Does the Buddha in EBTs say that everything comes out from Brahma?

I always like your replies brother. Interesting insight.

Actually in the Pali text when they where saying about Higher rebirthS. They said Brahma world is the highest concentrate on that. Then it goes under to the person desiring cessation of identity so Nirvana. I would have to search where it is for you. But I think its a earlier believe in Buddhism than what you mentioned.

Btw ever seen this?

43 Iti 2.16 (excerpt)
The born, become, produced, made, fabricated, impermanent, composed of aging & death,
a nest of illnesses, perishing, come from nourishment
and the guide [that is craving] — is unfit for delight.
The escape from that
Is calm, permanent,
beyond inference,
unborn, unproduced,
the sorrowless, stainless state, the cessation of stressful qualities, the stilling of fabrications,
bliss.

It’s from A taste of salt selections from the sutta pitaka

From Thanissaro

The born, come-to-be, produced,
The made, the conditioned, the transient,
Conjoined with decay and death,
A nest of disease, perishable,
Sprung from nutriment and craving’s cord —
That is not fit to take delight in.

The escape from that, the peaceful,
Beyond reasoning, everlasting,
The not-born, the unproduced,
The sorrowless state that is void of stain,
The cessation of states linked to suffering,
The stilling of the conditioned — bliss.

Seems another place saying it’s everlasting/eternal

That’s because insight into conditionality and Dependent Origination is needed.

“So you should truly see any kind of form at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all form—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’
Any kind of feeling at all …
Any kind of perception at all …
Any kind of choices at all …
You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all—past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine; inferior or superior; far or near: all consciousness—with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

SN 22.59

Even if Nibbana were a kind of “eternal realm” or “cosmic beyond-consciousness” it seems the way to “get there” would be to remove desire for it (bhavatanha) and not identify with it. So at that point one might as well practice the Dhamma as taught traditionally :sweat_smile:

That’s true. But Buddha also said understanding the All. Meaning understanding everything. It’s not identity. I am that. Is just that feeling that stays. The NOW. Before Enlightenment I am with attachment, after Enlightenment I am without attachment. Just Being. No identity. I am. Imagine the I am of Buddhas and Arahants.

This is the All the Buddha taught to understand:

At Sāvatthī.
“Mendicants, I will teach you the all. Listen …
And what is the all? It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. This is called the all.
Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: ‘I’ll reject this all and describe another all.’ They’d have no grounds for that, they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Why is that? Because they’re out of their element.”
SN 35.23

There is no “I am” if there is no identity.

Again:

You should truly see any kind of consciousness at all —past, future, or present; internal or external; coarse or fine ; inferior or superior ; far or near: all consciousness —with right understanding: ‘This is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self.’

I think the Mūlapariyāyasutta MN1 can help:

“He perceives all as all. Having perceived all as all, he conceives himself as all, he conceives himself in all, he conceives himself apart from all, he conceives all to be ‘mine,’ he delights in all. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.
“He perceives Nibbāna as Nibbāna. Having perceived Nibbāna as Nibbāna, he conceives himself as Nibbāna, he conceives himself in Nibbāna, he conceives himself apart from Nibbāna, he conceives Nibbāna to be ‘mine,’ he delights in Nibbāna. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say.

Here for Arahants:

“Bhikkhus, a bhikkhu who is an arahant…completely liberated through final knowledge, he too directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion.
“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he is free from delusion through the destruction of delusion.

And here for the Buddha:

“Bhikkhus, the Tathāgata, too, accomplished and fully enlightened, directly knows earth as earth. Having directly known earth as earth, he does not conceive himself as earth, he does not conceive himself in earth, he does not conceive himself apart from earth, he does not conceive earth to be ‘mine,’ he does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.
“He too directly knows water as water…Nibbāna as Nibbāna…Why is that? Because he has understood that delight is the root of suffering, and that with being as condition there is birth, and that for whatever has come to be there is ageing and death. Therefore, bhikkhus, through the complete destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up, and relinquishing of cravings, the Tathāgata has awakened to supreme full enlightenment, I say.”

That’s the main difference between the Buddha’s teaching and the Upanishads, Advaita Vedanta etc…
According to Buddhism real liberation can only be reached when you let go of ALL identification, wether to your body or the most sublime kind of cosmic consciousness, otherwise you just keep coming back here sooner or later.

3 Likes

Everyone right. May you soon reach Nibbāna in your own way.

P. S I am that =I am awake

AN 6.104

“Mendicants, seeing six benefits is quite enough to establish the perception of not-self in all things without qualification. What six? ‘I will be without identification in the whole world.’ ‘My I-makings will stop.’ ‘My mine-makings will stop.’ ‘I will have unshared knowledge.’ ‘I will clearly see causes and the phenomena that arise from causes.’ Seeing these six benefits is quite enough to establish the perception of not-self in all things without qualification.”

“As a lovely white lotus
is not soiled by the water,
I am not soiled by the world:
therefore, O brahmin, I am a Buddha.”

Dwelling in the cave (of the heart), the mind, without form, wanders far and alone.

“Monks, abandon208 what is not yours. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness. Now, [what is it that is not] yours? Form is not yours; abandon it. Abandoning it will lead to benefit and happiness.

From Ghandhara text.

bodily form is not self

Find me a text that goes further than bodily form.

