In defence of the Brahmā gods

[Dhabba]

Hello Venerable @sujato !

I decided to create this new thread from this one:

Viññāṇa anidassana: the state of boundless consciousness

If we take the following from MN 49 into consideration where The Buddha explains that there are higher Rupa Loka realms that Baka Brahma does not know or see: But there are three other realms that you don’t know or see, but which I know and see. There is the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance, There is the realm named after the gods replete with glory … There is the realm named after the gods of abundant fruit, which you don’t know or see. We can conclude that Baka is obviously…

My somewhat lengthy reply here below on your views regarding Baka the Brahmā has nothing to do with viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ and I don’t want that thread to derail and go off-topic. (I’ll soon add a reply only sticking to viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ in that thread.)

@sujato

The last thing we should expect from Baka is integrity and accuracy. He is full of ego, trying to defeat the Buddha by any means necessary, including quoting half-remembered and little-understood verses in order to one-up the person who challenges his supremacy.

The Buddha himself has nothing bad to say about Baka except Baka’s ignorance:
‘Alas, Baka the Brahmā is lost in ignorance! Alas, Baka the Brahmā is lost in ignorance!.

We have to keep in mind that only a Buddha, out of countless billions of other beings, points out the truth about all planes of existence. No one else does it:

Because what is actually impermanent, not lasting, transient, incomplete, and perishable, he says is permanent, everlasting, eternal, complete, and imperishable.

”So I understand, O Brahma, your coming and your radiance: “Brahma Baka is truly powerful, truly mighty, truly skilled.”

That to me, and all the other praise found in MN 49 by the Buddha (there’s a lot of praise in large chunks), shows that Brahma Baka is not full of ego or that he lacks integrity.

I see in your notes in DN 11 that you write that Brahmā is being a narcissist when repeating 3 times that he is Brahmā. Please keep in mind that Sakka does the same thing, repeats who he is 3 times, when a anger-eating yakkha is sitting on Sakka’s throne.

This is probably a thing that Devas and Brahmās, who are the leaders of certain realms of existence, do in certain situations. It is not based on narcissism.

Also please keep in mind that the brahmins during The Buddha’s time (and most likely prior to The Buddha ) had little, to nothing, to do with Brahmā, or any other higher being for that matter.

• In DN 13 we are shown in great detail just how far away the brahmins were from anything they claimed they knew or strived for, like rebirth in Brahmā’s retinue:

”So long as they proceed in this way it’s impossible that they will, when the body breaks up, after death, be reborn in the company of Brahmā.”

Just like how the following:

‘We call upon Indra! We call upon Soma! We call upon Varuṇa! We call upon Īsāna! We call upon the Progenitor! We call upon Brahmā! We call upon Mahinda! We call upon Yama!’

And the brahmins other antics were all done in vain, as told in DN 13.

—

Now if Baka the Brahmā truly had no integrity as you say, then all those eloborate and strange rituals by the brahmins for Brahmā and in the name of Brahmā (and all the other deities) and the brahmins inhumane views in general would still lead the brahmins to heavenly rebirths - but we are shown over and over again in the suttas that this is not the case.

And yet it is these very womb-born brahmins who say that … brahmins are genuine children of Brahmā, born from his mouth; his offspring, his creation, and his heirs!
By this they make a travesty of the nature of Brahmā. It is false what they say, and great is the demerit that they thereby earn.

This actually shows that Baka the Brahmā has integrity to the highest degree in that this type of ”worship” which ought to ”feed the ego” of Baka the Brahmā if he lacked integrity, is 100% rejected by him.

Let us also not forget that:

There are sentient beings that are diverse in body and unified in perception, such as the gods reborn in Brahmā’s Host through the first absorption. (DN 15)

That is the reason we find such emphasis on monotheism in other religions: ”diverse in body and unified in perception.”

This really shows how accurate and insightful The Buddha was regarding all planes of existence and the nature and characteristics of each of these various planes. As in not only applying anicca, dukkha & anatta on everything but also giving perfect descriptions of how these planes of existence actually are.

And lastly:

And what is a path to company with Brahmā?

Firstly, a mendicant meditates spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.

This is a path to company with Brahmā.” - MN 97

I think you are conflating the narcissistic, inhumane and ignorant brahmins full of ego who truly lack integrity; with Baka the Brahmā and his host who:
”spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.”

The brahmins and Brahmā have, as numreous suttas reveal, very little to do with eachother.

[Dharma]

Let us not take an eternalist point of view in thinking Mr. Brahma didn’t change His mind. . Who knows, by now He may be Enlightened.

[knigarian]

@Dhabba

the narcissistic, inhumane and ignorant brahmins full of ego who truly lack integrity;

Few words in defence of brahmins. Brahmins are / were just certain caste or social group. Such characteristic as being narcistic, inhumane, and ignorant and full of ego applies to individual level. Everyone can have such qualities regardless to what social group one belongs, and belonging to group known as Brahmins doesn’t mean one has these qualities.

In Buddha time still there were many respectable brahmins. That is to say, they were not merely respectable, which is usually associated with high social position, but they truly deserved respect what in Dhamma depends on high moral standards and wisdom.

[Dhabba]

I totally agree!

I just wrote it because I think the view of Brahma has been mixed up with the views of fanatical brahmins who prefered doing rituals and having a position of power compared to real brahmins who meditate and are wise.

[srkris]

@Dhabba

the brahmins during The Buddha’s time (and most likely prior to The Buddha ) had little, to nothing, to do with Brahmā, or any other higher being for that matter.

There is very little evidence of either a supernatural Buddha (a Buddha with supernatural powers) or a supernatural Brahmā as far as historical reality is concerned. The early Buddhists of the first few generations of Buddhism (being reasonably rational) knew quite well that the person who claimed to be a Buddha (in their own lifetime) could not have met any supernatural beings and did not have supernatural powers, but they still weren’t shy of claiming in numerous canonical texts that he did.

If we go into the motives of why they did so, we could discuss possibilities of deceipt, duplicity, lying, aspirations of power, political patronage, and other vices that the Buddha and the early Buddhists were (as per the EBTs) trying to get away from. Then it would appear that the early followers of the Buddha (and the Buddha himself) were far from their idealized depictions in the suttas.

The Brahmins are on the other hand shown as being more humble and honest than these early Buddhists (including the Buddha himself) in DN13 where they accept that they had not seen Brahmā with their own eyes, whereas the person who called himself the Buddha claims he knew and saw Brahmā personally.

@Dhabba

just how far away the brahmins were from anything they claimed

@Dhabba

the brahmins inhumane views in general

@Dhabba

brahmins other antics were all done in vain

@Dhabba

the narcissistic, inhumane and ignorant brahmins full of ego who truly lack integrity

@Dhabba

views of fanatical brahmins who prefered doing rituals and having a position of power

Please sound less fanatical and tone down the hate yourself - else you will have much less to do with the Buddha of your imagination than the Brahmins had to do with the Brahmā of their imagination.

[Dhabba]

@srkris

Please sound less fanatical and tone down the hate yourself - else you will have much less to do with the Buddha of your imagination than the Brahmins had to do with the Brahmā of their imagination.

There is 0% hate, the ascetics, yogis & brahmins all over India are my brothers/sisters. Same with the shamans and mystics in South america and Africa. And the daoists too! And people of all other religions too!
(the actual practioners that is )

My point is that just like wealthy powerful intolerant right-wing christians in the US have little to nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, the same can be said about certain brahmins. Namely those with power who prefer rituals over meditation.

There are also real christians right now in the US who have wisdom and who actually practice the religion, you know things like: pacifism, anti banks, ”greed/money is the root of all evil”, peace, love, charity and so on… The early christians were also beggars, just like buddhist monastics.

I don’t even hate the hypocrites in other religions with power who make a mockery of their own religion. You are missing my point.

My point is, there is zero evidence that Baka Brahma has bad qualities. I only speculated that Venerable @Sujato thought so based on what he knows about certain brahmins and their views and practices.

How else could he say such negative things about Baka Brahma when the suttas say the opposite?

In the suttas during The Buddha’s time the brahmins had really degenerated and did not live up to being brahmins.

But of course there were also great brahmins who were skillful in meditation with a lot of wisdom.

@srkris

There is very little evidence of either a supernatural Buddha (a Buddha with supernatural powers) or a supernatural Brahmā as far as historical reality is concerned. The early Buddhists of the first few generations of Buddhism (being reasonably rational) knew quite well that the person who claimed to be a Buddha (in their own lifetime) could not have met any supernatural beings and did not have supernatural powers, but they still weren’t shy of claiming in numerous canonical texts that he did.

I disagree.

Buddhism, since the very start with Buddha Vipassi, is pretty much identical to all other religions: Same precepts, same realms of existence, same supernatural abilities and the same unseen beings (like the devas/brahmas).

”The Buddha Vipassī taught them step by step, with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven. He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation. ”

This is not unique and found in pretty much all other religions:

• Giving
• Ethical Conduct
• Heaven

So in that very sense buddhism is a religion and has all the traits of being a religion. In other religions one is also taught of there being: various realms of existence, supernatural abilities & unseen beings like devas.

But here is why buddhism is superior to and different to any other religion:

And when he knew that their minds were ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas: suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.

During the current Buddha’s time:

Ajita Kesakambalī taught materialism: with death, all is annihilated.

Pūraṇa Kassapa denied any reward or punishment for either good or bad deeds.

So I don’t understand what you fully mean when you deny a ”supernatural Buddha”?

Based on what exactly?

While there are plenty of brahmins & ascetics belonging to different religious sects that convert to buddhism in the suttas - we never see any of these type of people (followers of Ajita Kesakambalī & Pūraṇa Kassapa) becoming buddhists in the suttas.

That being said, those with little dust in their eyes are not ”rational people” as you put it but actual yogis, ascetics, wanderers, brahmins, meditators etc. already on a certain religious path or in contact with such people. Never any followers of Ajita Kesakambalī or Pūraṇa Kassapa…

To some of these people that converted to buddhism the various heavenly realms, the beings like devas and supernatural abilities were already realities.

[knigarian]

@srkris

There is very little evidence of either a supernatural Buddha (a Buddha with supernatural powers) or a supernatural Brahmā as far as historical reality is concerned. The early Buddhists of the first few generations of Buddhism (being reasonably rational) knew quite well that the person who claimed to be a Buddha (in their own lifetime) could not have met any supernatural beings and did not have supernatural powers, but they still weren’t shy of claiming in numerous canonical texts that he did.

Are you sure you haven’t made any mistake? Just check it, and you will see it is not forum running by nor for atheists.

[srkris]

@Dhabba

My point is that just like wealthy powerful intolerant right-wing christians in the US have little to nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, the same can be said about certain brahmins. Namely those with power who prefer rituals over meditation.

Betrand Russell on Christ's moral character

"There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching—an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance, find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane towards the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sort of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said: ‘Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?’ That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: ‘Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world nor in the world of come.’ That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says: ‘The Son of Man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth’; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming to divide the sheep and the goats He is going to say to the goats: ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.’ He continues: ‘And these shall go away into everlasting fire.’ Then He says again: ‘If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.’ He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him as His chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill to the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chooses to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig-tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig-tree. ‘He was hungry; and seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: “No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever,” . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: “Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered away”.’ This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects."

Source: Why I am not a Christian

So Jesus is not beyond controversy himself, leave alone his bad followers. Neither was any other historical figure, they were all products of their time and place.

You can speak similarly about a lot of present-day Buddhists in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, China, etc who may act diametrically opposite to the Buddha’s teachings. What about the not so great followers of another very prominent religion? Such people exist in all religions. You chose however to do a full-on character assassination of Brahmins specifically, through thinly veiled canards, and are now claiming to have 0% hate after cussing about them. Doesn’t wash honestly. Please stop this mindless degrading caricature of any community, and you dont have to offer any justifications for it.

@Dhabba

So I don’t understand what you fully mean when you deny a ”supernatural Buddha”?
Based on what exactly?

Based on common sense. There were no historical Buddhas with supernatural abilities of being able to see and speak with Brahmās (although the Buddha and his immediate followers in the Pāli canon are claimed to be possessing unprecedented supernatural and psychic powers, and that most of the Vedic Devas and Brahmins venerated the historical Buddha) - such accounts are a polemical device meant to elevate the Buddha above all Brahmins and the Vedic gods, and to undermine the hold that the Vedic religion and Brahmin-led social order had on society of the time. No historical Buddha could have seen or spoken to any kind of Brahmā or any other supernatural being in historic reality.

@knigarian

you will see it is not forum running by nor for atheists.

Really, are there any theistic Buddhists in this forum who passionately believe that the historical Buddha met the supernatural beings that the Pali canon claims he did? I would think not - but I am sincerely sorry if you (or someone else) felt genuinely aggreived by my statement of rationality.

[Dhabba]

@srkris

So Jesus is not beyond controversy himself, leave alone his bad followers. Neither was any other historical figure, they were all products of their time and place.

You can speak similarly about a lot of present-day Buddhists in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, China, etc who may act diametrically opposite to the Buddha’s teachings. What about the not so great followers of another very prominent religion? Such people exist in all religions. You chose however to do a full-on character assassination of Brahmins specifically, through thinly veiled canards, and are now claiming to have 0% hate after cussing about them. Doesn’t wash honestly. Please stop this mindless degrading caricature of any community, and you dont have to offer any justifications for it.

Jesus Christ!

My god…

You do realise that you are quoting me out of context when you claim I ”hate”?

Venerable @Sujato said Brahma is full of ego, lacks integrity & has traits of a narcissist. I quoted from the suttas that the only ignorance Baka Brahma has (according to The Buddha), is that of permanence. The caste system is to me inhumane; ”only those with fair skin can be brahmins, never those with dark skin.”
Rituals etc. are worthless.

So if you now look at how I only speculated as to why Ven. @Sujato has conflated brahmins with brahma (please also check my various sutta quotes to further emphasize this) we get the following:

@Dhabba

the narcissistic (Sujato), inhumane (me) and ignorant (The Buddha) brahmins full of ego (Sujato) who truly lack integrity (Sujato)

But I am the one doing the ”hating”?

Please check the context of what is being said and why.
You will hopefully see why I actually used those words.

You know, maybe because I thought Ven. @Sujato conflated certain brahmanical views and practices with Brahma?

@srkris

Based on common sense. There were no historical Buddhas with supernatural abilities of being able to see and speak with Brahmās (although the Buddha and his immediate followers in the Pāli canon are claimed to be possessing unprecedented supernatural and psychic powers, and that most of the Vedic Devas and Brahmins venerated the historical Buddha) - such accounts are a polemical device meant to elevate the Buddha above all Brahmins and the Vedic gods, and to undermine the hold that the Vedic religion and Brahmin-led social order had on society of the time. No historical Buddha could have seen or spoken to any kind of Brahmā or any other supernatural being in historic reality.

We are prohibited to discuss the supernatural abilities on this forum so I will only reply to this if the moderators allow me.

Historic reality? So those enjoying heaven right now are missing out on historic reality? Is there even an afterlife?
Just checking since it is considered right view.

[knigarian]

@srkris

Really, are there any theistic Buddhists in this forum who passionately believe that the historical Buddha met the supernatural beings that the Pali canon claims he did? I would think not - but I am sincerely sorry if you (or someone else) felt genuinely aggreived by my statement of rationality.

Theistic Buddhist rather not, since dialectic theism/atheism is dependently arisen upon ignorance and if your eyes are good enough you are able to find such views somewhere in Brahmajala.

But believing in devas is a part of right view so to expect that you will not find any such Buddhists here isn’t rational at all, it is as if you come to Muslim forum with expectations that nobody there recognise Mahomet as a prophet.

So I am rather genuinely amused by your lack of good manners, since whatever a man of high culture thinks about Islam, definitely he keeps it for himself and do not try teach Muslim that Mahomet wasn’t true prophet. There is also dialectic about wisdom of someone who takes his own views so much for granted that he not so much believes that others who don’t share his ideas are wrong, but rather that his ideas are so obviously right that everyone agrees with them.

[srkris]

@knigarian

But believing in devas is a part of right view so to expect that you will not find any such Buddhists here isn’t rational at all, it is as if you come to Muslim forum with expectations that nobody there recognise Mahomet as a prophet.

Yes, I am not trying to question or change anyone’s religious belief, I was asking from the point of view of historical reality if anyone could possibly believe in the historical Buddha meeting and conversing with supernatural beings. Thereby I presumed my inferences about it not being historical reality were non-controversial.

If any Buddhist believes that the Buddha saw and spoke with Brahmā personally, they are welcome to hold that as a religious belief, and I am not interested in dissing such religious beliefs. I am simply stating my views on how I see EBTs and their caricatures of pre-Buddhist society and religion as part of history - not to disprove or delegitimize anyone’s religious beliefs.

Regarding your comparison of this forum with Muslim forums discussing Islamic orthodoxy, I dont see any similarity. Perhaps you wish us to be less open minded, but neither Buddhism nor Hinduism has a concept of blasphemy. Back in the Buddha’s time, most Brahmins would have scoffed at the idea that anyone living in their midst personally met and conversed with Brahmā or any of the Devas - and that kind of skepticism and critical thinking was par for the course. It is not meant to offend or insult anyone or their beliefs.

[Vaddha]

@srkris

Betrand Russell on Christ’s moral character

Mostly unrelated here, but just to be clear, as far as our New Testament and early sources go, it does not seem that Jesus believed in or taught an eternal punishment (“hell”) in the sense of everlasting conscious painful torment. It’s a doctrine of the Church that was adopted later via Hellenistic and Neo-Platonist influence of an immortal, immaterial soul. Uncritical readers and poor translations perpetuate this misunderstanding. If anyone is interested, it can be looked into elsewhere.

[NgXinZhao]

@srkris

Buddhists in this forum who passionately believe that the historical Buddha met the supernatural beings that the Pali canon claims he did?

Most of us are. You’re just influenced by physicalism philosophy.

See rebirth evidences for example to help you get out of that harmful philosophy. And search Dean Radin for supernormal abilities research.

[Dhammanando]

@srkris

Back in the Buddha’s time, most Brahmins would have scoffed at the idea that anyone living in their midst personally met and conversed with Brahmā or any of the Devas

But there are Brahminical texts containing dialogues between humans and gods, e.g., Nāciketa and Yama in the Kaṭhopaniṣad. Are you saying that most brahmins of the Buddha’s time would have scoffed at the idea that these accounts were meant to be taken literally? If so, how does one know this?

[srkris]

Yes, you’re right, there are similar stories in the Upanishads as well as in Brahmanical texts before and after them. They are/were usually taken as parables/allegories.

There were multiple schools of thought among the brahmins back then about the possibility of humans meeting gods, but the most prominent of them was the school of the mīmāṃsakas (who were vedic ritualists and believed that the vedas had no divine origins and found belief in the existence of supernatural entities like the Devas unnecessary, and went so far as claiming that devas do not exist). This would have been a prominent view.

[Aidan]

@srkris

Really, are there any theistic Buddhists in this forum who passionately believe that the historical Buddha met the supernatural beings that the Pali canon claims he did? I would think not - but I am sincerely sorry if you (or someone else) felt genuinely aggreived by my statement of rationality.

Hello,

theistic Buddhist here. I don’t think belief in a supernatural buddha or brahmas attack rationality in the way you paint it. Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Is it really that irrational to think there is an order of senitience and being that is higher than Human? Why is it so rational to believe Humans are the only intelligence in the ccosmos? There could just as easily be aliens or angels or Brahma. There is a huge eco system of life on our planet.

Buddhism is a religion after all. Existence in Sensual, form, and formless realms is important to Dhamma. The Buddha says these realms exist, followers of the buddha have faith in their spirtual leader. Common sense isn’t as imperical as you suggest. Object permannce seems common sense to a 10 year old but no so clear to an infrant. I once never knew times tables, it frustrated my brain now i solve quick maths with basic sense. Maybe the three knowledges are gained and after wards seeing the various orders of beings seems rather, commonon sense.

We can racket rationality back and forth but, rationality isn’t even a huge foundation for early buddhist epistomology. I’m sure are rationality expands with what information we know.

If it’s the case that Brahmas are purely pedalogical tricks, which i’m not aware if that is strongly evidenced, they still are rich in meaning and convey aspects of Buddhism.

[AjitaKaput]

@srkris

Really, are there any theistic Buddhists in this forum who passionately believe that the historical Buddha met the supernatural beings that the Pali canon claims he did? I would think not - but I am sincerely sorry if you (or someone else) felt genuinely aggreived by my statement of rationality.

Fascinating captain… It appears that srkrissians expect this planet to be identical to their own. How illogical.

Jim! I’m genuinely aggreived! I’m a doctor not a, a… historian!

Brahma?!.. Three to beam up.

… and like a strong man who bends his arm…

[thomaslaw]

It seems only Brahmā Sahāṃpati, not Brahmā Baka, is a supporter of the Buddha and of his Dhamma. Brahmā Sahāṃpati requested the Buddha to teach his Dhamma to the world, out of compassion. One may express gratitude to Brahmā Sahāṃpati during Vesak day (23 May 2024).

[srkris]

@thomaslaw

It seems only Brahmā Sahāṃpati, not Brahmā Baka…

Baka and Sahāṃpati are not the proper names of two Brahmās but originally adjectives.

Sahāṃpati is a spelling mistake in the canon for either Prajāpati (“lord of living beings”) or sabhāpati (“leader of the assembly of gods”).

Baka is also a spelling mistake in the canon, the actual word is vyaya. The Brahma who is likely to become “deceased” (vyaya) or who is “impermanent” has illusions of permanence in MN49.

In the Kharoṣṭhī script (Gāndhārī) in which the original Buddhist Canon existed before it was converted to Pali, the vya was confused with b(y)a and ya was confused with ka due to similarities of those letters in the script. So vyaya-Brahmā in Gāndhāri was read as Baka Brahmā by the person who converted it to Pali.

[yeshe.tenley]

@srkris

They are/were usually taken as parables/allegories.
…
This would have been a prominent view.

How do you know this? Through deep meditation and the divine eye? Through historical record - perhaps a census of belief during time of the Buddha that survives down to present day and can be radio carbon dated? Are you sure that such a census was compiled scrupulously? How do you know the beliefs and hearts of peoples who lived thousands of years ago to such an extent that you can assign majorities to the non-theistic population? What evidence do you marshal in support of your categorical statement of knowledge?