Greetings All,
For the last 39 years I have pondered a paradoxical query of mine, being just why do Jains and later, Buddhists, deny the existence of Brahman/Ishvara/Ahura Mazda/YHWH/God/Allah? Were Mahavira and Sakyamuni simply Nihilists expressing atheistic proclamations, it would make perfect sense… but they were obviously highly evolved spiritual masters. Some Theists would enthusiastically go so far as to call them “Avatars”.
Both enlightened teachers emphasized meditation, the dissolution of karma and samskaras, so too, requiring direct disciples to embrace renunciation, practice meditation and self-inquiry. But I didn’t understand and still do not, why it was Mahavira and Sakyamuni chose not to speak of the Supreme Being which seems so utterly obvious to my mind, heart and soul.
My first experiences in meditation, back in the 1970s, were of Korean Seon Buddhist origins (Chan in China and Zen in Japan). I loved the simplicity, beauty and grace of the path. While I was unable to grasp the reality of the Void at that point in my spiritual unfolding, and I honestly can’t say I currently am able to grasp the “reality of the Void”… for how can anyone maintaining the human need for quantification, hold the insubstantial in any conceptual context?
I agree with many Buddhists that anthropomorphic deification is fallacious and most primitive, given the Cosmic nature of the Divine. So, I do clearly get the fact that in their own lifetimes, too many pundits and scholars were hopelessly lost in intellectual rhetoric and empty debates. Sectarian disputes and endless conjecture. Understood… and I do applaud their disdain for scholarly dogmas and the labyrinth of circular logic, instead of delving deep within oneself for the truth.
But in my own spiritual experiences, I have perceived directly that nothing else exists but Brahman/God. Why so? Because I feel that while much of our perceptual faculties are quite limited (and that’s an understatement), yet we all do have the ability as curious humanoids, to seek out our very own source. We burn to know and to expand further beyond our ignorance. Who are we and why do we even exist?
IME, reality as we know it is superimposed over fulcrum of Divine Intelligence. I am personally quite fond of Albert Einstein’s Unified Field Theory. I have touched the deeply sublime place where energy is wholly indivisible, ineffable and is always present, eternally innate and infinitely Supreme (within all that exists and all that remains perceptually non-existent).
This Divine state spontaneously initiates quantum fluctuations, manifests the energy of Light and due to the effulgent energy issued forth, the vibration of the Sacred Word births myriad frequencies of reality, within interiors of interiors of dimensional realities, ad infinitum! [OM]
Last night I deeply contemplated this riddle for over two hours. I am certain that these two high masters must have noticed these phenomena, as even a small child like myself is wholly aware of these Sacred manifestations. Perhaps they believed that God was beyond description or quantification? Lao Tzu surely did… but he still gave this Omniversal force a name, Tao (the Way), and spoke so poetically about it. And while I do not necessarily need to dwell on human labels or spoken names… from my windowsill, it is so very crystal clear that all that exists is Brahman/God. I believe that naught exists but the Divine Being in expression (for Being’s own sake).
Sure, the appearances of this and that are a vast multiplicity in forms and whatnot. Undeniably, the multiple of levels and planes of existential reality are beyond rational count and exist in parallel dimensions, which are difficult for human perception to even grok… but this does not explain the absence of the Divine principle within the scriptures of Jainism and Buddhism. I am more than curious.
Hmmm… what’s up with that? And while I sincerely mean no disrespect or seek to initiate any debates or present a challenge, I am merely wondering why keep silent about the the Absolute, Eternal, Infinite… Sacred Holy One? Any insight would be most appreciated on my end.
Tat Tvam Asi 
Govinda, you are Brahamna, your skin, your face your everything is Brahmana. Self in ignorance may not accept this. But this self or this ignorance cannot separate you from Brhamana.
Realise this that YOU ARE BRHMANA, EXPERIENCE IT.
Imperfect intellect creates this separation.
OK OK OK
Who I am? I am Brahmana. What is the use of talking about myself. What is the use of “I EXIST” OR “I DO NOT EXIST”. Am i not expressing my ignorance if i dwell on the existence of Brahmana?