I also was curious About this sutta.

“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’

It makes look like there is such Self. Like a limitless one. But Buddha didn’t talk about it. Because as we all know it doesn’t lead to nibbana :man_shrugging::man_facepalming:t4:

This is only one you will find

"Potth apada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self. [9] And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self. And what is the mind-made acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, mind-made, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its faculties: this is the mind-made acquisition of a self. And what is the formless acquisition of a self? Formless and made of perception: this is the formless acquisition of a self.

"I teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of the gross acquisition of a self, such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now. If the thought should occur to you that, when defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, one’s abiding is stressful/painful, you should not see it in that way. When defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, there is joy, rapture, serenity, mindfulness, alertness, and a pleasant/happy abiding.

"I also teach the Dhamma for the abandoning of the mind-made acquisition of a self… for the abandoning of the formless acquisition of a self, such that, when you practice it, defiling mental qualities will be abandoned, bright mental qualities will grow, and you will enter & remain in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for yourself in the here & now… When defiling mental qualities are abandoned and bright mental qualities have grown, and one enters & remains in the culmination & abundance of discernment, having known & realized it for oneself in the here & now, there is joy, rapture, serenity, mindfulness, alertness, and a pleasant/happy abiding.

The text you quoted (SN 22.59), which I had already quoted above, goes further than bodily form, if you keep reading.
It includes form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness (the 5 khandas), which are all to be seen as not-self.

Where are you getting that? :sweat_smile:
I am sorry but my suggestion is you take some time to read the Suttas and study them carefully.
Maybe a good read on this would be DN 1, where the Buddha specifically rejects any kind of self, wether limited or limitless, percipient or non-percipient etc…

I think you may be confused by the fact that the Buddha and the Arahants use the expression “I am” to refer to themselves, but this is just a conventional way of speaking that they use when talking to people:

"These are the world’s usages, terms, expressions, and descriptions, which the Realized One uses without misapprehending them.” (DN 9)

In reality they do not regard anything as “I am”, as you see in MN 1 that I quoted above.

There is a sutta (SN 22.89) that explains how a monk, even though he practiced not-self and was free of conceit “I am” in regards to the 5 khandas, he still had a sense of “I am” that could not identify with anything. In order to move onto full liberation he had to let go of even that unidentified feeling of “I am”.

I knew you misunderstood me. That I am is the only that is left for all. It’s just a mental thing. It’s a survival mechanism in the mind that tricked you. But seeing things as they are. Is litterly accepting life as it is. The world need Arahants and Buddha just to learn to accept life just as it is. For the sake of dharma. Harmony in the world. It’s not a bad place. It’s the best place to practice Dharma. And we stay very long in samsara. To master life. There comes a period where harmony and peace on earth is very strong. And dharma is needed to reach it. Meaning that people practice basic morality. That is dharma wheel.

This part I mean. Why would he say that. :man_facepalming:t4:

Brother don’t bother about me anymore. I have been practicing since Buddha Dharma from pali since I was 17 years old. I’m 33 now. Not everyone journey is the same. I wish you much metta. :pray:t4:

That’s exactly what the Dhamma teaches to eradicate.
According to Early Buddhism that sense of “I am” that you say is a survival mechanism is what keeps people attached to existence and therefore to suffering.
The reason why people don’t want to let go of that sense of “I am” is because they identify with something, either with their bodies, their feelings, their perceptions, their intentions or their consciousness, no matter how coarse or subtle. They think that’s who they are so they don’t want to let go.

There is even a sutta about it:

They hear the Realized One or their disciple teaching Dhamma for the uprooting of all grounds, fixations, obsessions, insistences, and underlying tendencies regarding views; for the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment. They think, ‘Whoa, I’m going to be annihilated and destroyed! I won’t exist any more!’ They sorrow and wail and lament, beating their breast and falling into confusion.

The Buddha explains that this is only because they are attached to the illusion that they exist as a permanent self.
If you let go of that identification, you let go of craving for continued existence and are able to reach Nibbana (which means extinguishment).

I know this sounds strange and a bit scary, but please take time to read the suttas and study carefully with proper attention (yoniso manasikara).

That means that if your body is your self you could control it and not feel pain, not make it get old etc… but since you can’t your body is obviously not self.

Please read and study the suttas carefully.

I understand you. But still after you still have to say I am. That’s what I mean. Life is I am. It doesn’t hurt to say that. Just like desire for Nibbana is needed in the beginning. Just like feeling of self is there until nibbana. The mind or self is what wants things. Even Nibbana.

A glimpse of Nibbana will just teach you that there is only now. You Just BE. That just BE=I am

It’s hard to understand. It’s deep

Ruben, please, I am ok with having a conversation about different ideas etc. but you need to read what I write carefully before replying.

I have already addressed your comments about the usage of the term “I am” even after awakening. Please go back and read the suttas I linked.

It’s not the self that wants things, this is identification with intention (sankhara). You are saying the self is sankhara here.

There is intention, it’s one of the 5 khandas, but like all other khandas (and all phenomena) it is empty of a self.
So there is intention, but there is no self.

These are just your beliefs and I respect them, as I know how hard it is to accept things as they are, but they are not ideas that are found in the suttas, please.

I am

Arabic: Ana (أنا)

Hebrew: Ani (אני)

Anatta :joy: