TO BECOME BRAHMA

It has been asserted that Buddhism knows only of the personal God Brahma’ and nothing of the Godhead/Absolute/Unific Brahma (neuter). In actuality there can be no doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous expression Brahmabhu’to (attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly liberated, that it is Brahma and not Brahma’ that is in the text and must be read; for it is Brahma that one who is “wholly awake” has ”become.” For (1) the comparatively limited knowledge of a Brahma’ is repeatedly emphasized, and (2)  Brahma’s are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs ( S 1.141-145; Mil 75-76), (3) The Buddha had already been in previous births a Brahma’ and a Maha’ Brahma’ (AN 4.88) hence it is meaningless and absurd in the equation to say  Brahmabhu’to=Buddho (AN 5.22; DN 3.84; It 57 etc.), to assume that Brahma= Brahma’ and that (4) Buddha is explicitly “much more than a Maha’ Brahma’ (DhA 2.60).
 
 

“The Aryan Eightfold Path is the designation for Brahmayana”  SN 5.5
“Soul has become Brahma” MN 1.341
"Found the ancient path leading to Brahma" SN 4.117
 
 

Negating the "Hindu" insult often directed towards neutral Buddhistic investigation

"From the point of view of religion, the Vedic literature divides itself into two parts, viz. the Rigveda on the one hand and the rest of the Vedic literature on the other; the two distinct phases of essentially the same religion may be called Vedic religion and Brahmanism. This division and the above two names hardly need any justification.  It is now recognized beyond doubt that, although Brahmanism is nothing but an isolated development of the religion contained in the Rigveda, yet the two religions are entirely different in spirit.While one represents a comparatively exalted form of a purer faith based on nature-worship, the other tends to become artificial,mechanical and hieratic, and makes rites and ceremonies its chief concern."
(P.S. Deshmukh,Religion in Vedic Literature, 198).

"The word Brahmanism seems originally to have been used, and popularly still to be understood, to denote the religion of those inhabitants of India who adored Brahma as their supreme God, in contradistinction to those who professed Buddhism, and, in more recent times, Muhammadanism.  But this is founded upon a misconception. Brahma was never universally worshiped; and his acknowledgement as the supreme God is not even true, still less a prominent characteristic of Brahmanical religions and sects."
[Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 2.799b ]

"Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between laity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests"
[Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 6:712 ]