Numerous Vedic gods are mentioned in
the Tipitaka, some of them being Inda also
called Sakka, Aggi, Suriya, Canda, Varuna, Pajapati, Sri, Venhu (Sanskrit Visnu)
Soma and Yama. By the 5th century BCE the god who had emerged as preeminent
in Brahmanism was Brahma. He is described as “All-Seeing,
All-Powerful, the Lord, Maker, Creator and Ruler, Appointer and Controller,
Father of All that Are and All that Shall Be” (M.I,327).
He “outshines
all other gods in radiance” and “when he appears he assumes a grosser
form because his natural appearance is not perceptible to the eye” (D.II,210). He was also believed to be a benign deity,
loving and without anger or ill-will (D.I,247) Devotees praised Brahma, called upon him for help and worshipped him with
offerings and sacrifices. The hope was to be guided and protected by him in
this life and be in fellowship with him (Brahmasahavyata, D.I,235) after
death. Thus in most respects Brahma is equivalent to the supreme deity of the
major theistic religions.
While the Buddha
acknowledged the reality of Brahma he cast doubts on nearly every one of the
claims made about him, thus indirectly rendering worship of and devotion to him
meaningless. Far from being immutable Brahma is subject to change and reverses (annathattam
atthi viparinamo, A.V,60) like everything else. Brahma thinks he created
everything but he has misinterpreted the facts (D.I,18 ff), and when the Buddha
asked those who believe in his creation to explain exactly how it happened “they could not give a convincing answer” (te
maya puttha na sampayanti,
D.III,28). Brahma was believed to be omniscient but in his
better moments he admitted being ignorant about many things (D.I,222). This
supposed divine omniscience was further undermined by the Buddha’s claim that Brahma would often would
come to praise him or to ask him questions about things he did not know,
especially concerning spiritual matters (M.I,168; 326; S.I,139; 153).
The Jataka asked why, if
Brahma is all-powerful and all-loving, he did
not do something about all the suffering and evil in the world. “Why does
Brahma not straighten out the world? If he really is
the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is the whole world in such
a mess? Why did he not make the world happy? If he really is the Controller,
the Highest, Lord of All Beings, why is there so much deceit, lies, pride and
unrighteousness? If he really is the Controller, the Highest, Lord of All
Beings, then he must be unrighteous and cruel because it was he who made everything”
(Ja.VI,208).
The word brahma comes from the root brh meaning highest, powerful, most excellent, and the
Buddha used it as a name for some of his doctrinal categories. Thus the life of
celibacy is brahmacariya, the four highest emotions are the Brahma Viharas, the Noble Eightfold Path is also called
the brahmayana, and the Dhamma is
brahmacakka (M.I,69; 147; S.I,5). When the Buddha said he had “become Brahma”
(brahmabhuto, D.III,84) he did
not mean that he has attained union with God in the Vedic sense, but rather
that he had realized the highest state, i.e. Nirvana.
The idea that “there are three gods
in Hinduism; Brahma the creator, Visnu the preserver and Siva the
destroyer” is, curiously enough, more well-known and widely accepted in
the West than it ever has been in India. In perhaps the early Gupta period an
attempt was made by a few theologians to reconcile different deities, the trimurti being the best example of this.
Prof. A. L. Basham correctly says that the divine trinity was an “artificial
growth” which had “little
real influence” and “never really caught on”. It is well-known in
the West almost certainly because it is reminiscent of the Christian idea of
the Trinity. In later iconography Brahma was
depicted with four faces, four hands and riding on a goose (hamsa). Worship of Brahma has almost completely disappeared in India, but
ironically he is still widely worshiped by Buddhists in Thailand where he is
known as Phra Prom.
1 comment:
The all-loving nature of Brahma appears to be something Buddhists have imputed in the Tevijja Sutta, which is part of the anti-Brahman propaganda in the Digha Nikaya (unlikely actually spoken by the Buddha but composed at a later time under Ashoka). I say this because the all-loving nature of Brahma is not a theme I have noticed in the many other suttas where the Buddha is chatting with Brahmans. Therefore, since it is the Buddhists that have probably imputed Brahma as all-loving; (just as the DN idiosyncratically defines the original Brahmans as "those who turn away from evil") it is the Buddhists refuting their own imputation when they question why Brahma does not stop the world's problems. That said, this Buddhist version of Brahma, probably developed during the missionary reign of King Ashoka, sounds very much like the contradictory 'Christianity' Jesus would soon after introduce into Israel and be crucified for. It is not logical an all-loving God can be the Creator of this defiled oppressive world. That said, 'Brahma' is really about the mind believing it is the creator of the world via 'nama-rupa'.
Post a Comment