-2

Ven. and good Buddha-Parisatas, interested,

The topic there, has much off-topics (actually related here), so possible good to answer it rightly seperate:

What's the different between the Sublime creator Brahma (God/lord/One with a stand/Sublime) Buddha and other creator Gods, Brahmas, such as those of the Brahma realm (particular mentioned also in monotheistic believes)?

(Note that this is not asked for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and continue such for release)

closed as unclear what you're asking by Andrei Volkov Jul 26 at 12:14

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2

You linked to an answer in which you quoted the Buddha describing himself as "a Brahman" (not "the Brahma"):

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, etc.

Wikipedia says they're different words with different meanings: Comparison of Brahma, Brahman, Brahmin and Brahmanas

The version you quoted might be a mistranslation, here is another ("Brahmin" not "Brahman"):

Bhikkhus, I am a brahmin, ever accessible to entreaties etc.

In the Dhammapada, "Brahmana" appears to be used and translated as holy man.

  • Perhaps they're different declensions of a common root. The "brahmana" used in this verse might be "instrumental" or "ablative" case? The translation "O Brahmana" would have me expect to see the vocative e.g. "brahme" but ... my Pali isn't that good, I don't want to second-guess the translators, they presumably have their reasons. Anyway I think the Buddha is revered as like a God in some schools of Buddhism, but perhaps not in the Pali suttas, though there are passages – ChrisW Jul 21 at 12:16
  • in the suttas which portray him as superior to the God[s]. – ChrisW Jul 21 at 12:25
  • That was not the question, but surely worthy another, good householder. – Samana Johann Jul 21 at 12:41
  • I'm not sure I've seen the Buddha described as "Brahma" before (e.g. as in the title), if you say "that was not the question" I probably didn't understand the question -- perhaps what you're asking for, or would like to post, is some further explanation of Iti 100. – ChrisW Jul 21 at 13:58
  • 1
    Good, and what then in regard of It is in dependence on me (the Buddha) as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth, that beings subject to aging have gained release from aging, that beings subject to death have gained release from death, that beings subject to sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair have gained release from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. in householders defense relativation ("just like others..." yet the others are creator as well, but different.) – Samana Johann Jul 21 at 15:07
1

The Buddha in Iti 100 (quoted below) calls himself a brahman or brahmin (caste), and not a Brahma (god). The bhikkhus are like his sons, born from his mouth, born of the Dhamma and are heirs of the Dhamma. The Buddha here means that he is their teacher and they have become bhikkhus because of him and the Dhamma. The bhikkhus must also carry on learning and teaching the Dhamma after he is gone (as he has said in DN 16 also). Iti 100 does not say that he literally created the monks as a Brahma (god) might create living beings (if a Brahma could really do so).

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things.

The Buddha described himself as a brahman or brahmin. This usually refers to the highest caste of the Vedic religion, composed of priests, scholars and sages.

However, in the suttas, sometimes the Buddha repurposed the term "brahman" to describe a perfected person as in how an actual brahmin should be, rather than how he really is. This is what the Buddha meant when he described himself as a brahman - that he is a role model for the bhikkhus.

We can see this description of a brahman (or brahmin) in Ud 1.5:

When this was said, a certain monk who was a brahman by birth said to the Blessed One, "To what extent, lord, is one a brahman? And which are the qualities that make one a brahman?"

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

Having banished evil qualities,
those who go about ever mindful,
awakened, their fetters ended:
They, in the world,
are truly brahmans.

While the Buddha has never described himself as a Brahma (god), he has also repurposed the term Brahma to praise the role of good parents in Iti 106:

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Living with Brahma are those families where, in the home, mother & father are revered by the children. Living with the first devas are those families where, in the home, mother & father are revered by the children. Living with the first teachers are those families where, in the home, mother & father are revered by the children. Living with those worthy of gifts are those families where, in the home, mother & father are revered by the children. 'Brahma' is a designation for mother & father. 'The first devas' is a designation for mother & father. 'The first teachers' is a designation for mother & father. 'Those worthy of gifts' is a designation for mother & father. Why is that? Mother & father do much for their children. They care for them, nourish them, introduce them to this world."

  • literally created the monks... my person guesses that there are certain problem do understand existence, jati. Maybe householder @Dhammadhatu likes to help here :-) Not easy that right view issue for wanderers of other, nihilsist, sects. – Samana Johann Jul 21 at 14:43
1

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things.

I believe the Buddha described himself as Brahma here and monks as Brahmins.

born from my mouth

In Brahmic religions, it is said the brahmins are born from the mouth of the Brahma.

Verses 5-15 hold the creation of the Rig Veda. Creation is described to have started with the origination of Virat, or the cosmic body from the Purusha. In Virat, omnipresent intelligence manifests itself which causes the appearance of diversity. In the verses following, it is held that Purusha through a sacrifice of himself, brings forth the avian, forest-dwelling and domestic animals, the three Vedas, the metres (of the mantras). Then follows a verse which states that from his mouth, arms, thighs, feet the four varnas (classes) are born. This four varna-related verse is controversial and is believed by many scholars, such as Max Müller, to be a corruption and a medieval or modern era insertion into the text.

Purusha Sukta

According to this hymn in Mandala 10, Brahmins are described as having emerged from the mouth of Purusha, being that part of the body from which words emerge.

Brahmin

  • Thats the previous questions answer, good householder. On that foundation: whats the different between this two kinds of "Brahmas", is the question here. – Samana Johann Jul 21 at 15:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.