Hinduism with Brahma

[Unveiled Artist]

Question. I go to a Buddhist site. Very very nice. We are discussing the suttas and I asked how Brahma plays a role in offerings since we do offerings and oblation to deities and sangha (as so discussed). I didnt know this as I thought it was a Mahayana teaching. Therevada does it too.

Anyway, I asked about giving offerings to deities and one gentlemen said...rephrased. It's not a debate site so the info was given on good intentions.

Sorry. Format. On phone in the middle of something. Fix later
-
My question

unveiledartist

I do have a question, though the convo is going over my head. This sutta mentions Ven. Brahnadeva’s mother offering oblation to Brahma. Im only familiar with Brahma being a Hindu deity/god. Do practitioners give oblations to Brahma as hindus do? I know at the Vietnamese Temple I went to we offered prayers , flowers, and foods to The Buddha and bodhisattvas (Mahayana) but Im not familiar with offerings and oblations as a whole. I assume The Buddha was Hindu; so, does the terminology between two faiths share the same definition and context or different?

unveiledartist:
I assume The Buddha was Hindu; so, does the terminology between two faiths share the same definition and context or different?

Answer Person Z

Does this makes sense:

I’m simplifying here but basically:

• 'Hinduism didn’t exist at that time
• Brahmanism (its historical predecessor) was at the time of the Buddha only getting established in that region
• Most people believed in the gods, but…
• Brahma ‘went out of fashion’, being replaced by cults around Siva and Krsna
• Strangely, Brahma continues to be worshiped in some forms in Buddhist countries, e.g. Thailand

Thanks

 

[Jainarayan]

• 'Hinduism didn’t exist at that time

• Brahmanism (its historical predecessor) was at the time of the Buddha only getting established in that region

• Most people believed in the gods, but…

• Brahma ‘went out of fashion’, being replaced by cults around Siva and Krsna

• Strangely, Brahma continues to be worshiped in some forms in Buddhist countries, e.g. Thailand

• It wasn't puranic Hinduism as Hinduism is largely known today. It was probably still Vedic. Vedic sacrifices were among the things the Buddha railed against.
• Possibly. The idea of Brahman begins to be established in the Upanishads which date from about the 6th century BCE to about the 15th century CE.
• Largely true, but they were Vedic gods.
  
• Largely true.
• Largely true, afaik.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

• It wasn't puranic Hinduism as Hinduism is largely known today. It was probably still Vedic. Vedic sacrifices were among the things the Buddha railed against.
• Possibly. The idea of Brahman begins to be established in the Upanishads which date from about the 6th century BCE to about the 15th century CE.
• Largely true, but they were Vedic gods.
  
• Largely true.
• Largely true, afaik.

Hm. Thank you. I didn't know how to reply since I know only The Buddha was against hinduism in esoteric practices and he was Hindu. I did read in "his" Dharma about him challenging Brahma through Mara (if you're familiar)?, an incarnation, so that he goes against his teaching of impertinence (edit. Impermanence). He was trying to distract The Buddha from teaching there is no fixed soul and all is changing. Mara didn't win the debate.

As for history etc I ask questions from time to time but their discussed fly over my head.

Edit.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm. Thank you. I didn't know how to reply since I know only The Buddha was against hinduism in esoteric practices and he was Hindu. I did read in "his" Dharma about him challenging Brahma through Mara (if you're familiar)?, an incarnation, so that he goes against his teaching of impertinence (edit. Impermanence). He was trying to distract The Buddha from teaching there is no fixed soul and all is changing. Mara didn't win the debate.

As for history etc I ask questions from time to time but their discussed fly over my head.

Edit.

What is puranic hinduism?

Hinduism is split between old and new?

 

[Jainarayan]

Hm. Thank you. I didn't know how to reply since I know only The Buddha was against hinduism in esoteric practices and he was Hindu. I did read in "his" Dharma about him challenging Brahma through Mara (if you're familiar)?, an incarnation, so that he goes against his teaching of impertinence (edit. Impermanence). He was trying to distract The Buddha from teaching there is no fixed soul and all is changing. Mara didn't win the debate.

As for history etc I ask questions from time to time but their discussed fly over my head.

Edit.