OK OK OK
I am manifesting my self every where. I am Riju as well as Brahmna. I have manifested my self in a corner of this large manifestation. I have to synchronise myself with this whole manifestation. And the proof of this that I am free from DUKKHA, OLD AGE, MISERY AND DEATH. These are negative manifestations. They are to be replaced with something POSITIVE.
Guatam Buddha knew HE IS BRAHMNA. Why would He give any opinion about HIMSELF. It is our ignorance that is seeking the answers.
In pure Noself stage one feels so much one with Brahmana that he feels this is natural, THAT HE IS BRAHMANA.And yet he is at present Guatama.
When one asks such a person about Brahamna. What can he say? Will he say I am Brahmana? The questioner will get further confused. His mind will say but “you are Guatama”
VERY SIMPLE… If I am Brahmana and all this existence is Brahamana.
Where am I seeking Him? THE QUESTION WILL NOT ARISE AND ANY EXPLANATION IS FUTILE.
Buddhism is full of descriptions of the same kind of experiences you have described, its just that they don’t put a label of God or Brahman on the experience.
What you described in your other post http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13412 has meaning for everyone investigating themselves in this way ~ but is it then necessary to name it. Personally I like Lao Tzu’s way of describing the Tao ~ the Tao that is explained is not the Tao etc.
So its all about labeling and packaging and this is very much dependent on our conditioning. If you were a being dropped in from outer space without any human conditioning and had the experience you might try and label it or you might not.
Either way this seems to be conundrum between Atheists and Theists ~ the definition of God. If you ask an Atheist to define the God they don’t believe in, it is quite likely that most people here would agree with them. If you describe your experience of God, they are quite likely to say that is not what I’m talking about when I say I am an Atheist.
So its all about labels and how they are perceived, (in my identified self’s opinion)
There are logistical problems with the approach of denying god and using no mantra; although you may be “right” from an advanced perspective, both the mantra and devotion to god are powerful tools for enlightenment.
So students will bask in the glory of their guru’s enlightened state, who indeed may not have needed those tools in this lifetime, and they stay stuck in an unenlightened state themselves, for decades or life.
Wise words from everyone here. I think nonduality is a good concept, as it bridges the gap.
The conditioning here likes to equate Brahman with Awareness (Often Awareness is an Advaita term - I believe in Dzogchen buddhism there is the same concept and it is called Primordial Awareness or Rigpa), meaning the aware substratum and sole reality/substance of all appearances.
If one says the “One Divine Being” this could mean exactly the same thing, but divinity certainly has associations with religion. For those whose conditioning is not of a religious or devotional nature, plainer words, that perhaps seem a little colder or more scientific, are more appealing.
Ultimately the truth is ineffable/indescribable, and does not fit into anyone’s concepts of it. There are only body-minds with different sets of conditioning using language in accord with that conditioning.
However, I do think that Buddhism, Advaita and so forth do agree on the idea that ultimately there is only one nondual reality, the substratum of all appearances of multiplicity. Therefore I do not see anything but a superficial difference with regard to the language of description that is utilized.
There are many evolved and unevolved gods in the upper layers of existence. And they have their range of viberation frequencies.
Mantra will lead you to your god’s or guru’s wisdom door.
And the time (kal) will decimate you and your god or guru. If one carefully understands chapter 16 (Life of Thus come one) of Lotus sutra. Only Niravan has had victory over Kal and because of this victory Buddhas are the only ones who have been able to build upon past experiences to lofty heights.
I have partly explained the eternity of Buddhahood in earlier thread.
Dear Govinda,
Thank you for sharing.
Providing a bit of perspective on the context in which Buddhism and Jainism came to be. And for this, one must understand what the Vedas are…
Sanatana dharma (labeled “Hinduism” by the British raj because India was the region of the Hindu Kush) is based on the Vedas. The Vedas are called “shruthi”, which means, “that which is heard”. The “truths” contained in the shruthis/Vedas were “heard” or known directly by the ancient seers, in their own personal experience. These truths were passed on from generation to generation. There are four of them: Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharvana Veda. All four Vedas have two broad parts: karma kanda and Jnana kanda.
Karma kanda, the first part of each Veda, is made up of two subsequent parts - the mantra or samhita and brahmana. The samhita part consists of mantras extolling the greatness of nature and man’s place in it, and rituals for all aspects of life (for example, for rain, abating of famine/floods, wealth, progeny, etc). The brahmana portion has the beginnings of the “secrets” of the cosmos and esoteric rituals pointing to Brahman being the basis for all.
Jnana kanda, the second part of each Veda, consists of the Aranyaka and Upanishad parts. Aranyaka was developed by sages that lived in solitude and for whom the karma kanda did not apply. This also has to do with rituals. The Upanishads deal with non-duality.
The Upanishads, which appear at the end of the Vedas form the basis for Vedanta (the end of the Vedas, both literally and symbolically). These mark the end of rituals - both external and internal (practices), for with first-hand knowledge of Brahman, no further rituals/practices are necessary. There are hundreds of Upanishads, of which 108 are most well-known (of which a handful are emphasized and studied by Advaita Vedantins). “Upa-nishad” literally means “sitting near” - all of them are in the form of a dialogue between a master and student, delving deeper and deeper into the subject of nonduality.
At the time of Siddhartha (approximately 250 BC), the jnana kandas of the Vedas were almost forgotten. Sanatana dharma had become decadent at the hands of the corrupt “priestly” class that misinterpreted the Vedas and the caste system and established themselves to be the “intermediaries” between God and man. They exploited the masses with emphasis on the ritualistic (karma kanda) part of the Vedas with threats of angry Gods that would seek vengeance in the absence of keeping up with them. Even the rituals were misinterpreted and things like animal and human sacrifices were rampant.
It was against this that Gautama Buddha rebelled, rejecting the Vedas entirely (proverbial throwing the baby out with the bathwater). However, remember that he was born and raised in a Hindu tradition, and had had the good fortune of studying the Upanishads with the gurus that came his way. The concept of God/Ishwara was so corrupt that he wanted nothing to do with it, instead keeping his teachings simple and clinical, like, of course, the Upanishads (that hardly talk about God, if at all). Thus, there are more similarities than differences between his teachings and the Upanishads.
Interestingly, Buddhism has not remained the way the Buddha originally planned, as most of us know. With the split into various “sects” like Mahayana, Vajrayana, etc, many other teachings were added on to the original teachings. When Buddhism became a growing practice in India, Adi Shankaracharya (12th century AD) rose to “reclaim” the original teachings of Sanatana Dharma, definitively establishing Advaita as the fundamental principle or doctrine, and DE-emphasizing both the ritualistic portions of the Vedas as well as the “clinical” approach of the Buddhists…
Ultimately, the Shruthis were “heard” truths - and it is so that these truths are the SAME, no matter by what “path” one gets to hear them. The Buddha did not “hear” truths that were any different than the Vedas; nor did Jesus a few hundred years later. Yet, the “heard” truths are transmitted or given out differently, based on the understanding of the sage, the prevalent conditions of the times, the predominant cultural and political background, etc.
Sanatana Dharma, recognizing the Buddha’s greatness (despite his rejection of the Vedas and Ishwara), considers him an Avatar (as so with Jesus) of Ishwara. 
Hi Kami,
Thank you for the very cool (and concise) historical overview.
I’ll second what Jeff said
Greetings Kami,
Nice overview you have posted. It is my understanding there is 2 traditions in Buddhism. The Theravada, (Way of the Elders) and the Mahayana tradition which encompasses all non- Theravadin Buddhists. Both traditions have the precepts, the 4 Noble Truths, The Eightfold Path. The Mahayana tradition has many different practices like tantra to name one.
My understanding from what I have read regarding the teachings of Siddhartha, Gautama, the Buddha, is that he taught the causes of suffering and the cessation of suffering. No where have I read he denied the existence of Brahman/ Ishvara/ God or whatever word one chooses to use. He focused on the human condition and the ending of suffering which is a very noble act. In my opinion, he was way ahead of the time period in which he lived. A great man, teacher, social worker, psychologist, and sage!
Hi Indigo,
Thank you. I did not mean to say the Buddha rejected Brahman; he rejected the authority of the Vedas, which at the time, was being equated to rituals:
At the time of Siddhartha (approximately 250 BC), the jnana kandas of the Vedas were almost forgotten. Sanatana dharma had become decadent at the hands of the corrupt “priestly” class that misinterpreted the Vedas and the caste system and established themselves to be the “intermediaries” between God and man. They exploited the masses with emphasis on the ritualistic (karma kanda) part of the Vedas with threats of angry Gods that would seek vengeance in the absence of keeping up with them. Even the rituals were misinterpreted and things like animal and human sacrifices were rampant.
Hope this clarifies. Yes, I agree that the Buddha is beyond great.
Hi Kami!
Yes, and I sincerely thank you for this informative and great post! You have clarified everything.
Much Peace and Goodwill,
Indigo
Thank you all, my friends, for your fine replies!
I still remain unable to comprehend just why Mahavira and Sakyamuni made no mention of what I consider the most obvious and overwhelming aspect of all existence… Brahman/God. Both Masters spoke eloquently of Moksha and the release from human suffering, due to karmas and samskaras brought from other lives and new actions created in this lifetime.
But I must stress, that separate, individual lifetimes are the most illusory of all finite realities. They are merely dream sequences and multiplicities of mirages of self-identification. Just whose dreams, I ask? Is it not the Omni which truly dreams so of being the many? Yes! I emphatically say so, because of my own direct meditative contact with the Web of Indivisibility, the Sacred state of Unity and the immanent Omniscience of the Divine.
Of course, I was able to find many similar statements, lo these many decades, about non-conceptualization of the source or the truest nature, of the Spiritus, for mind cannot hold the absolute within it’s relative grasp. yet, I feel there is more than just the admission that Vedic rituals had become hollow routines 2500 year ago, mere rites to be obliquely observed and enacted mechanically and/or rather superstitiously. So what else is new about all of humankind’s religions?
“The more things change, the more they stay the same.”
And paradoxically, it is noteworthy that Buddhist and Jains rituals and observances, worship of the Deity in the form of the archetype of the “Enlightened One”… which sure seems to be a symbiotic refection of the Godhead blooming within the appearance of a human being (the Avatar).
Things are really no different today than then, despite the seeming advances in science and civilization. This, however, explains nothing in specific about the omission of the God Principle. Attaining realization of Nirvana is spiritually not different at all, than Self’s immersion and evaporation into Sahaja Samadhi, in and of it’s core and quintessence. The remembrance and the returning to the ecstasy of the inner mind’s heart. 
Only the conceptual semantics are traditionally divergent from one another, as ideas and are still humanoid conceptualizations. This cannot be refuted nor is it an excuse for eliminating the praises of the Universal Lord, itself/ourselves/no selves, existent both transcendentally and wholly present within all things and equally, as the Void of non-things, unborn and unmanifested.
The absence of the pure ideal of the Supreme Being is still most puzzling to me, the I-thought inhabiting my present mortal form. Sure anthropomorphic deification is erroneous on many levels, because it maintains separation from the subject and the object, the absolute and the relative and the transient and the eternal. Truly, little can be said of the Sacred Oneness without remaining totally locked in dualistic paradigms (and duality is an utter illusion). Naught but Brahman/God exists. [OM]
But inarguably, Jains and Buddhists worship Mahavira and Sakyamuni as if they were Gods, there is no shadow of a doubt about it. But it’s all good. Focus and concentration on any higher ideal is equally splendid. I am not raising any issue with ritual worship of any particular form orfomrlesness, I am, more or less, only raising issue with the specific doctrines of two beautifully evolved human Master-souls. My main contention is with their omission and lack of praise or mention of the Sacred One… is that in the absence of such a central point of spiritual essence, myriad other concepts fill in the vacuum and void left in human thought and/or theology, without a principle of an Omnipotent state of Divinity.
If, as Lord Buddha said, there is no permanence of the individual soul, for there is but Anatma (no self)… why speak of the illusory reality of human suffering and bondage due to spiritual ignorance? Compassion? Perhaps but is not compassion also an attachment to preferences of this or that? Belief in the transient play of the cosmic whole? Surely it is! Nothing is of any lasting reality, in any permanent sense, as all is a play of universal forces, themselves equally impermanent (which I wholly agree with, up to a point and that point is the lack of attention upon the presence of Brahman/God). 
Still, why bother speaking on and on about, resiting praises of enlightened human beings: Tirthankaras, Buddhas, Bodhisattvas and speak voluminously of alternate levels of existence on higher realms of subtle being? I believe that all that is, has it’s unique interconnection to Divine Being. But such bubbles pass briefly and the great Sakyamuni is right, they disappear into the Void. Yet, eternal empties is also eternal fullness and the myriad rays are symbiotically one with the unbroken brilliance of the Supreme. It’s all Lila, all a dance.
If God is unreal… how much more so, are ANY AND ALL humanly conceivable paradigm? Therefore, the conceptual dichotomy of suffering due to ignorance, samskaras and karma, versus individual freedom from suffering, is likewise a mirage and a subjective fallacy witnessed by the indwelling self, born into this material existence. I freely admit I’ve not read all that can be feasibly written of the Way, as there are veritable mountains of written philosophical verbiage, religious doctrines, Sutras and Gospels, etc… reiterating the notion of this or that. And all of them dealing in dualistic, conceptual terms, even when attempting to describe non-dualism.
Jainism and Buddhism are no different, at all, as they weave intricate conceptual fabrications of an immense volume. And besides, there is no 100% exact consensus between the doctrines of Theravada, Hinayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools of Buddhist thought. Higher panes, entities, deities and Holy beings abound freely on exalted spiritual levels, despite no talk of Brahman/God/Allah present within these Sutras. So, where is the differentiation in ob observance of meditation and righteousness, save for the one central idea… of said, “Brahman/God/Allah”?
All existence is impermanent, I fully agree. What is born will die, what is manifest from the insubstantial will return to said formlessness. And all manifestations and perceivable forms are born within the mind of the observer of their relative degree of existence. And likewise, they return into the emptiness of the insubstantial Spirit, as all is ceaselessly changing and undergoing cycles of formation, bondage to said formation and through the suffering of limitation, eventual enlightenment and liberation. We breathe in and we breathe out, we are the entire universe, incarnated as personifications of the totality of the One.
Even the Light of Supra-consciousness and the Holy vibration of the auditory Sound Current, AKA the buzz of AUM, are themselves emanations out of the Bindu and are merely aspects and/or expressions of the Highest frequency of undifferentiated, Omnipotent Brahman (as is the Unified Field/Nirvana/Heaven). Yet in my own small experiences, the idea arises that only Brahman/God truly exists, only Allah is unborn and undying and only the eternal Spiritus exists as an unbound, permanent state of unlimited Holiness (the Ultimate Reality).
May we all best blessed to find the Way through ignorance and suffering, eclipsing within the effulgence and sheer resplendence of the Divine Being. We are all That (That/This). We are That alone and naught exists of any value for the passing journey of selfhood, but the unfolding bloom of the separately-individualized, impermanent soul… save for the entrancing echoes and reflections of this most Sacred Truth.
[OM] Om bhur bhuvah svah tat-savitur varenyam bhargo devasya dhimahi dhiyo yo nah pracodayat. [OM]
Hi Govinda,
Thank you for your post. I think difference of perspective can be simplified down to a simple question…
How is Brahman different than Buddhist emptiness?
Best wishes,
Jeff
Namaste Jeff,
“How is Brahman different than Buddhist emptiness?” I honestly don’t know what Lord Sakyamuni would say about this query, let alone, Lord Mahavira. I personally believe, in my own way, that there is none, nor can there be ANY difference betwixt Brahman, emptiness, partial emptiness, partial fullness or fullness.
All is indivisible, all is Divinity, silently shimmering behind the veils of apparent dichotomy. All is Omniversal in it’s unbound nature and not different from anything else… save for the seeming appearances observed by myriad witnesses of the diverse gamut of material and non-material experiential paradigms, themselves each most unique strata of separate points and occurrences of individuality (although in reality, they are wholly One).
I do agree with Brother riju, up to a certain point, about one thing, why would Lord Buddha speak about himself as being Brahman, when nothing else exists? This would cause a conceptual separation from the Oneness, into the many views the individuated self perceives of the Unity. But then, why speak at all… if anything conceptualized is promoting delusion and bondage? Compassion is not mutually exclusive from adherence to a Divine Principle, rather, it engenders it’s bloom and encourages it’s sharing.
Only in total mental silence can reality be known and IMO, just WHO knows this Infinite quietude and Supreme state of reality… is truly the most vital question to be raised by oneself, upon returning from the transcendental state beyond ego, to the realm of sentient duality. Who witnesses the inner witness, witnessing this and that? Whose glance gazes into all the variegated spectrum of multiplicity of being? Who is the seer? Hence, the notion of Brahman/God arises within the human mind.
But like sister kami clearly states, the omission of the Divine Being in Buddhism and Jainism, is literally and also proverbially like “tossing the baby out with the bathwater”. In the Holy Baby’s place, are equally finite conceptions and equally dogmatic rituals performed and observances offered. So yeah, there is no difference at all and the innate homogeneity of the Spiritus is ever-present. This is good news, indeed! [OM]
Yet, despite the problematic maintaining of separation of subject and object, by idealizing the Oneness into a Divine Principle, if one were to take all of the statements attributed to be made in the human lifetime of the historical Sakyamuni, the fully enlightened Lord Buddha would have had to talk nonstop, for something like 250 years! Thus, a continuum of talking and intellectualizing continues and so, conceptualization survives the upending of the God-baby’s bath, the water and the Sacred Baby, inclusive. 
So, there is a LOT of discussion and conceptualizing taking place, with or without any mention of the God Principle, especially within the many Sutras written down 500-600 years after Gautama Buddha’s physical passing. It’ all good, please don’t get me wrong, for I admire Buddhism and Jainism. I sincerely honor all world scriptures, those of all nations and/or cultures. the is so mcuh to glean from all of them, really.
In other words, there is essentially, no complete stopping of the human mind by discarding mention of Brahman/God/Allah or the cessation of mortal linguists revolving around spiritual paradigms. Therefore, why not speak of the Divine Being, both as a state within ourselves and composing all that is and all that will never become? All else are membranes of impermanence. The Eternal abides, despite the dissolution of all impermanent forms, passing by. [OM]
And I admire the Silence even more! But words are spoken and written down and read over and over… as people seem to need to think and ponder over ethical and religious ideas.
All is Brahman and naught but Brahman exists. It’s something worth singing or even shouting off the rooftops about (just kidding about the second option, as one’s neighbors might think it rather odd and offensive).
Hari Om Tat Sat
Hi Govinda,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. In continuing our discussion, maybe a different but a related question…
Does Brahman care?
Best,
Jeff
Well, I would think not. Caring and indifference are opposite polarities and as a Divine Principle, Brahman is obviously beyond caring about what doesn’t truly exist. I would add another question, though, does Brahman even observe duality at all?
No answer can even be spoken out loud, as we all can well imagine. For Brahman cannot splinter itself into seeming duality, without dreaming of the reality between this and that, as is perceived by it’s myriad reflections (us and them).
Some things do remain, “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”. In silent reflection, we truly shine brightest.
On Brahman not observing reality… Does that mean that Brahman is not really “aware” of itself (or all of itself)? Just sort of an indifferent blob of everythingness?
Dear Jeff and Govinda,
Forgive me for butting in…
No.
Brahman is primordial. It just IS. What should it care about? Jeff, Govinda, kami…? Who are these entities?
Creation springs forth when the desire to create arises in Brahman - Ishwara. Ishwara creates from Itself - thus all of creation consists of Ishwara. And Ishwara Itself is “made up of” Brahman; simply Brahman + Maya. Created beings, deluded by maya, attach identification to what is percieved to be “other than” Brahman/Ishwara, i.e., separate (as Jeff, Govinda, kami…). But in reality, no such separation exists. So, who should Brahman care about - entities that don’t really exist and are the result of ignorance? It makes no difference to Brahman if one remains identified as the separate self or becomes “realized”. It always IS - complete, self-effulgent, self-aware, in every entity, whether they know this or not. Nothing to care about.
The problem is trying to define Brahman that is beyond the limitations of the human mind and intellectual understanding. Nothing exists “outside” of Brahman, including all these limitations. Brahman pervades all creation, yet remains “outside” of everything, untouched and uninvolved (Bhagavad Gita 9:4-5).