Buddha’s relationship with Devatas

Talking about the birth of Siddhartha Gautam, B.R. Ambedkar in his book “The Buddha and His Dhamma” writes: “Bodhisatta, named Sumedha, appeared before Mahamaya in her dream and said, “I have decided to take my last and final birth on this earth, will you consent to be my mother?” She said, “Yes, with great pleasure.” The dream was interpreted by Brahmins in these words: “Be not anxious. You will have a son, and if he leads a householder’s life he will become a universal monarch, and if he leaves his home and goes forth into a homeless state, and becomes a sanyasi, he will become a Buddha, a dispeller of illusions in the world.”
Buddhists are of opinion that Buddha obtained enlightenment only on the basis of his own quest. If that is so, then what is the relevance of this story? Who is this Sumedha who has continued to take births and who is taking a final birth, knowing fully well that this is going to be the last birth? Does this not show Buddha’s link to some other power?
The interpretation of the dream by the Brahmins shows that the high and the mighty, including the universal monarchs, owe their position to somebody else’s plan. If kingdom has to remain in the hands of one who is given this kingdom by God, how can we conclude that the spiritual teacher has no relationship with God and is merely a worldly guru? Such a teacher, one who shows us the true path, has to be appointed by God.
It is indeed sorry that Messengers or those who attained enlightenment from Divine Sources were misinterpreted and it was said that Buddha created the religion. B.R. Ambedkar writes: “Can anyone say that the Buddha’s religion was not his own creation?”
If Buddhism was Buddha’s creation then from whom was he seeking enlightenment when he threw the bowl of food which Sujata’s maid had brought, into the river Nairanja, saying: “If I am to have enlightenment let the bowl ascend the stream; if not let it go down.’ The vessel, indeed, began to float against the current and at last sank near the abode of Kala, a Naga king.”
If Buddhism was Buddha’s creation, then why did Asita saw devatas happy at the time of Buddha’s birth? If Buddha had no relation with God and his religion is only the philosophic reasoning of a human mind, then how can we conclude that his reasoning was not flawed? If Buddhism was Buddha’s creation then who was Brahma Sahampati who helped Buddha when he was perplexed? B.R. Ambedkar has himself written that Brahma Sahampati got to know what was passing in Buddha’s mind and left the Brahma’s world to guide Buddha. Let us accept that Buddha’s doctrine too was Divine, told to Buddha either as revelation or through enlightenment. Otherwise, what does enlightenment mean? A philosopher’s reasoning is a byproduct of a long period of contemplation. Has any philosopher said till date that his conclusions were formed at a particular point in time? The more we contemplate, the more we are bound to contemplate that enlightenment is something supernatural and we have no choice but to accept the presence of certain higher powers who were responsible for enlightenment.
See what B.R. Ambedkar writes: “He (Buddha) said to himself: “True, I have gained a new doctrine. But it is too difficult for the common man to accept it and follow it. It is too subtle even for the wise…
“If I were to teach my doctrine, and others did not understand it or understanding it did not accept or accepting it did not follow it, it would be weariness to others and a vexation to me.
“Why not remain a Sanyasi away from the world and use my gospel to perfect my own self?” He asked himself: “At least I can do good to myself.” Thus as he reflected, his mind turned to inaction, not to teaching of the gospel.”
This shows that Buddha’s religion would never have materialized if Brahma Sahampati had not come to guide him at this stage. One who revealed or had given enlightenment to the pious soul of Buddha had given it so that the teachings reach the people. See what B.R. Ambedkar writes further:
“Then Brahma Sahampati knowing what was passing in the mind of the Buddha thought, “Verily the world is being destroyed, verily the world is going to destruction, if the Tathagata, the fully enlightened, turns to inaction, and not to teaching his doctrine.”
Fuelled with anxiety Brahma Sahampati left the Brahma world and appeared before the Buddha. And arranging his upper robe on one shoulder he bent down and with clasped hands said: “Thou art no longer Siddharth Gautama. Thou art Buddha. Thou art the Blessed One who is blessed with the fullest enlightenment. Thou art the Tathagatha. How canst thou refuse to enlighten the world? How canst thou refuse to save erring humanity?
“There are beings full of impurity that are falling away through not hearing the doctrine.
“As the Lord knows,” proceeded Brahma Sahampati, “Among the Magadhas arose in ancient times, doctrine impure, with many blemishes devised.
“Will not the Lord open for them the door of his immortal doctrine?”
