-3

Why the historic saviours and prophets of mankind only existed in scriptures or only in the past?

Why do no saviour was found in the world, which have seen by some men actually?

Why Buddha keeps his hair, but the disciples are bald?

I believe the Buddha is synonym to the cosmic man, the Brahman or the Absolute of the Upanishad.

I feel no man named Buddha existed but the term coined to the awakened one or the absolute. It has been replaced with Brahman.

Shaven head of disciple means they have shaven their mind of impurity to attain the Teacher, The Tathagata.

The 'Tat' is Upanishadic word from greatest dictum, 'Tat Tvam Assi'!

Do Tathagata really mean who have arrived at 'Tat' or the Absolute?

Please I have these doubts in my mind!

5
1

Of course is the Sublime Buddha his disciples 'Brahma', the Sangha and their faithful follower, good householder, one not only having formed the space but filled it up with the teaching to go beyond dependency.

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.

"There are these two kinds of gifts: a gift of material things & a gift of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a gift of the Dhamma.

"There are these two kinds of sharing: sharing of material things & sharing of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: sharing of the Dhamma.

"There are these two kinds of assistance: assistance with material things & assistance with the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: help with the Dhamma.

"There are these two kinds of mass-donations: a mass-donation of material things & a mass-donation of the Dhamma. Of the two, this is supreme: a mass-donation of the Dhamma."

He who, unstinting,
made the mass-donation of Dhamma,
the Tathagata,
sympathetic to all beings:
    to one of that sort
— the best of beings, human & divine —
living beings pay homage —
    to one gone
    to the beyond
    of becoming.

[Note that this isn't given for stacks, exchange, other world-binding trades, but for release for this wheel]

6
  • I agree respected sir. Even 'Brahma is also the disciple of Buddha. And Buddha said, 'I am Brahman indeed!'. What I asked is not about Brahma but the Brahman or Absolute. Upanishada says, 'Brahm janati iti Brahmana' (those who know Brahm is really called as the Brahman). They say Brahman is highest truth. Also they says, 'Who attain Brahman, then birth and death can't apply to the one who knows it. It ceases'. In that sense Buddha is word synonym to Brahman. – Sandeep Telang Oct 3 '20 at 12:10
  • They have same historic saviours always existed in the past. Nobody seen them with personal account. Not only that, but the same teachings are there in different religious texts. Like concept of 'The one who know Brahm, is Brahmana', exists also in Christianity. The John says, ''A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' Here John is Brahm and the one who arrive and know as greater than him, the John. Where are these historic men came from? Who breathed forth the scriptures? Bible says, 'Lord breathed forth the scriptures. Can this be true? – Sandeep Telang Oct 3 '20 at 12:22
  • As long as it does not touch hidden desire for one of the three kinds, sensuality, craving for being, craving for not-being, it would serve the path toward liberation, good householder. The rest is useless philosophy, trying to take hold on something lying beyond the world, causing just suffering. Walk on, good Brahman, don't waste precious time. Ehipassiko! With his Path the Sublime Buddha invites all to come and see, see for themselves. – Samana Johann Oct 3 '20 at 12:23
  • Doubt fades only by enter the stream. As this here isn't a conductive place, good householder, as all others, wishing to progress, may make use of given "Brahma-realm" – Samana Johann Oct 3 '20 at 12:27
  • Good monk. Don't judge others for their cravings and delusions. Don't think others as downgraded and mean. For, you can't know the other one who, may have supassed in vision and wisdom. May have attain tranquility and near the sublime goal. In my case I feel nothing as obscure. Good wishes for your journey sir and may you attain peace! – Sandeep Telang Oct 3 '20 at 12:29
0

The Buddha is a title which means The Awakened One.

Gautama Buddha was one of a number of Buddhas who, according to tradition, appeared in history.

Gautama Buddha really did exist as a real person, and there is some archaeological evidence for this. Please see National Geographic's most recent article "Buddha's birthplace yields clues about his mysterious life".

