Buddhist typology: devas & brahmas

Q & A
1

Venerables & friends,

I have been struggling to make sense in relation to the difference between devas and brahmas in Buddhist cosmology. While in English both are described/translated as “gods”, for my own purposes of having a meaningful distinction, i usually understand devas to be “angels” whereas brahmas as “gods”. This makes devas a lower echelon than brahmas, but still higher than humans in the sense that their knowledge of gods is more refined and direct. This is inline with kama loka as its dwellers are either humans or devas, but not brahamas. We begin to encounter the notion of brahmas when we enter rupa loka so to speak.

The devas of Bakas assembly does not break any rules even though they appear to be in rupa loka rather than kama loka. If Baka is the creator god, then he must be outside the world in a loka that transcends sensuality. His assembly would consist of devas because they perceive him directly as the highest, and their relative superiority to humans and other devas made it possible for them to transcend kama loka and become in direct contact with brahama (or alternatively, cease contact with kama loka and perceive brahma without the jala of the senses).

What misses things up in my mind is the following passage in AN3.70:

‘There are the gods of the four great kings, the gods of the thirty-three, the gods of Yama, the joyful gods, the gods who love to imagine, the gods who control what is imagined by others, the gods of the Divinity’s host, and gods even higher than these.

All the devas mentioned above dwell in kama loka or in Baka’s assembly, but there is still a class of devas that is described in AN3.70 as beyond (santi devā tatuttari). This makes me wonder what warrants designating them as “devas” rather than “brahams”?

In my search, where Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ appears, DN11 presents a sequence of the elements up to Baka’s assembly, to be altered by the Buddha when he answers the monk question:

Mendicant, this is not how the question should be asked:
“Sir, where do these four principal states cease without anything left over, namely, the elements of earth, water, fire, and air?”
This is how the question should be asked:
“Where do water and earth,
fire and air find no footing;
where long and short,
fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly?
Where does name-and-form
cease with nothing left over?”

So, re-framing the question by the Buddha does not explain what warrants calling anything beyond Baka as devas rather than brahama. Would it not have been easier in terms of typology to call them devas as long as they believe Baka to be the greatest, until they no longer do, they would be designated as brahams themselves.

I hope i made my question as accessible as possible and i would be grateful for your answers.

Thank you

2 Likes
2

If the Buddha and the Suttas call it that, there must be a good reason.

If I understand your question correctly, I think it is a classification for the highest being in this Universe, and above that, it does not need that name.

Or we can classify it as the teachings that the Buddha did not consider important for the holy life.

In a Rosewood Forest
Sīsapāvanasutta
SN 56.31

In a siṁsapā grove, the Buddha holds up a handful of leaves, and compares it to all the leaves in the forest. So too, he has taught the four noble truths, which is only a fraction of what he knows.

SuttaCentral

:anjal:

3

Thank you LucasOliveira for your answer.

As you mentioned, there must be good reason why the Buddha called them devas - and naming different classes of them up to the first Jhana - then combining the rest as “beyond” which is inline with the rest of the suttas that present going beyond the first Jhana as a turning point.

However, there are also good reasons why going beyond kama loka is known as “brahma realms” in Buddhist cosmology:

Keeping devas contained in the sensual realm presented them as closer to humans than gods, or as a more refined versions of humans. One distinction is that they do have genders, whereas brahmas must have transcended genders. This is yet another contradiction with other suttas such as MN115:

They understand: ‘It’s impossible for a woman to perform the role of Sakka, Māra, or the Divinity.

So if a brahma is theoretically male, but still have transcended gender, then probably a brahma is principle that has to do with rituals or cosmic regularities. If Baka is a principle that encourages devotional practices, then what would sahampati as another principle encourage? would it be reverence?

1 Like
4

Keeping devas contained in the sensual realm presented them as closer to humans than gods, or as a more refined versions of humans. One distinction is that they do have genders, whereas brahmas must have transcended genders. This is yet another contradiction with other suttas such as MN115:

It is good to remember that the Beings Above Brahma are also called Devas…

The Thirty-one Planes of Existence
The Thirty-one Planes of Existence

You mentioned Brahma Sahampati…

There is a definition of Maha-Brahma and Brahma. I think Maha-Brahma would be Sahampati and Baka would be Brahma, so there is a classification among the Brahmas also.

It is interesting to remember that Brahma Sahampati played an important role when he asked Buddha to teach the Dhamma…

The Appeal of the Divinity
Brahmāyācanasutta
SN 6.1

After his awakening, the Buddha hesitated to teach, thinking that the Dhamma is too subtle for people to understand. But the high divinity Brahmā Sahampati appears and encourages him to teach, pointing out that there are some with “little dust in their eyes” who will understand.