Keep in mind there is a difference between Brahman and Brahmā. Brahman is the ground and substrate of all being and existence. Brahman isn't a deity, though it's often referred to as "God". Brahmā is the creator god of the Hindu Trimurti. And then of course we have 'brahmins', the priestly class. The Buddha was against what he considered corruption, misuse and abuse of the Vedas. In the Bhagavad Gita Sri Krishna also speaks about this when he says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this." BG 2.42-43 So these "men of small knowledge" forgot the dharma and became absorbed in rewards in this life and the next.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Keep in mind there is a difference between Brahman and Brahmā. Brahman is the ground and substrate of all being and existence. Brahman isn't a deity, though it's often referred to as "God". Brahmā is the creator god of the Hindu Trimurti. And then of course we have 'brahmins', the priestly class. The Buddha was against what he considered corruption, misuse and abuse of the Vedas. In the Bhagavad Gita Sri Krishna also speaks about this when he says "Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this." BG 2.42-43 So these "men of small knowledge" forgot the dharma and became absorbed in rewards in this life and the next.

Since krishna said similar to The Buddha's sentiments, do some Hindus follow the Vedas (how do they view The Vedas when Krishna says they can be corrupted).

Or in your view personally if it's not a primary teaching?

 

[Vinayaka]

What is puranic hinduism?

Hinduism is split between old and new?

Puranic Hinduism is Hinduism based on the Puranas, a set of mythological stories. Probably the most common form followed today in village Hinduism. (Not a version I adhere to , BTW)

 

[Jainarayan]

Since krishna said similar to The Buddha's sentiments, do some Hindus follow the Vedas (how do they view The Vedas when Krishna says they can be corrupted).

Or in your view personally if it's not a primary teaching?

Hinduism today is largely puranic, that is much of the belief is from the stories in the Puranas. There are some sects that are not based on puranic stories. The Vedas are considered the heart and soul, and core of Hinduism, with rituals still being performed. Hindu weddings for example are Vedic in nature. Homas, sacrifices of ghee, grains, incense are made to a sacred fire, are Vedic and quite common. What Krishna was saying was that some people were misinterpreting the Vedas and using them only for their own benefit, but he didn't reject them. The Buddha did reject the Vedas completely.

The irony imo is that the Vedas are seen today as they should have been all along... a wealth of knowledge, poetry, hymns and philosophy. In short, they've been "redeemed" in their usage. My wild guess is that the" redemption" came about as a result of the Upanishads, which expand on the Vedas (they are called 'Vedanta', "end of the Vedas" because they came after). And ironically, the Upanishads began to appear at about the time of the Buddha and later. Maybe they were an answer from the rishis to the challenges of the Buddha.

It's also very possible I made all that up as I went along and couldn't be further off base. But it does make sense to me.

 

[Jainarayan]

Puranic Hinduism is Hinduism based on the Puranas, a set of mythological stories. Probably the most common form followed today in village Hinduism. (Not a version I adhere to , BTW)

Yeah, I was thinking of you when I said some sects. Your sampradaya has different texts iirc.

 

[Jainarayan]

What is puranic hinduism?

As @Vinayaka said, the Puranas are stories of the gods, their doings, events in the world involving the gods and other supernatural beings. The stories are allegorical and metaphorical lessons, teaching aids. Sort of like Aesop's Fables on steroids. I don't know if very many people take them literally, though the word purana means history.

Hinduism is split between old and new?

I wouldn't say that, since Hinduism today is largely of a devotional nature, i.e. bhakti, and not philosophical.

Btw, the "village Hinduism" @Vinayaka referred to is the Hinduism of the everyday person who follows Hinduism... attends temple, prays, lives life as a Hindu, knows the stories, but knows little to nothing of Vedic philosophy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That begs a snowball question. Did The Buddha reject the Upanishads since they were "revised" version of the Vedas?

It's also very possible I made all that up as I went along and couldn't be further off base. But it does make sense to me.

Ha. Thats okay. You sound intelligent to me.

 

[Jainarayan]

That begs a snowball question. Did The Buddha reject the Upanishads since they were "revised" version of the Vedas?

I wouldn't call them revised, but rather adding to. Most of them came well after the Buddha's time, but afaik he rejected the ones in existence during his time. Especially since a lot of what they talk about is the Self, the Atman, which the Buddha rejected.

 

[Terese]

The Vedas are the breath of Narayana, and Lord Brahma holds them in his four hands. They have not taken a back seat to Puranas, which were created by Vyasa Deva, an avatara of Narayana. They are both equally important.

This is a guess, but i suspect that Lord Brahma is worshipped by Buddhists much more then Hindus because according to Buddhist theology, there is no supreme eternal heaven, only a "void". If that's true, then Brahmaloka (satyaloka) would be the highest plane in our universe, as denying the existence of Brahman would mean Lord Brahma becomes the highest thing to worship.

Does this guess have a grain of truth?