In the Pali Canon, the word Brahma refers to a class of high level gods, who are not immortals. In fact, no person exists forever in Buddhism. Also, the word brahman in the Pali Canon refers to what the Hindu scriptures call brahmana or brahmin, the priestly class of people.

Nowhere does the term Brahman, as referring to God or the Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth, exist in the Pali Canon.

After he passed away, there is no way for anyone to contact Gautama Buddha anywhere by prayers or anything like that. By attaining enlightenment, you don't become one with the Buddha and you certainly don't become spiritually connected to him. That doesn't fit in with the notion of Brahman in Hinduism.

"Tathāgata" is formed by "tathā" + "gata" meaning "one who has thus gone". It has nothing to do with Hinduism's "tat twam asi" (That thou art i.e. you are that Ultimate Reality).

The idea of Brahman in Hinduism is a personification of the Ultimate Truth or Ultimate Reality. The Buddha rejected this kind of view as eternalism (sassatavada in Pali or sāśvata-dṛṣṭi in Sanskrit) in many suttas.

Some people say Nibbana is Brahman, but Nibbana is simply what is experienced by the mind which is free from defilements and fetters. It is not an Ultimate Reality i.e. it's not an eternal state of existence.

If we venture into Mahayana Buddhism, some Hindus may say that the Buddha Nature is Brahman. But the Buddha Nature is simply the potential to become a Buddha. It's not any kind of Ultimate Reality or Ultimate Truth.

In Mahayana Buddhism, some may say that the Buddha exists eternally in his Dharma Body. This comes from a saying of the Buddha in the Pali suttas to the effect of "when you see me, you see the Dharma. When you see the Dharma, you see me". This means that there is nothing special about the Buddha's form or personality to idolize. What is special about the Buddha is the Dharma - his teachings.

There is no such thing as Cosmic Man or Cosmic Consciousness in Buddhism. Consciousness is impermanent and dependent on sensory media. It doesn't exist independently from the six senses, looking through multiple living beings simultaneously.

5
  • 'By knowing the uncreat and unborn, you have silenced yourself, you have already attained Nirvana!'._Dhammapada One can have no doubt what unborn, uncreat means. The ultimate reality or Brahman? Upanishadic teacher said, 'Silence is That! Brahmin is the sect of people. Brahman is the uncreat and unborn or Absolute. Essense is same. Even Buddhism is not one sects, they have multiple branches as much as 32 sects like Sarvastivadin, mahayan, hinyan who follows different approch to truth. They hold their sects as true, like what Theravada do. – Sandeep Telang Oct 3 '20 at 17:13
  • @SandeepTelang Indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp wrote in Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study: "Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum (true substance)," or similarly." – ruben2020 Oct 3 '20 at 18:44
  • I have never seen or heard any Mahayanist or Mahayana text that would say that Buddha Nature is Brahman. This idea seems to only exist in the mind of people who disagree with Mahayana. – Andrei Volkov Oct 4 '20 at 2:32
  • @Andrei Volkov: What if it is there? Tathāgatagarbha is not the name for Brahman with attribute. Tathāgatagarbha is synonym to 'Universe is Brahman, neither beginning nor end, always changes. Like a city in mirror, universe exists in it, but he is not in it.' Mahayana says the same, even, Nagarjuna goes further and declared ,'Samsara is Nirvana (World is That(Nirvana) either exists, not, not not, nor both.Truth don't live in scriptures. Jesus died, Mohammad died, Buddha died, Brahma died, crores of Saint died, Behold 'That one never dies!' 'Thou are that'! – Sandeep Telang Oct 4 '20 at 2:57
  • mind of an Arahant will one day cease (SN 22.85) where as the element of Nibbana never ceases (Ud 8.3; MN 115. Also one aspect of knowing the awakened one is like this. 'If anyone says, he know Brahman, know not, for it knows itself'! Knower dies! 'If anybody says I saw it, know not, for it see itself!' seer dies!...it is the realm where seer, act of seeing and object to be seen in one. What a wonder! – Sandeep Telang Oct 4 '20 at 3:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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