Who is Brahma Sahampati, who from his place in heaven, got to know what was passing in Buddha’s mind? How sad that scholars continue to stress that Buddha’s teachings were his own creation and had nothing to do with Heavenly Powers.
Truth is that Brahma Sahampati is the same Brahma of Vedas who yet again revealed the truth to a great soul. If this is not so, how is it that he knows what’s passing in Buddha’s heart? Buddha too was aware of this and didn’t ask Brahma who he was and from where had he come. Instead, we find him giving a great deal of respect to Brahma. Buddha called him: “Eminent and Excellent among men.”
This is what Buddha said:
“O Brahma, Eminent and Excellent among men, if I did not give public utterance to my gospel, it is because I perceived vexation.”
Is there duality here? It has been said earlier that Brahma Sahampati came from the Brahma world and it is being said here that Brahma is the eminent and excellent among men. To know the truth behind this, you will have to accept our views on who Brahma is and how he remained in devata state in Brahma world and came to live on earth as human being at a particular period in time.
We see another instance when Buddha refers to Brahma Deva or rather Brahma Heaven. Since Buddha did not say that this Brahma is different from Brahma of the Vedas, we have reason to believe that the Brahma of the Vedas – who is the cause of all creation and head of all devatas is the subject of discussion. This shows that Buddha did acknowledge the presence of devatas and their highest position, next only to the Absolute God. We also know that Krishna has referred to Indra’s heaven in Gita and Buddha is referring to Brahma’s heaven. Thus, it would be paramount to saying that both Buddha and Krishna believed in the same heaven and Brahma and Indra are two names of the same divine personality. If that is so how can Buddha be against the presence of God, as is widely believed?
The incident in the mountains near Rajagraha is described by B.R. Ambedkar where Buddha says to the women of a clan: “Politeness, indifference to worldly things, hunting no one, without place for annoyance – this is the character of the Brahma Heaven (the heaven belonging to Brahma Deva).”
B.R. Ambedkar is of the opinion that Buddha never claimed that he was a prophet or a messenger of God. In fact he repudiated any such description. However, we have mentioned before that Buddha and superhuman links with Brahma and the sage’s prediction of the time of Buddha’s birth linking his birth to the happiness of the devatas and Buddha’s own mention of super human devatas proves that there is a link. Why it did not find space in the pages need to be explored?
Another example can be seen in B.R. Ambedkar’s description of Buddha’s birth. He proudly talks of the four world-guardians who took Mahamaya, Buddha’s mother, in her dream to the lake Mansarover, where a Bodhisatta, by name Sumedha, appeared before her and said that he had decided to take tenth and final birth. It was only on this dream that Suddhodhana, Buddha’s father, summoned the eight famous Brahmins in divination, who foretold of Buddha’s birth.
It is clear that by the time of Buddha, Hinduism had degenerated to such an extent that people had started doubting the Brahmanic philosophy because of the ills that plagued the society in the name of religion. B.R. Ambedkar writes: “At the time when Gautama took Parivraja there was a great intellectual ferment in the country. Besides the Brahmanic Philosophy there were as many as sixty-two different schools of philosophy, all opposed to the Brahmanic Philosophy. [Please keep in mind that schools like this might have contributed to Buddha’s teachings getting labeled as a different religion.] Of them, at least six were worthy of attention.
The Madhyama Marg (Majjhima Patipada) that Buddha preached was the middle path, which was neither the path of pleasure nor the path of self-mortification. Said he:
“Only when the self in ye has been conquered that ye are free from lust; ye will then not desire worldly pleasures, and the satisfaction of your natural wants will not defile ye. Let ye eat and drink according to the needs of your body.”
We invite you to read Gita. Is not Krishna saying the same? Is it not apparent that both teachings had same origin? It is apparent from Buddha’s talk on the need to satisfy the needs of life and to keep the body in good health that he wanted his disciples to live in the society.
B.R. Ambedkar says that twice Buddha was requested by his followers to appoint a successor but every time Buddha refused. Why? Several reasons come to our mind. Firstly, he knew that his was a divinely appointed designation and it was not up to him to appoint a successor. One who appointed him would himself appoint someone else at a suitable time and place.
Or is it that Buddha knew that his disciples were not that worthy? Or can there be a possibility that unworthy but shrewd disciples had won over the hearts of the rest of the disciples. This is merely a hypothesis but there are certain indicators that made us frame this hypothesis.
