If you mean that all those realms do not really exist, and are only adopted by the Buddha to align with what people believed that days, the Canon is reduced to the size of a comic book and there is a lot of fake news in the Canon. Is that also your opinion?
Some concrete details, reasoned arguments, are needed to support this, your opinion.
No, that is not my opinion at all.
This tantric system of chakraās, nadiās, bindu is not some myth. People experience it.
It is also no myth that we can experience a coarse body and different subtle bodies.
What do i need to say more?
Oke but what do you then mean when you say:
That seems to be a misinterpretation based on a misunderstanding of Paliās historical phonetics. Baka in Pali where used as an epithet/adjective is not an insinuation of a Brahma with the bad characteristics of a crane/stork. It is merely a phonetic corruption of Skt vyaya > *byaya > *baya > baka - this very example of phonetic corruption is first reported in GandhÄrÄ« texts but inherited by Pali manuscripts when they were first transliterated from their Gandhari originals.
This phenomenon is described in more detail by Prof John Brough under the heading āA MÅ«la-sarvÄstivÄdin criticismā in Page 45 of his Gandhari Dharmapada, see The Gandhari Dharmapada : Brough,john : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
So originally it must have been Vyaya-BrahmÄ (a Brahma who is non-eternal), and it is simply an adjective not the proper name of an otherwise unattested BrahmÄ
1 Like
This has been a fascinating discussion thus far, but I still find myself with a problem we havenāt really addressed.
When I search for the concept of having a thousand eyes in Chinese Buddhist sources, I canāt find any other instance of BrahmÄ having a thousand eyes. Instead, what I find is quite a few references to Åakra having a thousand eyes. This occurs even in a Pali sutta: SN 11.12, where several epithets of Sakka are addressed. This sutta has parallels in Chinese sources: SA 1106 and SA-2.35.
There are other Buddhist sources that say this about Åakra, but the interpretation is not that he can see a thousand worlds with his thousand eyes; rather, itās a metaphor for omniscience: He can think about a thousand subjects simultaneously. Which I suppose is the source for Buddhists arguing about whether the Buddha could think about more than one thing at a time or not.
So, I look at this larger context, and I return to EÄ 16.9. Something I notice is that BrahmÄ is inserted into the list of gods in a way that doesnāt seem natural. Besides him, the list is gods and spirits from Mount Sumeru, and BrahmÄ is listed after Åakra. I wonder if it should be BrahmÄ that has the thousand eyes - is it possible BrahmÄ here is an epithet of Åakra? Itās just a strange thing to me that we have this reference to BrahmÄ having a thousand eyes. From a couple references I found from a general Google search, it seems to have been a thing among non-Buddhists, so I guess itās possible that someone has changed a sÅ«tra that originally was about Åakra. In the context of Aniruddha, it would make better sense to a Buddhist redactor since BrahmÄās thousand eyes could serve as a metaphor for the divine eye instead of omniscience.
But this is the reason I was asking about the chronology of this image of BrahmÄ with a thousand eyes. Was it ever representing in art or referenced in literature explicitly? The Rgveda reference is perhaps the origin of gods having a thousand eyes in Indian religious thought, but Iām not seeing this as specific to BrahmÄ. It looks to me like whichever god was considered the highest was given epithets like this in India. MahÄyÄna Buddhists eventually depicted bodhisattvas like AvalokiteÅvara is this way as well.
I guess I will leave it be for the time being. Since there isnāt a clear answer to my original question, Iāve turned the thread into a Discussion instead of a Q&A.
I think the altered pronunciation theory makes sense for how we ended up with a text describing BrahmÄ as ignorant about his own clothes. It does fit the general theme of Buddhist criticism of BrahmÄ as an all-knowing creator god. They usually claim he is ignorant of something fundamental like his rebirth in the Brahma realm. Here, this is changed to ignorance about his own self. Which then segues into a discussion of self in general.
ā does seem like the most straightforward way to understand it in the context of the whole sÅ«tra. The discussion of two kinds of self is probably a commentary on the metaphor.
3 Likes
This is a very interesting point. Possibly, I guess, the thousand-eyed BrahmÄ in the text is a prototype of Thousand-armed and Thousand-eyed AvalokiteÅvara image?
1 Like
This is quite a claim is it not?
Are you suggesting that the Gandhari Prakrit is the source of the Pali texts?
Yes I have said it several times, see here for example. Gandhari is the earliest source of Pali. Many phonetic quirks in Pali are unmistakable signs of the manuscript tradition switching (at a relatively early date) from the gandhari into pali.
1 Like
Some info: Tibetan buddhist do not see Tchenrezig (=Avalokitesvara) as still deluded but as fully enlightend. But A. chooses to remain in samsara to help others. He is not seen as creator and does also not see himself as a creator. I believe dependend on culture A. is seen as male or feminine or genderless.
Tchenrezig is seen as embodiment of compassion and emptiness. His thousand hands and many eyes are to illustrate A. is always ready to help and always concerned with the welbeing of all beings. Not only spiritually but also the needs of people.
The mantra is: ohm mani padme hoeng. It is said that recitation gives rise to the paramitaās. It opens the heart region. Thenrezig can be teacher, protector, refuge. This does mean that he is not like Maha Brahma who is still conceited and not fully enlightend.
Mara can only rule when there is still defilements but Buddha teaches that Mara cannot go where there is purity. And this is the nature of all of us. This emptied pure heart is tchenrezig.