SuttaCentral

and besides Devas, Brahma and Maha-Brahmas there is a term that would satisfy the definition of God of Any Religion which is the “Overlord”

It is thus that I, Brahmā, both comprehend your bourn and comprehend your splendour: Baka the Brahma is of great psychic power thus, Baka the Brahma is of great majesty thus, Baka the Brahma is of great fame thus. But there are, Brahmā, three other classes which you do not know, do not see, but which I know and see. There is, Brahmā, the class called Radiant ones from which you have passed away, uprising here; but because of your very long abiding (here), the recollection of it is confused, and because of that you neither know nor see it; I know and see it. Thus I, Brahmā, am not merely on an exact equality with you as regards super-knowledge; how could I be lower, since I am indeed greater than you? There is, Brahmā, the class called Lustrous ones which you neither know nor see, but which I know and see. There is, Brahmā, the class called Vehapphala which you neither know nor see, but which I know and see. Thus again I, Brahmā, am not merely on an exact equality with you as regards super-knowledge; how could I be lower, since I am indeed greater than you?
…
I, Brahmā, knowing the Overlord to be the Overlord, to that extent knowing that which is not reached by means of the Overlord’s Overlordship, do not think: ‘It is the Overlord, (of self) in (regard to) the Overlord, (of self) as the Overlord, the Overlord is mine’. I do not salute the Overlord. Thus again I, Brahmā, am not merely on an exact equality with you as regards super-knowledge; how could I be lower, since I am indeed greater that you?

I, Brahma, knowing the all to be the all, to that extent knowing that which is not reached by the allness of the all, do not think: ‘It is all, (of self) in (regard to) all, (of self) as all, all is mine“. I do not salute the all. Thus again I, Brahmā, am not merely on an exact equality with you as regards super-knowledge; how could I be lower, since I am indeed greater that you?”

SuttaCentral

:anjal:

5

Thank you for the reminder. I am indeed asking what warrants calling beings above brahma devas, and why sahampati is exempt from such title? If baka is mistakenly thought by some to be the greatest, then to introduce something higher or greater has to belong to the same category. Categorically, a deva that is higher than brahma does not make sense.

As to what could be good reasons for the Buddha to call them devas rather than brahmas, i am wondering if this has to do with Gautama Buddha’s cast. Unlike previous Buddhas in this kalpa, he was born in a warrior cast, not to a brahmin family. If brahminism is marked by considering brahma as the highest cosmic principle, then calling beings above brahma devas could be resembling his cast.

The above is not in contradiction with divorcing spiritual development from birth. If brahmas are higher in principle than devas, a deva can still have higher spiritual attainment (or Jhanas) than brahma.

Another reason could be introducing fluidity as superior to principle - when the utterances would allow for both. Rearranging the elements in DN11 to place water before earth could be favoring fluidity over principle - and presenting it as greater (or Maha) by calling beings above brahma devas against what is expected by adhering to principle and its associated hierarchy. The introduction of “consciousness without footing” is another indication that fluidity is presented as higher than principle.

When it comes to principles and fluidity, sotāpanna can present both aspects by emphasizing the ear as “sota” and by using a macron to allow for playfulness in grammar - indicating fluidity. Same thing can be said about sakkaya ditthi which is often translated as “identity view” but it can be in reference to sakka as a first principle, or the lowest cosmic principle that necessitates a purisa.

A purisa - as a principle - allows for definitions to take shape through the use of opposites. Sakka is a deva primarily due to his war with the asuras, but in brahmanism, his enemy is Mara (another purisa) who probably caused delusions through the medium of language. In Buddhism, Mara is the enemy of the ariya who wants to transcend sensuality, whereas in monotheism, he wants to keep knowledge of god (as mahabrahma) for himself. A brahma as a purisa has a problem with an old fellow (the Buddha) who came to teach him that he is not the highest - hence introducing another Maha brahama. Can’t you see the trend?

As to how all of this relates to beings, same playfulness with language is introduced where satta can denote a being or the seventh. The seventh heaven is not only where the maha brahma of monotheism and his assembly of devas dwell, but indicates pure being, solitude and a consciousness that is divorced from the six sense media - which the Buddha denied in MN38.

The victim of such battle between principle and fluidity is indeed certainty. To play Mara’s advocate, promoting anything above the first Jhana as beyond Mara’s power can be done only through circular reasoning where principle is ignored. If Mara has access to Baka’s assembly, then he must have polluted the spring of which all higher attainments flows from, so escaping Mara’s snare is by attaining higher jhana is technically correct, but practically insignificant as he polluted the source, so the beings above remain devas never to attain the status of brahma.