It is evident from Buddha‘s last words that if there was a successor, it had to be Ananda. He was praised, he was declared as wise man, it was clearly said that he would be free from the great evil – from sensuality, from individuality, from delusion, and from ignorance. His closeness to Buddha and his understanding of Buddha‘s teachings and even nature was praised. Then four special things were declared about Ananda. “All are happy to visit Ananda. They are filled with joy on beholding him; they are happy to hear him. They are ill at ease when Ananda is silent.” Even the last minute instructions were given to Ananda. All this too is starkly similar to the case of Mohammad and Ali wherein all the praises of Mohammad regarding Ali were ignored, his clear instructions were deliberately forgotten, and the moment Mohammad died, his so-called followers gathered and elected a successor from among them, even before Mohammad was cremated.
Is this not clear that if Buddha was silent on earlier occasions when the question of successor was asked, it was either because no revelation had come by then or feared revolt from others. There is no doubt that Ananda was to be the successor. Even if that was not so, he was to remain in the thick of decision-making. But we see that when the first congregation is called for, Kasyapa is the President. Whether Ananda was even present in this conclave is not known? And Kasyapa did not try or made effort to bring all the facets of Buddha‘s life to open, perhaps fearing that the subject of Ananda or certain other subjects that he didn’t want to be known, would come out in the open.
Read the description of Buddha’s passing away, the grief of Ananda even at the thought of Buddha’s death, more than necessary praise of Ananda on the death-bed, Buddha’s apparent concern that all the teachings have been properly understood and the conclave where Ananda does not appear to be present and it appears that what happened with Ali was something that the history had witnessed earlier.
It is said that history repeats itself. And we say that Satan or Mara uses the same time-tested methods time and again. Buddha died in the year 483 B.C., more than 1000 years prior to the time when a similar incident was enacted in the city of Medina.
There is one more point that proves that Buddha’s teachings were based on Divine assistance. Hope you agree!
For instance, it is possible for an extra brilliant mind to sit and ponder and come to conclusion about the cause of human sufferings, their cure, etc. But how can that mind foretell the conclusions that none other than the creator knows, at that point of time. For instance, it is only now that we know that whereas oxygen gives energy to our body for all the minor and major acts that it performs, at the same time it burns up the body and it is because of oxygen that youthfulness degenerates into old age.
And Buddha said:
“All things, O Bhikkus, are on fire. And what, O Priests, are all these things which are on fire?
“The Eye, O Bhikkus, is on fire; forms are on fire; eye-consciousness is on fire; impressions received by the eye are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent, originates in dependence on impression received by the type, that also is on fire.”
“And with what are these on fire?” “With the fire of passion say I, with the fire of hatred, with the fire of infatuation, with birth, old age, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair are they on fire.”
“The ear is on fire; sounds are on fire; the nose is on fire; odours are on fire. The body is on fire; ideas are on fire; and whatever sensation, pleasant, unpleasant, or indifferent originates in dependence on impression received by the mind, that also is on fire.
“And with what are these on fire.
“With the fire of passion, say I; with the fire of hatred; with the fire of infatuation; with birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair are they on fire.”
“Perceiving this, O Bhikkus, the learned and noble conceive an aversion. And in conceiving this aversion, he becomes divested of passion, and by the absence of passion he become free and when he is free he becomes aware that he is free.”
That even Buddha believed that the devatas were to came later in the future age has been confirmed when Buddha talked of the Licchavis? This is a very important prediction of the Buddha related with the Licchavis of Vesali. The prediction is related to Licchavis’ relationship with devas and also clearly confirm what had already been said in the Vedas that the devatas would take birth in a future age. See this passage from B.R. Ambedkar’s book:
“When the Exalted One saw the Licchavis approaching in the distance, he addressed the brethren and said: “Brethren, let those of the brethren who have never seen the devas, gaze upon this company of the Licchavis, behold this company of the Licchavis – for they are even a company of next-world devas.”
It is not understandable why the commentators have not tried to go deeper into these words of the Buddha. Licchavis, whoever they are, either gave company to the devatas when they took birth on earth or would give company to the last of them – the Kalki avatar – when he would arrive in the near future. These lines too indicate clearly that the devatas would appear in a future age.
‘Next-world devas’ has been written as translation when what Buddha actually wanted to say was they would give company to the devatas when they would come next in the world.
