Brahman

==Buddhist understanding of Brahman==

Buddhism rejects the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman and Atman (permanent Self, essence).{{refn|group=note|Merv Fowler, ''Zen Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices'' (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 2005), p. 30: "''Upanisadic'' thought is anything but consistent; nevertheless, there is a common focus on the acceptance of a totally transcendent Absolute, a trend which arose in the ''Vedic'' period. This indescribable Absolute is called Brahman [...] The true Self and Brahman are one and the same. Known as the Brahman-Atman synthesis, this theory, which is central to ''Upanisadic'' thought, is the cornerstone of Indian philosophy. The Brahman-Atman synthesis, which posits the theory of a permanent, unchanging self, was anathema to Buddhists, and it was as a reaction to the synthesis that Buddhism first drew breath. Merv Fowler p. 47: "For the ''Upanisadic'' sages, the real is the Self, is Atman, is Brahman. [...] To the Buddhist, however, any talk of an ''Atman'' or permanent, unchanging Self, the very kernel of ''Upanisadic'' thought, is anathema, a false notion of manifest proportion."}} According to Damien Keown, "the Buddha said he could find no evidence for the existence of either the personal Self (''atman'') or its cosmic counterpart (''brahman'')".<ref>Damien Keown, ''Buddhism'' (NY: Sterling, 2009), p. 70</ref> The metaphysics of Buddhism rejects Brahman (ultimate being), Brahman-like essence, Self and anything metaphysically equivalent through its [[Anatta]] doctrine,<ref>{{cite book|author=David Webster|title=The Philosophy of Desire in the Buddhist Pali Canon|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KqxI7YRUSegC|year=2004|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-01057-0|pages=194–195, 93, 147}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Richard Francis Gombrich|author2=Cristina Anna Scherrer-Schaub|title=Buddhist Studies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=U7_Rea05eAMC |year=2008|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass|isbn=978-81-208-3248-0|pages=192–193}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author1=Mark Juergensmeyer|author2=Wade Clark Roof|title=Encyclopedia of Global Religion|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WwJzAwAAQBAJ |year=2011|publisher=SAGE Publications|isbn=978-1-4522-6656-5 |pages=272–273}}</ref> but their belief of Trikaya is very similar to the sat-cit-ananda characteristics of Brahman. 

According to Merv Fowler, some forms of Buddhism have incorporated concepts that resemble that of Brahman.{{refn|group=note|Merv Fowler, ''Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices'' (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 34: "It was inevitable that the non-theistic philosophy of orthodox Buddhism should court the older Hindu practices and, in particular, infuse into its philosophy the belief in a totally transcendent Absolute of the nature of Brahman."}} As an example, Fowler cites the early [[Sarvastivada]] school of Buddhism, which "had come to accept a very [[pantheistic]] religious philosophy, and are important because of the impetus they gave to the development of [[Mahayana Buddhism]]".<ref>Merv Fowler, ''Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices'' (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 34</ref> According to William Theodore De Bary, in the doctrines of the [[Yogacara]] school of Mahayana Buddhism, "the Body of Essence, the Ultimate Buddha, who pervaded and underlay the whole universe [...] was in fact the World Self, the Brahman of the Upanishads, in a new form".<ref>William Theodore De Bary, cited in Merv Fowler, ''Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices'' (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 98</ref> According to Fowler, some scholars have identified the Buddhist ''[[nirvana]]'', conceived of as the Ultimate Reality, with the Hindu Brahman/atman; Fowler claims that this view "has gained little support in Buddhist circles."<ref>Merv Fowler, ''Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices'' (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 81</ref> Fowler asserts  that the authors of a number of Mahayana texts took pains to differentiate their ideas from the Upanishadic doctrine of Brahman.{{refn|group=note|Merv Fowler, ''Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices'' (Brighton: Sussex Academic, 1999), p. 82: "The original writers of these Mahayana texts were not at all pleased that their writings were seen to contain the Brahman of the ''Upanisads'' in a new form. The authors of the ''Lankavatara''  strenuously denied that the womb of Tathagatahood, [...] was in any way equatable with the 'eternal self', the Brahmanical ''atman'' of ''Upanisadic'' thought. Similarly, the claim in the ''Nirvana Sutra'' that the Buddha regarded Buddhahood as a 'great atman' caused the Yogacarins considerable distress."}}