1 Like
6

Deva is a pretty generic term in Buddhist lit. It can refer to spirits on Earth and in the Heavens. The beings in the formless realms are devas, and so are those in the form realm. True, the form realm devas are also called brahmas in particular, but as far as I can tell, they are still a class of devas. Even the passage you cited in the OP calls the Brahmakayika gods devas:

‘santi devā cātumahārājikā, santi devā tāvatiṁsā, santi devā yāmā, santi devā tusitā, santi devā nimmānaratino, santi devā paranimmitavasavattino, santi devā brahmakāyikā, santi devā tatuttari.

7

The santi devā brahmakāyikā are the devas of Baka’s assembly. The devas beyond them are not called brahmas.

The uposatha of the noble ones is the Buddhist equivalent of monotheistic sabbath where god is said to dwell in the seventh heaven. It makes one wonder why recollecting sahampati is not included in the Buddhist uposatha considering that we owe to his generosity/invitation that the Buddha decided to teach instead of remaining silent. Instead, we recollect the devas!

I think this has more to do with how the role of a teacher differs from the role of a messenger of god.

8

What do you mean by a messenger of god in Buddhism?

9

I think if there is a messenger of god in Buddhism, it would be Asita as per Snp3.11.

The question of typology was raised to the Buddha right after his awakening as per AN4.36 by Dona. He denied being a deva.

When it comes to sahampati, he explains why he is known as brahma sahampati in SN48.57.

Once upon a time, sir, I lived the spiritual life under the fully awakened Buddha Kassapa.
There they knew me as the mendicant Sahaka.
Because of developing and cultivating these same five faculties I lost desire for sensual pleasures. When my body broke up, after death, I was reborn in a good place, in the realm of divinity.
There they know me as the divinity Sahampati.

10

Yeah, I personally think Brahma is a later addition to Buddhist mythology. Sakra, the four god kings, and the thirty-three gods seem to predate him. Also, the naming of Brahmas is rare outside of Pali EBTs. There is a Kumara Brahma in the Dirgha Agama and Sahampati occurs once in the Mahavastu, but usually Brahma is simply called Mahabrahma in Agamas. I have never seen Baka or Sahampati in Chinese translation. Which is another thing that makes me think it’s not as old as Sakra in Buddhist sources.

1 Like
11

I think sakka can be said to be the oldest because of the primacy of vacīsaṅkhāro in kama loka:

“Breathing is a physical process. Placing the mind and keeping it connected are verbal processes. Perception and feeling are mental processes.”
“Assāsapassāsā kho, gahapati, kāyasaṅkhāro, vitakkavicārā vacīsaṅkhāro, saññā ca vedanā ca cittasaṅkhāro”ti.

Such primacy makes the “voice of another” an important criterion of right view:

“There are two conditions for the arising of right view:
“Dve kho, āvuso, paccayā sammādiṭṭhiyā uppādāya
the voice of another and rational application of mind.
parato ca ghoso, yoniso ca manasikāro.

Hence is the link between sakka and baka. If baka dwells in the first Jhana, then he is marked by vitakkavicārā which is nothing but vacīsaṅkhāro.

As to the role of his assembly, presenting the case of schizophrenia is due. Many Buddhists utilized the modern concept of subconscious to explain Buddhist insight (or lack of) which is not inline with how the Buddha taught sabba. Instead, the concept of “subvocal” has better explanatory power in my opinion. A typical schizophrenia patient hears voices that does not correspond to rupa, similar to a monotheistic prophet, who hears voices that equally do not correspond to rupa, and yet accepted by the nitwits who turn into religion. The dilemma of a schizophrenia patient is her inability to distinguish the subvocal as “self generated”, hence the difference between madness and creativity.

Baka as the creator resembles vitakkavicārā as self generated, and his assembly of devas (the nitwits) are confirming it. Portraying Mara as sneaking into his assembly follows the same line of reasoning of monotheists: Mara’s favorite method of deception is through auditory hallucinations. The devas of kama loka are under his sway

When the subvocal is recognized as self generated, the difference between genius and madness is simply success. A prophet has successfully convinced the collective of the link between his auditory experience to be of transcendental source, usually through the meduimship of a deva, or in rarer occasions, through communicating with brahma directly.

So, to add the title “Maha” to brahma has to do with who is more creative. In DN16, Ven. Sujato had interesting note on sakka’s recitations after the Buddha’s passing away:

“less creative than brahma, sakka repeats a famous verse spoken by the Buddha”