We have also shown that the word ‘devata’ is from divya or light. Noor talked about by Mohammad means light. And the book “Sacred Books of the Buddhists”, edited by Max Muller (published 1899) tells that Buddha talked of a world of radiance and also says that they (the devas) “appear in the Palace of Brahma as companions to him, and in all respects like him.” And you have seen that Mohammad too had said that all 14 were identical to the One Self or Noor created in the beginning.
This proves that Brahma is talking of the devatas or the noors of the Masooms of the Muslims and not about normal beings like you and me. In fact, Buddha’s own words confirm this when he says that he is talking of the ‘venerable beings’ and not just ‘beings’. This is what he says:
“And what is it that these venerable ones depend upon, what is that they start from, in arriving at this conclusion.”
We should remember that these conclusions have been derived on the basis of present translations done by those who themselves didn’t understand the subject of discussion. More near to the point conclusions will be derived if fresh translations are attempted from the original Pali text.
We quote from the book by Max Muller, which says: People of the time knew that Buddha, “by himself, thoroughly knows and sees, as it were, face to face this universe, - including the worlds above of the gods (read devas), the Brahmas, and the Maras, and the world below with its recluses and Brahmans, its princes and peoples, - and having known it, he makes his knowledge known to others.”
The Ambattha Sutta also talks of a spirit who bears the thunderbolt appearing in the sky and not only Buddha but Ambattha as well perceived the Spirit. We ask a question? What was this enlightenment that Buddha got which made the spirits come to defend his words or because of which whosover did not, even up to the third time of asking, answered a reasonable question put by a Tathagata (one who has won the truth), his head splitted into pieces on the subject.
You will have to agree that enlightenment was not merely acquiring certain knowledge but giving of a certain designation by a power that was the most Supreme.
Max Muller’s book also refers to Sanat-kumara (the Sanskrit form of the name Sanam-kumara) which means ‘ever virgin’ and says that according to the legend - common ground to Brahman and Buddhists – there were five ‘mind born’ sons of Brahma, who remained always pure and innocent, and this Brahma was one of the five.
Who are these sons? Can the Buddhists explain without taking recourse to so-called Hindu scriptures?
Moreover, serving the agni-deva too has been mentioned by Buddha has the highest of merits time and again. Who is this fire-god (agni-deva)? See what Buddha says to Ambattha: “Then what think you, Ambattha? Although you have not attained unto this supreme perfection of wisdom and goodness, and have not attained to living on fruits fallen of themselves, and have not attained to living on bulbs and roots and fruits, and have not attained to serving the fire-god (agni-deva, translated into English as fire-god), have you been taught to build yourself a four-doored almshouse at a spot where four high roads cross, and dwell there as one who would fain observe the vow to entertain whosoever might pass.”
Now see whether the following argument of ours does not portray Buddha’s link with Divine Powers higher up?
It is seen mentioned time and again that the Brahmans of the period, the learned in scriptures, identified Buddha through the thirty-two bodily signs of a great man handed down in the scriptures. This is evident in the Ambattha Sutta wherein Pokkarasadi talks of the same. Commenting on this, the author of the book “Sacred Books of the Buddhists” says: “The knowledge of these thirty-two marks of a Great Being (Maha-purusha) is one of the details in the often – recurring paragraph giving the points of Brahman wisdom, which we have just had at para 3. No such list has been found, so far as I know, in those portions of the pre-Buddhistic priestly literature that have survived. And the inference from both our passages is that the knowledge is scattered through the Brahman texts. Many of the details of Buddhist list are very obscure; and a collection of the older Brahman passages would probably throw light on them, and upon a curious chapter in mythological superstition.”
Does this also not verify our claim that Buddha was a succession of the same chain of Messengers or Avatars, sent by somebody higher up? How else would you explain the 32 marks identified beforehand. Those who were responsible for sending Messengers identified the marks of the future messenger. Since the Brahmans who came to cognize these marks talked of the mention in their scriptures, it becomes certain that this was not merely the prophecy of an astrologer. Nevertheless, it shows a link between Buddha with those earlier ones, who have been confined to themselves by the Hindus.
Ambattha, a learned Brahman, sent his teacher Brahman Pokkharasadi to verify the thirty-two bodily signs of a great man. Sutta has described Ambattha in these words: “He was a repeater (of the sacred words) knowing the mystic verses by heart, one who had mastered the Three Vedas, with the indices, the ritual, the phonology, and the exegesis (as a fourth), and the legends as a fifth, learned in the idioms and the grammar, versed in Lokayata sophistry, and in the theory of the signs on the body of a Great Being (Maha-purusha) is one of the details in the often-recurring paragraph giving the points of Brahman wisdom. No such list has been found, so far as I know, in those portions of the pre-Buddhistic priestly literature that have survived. And the inference from both our passages is that the knowledge is scattered through the Brahman texts. Many of the details of the Buddhist list are very obscure; and a collection of the older Brahman passages would probably throw light upon them, and upon a curious chapter in mythological superstition. Who will write us a monograph (historical of course) on the Maha-purusha theory as held in early times among the Aryans in India?
