“.. after being convinced by
Brahma Sahampati to teach. Before that he
never taught anything.”
First of all, you have avoided my question that if his
insights to sufferings and the manner of meditation by insight are
essential to salvation and nirvana achieving, why he did not want
to teach them after he achieved his final enlightment. Becos people
don't understand him?? For all the glorious goal to find the truths
of suffering, he refused the very thing that he finally discovered.
And he needs someone to say hey hey, pls teach your enlightment to
others. Something is not correct here.
It is the same as when Jesus crying papa mama to God to take
away the cruxification, we still can think Jesus is God who came to
die for our sins. For a mother who sees his child in burning house,
she will rush into the fiery house to save his child without
thinking. Now we have Jesus, Son of God , who is God, scare to die
on the cross for mankind sins.
The old Upanishads largely consider Brahman (masculine
gender, Brahmā in the nominative case, henceforth "Brahmā") to be a
personal god, and Brahman (neuter gender, Brahma in the nominative
case, henceforth "Brahman") to be the impersonal world principle.
They do not strictly distinguish between the two, however. The old
Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to Brahmā: first, he has
light and luster as his marks; second, he is invisible; third, he
is unknowable, and it is impossible to know his nature; fourth, he
is omniscient. The old Upanishads ascribe these characteristics to
Brahman as well. In the Buddhist texts, there are many Brahmās.
There they form a class of superhuman beings, and rebirth into the
realm of Brahmās is possible by pursuing Buddhist practices. In the
early texts, the Buddha gives arguments to refute the existence of
a creator.
In the Pāli scriptures, the neuter Brahman does not appear
(though the word brahma is standardly used in compound words to
mean "best", or "supreme"), however ideas are mentioned as held by
various Brahmins in connection with Brahmā that match exactly with
the concept of Brahman in the Upanishads. Brahmins who appear in
the Tevijja-suttanta of the Digha Nikaya regard "union with Brahmā"
as liberation, and earnestly seek it. In that text, Brahmins of the
time are reported to assert: "Truly every Brahmin versed in the
three Vedas has said thus: 'We shall expound the path for the sake
of union with that which we do not know and do not see. This is the
correct path. This path is the truth, and leads to liberation. If
one practices it, he shall be able to enter into association with
Brahmā." The early Upanishads frequently expound "association with
Brahmā", and "that which we do not know and do not see" matches
exactly with the early Upanishadic Brahman.
In the earliest Upanishad,
the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the Absolute, which came to be
referred to as Brahman, is referred to as "the imperishable".The
Pāli scriptures present a "pernicious view" that is set up as an
absolute principle corresponding to Brahman: "O Bhikkhus! At that
time Baka, the Brahmā, produced the following pernicious view: 'It
is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existent. It is
independent existence. It has the dharma of non-perishing. Truly it
is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear,
and is not born again. Furthermore, no liberation superior to it
exists elsewhere." The principle expounded here corresponds to the
concept of Brahman laid out in the Upanishads. According to this text the
Buddha criticized this notion: "Truly the Baka Brahmā is covered
with unwisdom."
Brahman is one of the most
important concepts in Hinduism, signifying ultimate reality.
Brahman is absolute, eternal, ineffable, and impersonal.
Literally, the terms means "the ever growing". It is also
identified with atman, and so is frequently referred to as
Brahman-Atman - the soul of the entire universe. Frequently
all Hindu gods are assimilated into Brahman-Atman and regarded
simply as personal manifestations of an impersonal force.
Brahma-ism is somewhat
contradictory to what Buddha has realised, that are annica, dukkha,
annata and dependent origination.
Although Brahma
Sahampati knew Buddha enlightment on dharma realities are somewhat
different from other main-stream experiences, it
does not negate the fact that this is also the manifestation of the
true nature of realities, that the ultimate reality of Brahman is
not easy to grasp. Therefore he asks Buddha to teach as he had
learnt them.
Buddha never label his truths into 4 noble truths / etc,
but it is the modern buddhistm that defined and developed his
teachings as such.