Current perception of others of Buddhism isn’t even Buddha Dharma. As if he taught if God existed or not. And with monks new interpretation saying he taught that. That way Buddha Dharma got misunderstood by the world even worst than before.
Modern Buddhism has misinterpreted Buddha Dharma based on the last tradition of revival Buddhism. But even then there is no evidence that when suttas is saying about seeing Brahma as Brahma or Prajapati as Prajapati he meant that he is against them. It’s about non identification. None seeing multiplicity. None seeing Superiority. Not seeing oneness as oneness also because everything just is to the Awakened mind. When he said about good or bad not being caused by a creator god. That’s showing he doesn’t blame nothing. He see dependent origination. No person fault truly. Seeing things as nothing. No person understand this. The true Dhamma is hard to understand. Buddhism did from early got misunderstood. As if Buddha is rejecting most things. But those who understand. Knows is because he taught things to be seen as just being nothing in reality. But it’s actually just that feeling of Suchness. Things are all just the Awakened experience.
For the one come to peace in himself
there is not the assumed, from where the rejected.-Muni(TUVAṬAKA)
Do distinguish between the notion of God as known in popular usage, and abhrahamic faith and Maha brahma.
Creator: God yes, Maha brahma, no.
All powerful: God yes, Maha brahma, no.
Immortal: God yes, Maha brahma no.
All knowing: God yes, Maha brahma no.
All good: God yes, Maha brahma no (unless Maha brahma became an arahant).
Prophets declared that there’s such a being who is the ultimate creator etc… Seems to be the main thing which is common with God and Maha brahma.
There’s clear justification to state that there’s no God according to Buddhism. We don’t mean no Maha brahma by that.
There is no parents. Thats what we are saying. But what are experienced in front us just is. And there is no reason to say there isn’t because then it’s a attachment. I’m not saying there is also. But whatever is experienced by each individual just is because how the mind transformed from beginningless times.
Yes, and Buddha was in a former life also Maha Brahma.
Here a fragment from Iti 22
This was said by the Buddha, the Perfected One: that is what I heard.
“Mendicants, don’t fear good deeds. For ‘good deeds’ is a term for happiness, for what is likable, desirable, and agreeable. I recall undergoing for a long time the likable, desirable, and agreeable results of good deeds performed over a long time. As a result, for seven eons of the cosmos contracting and expanding I didn’t return to this world again. As the eon contracted I went to the realm of streaming radiance. As it expanded I was reborn in an empty mansion of Brahmā.
There I was Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the undefeated, the champion, the universal seer, the wielder of power. I was Sakka, lord of gods, thirty-six times. Many hundreds of times I was a king, a wheel-turning monarch, a just and principled king. My dominion extended to all four sides, I achieved stability in the country, and I possessed the seven treasures. Not to mention regional kingship!
I was going to that point also. It’s like a teaching that I believe came after but still there is that sense of interconnectedness of early Indian though. It’s seems early texts Buddha just stayed silent when asked about Brahma or even stay silent if he is compared to Brahma.
Oke, do you have a reference for those last texts?
The texts i studied are consistent in that way that Maha Brahma is seen as a tremendous ‘force’/being’ with great power in tje universe. A fragment from AN10.29 shows this:
A galaxy extends a thousand times as far as the moon and sun revolve and the shining ones light up the quarters. In that galaxy there are a thousand moons, a thousand suns, a thousand Sinerus king of mountains, a thousand Indias, thousand Western Continents, a thousand Northern Continents, a thousand Eastern Continents, four thousand oceans, four thousand Great Kings, a thousand realms of the Gods of the Four Great Kings, a thousand realms of the Gods of the Thirty-Three, of the Gods of Yama, of the Joyful Gods, of the Gods who Love to Create, of the Gods who Control the Creations of Others, and a thousand Brahmā realms. As far as the galaxy extends, the Great Brahmā is said to be the foremost. But even the Great Brahmā decays and perishes".
Mara is also said to be the foremost. Maybe Maha Brahma is foremost in goodness.
The Great Brahma is recognised as a great being. But the Great Brahma is according DN1 also still subject to delusional ideas such as: ‘i am the creator of the beings who come to me sphere,’ or ‘I and my sphere is eternal’.
I personally belief that the Great Brahma is what people might experience when they experience a sphere of endless love. Sometimes people meet or get a taste of this sphere. They also tend to see this as God or the face of God.
My own study will take alot to search back for you. But AN has also Ananda saying Mahabrahma is the highest thing you can see. But what I like in my Buddhist journey is mostly trusting the Buddha of suttanipata. But even in there it seems not all suttas is early. It’s there where you see him not responding about Brahma. Etc
About what Ananda meant was that it was the highest light you can see. I think that the point of Buddha seems still highest being are all title Brahma. But it’s still in Indian tradition that everyone is Brahma. That’s why Buddha would say a Arahant is like as if Brahma and Indra to those who understand.
It’s common even when Brahmins talked to him in suttanipata they say he is like Brahma to them. The aim of his teaching in suttanipata seems same as Upanishads. That’s Pasura. Pasura is that state beyond. So I don’t know why Modern Buddhism think there is much difference.
When a noble
disciple recollects the Tathagata, his mind becomes placid, joy
arises, and the defilements of the mind are abandoned. This is
called a noble disciple who observes the uposatha of Brahma,
who dwells together with Brahma, and it is by considering
Brahma that his mind becomes placid, joy arises, and the
defilements of the mind are abandoned
Just search Anguttara Nikaya Pdf
And when you have it in your phone search for word Brahma. Which as we taught Buddha just used to mean Highest. Or Divine. But it doesn’t change the fact that that’s what all religions do with the word God.
“63. One possessing the triple knowledge,
Peaceful, with being all destroyed:
Know him thus, O Vāseṭṭha, “As Brahmā and Sakka for those who understand.”
Excerpt From
The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha
Nanamoli & Bodhi
As I understand its meaning is your own Master. And All-Seeing. @Green
The main teaching of Buddhism is not to see things as apart of you. While others saw other beings as superior to them. Buddha as seeing all as nothing. Declared a high teaching based on that highest achievement Brahmanas already was trying to reach. Or some did reach already before. Known as sages and later Buddhas. Buddha itself in suttanipata is mainly named. Silent Sage. (Muni)
He perceives Brahmā as Brahmā. Having perceived Brahmā as Brahmā, he conceives Brahmā, he conceives himself in Brahmā, he conceives himself apart from Brahmā, he conceives Brahmā to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Brahmā. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
The point is at level of the earth everyone will be at same level inside. As above so below. No superior or inferior. Not even equal we have to see. All just is what they are. All have same wisdom capacity in samsara. The path to Nirvana is what Buddhism want to preach all following. It mainly the Dharma. Cosmic Law. Which isn’t seen as from Buddha. But something that is done in past and future. And present if there is a Buddha.
Do ye see, my lord gods Thirty-and-Three, in me a potency of Iddhi like that?”
“Yea, Brahma.”
“I too, Sirs, through practice and improvement in just these Four Ways to Iddhi , have acquired such power and potency therein.”
But Buddhism in Nikayas has the style you will expect just to propagate Buddhism. Not truly Buddha mentality to preach this way. He was humble man as seen in suttanipata. Especially the earliest parts of it. As in Silent Sage’s of Old.
Oh I got the Pasura sutta wrong that’s the man pasura. But the concept of nothingness is in Pasura sutta. So still early on the same idea of reaching this seeing nothing is common in that time.
that’s the man pasura. But the concept of nothingness is in Pasura sutta. So still early on the same idea of reaching this seeing nothing is common in that time.