We have proved time and again in our earlier notes that Buddha represented the same chain of Divine Messengers and those who claim that they got enlightenment through hard work or tapasya are on the wrong. This point too supplements our view. The signs possessed by the Maha-purusha were already known to people and Buddha fully fitted with this description. The fact that these signs were physical in nature, including those like an exceeding large tongue and the member different from all others is a proof of this.
The words of teacher Pokkarasadi to Ambattha confirm that such descriptions were present in the mystic verses of the Brahmans. See for yourself what Pokkharasadi says: “There have been handed down, Ambattha, in our mystic verses, thirty-two bodily signs of a great man, - signs which, if a man has, he will become one of two things, and no other. If he dwells at home he will become a Sovran of the world, a righteous king, bearing rule even to the shores of the four great oceans, a conqueror, the protector of his people, possessor of the seven royal treasures. And these are the seven treasures that he has – the Wheel, the Elephant, the Horse, the Gem, the Woman, the Treasure, and the Adviser as a seventh. And he has more than a thousand sons, heroes, mighty in frame, beating down the armies of the foe. And he dwells in complete ascendancy over the wide earth from sea to sea, ruling it in righteousness without the need of baton or of sword. But if he goes forth from the household life into the houseless state, then he will become a Buddha who removes the veil from the eyes of the world. Now I, Ambattha, am a giver of the mystic verses; you have received them from me.”
Are we not apt in concluding that Buddha and Krishna belonged to the same source? Now see how Buddha helped Ambattha in recognizing those signs, thereby showing that he confirmed that he belonged to that successive chain of Messengers, about whom the verses had already been foretold.
“Then the Blessed One went forth from his chamber, and began to walk up and down. And Ambattha did the same. And as he walked up and down, following the Blessed One, he took stock of the thirty-two signs of a great man, whether they appeared on the body of the Blessed One or not. And he perceived them all save only two. With respect of those two – the concealed member and the extent of the tongue – he was in doubt and perplexity, not satisfied, not sure.
And the Blessed One knew he was so in doubt. And he so arranged matters by his wondrous Gift that Ambattha the Brahman saw how that part of the Blessed One that ought to be hidden by clothes was enclosed in a sheath. And the Blessed One so bent round his tongue that he touched and stroked both his ears, touched and stroked both his nostrils, and the whole circumference of his forehead he covered with his tongue.
And Ambattha, the young Brahman thought: “The Samana Gotama is endowed with the thirty-two signs of a great man, with them all, not only with some of them.””
See how people have remained eternally confused about these signs. The author of the book says: “Neither text nor commentary makes it clear what those two marks really quite mean. The first, says Buddhaghosa, is ‘like an elephant’s’ and the second seems, from what follows, to be the power of extending the tongue, like a snake’s, to a great length. This last is possibly derived from poetical descriptions of the tongues of flame or light playing round the disk of the sun.
As to the means by which the Buddha made the first visible to Ambattha, Buddhaghosa simply quotes Nagasena (at Mil. 169) to show that he made a visible image of himself fully dressed in his robes. And the difficulty is to see how that would have helped matters. Only an historical explanation of the meaning of the marks can here guide us to what is inferred.”
There is no doubt that the sign in contention was related to Buddha’s sexual organ. See the words: “And he so arranged matters by his Wondrous Gift that Ambattha the Brahman saw how that part of the Blessed One that ought to be hidden by clothes was enclosed in a sheath.” The words “enclosed in a sheath” are interesting. It is a firm belief of the Muslims that the Masooms (all thirteen of the male Masooms) were born with circumcised sexual organ. Now imagine how a person unknown to the process of circumcision would describe a circumcised sexual organ: “enclosed in a sheath.”
The same Sutta tells that the learned Brahman Pokkarasadi came to confirm whether Buddha had those thirty-two signs. See the text of the Sutta: “And the Brahman Pokkharasadi took stock, on the body of the Blessed One, of the thirty-two marks of a Great Being. And he saw them all plainly, save only two. As to two of them – the sheath-concealed member and the extensive tongue – he was still in doubt and undecided. But the Blessed One showed them to Pokkharasadi, even as he had shown them to Ambattha. And Pokkharasadi perceived that the Blessed One was endowed with the thirty-two marks of a Great Being, with all of them, not only with some.”
