 1 provides the best summary. Here, the same as the Tevijja Sutta, MN 1 equates the sphere of Brahma with the 1st jhana.

For me, the Tevijja Sutta is similar to 1 John 4.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God and God in them. This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. Often the Buddha redefined or improved pre-exisiting religious beliefs, such as in the Sigalovada Sutta, where the Buddha redefined the doctrine of the 'Six Directions'. The Tevijja Sutta is another example, where the Buddha advised 'God is love' rather than a deity per se.

The Buddha's redefintion of Brahma is similar to the Christian redefinition of God.

Kind regards

[vladekad]

Thanks Element,
But does our Buddha of the suttas ever touch of the concept of Brahman, as the Hindus see it - a kind of supreme state from which even Brahma himself arises?
It's often confused with Brahman, as the two sound very similar but mean very different things to a Hindu. I've personally never encountered Buddha tackling this one. I just wondered if you had.

namaste
Kris

[AccusaJalsBub]

To me, the sutta simply demonstrates how the Buddha offered teachings according to the dispositions & wishes of others. It is incorrect for us to hold such teachings are the core teachings of the Buddha. They are merely the Buddha answering to the aspirations of others.

Thanks Element,

Through a more carefull reading of the sutta, that came to mind when the thirth sentence tells:

3. Now a discussion arose between (the Brahmin students) Va̅seṭṭha and Bha̅radva̅ja -- while they were taking exercise (after their bath), walking up and down in a thoughtful mood -- as to which was the true path, and which the false.

[TouccuraLar]

But does our Buddha of the suttas ever touch of the concept of Brahman, as the Hindus see it - a kind of supreme state from which even Brahma himself arises?

Hi Kris

Does MN 49 answer your questions?

Regards

E

Sir, I'm permanent, stable, eternal, complete and not doomed to fall and say that I'm permanent, stable, eternal, complete, and not doomed to fall. Not born, not decaying, not dying, not fading, not re-born, and not seeing any refuge more exalted than this, say I not born, will not decay, die, fade and be re-born, and see no refuge more exalted than this.

[XVzrlWIv]

Does MN 49 answer your questions?

Hi Element,
Thanks for the tip. I've had a good brood over it and looked at a couple of translations. On balance, I'm not sure if it quite nails it, although parts of the sutta address the question in other ways.

The statement you quoted was from bad boy Baka Brahma who feels that he and his abode are eternal and ever lasting. Obviously Mara's been puddling his mind and he's subsequently way off the mark. During the sutta Buddha is also advised to do homage to Brahma (the cheek of it). This bears all the hallmarks of a deity which demands submission and worship and considers himself to be the top pimp daddy.

Buddha knows that there are even more elevated divine bodies which B.B. can't see.

Is all this the Hindu's ultimate Brahman? Not too sure about that. Certainly Baka is trying to sell his abode as some kind of ultimate patch but it doesn't seem to fit with other sources:
brahman is only one of its kind. Also, It is 'one only' and so is bereft of parts. There is 'no second' to brahman; it is non-dual. Any presence or awareness of duality makes the awareness finite. It does not possess any quality. For, to differentiate between brahman as a bearer of a quality and the quality which is attributed to it, is to introduce a difference in the absoluteness of non-duality. Hence it is impersonal (Sanskrit: nirguNa). http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses...ns/brahman.htm

Obviously Baka is within a state of duality, as he and his retinue have a chat with Buddha. He doesn't fit the bill, even if he claims to.

The mention of Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam) in the sutta does, however, offer food for thought.
"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....049.than.html

namaste
Kris

[ruforumczspam]

The concept of non-dual Brahman/Atman was developed after Buddha, so he wouldnt address it

[Ebjjrxrd]

Interesting clw. Do you have any more info on this?

[shanice]

Sure, the idea of non-dual Brahman/Atman was established by Adi Shankara, who lived between 788 CE - 820 CE


The idea can be found in a way in the Upanishads, but dating them is difficult

[Stasher11]

The mention of Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam) in the sutta does, however, offer food for thought.
"'Consciousness without surface,
endless, radiant all around,
has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'[9]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....049.than.html

[markkisil]