===Brahma as a surrogate for Brahman in Buddhist texts===
The spiritual concept of Brahman is far older in the Vedic literature{{citation needed|date=July 2022}}, and some scholars suggest deity Brahma may have emerged as a personal conception and icon with form and attributes (saguna version) of the impersonal, nirguna (without attributes), formless universal principle called Brahman.<ref name=brucesullivan>Bruce Sullivan (1999), Seer of the Fifth Veda, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120816763}}, pages 82–83</ref> In the Hindu texts, one of the earliest mentions of deity Brahma along with [[Vishnu]] and [[Shiva]] is in the fifth ''Prapathaka'' (lesson) of the [[Maitrayaniya Upanishad]], probably composed in late 1st millennium BCE, after the rise of Buddhism.<ref name=hume51>{{citation|first=Robert Ernest|last=Hume|title=The Thirteen Principal Upanishads |url=https://archive.org/stream/thirteenprincipa028442mbp#page/n443/mode/2up|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1921|pages=422–424}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=K. N. Jayatilleke|title=Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zcs41sp8ON4C |year=1998|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass|isbn=978-81-208-0619-1 |pages=68, 374}}, Quote: "We may conclude from the above that the rise of Buddhism is not far removed in time from, though it is prior to, the Maitri Upanishad".</ref><ref>Jan Gonda (1968), The Hindu Trinity, Anthropos, Vol. 63, pages 215–219</ref>

The early Buddhists attacked the concept of Brahma, states Gananath Obeyesekere, and thereby [[polemic]]ally attacked the Vedic and Upanishadic concept of gender neutral, abstract metaphysical Brahman.<ref name="Obeyesekere2006p179"/> This critique of Brahma in early Buddhist texts aims at ridiculing the [[Vedas]], but the same texts simultaneously call ''metta'' (loving-kindness, compassion) as the state of union with Brahma. The early Buddhist approach to Brahma was to reject any creator aspect, while retaining the value system in the Vedic [[Brahmavihara]] concepts, in the Buddhist value system.<ref name="Obeyesekere2006p179">{{cite book|author=Gananath Obeyesekere|title=Karma and Rebirth: A Cross Cultural Study|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IEK4Qgm7Z0kC |year=2006|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |isbn=978-81-208-2609-0 |pages=177–179 }}</ref> According to Martin Wiltshire, the term "Brahma loka" in the Buddhist canon, instead of "Svarga loka", is likely a Buddhist attempt to choose and emphasize the "truth power" and knowledge focus of the Brahman concept in the Upanishads.<ref>{{cite book|author=Martin G. Wiltshire|title=Ascetic Figures Before and in Early Buddhism: The Emergence of Gautama as the Buddha|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WXmmkYQf4RwC |year=1990|publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-009896-9 |pages=248–249, 253–255}}</ref> Simultaneously, by reformulating Brahman as Brahma and relegating it within its Devas and [[Saṃsāra (Buddhism)|Samsara]] theories, early Buddhism rejected the Atman-Brahman premise of the Vedas to present its own ''Dhamma'' doctrines ([[anicca]], [[dukkha]] and [[anatta]]).<ref>{{cite book|author=Martin G. Wiltshire|title=Ascetic Figures Before and in Early Buddhism: The Emergence of Gautama as the Buddha|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WXmmkYQf4RwC |year=1990|publisher=Walter de Gruyter |isbn=978-3-11-009896-9 |pages= 256–265}}</ref>