Hope it is clear that even Buddha has been wrongly understood till now. Now see a few lines from B.R. Ambedkar’s book, which he would have liked to remain confined solely to Buddha, hell-bent as he is on cutting all links of Buddha with anybody higher. However, if you have read our commentary of Gita, see whether these lines of B.R. Ambedkar have not resounded in Gita as well. He writes:
“If one has self, let him practice self-conquest. This is the Buddhist Way of Life.
Self is the lord of self, who else could be the Lord? With self well subdued, a man finds a lord such as few can find.
The foolish man who scorns the rule of the venerable (arahat), of the elect (ariya), of the virtuous and follows a false doctrine, he bears fruits to his own destruction, like the fruits of the kattaka reed.”
See, Buddha is talking of the rule of the venerable, of the elect and of the virtuous. Venerable, agreed! Virtuous, agreed! But who are the ‘elected’ when B.R. Ambedkar takes pain to explain that Buddha did not elect a successor, was not elected himself, as he had no link with a God, and neither wanted his life to be discussed. Buddha wants the virtuous, the elected and the venerable to be remembered along with their path. This shows that the virtuous, the elected and the venerable are some other beings, whose search is compulsory on us if we claim ourselves to be followers of Buddha.
When we find that Buddhists, guided by Buddha’s contemporaries like Kasyapa, decided not to keep the record of Buddha’s life, we will have to accept that Kasyapa belonged to the categories of those who had erred or was misguided, in spite of keeping company with the Buddha.
Another quote of Buddha, which shows that there have been many preachers and Buddha is one of them, is given by B.R. Ambedkar on page 370 of his book:
“The Right Path is for the happiness not of the few but of all.
It must be good at the beginning, good in the middle and good at the end…
You yourself must make an effort. The Tathagatas are only preachers.”
Buddha confirms that he is one of the chain of messengers who were showing the same path, be it in the beginning, in the middle and towards the end.
And the concept of devatas is again strengthened, who have roots in the Vedas, by these words of the Buddha: “A Bhikku who, though he receives little, does not despise what he has received, even the gods (devas) will praise him, if his life is pure, and if he is not slothful.”
It is absurd that while on one hand people like B.R. Ambedkar says that the Buddha did not believe in God and on the other hand he is translating ´devata‘ as ´gods‘.
A lot many more similarities can be found between the teachings of Krishna and Buddha. Krishna says in Gita that the ultimate aim is to attain salvation. However, those who are unable to do so but perform good deeds in life, they are made to live in the heaven and once the merits of their deeds are exhausted, they come to live in this world again where they are again subjected to a life of rebirth. Buddha too talks of the same. He says that when this world-system passes away, those who have not attained salvation goes to the world of Radiance. And once the merits have exhausted, they are sent back to this world through the Palace of Brahma.
We have seen earlier in these notes that Buddha has referred to the heaven of Brahma and Krishna has referred to the heaven of Indra. We have proven that the two – Brahma and Indra – are the names of the same person. Their heaven is the heaven of the Muslims, where the person who performs good deeds goes, if he is unable to die as a shaheed. Such a person dwells in the heaven for hundreds and thousands of years, till the end of Brahma’s night and the commencement of a new Brahma’s dawn. When this new world is created, those who have been unable to attain salvation are given one more lifetime of a creation to do so.
See whether Buddha’s views are in anyway different from those of Krishna’s. He says: “Now there comes a time, brethren, when, sooner or later, after the lapse of a long long period, this world-system passes away. And when this happens beings have mostly been reborn in the World of Radiance, and there they dwell made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light from themselves, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long long period of time.
“Now there comes also a time, brethren, when, sooner or later, this world-system begins to re-evolve. When this happens the Palace of Brahma appears, but this is empty.”
Does this not remind of the Brahma-day and night of the Upanishads, Vedas and Puranas? We have seen that Brhad-aranyaka Upanishad talks of the entire creation originating from Brahma and a Purana saying that this was the 994th creation. Also, we have shown how Mohammad said that he was still a Nabi when Adam was being created and Ali talked of Adams prior to the Adam seventy times over, until the questioner ceased to ask. Relate all these and you have found the truth regarding the Straight and True Path.